fedward :omya: @fedward@distraction.party
Public

I understand that abstracting an object for an illustration can make the illustration clearer by leaving out details that might draw too much attention, but I can't stop noticing things that are wrong with this bicycle accompanying an essay in the NYT style section. It's credited to a person, but it smells like AI.

Fucking bicycles, how do they work.
An illustration of a bicycle credited to Iris Legendre. It's in the style of blue pencil or charcoal on a white background, but there are signs that it's AI generated or augmented. There are bags attached to the handlebars, top tube, and a rear rack. The rear rack is only attached to the bike's frame at the dropouts and is not secured in front, which is not how rear racks work. There's a crank but no pedals or chain; there are brake rotors but no actual brakes. More subtly, the brake rotors are on the wrong side and the front tire appears wider than the fork. And I can't tell what's going on with the bottom bracket. There's something underneath the down tube but the illustration style makes it sort of an indistinct blob, and it's also not entirely clear if the down tube actually joins the bottom bracket sensibly.
0
1
0

If you have a fediverse account, you can quote this note from your own instance. Search https://distraction.party/objects/40092a2d-3f5f-42ab-b5b7-9d784094e01a on your instance and quote it. (Note that quoting is not supported in Mastodon.)