Talk:Twin paradox

AI generated image

Hello! I added an AI generated image to the article, because this is a subject where no image was present. Explaining the complex idea of the twin paradox requires a helping image, as this is a thought experiment, not something that has actually happened ever.

Using AI generated images for illustration purposes is not forbidden, (WP:AIIMAGE) and, in this case, there's no free alternative nor artist illustrations for this topic. At WP:IMGCONTENT we can read that "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article.", which is exactly what this image is doing. Theklan (talk) 06:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

About the image generated by artificial intelligence, here is my humble argument in favor/defense of the AI (in this case) ​​and the permanence of the image.

Personally, I am in favor of keeping the image in question. The comment on the second removal helped me to understand the method adopted by the AI ​​when generating this image. I interpreted (with the help of the aforementioned comment) the apparently exaggerated difference between the ages shown in the image as an educational message. As if the AI ​​were showing the result if, hypothetically, the traveling twin had (without realizing it) exceeded/surpassed the speed of light and continued the trip normally (as if not, obeying the duration times predicted before the start of the trip). Although such an interpretation is beyond the basic proposal of the experiment, it is from my interpretative point of view that the image is extremely valuable as a learning mechanism. The choice of females to represent the twins in the paradox also impressed me a lot. GKNishimoto (talk) 23:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I have reverted that removal because of its extremely clueless rationale:

Misleading image shows vast age difference. 80 years in deep space or in orbit reduces aging by less than one second over an Earth-bound person by way of gravitational effect; and 80 years in the International Space Station reduces aging by less than two seconds by way of kinematical effect.

Apparently User:Donbenladd missed both the fact that this article is about a thought experiment (rather than a specific calculation about the ISS or something) and that such large age differences have been used by physicists to illustrate the issue since at least Langevin in 1911, as mentioned in this article (Upon return, the traveler will find that he has aged two years, while 200 years have passed on Earth). If Donbenladd thinks that all these physicists have been "misleading" the world for over a century and wants to educate the world on this personal theory, they should find a different venue than Wikipedia to publicize it (WP:NOR).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:37, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @GKNishimoto for your comment. The prompt used helped with the age difference, because if you just write "some days older" you won't get any result. The prompt was The twin paradox. A twin comes from space travel and finds the other twin to be older. Two twins, one old, the other one dressed as an astronaut, young.. Theklan (talk) 17:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I am opposed to the image's inclusion. I don't think it adds much to the article and find it fairly garish – most of the image is superfluous AI hallucination (the spacesuit, the blue magic waves, spacecraft in the background). I think the article stands just fine without an image. If this article must be illustrated with an image, why not a side-by-side of Mark and Scott Kelly? — Dan Leonard • talk • contribs 00:16, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I too am opposed to the image's inclusion. I think it is ridiculous, and opens the door to more ridiculous images.Chjoaygame (talk) 04:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

As for garish and ridiculous: Tastes obviously differ, but we are not hosting an art competition here where judges get to enforce their personal aesthetic preferences. Rather, what's important here is if the illustration is likely to help readers understand and remember important points about the article's subject. Lots of texts about relativity use artistic illustrations for that purpose (see e.g. the grotesquely shaped astronaut figures in this NASA book.)

As for opens the door, that seems to be a WP:OTHERCONTENT slippery slope fallacy. (I mean, for sure not every article benefits from an AI-generated - or human-drawn - illustration. But these decisions need to be made on a case by case basis.)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

why not a side-by-side of Mark and Scott Kelly? - is that a serious question? Basically for the same reason that Langevin and many other physicists who have discussed this thought experiment since him did not choose a realistic travel duration and speed: Because the effect would be indetectable to the human eye (three milliseconds age difference for the Kelly twins according to one estimate).

As for AI hallucination, that term does not quite make sense here (it's not a photo after all), and not presented as such. Maybe you mean that the illustration would be a bit clearer without that extra detail, which, OK, is a reasonable discussion to have - although I can also see an argument that e.g. the spacecraft help to illustrate the notion of long-distance space travel that is central to the thought experiment. But that's not an argument for assuming that the reader would be better off without any such illustration at all.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok! As visual content, I appreciated the art as a whole. But after spending last night talking to my imaginary friends, we came to the conclusion that it is best for me to change my mind and be in favor of not including the image. In favor/defense of those who oppose the inclusion of the image, I believe that the appropriate argumentative basis would be:

• Possible incompatibility with the usage licenses adopted on Wikipedia.
  • Since it is an image generated by artificial intelligence, if it cannot be proven that the terms of use of the AI ​​that generated the image allow it to be republished under the license adopted by us (and that the image was, in fact, generated by such AI), we should not include it in the article (nor keep it on Commons).

I believe that as a non-governmental, non-profit organization with academic purposes, we are even tolerated by the rest of society, but we cannot (at this time) enjoy this immunity in a way that is contrary to what we have already established as standard rules and ethics.

Note: It's like explaining to an ex-girlfriend that the problem isn't her. Also saves bandwidth and storage space.

I thank all the colleagues involved in this discussion (helped me reorganize my reasoning), but especially HaeB, who understood and supported my apparently insane passion for AI-generated works and their "imperceptible flaws".

If I remember correctly,

"Intelligence is the ability to adapt to change."

— Stephen Hawking

GKNishimoto (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

if it cannot be proven that the terms of use of the AI ​​that generated the image allow it to be republished under the license adopted by us - such speculative legal concerns have long been sorted out, see Wikipedia:Restricted materials or its Commons c:Commons:Non-copyright restrictions (and its application to AI-generated media: c:Commons:AI-generated_media#Terms_of_use_of_AI_providers). Similar for and that the image was, in fact, generated by such AI - we don't require such proof for other kinds of image uploads. But in any case we happen to have such proof in this particular case, as the uploader helpfully linked the Bing Image Creator source page in the file description.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, uploading images created by AI is accepted, and now the Wikimedia Commons uploading wizard even has a check for AI generated images, where the generator used should be specified. However, I made some changes to the image myself, like deleting the US flag the original astronaut image had). Theklan (talk) 17:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

My only concern was related to the legal aspect of the situation (I'm quite "lazy" when it comes to checking every detail). Since I've seen that my colleagues are experienced (most of them have more than 10 years of experience with Wikipedia), I have no intention of opposing whatever is decided.

The artistic appeal of the image is wonderful, but I believe that our traditional/conservative colleagues are defending the minimum necessary style (with only the necessary diagrams and calculations). Exactly how classes focused on exact sciences used to be.

Note: Impressive (about Bing Image Creator)... Before I gave up and went for Linux, Microsoft didn't allow it that way, so "easily". Thank goodness times are changing, for the better. I think we can go back to agreeing with the famous "Better together”. GKNishimoto (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't oppose the use of an AI illustration in general, but I don't like that this one has (a) a portal between the twins and (b) an overabundance of spaceships in the background. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:16, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

This is a reasonable criticism. (I mean, regarding (b), as mentioned above, I think having some spacecraft in the background can be useful for conveying the long-distance space travel part of the thought experiment, but that could be done with fewer of them.) @Theklan: could you try to work on this e.g. by generating more variations and possibly modifying the prompt? (Or by modifying this particular image directly - I don't know if the current version of Bing Image Creator has that functionality.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I can delete the spacecraft from the image using an image editor. However, I don't know if this will change the mind of others here. Theklan (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

The same image without spaceships in the background.

Here there is a copy of the same image without spaceships in the background. If someone needs to add something in the back (like an equation) it can be done, for sure. Theklan (talk) 17:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Great, what about (a) (removing the "portal"-like disk/circles between the twins)? Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@HaeB that may be more difficult, as there's a light effect for them. I can try, buy it will take more time. Theklan (talk) 18:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)