what's a jellyfish to do

“State the idea you wish to express as clearly as possible, and in terms preschoolers can understand.” Example: It is dangerous to play in the street. ​​​​​​

“Rephrase in a positive manner,” as in It is good to play where it is safe.

“Rephrase the idea, bearing in mind that preschoolers cannot yet make subtle distinctions and need to be redirected to authorities they trust.” As in, “Ask your parents where it is safe to play.”

“Rephrase your idea to eliminate all elements that could be considered prescriptive, directive, or instructive.” In the example, that’d mean getting rid of “ask”: Your parents will tell you where it is safe to play.

“Rephrase any element that suggests certainty.” That’d be “will”: Your parents can tell you where it is safe to play.

“Rephrase your idea to eliminate any element that may not apply to all children.” Not all children know their parents, so: Your favorite grown-ups can tell you where it is safe to play.

“Add a simple motivational idea that gives preschoolers a reason to follow your advice.” Perhaps: Your favorite grown-ups can tell you where it is safe to play. It is good to listen to them.

“Rephrase your new statement, repeating the first step.” “Good” represents a value judgment, so: Your favorite grown-ups can tell you where it is safe to play. It is important to try to listen to them.

“Rephrase your idea a final time, relating it to some phase of development a preschooler can understand.” Maybe: Your favorite grown-ups can tell you where it is safe to play. It is important to try to listen to them, and listening is an important part of growing.

In working on the show, Rogers interacted extensively with academic researchers. Daniel R. Anderson, a psychologist formerly at the University of Massachusetts who worked as an advisor for the show, remembered a speaking trip to Germany at which some members of an academic audience raised questions about Rogers’s direct approach on television. They were concerned that it could lead to false expectations from children of personal support from a televised figure. Anderson was impressed with the depth of Rogers’s reaction, and with the fact that he went back to production carefully screening scripts for any hint of language that could confuse children in that way.

In fact, Freddish and Rogers’s philosophy of child development is actually derived from some of the leading 20th-century scholars of the subject. In the 1950s, Rogers, already well known for a previous children’s TV program, was pursuing a graduate degree at The Pittsburgh Theological Seminary when a teacher there recommended he also study under the child-development expert Margaret McFarland at the University of Pittsburgh. There he was exposed to the theories of legendary faculty, including McFarland, Benjamin Spock, Erik Erikson, and T. Berry Brazelton. Rogers learned the highest standards in this emerging academic field, and he applied them to his program for almost half a century.

The less important observation to be made here is:

A million minutes ago was April 2021, the height of the COVID pandemic.

A guide for crochet patterns:

And one for embroidery:

I don't knit, but I'm sure someone has a comparable guide somewhere. I know crochet and knitting seems like more of a problem- the crochet "patterns" make vastly different items than what's pictured, and you can find some of those on r/CraftedbyAI because some people do follow those "patterns" to make a point.

Cross-stitch and embroidery seem like they'd be easier to fake, right? Like, cross-stitch patterns are basically pixel art, so what's the harm?

The cross-stich often has dozens or hundreds of colours and they change every single pixel, which is basically impossible for a human to reproduce. It's just not a pattern, dammit.

The embroidered ones break my heart, though:

Wherein someone is making a lovely embroidered piece but they end up dissatisfied with their work because it doesn't look as impossibly plush and bright as the fake.

It makes people who are new to these crafts feel like they're not doing it right, or gives them insane expectations, and it can drive people away from the craft.

I know of several cross-stitch pattern shops on Etsy that have closed because it's just not worth the investment when they're competing with AI-generated nonsense that can charge pennies because it doesn't take any time or effort to make.

Most (if not all) AI-generated images that feature knitted objects possess at least one of these traits:

-Rows (or even entire components of the project) splitting or merging in ways that make no sense. This sweater looks impressive until you try to make sense of that lump near the left shoulder or whatever is going on with the collar. You can even see one row splitting into two near the bottom for seemingly no reason at all.

-Impossible stitches. Those lumpy squares (?) in between Mario's eyes are not real stitches. Neither are the stitches that fade seamlessly into tufts of material on the lion's mane.

-Impossibly huge projects. This elephant is almost twice as tall as the person next to it, and you'll realize that the stitches are actually massive when you take the time to think about how you could make it yourself. If you look closely, you'll also see a fifth leg on the elephant!

-The overall "vibe" of the image is glossy, shiny, plastic-y, or smooth to a degree that is almost unnerving. Yarn comes in lots of different colors and textures, but what's depicted in the image below is a bit too vivid and perfect to be real. Excessive blurring/out-of-focus areas on the project itself can also be signs of AI use.