File:Web-Syndication.jpg

The channels play the role of axons and dendrites, multiplying one signal to reach a host of adressees.

The guess is that this specific pattern may be a sub-aspect of some more complex and coherent information processing in the sense of a complex adaptive system. Two caveats in this simile are synaptic plasticity and learning algorithms.

Do you consider suggesting this image for deletion? If so, please consider the following pros for keeping this (and many other) AI-generated images.

1. Images created by AI in its early infancy - such as this image here - might be of educational or even scientific interest in the future.
2. As AI progresses, typical miscreations like slanted noses or tripled limbs will probably become less numerous.
3. Gibberish, meaning unrecognizable symbols and language, is also often used as another argument for deletion. If that argument was valid, many old science fiction films and series should not be shown on TV or elsewhere. The English series UFO or the German "Raumpatrouille" as many other, often show meaningless computer code or childish geometries to add an air of science and technology. No one cares. It is not meant for the expert but to add atmosphere. The same goes for the gibberish produced by AI. If it adds atmosphere it serves its purpose.
4. Also, together with information on the prompts used, images in statistically significant numbers may reveal something about biases AI has unwittingly taken over from human made material it learned on.
5. Wikimedia is an ideal place for archiving such images. It allows for specific categories lumping together, for instance, images with miscreated bodies or gibberish symbols. There is no need or risk of cluttering other categories with "out of scope" images.
6. Wikipedia ensures that all uploaded images are properly licensed, which makes the ideal for future academic usage as sample material.
7. Alternative places for uploading images like Tik tok, Instagram usually do not provide the means for proper documentation and long-term persistence.
   
   

I sometimes have the impression that Commons contributors who make suggestions for deletion do not take the time to read the file descriptions or they do not translate them from German to their language. Descriptions often tell you what the author of an image considers significant. I write most descriptions in German only. So please put in the effort to translate any file description you do not understand.

One more point: "out of scope" meaning not serving any educational value, is often used as an argument for deletion. In my case at least, I can say that most if not all AI generated images were prompted by me to illustrate a very specific and often abstract idea like Laplace's Demon, Manichaeism, the clockwork-universe or Philosophy for Children (P4C). It often took me up to twenty tries and up to half an hour to have a single image created to fit its purpose. I doubt anyone can recognize the purpose a particular AI-image without having asked the human co-author.