31–40 of 52 posts
If there are no tests however, then were left to question the validity of everything
I was thinking about this the other day. The issue is if you have an imperfect test to detect fakes, it gives even more credibility to fakes that pass the test. If there are no tests however, then were left to question the validity of everything
Given a random set of realistic-looking real and AI images, we have found that humans usually score in the 65-80% accuracy rate. You can give it a try here: https://sightengine.com/ai-or-not
And it's not just a hand thing. There's often an element of surreal excess or a kind of uncanny valley/plasticy thing going on. If I had to point something out, it would be skin. AI seems to be bad at generating skin, it has a slightly cartoony look to it. If I were to venture a guess, it's because of the number of photos out there filtered to shit.
I was the worst at macro(?) landscape photography. I think that's what it is. Whatever it is when you essentially take a picture from far away, but zoom in and focus so the foreground and background are both in focus. That's close to 50/50.
I like how confident the model is when you provide an anime image, the model always thinks it's AI even though I only provided images created by humans, I don't think I've ever seen a worse AI detector in my life. I hope that this is not a real demo of the product.
> don't think I've ever seen a worse AI detector in my life. I hope that this is not a real demo of the product. "I tried it on anime images and it didn't work well on that class" would have been sufficient.
People can and do use AI detectors on any art style, often to justify harrassment of suspected AI use. In the anime community, it's especially very common to do so.
A bad AI detector is worse than no AI detection at all, so extra scrutiny is justified.
Does any image that's been touched by AI count as fake? For instance, if you took a real photo and asked AI to widen it by 1 pixel, you could argue that this is a new "fake" image generated by AI, but it's 99.9% real. What about something that's been AI-upscaled, like with DLSS?
Given a random set of realistic-looking real and AI images, we have found that humans usually score in the 65-80% accuracy rate. You can give it a try here: https://sightengine.com/ai-or-not
I was pretty dead on with photos of people. Especially if they're in color. And it's not just a hand thing. There's often an element of surreal excess or a kind of uncanny valley/plasticy thing going on. If I had to point something out, it would be skin. AI seems to be bad at generating skin, it has a slightly cartoony look to it. If I were to venture a guess, it's because of the number of photos out there filtered t…
The examples chosen in this test were not collected to be very adversarial, and no additional processing was done.
I think iPhones do some pretty complex image processing, and other brands of phones go even farther. I believe there have been instances of phones adding in completely new details (although maybe I hallucinated that detail). What’s the expected result and also what should we put as a “true” answer if we take a picture with our phones and upload it?
I think iPhones do some pretty complex image processing, and other brands of phones go even farther. I believe there have been instances of phones adding in completely new details (although maybe I hallucinated that detail). What’s the expected result and also what should we put as a “true” answer if we take a picture with our phones and upload it?
https://www.theverge.com/2023/3/13/23637401/samsung-fake-moo...
> The test of Samsung’s phones conducted by Reddit user u/ibreakphotos was ingenious in its simplicity. They created an intentionally blurry photo of the Moon, displayed it on a computer screen, and then photographed this image using a Samsung S23 Ultra. As you can see below, the first image on the screen showed no detail at all, but the resulting picture showed a crisp and clear “photograph” of the Moon. The S23 Ultra added details that simply weren’t present before. There was no upscaling of blurry pixels and no retrieval of seemingly lost data. There was just a new Moon — a fake one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> don't think I've ever seen a worse AI detector in my life. I hope that this is not a real demo of the product. "I tried it on anime images and it didn't work well on that class" would have been sufficient.
That's a distinction only relevant for research, not an actual product. People can and do use AI detectors on any art style, often to justify harrassment of suspected AI use. In the anime community, it's especially very common to do so. A bad AI detector is worse than no AI detection at all, so extra scrutiny is justified.