Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, and even there I think we might need to get specific about categories of images. Images that are supposed to be photo realistic are far easier to spot than "battleship in outer space" generations. Bringing it back to the topic of stock photography: A large percentage of stock photos are of real things, people, scenery. So, when someone says I'll have a hard time spotting generated stock photos, I kinda go uhh,…
I’m not entirely sure why you’re discrediting the advancement of realism. I’m very sorry, but I have a hard to believe that when you scroll through IG and see something like this — https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1hvdhie/this_girl_... , you’ll think it’s AI instantly. Unless, again, you’re consciously examining whether every single piece of media is AI generated or not.
1. This idea that "you can't tell if you mindlessly scroll past it" isn't a very good measurement.
2. Given IG is slowly filling up with AI slop, I actually do spend a decent amount of time going "is this AI-generated".
3. I'm not discrediting "advancement of realism" in AI at all. I'm just saying it's much, much easier to detect AI when a generation is supposed to be of something real.