• Chozo@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      7 months ago

      Yeah, one of them definitely had the fake, post-processed bokeh effect added to it that a lot of phones with “portrait mode” use. Which, to be completely fair, makes that technically an AI-generated image.

      I was looking for artifacts of AI generation, and I found them, but I’m still wrong. I can’t win.

      • helenslunch@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        7 months ago

        It makes it an AI-edited image, not AI-generated.

        But yeah I agree, these sure seem like they were cherry-picked to fool you.

  • FaceDeer@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    7 months ago

    This is the sort of thing that I like to send to people who assure me that “all AI generated art looks wrong” or whatever.

    No, the AI generated art that looks wrong is the only AI generated art that you notice. The rest slips by.

    • Deceptichum@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      7 months ago

      9/10.

      AI sucks at reflections, so pay attention to the pupils to see if both eyes reflect similar shapes.

      Also a few had odd lines where their neck was like surgically reattached to another body.

      • ourob@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        7 months ago

        Also, pupils are often not regular circles in AI images. The only one I got wrong was the real picture of the guy wearing dirty glasses.

      • fidodo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        I think the point still holds. AI generation has gotten very very good which requires you to look for minute details most people won’t know to look for. The small issues you point out are probably easily solved if you really wanted to make them even harder to detect with a post processing model or just eventually improvements. This is just some random blog post too, so it’s unlikely they even put that much work into it. I’m sure experts will emerge that will have all those details in mind to make them even harder to detect.

  • AgentGrimstone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    7 months ago

    I failed the first 6 guesses and quit. Years before this recent AI boom, there was thispersondoesnotexist and even back then, AI was generating extremely convincing faces.

    • june@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      So I figured out the difference here, and it’s gamed to make you think they’re backward.

      The real photos appear to be professionally edited with the light, filters, and bokeh being perfect while the AI generated are more like candids you’d take with your phone. This is an intentional move by the author to make this scarier than it actually is, imo. Next to each other we expect the AI to be more ‘perfect’ than the real photos. Once I figured that out I got them all right.

      If they’d put candids next to these AI generated images I’m willing to bet you’d have done better.

  • gullible@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    7 months ago

    As always, it’s hard to determine what is AI and what is a filter. The guy whose entire face was edited to be flat and tilted 10 degrees toward the camera got me. That said, 8/10. The first two clued me into what the author was going for and I got the rest right.

    • fidodo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      Modern phone cameras are passing pretty much all photos through AI filters now to add detail or upscale, so filtered photos are more the norm than exception now, so that doesn’t really help people to filter out AI images. Point still stands that it’s already gotten extremely good and now requires recognizing tiny details. It doesn’t have to go far to get to the point where it’ll be next to impossible to tell.

        • Deceptichum@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Not with current methods.

          I think this would require something closer to an actual AI an not the pattern recognition machines we use at the moment.

    • fidodo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      And those small tiny issues can be fixed with a Lora or post processing to refine those specific issues that the general model missed.

  • flakpanzer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Got 6/10, for at least 2 pictures I looked at the outside corners of the eyes, if they match it’s likely AI, most real humans likely do not have symmetry there.

  • Neato@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Well since it’s a bunch of real faces combined it’s not that difficult to make a realistic face.

    • Chozo@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      That’s not how modern AI image generation works. AI no longer just mix-and-matches various assets from a library. It’s creating its own unique images based on what it knows about the shapes and colors of things its been trained on.