• Admiral Patrick@dubvee.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    This probably isn’t a super-helpful answer, but for the most part, I haven’t needed to use any (yet?). Dunno if it’s just me, but pretty much every AI generated image still just looks “off” and uncanny in a perceptible and slightly off-putting way.

    That said, there are occasional false positives depending on the lighting, focus, and filters used for legit photographs. No false negatives yet, though.

    • Sixty@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 days ago

      Some people were fooled by manual edits in Photoshop before this, so I’m sure there’s a gradient.

      So far I’m with you, I can tell at least for now.

      • Admiral Patrick@dubvee.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Yeah, not sure how long that’ll hold up for me, but for now, so far so good.

        The rule-of-thumb used to be “look at the hands”, but I use a combo of focus, lighting, perspective, background objects (especially ones with text), color saturation, common sense (e.g. ‘could this even be remotely real?’), etc. The scary part is if someone would run that through a filter and present it like grainy CCTV footage, all that (minus the common sense part) would be lost and I’d likely be stumped.

    • Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      No false negatives yet, though.

      Can’t be sure of that. There may have been some that you didn’t suspect were AI, so you didn’t bother investigating.

      For the most part you’re right. I can often catch them just by noticing mistakes, but we never know how many REALLY good ones slipped through the cracks.