Not likely to be AI-generated or Deepfake

Comments

• pennomi@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  I mean, it could be a manual photoshop job. Just because it’s not AI doesn’t mean it’s real.

  But also the detector is probably wrong - it’s likely an AI image using a different model than the detector was trained to detect.

  source

  • db2@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    There were a lot of really good images like that well before AI. Anyone remember Photoshop Friday?

    source

    • Paradachshund@lemmy.today ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      There’s a sort of… Sheen, to a lot AI images. Obviously you can prompt this away if you know what you’re doing, but its developing a bit of a look to my eye when people don’t do that.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • Sparky@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Can we bring that back?

      source
    • Venator@lemmy.nz ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      The shell looks ai generated though, if it was photoshopped it would’ve been a snail shell used for the source image.

      source
  • arken@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    I mean, it could be a manual photoshop job.

    It could, but the double spiral in the shell indicates AI to me. Snail shells don’t grow like that. If it was a manual job, someone would have used a picture of a real shell.

    source

    • pennomi@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Agreed. The aggressive depth of field is another smoking gun that usually indicates an AI image.

      source
    • rickyrigatoni@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Snail shells don’t grow like that but this is clearly a snat, not a snail.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • fishbone@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Also the fact that the grain on the side of the shell is perpendicular to the grain on the top, and it changes where the cat ear comes up in front of it.

      Very telltale sign of AI is a change of pattern in something when a foreground object splits it.

      Not saying it’s always a guarantee, but it’s a common quirk and it’s pretty easy to identify.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• cley_faye@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  …you know people made fake picture before image generation, right?

  source

  • pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    They made fake pictures before computers existed too.

    source

    • drake@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      This obviously can’t be true, how did they do it without Photoshop? /s

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • Entropywins@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      I’ve seen the cave paintings deer and horses everywhere but when I look around nothing but rocks and trees.

      source
• DrMorose@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  “We investigated ourselves and found nothing wrong.”

  source

  • BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Back2thefuture_iknowthisone.png

    That’s a song by the police, right?

    source

    • DrMorose@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Iseewhatyoudidthere.jpg

      LOL

      source
• Entertainmeonly@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Image

  source

  • xavier666@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Miao

    source
• darth_tiktaalik@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Ignorant Americans, never even heard of the common snailcat

  source

  • Hobbes_Dent@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Where the fuck are you from that they aren’t called catsnails? Odd. Been catsnails here since I can remember.

    source
• todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  I don’t get it. Maybe it’s right? Maybe a human made this?

  The picture doesn’t have to be “real”, it just has to be non-AI. Maybe this was made in Blender and Photoshop or something.

  source

  • Rubanski@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Check the snail house. The swirl has two endings. Definitely AI

    source

    • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      [deleted]

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • rdri@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Or maybe your expectations from ai detection are too high.

    source
• UpperBroccoli@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  No spooky eyes, no extra limbs, no eery smile? - 100% real, genuine photograph! 👍

  source
• TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  I have two of those cats. I still can’t catch them when its time to go to bed.

  source
• nicerdicer@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  It’s a snat. They are not easy to catch, because they are fast. Also, they never and on their shell.

  source
• lemmydividebyzero@reddthat.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  cute snat…

  source

  • derpgon@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    That’s clearly a cail

    source

    • ivanafterall@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Are we all looking at the same snussy?

      source
  • TheBrideWoreCrimson@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    We get them a lot around here. They don’t make for good pets, but they keep the borogoves at bay.

    source

    • fishbone@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Which is great, honestly. Borogoves themselves are fine, but it’s not worth the risk letting them get all mimsy.

      source
• FlyingSquid@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  I wanted to get a cat but I discovered I was allergic to the slime trail.

  source
• lily33@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Such a cute kitty snail! Can you post just the picture?

  source

  • unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Its an “AI generated image at snail” :3

    source
• Sam_Bass@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  yeah just shopped

  source

  • TimeNaan@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    It’s not, look at the shell

    source
• nilclass@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  That’s a normal housecat. Not sure what people are confused about

  source
• DragonsInARoom@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Chat is the picture real?

  source

  • Pudutr0n@feddit.cl ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    It’s a real valid picture in png format.

    source
  • frosch@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    HAS SCIENCE GONE TO FAR?!

    source
• LovableSidekick@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Clearly AI is on the verge of taking over the world.

  source
• Meron35@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Well duh it detects AI generated images that are at scale and that snail cat is way too small for it

  source
• gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  That is a weird looking rabbit

  source
• HeckGazer@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  It has been 0 days since classified military gene research has been leaked by interrogating ai detecting models

  source
• neanderthal@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  The AI was trained on a combination of cat videos and sponge bob

  source
• AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Image

  honestly, its pretty good, and it still works if I use a lower resolution screenshot without metadata (I haven’t tried adding noise, or overlaying something else but those might break it). This is pixelwave, not midjourney though.

  source
• mm_maybe@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  There are a bunch of reasons why this could happen. First, it’s possible to “attack” some simpler image classification models; if you get a large enough sample of their outputs, you can mathematically derive a way to process any image such that it won’t be correctly identified. There have also been reports that even simpler processing, such as blending a real photo of a wall with a synthetic image at very low percent, can trip up detectors that haven’t been trained to be more discerning. But it’s all in how you construct the training dataset, and I don’t think any of this is a good enough reason to give up on using machine learning for synthetic media detection in general; in fact this example gives me the idea of using autogenerated captions as an additional input to the classification model. The challenge there, as in general, is trying to keep such a model from assuming that all anime is synthetic, since “AI artists” seem to be overly focused on anime and related styles…

  source
• brucethemoose@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Honestly, they should fight fire with fire? Another vision model (like Qwen VL) would catch this

  You can ask it “does this image seem fake?” and it would look at it, reason something out and probably conclude it isn’t, instead of… I dunno, looking for smaller patters or whatever their internal model does?

  source
• OpenStars@piefed.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  So only 2% "not likely to be AI-generated or deepfake"... that means that it's almost definitely AI, got it!? :-P

  source

  • PetteriSkaffari@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Not unclear as a whistle.

    source
• jaybone@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  What tool is this? I assume the tool is also AI based?

  source
• lugal@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  So the prophecy is fulfilled

  source
• Prethoryn@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  You have never seen the all elusive catsnail? Bummer you should look harder.

  source
• Krauerking@lemy.lol ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Isn’t there a whole thing about if you average out colors on AI generated photos you get a uniform beige color?

  I don’t get why these tools don’t just do that but I guess you got to keep the marketing up of using AI to find a solution.

  source

  • TheRealKuni@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Either that’s not true of AI images or it’s true of all images. There aren’t answers that simple to this. Pixels are pixels.

    source

    • vithigar@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      It is absolutely not true of all AI images. I’d be surprised if it’s even true about most AI images.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • Krauerking@lemy.lol ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      What? That’s some extreme logic.

      First of all why would it be true if all images? Real photos would have variance of contrast and color in different ways.

      I was slightly off anyways it was about a eeaging contrast

      Instead of engaging the conversation you just say pixels are pixels? Luke that means something smart?

      source

      • -> View More Comments