TheRealKuni
@TheRealKuni@lemmy.world
- Comment on Anon questions our energy sector 5 hours ago:
Depends. Is there a McElroy brother nearby? Awesome. No? Hmm. Not as sure.
- Comment on Git good, son 3 days ago:
AND IT FELT SO GOOD
- Comment on I need pics of fat tigers to send to my mom. she hates pics of fat tigers and every few months I send her a bunch. 4 days ago:
If you’re gonna do AI images, at least use a tool that lets you approach realism. 🙄
Still not good, but much better.
- Comment on What positive things do you expect from Trumps upcoming four years? 1 week ago:
I don’t think someone else’s death is ever a good thing to hope for
I strongly disagree. There are many times where someone else’s death is something to hope for. I think if you try you can think of a few relatively easily.
- Comment on Is including one of these with every ballot really cheaper than a sticker? 1 week ago:
Okay, I think what I’ve learned today is that I now need both a sticker of a werewolf tearing its shirt off and screaming “I VOTED!” and a voting sausage.
The world is such a delightful place sometimes.
- Comment on Is including one of these with every ballot really cheaper than a sticker? 1 week ago:
You’re just jealous you didn’t get the awesome stickers Michigan did this year.
- Comment on Tiger Predators 1 week ago:
Yeah, you think you’re hot shit as a tiger and then here comes a Hellwasp…
- Comment on Not likely to be AI-generated or Deepfake 2 weeks ago:
You certainly like to see a lot of your own words. You can dismiss me and keep talking. I don’t care anymore.
(I know you deleted this but I think it’s worth referring to.)
You are accusing me here, again, of dismissing you while simultaneously saying I type too much. These aren’t compatible.
Again, engaging with you and disagreeing isn’t dismissal. It’s conversation. It’s discussion.
Here, how about this:
I thought the video you linked was entertaining. It’s not my thing, but I can understand enjoying their style. And the claims they make are interesting for the value they hold in detecting simple, low-hanging AI fruit. I’ll grant you that.
But what I’m trying to tell you is that such a simple solution isn’t a robust one. It may work for, as I said above, low-hanging fruit. Fine. But again, if AI detection were that simple then people wouldn’t be trying to figure out how to consistently detect AI as the target continues to shift.
What I now find interesting is that you have shifted—when I addressed your video and your arguments—to attacking me and my writing rather than what I wrote. You downvote every reply I make and then try to act high and mighty about how I’m dismissing you or how I’m punching down. You dismiss me and then accuse me of it.
Anyway, I hope you have a good day.
- Comment on Not likely to be AI-generated or Deepfake 2 weeks ago:
Why on earth are you taking this so personally? We’re talking about AI image generation, why is your pride involved?
I asked a question about using a different method of detecting AI images using the fact that color brightness does still average out and base values are usually identical and was met with condescension and incorrect information from you as well as to how color in pixel math work.
You asked a question about why tools don’t use an extremely simple method of detecting AI images. I said that wouldn’t work. Initially I misunderstood your question and my response was overly simple, but it wasn’t wrong. Simple methods of detecting AI images don’t work for all AI images.
You started with dismissal and haven’t gotten better.
I didn’t dismiss you. If I had I wouldn’t have bothered to respond. You hadn’t presented much besides a vague question initially, and I disagreed with it.
When you came back with more I presented my position, that AI image generation is much more varied and complicated than your question and YouTube video assume. Just because I’m disagreeing with you and providing context doesn’t mean I’m dismissing you. Dismissing you would be to say, “No, you’re wrong, go away.” Not to explain why the simple method you’re talking about isn’t feasible, broadly, for the entirety of AI images.
If I wanted to dismiss you, I wouldn’t bother wasting my time on a response.
It’s been an argument and an uphill battle to point out that this is true
And you’re accusing me of clinging to my position. 🙄
I wanted a conversation and you wanted to punch down. You still want to be from the pulpit of right because you like your toy.
Where on earth did you get the impression that I want to be right because I like AI image generation? Or that I wanted to punch down?
Someone disagreeing with you and responding to your argument without accepting it isn’t dismissal, it isn’t punching down, it isn’t condescension. It’s engagement with what you’re saying. Just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I think I’m better than you or smarter than you or anything like that, it just means I think I’m right.
- Comment on Not likely to be AI-generated or Deepfake 2 weeks ago:
So because you “make” AI generated images you are saying that they are magical and don’t follow the rules of their generation?
That’s what you got from what I wrote?
There’s nothing “magical,” but the variety of AI images that can be produced belies the simplicity of their detection. Which has been my point this whole time.
They are based on noise maps and inferred forwards from there.
There are an infinite number of methods to diffuse noise into an image, and changes to any one of a wild number of variables produces a different image. Even with the same seed and model, different noise samplers can produce entirely different types of images. And there are a LOT of different samplers. And thousands of models.
Then there are millions of LORAs that can add or remove concepts or styles. There are ControlNets that let a generator adjust other features of the image generation, from things like poses to depth mapping to edge smoothing to color noise offsets and many many many more.
The number of tweaks that can be made by someone trying to generate a specific concept is insanely high. And the outputs are wildly different.
I don’t pretend to be an expert in this subject, I’ve barely scratched the surface.
In the video I linked they even talk about how the red blue green maps have the same values cause it started with a colorless pixel anyways. A real sensor doesn’t do that.
No, they give an extremely simple explanation of how noise maps work, and then speak as if it were law, “You’ll never see an AI image that’s mostly dark with a tiny little bit of light or mostly light with a tiny little bit of dark.” Or “You won’t have an AI photo of a flat sunny field with no dark spots.”
But that’s simply not true. It’s nonsense that sounds simple enough to be believable, but the reality isn’t that simple. Each step diffuses further from the initial noise maps. And you can adjust how that happens, whether it focuses more in lighter or darker areas, or in busier or smoother areas.
Just because someone on YouTube says something with confidence doesn’t mean they’re right. YouTubers often scratch the surface of whatever they’re researching to give an overview of the subject because that’s their job. I don’t fault them for it. But they aren’t experts.
(Neither am I, but I know enough to know they don’t know what they’re talking about at depth.)
None of the things they say in that video as though they are law or fact are things that haven’t already been thought of by people who know far more about the subject than these YouTubers (or me).
I did mention earlier that this sort of thing might be true for Dall-E or Midjourney or other cheap/free online services with no settings the user can tweak. AI images generated with as few steps as possible, with as little machine use as possible. They will be easier to spot, more uniform. But those aren’t all there is of AI images.
Another thing to consider: this technology is, at any given moment, at the worst it’s going to be going forward. The leaps and bounds that have been made in image diffusion even in the last year is remarkable. It is currently, sometimes, difficult to detect AI images. As time goes on, it will become harder.
(Which your video example even says.)
- Comment on Not likely to be AI-generated or Deepfake 2 weeks ago:
My point is that AI images don’t differ significantly enough from non-AI images. “AI images” is an extremely broad category.
If you are narrowing that category to, say, “all Dall-E images” or “all Midjourney images” or something, MAYBE. They tend to have a certain “look.” But even that strikes me as unlikely, and those are just a slice of the “AI images” pie.
As someone who has played around with Stable Diffusion and Flux, the “average color” of an image can vary dramatically based on what settings and models you’re running. AI can create remarkably real-looking images with proper variance in color and contrast, because it’s trained on real photos. Pixels, as I said, are pixels.
That’s not to mention anime or sketch or stained glass or any other medium imitation. And of course, image-to-image with in-painting, where only parts of an image are handled by the AI.
My point is that if there were overtly simple answers like, “all AI images average their color to a beige,” then there wouldn’t be all this worry about AI images. It would be easy to detect them. But things aren’t that simple, and if you spend a small amount of time looking into the depth that generating AI images has gained even in the last year, you’d realize how absurd a simple answer like that is.
- Comment on Not likely to be AI-generated or Deepfake 2 weeks 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.
- Comment on You have 8 seconds. 2 weeks ago:
I would be inclined to agree with, “a hotdog on a bun is a sandwich.”
- Comment on You have 8 seconds. 2 weeks ago:
Do you have a term like “hotdog” for a sausage of questionable origin in a bun? Or is it, like, sausageofquestionableorigininabun like other German compound words? 😁
- Comment on You have 8 seconds. 2 weeks ago:
A hotdog is not a sandwich.
If you serve bacon, lettuce, and tomato on a plate, you do not call that a sandwich.
But if you serve a hotdog without a bun, you still call it a hotdog.
QED.
- Comment on me to her after roughly 27 seconds 2 weeks ago:
There’s no shame in crymaxing.
- Comment on Clever, clever 2 weeks ago:
Maybe if homework can be done by statistics, then it’s not worth doing.
Lots of homework can be done by computers in many ways. That’s not the point. Teachers don’t have students write papers to edify the teacher or to bring new insights into the world, they do it to teach students how to research, combine concepts, organize their thoughts, weed out misinformation, and generate new ideas from other concepts.
These are lessons worth learning regardless of whether ChatGPT can write a paper.
- Comment on Where does a man get a proper shoe horn that will not break 2 weeks ago:
lol I feel like I’m living in a different planet.
😂 Are you just now learning that people experience different things in life?
I don’t use a shoehorn, and I’ve finally embraced the Skechers Slip-Ins lifestyle and loving it, but shoehorns would definitely have made my life easier in some respects.
- Comment on Got it on pre-order 3 weeks ago:
Ex-boss, Michael Eisner.
- Comment on DING DONG 3 weeks ago:
My parents owned that album when I was growing up. To me it isn’t the Christmas season until I hear the first track, “Hark! the Herald Trumpets Sing” while putting up decorations.
- Comment on DING DONG 3 weeks ago:
Yeah but we love it. We get to pretend we’re playing bass guitar. It also means the rare times we get to actually sing melodies are that much more meaningful.
- Comment on Drink it, I dare ya 3 weeks ago:
Isn’t that just LaCroix?
- Comment on Should you trust that doctor? 4 weeks ago:
He wasn’t to blame, though he easily could’ve been. That was death was the radiologist’s fault though, IIRC.
- Comment on The Beginning of the End 4 weeks ago:
Wow I don’t remember this at all. It’s been too long.
- Comment on The Beginning of the End 4 weeks ago:
What is this from? And…what is happening?
- Comment on Fead 4 weeks ago:
Human memory is wild. We’re extremely good at inventing things that never happened, or adjusting memories over time as we recall them into something completely different than what actually happened. And it can feel so real.
- Comment on Red Flags 4 weeks ago:
He’s just a member of the Ghostbloods masquerading as an ardent in an attempt to poison a Lighteyed heretic. He needs a lot of bread for that task.
- Comment on Not everything needs to be Art 4 weeks ago:
Yup. There was a commercial I saw for like, Amazon or something that had the Canon in D mixed with some more modern vocals. While trying to find it (because I liked it) someone on Reddit was bitching about how Pachelbel never meant his work to be used that way or something and that if you like it you don’t know good music.
Bitch, I sing with a symphony orchestra regularly and have done so for 15 years. I’ve played instruments my whole life. Don’t gatekeep music.
- Comment on mullenweg, founder of wordpress, claims that the apostrophe we type is actually a prime mark and talks about how he always manually inputs U+2019 instead 4 weeks ago:
Nah. “Octopodes” (note, pronounced “ock-TAH-poh-deez”) is a very recent plural for the word in English. It’s not incorrect, but it’s not “the correct plural.”
There is no “correct” plural. “Octopi” is the oldest plural in English, then “octopuses,” then “octopodes.”
- Comment on Comic by rusty_creates 5 weeks ago:
You like that, you fucking retard?‽!
