French immigrants are eating our pets!

  • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 hour 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.

  • mm_maybe@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 hour 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…

    • Hobbes_Dent@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 hours ago

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

  • Meron35@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    12 hours ago

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

  • Pennomi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    162
    ·
    23 hours 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.

    • kronisk @lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      edit-2
      20 hours 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, they would have used a picture of a real shell.

      Edit: plus the cat head looks weird where it connects to the head, and the markings don’t look right to me.

      • fishbone@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        14 hours 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.

      • Pennomi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        20 hours ago

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

    • db2@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      49
      ·
      22 hours ago

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

  • Krauerking@lemy.lol
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 hours 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.

    • TheRealKuni@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 hours 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.

      • vithigar@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 hours ago

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

        • Krauerking@lemy.lol
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          40 minutes ago

          Just saying that because you feel like it’s true or because you’ve participated in that line of thought for even 5 seconds?

          AI images come from a noise map, it’s true cause they generate from it in a consistent manner.