Devil's advocate: Why would we want to give AI image generators free hueristics to help them make themselves less detectable?
this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2024
67 points (98.6% liked)
Asklemmy
43138 readers
1846 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Anything we can provide is just a drop in the ocean of data they already have. Plus, this was how image generation worked before we got diffusion models (see "generative adversarial networks") and they never reached the level of image quality that diffusion models did.
Huh? GANs, even ones like thispersondoesnotexist are way better than SDXL, they're just hyper-narrow in focus usually, whereas SD can do just about anything
If only it were that simple to train something into an AI.
There is no way to tell that. Maybe if the AI itself makes it explicit, then yes. AI detectors are flaky, and you end up with false positives.
I donβt think a community for it is an unreasonable idea - at least for now, many AI images are easily identifiable by defects / lack of reasoning in the image. Though there isnβt a good computer program that can do this, I agree.
Human intuition has much more capabilities than a computer program, so I believe community should be made in light of that
I second this. Using AI to detect AI seems ironic more than anything. Some of my friend's traditional drawings were guessed as most likely being AI by these detectors... The false positive rate is substantial.
How can i learn to be better at seeing it? I guess search to find a guide?
Look really closely at a couple things: hands and any broken lines that should be straight.
Hands hopefully is obvious. AI has trouble drawing fingers. For the broken lines, picture a wall or a swimming pool or something that you know is a straight line, but is behind the subject. If the lines don't line up, that's a good clue.
Look at thin lines (hair, eyelashes, powerlines). In AI pictures, some lines just melt away and are not continuous. It's a dead giveaway
Look closely at the little things in places where you expect to see βthingsβ and see if they are actually the things you expect them to be. With AI they often arenβt actually things at all. Also patterns may look right until you examine them closely.
Collective human wisdom would be useful. Some humans will pick up nuances and details other humans may have missed. Sort of complementing each other, in a way.
Why would someone downvote this?
I'm not sure. But regardless, I'm thinking of an "Is it AI?" community or (sorry Lemmy users) subreddit, similar to r/whatisthisthing or r/amitheasshole. I don't have the time and energy so hopefully someone takes my idea and puts them into fruition
@[email protected] draw for me several people pointing at a computer screen and discussing whether an image is faked
Style: unstable diffusers