top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 79 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

Eventually, you won’t be able to and we’ll be back to what my generation learned early on, don’t trust what you see on the Internet.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 40 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    Did you worry about photoshops too? Because many of those were absolutely hard to tell

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

    Not true. If it looks shopped I can tell from some of the pixels and from seeing quite a few shops in my time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    Be careful of falling victim to bad toupees.

    You always know when you spot a bad fake, but you have no idea how many good fakes flew right past your radar. We tend to think we're much better at these things than we really are.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    Then you will learn same skill for slop most likely

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    If you can't tell does it matter?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    the point is, even if photoshop is detectable AI slop eventually won't be

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 2 weeks ago

    Watermarking never meant to be a legitimate way of telling this stuff apart. Anyone slightly savvy could run a generator locally and produce images without watermarking, if they really meant to fool others. You are right in that the watermarking makes it (or did) more difficult for the average joe, but yeah. This is a never was kind of scenario

  • source
  • [–] 23 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    Go see art in real life. It's all original content.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 2 weeks ago

    I drop musical artists like it's hot the moment I find out they support Israel. I'm not opposed to doing the same for AI.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    We can’t tell the difference anymore - we simply can’t trust anything on social media anymore as it’s mostly not true - also print and broadcast media are equally lies…

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

    The word "slop" has lost all meaning.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 weeks ago

    We don't... That's the new reality we live in and it happened so fast my head hurts

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 child)

    If you can establish that it was written before 2021 or so, it's probably not from an LLM. That kind of text has been compared to "low background steel", typically salvaged from ships sunk in WW2 or earlier. Low background steel is a valuable commodity used for some types of highly sensitive instruments. Steel made in August 1945 or later, especially post 1950-ish, always has trace amounts of radioactivity from u-know-what.

    Note that contamination is contagious. Even if you know that a human wrote something post-2021, for example because you wrote it yourself, you still can't say it's guaranteed AI-free, because of how AI has warped language and to some extent everyone's minds.

    https://englishlanguagestudies.com/the-impact-of-artificial-intelligence/

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/urban-survival/202507/the-emerging-problem-of-ai-psychosis

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-background_steel

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    It's fundamentally impossible to watermark digital data permanently without controlling the hardware so the only answer here is to use brain.

    I suspect hardware watermarking market will emerge as those types of watermarks are much harder to remove. I.e. the phone camera uses cryptography to sign that this picture was taken by a real phone. So proof will be inverted and that might actually be a good thing.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

    Reverse image search? If it had a watermark then it's probably been posted somewhere before. If it hasn't, then no you can't really know. You can get a sense for common AI styles and features, but unless the original artist posted it somewhere, in certain cases you're just guessing.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    Look up ai rating instructions for instruction following, correctness, naturalness, and composition, they always tend to fail on one of those fronts and if you learn to identify them like a trainer it is easier to notice

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 weeks ago

    Main thing I always see is either text legible and somehow always facing the camera, like every sign and window is perfectly aligned so none face away from the camera or text is blurry gibberish. Harder to tell without text, but then it's usually some sort of composition (lighting, textures) or correctness (extra fingers, illogical placement) issue.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›