5 ms·

Adobe Photoshop AI Detector

80 points by dsr12 7y ago

rndgermandude 7y ago
Here is their website including code to play with: https://peterwang512.github.io/FALdetector/ https://peterwang512.github.io/FALdetector/ (and yes, somebody already turned this into an app)
- ralfd 7y ago
  > and yes, somebody already turned this into an app This here? https://www.reddit.com/r/iOSProgramming/comments/e08sps/woke_up_to_my_app_54/ https://www.reddit.com/r/iOSProgramming/comments/e08sps/woke... Costs 3,49 Euro in my local App store.
  - rndgermandude 7y ago
    That's the one I saw too. They do the processing on some server, too, which might explain the price tag, and is a bit problematic privacy-wise.
tpetry 7y ago
Apply an ai like this with more detections to a typical instagram „models“ stream and you‘ll see that almost all pictures are altered. This could maybe be a good wakeup call for the young generation which is seeing the bodies as problematic because they are not as perfect as other people on instagram
- adrianN 7y ago
  /r/instagramreality is a mildly amusing collection of examples where the photoshopping is way overdone.
- maeln 7y ago
  It is usually more insidious than that. Almost everybody know that Instagram picture are heavily altered, it doesn't prevent us from building an image in our head of what we "should" look like.
- mosselman 7y ago
  It would be a great idea to legally force social networks to automatically apply this kind of AI and show the results in the feed for the reasons you mentioned.
  - brokenkebab 7y ago
    Why stop here? Let's legally forbid makeup. Think about tone-evening creams, for example, what they do to truth!
    - mosselman 7y ago
      Clear strawman fallacy here. I did not say 'forbid'. I said that it should be made clear that the images are doctored. Besides, there is a big difference between make-up, that anyone could theoretically apply to look like someone in real-life and what people use photoshop for in the images we are talking about.
      - brokenkebab 7y ago
        I would call it reductio ad absurdum. But that's not the point as I wasn't refuting any arguments you made (you didn't any), but making fun of what I see as a knee-jerk reaction of calling for a new law on every minor occasion. Btw, your final para: do you mean that only privileged people can apply "beatification" effects on their phitos? FWIW make-up is much more expensive.
  - fbi-director 7y ago
    After a week - at most - none of the millions of users sees the "photoshopped image" anymore, it'll become ubiquitous. Mostly due to the fact that each and every image will have that label / text
  - Nasrudith 7y ago
    How about starting with making a plug in app first before rushing to legislate imaginary problems which are by definition poorly understood? It brings to mind the cloning bans based on Hollywood logic where they assume clones have all memories and the same exact scars and birthmarks.
- Aozi 7y ago
  Not just heavily altered, posing and lighting play a huge role as well. Here's a good example https://www.reddit.com/r/Instagramreality/comments/ciw4a3/dont_be_fooled_by_fake_before_after_posts/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Instagramreality/comments/ciw4a3/do... Or just look at someone like Chessie King https://www.instagram.com/chessiekingg/ https://www.instagram.com/chessiekingg/ You don't need to edit photos to give an unrealistic image of how your body is. You just need to know some basics of posing, angles and lighting. The same applies to men as well https://www.reddit.com/r/Instagramreality/comments/djvv1b/thought_you_guys_would_be_interested_in_the_level/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Instagramreality/comments/djvv1b/th... So while obviously edits are a huge issue with body image. It's very important to understand that when you look at almost any IG picture, whether it is altered or not, you're most likely looking at the best possible aspects of the person that they specifically chose to show. You're only seeing the best parts of someone while comparing them to your worst parts. And when every single picture is specifically crafted to only show the best parts, you'll get a very unrealistic idea on what the person actually really looks like.
  - grawprog 7y ago
    One day I was sitting on the bus. There was someone in front of me crafting an Instagram post, then somebody else in front of them just chilling listening to music not paying attention to anyone or anything. I watched while the person in front of me took a few different selfies from a couple angles, added some filters then sit there crafting a tale about dude in front who was doing absolutely nothing, don't even think he noticed anyone else at all on the bus, and how he'd said something to her and her selfie was the reaction. It took a bit of time too. She thought about it, edited it and changed it a bunch. It was some effort. All just crafted to get reaction. It was entirely fabricated, not a single thing was true about the post. Then I watched while she eagerly refreshed checked ever 15 seconds for likes and sympathetic comments. It was kind of funny to watch, but sad at the same time. I can't understand such a strong need for validation that you'd do such a thing.
sam_goody 7y ago
Now the team in charge of "Face-Aware Liquify" has to improve their algorithm so that the edits won't be recognizable. That would mean better warping ("more real looking"), which is overall a great thing, even if it just ups the ante for the for the "Edit detector" team. Basically, the red team has to hack into the image instead of a program - definitely a good way for Photoshop to evolve. (Though I realize that this detection would be useful for much more than just the liquify tools.)
- gjm11 7y ago
  It's a GAN with an unorthodox (and rather slow) training scheme!
  - rm_-rf_slash 7y ago
    Generative Adversarial Teamwork.
classified 7y ago
Ha, I was reading "AI Dictator". Possibly a bit too early but eventually just a question of time until that complimentary update ships.
kelvin0 7y ago
AI vs AI ... so the race has begun.
blauditore 7y ago
>Trust in what we see is increasingly important in a world where image editing has become ubiquitous – fake content is a serious and increasingly pressing issue. I keep on reading such statements, but still don't feel like this is a real (increasing) problem. Pictures could be faked is a believable way 100 years ago already, and I cannot recall a single instance where new, fancy AI-driven fakes were any more of an issue than classic photoshopping. In my opinion, it's all just FUD.
- tachyonbeam 7y ago
  100 years ago you would have needed an expert, specialized equipment and several hours. 10 years ago, you still needed an expert and probably an hour at least. Soon, there may be tools anyone can use, feed in some photos of you and a description of what you want to see. It will be easy to generate fake profile pictures that look like you, for instance. Your voice will be easily cloned on the phone as well, and eventually, even video chats could be fake. Scammers could find out when you're on a trip from social media, reach out to your family, ask for emergency money because of a stolen wallet, etc. Still some effort for the scammers, but eventually, you might be able to automate the whole scam with a bot. The bot doesn't need to be that smart, it just needs to follow a script with a handful of variants, like a preplanned dialogue tree.
  - blauditore 7y ago
    This is something that could be done before as well by just impersonating someone. The voice just needs to sound believably similar, which is not too hard with a sufficiently bad connection. And yet such attacks don't seem common at all.
    - e12e 7y ago
      Sure, you can impersonate someone (or even anyone). A botnet can impersonate everyone, and make robocalls to everyone. If you're doing a targeted attack, you might need a significant chance of success - if you can target 10 000 users, you might get away with a 1% success rate, and still make a significant amount (say 60 times 1 000 USD in "emergency" funds).

80 points by dsr12 7y ago

Here is their website including code to play with: https://peterwang512.github.io/FALdetector/ https://peterwang512.github.io/FALdetector/ (and yes, somebody already turned this into an app)

ralfd 7y ago
> and yes, somebody already turned this into an app This here? https://www.reddit.com/r/iOSProgramming/comments/e08sps/woke_up_to_my_app_54/ https://www.reddit.com/r/iOSProgramming/comments/e08sps/woke... Costs 3,49 Euro in my local App store.
- rndgermandude 7y ago
  That's the one I saw too. They do the processing on some server, too, which might explain the price tag, and is a bit problematic privacy-wise.

tpetry 7y ago

Apply an ai like this with more detections to a typical instagram „models“ stream and you‘ll see that almost all pictures are altered. This could maybe be a good wakeup call for the young generation which is seeing the bodies as problematic because they are not as perfect as other people on instagram

adrianN 7y ago
/r/instagramreality is a mildly amusing collection of examples where the photoshopping is way overdone.
maeln 7y ago
It is usually more insidious than that. Almost everybody know that Instagram picture are heavily altered, it doesn't prevent us from building an image in our head of what we "should" look like.
mosselman 7y ago
It would be a great idea to legally force social networks to automatically apply this kind of AI and show the results in the feed for the reasons you mentioned.
- brokenkebab 7y ago
  Why stop here? Let's legally forbid makeup. Think about tone-evening creams, for example, what they do to truth!
  - mosselman 7y ago
    Clear strawman fallacy here. I did not say 'forbid'. I said that it should be made clear that the images are doctored. Besides, there is a big difference between make-up, that anyone could theoretically apply to look like someone in real-life and what people use photoshop for in the images we are talking about.
    - brokenkebab 7y ago
      I would call it reductio ad absurdum. But that's not the point as I wasn't refuting any arguments you made (you didn't any), but making fun of what I see as a knee-jerk reaction of calling for a new law on every minor occasion. Btw, your final para: do you mean that only privileged people can apply "beatification" effects on their phitos? FWIW make-up is much more expensive.
- fbi-director 7y ago
  After a week - at most - none of the millions of users sees the "photoshopped image" anymore, it'll become ubiquitous. Mostly due to the fact that each and every image will have that label / text
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  How about starting with making a plug in app first before rushing to legislate imaginary problems which are by definition poorly understood? It brings to mind the cloning bans based on Hollywood logic where they assume clones have all memories and the same exact scars and birthmarks.
Aozi 7y ago
Not just heavily altered, posing and lighting play a huge role as well. Here's a good example https://www.reddit.com/r/Instagramreality/comments/ciw4a3/dont_be_fooled_by_fake_before_after_posts/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Instagramreality/comments/ciw4a3/do... Or just look at someone like Chessie King https://www.instagram.com/chessiekingg/ https://www.instagram.com/chessiekingg/ You don't need to edit photos to give an unrealistic image of how your body is. You just need to know some basics of posing, angles and lighting. The same applies to men as well https://www.reddit.com/r/Instagramreality/comments/djvv1b/thought_you_guys_would_be_interested_in_the_level/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Instagramreality/comments/djvv1b/th... So while obviously edits are a huge issue with body image. It's very important to understand that when you look at almost any IG picture, whether it is altered or not, you're most likely looking at the best possible aspects of the person that they specifically chose to show. You're only seeing the best parts of someone while comparing them to your worst parts. And when every single picture is specifically crafted to only show the best parts, you'll get a very unrealistic idea on what the person actually really looks like.
- grawprog 7y ago
  One day I was sitting on the bus. There was someone in front of me crafting an Instagram post, then somebody else in front of them just chilling listening to music not paying attention to anyone or anything. I watched while the person in front of me took a few different selfies from a couple angles, added some filters then sit there crafting a tale about dude in front who was doing absolutely nothing, don't even think he noticed anyone else at all on the bus, and how he'd said something to her and her selfie was the reaction. It took a bit of time too. She thought about it, edited it and changed it a bunch. It was some effort. All just crafted to get reaction. It was entirely fabricated, not a single thing was true about the post. Then I watched while she eagerly refreshed checked ever 15 seconds for likes and sympathetic comments. It was kind of funny to watch, but sad at the same time. I can't understand such a strong need for validation that you'd do such a thing.

sam_goody 7y ago

Now the team in charge of "Face-Aware Liquify" has to improve their algorithm so that the edits won't be recognizable. That would mean better warping ("more real looking"), which is overall a great thing, even if it just ups the ante for the for the "Edit detector" team. Basically, the red team has to hack into the image instead of a program - definitely a good way for Photoshop to evolve. (Though I realize that this detection would be useful for much more than just the liquify tools.)

gjm11 7y ago
It's a GAN with an unorthodox (and rather slow) training scheme!
- rm_-rf_slash 7y ago
  Generative Adversarial Teamwork.

classified 7y ago

Ha, I was reading "AI Dictator". Possibly a bit too early but eventually just a question of time until that complimentary update ships.

kelvin0 7y ago

AI vs AI ... so the race has begun.

blauditore 7y ago

>Trust in what we see is increasingly important in a world where image editing has become ubiquitous – fake content is a serious and increasingly pressing issue. I keep on reading such statements, but still don't feel like this is a real (increasing) problem. Pictures could be faked is a believable way 100 years ago already, and I cannot recall a single instance where new, fancy AI-driven fakes were any more of an issue than classic photoshopping. In my opinion, it's all just FUD.

tachyonbeam 7y ago
100 years ago you would have needed an expert, specialized equipment and several hours. 10 years ago, you still needed an expert and probably an hour at least. Soon, there may be tools anyone can use, feed in some photos of you and a description of what you want to see. It will be easy to generate fake profile pictures that look like you, for instance. Your voice will be easily cloned on the phone as well, and eventually, even video chats could be fake. Scammers could find out when you're on a trip from social media, reach out to your family, ask for emergency money because of a stolen wallet, etc. Still some effort for the scammers, but eventually, you might be able to automate the whole scam with a bot. The bot doesn't need to be that smart, it just needs to follow a script with a handful of variants, like a preplanned dialogue tree.
- blauditore 7y ago
  This is something that could be done before as well by just impersonating someone. The voice just needs to sound believably similar, which is not too hard with a sufficiently bad connection. And yet such attacks don't seem common at all.
  - e12e 7y ago
    Sure, you can impersonate someone (or even anyone). A botnet can impersonate everyone, and make robocalls to everyone. If you're doing a targeted attack, you might need a significant chance of success - if you can target 10 000 users, you might get away with a 1% success rate, and still make a significant amount (say 60 times 1 000 USD in "emergency" funds).