4 ms·

It is mind-boggling how the "trends" and the non-stop race for validation make all lose their minds. How on earth a photo contest cannot see the false anatomy

by nbzso 4y ago

It is mind-boggling how the "trends" and the non-stop race for validation make all lose their minds. How on earth a photo contest cannot see the false anatomy of the hands and person behind? Did someone in this concourse is actual photographer? Maybe not. So, on AI generators. I am an artist, I have painted and photographed all my life. The average prompter has no chance to win against a professional. I know which artist is presented in the data set, how to use the light and composition. So basically speaking, this is the new Photoshop. The interesting question is what will hold long term more value in the future? The generated content or analogue product.

eimrine 4y ago
Can you describe what is wrong with the person behind? I can clearly see the hands issue and even I can see a strange hair on another person near her left ear. But the person behind seems correct to me.
- smusamashah 4y ago
  Look at the dark eye, an artifact on nose, the lighting on the cheek behind shoulder. Fingers of her hand have abnormal thickness, index finger has very long nail, meaning they are not equal in length.
  - lostlogin 4y ago
    The woman in the foreground seems strangely 2D, like the background woman is holding a cardboard cutout. The background woman is somehow too close. The pupils aren’t quite right on the front woman’s eyes. Her right eye has a sort of lump and her left iris isn’t quite round. The fabric over chest looks more like carved stone. 100% I’d not have said ‘AI’ on first look though, and if someone did a reverse-switcheroo and said ‘actually it’s real’ I could be convinced.
  - eimrine 4y ago
    Thank you, now I see it all. This artifacts use to rhyme/mimicre with old-photo style and big artifacts on top-left quarter of image so they are not easy to see but now I see a usual stable diffusion style with noticeable disrespect to 3D objects everywhere.
simplotek 4y ago
> It is mind-boggling how the "trends" and the non-stop race for validation make all lose their minds. How on earth a photo contest cannot see the false anatomy of the hands and person behind? Did someone in this concourse is actual photographer? Maybe not. I think you're trying very hard to poke holes at a very run-of-the-mill process. It's easy to pick apart stuff post-facto when you have the benefit of context and hindsight, and you are certain of what you're looking at. If instead you're judging artwork, it would be unthinkable to reason "this work is pretty good but the model's fingers might look a bit off, and that is a good enough reason to reject the prize". Throwing blanket accusations of incompetence at the jury also says more about yourself than the contest. The truth of the matter is that AI -generated images are becoming quite impressive and can be a challenge to tell apart. This is not a problem with a jury in a context. We had deep fakes in the recent past, and they are improving rapidly. It's easy to try to elevate yourself by putting down others, but while you're there making claims like it's obvious that the streaming audio of Biden and Obama and Trump and Hillary hanging out playing Minecraft is bullshit, multiple high-ranking officials already fell for calls from people using similar tech to impersonate world leaders.
- nbzso 4y ago
  I am sorry, didn't want to offend anybody. But this is obvious for a trained eye, which a professional must have.
  - PeterisP 4y ago
    Trained eye for what? I'd assume that everyone judging that photo contest was a professional with a trained eye for photography; but that apparently doesn't imply having a trained eye for ML-generated images, and doesn't necessarily even involve having looked at ML-generated images, much less knowing which are the common "tells" for detecting them.
  - broast 4y ago
    The person who generated the image seems to have decades of award winning experience in actual photography, so I wonder if that trained eye passes your test?

by nbzso 4y ago

eimrine 4y ago

Can you describe what is wrong with the person behind? I can clearly see the hands issue and even I can see a strange hair on another person near her left ear. But the person behind seems correct to me.

smusamashah 4y ago
Look at the dark eye, an artifact on nose, the lighting on the cheek behind shoulder. Fingers of her hand have abnormal thickness, index finger has very long nail, meaning they are not equal in length.
- lostlogin 4y ago
  The woman in the foreground seems strangely 2D, like the background woman is holding a cardboard cutout. The background woman is somehow too close. The pupils aren’t quite right on the front woman’s eyes. Her right eye has a sort of lump and her left iris isn’t quite round. The fabric over chest looks more like carved stone. 100% I’d not have said ‘AI’ on first look though, and if someone did a reverse-switcheroo and said ‘actually it’s real’ I could be convinced.
- eimrine 4y ago
  Thank you, now I see it all. This artifacts use to rhyme/mimicre with old-photo style and big artifacts on top-left quarter of image so they are not easy to see but now I see a usual stable diffusion style with noticeable disrespect to 3D objects everywhere.

simplotek 4y ago

> It is mind-boggling how the "trends" and the non-stop race for validation make all lose their minds. How on earth a photo contest cannot see the false anatomy of the hands and person behind? Did someone in this concourse is actual photographer? Maybe not. I think you're trying very hard to poke holes at a very run-of-the-mill process. It's easy to pick apart stuff post-facto when you have the benefit of context and hindsight, and you are certain of what you're looking at. If instead you're judging artwork, it would be unthinkable to reason "this work is pretty good but the model's fingers might look a bit off, and that is a good enough reason to reject the prize". Throwing blanket accusations of incompetence at the jury also says more about yourself than the contest. The truth of the matter is that AI -generated images are becoming quite impressive and can be a challenge to tell apart. This is not a problem with a jury in a context. We had deep fakes in the recent past, and they are improving rapidly. It's easy to try to elevate yourself by putting down others, but while you're there making claims like it's obvious that the streaming audio of Biden and Obama and Trump and Hillary hanging out playing Minecraft is bullshit, multiple high-ranking officials already fell for calls from people using similar tech to impersonate world leaders.

nbzso 4y ago
I am sorry, didn't want to offend anybody. But this is obvious for a trained eye, which a professional must have.
- PeterisP 4y ago
  Trained eye for what? I'd assume that everyone judging that photo contest was a professional with a trained eye for photography; but that apparently doesn't imply having a trained eye for ML-generated images, and doesn't necessarily even involve having looked at ML-generated images, much less knowing which are the common "tells" for detecting them.
- broast 4y ago
  The person who generated the image seems to have decades of award winning experience in actual photography, so I wonder if that trained eye passes your test?