4 ms·
"Half a year later, that tool is dead, killed because it couldn’t do what it was designed to do." This was my conclusion as well testing the image detectors.
by 13years 3y ago
"Half a year later, that tool is dead, killed because it couldn’t do what it was designed to do."
This was my conclusion as well testing the image detectors.
Current automated detection isn’t very reliable. I tried out Optic’s AI or Not , which boasts 95% accuracy, on a small sample of my own images. It correctly labeled those with AI content as AI generated, but it also labeled about 50% of my own stock photo composites I tried as AI generated. If generative AI was not a moving target I would be optimistic such tools could advance and become highly reliable. However, that is not the case and I have doubts this will ever be a reliable solution.
from my article on AI art - https://www.mindprison.cc/p/ai-art-challenges-meaning-in-a-world https://www.mindprison.cc/p/ai-art-challenges-meaning-in-a-w...
- danuker 3y ago> but it also labeled about 50% of my own stock photo composites I tried as AI generated Could it be that a large proportion of the source stock photos were actually AI generated?
- 13years 3y agoNo, they were older images. However, that is now becoming a problem. Some stock photo sites now have AI images and they are not labeled. I'm able to distinguish most for now because at hires the details contain obvious errors. This is really painful, because for some of my work I need high quality images suitable for print. Now I can't just look at the thumbnail and say "this will work". I now have to examine it taking more of my time.