3 ms·
A bunch of the people images are very clearly AI though. I’d wager about 30-50% of them could be recognised as generated by people with a bit of understanding o
by slau 2y ago
A bunch of the people images are very clearly AI though. I’d wager about 30-50% of them could be recognised as generated by people with a bit of understanding of how these models work.
- ninetyninenine 2y agonobody knows how these models work. Not even experts. These are black box algorithms where people understand these things in terms the analogy of a best fit curve in a series of data points. Outside of this analogy... nobody understands how generative AI works. What made a model for a specific situation choose to generate a hand with 6 fingers instead of 5? Or 5 instead of 6? Nobody knows.
- jprete 2y agoThat's well above the threshold for destroying even the pretense of photographs having any information value on the Internet.
- not2b 2y agoEven before generative AI was an issue, in the US you couldn't just tell a court "this is a photo, therefore it is evidence". There had to be witnesses would could testify about how that photo was produced, and the other side could cross-examine. But yes, you're already seeing politicians caught doing or saying embarrassing things claiming it's all a deepfake, but in most prominent cases of this there were lots of witnesses who can confirm that yes, they did say that.
- spaceman_2020 2y agoSure, but if you were out to use these images - maliciously or otherwise - you would just filter out the 30-50% that don’t look real.