10 ms·

I saw my first AI video that completely fooled commenters: https://imgur.com/a/cbjVKMU https://imgur.com/a/cbjVKMU This was not marked as AI-generated and comm

I saw my first AI video that completely fooled commenters: https://imgur.com/a/cbjVKMU https://imgur.com/a/cbjVKMU This was not marked as AI-generated and commenters were in awe at this fuzzy train, missing the "AIGC" signs. I'm quite nervous for the future.

ImaCake 2y ago
I mean the only real tell for me is how expensive this stunt would be. I personally think this is a really cool use of genAI. But the consequences will be far reaching.
- lelandfe 2y ago
  Some of the comments were like, "come on guys, if this was real it would be way dirtier"
dagmx 2y ago
Most people have terrible eyes for distinguishing content. I’ve worked in CG for many years and despite the online nerd fests that decry CG imagery in films, 99% of those people can’t tell what’s CG or not unless it’s incredibly obvious. It’s the same for GenAI, though I think there are more tells. Still, most people cannot tell reality from fiction. If you just tell them it’s real, they’ll most likely believe it.
- dmazzoni 2y ago
  > I’ve worked in CG for many years and despite the online nerd fests that decry CG imagery in films, 99% of those people can’t tell what’s CG or not unless it’s incredibly obvious. I've noticed people assume things are CG that turn out to be practical effects, or 90% practical with just a bit of CG to add detail.
  - dagmx 2y ago
    Yep I’ve had that happen many times , where people assume my work is real and the practical is CG. Worse, directors often lie about what’s practical and we’ll have replaced it with CG. So people online will cheer the “practicals” as being better visually, while not knowing what they’re even looking at. I’ve seen interviews with actors even where they talk about how they look in a given shot or have done something, and not realize they’re not even really in the shot anymore. People just have terrible eyes once you can convince them something is a certain way.
    - Der_Einzige 2y ago
      But films without CG are clearly superior and it’s not even in contention. Lawrence of Arabia or Cleopatra alone have incredible fully live shot special effects which can not be easily replicated with CG and have aged like fine wine, unlike the trash early CG of the 80s and 90s which ruined otherwise great films like the last starfighter
      - dagmx 2y ago
        I’m sorry, but you make an absurd argument. You’re taking the best films of an era and comparing them to an arbitrary list of movies you don’t like? Adding to that, you’re comparing it to films in the infancy of a technology? This is peak confusion of causality and correlation. There are tons of great films in that time frame with CG. Unless you’re going to argue that Jurassic Park is bad.
        jacobr1 2y ago
        Jurassic Park isn't just a good example of CG, it also a good example of making the right choices on practical vs CG (in the context of technology of the time) and using a reasonable budget. You can have great CG and crappy CG by cutting corners. Plenty of people that decry CG don't actually know how much there is, even in non-sci-fi movies like romcoms, just for post-editing. But when it is done well nobody notices, the complaints only come when it looks like crap. Great use of technology to achieve the artistic vision will stand the test of time.
- qingcharles 2y ago
  The worst bit about working in CG, or film-making in general, is finding it harder to enjoy films because you are hypersensitized to bad work.
  - dagmx 2y ago
    Yeah, totally. It’s not even just bad work, but I’m constantly breaking down shots as I’m watching them. Especially because I’ve done both on set and virtual production, it’s hard to suspend disbelief in a lot of films.
- circlefavshape 2y ago
  > Still, most people cannot tell reality from fiction. If you just tell them it’s real, they’ll most likely believe it. This goes for conversation too! My neighbour recently told me about a mutual neighbour who walks 200 miles per day working on his farm. When I explained that this is impossible he said "I'll have to disagree with you there"
  - schoen 2y ago
    Maybe not strictly impossible, just slightly better than an ultramarathon world record pace? https://www.reddit.com/r/Ultramarathon/comments/xhbs4d/sorokin_runs_new_24_hour_world_record_over_198/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Ultramarathon/comments/xhbs4d/sorok... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Sorokin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Sorokin So, not very convenient for a non-world-champion runner to do (let alone while doing farm work) (let alone on more than one occasion).
  - Cthulhu_ 2y ago
    That's a cultural issue that seems to have developed in the past years (decades? idk), where people take their own opinion (or what they think is their own opinion) as unchallengeable gospel. In my opinion anyway, I'm gonna have to disagree with any counterpoints in advance.
    - mandmandam 2y ago
      What's weird is the projection you get when you challenge someone's opinion in any way. All of a sudden, you're the arrogant one who thinks they're always right, no matter how diplomatic (or undeniably correct) about the issue you are. Or is that just me?
    - dagmx 2y ago
      This is partially the result of being taught that every opinion is valid. What was taught as a nicety (don’t dismiss other people’s opinions was the intention) has evolved into all opinions are equal. If all opinions are equal, and we’ve reinforced that you can find anything to strengthen an opinion, then facts don’t actually matter. But I don’t think it’s actually all that recent. History is full of people saying that facts or logic don’t matter. The Americas were “discovered” by such a phenomenon.
- 5040 2y ago
  >Most people have terrible eyes for distinguishing content A related phenomenon is not being able to hear the difference between 128kbps and 320kbps. I find the notion astonishing, and yet lots of people cannot tell the difference.
- lancesells 2y ago
  > Most people have terrible eyes for distinguishing content. But also in the case of the fluffy train there's nothing to compare it against. The reason CGI humans look the most fake is because we're trained from birth to read a human face. Someone that looks at trains on a regular basis will probably discern this as being fake quicker than most.
starshadowx2 2y ago
The face of the girl on the left at the start in the first second should have been a giveaway.
- Perseids 2y ago
  My intuition went for video compression artifact instead of AI modeling problem. There is even a moment directly before the cut that can be interpreted as the next key frame clearing up the face. To be honest, the whole video could have fooled me. There is definitely an aspect in discerning these videos that can be trained just by watching more of them with a critical eye, so try to be kind to those that did not concern themselves with generative AI as much as you have.
  - yccs27 2y ago
    Yeah, it's unfortunate that video compression already introduces artifacts into real videos, so minor genAI artifacts don't stand out. It also took me a while to find any truly unambiguous signs of AI generation. For example, the reflection on the inside of the windows is wonky, but in real life warped glass can also produce weird reflections. I finally found a dark rectangle inside the door window, which at first stays fixed like a sign on the glass. However it then begins to move like part of the reflection, which really broke the illusion for me.
- vlovich123 2y ago
  Hard to not discount that as a compression artifact.
- booleandilemma 2y ago
  No one is looking at her face though, they're looking at the giant hello kitty train. And you were only looking at her face because you were told it's an AI-generated video. I agree with superfrank that extreme skepticism of everything seen online is going to have to be the default, unfortunately.
- tim333 2y ago
  Also "HELLO KITTY" being backwards is odd - writting on trains doesn't normally come out like that eg https://www.groupe-sncf.com/medias-publics/styles/crop_1_1/public/2024-02/trainautonome-sncf-illim-square.jpg.webp?itok=5EmTJcIy https://www.groupe-sncf.com/medias-publics/styles/crop_1_1/p...
superfrank 2y ago
I know there are people acting like this is obvious that this is AI, but I get why people wouldn't catch it, even if they know that AI is capable of creating a video like this. A) Most of the give aways are pretty subtle and not what viewers are focused on. Sure, if you look closely the fur blends in with the pavement in some places, but I'm not going to spend 5 minutes investigating every video I see for hints of AI. B) Even if I did notice something like that, I'm much more likely to write it off as a video filter glitch, a weird video perspective, or just low quality video. For example, when they show the inside of the car, the vertical handrails seem to bend in a weird way as the train moves, but I've seen similar things from real videos with wide angle lenses. Similar thoughts on one of the bystander's faces going blurry. I think we just have to get people comfortable with the idea that you shouldn't trust a single unknown entity as the source or truth on things because everything can be faked. For insignificant things like this it doesn't matter, but for big things you need multiple independent sources. That's definitely an uphill battle and who knows if we can do it, but that's the only way we're going to get out the other side of this in one piece.
- jasinjames 2y ago
  I agree. Also, tangentially related: I use a black and white filter on my phone, and it is way harder to distinguish fake and real media without the color channels to help. I couldn't immediately find anything in the subway clip which gave it away.
  - yieldcrv 2y ago
    I've definitely seen skin blurring filters that everyone already uses to make it really hard to know
  - lelandfe 2y ago
    Hijacking this top comment to say that I found the AI video creator: https://www.instagram.com/bugugugugu_aigc/ https://www.instagram.com/bugugugugu_aigc/
- nihil2501 2y ago
  I'm beginning to write off most images as AI. I actually think that's where this is all headed.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
darkerside 2y ago
People are smart enough to know that what you see in movies isn't real. It will just take a little time for people to realize that now applies to all videos and images.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- nihil2501 2y ago
  The frequency is so high, and I am getting so burned out on checking comments to gauge how much everything is changing, that I've nearly given up subconsciously. Pretty close to just ignoring all images I see.
krick 2y ago
Looks dope though. But what impressed me recently was some crypto-scam video, featuring "a clip" from Lex Fridman Podcast where Elon Musk "reveals" his new crypto or whatever (sadly, the one I saw is currently deleted). It didn't really look good, they were talking with weird pauses and intonations, and as awkward these 2 normally are, here they were even more unnatural. There was so much audacity to it I laughed out loud. But what I was thinking while enjoying the show was: people wouldn't do that, if it didn't work. This is the point. There is no such thing as "completely fools commenters". I mean, it didn't fool you, apparently. (But don't be sad, I bet you were fooled by something else: you just don't know it, obviously.) But some of it always fools somebody. I really liked how Thiel mentioned on some podcast that ChatGPT successfully passed Turing test, which was implicitly assumed to be "the holy grail of AI", and nobody really noticed. This is completely true. We don't really think about ChatGPT, as something that passes Turing test, we think how fucking stupid useless thing mislead you with some mistake in calculations you decided to delegate to it. But realistically, if it doesn't it's only because it is specifically trained to try to avoid passing it.
- vintermann 2y ago
  > people wouldn't do that, if it didn't work. You can't assume that with scams. Quite often, scams are themselves sold as a get-rich-quick scheme, which like all GRQ schemes, they wouldn't be if they worked well.
- coffeebeqn 2y ago
  If someone were to train a model on Joe Rogan podcasts whole run, I’m sure it would spit out extremely impressive fake results already
- lelandfe 2y ago
  I wish you were right that there is no way to completely fool viewers, but I know you are not. I was fooled! Note that I call out "AIGC." If that wasn't there (I only noticed it on repeat views), I would have simply had no way to tell. These are early, primitive AI generated videos, and I'm already unable to differentiate. Many in this thread talk about movie CG; there are countless movie scenes that fool all viewers.
matwood 2y ago
The bigger problem is that people think something this ridiculous could happen.
- marci 2y ago
  Weirder things have been created. I could definitely see one being made for a movie.
coffeebeqn 2y ago
One of the clearest signs in the current gen is that the typography looks bad still.
espadrine 2y ago
> I'm quite nervous for the future. Videos like these were already achievable through VFX. The only difference here is a reduction in costs. That does mean that more people will produce misinformation, but the problem is one that we have had time to tackle, and which gave rise to Snopes and many others.
peab 2y ago
Think about this: you very well may have already seen AI videos that fooled you - you wouldn't know if you did.
nurettin 2y ago
This is definitely something the Japanese would do, but it is not a real train unless a thousand salarymen are crammed into it.

ImaCake 2y ago

I mean the only real tell for me is how expensive this stunt would be. I personally think this is a really cool use of genAI. But the consequences will be far reaching.

lelandfe 2y ago
Some of the comments were like, "come on guys, if this was real it would be way dirtier"

dagmx 2y ago

Most people have terrible eyes for distinguishing content. I’ve worked in CG for many years and despite the online nerd fests that decry CG imagery in films, 99% of those people can’t tell what’s CG or not unless it’s incredibly obvious. It’s the same for GenAI, though I think there are more tells. Still, most people cannot tell reality from fiction. If you just tell them it’s real, they’ll most likely believe it.

dmazzoni 2y ago
> I’ve worked in CG for many years and despite the online nerd fests that decry CG imagery in films, 99% of those people can’t tell what’s CG or not unless it’s incredibly obvious. I've noticed people assume things are CG that turn out to be practical effects, or 90% practical with just a bit of CG to add detail.
- dagmx 2y ago
  Yep I’ve had that happen many times , where people assume my work is real and the practical is CG. Worse, directors often lie about what’s practical and we’ll have replaced it with CG. So people online will cheer the “practicals” as being better visually, while not knowing what they’re even looking at. I’ve seen interviews with actors even where they talk about how they look in a given shot or have done something, and not realize they’re not even really in the shot anymore. People just have terrible eyes once you can convince them something is a certain way.
  - Der_Einzige 2y ago
    But films without CG are clearly superior and it’s not even in contention. Lawrence of Arabia or Cleopatra alone have incredible fully live shot special effects which can not be easily replicated with CG and have aged like fine wine, unlike the trash early CG of the 80s and 90s which ruined otherwise great films like the last starfighter
    - dagmx 2y ago
      I’m sorry, but you make an absurd argument. You’re taking the best films of an era and comparing them to an arbitrary list of movies you don’t like? Adding to that, you’re comparing it to films in the infancy of a technology? This is peak confusion of causality and correlation. There are tons of great films in that time frame with CG. Unless you’re going to argue that Jurassic Park is bad.
      - jacobr1 2y ago
        Jurassic Park isn't just a good example of CG, it also a good example of making the right choices on practical vs CG (in the context of technology of the time) and using a reasonable budget. You can have great CG and crappy CG by cutting corners. Plenty of people that decry CG don't actually know how much there is, even in non-sci-fi movies like romcoms, just for post-editing. But when it is done well nobody notices, the complaints only come when it looks like crap. Great use of technology to achieve the artistic vision will stand the test of time.
qingcharles 2y ago
The worst bit about working in CG, or film-making in general, is finding it harder to enjoy films because you are hypersensitized to bad work.
- dagmx 2y ago
  Yeah, totally. It’s not even just bad work, but I’m constantly breaking down shots as I’m watching them. Especially because I’ve done both on set and virtual production, it’s hard to suspend disbelief in a lot of films.
circlefavshape 2y ago
> Still, most people cannot tell reality from fiction. If you just tell them it’s real, they’ll most likely believe it. This goes for conversation too! My neighbour recently told me about a mutual neighbour who walks 200 miles per day working on his farm. When I explained that this is impossible he said "I'll have to disagree with you there"
- schoen 2y ago
  Maybe not strictly impossible, just slightly better than an ultramarathon world record pace? https://www.reddit.com/r/Ultramarathon/comments/xhbs4d/sorokin_runs_new_24_hour_world_record_over_198/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Ultramarathon/comments/xhbs4d/sorok... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Sorokin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Sorokin So, not very convenient for a non-world-champion runner to do (let alone while doing farm work) (let alone on more than one occasion).
- Cthulhu_ 2y ago
  That's a cultural issue that seems to have developed in the past years (decades? idk), where people take their own opinion (or what they think is their own opinion) as unchallengeable gospel. In my opinion anyway, I'm gonna have to disagree with any counterpoints in advance.
  - mandmandam 2y ago
    What's weird is the projection you get when you challenge someone's opinion in any way. All of a sudden, you're the arrogant one who thinks they're always right, no matter how diplomatic (or undeniably correct) about the issue you are. Or is that just me?
  - dagmx 2y ago
    This is partially the result of being taught that every opinion is valid. What was taught as a nicety (don’t dismiss other people’s opinions was the intention) has evolved into all opinions are equal. If all opinions are equal, and we’ve reinforced that you can find anything to strengthen an opinion, then facts don’t actually matter. But I don’t think it’s actually all that recent. History is full of people saying that facts or logic don’t matter. The Americas were “discovered” by such a phenomenon.
5040 2y ago
>Most people have terrible eyes for distinguishing content A related phenomenon is not being able to hear the difference between 128kbps and 320kbps. I find the notion astonishing, and yet lots of people cannot tell the difference.
lancesells 2y ago
> Most people have terrible eyes for distinguishing content. But also in the case of the fluffy train there's nothing to compare it against. The reason CGI humans look the most fake is because we're trained from birth to read a human face. Someone that looks at trains on a regular basis will probably discern this as being fake quicker than most.

starshadowx2 2y ago

The face of the girl on the left at the start in the first second should have been a giveaway.

Perseids 2y ago
My intuition went for video compression artifact instead of AI modeling problem. There is even a moment directly before the cut that can be interpreted as the next key frame clearing up the face. To be honest, the whole video could have fooled me. There is definitely an aspect in discerning these videos that can be trained just by watching more of them with a critical eye, so try to be kind to those that did not concern themselves with generative AI as much as you have.
- yccs27 2y ago
  Yeah, it's unfortunate that video compression already introduces artifacts into real videos, so minor genAI artifacts don't stand out. It also took me a while to find any truly unambiguous signs of AI generation. For example, the reflection on the inside of the windows is wonky, but in real life warped glass can also produce weird reflections. I finally found a dark rectangle inside the door window, which at first stays fixed like a sign on the glass. However it then begins to move like part of the reflection, which really broke the illusion for me.
vlovich123 2y ago
Hard to not discount that as a compression artifact.
booleandilemma 2y ago
No one is looking at her face though, they're looking at the giant hello kitty train. And you were only looking at her face because you were told it's an AI-generated video. I agree with superfrank that extreme skepticism of everything seen online is going to have to be the default, unfortunately.
tim333 2y ago
Also "HELLO KITTY" being backwards is odd - writting on trains doesn't normally come out like that eg https://www.groupe-sncf.com/medias-publics/styles/crop_1_1/public/2024-02/trainautonome-sncf-illim-square.jpg.webp?itok=5EmTJcIy https://www.groupe-sncf.com/medias-publics/styles/crop_1_1/p...

superfrank 2y ago

I know there are people acting like this is obvious that this is AI, but I get why people wouldn't catch it, even if they know that AI is capable of creating a video like this. A) Most of the give aways are pretty subtle and not what viewers are focused on. Sure, if you look closely the fur blends in with the pavement in some places, but I'm not going to spend 5 minutes investigating every video I see for hints of AI. B) Even if I did notice something like that, I'm much more likely to write it off as a video filter glitch, a weird video perspective, or just low quality video. For example, when they show the inside of the car, the vertical handrails seem to bend in a weird way as the train moves, but I've seen similar things from real videos with wide angle lenses. Similar thoughts on one of the bystander's faces going blurry. I think we just have to get people comfortable with the idea that you shouldn't trust a single unknown entity as the source or truth on things because everything can be faked. For insignificant things like this it doesn't matter, but for big things you need multiple independent sources. That's definitely an uphill battle and who knows if we can do it, but that's the only way we're going to get out the other side of this in one piece.

jasinjames 2y ago
I agree. Also, tangentially related: I use a black and white filter on my phone, and it is way harder to distinguish fake and real media without the color channels to help. I couldn't immediately find anything in the subway clip which gave it away.
- yieldcrv 2y ago
  I've definitely seen skin blurring filters that everyone already uses to make it really hard to know
- lelandfe 2y ago
  Hijacking this top comment to say that I found the AI video creator: https://www.instagram.com/bugugugugu_aigc/ https://www.instagram.com/bugugugugu_aigc/
nihil2501 2y ago
I'm beginning to write off most images as AI. I actually think that's where this is all headed.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

darkerside 2y ago

People are smart enough to know that what you see in movies isn't real. It will just take a little time for people to realize that now applies to all videos and images.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
nihil2501 2y ago
The frequency is so high, and I am getting so burned out on checking comments to gauge how much everything is changing, that I've nearly given up subconsciously. Pretty close to just ignoring all images I see.

krick 2y ago

Looks dope though. But what impressed me recently was some crypto-scam video, featuring "a clip" from Lex Fridman Podcast where Elon Musk "reveals" his new crypto or whatever (sadly, the one I saw is currently deleted). It didn't really look good, they were talking with weird pauses and intonations, and as awkward these 2 normally are, here they were even more unnatural. There was so much audacity to it I laughed out loud. But what I was thinking while enjoying the show was: people wouldn't do that, if it didn't work. This is the point. There is no such thing as "completely fools commenters". I mean, it didn't fool you, apparently. (But don't be sad, I bet you were fooled by something else: you just don't know it, obviously.) But some of it always fools somebody. I really liked how Thiel mentioned on some podcast that ChatGPT successfully passed Turing test, which was implicitly assumed to be "the holy grail of AI", and nobody really noticed. This is completely true. We don't really think about ChatGPT, as something that passes Turing test, we think how fucking stupid useless thing mislead you with some mistake in calculations you decided to delegate to it. But realistically, if it doesn't it's only because it is specifically trained to try to avoid passing it.

vintermann 2y ago
> people wouldn't do that, if it didn't work. You can't assume that with scams. Quite often, scams are themselves sold as a get-rich-quick scheme, which like all GRQ schemes, they wouldn't be if they worked well.
coffeebeqn 2y ago
If someone were to train a model on Joe Rogan podcasts whole run, I’m sure it would spit out extremely impressive fake results already
lelandfe 2y ago
I wish you were right that there is no way to completely fool viewers, but I know you are not. I was fooled! Note that I call out "AIGC." If that wasn't there (I only noticed it on repeat views), I would have simply had no way to tell. These are early, primitive AI generated videos, and I'm already unable to differentiate. Many in this thread talk about movie CG; there are countless movie scenes that fool all viewers.

matwood 2y ago

The bigger problem is that people think something this ridiculous could happen.

marci 2y ago
Weirder things have been created. I could definitely see one being made for a movie.

coffeebeqn 2y ago

One of the clearest signs in the current gen is that the typography looks bad still.

espadrine 2y ago

> I'm quite nervous for the future. Videos like these were already achievable through VFX. The only difference here is a reduction in costs. That does mean that more people will produce misinformation, but the problem is one that we have had time to tackle, and which gave rise to Snopes and many others.

peab 2y ago

Think about this: you very well may have already seen AI videos that fooled you - you wouldn't know if you did.

nurettin 2y ago

This is definitely something the Japanese would do, but it is not a real train unless a thousand salarymen are crammed into it.