5 ms·
Can you tell which images are AI-generated?
- spottedmarley 1mo agoMy method is simple: Did I create the image myself? Yes: Not AI No: AI
- lucaslazarus 1mo agoAI vs Aye, it was I
- SmasherEpilepti 1mo ago> 60 seconds to find out. > 90s round, 10s per image > Play 60 seconds This is confusing. What does "90s round" mean if it's a 60 second game? Is it about the 1990s?
- muzani 1mo ago"Made with ♥ by Codex"
- EA-3167 1mo agoSlop all the way down, I guess at least if we’re being charitable. If we’re being less charitable this is trying to gamify getting free training data.
- skeledrew 1mo agoWe all been forced to help train Google's CAPTCHA for years for free, with no benefit. At least here you decide to opt-in or not, and it can potentially help you be more... discerning.
- ffsm8 1mo agoNow I'm worried Google adds this check to its captcha questions to improve it's own model: tell the ai image
- singleshot_ 1mo agoWait, did I miss something? Wasn't that the point the entire time?
- sph 1mo agoAnother pro-AI psyop to show that AI generated content is perfectly fine, created by cunning machines and spread through mindless meat proxies glad to do their bidding. /s but also not really.
- orr94 1mo agoMy most effective strategy is to ask: is there any reason for a human to take this picture? One AI-generated image was a bedside night stand, with no clutter other than a set of keys on top of a receipt. It looked perfectly real, no glitches or weirdness... other than the idea of someone taking a picture of it. Not a perfect strategy, though; I thought this one was AI for just that reason: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Potted_plant_1_2018-10-09.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Potted_plant_1_2018-...
- markstos 1mo agoBut then, some people specialize in taking photos that others would not because they have in mind stock photos, art or something else. They see the world differently.
- hn_throwaway_99 1mo agoThere are tons of real stock photos with that type of mundane content.
- Retr0id 1mo agoStock photos and AI images might as well be in the same category tbh.
- trombuance 1mo ago[dead]
- parsimo2010 1mo agoNot bad. I’d appreciate a much longer time limit. Got really rushed at the end. But this was crazy hard on my phone, I was straight guessing most of the time. I think I could be a little better with more time on a desktop screen. Another idea would be games that were all pictures of a single category- like 10 AI and 10 real pictures of basketballs, or food on plates, etc.
- Insanity 1mo agoBut I think that your experience is actually the useful one that proves a point. Most people consume content on their phone (e.g instagram) and would usually just scroll by photos. They wouldn’t deeply analyze them.
- skeledrew 1mo agoI think the point is to be able to tell at a glance. People don't examine every image they look at.
- parsimo2010 1mo agoI mean that is a conclusion that I agree with, but I’d also like to see if I can do better if given more time on a bigger screen.
- variety8675 1mo agoI realized this is only somewhat difficult because of the 10s timer. Most people probably don’t spend more than 10s looking at a picture on social media, excellent project.
- hn_throwaway_99 1mo agoI thought that at first, but a comment below enlightened me. These types of games are a great way to get free training data.
- variety8675 1mo agoGreat point, in the privacy disclosure they confirm they're collecting the training data. > Reality Check records visits, round starts and finishes, image views, answers, response times....records are stored in Cloudflare D1
- djmips 1mo agoWell I guess it's good that I picked AI image for every image...
- deleted 1mo ago[deleted]
- ori_b 1mo agoWe get it. AI slop is getting good enough to replace photography. This isn't good for humans, and makes the world a worse place. The fact that the suck machine works isn't something to be proud of.
- t-writescode 1mo agoThat’s not what they’re saying. They’re challenging the “I can always tell” people who are both proud and regularly wrong. As fake news becomes more and more real and with photo evidence, this matters more and more.
- moron4hire 1mo agoAnother poster in this threads commented that their strategy was to question why anyone would take the photo that was presented. I think this touches on one of the most important issues with this whole schoolyard level argument of "I can tell" and "no you can't." That is: what is even the point of all of this? I had funding for a project I had proposed at work yanked out from under me because I had refused to vibe code the whole thing. I had proposed the project to create a tool that would be beneficial to my division, which represents a good 25% of the company's revenue (we're a consulting company). It had the enthusiastic support of my entire direct leadership line, very heavy hitters in the company. But the executives in charge of the internal R&D budget have their own agenda of pushing AI out on everything to gin up this idea that our company is "AI forward." Nevermind that our IT infrastructure is a joke, we need to play a game to convince non-existent investors that we are suddenly, out of the blue, after 50 years, a "technology company" when what we really do well is manage client relationships. The executive I was closest to at one point told me I had failed because I hadn't used AI to tell me what the requirements for the project should be, that I was just doing "whatever I wanted." If I were really doing whatever I wanted, I would not be building some kind of data management analysis workflow whatever. I designed the project around exactly the sort of thing that would benefit our direct line analysts. I don't need to be told what the requirements are, I know then intimately from working with these people for years. But because I was not using AI to tell me what to build and using AI to build it for me, I am being "behind the times." Another executive told me it wouldn't matter if I succeeded at the project if I didn't use AI to build all of it. Another time he told me it wouldn't matter if the project was any good, so long as I used AI to build it. What is even the point? Why would I abdicate everything to AI? I know what I'm doing and I know how to do it. But that is unimaginable to the AI-pilled executive class. They are so used to not knowing how to do anything that they can't imagine anyone else actually knows how to do their job.
- uncomputation 1mo agoHmm… training data siphon?
- VCFundedGenYer 1mo agoImpossible to do on a phone. Zooming in is misinterpreted as a choice. Fix the game. Also the time limit is stupid and pointless.
- sigspec 1mo agoSomeone got a low score
- serf 1mo ago>Also the time limit is stupid and pointless. it's harder to tell at a glance rather than pulling out a magnifying glass and counting the fingers of everyone in each group; the time limit pressures the player into making underqualified guesses.. it's not pointless.
- ajmurmann 1mo agoI didn't get the zoom bug but zooming in to look at it and zooming out to get back to the buttons to practically the entire 10s
- someguynamedq 1mo agoThe time limit is obviously an important part of this
- Retr0id 1mo agoThe time limit did make it quite challenging. I got 1,000 points with a max streak of 8 in a row. On second playthrough I got 3,550 / 12. It seems the AI images all come from a particular area of latent space that's quite easy to recognize once you get dialled in. So it's more of a "can you detect the GPT Image 2.5 house style", which is an easier problem. I'd appreciate an untimed mode.
- JasonSage 1mo agoI agree, there's patterns that aren't hard to recognize if you have some experience. I got 2400 with 10 in a row on first attempt. Here's the entire decision matrix: - Is the color, mood, composition, and level of detail exactly like most Nano Banana Pro images? If yes, AI. - Is the composition/framing utterly perfect? If yes, AI. - Is the subject ephemeral or random, like a candid photo or something otherwise unlikely to be photographed? If yes, not AI. - Final decision, if there's any doubt, go entirely off of how centered the subject is. I think some of this has more to do with the data set than the methodology. You could easily come up with a bunch of examples to fool me specifically, but alas, they didn't.
- RomanKornev 1mo agoNow add Geoguesser-like battle royale mode with accuracy points for guessing which model generated the image
- deleted 1mo ago[deleted]
- Jowsey 1mo agoI hadn't been exposed to the new GPT-Image-2.5 model before this, so didn't have any "tells" to go off of, and found it almost impossible to begin with, but it seems the brain is pretty good at adapting for visual stuff! After 2 rounds, I was able to build up a 16-image combo, answering most within a second or two. I think the "tell" I ended up with is that almost all of the AI images tend to center around a very obvious main "subject" (a flower, a bike, a wrench, etc) – presumably an inherent artefact of generating from a prompt – with everything else around the subject having a very strange depth to it. The depth, focus, and bokeh around the main subject just never look quite right. If you look at an image and find it has a very strong central subject with a little too much depth separation than expected, there's a good chance it's AI. I recognise that this method of finding a consistent "tell" will probably not hold for future models, unfortunately. Everything else looks almost perfect at this point.
- Retr0id 1mo agoIt's hard to put into words but the "texture" of GPT-Image-2.5 is just a bit off, like the difference between blue noise and white noise. It's like someone turned up the local contrast just a little too high.
- SoylentGreenGPT 1mo agoExactly! The generated images taste different. Also…if you see a perfectly folded towel, it’s probably AI. At least in this set of images.
- thayne 1mo agoThere are occasionally more obvious tells as well, if you look closely. Some examples that I saw: - A boat cast a shadow, but the mooring rope didn't - A bench leg was out of perspective, and didn't touch the ground - In a pile of logs,the ends were sharpened in an unnatural way[0] - In several there seems to be an inconsistent contrast between something that looks more dirty, worn, weathered, etc. while the surroundings are more clean and smooth. Some also feel off in a way that I can't really articulate. [0]: I think the relationship to the prompt was interesting here, the prompt actually asked for a stack of wooden fence posts, but they were really thick for fence posts, and looked more like firewood with a sharpened point. Interestingly, the prompt included the phrase "without excessive sharpening" which I think meant increasing the sharpness of the image, but I wonder if the AI interpreted as referring to the sharpness of the fence posts.
- sean2d 1mo agoIt would be cool if they published stats on how well people do on average, and how that changes over time and with different models. I feel like in a few years we'll either all be much better at this or completely desensitized, and sadly I'm guessing we're trending towards the latter.
- karim79 1mo agoNeat app but it makes me sad. Also I'm very curious as to where the real photos come from and how we can verify that they are indeed real. The timer thing doesn't really add any value, just stress.
- degamad 1mo agoThe result page has links to the source of each real photo.
- al_borland 1mo ago12/17. Due to the speed, I felt like I was just randomly guessing, but 70% correct seems better than random guessing. I did suspect some things. How mundane the AI images were felt like a means to trick people. It doesn’t seem like most people making AI images and posting them are generating still life images of everyday life. What would be the point?
- shmoil 1mo agoTIME'S UP 2,050 points Best streak: 9 in a row Hard af.
- randiantech 1mo agobest strategy: just click as fast as possible.
- 1ow 1mo agoGot 4k by just spamming 2.
- free_bip 1mo agoI'm sure it's not the intended way to play but guessing randomly seems to have a net positive score, so getting a high score is as simple as spamming the buttons as fast as you can. I got 10k on mobile through this strategy.
- Tempest1981 1mo agoPlay the lottery! I got -1350 spamming 2, -400 spamming 1. Feeling unlucky.
- CapsAdmin 1mo agoMy biggest clue is the odd repeating details. Especially on grass, tree leaves, pores, etc Not all image models (or sampler settings) do this, but with gpt it's very obvious. With this in mind, I misjudged 3 images on the default game.
- totetsu 1mo agoI guess the UI is ai generated, and it impossibly to see the images well enough to judge on a phone.
- cwnyth 1mo agoI got 14/16 correct, and the two I got wrong had no people and I was unsure about both. Should have went with my gut.
- fwlr 1mo agoEvery generation prompt has this suffixed: The scene should feel incidentally noticed during daily life, not arranged for an advertisement. Natural perspective and subtle everyday wear. No cinematic grading, stock-photo staging, deliberate blur, artificial grain, fake low resolution, extreme background blur, exaggerated HDR or oversharpening. No collage, border, caption or added watermark. At some point during the process of building up this collection of turd-polishing techniques, the thought should’ve occurred that this is actually a lot of effort to get generations confused for reality. But I suspect this process was being carried out by something that couldn’t have an original thought.
- sitzkrieg 1mo agofreethink is inefficient, schedule this biomass to the remediation chamber
- tgsovlerkhgsel 1mo agoA troll farm will happily go through that effort then (if it's a high effort part of the campaign rather than just 'flooding the zone') pick the images that are most likely to pass.
- slopinthebag 1mo agouh yeah...we need hardware attestation and a protocol to make it work cross platform like, yesterday... holy shit
- charlie90 1mo agoHighest I got was 26 in a row. AI seems to love generating "close up" images of a subject. Its like every image has to have an obvious subject (that was in the prompt), and it struggles to make scenes without a clear subject and more chaotic vibe. I notice this a lot with these "AI movies", every single camera shot has an obvious subject that makes them unbearable to watch, they can't just chill out and have a messy scene.
- diimdeep 1mo agoNo, but we still can tell that this web site is AI-generated slop.
- jan_m_savage 1mo agothis is fair only if i have enough time to decipher.
- tobyhinloopen 1mo agoI failed horribly and might as well used a random coin toss
- henry2023 1mo agotry a couple times and you’ll start getting much better than coin toss.
- phyzix5761 1mo agoIs this a crowd sourced training effort to make their image generator better?
- Lio 1mo agoCan I tell what’s AI generated? Well if I can I’m not going to help train more slop image generation. Bouncing on AI generated button as fast as possible without looking at the images got me 6,000 points.
- nephihaha 1mo agoThe trouble with these tests are that they are themselves training AI. I don't want to let designers know the "tells".
- Havoc 1mo agoWow - I did much worse than I'd have thought. The general lack of humans helps conceal the difference though. Bypasses the uncanny valley problem. I'd contend that most of us would do a bit better on truly random photos Surprised how good the nature/scenery shots are though. When I last played with a (local) image gen I tried making forest scenes and it was terrible at it
- tmtvl 1mo agoI don't get the scoring system: I got 0 points, but I got a streak of 2 in a row. Bizarre.
- prodigycorp 1mo agoPlease give us a fraction or percent of how many we got correct.
- mediumsmart 1mo agonot doable in short time with high certainty which means that from now on an image is only worth a thousand words
- xnx 1mo agoGood reality check for people who proudly boasted about "always" being able to spot AI images.
- SoylentGreenGPT 1mo agoHighest score is 16,800. Highest streak is 60 in a row. I just came to HN to see if I won! Also, I do research on how people perceive images and video. I’ve published a couple papers and did my dissertation on how folks understand moving images. If you’re the developers of this game I’d love to help you parse this data. B L T P H D at V T dot E D U. Something we’ve been discussing in our lab is if people can detect the “taste” of AI. Seems if you play this game enough times, you can at least recognize the differences pretty consistently. I’d love to know how rounds of play improves people’s accuracy.
- SoylentGreenGPT 1mo agoNext time you eat at McDonald’s try to notice the similarities in how things taste. McDonald’s has a flavor profile across all their foods. Everything is a little sweeter and a little saltier but exactly “McDonald’s-like.” My favorite example is the sauces for chicken nuggets. Regardless of the flavor you get, all the sauces have the same consistency and sort of taste like sweet and sour sauce. The honey mustard, the bbq, the buffalo sauce, and even the ranch all taste McDonaldish. My working theory is that AI generated content also has a tatse. Once you can taste it, you are able to easily discern genuine content (which has random tastes) from generated content (which taste like the model it comes from).