this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2023
32 points (84.8% liked)

AI Generated Images

7169 readers
218 users here now

Community for AI image generation. Any models are allowed. Creativity is valuable! It is recommended to post the model used for reference, but not a rule.

No explicit violence, gore, or nudity.

This is not a NSFW community although exceptions are sometimes made. Any NSFW posts must be marked as NSFW and may be removed at any moderator's discretion. Any suggestive imagery may be removed at any time.

Refer to https://lemmynsfw.com/ for any NSFW imagery.

No misconduct: Harassment, Abuse or assault, Bullying, Illegal activity, Discrimination, Racism, Trolling, Bigotry.

AI Generated Videos are allowed under the same rules. Photosensitivity warning required for any flashing videos.

To embed images type:

“![](put image url in here)”

Follow all sh.itjust.works rules.


Community Challenge Past Entries

Related communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 1984@lemmy.today 5 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Doesn't look fake to me actually.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 4 points 11 months ago (3 children)

I mean, it looks fine to me too, though if you know that it's generated and can look at it, I guess it's possible to meet the lower bar of finding things that are off.

If someone is taking a picture with a sunset in the background, then their face should be in shadow.

https://live.staticflickr.com/7008/13532530895_a52ee219eb.jpg

[–] thelsim@sh.itjust.works 3 points 11 months ago

That’s true, but it could just as well be an instagram filter? So many photos nowadays are heavily processed.
Besides the lighting, the only thing I could find are the straps on her top that seem to get a bit mixed up.

[–] Deceptichum@kbin.social 3 points 11 months ago

Also the straps on the shirt are all sorts of fucky.

[–] 1984@lemmy.today 1 points 11 months ago

True, didn't think about that.

[–] AtmaJnana@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

It does if you have seen a lot of AI images, especially SD.

[–] otter@lemmy.ca 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It's cool how quickly the brain can pick out the subtle issues, despite how near perfect the image is

[–] P1r4nha@feddit.de 9 points 11 months ago (1 children)

True, but only when you expect it. I've seen real pictures with weird lighting before and if I didn't know they were real, I would've thought of Photoshop. With some experience you know what to look for, but there have already been plenty of studies showing that AI persons can not properly be distinguished from real people in pictures.

[–] otter@lemmy.ca 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Definitely true

I wonder if we're going to end up with a new field of forensic medicine determining if media is real based on subtle anatomy/biomechanics details. Even if the person is real, a particular photo or video might not be

[–] P1r4nha@feddit.de 5 points 11 months ago

Also at what point is an image altered? Every camera has an ISP that improves image quality, so that shouldn't be counted as an alteration, even if it can impact the image quite significantly. Then there's manual tools like photoshop, which can do things like the ISP, but also a lot more and then you got some "AI" tools that blur the lines even more. At least CNNs are just filter banks with learned kernels (to be very reductive). The cut is a bit clearer with diffusion image generation and similar tech, as that stuff is just clearly fake, but what about img-to-img diffusion?

[–] salt@lemmings.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

!aiphotography@lemmings.world

[–] rikudou@lemmings.world 1 points 11 months ago

It was there already.