this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2024
48 points (86.4% liked)

AI Generated Images

7065 readers
498 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
 

1.
2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

top 29 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] drkt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 5 months ago

They're all AI because whatever phone took those pictures has AI upscaling

[–] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Assuming some are real and some are fake, my bet is 1 and 3 are fake.

[–] HeyLow@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

1 and 6 have look to be the same location Edit: read the numbers wrong I meant 0 and 6

[–] Muscle_Meteor@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 5 months ago

AI, those trees have too many fingers..

[–] CyberDine@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)
  1. Fake

2 . Real 3. Fake 4. Real 5. Fake 6. Real

[–] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 months ago

You are correct! 0 is also real.

[–] ItsAFake@lemmus.org 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Are AI images I'm pretty sure, a lot of odd hashing of lines in some of those distant trees.

[–] tyler@programming.dev 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

1, 3, 5 are all fake. Rest are real, including 0.

[–] Person264@lemmings.world 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

0 has extra reflections of vertical trunks that aren't on the shoreline

[–] tyler@programming.dev 1 points 5 months ago

Those are just actual sticks sticking out of the water…

[–] dysprosium@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You gonna tell us the answer?

[–] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 8 points 5 months ago

I am, but I was going to wait until at least the middle of the afternoon.

[–] sukhmel@programming.dev 4 points 5 months ago

I agree with many others, 1, 3, 5 look most suspicious (assuming numbers precede pictures)

Others seem to have heavy upscaling but it doesn't tend to become too patterned. In 1, 3, 5 grass tends to become something like a fractal rather than grass, plus reflections are sometimes off (that is why 2 is a bit suspicious because of a small tree reflection, but maybe it's just hard to see the original tree), and the branches tend to grow from multiple trees at the same time

[–] Jaybob32@lemmy.ca 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

1,3 and 5. They have that weird pattern in the grass and trees. However, it's getting close. I think soon most people would never be able to tell.

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 4 points 5 months ago

Nature shots have been cheating for a while, because most errors are still plausible.

The major tell is how screen-space anything is. In real life, there's very few angles where the top of a close thing stops at the bottom of a far thing... but neural networks aren't modeling depth. Probably. So things are tangent or coincident all the dang time. Even in the patterns of grass and brush and whatnot, where the network does T-junction patterns like brickwork or cracked pottery, when it should be closer to woven or thatched.

[–] mouserat@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 5 months ago

I guess 5 and 6 are real

[–] Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee 2 points 5 months ago
  1. Is definitely AI

About the rest I'm not sure. 3. and 5. look a bit suspicious

[–] HeyLow@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago

The only one that looks like AI to me is 2

[–] And009@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 5 months ago

Only 4 looks real to me. Rest AI

My guess is they're all real except #5. That one doesn't have as many good reflections off the water.

[–] BlueEther@no.lastname.nz 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)
0, very good, but I feel the grass on the bottom left is off (see comment on 6, probably real)
1, the dead grass on the right looks off
2, the trees to the top left look shifty 
3, the dead sedg/grass in the center looks too even
4, might be real
5, the dead grass again looks off
6, same location and time as 0, either the same seed or real
[–] cosmicrookie@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

1 the tree in the middle is a dead giveaway. Same with 3

[–] seaQueue@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

With the HDR effect added to these it's honestly difficult to tell which are generations and which are just heavily post processed

[–] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 months ago

In this instance these are straight out of the camera jpegs. I did zero post processing.

[–] dysprosium@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)
[–] dysprosium@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

All looks more than plausible, even the tree in the middle of the water in 0 and 6

[–] livus@kbin.social 2 points 5 months ago

5 is the only one that looks real to me.

[–] TommySoda@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

1, 3, 5, and 6. The grass is all funky on 1, 3, and 5. The tree and grass on the far left side of 6 is all smeared and stretchy.

I think its AI on 1,5, & 6