this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2024
37 points (91.1% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35786 readers
1255 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 39 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Hawke@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Better title: “Photographers complain when their use of AI is identified as such”

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago

"It was just a so little itsy bitsy teeny weeny AI edit!!"

Please don't flag AI please!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] hperrin@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

The label is accurate. Quit using AI if you don’t want your images labeled as such.

[–] nutsack@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

I saw a video posted by someone who claimed to have taught their cat how to skateboard. and at the bottom it was tagged made with AI.

meta w

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 months ago

This isn't really Facebook. This is Adobe not drawing a distinction between smart pattern recognition for backgrounds/textures and real image generation of primary content.

[–] Uncaged_Jay@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

I saw this coming from a mile away. We will now have to set standards for what's considered "made by AI" and "Made with AI"

[–] TastyWheat@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

Hey guys, I cheated in my exam using AI but I was the one who actually wrote down the answer. Why did I fail?

[–] WatDabney@sopuli.xyz 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

No - I don't agree that they're completely different.

"Made by AI" would be completely different.

"Made with AI" actually means pretty much the exact same thing as "AI was used in this image" - it's just that the former lays it out baldly and the latter softens the impact by using indirect language.

I can certainly see how "photographers" who use AI in their images would tend to prefer the latter, but bluntly, fuck 'em. If they can't handle the shame of the fact that they did so they should stop doing it - get up off their asses and invest some time and effort into doing it all themselves. And if they can't manage that, they should stop pretending to be artists.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] magnetosphere@fedia.io 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That person who makes the peanut analogy needs a slap in the head.

[–] WolfLink@sh.itjust.works -2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

It’s exaggerated but it gets the point across: I too would like to know if AI tools were used to make even part of the image.

There’s a reason any editing is banned from many photography contests.

If they want to make a distinction between “made using AI” and “entirely AI generated”, sure. But “made using AI” completely accurately describes an image that used AI to generate parts of the image that were inconvenient in the original photo.

[–] cypherpunks@lemmy.ml -1 points 4 months ago

brent rambo thumbs up kid gif animation meme

rare meta w

[–] harrys_balzac@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 4 months ago

Why many word when few good?

Seriously though, "AI" itself is misleading but if they want to be ignorant and whiny about it, then they should be labeled just as they are.

What they really seem to want is an automatic metadata tag that is more along the lines of "a human took this picture and then used 'AI' tools to modify it."

That may not work because by using Adobe products, the original metadata is being overwritten so Thotagram doesn't know that a photographer took the original.

A photographer could actually just type a little explanation ("I took this picture and then used Gen Fill only") in a plain text document, save it to their desktop, and copy & paste it in.

But then everyone would know that the image had been modified - which is what they're trying to avoid. They want everyone to believe that the picture they're posting is 100% their work.

[–] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee -2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I agree pretty heartily with this metadata signing approach to sussing out AI content,

Create a cert org that verifies that a given piece of creative software properly signs work made with their tools, get eyeballs on the cert so consumers know to look for it, watch and laugh while everyone who can't get thr cert starts trying to claim they're being censored because nobody trusts any of their shit anymore.

Bonus points if you can get the largest social media companies to only accept content that has the signing and have it flag when signs indicate photoshopping or AI work, or removal of another artist's watermark.

[–] Schmeckinger@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

That simply won't work, since you could just use a tool to recreate a Ai image 1:1, or extract the signing code and sign whatever you want.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world -3 points 4 months ago (3 children)

The opposite way could work, though. A label that guarantees the image isn't [created with AI / digitally edited in specific areas / overall digitally adjusted / edited at all]. I wonder if that's cryptographically viable? Of course it would have to start at the camera itself to work properly.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee -3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

There are ways to secure signatures to be a problem to recreate, not to mention how the signature can be unique to every piece of media made, meaning a fake can't be created reliably.

[–] Schmeckinger@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

How are you gonna prevent recreating a Ai image pixel by pixel or just importing a Ai image/taking a photo of one.

[–] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee -4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Importing and screen capping software can also have the certificate software on and sign it with the metadata of the original file they're copying, taking a picture of the screen with a separate device or pixel by pixel recreations could in theory get around it, but in practice, people will see at best a camera image being presented as a photoshopped or paintmade image, and at worst, some loser pointing their phone at their laptop to try and pass off something dishonestly. Pixel by pixel recreations, again, software can be given the metadata stamp, and if sites refuse to accept non stamped content, going pixel by pixel on unvetted software will just leave you with a neat png file for your trouble, and doing it manually, yeah if someone's going through and hand placing squares just to slip a single deep fake picture through, that person's a state actor and that's a whole other can of worms.

ETA: you can also sign the pixel art creation as pixel art based on it being a creation of squares, so that would tip people off in the signature notes of a post.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›