Thread 106208508

How do you know if an image is real or AI-generated?

>>106208508 (OP)
by looking at it
really

>>106208508 (OP)
why care?

i can decrypt the pixel matrix in real time

hands cropped out -> doubt

>>106208508 (OP)
Easily noticeable errors such as garbled text or for example in your image, the clock isn't right at all. Sometimes reflections and shadows are off too.

>>106208508 (OP)
I have to admit troons and whores using 99 instagram filters kinda makes it hard to guess

>>106208508 (OP)
there is a giant on the left

>>106208508 (OP)
1st clue is image resolution, 2nd clue is anatomy, 3rd clue is text, 4th clue is horizon level or corners on the wall if indoor, 5th clue is lack of film grain or lack of low light colour banding or posterisation, 6th clue is perfect uniformed light.
It is getting harder and harder though.

do anon really think it's fake?

>>106209759
Yes.

>>106209653
How can you tell by the resolution? Im curious

>>106208508 (OP)
I can tell from some of the pixels and from seeing quite a few AI gens in my time

>>106209411
Textures (at least up to recently) and zippers were never right.

>>106208508 (OP)
The gradients and the lines

>>106210683
AI gens have a limitation on resolution.
The most common ones are 512×512, 768×768 and 1024×1024.
Any image with a resolution that can be divided by 64 on both axes with the result having no decimal point it is very likely to be AI generated.

>>106211161
Colors feel wrong

>>106208508 (OP)
what difference does it make
suppose that picture is fake, what changes will you have to make in your life to adjust to this information

>>106208508 (OP)
I don't

On principle I learned to not trust internet images

Have you seen yaoi doujin of yourself?

Goddamit I didn't knew I was a power top

>>106211982
>doujin of yourself
Fucking genius, finally an ai usecase

>>106208508 (OP)
Develop some taste and that wont be problem anymore because most women will be ugly or average in your eyes.

>>106208508 (OP)
its probably real with a fake file name to make it look like it was made in comfyui

>>106211161
they all have the exact same shape of body, all the same height, all have hats, same type of baggy pants. Too much sameness. also the shading on the fat guy's belly in the back is off

It's like some industries using steel from WW2 shipwrecks because they don't contain isotopes unleashed by the nuclear weapons or something like that
I only deal with things that already existed before around 2021

>>106208558
Hands were solved decades ago retard

>>106208508 (OP)
Eyes are technology.

>>106209653
stop telling the bots how to improve their image generation

>>106208508 (OP)
have you tried not being completely retarded?
BEAHAHGHAHAH

>>106208508 (OP)
Besides the things already mentioned, nonsensical compression artifacts.

if it's pro-cia it's fake

>>106208508 (OP)
Usually strange smoothness or way too much noise, also the eyes can be weird looking sometimes.

>>106211161
Trees are the giveaway. AI struggles badly with getting the trees to look right.

>>106208508 (OP)
It's blurry as all shit, that's a start. Clock is broken, the stuff on the background on the left hand side makes no sense, and so on.

>>106208508 (OP)
I generate thousands of images a day and look at them

Eventually you can just see it

>>106208508 (OP)
Hands, teeth and eyes... AI is crappy on small details.

>>106208508 (OP)
Spend time generating AI images, and you will learn the difference. That said, no one can have a perfect 100% detection rate and some images are just that good. Most generated images have jank of some kind or another.

>>106209491
with no pants on

>>106218172
>>106211072

>>106208508 (OP)
You can still tell just from looking at it, but in a decade it might be impossible to tell what's real or AI

>>106208508 (OP)
i dont know about flux
but diffusion models revert complete noise to a picture. remaining noise undetectable to the human eye can be trained on, and this is why image detectors can identify if the diffusion generated images are AI generated or not.

>>106208508 (OP)
I ask AI

>>106208558
get with the times bro
2023 is calling

The eyes almost every time
Hands
The broken clock
Background characters faces
The broken nature of the world around the characters
Sameness
Uniformity of lighting

>>106208508 (OP)
Just assume they're all AI generated anon. At this point this is like asking how you know a drawing is real and not made up, or how to know whether words are lies. We're in a post photographic evidence world.

>>106208508 (OP)
Shit is too smooth

>>106218086
the trees don't give away anything

>>106208508 (OP)
Any 'complex' design usually fails under scrutiny. In the attached pic, check the floor tiles + the chain on the necklace. It's getting to the point where it will become very difficult to tell as more and more of these 'obvious tells' are eliminated. Also a proompter with a basic pulse and rudimentary photoshop skills could also fix most of these issues.

>>106212035
>it's probably real
congratulations on having the same cognitive reasoning as a facebook boomer

>>106224772
>>106211072

>>106208508 (OP)
Generally it is based purely on vibes. For me, clothing folds are the indicator. AI does not do them in a natural way. They always seem "off".

>>106224772
Congratulations on having a zoomer mush brain. How does it feel to be dumber than a facebook boomer?

>>106226551
Feel better about yourself after insulting someone with a image that would confuse someone?
You probably got the childhood you deserved

>>106226575
Nice facebook boomer insult.

>>106226585
I touched a nerve
My work here is done

>>106224772
haha you got tricked. you should feel silly.

>>106226634
>retard is wrong
>calls person who is right a facebook boomer
I love that you know you you fucked up. You probably rage quit the thread. Now you're looking back here. Caught you again facebook boomer brain.

>>106208508 (OP)
how do you know if what you call "real life" is actually real or a simulation?

>>106208508 (OP)
i dont care. women were using instagram filters or photoshop editing for over a decade before ai became a thing. even without technology anglefrauding alone makes people look completely different online and irl. just stop caring, and what makes "real" people or things even more meaningful than ai generated ones

>>106208508 (OP)
look for things which make no sense.
cans in front of a door to the right?
who puts cans in front of doors?

I guess one of the ways is checking the metadata the nice thing here is that most of non-ai generated images will have some kind of it, Moreover, taking into consideration that most of w*men use iPhone you they are likely to have a tonn of metadata enabled by default, you can check this one with mat2 utility on linux distros. So you just run mat2 -s filename. if the output is no metadata -then there is high chance of an image being ai generated

Alternatively you can use exiftool, this one also pretty good, you can check the image resolution as well, pretty much no one will use a professional camera. In short if it doesn't match most popular resolutions produced by a phone there is a high chance of it being ai-generated

>>106226742
that's easy, life is a simulation.
it's why the planck length exists. that's the accuracy level of the simulation.
even your brain only simulates the stimuli you receive walking around in your meat robot