I 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.
The 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.
My 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.
But 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.
My results were worse than random. I suppose if you live long enough that will become true of more or less everyone and every media. The dead internet theory could become mostly true in just a few years. And then do we still try to suckle human interaction from the ever more artificial teat, or do we learn to go back to meat space for it?
Not 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.
But 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.
This is executed so well, from the choice of photos to the rushing. Kudos!
Fwiw, my scores so far have mostly been negative (using a phone without my glasses on), but that's.. the point I guess? I guess I'm not alone in overestimating my success rate in spotting ai content when tired or under pressure. The whole photo premise is a beastly challenge in itself, it's easy to create somewhat convincing stock photos using AI, but it's very dependent on context and personality whether you spot it immediately, I guess.
I 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.
I thought that at first, but a comment below enlightened me. These types of games are a great way to get free training data.
Impossible to do on a phone. Zooming in is misinterpreted as a choice. Fix the game.
Also the time limit is stupid and pointless.
> 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?
"Made with ♥ by Codex"
Slop 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.
The 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.
I'd appreciate an untimed mode.
My 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-...
But 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.
There are tons of real stock photos with that type of mundane content.
My results were worse than random. I suppose if you live long enough that will become true of more or less everyone and every media. The dead internet theory could become mostly true in just a few years. And then do we still try to suckle human interaction from the ever more artificial teat, or do we learn to go back to meat space for it?
The Amish have a very fucking good point.
Not 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.
But 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.
Hmm… training data siphon?
Now add Geoguesser-like battle royale mode with accuracy points for guessing which model generated the image
This is executed so well, from the choice of photos to the rushing. Kudos!
Fwiw, my scores so far have mostly been negative (using a phone without my glasses on), but that's.. the point I guess? I guess I'm not alone in overestimating my success rate in spotting ai content when tired or under pressure. The whole photo premise is a beastly challenge in itself, it's easy to create somewhat convincing stock photos using AI, but it's very dependent on context and personality whether you spot it immediately, I guess.
My method is simple:
Did I create the image myself?
Yes: Not AI
No: AI
AI vs Aye, it was I
We 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.
That’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.