I'd think AI imagery is uniquely toxic for product marketing because it reads as an admission the product is worse than the picture.
We know you'll pick the most flattering angle, and the one perfectly formed unit out of 500, with a photo of a real shirt. It's the upper bound on reality, but it's still reality. If you have to hallucinate instead, you probably can't even make that cherry-picked example look good.
Yes it’s dumb. I’ve seen AI in a su ermarket catalogue, but only for the background and not the models/products. They make photos in a studio and replace the background. That’s okay, because I don’t care for the background
Gen X here, and I probably can't tell without trying harder than I care to. Why "probably?" Because I've alwaysdespised marketing because it's all lies of heavy exaggeration, implication without actually claiming, and completely unrelated crap that somehow entices dumbasses to buy it (e.g. scantily clad models used to sell cars, tech, etc.).
I block every ad I can everywhere I might encounter them - and when I can't? The mute button works wonders. The harder they try to sell me, the more full of shit I know they are. I don't like being tracked, but that's practically an afterthought compared to the absolute disdain I have for marketing & the amount of bullshit I have to filter in order to glean the slightest bit of actually useful and believable info from an ad.
This sorry world seems to be run almost entirely on bullshit, and who can sling it most effectively. I look at the current White House resident as the culmination of all that is wrong in a world built on lies - lies made not only acceptable, but normal and expected all in the name of "marketing."
Fuck capitalism and the manipulative, greedy, power-tripping assholes that use "marketing" to steal money by convincing people their lives will be so much better with widget Y when they told us just last year that widget X would do the same.
No, I probably can't tell real from AI as easily as the younger set, but that's because I don't care to look at either one. It's all just an endless push to separate me from the pittance of funds I have left over after funneling the bulk of the few funds I've managed to acquire from one rich asshole's pocket to another - never staying in my account long enough to even earn a penny of interest.
Another genx datapoint here: Same, though I seem to be reasonably good at spotting AI images, if it's marketing then I don't care. I've already ignored it or adblocked it anyway.
I want to believe this. But, I'm also reminded of how trans people often make fun of anti-trans people who claim they can always tell when someone is trans.
Your kids might spot a lot of AI fakes, but by definition they don't spot the ones that "pass", and it's impossible to know how many that is. It may even be that they over-correct and claim things are AI when they're actually not just because they have suspicious lighting, or overly eager image editing (i.e. photoshop).
In behalf of the collective, I'm appalled that you would compare us to slop, and kindly request that you refrain from this behaviour in the future. Good day, sir. /s
AI has always stuck out to me, but recently it has started becoming even more blatantly obvious. I experienced my first bout of severe derealization from a PTSD trigger the other day and now that I'm out of it, all AI images look just as wrong as the whole world did when I was derealizing. Like the AI stands out even more now that I spent a few days with a severely altered perception of the world and was questioning what was real or not. Everything is back to normal except AI. AI looks even worse now. It is taking some getting used to lol.
I also have PTSD and experience de-realization. I always found AI's realistic depictions of human people extremely disturbing. I wonder if that has something to do with the de-realization aspect. We've experienced living in a not-quite-right perception of reality, and we're experiencing that same wrong-ness when we see an AI model.
"The 600 series had rubber skin. We spotted them easy, but these are new. They look human... sweat, bad breath, everything. Very hard to spot. I had to wait till he moved on you before I could zero him." -Kyle Reese
They can't improve the models in that way. They are non-determainistic and don't listen to instructions. They can tinker with training data but straight up forcing a model to work a certain way take all of the magic away. Without the magic, it would be worse and everything would look more uniform.
I think there will be a point where it will be almost impossible to tell the difference, I already fell for some pictures only for the comments told me to check the face of someone in the background, it is a matter of time, until AI improves, so those details are fixed.
And I am likely blind to many cases where I fell for it and did not see the comments.
And on top of that, imagine a real picture with someone in the background is exceptionally ugly, or has some deformity, and suddenly that picture is no longer deemed real.
I am paranoid that we now live in a world where "Pics or didn't happen" is a thing of the past. States already push AI propaganda, objective reality is a thing of the past.
There is absolutely no way we are winning this war. It is just a matter of time, unless datacentres are blocked but even then, it will only slow it down. The pandora box of generative AI has been opened and there is no way of undoing that.
Yes. Nobody has ever stopped the march of technological progress, even if as now it is a detriment to society and people's mental health. It is unfortunately a mathematical inevitibility.
It works if it is a lot cheaper. It’s like with cheap mass produced products. And especially these could profit from AI product design if it makes them cheaper.
You are aware only of those generated images that you did recognize. It's not like every image on the internet comes with disclamer for you to compare with and calculate your hit and miss percentage.
I guess it applies more to some comments than original post though.
Guy is aware of his engagement falling 40% ,thats not survivorship bias LOL
Its not a "oh these planescomewith holes here" problem, but a "sir we are losing almost half our planes".
Exactly. I mean, I’m sure I’ve seen some GenAI imagery that I didn’t notice as such but a lot of the time, it just immediately trips some subconscious uncanny valley detector
I can tell and I'm way older. If I had to guess I would say most with a science background or training involving critical thinking could tell easily, because from what I've seen the most susceptible groups judge an image with how much it aligns with their worldview and not objective reality or apparent image artifacts.
If people want to believe it is real they will, and if they don't then they will not regardless of of it is real. Gen-Z are probably just more critical of sales media from being forced to view it.
because from what I’ve seen the most susceptible groups judge an image with how much it aligns with their worldview and not objective reality or apparent image artifacts.
My mother in law is extremely right-wing Putin aligned.
Early in the Ukraine war (before AI images really became a thing), she was showing us MS-paint level image edits of a (black and white) WWII tank trying to roll over a (color) baby with a (color) Russian (super?)soldier holding the tank back with his bare hands to prevent it. She claimed this was proof of Ukrainians killing Russian babies, claiming it was a real, unedited photograph.
That was seriously a terrible image edit. Worse than shitpost memes. It really did look like somebody threw it together in 2 minutes with MS Paint. But she (at least claimed to) wholeheartedly believe it was a real, unedited photo.
This type of "it's real if I agree with it" person will believe anything they agree with, no matter how egregiously wrong and stupid it is.
An interesting emergent behavior is people being wary of AI and questioning media openly is often viewed as an insult or undue criticism, as it is associated with dislike of the content itself even when that may not be the case at all.
There have been a couple of times I was confused by the number of JPEG artifacts and questioned about the legitimacy of a piece only to be berated for it.
Only if I spend time looking at it. What the post says is that it is intuitive for genz. So yeah I can’t tell intuitively… only if I spend some time analyzing it.
I'm a 26 year old gen z and feel I get it right most of the time. If I had to describe it, everything ai touches has this corporate clip-art stock photo style over it. Even when it tries to mimic a different art style or real photos, something feels soulless about it.
Something else, I used to believe that if AI images began to look good and it was used for hobbyist purposes that it might be fine. Despite this I've found that the moment I realize an image is AI I drop it in disinterest. It took AI for me to realize just how much the tiny details of art mattered; because if you look closely at an AI image all you'll see is what's statistically likely to be there unrelated to the subject matter.
I play a Tower Defense game with AI graphics (YouTD2). I hope it will be replaced eventually, it’s a lot of art and only a small project. The icons and actual towers look different, which is the biggest issue. Every tower evolution looks vastly different from the others, but it’s based on a WC3 mod and they’ve always been like that. There isn’t much competition for Open Source TD games. Fun game mechanics were more important to me.
As a younger gen-x I recognize similar numbers. And the 10% I'm not sure about is usually because there's no people clearly visible in the picture. It's like if our brains were trained from birth to detect subtle signals of something being human...
Yeah. I mean I'm pretty sure I can't tell 100% when the subject is like, just a neutral photo of someone.
But the product people always have the worst, most garish taste in images, making it easy to tell - they don't have the bare minimum of a photographer and artist between them and the slop, so the images are a tasteless person's idea of art, all high contrast, vignettes, dramatic lighting from multiple angles like it's on a film set etc.
Gen Y, absolutely able to tell pretty much 100% of the time. It's the lighting, sound, and depth of objects. Maybe current AI is confusing for really old people that just never used a camera or camera app on a phone, but it's super obvious what is actually filmed and what is generated to look like something that was filmed.
absolutely!! can almost always tell or at the very least suspect when something is AI-generated and it's very offputting. makes me less likely to engage with whatever it is
I've seen this "78%" figure thrown around but haven't been able to find the actual source for it. Does anyone know? As far as I can tell, it traces back to the Reddit thread, but I also know that consumer reports aren't always or even usually made easily available to the general public.
Well, as many people know, 67% of quoted statistics were made up on the spot based entirely on intuition. Unless a stat lists has a source, I assume someone made it up.
The problem is, that we're already at a point where some images require experienced eyes to be spotted. Someone working in graphics can tell, someone who doesn't will have more trouble to differentiate. At it'll get worse, because you just know, they'll double down on improving the AI up until a point where fiction and reality becomes indistinguishable when it comes to photos.
I honestly think derealization has an impact on how we view AI. Like, AI images are almost upsetting in nature for me now because it's just so wrong looking.
I know people who cannot tell AI images from reality anymore if they're photorealistic. These people have never experienced dissociation or derealization before. I tried to express what I saw in the images that was so fucked and they did not see it.
First, GenZ haven't been "kids" for quite some time now, granpa lol. Its Gen Alpha, and even then they're getting older as well.
Second, GenZ and subsequent ones are completely disassosiated from the commercial world. A huge chunk of them don't like "commercial perfect", pre-baked vibes. That shows with everything: the garbagy/shitposty anti-mainstream meme culture, the "ugly" haircuts, minimally branded clothing (only area where this doesn't apply much is in music, since its kinda the other way around with how "mainstreamy" most music has become).
Yeah, the older most people get the more broad their definition of "kid" becomes. I'm almost 40 but I'd wager someone north of 60 would still consider me a kid, relative to their own perspective.
Wouldn't take normalizing ageism as a good thing. Especially when using terms that are way overexaggerated and imply a whole set of stereotyped concepts on people, because they're younger that you.
There are some attempts to make music also sound weird, like how that Quebecois band Angine de Poitrine became popular a month ago and their music is definitely unorthodox compared to the mainstream songs.
The demographic that used to rely on DNS/hosts.txt-based ad blockers and then switched to more integrated solutions like NoScript, uBlock, or uMatrix.
Seeing ads (especially given how aggressive and ubiquitous they've got) is now just low key upsetting. All that bandwidth and processing power for distracting me while I'm trying to find something.
I remember seeing a auto-playing video once on mobile, checking my data and it just ate 2MB of my 100MB monthly plan. Fuck, I was so angry, I blocked the entire site.
Im gen Z and AI imagery has always triggered an instunctual disgust response in me, but some are really hard to tell these days. I'm afraid we're already starting to overcome the uncanny valley at least for those cases where people put effort into making it look real
genZ: a note from genX(we survived the uncanny valley of polar express) dont tell them HOW you can tell. theyll just take it as notes to try again on the next generation. stay disillusioned and let them keep failing. you owe them nothing. no enemy more vicious than apathy and anyone plaigerizing deserves as much. this is what drives our nihilism.
Okay, I wanted to know if I could do this and had a look if I could find a game or something like that. Turns out, yes, I could find one. And yes, I can see it. I got 19 of 20 right on medium difficulty for a start. I'll try some different combinations but it surprised me how fast I was.
I'm definitely not gen z
Edit: and the site is a wild mix of languages for me. But it'll do.
That website is vibecoded slop, it's also using AI detection to determine if things are AI or not.
Images that are clearly AI get weird explanations that have nothing to do with the image, like I got an AI image of an owl sitting in a hole in a plaster wall, and it said it was AI because the snow was too uniform? There was no snow. Absolute slop.
On easy mode. Damn, just the accuracy of random clicking. I hate this BS, AI is indistinguishable nowadays. Luckily i already assume everything is faked.
Though that makes me wonder. How much attention are people giving to random images regularly?
Like within the 20sec window on easy mode, i couldn't really find telltale signs, excluding one pic with an anomaly. Maybe with few minutes i could find some signs, but that's already beyond the the attention and effort that a random picture deserves.
And like the gen X in this thread said. Ad's should be already automatically blocked, giving an AD enough attention to distinguish whatever it's AI or human made, is already giving it too much attention. The AD already won then.
This is fascinating to me. Like, I got 90% every time, and I wasn't really analyzing at all, just going by feel. Most of the time I answered within the first 2 or 3 seconds. And I'm not saying that to brag because I genuinely have no idea what we were doing differently. Like if you asked me to teach you I'd just be vaguely gesturing and shrugging helplessly. It's just vibes.
I want to see someone do a study on this. Why is it that some people instantly discern most AI images as feeling wrong somehow and other people don't? What is the common factor here?
I do agree that it's fascinating and I'm rather curious why is it that way. Lacking this ability seems to make me especially vulnerable to AI manipulation.
Like for me there isn't any different vibe or feeling between AI or human made pictures. Those are all the same.
I have to carful scrutiny every picture to find stereotypical AI anomalies. For example text on the background being in alien language or random lines, some object on the picture not making sense aka straight line disappearing after going behind some object (continuity) or items melting into one or the old one of too many fingers, but with image compression algorithms, the background anomalies can sometimes become indistinguishable from just background blur and anomalies are getting rarer and rarer.
Or he does what most audiophiles do and look at the label/bitrate/price tag and say "Hmm, yes, that is of far higher quality". Not saying that differences don't exist, but I've noticed audio tends to be especially rife with people who claim to be able to hear differences where they should not be humanly perceptible and will fail blind tests time and time again.
I'd think AI imagery is uniquely toxic for product marketing because it reads as an admission the product is worse than the picture.
We know you'll pick the most flattering angle, and the one perfectly formed unit out of 500, with a photo of a real shirt. It's the upper bound on reality, but it's still reality. If you have to hallucinate instead, you probably can't even make that cherry-picked example look good.
It's simpler than that. AI is faster and cheaper.
And it tells me nothing. I can't tell how a shirt is going to lay over the body if the image is fake.
Faster. Cheaper. Stupider. And possibly to obscure something.
Yeah, their goal is not to tell you something, is to save budget to get a larger bonus.
Yes it’s dumb. I’ve seen AI in a su ermarket catalogue, but only for the background and not the models/products. They make photos in a studio and replace the background. That’s okay, because I don’t care for the background
I'm gonna be real... that would still damage my trust in them.
If I wanted the thing badly enough, I guess I could get by it, but that's really cringe.
I know of it because they always wrote "background AI generated" at the bottom or top of the photo if that was the case.
Gen X here, and I probably can't tell without trying harder than I care to. Why "probably?" Because I've always despised marketing because it's all lies of heavy exaggeration, implication without actually claiming, and completely unrelated crap that somehow entices dumbasses to buy it (e.g. scantily clad models used to sell cars, tech, etc.).
I block every ad I can everywhere I might encounter them - and when I can't? The mute button works wonders. The harder they try to sell me, the more full of shit I know they are. I don't like being tracked, but that's practically an afterthought compared to the absolute disdain I have for marketing & the amount of bullshit I have to filter in order to glean the slightest bit of actually useful and believable info from an ad.
This sorry world seems to be run almost entirely on bullshit, and who can sling it most effectively. I look at the current White House resident as the culmination of all that is wrong in a world built on lies - lies made not only acceptable, but normal and expected all in the name of "marketing."
Fuck capitalism and the manipulative, greedy, power-tripping assholes that use "marketing" to steal money by convincing people their lives will be so much better with widget Y when they told us just last year that widget X would do the same.
No, I probably can't tell real from AI as easily as the younger set, but that's because I don't care to look at either one. It's all just an endless push to separate me from the pittance of funds I have left over after funneling the bulk of the few funds I've managed to acquire from one rich asshole's pocket to another - never staying in my account long enough to even earn a penny of interest.
This is such a Gen X response and that is a compliment
Same. I feel like I didn’t build a natural resistance to AI images because I so thoroughly cut out ad sources and rarely see them.
Anyone else stopped considering dominos to be a food just because of how desperate their ads seem?
I stopped considering them a food because their pizza is nasty.
Parent company is Pepsi. Imagine all the billions invested in artificial food R&D distilled in to a “pizza” product chain called dominoes
Another genx datapoint here: Same, though I seem to be reasonably good at spotting AI images, if it's marketing then I don't care. I've already ignored it or adblocked it anyway.
Preach, brother/sister/non-binary sibling!
whenever I see a company using AI art for their campaigns, I automatically ignore that company
I can confirm, my teens hate AI and are experts at spotting it. They will dissuade me from buying anything that advertises with AI.
I want to believe this. But, I'm also reminded of how trans people often make fun of anti-trans people who claim they can always tell when someone is trans.
Your kids might spot a lot of AI fakes, but by definition they don't spot the ones that "pass", and it's impossible to know how many that is. It may even be that they over-correct and claim things are AI when they're actually not just because they have suspicious lighting, or overly eager image editing (i.e. photoshop).
In behalf of the collective, I'm appalled that you would compare us to slop, and kindly request that you refrain from this behaviour in the future. Good day, sir. /s
Expert at spotting does not mean 100% accurate.
It might mean 0% accurate.
The "not fully" makes me happy
My 6 year old habitually asks me "is this AI or just Photoshop?".
AI has always stuck out to me, but recently it has started becoming even more blatantly obvious. I experienced my first bout of severe derealization from a PTSD trigger the other day and now that I'm out of it, all AI images look just as wrong as the whole world did when I was derealizing. Like the AI stands out even more now that I spent a few days with a severely altered perception of the world and was questioning what was real or not. Everything is back to normal except AI. AI looks even worse now. It is taking some getting used to lol.
I also have PTSD and experience de-realization. I always found AI's realistic depictions of human people extremely disturbing. I wonder if that has something to do with the de-realization aspect. We've experienced living in a not-quite-right perception of reality, and we're experiencing that same wrong-ness when we see an AI model.
You can tell when it just looks too perfect or uniform imo
And the lighting is just a bit too vibrant, the colors have just a bit too much of the Lisa Frank HDR look...
yeah, real artists express their emotion, which is depression
The problem is that as they learn how people can tell the difference, they'll improve the models.
"The 600 series had rubber skin. We spotted them easy, but these are new. They look human... sweat, bad breath, everything. Very hard to spot. I had to wait till he moved on you before I could zero him." -Kyle Reese
They can't improve the models in that way. They are non-determainistic and don't listen to instructions. They can tinker with training data but straight up forcing a model to work a certain way take all of the magic away. Without the magic, it would be worse and everything would look more uniform.
This statment assumes human's learning capability is slower or static compared to AI.
I think there will be a point where it will be almost impossible to tell the difference, I already fell for some pictures only for the comments told me to check the face of someone in the background, it is a matter of time, until AI improves, so those details are fixed.
And I am likely blind to many cases where I fell for it and did not see the comments.
And on top of that, imagine a real picture with someone in the background is exceptionally ugly, or has some deformity, and suddenly that picture is no longer deemed real.
I am paranoid that we now live in a world where "Pics or didn't happen" is a thing of the past. States already push AI propaganda, objective reality is a thing of the past.
Yup. This kind of feedback is super easy to scrape & condense with LLMs and feed back into training.
There is absolutely no way we are winning this war. It is just a matter of time, unless datacentres are blocked but even then, it will only slow it down. The pandora box of generative AI has been opened and there is no way of undoing that.
Yes. Nobody has ever stopped the march of technological progress, even if as now it is a detriment to society and people's mental health. It is unfortunately a mathematical inevitibility.
It works if it is a lot cheaper. It’s like with cheap mass produced products. And especially these could profit from AI product design if it makes them cheaper.
This needs more layers of screenshot
I propose that we call it a social media turducken when there's three different sites in one screenshot.
Billionaire bakkake.
I'm not sure how survivorship bias applies here?
You are aware only of those generated images that you did recognize. It's not like every image on the internet comes with disclamer for you to compare with and calculate your hit and miss percentage.
I guess it applies more to some comments than original post though.
Guy is aware of his engagement falling 40% ,thats not survivorship bias LOL Its not a "oh these planescomewith holes here" problem, but a "sir we are losing almost half our planes".
"Im seeing a lot less AI generated images on the internet lately"
Wait...
[Insert survivorship bias here]
Can any gen-z chime in and confirm this?
Wait you can't tell?
Exactly. I mean, I’m sure I’ve seen some GenAI imagery that I didn’t notice as such but a lot of the time, it just immediately trips some subconscious uncanny valley detector
I can tell and I'm way older. If I had to guess I would say most with a science background or training involving critical thinking could tell easily, because from what I've seen the most susceptible groups judge an image with how much it aligns with their worldview and not objective reality or apparent image artifacts.
If people want to believe it is real they will, and if they don't then they will not regardless of of it is real. Gen-Z are probably just more critical of sales media from being forced to view it.
My mother in law is extremely right-wing Putin aligned.
Early in the Ukraine war (before AI images really became a thing), she was showing us MS-paint level image edits of a (black and white) WWII tank trying to roll over a (color) baby with a (color) Russian (super?)soldier holding the tank back with his bare hands to prevent it. She claimed this was proof of Ukrainians killing Russian babies, claiming it was a real, unedited photograph.
That was seriously a terrible image edit. Worse than shitpost memes. It really did look like somebody threw it together in 2 minutes with MS Paint. But she (at least claimed to) wholeheartedly believe it was a real, unedited photo.
This type of "it's real if I agree with it" person will believe anything they agree with, no matter how egregiously wrong and stupid it is.
This reminds me of when Trump was claiming this MS Paint job was proof Kilmar Abrego Garcia was MS13
This probably makes more sense… people turning a blind eye to things they don’t like or believe in.
An interesting emergent behavior is people being wary of AI and questioning media openly is often viewed as an insult or undue criticism, as it is associated with dislike of the content itself even when that may not be the case at all.
There have been a couple of times I was confused by the number of JPEG artifacts and questioned about the legitimacy of a piece only to be berated for it.
Only if I spend time looking at it. What the post says is that it is intuitive for genz. So yeah I can’t tell intuitively… only if I spend some time analyzing it.
I don’t spend lookin at ads and what not. I do look at isthisAi at time but that’s all. But i am curious if this is really true or just made up.
I'm a 26 year old gen z and feel I get it right most of the time. If I had to describe it, everything ai touches has this corporate clip-art stock photo style over it. Even when it tries to mimic a different art style or real photos, something feels soulless about it.
Something else, I used to believe that if AI images began to look good and it was used for hobbyist purposes that it might be fine. Despite this I've found that the moment I realize an image is AI I drop it in disinterest. It took AI for me to realize just how much the tiny details of art mattered; because if you look closely at an AI image all you'll see is what's statistically likely to be there unrelated to the subject matter.
I play a Tower Defense game with AI graphics (YouTD2). I hope it will be replaced eventually, it’s a lot of art and only a small project. The icons and actual towers look different, which is the biggest issue. Every tower evolution looks vastly different from the others, but it’s based on a WC3 mod and they’ve always been like that. There isn’t much competition for Open Source TD games. Fun game mechanics were more important to me.
As a younger gen-x I recognize similar numbers. And the 10% I'm not sure about is usually because there's no people clearly visible in the picture. It's like if our brains were trained from birth to detect subtle signals of something being human...
how do you know it's 90% of ai images and not just 90% of the images that make you suspicious?
Yeah. I mean I'm pretty sure I can't tell 100% when the subject is like, just a neutral photo of someone.
But the product people always have the worst, most garish taste in images, making it easy to tell - they don't have the bare minimum of a photographer and artist between them and the slop, so the images are a tasteless person's idea of art, all high contrast, vignettes, dramatic lighting from multiple angles like it's on a film set etc.
Gen Y, absolutely able to tell pretty much 100% of the time. It's the lighting, sound, and depth of objects. Maybe current AI is confusing for really old people that just never used a camera or camera app on a phone, but it's super obvious what is actually filmed and what is generated to look like something that was filmed.
How do you know you're correct?
just what a bot would say
Lol… and that is why I avoid posting responses to istjisAI to avoid training the llms
absolutely!! can almost always tell or at the very least suspect when something is AI-generated and it's very offputting. makes me less likely to engage with whatever it is
I've seen this "78%" figure thrown around but haven't been able to find the actual source for it. Does anyone know? As far as I can tell, it traces back to the Reddit thread, but I also know that consumer reports aren't always or even usually made easily available to the general public.
Well, as many people know, 67% of quoted statistics were made up on the spot based entirely on intuition. Unless a stat lists has a source, I assume someone made it up.
Based on the 67% you should rather assume every two out of three statistic without source are made up and take one in between at face value.
Lol "Gen z".
We all have eyes, don't we?
Most older people I know IRL can't spot generated images, my Gen Z coworkers always can.
The problem is, that we're already at a point where some images require experienced eyes to be spotted. Someone working in graphics can tell, someone who doesn't will have more trouble to differentiate. At it'll get worse, because you just know, they'll double down on improving the AI up until a point where fiction and reality becomes indistinguishable when it comes to photos.
I honestly think derealization has an impact on how we view AI. Like, AI images are almost upsetting in nature for me now because it's just so wrong looking.
I know people who cannot tell AI images from reality anymore if they're photorealistic. These people have never experienced dissociation or derealization before. I tried to express what I saw in the images that was so fucked and they did not see it.
First, GenZ haven't been "kids" for quite some time now, granpa lol. Its Gen Alpha, and even then they're getting older as well.
Second, GenZ and subsequent ones are completely disassosiated from the commercial world. A huge chunk of them don't like "commercial perfect", pre-baked vibes. That shows with everything: the garbagy/shitposty anti-mainstream meme culture, the "ugly" haircuts, minimally branded clothing (only area where this doesn't apply much is in music, since its kinda the other way around with how "mainstreamy" most music has become).
It's pretty normal to refer to twenty-somethings as kids if you're old.
Yeah, the older most people get the more broad their definition of "kid" becomes. I'm almost 40 but I'd wager someone north of 60 would still consider me a kid, relative to their own perspective.
Am in my 20s, and still feel like we're kids. We just happen to pay taxes now...
Wouldn't take normalizing ageism as a good thing. Especially when using terms that are way overexaggerated and imply a whole set of stereotyped concepts on people, because they're younger that you.
There are some attempts to make music also sound weird, like how that Quebecois band Angine de Poitrine became popular a month ago and their music is definitely unorthodox compared to the mainstream songs.
Thank got they don't have a product created for intelligent people. Revenue would drop by 100%.
The kids aren't alright they click ads/random links on the internet.
Name one demographic immune to internet advertisements
Millennials grew up at a time where all internet ads were scams/viruses.
They used to be and they still are
The demographic that used to rely on DNS/hosts.txt-based ad blockers and then switched to more integrated solutions like NoScript, uBlock, or uMatrix.
Seeing ads (especially given how aggressive and ubiquitous they've got) is now just low key upsetting. All that bandwidth and processing power for distracting me while I'm trying to find something.
I remember seeing a auto-playing video once on mobile, checking my data and it just ate 2MB of my 100MB monthly plan. Fuck, I was so angry, I blocked the entire site.
Not completely immune, but I imagine there's a non-zero amount of people in the adblocking demographic who are immune to Internet ads specifically.
Im gen Z and AI imagery has always triggered an instunctual disgust response in me, but some are really hard to tell these days. I'm afraid we're already starting to overcome the uncanny valley at least for those cases where people put effort into making it look real
Username does not check out
genZ: a note from genX(we survived the uncanny valley of polar express) dont tell them HOW you can tell. theyll just take it as notes to try again on the next generation. stay disillusioned and let them keep failing. you owe them nothing. no enemy more vicious than apathy and anyone plaigerizing deserves as much. this is what drives our nihilism.
https://fake-or-real.net/
Okay, I wanted to know if I could do this and had a look if I could find a game or something like that. Turns out, yes, I could find one. And yes, I can see it. I got 19 of 20 right on medium difficulty for a start. I'll try some different combinations but it surprised me how fast I was.
I'm definitely not gen z
Edit: and the site is a wild mix of languages for me. But it'll do.
That website is vibecoded slop, it's also using AI detection to determine if things are AI or not.
Images that are clearly AI get weird explanations that have nothing to do with the image, like I got an AI image of an owl sitting in a hole in a plaster wall, and it said it was AI because the snow was too uniform? There was no snow. Absolute slop.
After your description I'm not clicking the link, but it sounds like using that website is failing a bigger picture fake or real test.
That link. They won't let us play it unless we accept cookies and enter our personal information.
I didn't have to create an account and could decline cookies
Lucky you. My go button was grayed out and unclickable unless I accepted cookies or give them my information so I left.
Oh, I think it's tried this for me after the third game or so. Then I just closed the incognito tab and opened a new one.
I did hard portraits first and got 15/20 Then I did medium and got 17/20
What is going on with that language mix? Did they vibe code this using different libraries and not set the global language variable?
On easy mode. Damn, just the accuracy of random clicking. I hate this BS, AI is indistinguishable nowadays. Luckily i already assume everything is faked.
Though that makes me wonder. How much attention are people giving to random images regularly?
Like within the 20sec window on easy mode, i couldn't really find telltale signs, excluding one pic with an anomaly. Maybe with few minutes i could find some signs, but that's already beyond the the attention and effort that a random picture deserves.
And like the gen X in this thread said. Ad's should be already automatically blocked, giving an AD enough attention to distinguish whatever it's AI or human made, is already giving it too much attention. The AD already won then.
This is fascinating to me. Like, I got 90% every time, and I wasn't really analyzing at all, just going by feel. Most of the time I answered within the first 2 or 3 seconds. And I'm not saying that to brag because I genuinely have no idea what we were doing differently. Like if you asked me to teach you I'd just be vaguely gesturing and shrugging helplessly. It's just vibes.
I want to see someone do a study on this. Why is it that some people instantly discern most AI images as feeling wrong somehow and other people don't? What is the common factor here?
I do agree that it's fascinating and I'm rather curious why is it that way. Lacking this ability seems to make me especially vulnerable to AI manipulation.
Like for me there isn't any different vibe or feeling between AI or human made pictures. Those are all the same. I have to carful scrutiny every picture to find stereotypical AI anomalies. For example text on the background being in alien language or random lines, some object on the picture not making sense aka straight line disappearing after going behind some object (continuity) or items melting into one or the old one of too many fingers, but with image compression algorithms, the background anomalies can sometimes become indistinguishable from just background blur and anomalies are getting rarer and rarer.
I tried it, also got 19/20
I've taught my gen alpha kids to accurately identify slop. I love watching corridor crew debunking videos with them.
I probably can't but skip it anyway. Even if it's real, it's normally some cherry-picked race-bait bullshit.
Really needs a source, sounds plausible but could easily be made up.
???
The data coming out of your DAC is identical with lossless compression
Maybe their computer just lags hard enough to skip samples whenever decompressing.
Or he does what most audiophiles do and look at the label/bitrate/price tag and say "Hmm, yes, that is of far higher quality". Not saying that differences don't exist, but I've noticed audio tends to be especially rife with people who claim to be able to hear differences where they should not be humanly perceptible and will fail blind tests time and time again.
Excuse me good sir, are you saying you can tell FLAC and WAV apart?
I'm calling bullshit on compressed audio claim. They produce the same sound by definition
I can read the difference between a pure uncompressed .txt file, and a nasty compressed .txt file that was inside a (yuck!) .zip folder
You know what Gen Z, we disagree about middle hair parts, but I got to say, you're turning out to be alright in my book.
Yeah. It's the old that are a problem