I was just pointing to the simplest answer I had, which didn’t rely on a bunch of circumstantial and vague hunches. Since you take issue with that, I guess I’ll rant a bit.
Fake photos have been a thing as long a photos have been. Very little has changed in that regard. The various tips and tricks to spot AI fakes will become obsolete a lot faster than the other critical thinking skills needed to decipher fact from fiction in any other medium: news articles, YouTube videos, social media, etc. This will be especially true as the tools used to make these images will evolve. One of those critical thinking skills is tracing a claim, especially a repeated claim, back to it’s source. Another is looking at the timeline of the spread of the meme. These both involve gathering actual evidence and work for a variety of mediums. This is why so many lamented the death of rigorous independent journalism. Suddenly the news becomes so much more trouble to trust and to verify. AI is here just a fungus feeding off the corpse of journalism in the dense jungle of the death of critical thinking in the news consuming public.
Mhm, of course, critical thinking in general is absolutely important, although I take some issue with describing looking for artifacts as “vague hunches”. Fake photos have existed for ages, and we’ve found consistent ways to spot and identify them, such as checking shadows, the directionality of light in a scene, the fringes of detailed objects, black levels and highlights, and even advanced techniques like bokeh and motion blur. You don’t see many people casting doubt on the validity of old pictures with Trump and Epstein together, for example, despite the long existence of photoshop and advanced VFX. Hell, even this image could have been photoshopped, and you’re relying on your eyes to catch the evidence of that if that were the case.
The techniques I’ve outlined here aren’t likely to become irrelevant in the next 5+ years, given they’re based on how the underlying technology works, similar to how LLMs aren’t likely to 100% stop hallucinating any time soon. More than that, I actually think there’s a lot less incentive to work these minor kinks out than something like LLM hallucination, because these images already fool 99% of people, and who knows how much additional processing power it would take to run this at a resolution where you could get something like flawless tufts of grass, in a field that’s already struggling to make a profit given the high costs of generating this output. And if/when these techniques become invalid, I’ll put in the effort to learn new ones, as it’s worthwhile to be able to quickly and easily identify fakes.
As much as I wholeheartedly agree that we need to think critically and evaluate things based on facts, we live in a world where the U.S. President was posting AI videos of Obama just a couple weeks ago. He may be an idiot who is being obviously manipulative, but it’s naive to think we won’t eventually get bad actors like him who try to manipulate narratives like that with current events, where we can’t rely on simply fact-checking history, or that someone might weave a lie that doesn’t have obvious logical gaps, and we need some kind of technique to verify images to settle the inevitable future “he said, she said” debates. The only real alternative is to just never trust a new photo again, because we can’t 100% prove anything new hasn’t been doctored.
We’ve survived in a world with fake imagery for decades now, I don’t think we need to roll over and accept AI as unbeatable just because it fakes things differently, or because it might hypothetically improve at hiding itself in the future.
Anyway, rant over, you’re right, critical thinking is paramount, and being able to clearly spot fakes is a super useful skill to add to that kit, even if it can’t 100% confirm an image as real. I believe these are useful tools to have, which is why I took the time to point them out despite the image already having been proven as not AI by others dating it before I got here.
I was just pointing to the simplest answer I had, which didn’t rely on a bunch of circumstantial and vague hunches. Since you take issue with that, I guess I’ll rant a bit.
Fake photos have been a thing as long a photos have been. Very little has changed in that regard. The various tips and tricks to spot AI fakes will become obsolete a lot faster than the other critical thinking skills needed to decipher fact from fiction in any other medium: news articles, YouTube videos, social media, etc. This will be especially true as the tools used to make these images will evolve. One of those critical thinking skills is tracing a claim, especially a repeated claim, back to it’s source. Another is looking at the timeline of the spread of the meme. These both involve gathering actual evidence and work for a variety of mediums. This is why so many lamented the death of rigorous independent journalism. Suddenly the news becomes so much more trouble to trust and to verify. AI is here just a fungus feeding off the corpse of journalism in the dense jungle of the death of critical thinking in the news consuming public.
Mhm, of course, critical thinking in general is absolutely important, although I take some issue with describing looking for artifacts as “vague hunches”. Fake photos have existed for ages, and we’ve found consistent ways to spot and identify them, such as checking shadows, the directionality of light in a scene, the fringes of detailed objects, black levels and highlights, and even advanced techniques like bokeh and motion blur. You don’t see many people casting doubt on the validity of old pictures with Trump and Epstein together, for example, despite the long existence of photoshop and advanced VFX. Hell, even this image could have been photoshopped, and you’re relying on your eyes to catch the evidence of that if that were the case.
The techniques I’ve outlined here aren’t likely to become irrelevant in the next 5+ years, given they’re based on how the underlying technology works, similar to how LLMs aren’t likely to 100% stop hallucinating any time soon. More than that, I actually think there’s a lot less incentive to work these minor kinks out than something like LLM hallucination, because these images already fool 99% of people, and who knows how much additional processing power it would take to run this at a resolution where you could get something like flawless tufts of grass, in a field that’s already struggling to make a profit given the high costs of generating this output. And if/when these techniques become invalid, I’ll put in the effort to learn new ones, as it’s worthwhile to be able to quickly and easily identify fakes.
As much as I wholeheartedly agree that we need to think critically and evaluate things based on facts, we live in a world where the U.S. President was posting AI videos of Obama just a couple weeks ago. He may be an idiot who is being obviously manipulative, but it’s naive to think we won’t eventually get bad actors like him who try to manipulate narratives like that with current events, where we can’t rely on simply fact-checking history, or that someone might weave a lie that doesn’t have obvious logical gaps, and we need some kind of technique to verify images to settle the inevitable future “he said, she said” debates. The only real alternative is to just never trust a new photo again, because we can’t 100% prove anything new hasn’t been doctored.
We’ve survived in a world with fake imagery for decades now, I don’t think we need to roll over and accept AI as unbeatable just because it fakes things differently, or because it might hypothetically improve at hiding itself in the future.
Anyway, rant over, you’re right, critical thinking is paramount, and being able to clearly spot fakes is a super useful skill to add to that kit, even if it can’t 100% confirm an image as real. I believe these are useful tools to have, which is why I took the time to point them out despite the image already having been proven as not AI by others dating it before I got here.