206
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2023
206 points (83.7% liked)
Technology
58521 readers
4199 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I'd be curious to see the process they decided which AI faces and which Real faces they presented. It might be in the paper, but I'm too lazy to read that when I'm 95% convinced I already know the answer.
I don't know why people (not saying you, more directed at the top commenter) keep acting like cherry picking AI images in these studies invalidate the results - cherry picking is how you use AI image generation tools, that's why most will (or can) generate several at once so you can pick the best one. If a malicious actor was trying to fool people, of course they'd use the most "real" looking ones, instead of just the first to generate
Frankly the studies would be useless if they didn't cherry pick, because it wouldn't line up with real world usage
Tbh I'm more concerned about how they chose the human faces. I can't explain it, but it feels like they were biased toward choosing 'fake-looking' faces, lol
I understand why you're cautious in the "accusation" (don't put too much weight on accusation, it's just the idea I want to convey, not any malicious intent) but in this case, I am saying that cherry picking invalidates the findings, as they are stated.
If the findings were framed around "it's easier to fool people using white AI generated faces", or something similar, I'd be on board with it. The way it sounds right now is "AI generated faces don't have all these artifacts 99% of the time" (I'm paraphrasing A LOT, but you get what I mean.)
The only way it sounds like that is if you don't read the article at all and draw all your conclusions from just reading the title.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure many do just that, but that's not the fault of the study. They clearly state their method for selecting (or "cherry picking") images
They used a clickbaity title, they'll get clickbaity judgement.
It's also not in their abstract, which is supposed.to contain the most important facts. Their first sentence is about how AI generated faces are indistinguishable. No, they're not. It's like saying "writing random numbers solves any numerical equation", not mentioning that I took a gazillion random numbers and did my study on the ones that matched.