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
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.
deleted by creator
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