this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2025
51 points (93.2% liked)

Technology

4831 readers
726 users here now

Which posts fit here?

Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.


Post guidelines

[Opinion] prefixOpinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.


Rules

1. English onlyTitle and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original linkPost URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communicationAll communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. InclusivityEveryone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacksAny kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangentsStay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may applyIf something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.


Companion communities

!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip


Icon attribution | Banner attribution


If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

We’re cooked.

top 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 18 points 6 days ago

So how long untill digital photos are inadmissble in court?

[–] Longylonglong@sh.itjust.works 11 points 6 days ago

I mean of course it is. It got basically infinite training data

[–] calliope@retrolemmy.com 9 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Seems like very thinly veiled advertising for a new version of google’s ai image generation.

If AI is getting this good at imitating the things that signal a photo is real, then guys: We are cooked.

“We are cooked, fellow kids!”

The author also pretty much says “all other AI was slop before this, right guys?”

[–] Hackworth@piefed.ca 5 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Yeah, a more honest take would discuss the strengths & weakness of the model. Flux is still better at text than Nano Banana, for instance. There's no "one model to rule them all," as much as tech journalism seems to want to write like that.

[–] Hackworth@piefed.ca 7 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Nano Banana Pro's built into Photoshop now, as is Flux Kontext pro.

[–] Assian_Candor@hexbear.net 6 points 6 days ago

The phone is a lie box, return to magnetic tape

[–] bonenode@piefed.social 4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I feel the bus one is actually quite easy to spot as fake. There's no one with head down looking at their phone.

[–] Sinaf@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Most of these images have really shitty resolution as well. Can't they generate higher res stuff or would inconsistencies otherwise be more obvious?

[–] Hackworth@piefed.ca 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Directly, generating higher res stuff requires way more compute. But there are plenty of AI upscalers out there, some better, some worse. These are also built into Photoshop now. The difference between an AI image that is easy to spot and hard to spot is using good models. The difference between an AI image that is hard to spot and nearly impossible to spot is another 20 min of work in post.

[–] Sinaf@lemmy.world 0 points 6 days ago (1 children)

The difference between an AI image that is hard to spot and nearly impossible to spot is another 20 min of work in post.

Yeah, I don't doubt it, but you still need human labour. Not anyone can simply fake a photo on a level that's believable.

[–] TheWonderfool@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I would say that it mostly depends on the complexity of the photo. Random Instagram model posing for the camera? You can get it out of the box with a press of a button in your machine. Complex photo with multiple subjects and cluttered background? That would need lots of human work.

[–] Sinaf@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I am definitely impressed by what it can do, but what real world demand does it fulfil? You know, apart from misinformation campaigns and the like. There may be some use cases, but enough to justify the huge investments?

[–] TheWonderfool@lemmy.world 1 points 17 hours ago

Porn, advertising, entertainment. The first one seems to be mostly ignored for now by western model training companies (though it must be difficult to do when your paying processor can destroy your business overnight). For the other two, I doubt the market is so small that it can be ignored.

Prepare in a few years (months?) to see movies advertised as no AI (like they are now advertised as no CGI, as ridiculous as it is).

[–] 1984@lemmy.today 2 points 6 days ago

Nothing will feel real, and we will own nothing.