this post was submitted on 24 May 2026
440 points (98.2% liked)

196

6056 readers
943 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.


Rule: You must post before you leave.



Other rules

Behavior rules:

Posting rules:

NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.

Also, when sharing art (comics etc.) please credit the creators.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.

Other 196's:

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] LaunchesKayaks@lemmy.world 4 points 1 hour ago

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.

[–] 87Six@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 hour ago

Thank got they don't have a product created for intelligent people. Revenue would drop by 100%.

[–] Tja@programming.dev 11 points 3 hours ago
[–] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Lol "Gen z".

We all have eyes, don't we?

[–] BlindPenguin@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

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.

[–] Wilco@lemmy.zip 43 points 9 hours ago

I can confirm, my teens hate AI and are experts at spotting it. They will dissuade me from buying anything that advertises with AI.

[–] Redvenom@retrolemmy.com 47 points 12 hours ago

whenever I see a company using AI art for their campaigns, I automatically ignore that company

[–] HakFoo@lemmy.sdf.org 105 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Tja@programming.dev 4 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

It's simpler than that. AI is faster and cheaper.

[–] petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

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.

[–] N0tTr0xy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Tja@programming.dev 1 points 2 hours ago

Yeah, their goal is not to tell you something, is to save budget to get a larger bonus.

[–] Berengaria_of_Navarre@lemmy.world 24 points 12 hours ago

My 6 year old habitually asks me "is this AI or just Photoshop?".

[–] WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.today 77 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (5 children)

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.

[–] binarytobis@lemmy.world 10 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Kynsey@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Eh, I literally never see ads and block them everywhere, I couldn't tell you the last time I saw an ad, and I can spot an AI image from a mile away. Gen Z tho. It's just got this look to it. I can't even describe how I know. It's just got the AI vibe. I've watched videos where older people try to learn how to spot AI images with tricks and stuff and I've never used any of them. I just see it and know. I think it's because I grew up looking at real images on a computer screen all day every day and watching youtube videos and stuff. So now when an AI one pops up I just get that uncanny valley feeling. The best way I can describe it is they're too smooth.

Edit: I can do it with writing too. I can spot AI writing pretty well. Even small snippets.

This is such a Gen X response and that is a compliment

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Zomg@piefed.world 20 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

You can tell when it just looks too perfect or uniform imo

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 19 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 10 points 13 hours ago (7 children)

The problem is that as they learn how people can tell the difference, they'll improve the models.

[–] ooterness@lemmy.world 13 points 11 hours ago

"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.

[–] just_an_average_joe@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] SeductiveTortoise@piefed.social 6 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (4 children)

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.

[–] Kynsey@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Easy Mode Mixed:

Ultra mode Nano Banana:

It took me a bit to get used to the new model with Nano Banana when I started I wasn't sure but after a couple I could tell.

[–] vodka@feddit.org 21 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] jmill@lemmy.zip 4 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Kynsey@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 hours ago

I used it the site is garbage but the image test does actually do the job. Like as long as you ignore the weird comments about "why" the photos are labeled correctly. But despite the thing saying there are 700+ photos I kept getting repeats in the same quiz.

[–] FauxPseudo@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago

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?

[–] JennaR8r@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

That link. They won't let us play it unless we accept cookies and enter our personal information.

[–] SeductiveTortoise@piefed.social 2 points 4 hours ago

I didn't have to create an account and could decline cookies

[–] wander1236@sh.itjust.works 19 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

This needs more layers of screenshot

[–] tuckerm@feddit.online 15 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

I propose that we call it a social media turducken when there's three different sites in one screenshot.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 14 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›