Previous posts: https://programming.dev/post/3974121 and https://programming.dev/post/3974080

Original survey link: https://forms.gle/7Bu3Tyi5fufmY8Vc8

Thanks for all the answers, here are the results for the survey in case you were wondering how you did!

Edit: People working in CS or a related field have a 9.59 avg score while the people that aren’t have a 9.61 avg.

People that have used AI image generators before got a 9.70 avg, while people that haven’t have a 9.39 avg score.

Edit 2: The data has slightly changed! Over 1,000 people have submitted results since posting this image, check the dataset to see live results. Be aware that many people saw the image and comments before submitting, so they’ve gotten spoiled on some results, which may be leading to a higher average recently: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1MkuZG2MiGj-77PGkuCAM3Btb1_Lb4TFEx8tTZKiOoYI

  • @SkyNTP@lemmy.mlEnglish
    85•1 year ago

    In theory, yes. In practice, not necessarily.

    I found that the images were not very representative of typical AI art styles I’ve seen in the wild. So not only would that render preexisting learned queues incorrect, it could actually turn them into obstacles to guessing correctly pushing the score down lower than random guessing (especially if the images in this test are not randomly chosen, but are instead actively chosen to dissimulate typical AI images).

    • @Rolder@reddthat.comEnglish
      40•1 year ago

      I would also think it depends on what kinds of art you are familiar with. If you don’t know what normal pencil art looks like, how are ya supposed to recognize the AI version.

      As an example, when I’m browsing certain, ah, nsfw art, I can recognize the AI ones no issue.

      • @Stovetop@lemmy.worldEnglish
        16•1 year ago

        Agreed. For the image that was obviously an emulation of Guts from Berserk, the only reason I called it as AI generated was because his right eye was open. I don’t know enough about illustration in general, which led me to guess quite a few incorrect examples there.

        I found the photos much easier, and I guessed each of those correctly just by looking for the sort of “melty” quality you get with most AI generated photos, along with intersected line continuity (e.g. an AI probably would have messed up this image where the railing overlaps the plant stems; the continuity made me accept it as real). But with illustrations, I don’t know nearly enough about composition and technique, so I can’t tell if a particular element is “supposed” to be there or not. I would like to say that the ones I correctly called as AI were still moderately informed because some of them had that sort of AI-generated color balance/bloom to them, but most of them were still just coin toss to me.

    • @hansl@lemmy.worldEnglish
      23•1 year ago

      Maybe you didn’t recognize the AI images in the wild and assumed they were human made. It’s a survival bias; the bad AI pictures are easy to figure out, but we might be surrounded by them and would not even know.

      Same as green screens in movies. It’s so prevalent we don’t see them, but we like to complain a lot about bad green screens. Every time you see a busy street there’s a 90+ % chance it’s a green screen. People just don’t recognize those.

        • @oddspinnaker@lemm.eeEnglish
          9•1 year ago

          It is!!

          Someone might assert that, “All toupees look fake. I’ve never seen a good toupee.” This is an example of neglecting the base rate because if I had seen good toupees, I wouldn’t know it.

          Thanks, I love learning names for these things when they come up!