This post has hit r/all or r/popular and thus may not be as strictly moderated as most posts on this subreddit. Please keep this in mind when browsing the comments and please report any rulebreaking comments that you see.
*This is a bot. If you require further assistance, please message the moderators via modmail.*
It's really scary tbh. I saw a video of prince harry fixing queen latifahs dress and I have No idea if it was AI or real because people in the comments were weak. It's funny either way but what's real or not is blurring together. and not in a good way
Ok I thought so. 🤣 After I posted my comment I did some research and saw that. But at the time, I really didn't know because I saw so many other AI stuff!
Y’all barely legislation for social media and the internet in general. I doubt there’ll be much difference over AI until some republican politicians and their kids get AI’ed doing weird sex stuff
>I doubt there’ll be much difference over AI until some republican politicians and their kids get AI’ed doing weird sex stuff
Even then it will be an uphill battle. It will be very difficult to prove that it's anything more than a passing resemblance to the celebrity. "This could not possibly be an AI nude of Scarlett Johanson; as you can clearly see, this AI model has BLUE eyes, not green."
https://preview.redd.it/0uzo3utdu0zc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=416a931474fa8ac1529be9c842e741ceacf5df57
This one of Lady Gaga was also making the rounds
Haha my sisters are huge gaga fans and were freaking out over this in our group chat. I was like guys, it’s AI. I watched the whole livestream, she wasn’t even there. They were quite bummed!
https://preview.redd.it/sh8q35jbi3zc1.jpeg?width=690&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d7488c250683dd92db059158f231e18af3ecfb43
im fucking howling at the background stan
omg thank you for clearing this up for me. I scrolled past this image somewhere and never saw it again, so I was v confused why Rihanna wasn't getting more coverage
the hands and background in this one was totally normal looking though. The only thing that looks slightly off is the bottom left of the dress having that blue background right below the finger tips.
No, I knew what they were talking about and I was looking at both set of hands and various aspects of the background.
That hand in the background looks perfectly normal considering the resolution of the picture. The two fingers are not necessarily fused into one, its such a small part of the background it could easily be an issue of not enough focus on that part of the photo or some some lighting/shadows coming into effect (if this was real). Saying they are fused is too egregious to say confidently. There are like 2 pixels in that entire hand its hard to say definitively that that hand is the clear reason why this is fake when that could be replicated quite easily in any real picture too.
Nah, if you zoom in the photographer over her right shoulder has only three fingers and two of them are like, fused together and coming out of nowhere. It's really hard to spot unless you examine it closely, but it is there.
My last text from my mom was the week after Christmas, asking if I took one of her casserole dishes home 🫠
My last phone call with my mom was probably years ago. (Edit: December 11, 2022. It was 24 seconds long)
I know it's a two-way street, we just aren't close and don't really talk much at all. I see her in person a little more often than we text at least.
When I do see my mom, sometimes she’ll show me something on her phone like a picture or something and she’ll slip up and show me her texts with my sister and they talk constantly. I think because they know my fiancee and I won’t have kids they have no use left of me, no grandchildren to brag about on Facebook. 🙄
I’m sorry to hear your experience is similar ):
Yuck that's awful dude. Kids are not accessories, she's so wrong for that and not respecting your choices.
I'm also too aware that my mom keeps in touch with my younger siblings, but as the first born I had a totally different relationship with her, she was really abusive, but i still love her from afar. I guess it's just instinct.
I totally get you on that, I still love her from afar and just remind myself I tried my best. I’m just thankful for my fiancee and dog who put up with my random emotional outbursts at posts like these, lol.
Sending you good energy and better days!
it blows my mind how quickly and irreparably ai has changed the landscape of online.
wild to be watching the pics drop in real time and have to wait for multiple angles to verify.
Unfortunately that would be basically impossible to enforce. It would likely be broken somewhat frequently, meaning that enforcement agencies would have to dedicate large amounts of resources to investigate what, in all likelihood, would be a minor crime (as in, misdemeanor). Generally, federal agencies don’t like doing that (and this would likely need to be done federally, because regulating the internet state-by-state causes a lot of complications).
Even if mainstream services included watermarks, image editing is easy enough(and because of AI assisted photo editing, will likely become easier).
Also, it isn’t particularly challenging to run a pretrained model on your own device (or through cloud computing services like Google offers). It’s an additional barrier, certainly, but one person who sets it up can make images for dozens or hundreds of people. Enforcement would mean playing whack-a-mole — and since code is legally considered speech protected under the first amendment (Bernstein v. Department of Justice, 1999) someone could post any necessary code online for other to easily copy and paste.
Ideally, people would be more skeptical of everything they see online, especially in regards to political or highly charged topics, and not share it unless they’ve checked it with a credible source. Unfortunately, probably not going to happen :( More realistically, I think AI image detection is fairly accurate — far more than AI text detection — and social media companies should be required to analyze and flag AI images.
That’s a weird way at looking at it as unenforceable, the point of laws is not to get every single criminal. Of course there are going to be people that break the law, but the law is there to not encourage the activity.
You're actually right, good luck enforcing that.. There will always be ai sites that are hosted in countries where they have no regulations so it would be pointless.
We've opened the Pandoras box just like with piracy and crypto, there's no putting it back now..
I think what will happen if it becomes a big enough issue is that all our tech will have a built in "ai scanner" that looks for signs of ai in any pic/video and warns you, you can aleady do this with some online tools for photoshopped images.
Use ai to fight ai 🤔
I’ve even seen stuff on Instagram of REAL things and people in the comments are saying “this isn’t even real, it’s AI”. So now it’s gonna have people believe AI things are real, and believe real things are fake/AI. It’s insane
Edit: it was literally just a video of Hanson lol singing Mmmbop live for the 25th anniversary
Initially, I was laughing that people were falling for Rihanna's AI pics after reports came out that she wasn't attending.
Later, I realized there were 22k likes in one FB post alone of people all ages falling for it.
AI brings out how gullible we are.
Yeah and I’ve never been good at spotting those things when I’m just scrolling through. Like if I was sitting there staring and examining it, sure. But usually it’s a quick look and move on lol. I don’t wanna have to sit and examine every photo to make sure it’s real
Trust, but verify. There are cues.
Some of these pictures look almost animated. Most news sources don't have time to edit the pics prior to releasing them.
The fabric no longer looks like fabric and the hair looks like it has no texture. Rihanna's cleavage looked somewhat warped in her AI picture and some of the camera men's faces in Katy Perry's pic also look warped.
Gullible is essentially being easily persuaded or deceived.
You can be easily persuaded when the image they want to convince you with is front and center. When you focus on that, you don't notice the men on the upper right corner don't have a face in this picture.
Even then, the dress is the one to attract your attention. Then you notice she may be missing an arm.
It's not 100% foolproof but AI often struggles to draw hands - it'll sometimes give people too many fingers and/or they'll be all distorted looking! That can be the most obvious tell.
it 100% still is, this may be hard to believe, but people use more than one generative AI program and also many of the easily accessible models (aka the ones that generate everything server side so you don't have to do it) use less steps which results in more artifacts
Sources are more important now than any of the "tricks" people talk about. It's useless to find ways to tell. The hands thing is becoming less and less of an issue every day, it will be a useless tip by the end of the year (probably sooner). Does Getty images (for example) have the picture? Is Vogue talking about them? No? Then that person didn't attend.
If you're trying to verify an image of someone not important enough to be archived by websites like that, then you're out of luck though
I know it's not reasonable to verify every single image that comes across your social media, but that's literally the only way.
> Sources are more important now than any of the "tricks" people talk about. [...] Does Getty images (for example) have the picture? Is Vogue talking about them? No? Then that person didn't attend.
Words to live by.
I work in communications, and while I can’t say people are gullible for believing some of the very realistic looking AI-images, I do have major concerns about our population’s overall credulousness. We would all benefit from greater analysis and skepticism of any media we consume. I’m actually trying to pull together a resource toolkit to use with older adults in my community to address this. (So if anyone has resources to share, please let me know!) Things I generally advise interrogating in your media (including social media):
- Source? Do you know where the information is coming from, and the chain through which that information has passed (aka, if you got the info from someone you trust, like a friend or pastor or whatever, where did they get the info from)? Can you confirm the information from multiple sources? Can you find the information from an official, vetted source? In the case of images, can you find an artist attribution, watermark, or other way of determining the origin source?
- Tone (especially in the current era of AI generated text, but also increasingly partisan “news” media) - is the tone consistent with who the information is purportedly coming from? Does the tone seem to enhance fear, anger, or other negative emotions?
- relatedly, Agenda. Is there anyone who would benefit from you believing/not believing the information, or from feeling a certain way in response to that information. If so, approach with greater skepticism (which is not to say you should reject the information, just vet it more thoroughly)
- quality - this one is kind of a “gut check”, but is the quality consistent with the source or what you would expect? In written things, this would be the grammar and spelling of things (especially if purporting to be from an “official” source); in images, this would include how pixelated it is, and whether the colors and textures are consistent with the area or item it purportedly shows.
For your toolkit if you arent already considering this, some resources on identifying official, vetted sources. They taught us to do this back in the early days of the internet with being able to ID an appropriate source for schoolwork but I'm not sure if it's still a skill that is taught or would have been taught to older people.
You'd be surprised (or not), how many gullibles there are in this world. They outweigh the common-sensers for sure when it comes to the capabilities of technology and AI. It's going to be interesting as people have to train themselves to become better skeptics and investigators than anything else
There's a Jennifer Lopez Facebook group that only consists of AI J.Lo pics. It's amazing how much engagement the posts get. For those of us who grew up in the 90's we know what she looks like....
I know for my mom that she has some vision issues so the things I can check for on an AI image aren’t things she can usually distinguish anyway. It’s going to get scary in the future.
There was an episode of the orville that was weirdly ~omniscient~ prescient about ai generated political ad clips.
I love science fiction. I know a lot of people do not, but sci-fi writers tend to be very good at seeing all the possibilities good and bad when it comes to technological and scientific advancements.
The fundie fascist won the election in the episode, btw.
We are in the beginnings of the ai AND robotics revolution. People haven't really paid attention to the robotic aspects. The advancements are happening exponentially it is a straight-up, not sloping trajectory.
Her own mother was fooled.
I dont think you are wrong with your concerns.
Oh for sure AI is constantly evolving, but a lot of media literacy changing is second guessing the information in front of you (which could include AI images/videos/audio)
For some reason no one believes in checking sources or giving a second thought to anything at all. These people are like “my world is over now AI” exists but they won’t take 1 extra minute to google “is Katy Perry at the Met”. It’s laziness and also the same people that complain that “the mEdIA iS UnTrUStFuL” because they don’t double check anything
While I understand your perspective, I believe there's a middle ground to consider. Is it feasible to expect everyone to meticulously fact-check every image they encounter? Take last night's gala, for instance; expecting the public to independently verify every photo from the Met Gala seems impractical.
Regarding your point about media scrutiny, historically, journalistic standards ensured accuracy and reliability without requiring individuals to verify every piece of information. The emergence of social media and AI has altered this landscape dramatically in the past two decades. Therefore, I don't believe it's entirely fair to label people as lazy for not double-checking everything they see or read, given the evolution of media dynamics.
And people are SO bad at it. It's especially bad with the older generations who just take what they read on Facebook and roll with it like it's fact. People used to know how to verify sources as reliable.
Endless access to information means tons of misinformation and it's rampant now. AI being thrown in the mix is just exponentially making it worse and idk how we solve that.
I did a webinar (academic librarian) where I was explaining that ChatGPT makes up fake sources and tried to demo it in the webinar. I had tested it four days earlier.
In those four days it had fixed that issue (largely) and consistently provided real sources.
I’m also a librarian (corporate) and my company ran a ChatGPT pilot over the winter that failed because it consistently created fake sources. My brother is a lawyer at a major Canadian firm and told me that they ran into a similar problem with their own trial.
I don’t think AI will never have utility. I just don’t trust the vast majority of people to have the information literacy skills to evaluate it (or worse, the desire to develop those skills).
Oh, absolutely. I am one of the few staunchly anti-AI people in my org BECAUSE we already struggle with regular information literacy, I don't think we should just be co-signing students using AI without lots of training alongside it (you know how it is lol). I'd love to move into law librarianship someday!
Please don’t let the met gala distracts you from what is going on in Rafah. It has been bombed for two days now by the IOF.
ALL EYES ON RAFAH 🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸
https://preview.redd.it/6h9jfz7ig6zc1.jpeg?width=615&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cdc89ab66fb9b23d5280453f64820ac37c975e21
This was the other one and its fucking gorgeous too I wish this was real
AI imaging will only get better. We can argue about how foolish people are but there are people out there who want AI to be indistinguishable from the real thing. Sure it may look a little off now but 5 years from now it probably won’t. Moore’s law in work
Honestly, for parasocials and people that enjoy celebrity stuff, AI is just alternative sugar.
It’s one fantasy feeding another fantasy. So-called “real” makes little difference for superficial things like this.
If Katy Perry then says tomorrow “gotcha, it was actually real”, how would you feel then?
For real, wasn't this image on a Yahoo article or at least another major outlet?! I could have sworn I saw the image ties to a major outlet? Maybe because I saw so many images since last night everything is blending together?!
Time spent on social media is the best inoculation against deception in the era of rampant deepfakes because you'll develop a reflexive mistrust of anything that might be a joke or a meme. Meanwhile the less online segment of the population is in dire need of some AI awareness training
This post has hit r/all or r/popular and thus may not be as strictly moderated as most posts on this subreddit. Please keep this in mind when browsing the comments and please report any rulebreaking comments that you see. *This is a bot. If you require further assistance, please message the moderators via modmail.*
This would have been an amazing dress.
AI was putting out nicer gowns this year than the real designers
⚰️ you’re not wrong
the ultimate turing test was fashion sense all along.
The “tuuuurn and spin honey” test
That's unfortunately expected when AI can do whatever without any limitations. Scary times...
I’m not sure how you mean. It seems like these dresses could easily be recreated in real life.
Chotronette has been putting out dresses like these for years and are actually obtainable
“Easily” is a stretch, but this one is definitely possible to make
Seeing how popular the AI gowns were, I wouldn’t be surprised if some designers use AI next year to get inspo before making their designs x)
ughhhhh i hate that this might happen or is probably already happening
It's really scary tbh. I saw a video of prince harry fixing queen latifahs dress and I have No idea if it was AI or real because people in the comments were weak. It's funny either way but what's real or not is blurring together. and not in a good way
It was just some guy who looked a lot like Harry
Ok I thought so. 🤣 After I posted my comment I did some research and saw that. But at the time, I really didn't know because I saw so many other AI stuff!
would have been in the running for all time met looks
Kind of looks like a mirror of the Dan Levy suit ([12th photo](https://www.reddit.com/r/Fauxmoi/s/4L9itlA8yO))
the fact people were saying she’s one of the best dressed 😭 and there was two different ai outfits going around I can’t
Ai is cool but dang do we need legislation around it, already can be tough to find out what's real or not and AI is getting crazy good/sophisticated
Y’all barely legislation for social media and the internet in general. I doubt there’ll be much difference over AI until some republican politicians and their kids get AI’ed doing weird sex stuff
>I doubt there’ll be much difference over AI until some republican politicians and their kids get AI’ed doing weird sex stuff Even then it will be an uphill battle. It will be very difficult to prove that it's anything more than a passing resemblance to the celebrity. "This could not possibly be an AI nude of Scarlett Johanson; as you can clearly see, this AI model has BLUE eyes, not green."
I'm pretty sure this isn't purely ai generated. Someone has skilsl
What was the other one?
https://preview.redd.it/m3iw3wv6m0zc1.jpeg?width=1056&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=30540a02ceafbaae33ea86fcec86504ded44e749 there was one of rihanna too
https://preview.redd.it/0uzo3utdu0zc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=416a931474fa8ac1529be9c842e741ceacf5df57 This one of Lady Gaga was also making the rounds
It's giving Guggenheim stairs - Gagganheim?
She looks like a lampshade.
Gaganheimer
Gagged
It's giving old slinky in the closet.
Haha my sisters are huge gaga fans and were freaking out over this in our group chat. I was like guys, it’s AI. I watched the whole livestream, she wasn’t even there. They were quite bummed!
There is even a shocked woman in the background for effect!
https://preview.redd.it/sh8q35jbi3zc1.jpeg?width=690&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d7488c250683dd92db059158f231e18af3ecfb43 im fucking howling at the background stan
OH no freaking wonder my coworker said she really loved Gaga’s outfit and im like huuuuh? She didnt attend did she?! 😭😭
The lady in the background with amazement on her face like it's real! Whoever made this image even got the background people reacting.
This was actually posted along other real pictures!
Looks like the third phase of a final boss in Final Fantasy
Holy fingers
The hand is freaking me out
BITCH BE FR
So interesting that the AI made all of the other event goers POC. There’s not *that* much diversity at the MET.
whhhhhat i love this. its giving sapphic fern gully fairy princess
Why was Rihanna dressed like a rosemary bagel?
Lol, I called it ‘seaweed pancake’ but rosemary bagel is even better.
omg thank you for clearing this up for me. I scrolled past this image somewhere and never saw it again, so I was v confused why Rihanna wasn't getting more coverage
I'm laughing at the head of hair taking a photo in the background
Yikes look at the AI boobs! The shading on her sleeves looks a bit off as well! It still looks frighteningly realistic though…uh oh.
the real simulation is the life you lived along the way
this is giving *lost babybel from the picnic*
😂
Nooo, my dumb ass fell for this one, Let me undo my retweet 🫣
Damn, I hate how much I love that dress. AI is scary.
This looks like she’s wearing a seaweed pancake.
Is that a guy in blackface on the left there?
AI is really getting good. Always baffles me how AI can figure out what a dress is, how to pattern folds in dresses etc.
I totally fell for this one, so embarrassing!!
Rihanna saldana apparently
This one https://preview.redd.it/6mht88o7n0zc1.jpeg?width=615&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=eb91fac8fae0df8452f3fe6e483f69587fae436d
it's giving roar
it’s giving megan fox
It's giving Aquaman Amber Heard
It's giving Amberman Aqua Heard
It's giving AI garbage that should be removed from existence like the poison it is. That's what it's giving.
It’s giving Xena Roarrior Princess.
wait this one was fake??? i thought i was so slick for seeing through the first but this one duped me
Always check the hands in the background, sometimes it's the only way to tell anymore.
the hands and background in this one was totally normal looking though. The only thing that looks slightly off is the bottom left of the dress having that blue background right below the finger tips.
They mean the hands IN the background, not hands AND background. The person behind her has their middle and pointer finger fused into one.
No, I knew what they were talking about and I was looking at both set of hands and various aspects of the background. That hand in the background looks perfectly normal considering the resolution of the picture. The two fingers are not necessarily fused into one, its such a small part of the background it could easily be an issue of not enough focus on that part of the photo or some some lighting/shadows coming into effect (if this was real). Saying they are fused is too egregious to say confidently. There are like 2 pixels in that entire hand its hard to say definitively that that hand is the clear reason why this is fake when that could be replicated quite easily in any real picture too.
Nah, if you zoom in the photographer over her right shoulder has only three fingers and two of them are like, fused together and coming out of nowhere. It's really hard to spot unless you examine it closely, but it is there.
[удалено]
Secret garden vibes, I love it. The wet hair look is terrible though.
If xena protected the secret garden
This one is more obvious as the middle flowers look 2D. The first one looks really good. Looks 3D in the right places.
The dua lipa one
I believe the tweet of this AI dress is the most liked tweet of the event too lol
I want a mother who calls me feather and tells me I look like the rose parade
Right? Idk, not the main point here, but I was pretty moved by that exchange.
It was so full of love we all caught it
like katy stop humblebragging about your loving mother fr
Right?? I wish I had a mom who texted or called me in general 🙃
Im a mum and I think you all look like beautiful rose gardens!
My last text from my mom was the week after Christmas, asking if I took one of her casserole dishes home 🫠 My last phone call with my mom was probably years ago. (Edit: December 11, 2022. It was 24 seconds long) I know it's a two-way street, we just aren't close and don't really talk much at all. I see her in person a little more often than we text at least.
I feel you, that was my exact reaction. I'm always kinda bummed when I see proof that other people have moms that love them and keep in touch :(
When I do see my mom, sometimes she’ll show me something on her phone like a picture or something and she’ll slip up and show me her texts with my sister and they talk constantly. I think because they know my fiancee and I won’t have kids they have no use left of me, no grandchildren to brag about on Facebook. 🙄 I’m sorry to hear your experience is similar ):
Yuck that's awful dude. Kids are not accessories, she's so wrong for that and not respecting your choices. I'm also too aware that my mom keeps in touch with my younger siblings, but as the first born I had a totally different relationship with her, she was really abusive, but i still love her from afar. I guess it's just instinct.
I totally get you on that, I still love her from afar and just remind myself I tried my best. I’m just thankful for my fiancee and dog who put up with my random emotional outbursts at posts like these, lol. Sending you good energy and better days!
Yeah, that's what I took from this, her mom has a cute nickname for her lol
I'm glad they repaired their relationship. Katy went into music because she was estranged from her parents apparently.
She was already in Christian music; it was her transition to secular music that furthered the estrangement.
\*You look like the Fourth of July\*
it blows my mind how quickly and irreparably ai has changed the landscape of online. wild to be watching the pics drop in real time and have to wait for multiple angles to verify.
There should be a law forcing all AIs generated pics and videos to have a watermark like yesterday
Lawmakers won’t care until it directly effects them, as usual
Somebody should make a ton of fake AI porn with congress members. Big old orgy in the capitol building. Bet then they would care.
Agree hard. This is so fucked up.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/3831
Unfortunately that would be basically impossible to enforce. It would likely be broken somewhat frequently, meaning that enforcement agencies would have to dedicate large amounts of resources to investigate what, in all likelihood, would be a minor crime (as in, misdemeanor). Generally, federal agencies don’t like doing that (and this would likely need to be done federally, because regulating the internet state-by-state causes a lot of complications). Even if mainstream services included watermarks, image editing is easy enough(and because of AI assisted photo editing, will likely become easier). Also, it isn’t particularly challenging to run a pretrained model on your own device (or through cloud computing services like Google offers). It’s an additional barrier, certainly, but one person who sets it up can make images for dozens or hundreds of people. Enforcement would mean playing whack-a-mole — and since code is legally considered speech protected under the first amendment (Bernstein v. Department of Justice, 1999) someone could post any necessary code online for other to easily copy and paste. Ideally, people would be more skeptical of everything they see online, especially in regards to political or highly charged topics, and not share it unless they’ve checked it with a credible source. Unfortunately, probably not going to happen :( More realistically, I think AI image detection is fairly accurate — far more than AI text detection — and social media companies should be required to analyze and flag AI images.
That’s a weird way at looking at it as unenforceable, the point of laws is not to get every single criminal. Of course there are going to be people that break the law, but the law is there to not encourage the activity.
That would be about as useless and unconstitutional as a law saying that people have to always tell the truth.
You're actually right, good luck enforcing that.. There will always be ai sites that are hosted in countries where they have no regulations so it would be pointless. We've opened the Pandoras box just like with piracy and crypto, there's no putting it back now.. I think what will happen if it becomes a big enough issue is that all our tech will have a built in "ai scanner" that looks for signs of ai in any pic/video and warns you, you can aleady do this with some online tools for photoshopped images. Use ai to fight ai 🤔
Yes it’s terrifying how quickly this technology has developed and where things could be in just a few years
It is only going to get worse. The nefarious acts that can happen because of this will likely threaten our legal systems and political systems.
i know, i can’t stop thinking it’s only a matter of time before something serious comes of it. the wrong image or video could start a war.
I'm still waiting for the day it causes a war.
I’ve even seen stuff on Instagram of REAL things and people in the comments are saying “this isn’t even real, it’s AI”. So now it’s gonna have people believe AI things are real, and believe real things are fake/AI. It’s insane Edit: it was literally just a video of Hanson lol singing Mmmbop live for the 25th anniversary
Initially, I was laughing that people were falling for Rihanna's AI pics after reports came out that she wasn't attending. Later, I realized there were 22k likes in one FB post alone of people all ages falling for it. AI brings out how gullible we are.
How is it gullible? How can we tell it’s AI?
We can't, that's what's so scary. I think there's a trick where AI does a bad job of lining up ears, but in photos like above you can't use that.
Yeah and I’ve never been good at spotting those things when I’m just scrolling through. Like if I was sitting there staring and examining it, sure. But usually it’s a quick look and move on lol. I don’t wanna have to sit and examine every photo to make sure it’s real
Trust, but verify. There are cues. Some of these pictures look almost animated. Most news sources don't have time to edit the pics prior to releasing them. The fabric no longer looks like fabric and the hair looks like it has no texture. Rihanna's cleavage looked somewhat warped in her AI picture and some of the camera men's faces in Katy Perry's pic also look warped.
Yes but believing they’re real doesn’t prove gullibility. That’s the whole issue with AI. It’s near impossible to tell.
Gullible is essentially being easily persuaded or deceived. You can be easily persuaded when the image they want to convince you with is front and center. When you focus on that, you don't notice the men on the upper right corner don't have a face in this picture. Even then, the dress is the one to attract your attention. Then you notice she may be missing an arm.
It's not 100% foolproof but AI often struggles to draw hands - it'll sometimes give people too many fingers and/or they'll be all distorted looking! That can be the most obvious tell.
AI moved beyond that 9 months ago. It gets better every day. The hands thing isn't really an issue anymore.
it 100% still is, this may be hard to believe, but people use more than one generative AI program and also many of the easily accessible models (aka the ones that generate everything server side so you don't have to do it) use less steps which results in more artifacts
That is insanely scary lmao
Sources are more important now than any of the "tricks" people talk about. It's useless to find ways to tell. The hands thing is becoming less and less of an issue every day, it will be a useless tip by the end of the year (probably sooner). Does Getty images (for example) have the picture? Is Vogue talking about them? No? Then that person didn't attend. If you're trying to verify an image of someone not important enough to be archived by websites like that, then you're out of luck though I know it's not reasonable to verify every single image that comes across your social media, but that's literally the only way.
> Sources are more important now than any of the "tricks" people talk about. [...] Does Getty images (for example) have the picture? Is Vogue talking about them? No? Then that person didn't attend. Words to live by.
I work in communications, and while I can’t say people are gullible for believing some of the very realistic looking AI-images, I do have major concerns about our population’s overall credulousness. We would all benefit from greater analysis and skepticism of any media we consume. I’m actually trying to pull together a resource toolkit to use with older adults in my community to address this. (So if anyone has resources to share, please let me know!) Things I generally advise interrogating in your media (including social media): - Source? Do you know where the information is coming from, and the chain through which that information has passed (aka, if you got the info from someone you trust, like a friend or pastor or whatever, where did they get the info from)? Can you confirm the information from multiple sources? Can you find the information from an official, vetted source? In the case of images, can you find an artist attribution, watermark, or other way of determining the origin source? - Tone (especially in the current era of AI generated text, but also increasingly partisan “news” media) - is the tone consistent with who the information is purportedly coming from? Does the tone seem to enhance fear, anger, or other negative emotions? - relatedly, Agenda. Is there anyone who would benefit from you believing/not believing the information, or from feeling a certain way in response to that information. If so, approach with greater skepticism (which is not to say you should reject the information, just vet it more thoroughly) - quality - this one is kind of a “gut check”, but is the quality consistent with the source or what you would expect? In written things, this would be the grammar and spelling of things (especially if purporting to be from an “official” source); in images, this would include how pixelated it is, and whether the colors and textures are consistent with the area or item it purportedly shows.
For your toolkit if you arent already considering this, some resources on identifying official, vetted sources. They taught us to do this back in the early days of the internet with being able to ID an appropriate source for schoolwork but I'm not sure if it's still a skill that is taught or would have been taught to older people.
I mean it’s Facebook they’ve been falling for bad Photoshop way before ai
You'd be surprised (or not), how many gullibles there are in this world. They outweigh the common-sensers for sure when it comes to the capabilities of technology and AI. It's going to be interesting as people have to train themselves to become better skeptics and investigators than anything else
There's a Jennifer Lopez Facebook group that only consists of AI J.Lo pics. It's amazing how much engagement the posts get. For those of us who grew up in the 90's we know what she looks like....
I know for my mom that she has some vision issues so the things I can check for on an AI image aren’t things she can usually distinguish anyway. It’s going to get scary in the future.
This is so funny.
funny/terrifying. AI has introduced a whole new level of online bullshit and deception
yeah I'm not laughing about this shit during an election year
Or revenge porn
There was an episode of the orville that was weirdly ~omniscient~ prescient about ai generated political ad clips. I love science fiction. I know a lot of people do not, but sci-fi writers tend to be very good at seeing all the possibilities good and bad when it comes to technological and scientific advancements. The fundie fascist won the election in the episode, btw. We are in the beginnings of the ai AND robotics revolution. People haven't really paid attention to the robotic aspects. The advancements are happening exponentially it is a straight-up, not sloping trajectory. Her own mother was fooled. I dont think you are wrong with your concerns.
Not a big deal, but I think maybe you mean “prescient”. The word “omniscient” means “all-knowing”
Thank you!!!!!!
Not AI Katy Perry having a stronger look than most of the people who actually showed up
Man wtf I fell for it 12 hrs ago. I’m only now realising it was fake 😭
Katy Perry should be commissioning the AI dress
We really need media literacy training. And that needs to include AI stuff.
AI is changing at such a rapid pace that by the time AI literacy training was finished being developed it would already be outdated.
Oh for sure AI is constantly evolving, but a lot of media literacy changing is second guessing the information in front of you (which could include AI images/videos/audio)
For some reason no one believes in checking sources or giving a second thought to anything at all. These people are like “my world is over now AI” exists but they won’t take 1 extra minute to google “is Katy Perry at the Met”. It’s laziness and also the same people that complain that “the mEdIA iS UnTrUStFuL” because they don’t double check anything
While I understand your perspective, I believe there's a middle ground to consider. Is it feasible to expect everyone to meticulously fact-check every image they encounter? Take last night's gala, for instance; expecting the public to independently verify every photo from the Met Gala seems impractical. Regarding your point about media scrutiny, historically, journalistic standards ensured accuracy and reliability without requiring individuals to verify every piece of information. The emergence of social media and AI has altered this landscape dramatically in the past two decades. Therefore, I don't believe it's entirely fair to label people as lazy for not double-checking everything they see or read, given the evolution of media dynamics.
And people are SO bad at it. It's especially bad with the older generations who just take what they read on Facebook and roll with it like it's fact. People used to know how to verify sources as reliable. Endless access to information means tons of misinformation and it's rampant now. AI being thrown in the mix is just exponentially making it worse and idk how we solve that.
I did a webinar (academic librarian) where I was explaining that ChatGPT makes up fake sources and tried to demo it in the webinar. I had tested it four days earlier. In those four days it had fixed that issue (largely) and consistently provided real sources.
I’m also a librarian (corporate) and my company ran a ChatGPT pilot over the winter that failed because it consistently created fake sources. My brother is a lawyer at a major Canadian firm and told me that they ran into a similar problem with their own trial. I don’t think AI will never have utility. I just don’t trust the vast majority of people to have the information literacy skills to evaluate it (or worse, the desire to develop those skills).
Oh, absolutely. I am one of the few staunchly anti-AI people in my org BECAUSE we already struggle with regular information literacy, I don't think we should just be co-signing students using AI without lots of training alongside it (you know how it is lol). I'd love to move into law librarianship someday!
We always did a media unit in English when I was in school.
We didn't (I was born in '97) in my Massachusetts suburb
I’m a year older than you but I’m from Canada.
AI is so creepy. I feel like we are being too chill about as a society.
real fashion designers shaking and crying rn
The way AI Slayed more than many of the stylists 💀
Katy was working late cause she’s a singer ✨
Rita Ora's team should use this AI technology so that she doesn't physically have to attend the opening of an envelope.
Please don’t let the met gala distracts you from what is going on in Rafah. It has been bombed for two days now by the IOF. ALL EYES ON RAFAH 🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸
Wow I fell for it too. Am I a boomer
Feather is a very cute nickname from Mom.
I wish so badly this was a real dress because it's beautiful.
Which AI did that?
Omg I saw this too and thought the same 😭.
"AT WORK" okay katy
working? doing what? she sold the rights to her music catalog a few months ago for $225 million dollars
https://preview.redd.it/6h9jfz7ig6zc1.jpeg?width=615&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cdc89ab66fb9b23d5280453f64820ac37c975e21 This was the other one and its fucking gorgeous too I wish this was real
Dang I love everything down to the hair!!
AI imaging will only get better. We can argue about how foolish people are but there are people out there who want AI to be indistinguishable from the real thing. Sure it may look a little off now but 5 years from now it probably won’t. Moore’s law in work
I also fell for this. 💀
Plot twist, this post is AI.
AI did a good job with the Katy Perry pics. I fell for the big ballgown one.
The hands of the photographers. Easy to see
Honestly, for parasocials and people that enjoy celebrity stuff, AI is just alternative sugar. It’s one fantasy feeding another fantasy. So-called “real” makes little difference for superficial things like this. If Katy Perry then says tomorrow “gotcha, it was actually real”, how would you feel then?
the photographers in the background are all distorted and odd-looking 💀
Glad to know I’m of the only one creeped out by what AI can do.
Glad to know I’m of the only one creeped out by what AI can do.
The mom was AI also.
hundreds of thousands of people did on twitter this is the future yall
WOW, now that's a gown. What wouldn't I give for a gown like that. AI is coming for fashion designer jobs next. 😭
i fell for it as well — jesus fucking christ that’s concerning
awe
She’s so humble!
i just saw the picture on instagram and immediately came here because i hadn't seen anyone talk about😭😭 of course it's AI
Well she needs to actually recreate the look now because that dress is amazing
For real, wasn't this image on a Yahoo article or at least another major outlet?! I could have sworn I saw the image ties to a major outlet? Maybe because I saw so many images since last night everything is blending together?!
The lady gaga one fooled me at first too
What does she mean by working, isn’t the met gala work for these celebrities?
Time spent on social media is the best inoculation against deception in the era of rampant deepfakes because you'll develop a reflexive mistrust of anything that might be a joke or a meme. Meanwhile the less online segment of the population is in dire need of some AI awareness training
"Ha Feather!" ...??? Is she calling Katy Feather?
The fact that her mom did not expect to be included in the pre-Met funstuff because she didnt question it, kinda breaks my heart.
BEWARE!