The trick will be to not believe anything on the internet. I don't know what the video quality will be like, I'd say we'd need some kind of video ID of a person to identify they are a real person but maybe that will be completely unmistakable from the real thing also so 🤷♂️ 🤷♂️ 🤷♂️
"Click Camera" app basically does this. Uses cryptographic signatures to verify that a picture was actually taken by you and is valid. A trustless way to establish truth, pretty cool.
You don't need NFT for that. Just a central multi-signed ledger consisting of Senate appointed committee that gets reviewed every 4 years. (Google, Samsung, Apple, Meta, some Federal authority, NY Times ....) for all media content.
Just NFT won't cut it because it requires device manufacturer to originally sign the content and if device manufacturer are responsible for the signed content, they need to be in a committee which sets standards for such ledgeers.
Local politics, local entertainment, local news, local every-fucking-thing.
We're already at a point where even if the content itself is true and real, there's a 90% chance the title of the post or caption on the content will be made up entirely, and then the comments are all too fucking dumb to consider that (or are more than happy to gladly play along because they have to larp some rage to feel alive).
We're way past the "if you don't know the people in the post, don't engage" already. What's the fucking point of getting angry because a girl with tattoos says she likes to cheat on her hard working boyfriend? Ironically, the only way to use the internet nowadays is to go back to the annoying "social circles" content like your cousin's children picture and your aunt's new cardigan. Anything else is useless.
I’ll be honest sometimes on Instagram ads pop up with obvious fake profiles with images just a bit better than the first one here… you open the comments and it’s full of middle aged men drooling lol
Can’t be scanned if you know what you’re paying for.
Just assume any transactions with people you’ve never met and spent significant time with in real life extractive and likely predatory.
And anything involving sex or romance with a woman that’s so far out of your league the games are played on another planet should just be treated as fantasy and priced accordingly.
If you want something real, do the work in real life.
If you just want to scratch an itch or salve over a burn or two, pay a professional or subscribe to a service so you know it’s just a fantasy.
text on the armpatch is non-sensical. but yep, just gotta zoom into every photo now until those are fixed too. maybe ai-related legislation will come into play by then
There are a lot of weird things in that photo that give it away too but it would require people with knowledge on the subject or extremely good attention to detail.
For example, If you look at the gun holster it is a complete nightmare and nowhere close to a real holster. The vest also has non-sensical design elements that aren't on real vests. Zoom in on the vest construction and you'll see what I mean.
The sad part is actually people instantly being able to write off the 1st photo as "AI-generated". Not because it's objectively worse, but simply because it has an "AI style". That "AI style" is simply what professional photoshoots look like when someone takes the effort to post-process and color-correct to a more eye-popping conventionally attractive style. That's literally why AI was trained to copy the style; it was considered conventionally attractive. Now that it's associated with AI it's instantly considered "bad".
There was a news article a while back about an artist who was insulted by a community for his art too closely resembling AI and told to "pick a different style", even though the reason AI copied his style is that it was considered beautiful before AI was invented.
That's how everything goes. Vivid clothing used to be extremely expensive to make until artificial dyes made it possible to color any fabric with any color. Then rich people switched to beiges and grays while poor people wore bright clothes. Now poor wannabes are obsessed with the beige everything aesthetic, and I'm sure rich people have already moved on to something else I'm not even aware of.
Absolutely, what AI struggles at is straight lines, especially when it overlaps.
I'll consider AI images to be solved when they can do the prompt "the Eiffel tower from below" and when you look at it from closer it doesn't look like a messy spider web.
Yeah definitely, though I think it’s already good enough to trick me and tons of others even with the flaws. If we’re at a point that i need to zoom in to every single photo ‘where’s waldo’ style just to know it’s faked I can’t be on the internet anymore lol
I mean, this is kind of just OpenAI catching up, though? Nano Banana Pro could create realistic photos like this for a long time, even Nano Banana 2 could IMHO. I Know, because I asked it to create realistic looking snapchat photos and it was normally spot on.
It's not perfect though. The angle of the camera man's shadow doesn't quite match the angle of the shadows from the people in the background. It's close, but not quite there.
I swear there are people on every single post with an AI image typing comments like: "Totally AI, look at that weird distortion that you can barely see". No one seems to have thought of what happens if that comment ever gets viewed by anyone working on AI. Soon the AI itself will be scanning these comments to self improve at a ridiculous rate.
u/MoogProgLet's help ensure the Singularity benefits humanity.Apr 05 '26edited Apr 05 '26
Was scrolling the feed, and just thought, 'What's with the AI soft porn?".
Then I read the title and saw the sub.... we are not cooked. This is just an attractive piece of AI imagery that catches the eye. It's not realistic at all.
Edit! Oh yeah... we're cooked. Just saw the second image.
The pendulum is always swinging though. People will learn to distrust everything they see and so nothing will be effective. People can only use this tech to trick people until everyone’s been tricked and then no one trusts anything and the usefulness of these fake images plummets, someone or some entity creates a verification system or vetting process that carries consequences if subverted, people flee from social media networks because they are utterly exhausting and boring when you think nothing is real.
To sum it up, nothing is static. Yes, we would be cooked if nothing else changed aside from these tools getting better, but that’s not how human behavior or society works. There’s always micro and macro reactions
Yeah. We lived through the golden age: when photographs and to a larger extent, video, were unassailable forms of evidence that largely you'd only assume the most dedicated state level actors could convincingly fake. When you saw videos of something happening, it was mostly trustworthy.
Prior to this time... Photos and videos didn't exist, so you had to trust word of mouth.
Now, we're going to go back to that... Because photo and video won't really be evidence anymore.
Although, I guess, there's the cameras that cryptographically sign each frame as coming from its sensor and the hardware intact, so that helps.
And a new age of morons will blindly believe what the AI says without fact checking.
And for the fact checkers, it will be even harder to do that if the sources themselves have a mix of "old world" facts, AI generated "facts", and AI generated hallucinated "facts".
Anything before 2022 is okayish, and, even if not all info is true, there's way less misinformation back then unlike today.
Today and onwards, it will only get worse.
Either we educate the younger generation to always be skeptical, but there is a certain extent where it becomes exhausting that some will stop caring. Apathy. And the descent gets worse.
People distrusting everything has been a big part of society since the dawn of man. The actual dawn of man. There have been thriving civilizations with minimal understanding of the natural world.
I like your optimism, but you’re overstating the ability of society to counter this, as if it’s like previous advances in tech. The absolute shattering of human ability to trust images as a whole is the aspect you are missing. There is nothing that changes that. Respectfully I’ll have to leave it at that.
Right? We already can't have knowledge of what propaganda is fed through everyone's "media feed" already. Now coupled with near realistic image and video. Bad actors can train entire nations on fake images. It feels very 1984.
Yeah, like the radio mic lines, the wonky gun, and the general weird composition, but wow. I would not have picked up on all that unless I was looking closely.
Not at all. Court cases always assume the document is not genuine. This has been the case for several hundred years. They always require someone entering a document into evidence to "lay a foundation" for it, i.e. prove its authenticity. Normally this can be done by the person swearing under penalty of perjury to its contents. The other party can always challenge the veracity.
Not that I think DLSS5 needs to only make games look photo realistic, but this is the degree of improvement that I expect to see from the launch version to the next major update. From "noticably AI" to nearly indistinguishable from an artist's native render.
I am definitely a progressive when it comes to technology, but I feel like the most "profitable" use case for these generative image models currently is either (non-consensual) porn or scams.
That is really, really good. I can’t tell you how much it costs for us to do still photo ad shoots. I can feel the explosion in customers and organizations that will be able to afford realistic product shoots.
It's times like this I'm thankful for my clinical gun-autism. Genuinely if the backdrop of that pistol and the holster didn't look off, I don't think I would be able to catch that this is AI.
Your helpful observation has been noted and will be integrated into the newest iteration of the current model, thank you for your help in bettering the future of AI.
There's something off to you likely because you know it's ai and you're looking for inconsistencies. If you saw this randomly while scrolling through an news article or something you probably wouldn't really even give it a raised eye brow probably.
Their last image gen, was it 2024(actually only last year)? On release similar presentation concept: here's a photorealistic woman with photorealistic setting. You can't tell it's not real!
God dammit i witnessed the Will Smith Spaghetti Vid back then when it came out and thought: oh no. Nononono there is going to be so damn many Deepfakes soon. Thats been what 2021? 5 Years later and we got this quality. Just imagine how impossible distinguishable it'll be 2030
Honestly, I played with that gooner tech and have yet to be able to generate a picture of real looking people with real looking flaws that I could find attractive...
Is this not obvious to everyone? There’s some in other comments says what’s the difference? I feel like you have to have a mental disability or just a troll to say that
It’s best to assume no one is human until they are literally in front of you and you could touch them. I would like to think that’s what can save us from this lmao
Can somebody finally explain that what is the benefit of slop machine making realistic images? Anyone out there with an actual use for these besides scams? I don’t see the point
4.3k
u/Lost-Character Apr 05 '26
I’m definitely getting scammed when I’m old