[numpad0]

NO OFFENSE - I think this is genuinely worth digging down that:

  - you identify as an artist of sorts,  
  - you can't tell AI from human images, and  
  - you sound absolutely pissed off by this.

In my personal experience watching online flamewars, there seem to be two types of people when it comes to AI, even among highly tech literate, which are:

  - those who can tell that an image was AI generated, instantly, even at thumbnail sizes, and manually drawn over
  - those who can NOT, regardless of time or resource allotted. Tends to be perpetually angry(my prejudiced PoV).

I personally hate the state of AI image generators, but simultaneously I feel this goes above hate or ethics. There has to be some thing or process that's causing it, and it's probably not like IQ or EQ or autism or anything. Also, I am of opinion that there is some chances that prolonged exposure to AI generated data might be corrupting brains of pro-AI people, but that's again just my highly prejudiced PoV and not a fact.

What could be it? More/less exposure to older, simplistic examples? Prior exposure to human art? Childhood head traumas? Or something else?

[tskj]

Idk, wasn't there a survey by Scott Alexander or Aella or something which showed that people aren't reliably able to distinguish AI generated images from human paintings? Not that some people suck at it, but that it's not really possible in any statistically significant way, with a curated set of images.

ie. you would fail too.

[numpad0]

That[1] used a hand picked set of ambiguous images and still got 60% overall accuracy across 11k participants. I don't know much about statistics[2], but 1) 60% HAS to be statistically significant, and it was 2) under ADVERSARIAL, not neutral, condition. So people can tell.

Anyways, that's besides my point. The point of mine is that, it always turn into all-caps flamewars like this, with no middle ground or third camps, and that this has to be more of a phenomenon than regular disagreements. This isn't bikeshedding. This is Spanish bullfighting centered around a piece of red cloth.

1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42216694

2: I just asked Gemini "is 60% accuracy over 11k participant for a test statistically significant and why", it said "yes, it is overwhelmingly statistically significant" and "completely off the charts". They said p<0.05 figure would be 50.94%.

[tskj]

Hmm yes, I had it backwards. I agree this is very statistically significant, but the effect size is tiny. Up from random chance to a mere 60%, means that Scott proved with high statistical significant that people reliably cannot tell.

Also I'm not that worried about the adversarial conditions, any real life conditions are likely adversarial in the relevant sense. No one is one-shotting generation and serving you that, obviously output has been selected for quality. I would call Scott's test not adversarial, but fair.

[WhatIsDukkha]

I don't actually care about AI images?

Most people put so little effort into prompting them that they come out statistically "average" which makes them blatantly ugly.

Most of them are pretty bad just like 90% of everything is bad. Humans create bad art all day long too.

I gave a specific example of a making a texture for a videogame? How does that change what you actually said to me very specifically despite maybe not reading what I said?

To the extent that I'm upset its at peoples capitulation at this DRM nonsense over being overly reactive to ... internet images which dont matter.