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

  • erwan@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    153
    ·
    1 year ago

    So if the average is roughly 10/20, that’s about the same as responding randomly each time, does that mean humans are completely unable to distinguish AI images?

    • SkyNTP@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      89
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      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.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        42
        ·
        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.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          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.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        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.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            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!

    • Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you look at the ratios of each picture, you’ll notice that there are roughly two categories: hard and easy pictures. Based on information like this, OP could fine tune a more comprehensive questionnaire to include some photos that are clearly in between. I think it would be interesting to use this data to figure out what could make a picture easy or hard to identify correctly.

      My guess is that a picture is easy if it has fingers or logical structures such as text, railways, buildings etc. while illustrations and drawings could be harder to identify correctly. Also, some natural structures such as coral, leaves and rocks could be difficult to identify correctly. When an AI makes mistakes in those areas, humans won’t notice them very easily.

      The number of easy and hard pictures was roughly equal, which brings the mean and median values close to 10/20. If you want to bring that value up or down, just change the number of hard to identify pictures.

      • pewter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        The number of easy and hard pictures was roughly equal, which brings the mean and median values close to 10/20.

        This is true if “hard” means “it’s trying to get you to make the wrong answer” as opposed to “it’s so hard to tell, so I’m just going to guess.”

        • Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s a very important distinction. Hard wasn’t the clearest word for that use. I guess I should have called it something else such as deceptive or misleading. The idea is that some pictures got a below 50% ratio, which means that people were really bad at categorizing them correctly.

          There were surprisingly few pictures that were close to 50%. Maybe it’s difficult to find pictures that make everyone guess randomly. There are always a few people who know what they’re doing because they generate pictures like this on a weekly basis. The answers will push that ratio higher.

          • pewter@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            A great example of the below 50% situation is the picture of the avocado and the tomato. I was confident that that was AI generated because I was pretty sure I’d seen that specific picture used as an example of how good Dall-E 3 was at normal text. However, most people who had used other models were probably used to butchered text and expected that one to be real.

            If they did this quiz again with only pictures that were sketches, I bet the standard deviation would be much smaller.

    • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 year ago

      It depends on if these were hand picked as the most convincing. If they were, this can’t be used a representative sample.

    • porkchop@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      Personally, I’m not surprised. I thought a 3D dancing baby was real.

    • doggle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      From this particular set, at least. Notice how people were better at guessing some particular images.

      Stylized and painterly images seem particularly hard to differentiate.