this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2023
43 points (92.2% liked)

Technology

59666 readers
3616 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
L3s
[email protected]
[email protected]
L4s
enu
43
Woman’s iPhone photo of son rejected from Sydney competition after judges ruled it could be AI | Suzi Dougherty’s photograph of 18-year-old Caspar deemed ‘suspicious’ by judges, even though it was ... (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 1 year ago by L4s to c/technology
9 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Woman’s iPhone photo of son rejected from Sydney competition after judges ruled it could be AI | Suzi Dougherty’s photograph of 18-year-old Caspar deemed ‘suspicious’ by judges, even though it was ...::Suzi Dougherty’s photograph of 18-year-old Caspar deemed ‘suspicious’ by judges, even though it was taken on her mobile

top 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] inspxtr 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

While a small kinda innocuous example, this seems to showcase how trust can start to erode with these technologies in an implicit inconspicuous way.

Along the same line of this, when art students enter in their portfolios in schools/competition, some may use generative tech, some may not. Would the admissions office reject them because they have doubts about the tools used to generate? Would they be transparent in such decisions? Anyone have thoughts/insights on this?

The other way around (use AI to judge a submission/applicant) is also currently complicated and controversial, at least with new legislation in New York on transparency and accountability when companies use AI for hiring/screening applications (https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/07/10/1076013/new-york-ai-hiring-law/)

[–] FuglyDuck -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The photo is ai, at least, in part.

Look at the face of the second guy. The eyes are blurry in a way that wouldn’t happen with a camera.

Then there’s the dress on the girl in the back- either it’s covering her head (and she’s wearing a wig,) or it’s her skin. There’s no neckline, anywhere

Also her face is a manikin, and the hand going towards that hand dryer is… weird.

[–] inspxtr 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

what do you mean? Aren’t those 2 in the back supposed to be mannequins? Do you mean those are generated?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

Yeah, theyre two mannequins at a museum display.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago

They clearly didnt know what they were looking for if they thought that photo was AI generated.

To get a mirror reflection of multiple subjects and have them each look unique is pretty difficult, especially with the correct angles.

My guess is they thought the colors looked too vibrant and thought it was an AI image.

[–] Ath47 10 points 1 year ago

This is frustrating because that picture looks absolutely nothing like an AI generated image. The judges are paranoid and suspicious because they keep hearing about the AI boogeyman, and apparently can't be bothered to ask a more knowledgeable person before passing judgement. Of course, image synthesis will reach this quality in the near future, so what are they going to do then?

[–] Spacebar 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

“When this image came up, we all loved it, then I said, ‘Hang on it looks a little AI-ish,’ then we all started talking about it and went well, we can’t know for sure it is or isn’t, but on the basis we’re suspicious we can’t allow it in.

  1. They couldn't reach out to the lady?
  2. The hands are all normal shaped hands with the right number of fingers. It's clearly not AI.