this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2024

5 points (85.7% liked)

No Stupid Questions

34964 readers

530 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)

Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.

Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.

Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.

Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.

Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.

Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.

Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.

Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.

Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Photographers Push Back on Facebook's 'Made with AI' Labels Triggered by Adobe Metadata. Do you agree “‘AI was used in this image’ is completely different than ‘Made with AI’”? (lemmings.world)

submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

47 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Source

top 47 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Looks like people are finally finding out they've been using AI all along.

Seems to me that employing the use of AI to alter an image should be labeled as "made with AI". It's not made by AI, AI was merely one of the tools used.

If you don't like admitting you used AI, just strip the metadata, I guess. This feels like something you should be able to turn off in your editor's settings, but I guess Adobe hasn't implemented that.

This comment was made with AI, as my phone's keyboard uses AI to automatically complete words, in a process strikingly similar to how ChatGPT works.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I totally agree with a streamlined identification of images generated by an AI prompt. But, to label an image with "made with AI" metadata when the image is original, taken by a human, and simply used AI tools to edit is absolutely misleading and the language can create confusion. It is not fair to the individual who has created the original work without the use if generative AI. I simply propose revising the language to create distinction.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Where I live, is very difficult to get permits to knock down an old building and build a new one. So, builders will "renovate" by knocking down everything but a single wall and then building a new structure around it.

I can imagine people using that to get around the "made with ai" label. I just touched it up!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

It’s like they’re ignoring the pixel I captured in the bottom left!

Really interesting analogy.

Also I imagine most anybody who gets a photo labeled will find a trick before making their next post. Copy the final image to a new PSD… print and scan for the less technically inclined… heh

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

The edits are what makes it made with AI. The original work obviously isn't.

If you're in-painting areas of an image with generative AI ("context aware" fill), you've used AI to create an image.

People are coming up with rather arbitrary distinctions between what is and isn't AI. Midjourney's output is clearly AI, and a drawing obviously isn't, but neither is very post-worthy. Things quickly get muddy when you start editing.

The people upset over this have been using AI for years and nobody cared. Now photographers are at risk of being replaced by an advanced version of the context aware fill they've been using themselves. This puts them in the difficult spot of wanting not to be replaced by AI (obviously) but also not wanting to have their AI use be detectable.

The debate isn't new; photo editors had this problem years ago when computers started replacing manual editing, artists had this problem when computer aided drawing (drawing tablets and such) started becoming affordable, and this is just the next step of the process.

Personally, I would love it if this feature would also be extended to "manual" editing. Add a nice little "this image has been altered" marker on any edited photographs, and call out any filters used to beautify selfies while we're at it.

I don't think the problem is that AI edited images are being marked, the problem AI that AI generated pictures and manually edited pictures aren't.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago (3 children)

I think every touch up besides color correction and cropping should be labeled as "photoshopped". And any usage of AI should be labeled as "Made with AI" because it cannot show which parts are real and which are not.

Besides, this is totally a skill issue. Removing this metadata is trivial.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Cropping can completely change the context of a photo.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

A lot of photographers will take a photo with the intention of cropping it. Cropping isn’t photoshopping.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

If I open an image in Photoshop and crop it, it's photoshopping.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

You don’t have to open photoshop to do it. Any basic editing software will include a cropping tool.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

🤦‍♂️

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

There are absolutely different levels of image editing. Color correction, cropping, scale, and rotation are basic enough that I would say they don’t even count as alterations. They’re just correcting what the camera didn’t, and often available in the camera's built in software. (Fun fact, what the sensor sees is not what it presents you in a jpeg.) Then there are more deceptive levels of editing, like removing or adding objects, altering someone’s appearance, swapping faces from different shots. Those are definitely image alterations, and what most people mean when they say an image is “photoshopped” (and you know that, don’t lie). Then there’s AI, where you’re just generating new information to put into the image. That’s extreme image alteration.

These all can be done with or without any sort of nefarious intent.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 months ago

Image manipulation is still image manipulation

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Sure But you could also achieve a similar effect in-camera by zooming in or moving closer to the subject

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Some of the more advanced color correction tools can drastically change an image. There’s a lot of gray in that line as well.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

DOD Imagery guidelines state that only color correction can be applied to "make the image appear the same as it was when it was captured" otherwise it must be labeled "DOD illustration" instead of "DOD Imagery"

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Why label it if it is trivial to avoid the label?

Doesn't that mean that bad actors will have additional cover for misise of AI?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Yes

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

That's the difference between "by" and "with".

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

People have a hard time with nuance.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Artists in 2023: "There should be labels on AI modified art!!"

Artists in 2024: "Wait, not like that..."

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I feel like these are two completely different sets of artists.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

no, they just replaced the normal tools with ai-enhanced versions and are labeling everything like that now.

ai noise reduction should not get this tag.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Better title: “Photographers complain when their use of AI is identified as such”

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

People are complaining that an advanced fill tool that’s mostly used to remove a smudge or something is automatically marking a full image as an AI creation. As-is if someone actually wants to bypass this “check” all they have to do is strip the image’s metadata before uploading it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

But they did use AI..

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Right? I thought I went crazy when I got to "I just used Generative Fill!" Like, he didn't just auto adjust the exposure and black levels! C'mon!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

or... don't use generative fill. if all you did was remove something, regular methods do more than enough. with generative fill you can just select a part and say now add a polar bear. there's no way of knowing how much has changed.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

there's a lot more than generative fill.

ai denoise, ai masking, ai image recognition and sorting.

hell, every phone is using some kind of "ai enhanced" noise reduction by default these days. these are just better versions of existing tools than have been used for decades.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

the post says gen fill

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

The label is accurate. Quit using AI if you don’t want your images labeled as such.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Guys, is clone tool ai?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

No - I don't agree that they're completely different.

"Made by AI" would be completely different.

"Made with AI" actually means pretty much the exact same thing as "AI was used in this image" - it's just that the former lays it out baldly and the latter softens the impact by using indirect language.

I can certainly see how "photographers" who use AI in their images would tend to prefer the latter, but bluntly, fuck 'em. If they can't handle the shame of the fact that they did so they should stop doing it - get up off their asses and invest some time and effort into doing it all themselves. And if they can't manage that, they should stop pretending to be artists.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

I think it is a bit of an unclear wording personally. "Made with", despite technically meaning what you're saying, is often colloquially used to mean "fully created by". I don't mind the AI tag, but I do see the photographers point about it implying wholesale generation instead of touchups.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Why many word when few good?

Seriously though, "AI" itself is misleading but if they want to be ignorant and whiny about it, then they should be labeled just as they are.

What they really seem to want is an automatic metadata tag that is more along the lines of "a human took this picture and then used 'AI' tools to modify it."

That may not work because by using Adobe products, the original metadata is being overwritten so Thotagram doesn't know that a photographer took the original.

A photographer could actually just type a little explanation ("I took this picture and then used Gen Fill only") in a plain text document, save it to their desktop, and copy & paste it in.

But then everyone would know that the image had been modified - which is what they're trying to avoid. They want everyone to believe that the picture they're posting is 100% their work.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Hey guys, I cheated in my exam using AI but I was the one who actually wrote down the answer. Why did I fail?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Can't wait for people to deliberately add the metadata to their image as a meme, such that a legit photograph without any AI used gets the unremovable made with ai tag

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I agree pretty heartily with this metadata signing approach to sussing out AI content,

Create a cert org that verifies that a given piece of creative software properly signs work made with their tools, get eyeballs on the cert so consumers know to look for it, watch and laugh while everyone who can't get thr cert starts trying to claim they're being censored because nobody trusts any of their shit anymore.

Bonus points if you can get the largest social media companies to only accept content that has the signing and have it flag when signs indicate photoshopping or AI work, or removal of another artist's watermark.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

That simply won't work, since you could just use a tool to recreate a Ai image 1:1, or extract the signing code and sign whatever you want.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 months ago

The opposite way could work, though. A label that guarantees the image isn't [created with AI / digitally edited in specific areas / overall digitally adjusted / edited at all]. I wonder if that's cryptographically viable? Of course it would have to start at the camera itself to work properly.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

There are ways to secure signatures to be a problem to recreate, not to mention how the signature can be unique to every piece of media made, meaning a fake can't be created reliably.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

How are you gonna prevent recreating a Ai image pixel by pixel or just importing a Ai image/taking a photo of one.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Importing and screen capping software can also have the certificate software on and sign it with the metadata of the original file they're copying, taking a picture of the screen with a separate device or pixel by pixel recreations could in theory get around it, but in practice, people will see at best a camera image being presented as a photoshopped or paintmade image, and at worst, some loser pointing their phone at their laptop to try and pass off something dishonestly. Pixel by pixel recreations, again, software can be given the metadata stamp, and if sites refuse to accept non stamped content, going pixel by pixel on unvetted software will just leave you with a neat png file for your trouble, and doing it manually, yeah if someone's going through and hand placing squares just to slip a single deep fake picture through, that person's a state actor and that's a whole other can of worms.

ETA: you can also sign the pixel art creation as pixel art based on it being a creation of squares, so that would tip people off in the signature notes of a post.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

The image looks like OP cherry picked some replies in the original thread. I wonder how many artists still want AI assisted art to be flagged as such.

EDIT The source is also linked under the images. They did leave out all the comments in favour of including AI metadata, but naturally they're there in the source linked under the images.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

💯

Absolutely cherry picked. Let us know if you peruse the source:

Without cherry picking… imagine these will be resized to the point of illegibility:

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Bad photographers complaining to be called out as bad photographers.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

I don't think that's fair. AI wont turn a bad photograph into a good one. It's a tool that quickly and automatically does something we've been doing by hand untill now. That's kind of like saying a photoshopped picture isn't "good" or "real". They're all photoshopped. Not a single serious photographer releases unedited photos except perhaps the ones shooting on film.