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

  • bitsplease@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    1 year ago

    One thing I'd be interested in is getting a self assessment from each person regarding how good they believe themselves to have been at picking out the fakes.

    I already see online comments constantly claiming that they can "totally tell" when an image is AI or a comment was chatGPT, but I suspect that confirmation bias plays a big part than most people suspect in how much they trust a source (the classic "if I agree with it, it's true, if I don't, then it's a bot/shill/idiot")

    • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      With the majority being in CS fields and having used ai image generation before they likely would be better at picking out than the average person

      • bitsplease@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        You'd think, but according to OP they were basically the same, slightly worse actually, which is interesting

        • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The ones using image generation did slightly better

          I was more commenting it to point out that it’s not necessary to find that person who can totally tell because they can’t

      • lloram239@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Even when you know what you are looking for, you are basically pixel hunting for artifacts or other signs that show it's AI without the image actually looking fake, e.g. the avocado one was easy to tell, as ever since DALLE1 avocado related things have been used as test images, the https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/ one was obvious due to how it was framed and some of the landscapes had that noise-vegetation-look that AI images tend to have. But none of the images look fake just by themselves, if you didn't specifically look for AI artifacts, it would be impossible to tell the difference or even notice that there is anything wrong with the image to begin with.

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

      Right? A self-assessed skill which is never tested is a funny thing anyways. It boils down to "I believe I'm good at it because I believe my belief is correct". Which in itself is shady, but then there are also incentives that people rather believe to be good, and those who don't probably rather don't speak up that much. Personally, I believe people lack the competence to make statements like these with any significant meaning.