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

  • @doctorcrimson
    link
    English
    -5
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Luckily we’ve already begun developing tools to help detect AI Images with higher accuracy than a human curator.

      • @doctorcrimson
        link
        English
        -78 months ago

        I said “with higher accuracy than a human curator.” You didn’t really build upon that, no offence. You also didn’t upvote despite literally repeating something that I said. You just like to take up space in people’s inboxes? I’m trying not to be an asshole about it but I feel legitimate confusion about the purpose of your reply.

        • @jarfil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          28 months ago

          You said we’ve “begun developing” tools with higer accuracy, I said we’re already using tools with a lower accuracy (higher false positive rate).

          (as for the rest… sorry for any imprecision, and I feel like you might want to get some sleep)

          • @doctorcrimson
            link
            English
            18 months ago

            Commercially available AI Detection algorithms are averaging around 60% accuracy, that’s already a 12% increase on the data shown in this study.

    • pflanzenregal
      link
      fedilink
      English
      38 months ago

      This isn’t possible as of now, at least not reliably. Yes, you can tailor a model to one specific generative model, but because we have no reliable outlier detection (to train the “AI made detector”), a generative model can always be trained with the detector model incorporated in the training process. The generative model (or a new model only designed to perturb output of the “original” generative model) would then learn to create outliers to the outlier detector, effectively fooling the detector. An outlier is everything that pretends to be “normal” but isn’t.

      In short: as of now we have no way to effectively and reliably defend against adversarial examples. This implies, that we have no way to effectively and reliably detect AI generated content.

      Please correct me if I’m wrong, I might be mixing up some things.

      • @doctorcrimson
        link
        English
        18 months ago

        It already exists, the human accuracy was only 48% average in this study. It’s really easy to beat.

        • pflanzenregal
          link
          fedilink
          English
          3
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          I said “reliably”, should have said “…and generally”. You can, as I said, always tailor a detector model to a certain target model (generator). But the reliability of this defense builds upon the assumption, that the target model is static and doesn’t change. This is has been a common error/mistake in AI research regarding defensive techniques against adversarial examples. And if you think about it, it’s a very strong assumption, that doesn’t make a lot of sense.

          Again, learning the characteristics of one or several fixed models is trivial and gets us nowhere, because evasive techniques (e.g. finding ‘adverserial examples against the detector’ so to speak) can’t be prevented as of know, to the best of my knowledge.

          Edit: link to paper discussing problems of common defenses/attack scenario modelling https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2020/hash/11f38f8ecd71867b42433548d1078e38-Abstract.html

          • @doctorcrimson
            link
            English
            18 months ago

            With the direction you are forcing this conversation, away from practical examples and our current reality, the two of us are operating purely off hypotheticals. With that in mind, you could completely skip reading the rest of this comment and it won’t impact your life in any way, shape, or form.

            If you think about it, the changes in the models working off data from the internet would actually make the unchanging defensive model (and to be clear it’s wrong to think that the AI based Defensive model would be static either) would make the defensive model more accurate over time because the less than 99% accurate generating models would eventually feed back into themselves dropping efficiency over time. This is especially true when models are allowed to learn and grow off of user prompts because users are likely to resubmit the results or make generative API Requests in repeating sequence to make shifting visuals for use in things like song visualisers or short video clips.