Certainly the Google Gemini is fallible. I tried to add snow to a pic of my Blue Pullman and it removed the driving car and replaced it with an odd BP middle coach!

Quote from: Moonglum on Yesterday at 09:07:35 AMPhew, that's a lucky break, I had just left the group to go and listen to a Ben Ando talk!

Tim

@Moonglum Tim, you got away very luckily in that I have the same pic with you in it. Trouble is my AI programme doesn't understand "Add pink tutu to the 4th person from the left". It appears it just cannot count and puts it on the wrong person

This is what happens when you go to a beer festival in Devizes !

That was SO last year. At least we all made the effort this year. Not sure about those wellies though:

Thanks John @Trainfish,

I've been waiting for that one all Weekend. I was then trying to think of something funny but I don't really have the words although my wife's first comment was that my legs look better than they do in real life 

Cheers, weave 

and they used to say that the camera never lies

Quote from: Browning 9mm on Today at 08:58:26 AMand they used to say that the camera never lies

And that's the main issue.  All these images above have been in good faith, but to the eye they all look plausible. AI can be used to generate deep fakes and for of an older generation who are so used to believing that a photo can't lie often won't accept it.

It was the same when visual effect / CGI software became in reach of the average person and would run on a home PC (albeit a top end one) and people started producing UFO images. There was one that showed two craft fly over a tropical island, and my late father who was stationed at the same island after the war swore blind it was real.

People have used AI to generate topless, or even pornographic images of well known Hollywood stars - Its been almost impossible to undo the damage it done to their reputation as the images have to be examined through meta data to prove they were fake.  But by then the damage is done. 

Quote from: Browning 9mm on Today at 08:58:26 AMand they used to say that the camera never lies

They were lying.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was taken in by (non AI) fake photos of fairies supposedly taken in 1917.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies

Quote from: Jim Easterbrook on Today at 11:42:15 AM

Quote from: Browning 9mm on Today at 08:58:26 AMand they used to say that the camera never lies

They were lying.
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was taken in by (non AI) fake photos of fairies supposedly taken in 1917.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies

Not really the same. The camera didn't lie, it took genuine photos of fake subjects - unlike AI manipulated or, pre-AI, Photoshopped alterations after a photo's been taken.
 

Quote from: Jim Easterbrook on Today at 11:42:15 AM

Quote from: Browning 9mm on Today at 08:58:26 AMand they used to say that the camera never lies

They were lying.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was taken in by (non AI) fake photos of fairies supposedly taken in 1917.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies

Nooooooo....that was real 

Real estate agents have been producing photos of properties for sale that look bigger than they actually are for ages. I know because they did it to my townhouse, and that was back twelve years or so.

I do think that Malc-c has a very valid point, though.

Quote from: Malc-c on Today at 11:31:38 AMAnd that's the main issue.  All these images above have been in good faith, but to the eye they all look plausible. AI can be used to generate deep fakes and for of an older generation who are so used to believing that a photo can't lie often won't accept it.

People have used AI to generate topless, or even pornographic images of well known Hollywood stars - Its been almost impossible to undo the damage it done to their reputation as the images have to be examined through meta data to prove they were fake.  But by then the damage is done.

Couldn't agree more.  I hate to use a slippery slope argument, but that's what this is.  A normalisation of a fundamentally disruptive and damaging technology.  While I get that photo-manipulation has always been a thing, the scale of what you could do was pretty limited and required specific skills the vast majority of people have never had.  By definition AI images are dishonest and available to everyone, and while we can all see the problems with the attempts at adding snow, that won't be the case for much longer. 

I come here to see and read what other people build, warts and all, indeed the warts are the real benefit as they show me that my limited skills are no different than other peoples, and so I feel part of a broad accepting community of varied skill, practice and approach.  As more people use AI manipulation (indeed as more and more gets 'built in' to the technology we use) this will diminish and expectations will change, standards will converge to a highly manipulated norm and everyone will be worse off for it.

Sorry for the rant, I could go on for days like this!  Think its time at least for us to have a forum rule that any AI manipulated images have to be labelled as such as I know I can't stop the march of AI as much as I might want to