this post was submitted on 18 Dec 2024
38 points (100.0% liked)

askchapo

22814 readers
494 users here now

Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.

Rules:

  1. Posts must ask a question.

  2. If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.

  3. Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.

  4. Try !feedback@hexbear.net if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Some people say it naturally looks uncanny for them, but it doesn't happen to me, I can't really spot them... One trick to try is counting the fingers, but what else can I do?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Frank@hexbear.net 5 points 18 hours ago

It's getting less reliable, but look at the details of complex objects. The computational plagiarism engines can't think, and can't do abstract concepts. They fuck up hands because they don't have a concept of "hand" as a category of objects with fingers on the end of arms that grasp things. They're not drawing hands, they're putting pixels where those pixels are statistically probable.

So, look at complex objects - jewelry, buckles, electronics, guns, anything complex. The plagiarism engine doesn't "'know" what those things are. It doesn't know what buttons are or that buckles fasten things together. It's just putting pixels in statistically probable positions. Hence those objects tend to be smears of color and light and dark without actual details. That smearing is still present in many images even as the machines become more sophisticated. The boundaries between things are indistinct and wrong because the machine doesn't "know" what things, objects, concepts, are.