• M137@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    23 hours ago

    I keep seeing people say “this is AI” about images and video that are extremely obviously photoshops and other “manual” edits. And that’s fucking scary, IMO.
    How are they so unable to differentiate a shitty edit from AI? It’s completely different. No AI image or video I’ve ever seen has looked like a bad photoshop, CGI etc. The way AI stuff looks has a different thing to it, even really bad AI. And I fucking hate AI of all kinds, just to be clear.

    • entwine@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 hours ago

      How are they so unable to differentiate a shitty edit from AI?

      It’s just that most people don’t know what you mean when you say something is “AI generated”. With context clues, they tie back to terms they’re already familiar with, and are associated with fake computer generated imagery (“that’s Photoshopped”).

      I think most people have never even seen Adobe Photoshop, the actual software. Like, literally never laid their eyes on the gray window, the layers and tool panels, etc, yet they’ve still thrown the term “photoshopped” around.

    • DillDough@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Is it that they can’t differentiate them or that they don’t care to? For instance; I play online RPGs, most people make tons of art for their characters, businesses, etc. majority of the time it is AI slop but sometimes it’s just shit edits…I don’t care for either so I’ll just dismiss anything with shit filters or unnatural construction/orientation as AI slop and move on because it saves time and brain space…oh fuck I’m turning into Dr Cox in my old age…

    • yetAnotherUser@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Most people can’t tell the difference between the two, probably because they don’t know how either of them works. And just like others have said, it’s the same thing with CGI. I was watching Avatar 2 the other day and one of my friends said something about the graphics like “oh, that’s probably AI”, and I angrily replied “do you have any idea of how many dozens, if not hundreds of people painstakingly worked on this movie’s CGI??”

    • Jinn@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      22 hours ago

      Don’t think that’s what’s happening.

      I suspect it’s similar to my coworkers who refer to everything that uses any kind of networking as “Wi-Fi.”

      • LiveLM@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        20 hours ago

        The other day I watched a movie at the theaters and when a very obviously CGI animal showed up on screen I heard people going “It’s AI”.

        So yeah I agree, people just use the names they’re used to I suppose

    • lugal@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      24 hours ago

      Nah, they’ll add AI features and charge you double per month (if that didn’t already happen. Sometimes I confuse the timeline)

  • Zachariah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    1 day ago

    I could afford to call it photoshopped when it was a one-time fee. When they changed to a subscription model, I had to switch to piracy.

    • jacksilver@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 day ago

      Yeah, I think we may keep photoshopped in the vernacular to describe real photos that have been edited.

      There is a big difference between edited and completely fabricated.

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 day ago

      They actually work in tandem now. And honestly, some of the generative stuff in Adobe products I find genuinely useful. Specifically I really like the AI noise reduction in Lightroom. It allows people with less-expensive cameras to have better end results.

        • Obi@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          Can you clarify what you mean? This is the kind of trivia I’d normally know about but I fail to make a connection, a quick search also didn’t yield more info besides that it was supposedly whispered to the creators by a potential publisher, and the obvious reference to a “shop” for photos like a workshop.

          • atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 hours ago

            A photo shop is what you used to take your film or pictures to to be enlarged or touched up. This process became known as photo-shopping and the software was named after this. This is according to my artist grandma who died recently and my graphic design professor years ago.

          • too_high_for_this@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            It’s not true. It was called photo manipulation before Photoshop.

            Adobe has actually complained about the term photoshopping because it can lead to genericization and loss of their trademark.

        • too_high_for_this@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          19 hours ago

          That’s absolutely not true.

          Edit: Okay, eat shit downvoters. Please provide a source that confirms the term photoshop was used before 1992.

      • Jiral@lemmy.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Does it work similar to the noise reduction on flagship phones? Then it does create a feel of artificialness when looking closer, with a tendency for artifacts.