It’s a shame to see the journalist trusting an AI chat-bot to verify the trustworthiness of the image instead of asking a specialist. I feel like they should even have an AI detecting specialist in-house since we’re moving to having more generative AI material everywhere
Did they though? They mentioned a journalist ran it through a chat bot. They also mention it was verified by a reporter on the ground.
It’s like criticising a weather report because the reporter looked outside to see if it was raining, when they also consulted the simulation forecasting.
If the part of the image that reveals the image was made by an AI is obvious enough, why contact a specialist? Of course, reporters should absolutely be trained to spot such things with their bare eyes without something telling them specifically where to look. But still, once the reporter can already see what’s ridiculously wrong in the image, it would be waste of the specialist’s time to call them to come look at the image.
I guess now they don’t even need to find a tweet with 3 likes to present a convenient quote from “critics” or “the public” or “internet commenters” or “sources”, they can just ask ChatGPT to generate it for them. Either way any redaction where that kind of shit flies is not doing serious journalism.
It is implied in the article that the chatbot was able to point out details about the image that the reporter either could not immediately recognize without some kind of outside help or did not bother looking for.
So, the chatbot added making the reporter notice something on the photo in a few seconds that would have taken several minutes for the reporter to notice without aid of technology.
It’s not a shame. Have you tried this? Try it now! It only takes a minute.
Test a bunch of images against ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude. Ask it if the image was AI-generated. I think you’ll be surprised.
Gemini is the current king of that sort of image analysis but the others should do well too.
What do you think the experts use? LOL! They’re going to run an image through the same exact process that the chatbots would use plus some additional steps if they didn’t find anything obvious on the first pass.
It’s a shame to see the journalist trusting an AI chat-bot to verify the trustworthiness of the image instead of asking a specialist. I feel like they should even have an AI detecting specialist in-house since we’re moving to having more generative AI material everywhere
Did they though? They mentioned a journalist ran it through a chat bot. They also mention it was verified by a reporter on the ground.
It’s like criticising a weather report because the reporter looked outside to see if it was raining, when they also consulted the simulation forecasting.
If the part of the image that reveals the image was made by an AI is obvious enough, why contact a specialist? Of course, reporters should absolutely be trained to spot such things with their bare eyes without something telling them specifically where to look. But still, once the reporter can already see what’s ridiculously wrong in the image, it would be waste of the specialist’s time to call them to come look at the image.
What does that chatbot add?
My guess is the same thing as “critics say [x]”. The journalist has an obvious opinion but isn’t allowed by their head of redaction to put it in, so to maintain the illusion of NeutTraLITy™©® they find a strawman to hold that opinion for them.
I guess now they don’t even need to find a tweet with 3 likes to present a convenient quote from “critics” or “the public” or “internet commenters” or “sources”, they can just ask ChatGPT to generate it for them. Either way any redaction where that kind of shit flies is not doing serious journalism.
It is implied in the article that the chatbot was able to point out details about the image that the reporter either could not immediately recognize without some kind of outside help or did not bother looking for.
So, the chatbot added making the reporter notice something on the photo in a few seconds that would have taken several minutes for the reporter to notice without aid of technology.
It’s not a shame. Have you tried this? Try it now! It only takes a minute.
Test a bunch of images against ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude. Ask it if the image was AI-generated. I think you’ll be surprised.
Gemini is the current king of that sort of image analysis but the others should do well too.
What do you think the experts use? LOL! They’re going to run an image through the same exact process that the chatbots would use plus some additional steps if they didn’t find anything obvious on the first pass.