Identifying AI Images
 

AI Generated Images.- Posted after consulting a moderator but please advise if OK

As we all know AI Generated Images are appearing more and more on OCC even though they are banned here.
If you are someone who does this deliberately then this post isn't for you but rather aimed at the users who are disappointed at having AI images removed when they posted them in good faith or anyone who want clues on how to spot them.

First a couple of points.

I don't claim to be an expert in AI, just giving a few pointers on things I've noticed. It's by no means fool proof and I've downloaded images for my albums only realise they were AI on closer inspection. It's probably happened more times than I realised and in truth it's pretty impossible to be sure with some of them.

This is not about AI editing software which is used to improve picture quality of existing images. It is about AI Images generated from scratch by software.
As such they are not subject to copyright law as its stands but it's still being argued over in some places.

I will not get into any discussion any Software or methodology here or in PMs, this is solely to help identify such images.
It maybe that some quirks are software specific and you may find other common features not mentioned here.

The following are Examples of AI images so here goes with a few comments on each. (NUMBERED IMAGES BELOW)

Ex1 Not bad at first glance and if I didn't know I couldn't be sure but the first thing is breast symmetry. The other thing that seems common, is a well defined clavicle. I guess this is due the modelling.

Ex2 Again breasts a bit too perfect, It's supposed to look like a model shoot but the lighting isn't that good. Looks like a single direct flash rather than multiple. (you can often see the double flash relected in the models eyes. Navel piercing looks wrong.

Ex3 The prompt here included something like "1960's woman" so the head hair is adjusted but the public hair is a modern trim. Look at the hands. AI doesn't do hands very well and they are often elongated or bony. Sometimes they are completely mangled and 6 fingers is not uncommon! Something else comes into play here, the background. The will have various backgrounds such as rooms, beach, forests etc but after looking at few pics I thought they all had a similar look. Difficult to explain but maybe sterile, bland?

Ex4 I brightened and upscaled this for a better look. You get the idea now so I'll shorten the comments. - Wonky hand, similar pubes, right nipple a bit off. Background.

Ex5 You might fall for this one if the left hand was cropped out. I'm also not sure about the nipples.

Ex6 You might just take this as a very athletic body but the hands aren't right. Off-the-shelf pubes again.

Ex7 Curvy "Real" woman except the nipples are a giveaway. Pubes don't seem to suit her and hands not great again. The beach different, but the same.

Ex8 I brightened this one and looks Ok at first glance but I'm sure what happening with the navel and that clavicle doesn't seem to match the rest of her. Background.

Ex9 Another I might pass over but they seem to want to have navel piercings but it does appear properly. There seems to be some ghosting around her nipples and again the clavicle seems wrong for her body.

Ex10 I did this one with Jeans and Tits thread in mind. Nipples, Navel and Background.

Although I've dealt with specifics it is sometimes it's just developing an instinct for when something isn't right. If you google something like " AI Nudes" and look at Images with the filter off, you will see lots AI images including a load of Celebs but the first image to catch you eye will be a real photo because it's different.

Of course another thing that makes life more difficult is the the use of phones and tablets.

Well I hope this helps along the way but I fear it's a losing battle.
Mods hope this is OK, if not feel free do do whatever.

Ferg


Images

What is it that makes an AI image stand out? All the things you mentioned but something else I cant quite explain.
The Lighting, shadows, eyes , skin, objectively you can look at any one of these pieces and marvel at the realness but what is it that triggers our AI sensors? Maybe subtle depth cues where the person looks implanted into a scene or the image looks 'flat' or is it something a camera just captures a bit differently. Maybe the rigidity of the eyes mostly fixed directly at the camera maybe a bit too perfectly.

Yes indeed, and as you can probably tell from my post I was struggling to articulate what what different but you are right about the eyes.

I enjoy restoring old photos and use various software so I've played about with some of these out of curiosity even using AI software.
The strange thing is that they don't respond to enhancement very well and I found it impossible to get a good result.
Once you get over the interest in the fact that they are AI generated the reality is that from a photographic point of view they are bad photos especially by todays standards.

I find the technology interesting but concerned about OCC getting flooded with this stuff and becoming a very dull place.

"What is it that makes an AI image stand out? All the things you mentioned but something else I cant quite explain.
The Lighting, shadows, eyes , skin, objectively you can look at any one of these pieces and marvel at the realness but what is it that triggers our AI sensors? Maybe subtle depth cues where the person looks implanted into a scene or the image looks 'flat' or is it something a camera just captures a bit differently. Maybe the rigidity of the eyes mostly fixed directly at the camera maybe a bit too perfectly."

A bit off topic, but is there AI software that can read lips from muted audio in videos ? Basically I have some videos that the audio was muted, but curious if there is AI software to read lips and verbalize what was said.

I don't do anything with videos so can't answer your question.
I said in my original post I didn't want to discuss apps or methodology not to be unhelpful but to avoid getting bogged down in discussions on OCC that will move slower than the development of AI.

If you are interested in this software there are many blogs and discussion boards out there and it's a rapidly changing environment.

I've played around with a lot of A.I. generators and I think I've developed an "eye" for noticing it when I see it.

Everything, thefergieferg1 mentioned is 100% true and is exactly what people who've seen a lot of A.I. will be able to pick up on instantly and I also have become concerned about it flowing into this forum, imagefap, flicker and VEF (although they were ahead of the curve and created a subforum for it)

Hands will always give it away, while they have gotten better they are still mostly mangled, have extra digits or are facing the direction. Feet are also terrible and high heel shoes almost never come out right, so many images will be cut off at the calf.

High heels have been a staple of adult entertainment, porn and erotica for generations, yet you rarely see it in A.I. So if you come across a lot of pictures with images cut off at the calf, assume it's A.I.

This might be a bit of "inside baseball" but just throwing this out there, Afro-texture is also fairly terrible in A.I., in fact it generally looks it should be in a video game from 2004


Another thing to point out is that much of the erotic or pornographic A.I. is being done on free or freemium generations. Very few of these people are using or have access to generators that can create anything that would be even remotely passable.

I was on my phone when I typed that post and there are quite a few typos that I need to correct.

*hands facing the wrong direction or hands on the wrong arm (ex. a left hand on a right arm)

*Afro-textured hair, these generators tend to make completely unrealistic Afro-textured hair, which will instantly give it away.

only applies to stable diffusion, flux doesnt have this but its not trained with genitals.. once loras or new base model do its almost indistinguishable from real

Thanks for pointing that out.

Maybe this isnt the place for this but this one stood out. What is the consensus? I didnt closely review the other pics in the post

https://forum.oneclickchicks.com/att...2&d=1726899623

Another giveaway are body proportions especially if they are trying to face match someone. This one head looks off and some other things.

I agree it looks as if it has been edited but I don't think it is completely AI generated. There are various hits on a reverse image search which I've never found on a AI image so it suggests it was real in some form at one time.

That is the whole problem, it's difficult to be sure and you could lose hours trying to find an answer.
Most of us didn't come here to play games like that and that's what concerns me about OCC being flooded with fake pics.
I think all we can do is report suspect photos and let the mods decide, hoping that in time they will develop an eye for totally fake images.

https://forum.oneclickchicks.com/sho...postcount=3474
Look at this post, pics 3, 4, 5 and 6. I believe they are made with AI : always the same expression on the face, the teeths are a bit different on pic 4 (left). There is no reason for the backgound to be blurred.

Agreed tattoo in one pic not in others , some hand things going on

Really? Are people looking at these before posting?
https://forum.oneclickchicks.com/att...6&d=1726076187

more and more difficult
https://forum.oneclickchicks.com/sho...postcount=1249

That’s Lauren Butler aka amourdelavie. It’s not particularly unusual for some of her photos to look slightly unusual as she often introduces quite radical changes to her style and look. I did wonder about this one myself (it might be one I posted!) but I thought more Photoshop at the time and hadn’t considered AI.

Sometimes the clue is when something looks just that bit TOO perfect or over-refined…!

Unfortunately, dealing with (and removing) AI generated images is an ongoing concern for all of us now. Especially since this is a forum intended for truly amateur material.

Please continue to report posts that contain AI generated images. Since this is relatively new problem here, it is helpful when you point out to the moderators (and fellow members) the way you have determined certain images to be fake.

I really hope so. I do my best to report AI images with explainations. It takes time as english is not my native language. But I am disppointed that you keep images which are obviously generated by AI. I think I've lost my time.

I strongly advice you to use AI tools to generate images : you will understand that AI don't generate anymore people with 6 fingers or 50 teeth. Pics are now very realistic and AI can be detected only if you take care about some details in the background or when some pics are too beautiful to be true.

If you are too tolerant with suspicious pics or if you don't trust members who take time to make reports, your forums will be full of this crap.

We do trust and value members who make reports about AI.

Thank you for your help bartoli.

We need everyone to work together on this and hopefully we will all collectively become better at spotting these new AI fake images that are starting to appear here.

I've noticed that more users are calling out AI pics here and in fairness I think most are posted innocently especially by some of the more prolific posters who probably don't get time to check that closely and as discussed, it's sometimes hard to be sure what is AI generated.

I'm posting two versions of the same photo here just to illustrate the point.
The original, - and an edit (albeit a bad one!) I've done using AI software.

By overdoing the noise reduction and smoothing the second one looks fake but isn't, just crudely edited.
That's what we are up against so if in doubt just report the pic and let the mods decide.

I would be a shame if our efforts to keep AI pics off OCC creates conflict amongst the users and discourages people from posting.

An answer from a mod would be useful but I think your second pic is not acceptable on our forum in regard with Forum rule 18 (DO NOT post or request photoshop fake or AI generated material.)

AI enhanced pictures (meaning using AI to make an existing picture better quality: larger, brighter, sharper, etc.) are allowed. AI generated pictures (meaning using AI to create a wholly fictional image, undress a clothed woman, change a woman's body, put one woman's face on a different woman's body, etc.) are not allowed. As I understand it.

Fango

In a few years this topic will be about identifying videos

Thanks very much
 

A very useful & informative thread. Good reference material to keep in mind.

Fango thanks for pointing this out because I regularly use AI to enhance or upscale images for the magazine covers but I must ask, is this a recent rule change?

Because there was a thread in which I upscaled via AI multiple women's pictures and it was deleted.

What thread was it? I don't see any recent deleted threads or posts from you.

Fango

There was a thread and I believe it was about image upscaling, I had upscaled a bunch of women's images and then all of a sudden it was deleted.

I remember trying to search for the term "Montgomery glands" because I was trying to demonstrate how the A.I. upscaling didn't overdo the upscaling to the point where the women stopped looking natural and I was using Claudia (jalos012)'s breasts and areola as an example due to her fairly prominent "Montgomery glands"

That thread was deleted a year-and-a-half ago (surprised you even remember it) by someone who's no longer a Moderator here. No reason was given for the deletion.

I feel like I should say at this point: we are not trying to actively encourage the posting of any AI photos, even enhanced ones. Having an entire thread on the topic of AI-altered images is something that would be frowned upon here, I think. If they turn up from time to time for a specific purpose, I think that would be OK. But otherwise, it's probably best not to start entire threads dedicated to them.

Fango

Understood

Going forward, I will use A.I. upscaling for the fake magazine covers only. The raw nature of everyday, relatable women on film or very early digital footage is a part of the appeal here. It makes no sense to have them looking like over, airbrushed Playboy models.