> Finds clues worth investigating, not proof that a photo is edited or authentic.
Isn’t this kind of Claudeslop something you could at least remove from the homepage of a product like this? What does this even tell me? Nothing! It tells me the person who created this site had no opinion about what it should actually do, and just let their LLM agent building something that vaguely fits their impression of what could be done to detect image tampering.
I dropped an image that was color corrected with AI, but otherwise a proper image of myself. I use my own face because it's very easy to see if AI has altered it in a subtle way when dealing with a very familiar subject.
It found the "AI Generated" signature embedded in it by the creator (whatever image model Perplexity decided to use.)
But I wouldn't have called this image AI. So images that have merely been color corrected or other very minor changes may come up as "AI Generated" even if they're essentially real images.
I would say this is correct behaviour though.
Any touchup by ai directly means it is strictly ai generated. Even if it looks almost identical to a nontampered original. This is exactly the kind of things you do want to catch. I also would just assume they simply look for the ai "watermark" for this.
I would seriously caution against tools like this. The detection of vendor signatures for AI-generated images is legit, but I'd probably rely on vendor software for that.
But most other techniques are more or less quack science with some really questionable history. The "transformer clone check" in this tool produces hilarious results for most images with even a hint of symmetry or repeated features. "Local noise comparison" is basically a bokeh detector, etc.
Yes, in ideal circumstances (in a research paper), you can detect if someone takes a (substantially) compressed JPEG and then pastes some new stuff onto it, and saves it at a higher quality setting without resizing. I think that's called "error level analysis" by the believers. But in practice, most of the blinkenlights on this page do nothing even remotely conclusive. It easily triggers on certain innocent images and doesn't detect anything for any professional editing workflow where you don't pointlessly re-compress JPEGs between edits.
8 comments
[ 0.27 ms ] story [ 19.1 ms ] threadThis comment is 100% Claude slop. At least tell us _something_ more, otherwise there is no point.
Isn’t this kind of Claudeslop something you could at least remove from the homepage of a product like this? What does this even tell me? Nothing! It tells me the person who created this site had no opinion about what it should actually do, and just let their LLM agent building something that vaguely fits their impression of what could be done to detect image tampering.
It found the "AI Generated" signature embedded in it by the creator (whatever image model Perplexity decided to use.)
But I wouldn't have called this image AI. So images that have merely been color corrected or other very minor changes may come up as "AI Generated" even if they're essentially real images.
> But I wouldn't have called this image AI
All you've shown is that you have a different definition of "AI image" than the program does.
But most other techniques are more or less quack science with some really questionable history. The "transformer clone check" in this tool produces hilarious results for most images with even a hint of symmetry or repeated features. "Local noise comparison" is basically a bokeh detector, etc.
Yes, in ideal circumstances (in a research paper), you can detect if someone takes a (substantially) compressed JPEG and then pastes some new stuff onto it, and saves it at a higher quality setting without resizing. I think that's called "error level analysis" by the believers. But in practice, most of the blinkenlights on this page do nothing even remotely conclusive. It easily triggers on certain innocent images and doesn't detect anything for any professional editing workflow where you don't pointlessly re-compress JPEGs between edits.