By the Poolside

April 18

19 hours ago, JackFTwist said:

@Macaw7: Sorry to say, it's almost definitely AI-generated. As the adage goes, if it looks too good to be true, it probably is too good to be true. Here are some indicators to look for that are characteristic of AI images:

Frequent giveaways:

His right hand: As of now, AI software engineers still haven't figured out how to produce anatomically realistic hands (or feet), but they're gradually improving. If at least one of them is shown, though, the hands are a good place to start examining an image.

In addition to @Brettj123's point that the pinky finger looks suspect, his hand shows several other flaws, too:

It has four fingers (sort of) but only three knuckles. Having the wrong number of fingers and/or knuckles, plus having deformed fingers, are often a feature of AI-generated images of hands.

Compare the size of his forefinger to the other three: They're all unnaturally thinner compared to the forefinger.

And the two middle fingers both appear to emanate from the middle knuckle.

In an attempt to get around this problem, many images simply don't show the hands at all.

Sorry, @cdadbr, but the hands are often the best possible indicator that an image is AI-generated. They're usually the first place I look at in detail if I'm suspicious and the image shows at least one hand. (See below.)

The logo on his cap: It's apparently an attempt to copy the Adidas logo shown below. But looking closely at the bars on the cap's logo, each one is slightly misshapen instead of being crisply formed like those in the cap below.

More generally, AI software engineers haven't solved the problem of generating legible text yet, either For example, notice the illegible brand names on the jockstraps and briefs in the second and third images below. The AI software that generates the image often tries to sidestep this problem by just blurring any text or label, as in image #4 below. But again, the software engineers are getting better at this.

Suspicious features, but not conclusive by themselves:

Like @cdadbr, I usually become suspicious about an image because of the shiny, plastic-like, "Ken Doll" skin tone of the model. And the skin is usually flawless, although many professional photographers often Photoshop their images to remove blemishes. Again, if it looks too good to be true....

But the fake-looking skin tone is sometimes just the result of over-Photoshopping a real image.

Reviews of the latest generation of iPhone cameras claim that they can achieve the same effect by using the iPhone's built-in AI features with only a few taps of the user's finger.

If iPhone owners can now produce "AI-enhanced" versions of real images, imagine what a skilled professional can do with AI software.

Disclaimer: This isn't a recommendation, either expressed or implied, for iPhones. (FWIW, I use an Android phone and have no current intention of changing platforms.)

The backgrounds in AI-generated images are usually blurred, like in the image above and in #2 and #5 below.

But this feature is far from conclusive by itself because a professional photographer, or even a skilled amateur one, can achieve the same effect by adjusting the camera's f-stop, which narrows the photo's depth of field. Photographers often do this deliberately to focus attention on the photo's main subject rather than on the background and/or foreground. (I apologize, but you'll have to Google this one for more details if you're interested. I haven't used my manual camera in over 25 years, so I've forgotten how to do this!)

Here again, the latest generation of iPhones claim that they can achieve the same effect by using built-in AI features.

To emphasize that a blurry background isn't conclusive by itself, note that #5 below is a real photo from model Levi Conely's Facebook or Instagram page, where he thoughtfully chronicled his Mediterranean vacation with photo after photo after.... (Maybe he used his iPhone to achieve this effect!)

The "models" in AI-generated images often look like they're twins (#4 below) or at least brothers (#2).

Again, these characteristics of some images aren't conclusive on their own. But in combination with each other, and especially when added to the "frequent giveaways," they make the case more convincing that an image is AI-generated.

Sorry for the long-winded answer. But maybe these pointers will give you a basic toolkit for analyzing images that you think might be fake.

@JackFTwist: The information you provided deserves a lot more than a trophy selection for "thanks." I am most appreciative of the time and effort you have given. I've been playing the adage in my head, "if it's too good to be true...." That will go a long way, but you've given very sound advice about AI-generated photos, in great detail, that will be useful not only for me but for others who have commented as well. Thanks again.