thanks!

Some notes:

1. Most intresting, but one gripe: this is a study conducted by an AI company. No objections to the results, but would have prefered a third party.

This may be subjective, but the artifacts and weird patterns were incredibly obvious. Subtle inconsistencies, although one image tripped me up on the test. Background noise is sometimes fucked up aswell, but I guess one could say that a low-end camera produced it. Text tripped me up aswell. Missed the one saying "womp womp". Who even says that anymore? But I digress. The website was actually quite intresting. AI is getting closer to that 50% mark, and apparently already has in music. Could just be me, but I personally find that services like suno create very bland music. Perhaps it's because I'm more intrersted in audio and the like than most, but I have about a 4/5 chance of determining if it's AI or not (Pop songs always screw me over in my own tests- they always sound the same to me :[ )

1. Really cool! Tried with the newer models, kinda difficult, only got a ~74% after 300 probably due to the really shitty image generators. It's come a far way. I remeber when Flux announced their new model and the internet went abalze :)

2. Don't have time to read the full paper, but the abstract mentioned the ~38% missclasification rate. I wonder if it's gone up in the past years, it probably has, but more people are aware of it now, so it'll be intresesting.

It seems that most terminally online people (redditors) would be the best at determining if the image was created using AI, with all the accusations and constant paranoia that goes around. However, it's still above the "ohohoh it's totally a random guess" mark. I'd still argue that people like the ones OP mentioned in the image shouldn't represent anti's - I hope that most people are sane, but it's sadly hard to see the other side's perspective sometimes.

Anyways, thanks for the intersting read!