I’ve mentioned a number of times, it can be a challenge trying to look for awesome pictures for you all every day due to unlabeled, uncited, or just falsely presented pictures.
This one was pretty egregious today. Nothing says woodland camouflage like an owl looking like a toddler sized piece of candy corn!
Now, while there are no challenges for me here determining if this is real, I’m sure countless other people just scrolling will have no clue. To make it worse, I checked out the page’s feed, and they have some really good photos that I have shared with you guys, watermarks and/or credit to the photographer removed of course, as well as some things that look cool, but even have me stumped if they’re real.
Is this a nice, albeit highly processed photo of a Bare Shanked Screech, or is it fake? Colors are close but exaggerated, no photographer credit for me to follow up on, so I would pass on sharing this with you guys.
I get recommended dozens of these image groups every time I look on social media for pictures and stories. I’m only subbed to real rescues and wildlife photography groups, but I keep getting recommended anything with an owl shaped image.
Let me know your thoughts on this. Should there be some type of disclaimer on AI images? Do we let people figure it out on their own? How do we keep aggregaters from passing off the images as real? I feel these are questions we should be asking right now.
Would you guys want to have maybe one monthly post of bizarre images I’ve found during the previous month, or do you get enough of this stuff already on your own you don’t want to see any more? I’m forced to look at them, so if you’re interested in a Best of the Worst kind of thing, let me know.
I appreciate your efforts!
In an ideal world it would always be possible to credit the photographer, but I guess that’s sadly unrealistic.
If there’s an interest for fakes I guess the could be a “Fowl Friday” or something like that every month, where fake owls are allowed/encouraged if properly tagged. I guess the value would be educational, showing people how to tell that impressive-looking wildlife photography is fake. You’re an expert of this, and it’s very much appreciated that you share your insights. :)
I do give it my best, since I want to remain a trusted source for all your owl related things. I don’t know much about photography or image editing so when people talk about shadows not matching, image artifacts and the like, I’m not so good with noticing that.
I just try to apply what I do know and use my critical thinking, and if there’s any doubt, I’ll just move on rather than end up accidentally misleading you all. I’ve spent months now building up your respect, but I know it can quickly be undone if I’m not vigilant. I respect you syo and your time, so I wouldn’t like it if I let you down.
Love this idea!
This would be an interesting idea!
Monthly would be nice, but don’t feel obligated to do it - we’d enjoy it but don’t burn yourself out providing content. What I would suggest though is to make sure you put a big “FAKE” watermark on them to avoid confusing the casual onlooker.
I could just share when I find a particularly bad or tricky one.
Love the idea of watermarking it so I don’t unintentionally add to it being aggregated inappropriately as it get web crawled.
I definitely want any and all AI art to be clearly mentioned. But honestly I’ll prefer the real things and it’s nice to know that you manage to find such great photos. Definitely appreciate you wading through all the shit to find the gems but absolutely don’t burn yourself out. If weird fakes are of interest, maybe a once a week or once a month post with titles like “worst AI shit trying to pass off as real” or something.
Like you said, this one looks like emo candycorn (black stripes) but definitely do declare in title because people have such short attention spans and best not to leave any doubt.
I had a similar experience recently while researching for !nudibranchs@mander.xyz…I found these gems pretending to be nudibranchs
In fact the whole site has some wonderful ai abonimations masquerading as real animals…
…This is a ‘mud skipper’
It’s weird out there!
Oh wow! I didn’t know what a nudibranch was, but they are pretty nifty. I subbed to your comm. Even without know what they were though, that first one is pretty sus.
Those last three though I feel like the computer wasn’t even trying! 😆
Those last 3 are kinda the thing that has me scared, where they’re presented on a legit looking website mixed in with real information. It really can poison the well of information out there. Yikes!
I wish I would have saved the one I saw earlier today. It looked to be a large Tawny Owl with the eyes and beak of something like a tiny Saw Whet, giving it this huge forehead with stretched out brow patches. Totally bizarre.
they’re presented on a legit looking website mixed in with real information. It really can poison the well of information out there
I completely agree with this, I’m not against ai art (I’ve had a mini dabble to ‘create’ something, it’s fun! and from a science perspective a photo realistic dinosaur created using up to date research can help present information and capture an audience) however, it does need to be labelled as such when depicting actual living things today
Also, the text on this website also reads like ai mind babble with lots of ‘flowery’ phrasing and repetition, I’ve no idea if it is ai generated but even my attempts at writing read better (I hope)
The ‘authors’ are also suss- ‘…Sophia has a deep love for furry friends, from the tiny shrew to the giant elephant. She spends her days studying how these incredible creatures live, play, and interact with their environment. With a heart full of curiosity and compassion, Sophia is dedicated to protecting mammals and their habitats’
This is ‘Sophia’
Quite fascinating in a horrendous way, I genuinely hope this isn’t the future of the internet
If it turns out I’m wrong about any of the above I will happily edit my comment (and include an apology)…I doubt that will be happening though…
It’s definitely got its tentacles in many places already. I’ve heard of AI with and illustrated books on Amazon, and I see many reviews and comparisons when looking at music gear written by a language model. If there’s a way to make quick money, there will always be people that will do it regardless of its effects.
Like you, I agree there are many places it can be fun or beneficial, and I enjoy making some fun AI pics, but I wouldn’t think of passing them off as my own work or as something real.
Copiers and printers have special hidden identifiers built in, so perhaps someday AI content will be the same, but until then, we’ll just have to keep being diligent.
