#Deepfakes are everywhere, but #DigitalForensics investigators are fighting back:

[funbaker@chaos.social]

@FabMusacchio defeated by simple trigonometry. nice.

[steel_virgin@eldritch.cafe]

@FabMusacchio in the soldiers pictures… there are like a hundred giveaways that it's fake easier to spot than the sligthly off parallel line.

nothing makes sens. the chains ?? so much to say about them. Why ? where are they attached ? Why are they so unconsistent ?

The uniforms that are not uniform. like. You had one job. The helmets… the nonesense "text". the collars. the trousers too large ? In the military ? I don't buy it. the shirt that looks heavy and "cargo" at the top bit they look light like an everyday summer shirt painted green. And what are those white dots ? The masks, what... what are are they ? are they masks or chinstrap ? and what do they seam to eat them, are they nervous ? They you look at the figures behind and find that they make less and less sens at each row. they sort of melt.
And The guns. what are they. you can't even identify each parts of the weapon. and then you look a the hands. why are they blended ?

and. look between the legs of the front figure. it like there are no one behind him.

I could go on all day about so many obvious mistakes.

It feels like an "early" Dall•e picture the way it kind of seems painted and blended.

[steel_virgin@eldritch.cafe]

@FabMusacchio I find it so frustrating that we're trying to find mathematical proof that it's fake where it so obvious. Just watch the pictures !!! I hate these times.

[f4grx@chaos.social]

@funkylab @leah @mansr @nCrazed @FabMusacchio also wth are these chains doing here lol

[davidm_yeg@beige.party]

@FabMusacchio

Good points… except the bad one: the dinosaur graphic shows a line connecting different toes to the horizon

[gordonfawks@rubber.social]

@FabMusacchio What is wild to me is that any photoshopper worth their salt in 2005 wouldn't have screwed the lighting or reflections up.

[courtcan@mastodon.social]

@FabMusacchio Plus, in the first photo, those lines of "moving" soldiers are just a little too perfect. Nobody can march in formation without *some* deviation.

[jfparis@rouge.eu.org]

@FabMusacchio Interesting. Should models be able to learn this?

[axolotl1@gaygeek.social]

@FabMusacchio so basically you can determine if an image is a fake using parallel lines. Neat.

[klara@drupal.community]

@FabMusacchio Another group of lines I often follow is from the knees, and from the backbone/visible parts of hip, towards the hip joints.
Years of anatomical drawing lessons paying of.

[klara@drupal.community]

@mansr @FabMusacchio the middle lines should still meet, the outer ones will cross a little bit in an orderly manner. Not the second to the left and the third to the right.

[isaackuo@spacey.space]

@Steel_Virgin @FabMusacchio The goal wasn't to show that picture was fake. The goal was to show the technique of analyzing vanishing point perspective errors.

[isaackuo@spacey.space]

@aearo @FabMusacchio What's interesting to me is WHY AI generated images will maybe never get it right.

Put simply, the consumers of the AI generated images do not care whether or not all the lines properly converge onto a vanishing point. Human vision may care about weird extra fingers, but vanishing point convergence? Nope. Don't care.

Human viewers will never notice these perspective errors, so AI models have no incentive to fix them.

[leadore@sunny.garden]

@leah @f4grx @FabMusacchio

It's not the sun's rays that meet at a point, it's the lines from the objects' shadows to the corresponding points on the objects that should meet at a point.

The statement about the sun's rays being effectively parallel just means that the direction of the light source can be considered the same for all objects.

[light@qoto.org]

@microblogc @FabMusacchio I was thinking, what if it was just paved a bit wonky.

[hikhvar@norden.social]

@jfparis as soon as there are programs to do those analysis automatically, this will be used as feedback loop for the models....

@FabMusacchio

[tphinney@typo.social]

@FabMusacchio In the third photo, the second paragraph of added text contradicts the first paragraph. (The first paragraph is correct, and the second is false. What is wrong is not a slightly inconsistent vanishing point, it is that the shadows are at visibly different angles in the first place. There should be no measurable vanishing point at all.)

[peteriskrisjanis@toot.lv]

@FabMusacchio soldier faces behind front ones are melting as well. But this is more scientific approach and will work all the time

[youen@pouet.space]

@tk @nartagnan @legendarybassoon @grototo @AudeCaussarieu

Générer plein d'images par IA, demander a des petites sous payées de dessiner les lignes fuites. On fait deux jeux de données : les images avec un seul point d'intersection et les autres. On rajoute des vrais images dans la première catégorie. On lance l'entraînement d’un modèle ou un fine tunning d’un modèle existant.

[nartagnan@mstdn.fr]

@youen
@tk @legendarybassoon @grototo @AudeCaussarieu

Oui, c'est faisable.
Mais se concentrer sur X c'est délaisser Y.
Au début, quand il fallait compter les doigts des mains, les modeles qui étaient bons sur les mains étaient mauvais sur le reste.

L'amélioration n'est venue qu'en multipllant le nb de paramètre des modèles. Et donc le coût de génération d'une seule image.

C'est exponentiel.

Et j'ose croire qu'il n'y a plu moyen de multiplier encore par 2 leurs coûts, sans revenus.