alt Hacker NewsI know there are people acting like this is obvious that this is AI, but I get why people wouldn't catch it, even if they know that AI is capable of creating a video like this.
A) Most of the give aways are pretty subtle and not what viewers are focused on. Sure, if you look closely the fur blends in with the pavement in some places, but I'm not going to spend 5 minutes investigating every video I see for hints of AI.
B) Even if I did notice something like that, I'm much more likely to write it off as a video filter glitch, a weird video perspective, or just low quality video. For example, when they show the inside of the car, the vertical handrails seem to bend in a weird way as the train moves, but I've seen similar things from real videos with wide angle lenses. Similar thoughts on one of the bystander's faces going blurry.
I think we just have to get people comfortable with the idea that you shouldn't trust a single unknown entity as the source or truth on things because everything can be faked. For insignificant things like this it doesn't matter, but for big things you need multiple independent sources. That's definitely an uphill battle and who knows if we can do it, but that's the only way we're going to get out the other side of this in one piece.
Replies
I agree. Apart from the text appearing backwards it all looked pretty real to me.
I'm beginning to write off most images as AI. I actually think that's where this is all headed.
A precondition is likely that one has mainly watched CGI-heavy movies for most of one's life. Compared to old school analog movies or fairly raw photography that looks as fake as the Coca-Cola Santa. There's a rather obvious lack of detail that real photography would have catched.
A) also true that many people don't put a lot of thought into very much at all. They'd never consider actively thinking if a video is fake or not. These are the targets of short form content.
B is / will be huge; the largest amount of "mindless" content is consumed on phones, with half attention, often with other distractions going on and in between doing other stuff, and can be watched on older / lower fidelity devices, slower internet connections, etc. AI content needs high resolution / big screens and focused attention to "discover".
The truth is... most people will simply not care. Raised eyebrow, hm, cute, next. Critical watching is reserved for critics like the crowd on HN and the like, but they represent only a small percentage of the target audience and revenue stream.
You can see the perspective/angle of the objects changing slightly as the camera moves in a way that makes it pretty obvious they're CG, AI or otherwise. That's always been a problem with AI generated imagery in video/animation; it changes too much frame to frame. If researchers figure out how to address that, yeah, we've got a problem. Until then - this looks worse tha
Then there's the usual giveways for CG - sharpness, noise, lighting, color temperature, saturation - none of them match. There's also no diffuse reflection of the intense pink color.
Honestly, stuff like that could also be because of compression. We're all used to see low quality videos online.
I agree. Also, tangentially related: I use a black and white filter on my phone, and it is way harder to distinguish fake and real media without the color channels to help. I couldn't immediately find anything in the subway clip which gave it away.