▲ 369 ▼ what the actual fuq... (lemmy.ca) submitted 1 month ago by IsaacscatNala@lemmy.ca to c/cat@lemmy.world 66 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] Pratai@piefed.ca 13 points 1 month ago (32 children) permalink fedilink source hideshow 32 child comments replies: [–] Pyro@programming.dev 41 points 1 month ago (16 children) I hate this post-LLM world permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments replies: [–] iamthetot@piefed.ca 44 points 1 month ago (11 children) I'm not saying this pic is necessarily really, however you should put next to zero stock in these "AI detectors". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [+] Pratai@piefed.ca -17 points 1 month ago (10 children) They’ve been close to 100% accurate by my testing permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 13 points 1 month ago (9 children) how do you test? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 1 month ago Using Al-driven AI-detectors permalink fedilink source parent [–] Pratai@piefed.ca -1 points 1 month ago (7 children) Send it AI pictures that you know are AI and it is able to determine its AI. Send it photographs that aren’t AI and it determines its not AI. How else would you test it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Zorque@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago (6 children) Send it pictures that look like AI but you know aren't, send it pictures that don't look like they're made by AI but you know they are. It's not just yes or no, it's a wider ranging analysis. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 6 points 1 month ago Send it photoshopped images permalink fedilink source parent [+] Pratai@piefed.ca -8 points 1 month ago (4 children) When I send it pictures that look like AI, it says it’s AI. And when I send it pictures I know aren’t AI, it says it isn’t. Your bias is personal it seems. I don’t have these issues. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Untamed_Star@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 month ago ??? That literally just says that it always agrees with you. I am not saying it's always wrong or anything but you can't say it's always right. You cannot only rely on that. Not like I know how it works but what could it so? Detect some patterns in pixels? AI would be changing anyway and would overcome that eventually. but i don't actually know how it works you're the one using it so you tell me ig. Besides from detectors like these having been proven to be wrong a lot. You cannot only use your personal experience. As an analogy to see why you should take the experience of others into account. Image someone drives drunk and nwver crashes so they think it's completely safe. (we're not comparing the risks nor stakes here). Usually, if everyone thinks you are wrong, you are probably wrong, so unless you 100% know the in's and outs of it, why it always in any hypothetical scenario or at least in most it would work... then you probably should check on it. I am bot blaming you or anything, we all have done worse stuff. Still I am guessing that if you're just saying "it works for me all the time" instead of explaining why it would, you probably don't have a technical reason to believe ot would. Sorry if this was like uhh idk insultive or whatever people say nowindays. also idk how to spell probably. permalink fedilink source parent [–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 1 month ago I hope you can see how that is just confirmation bias and not proof permalink fedilink source parent [–] Untamed_Star@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 month ago (1 child) Oh yeah also this is from a video, someone mentioned that, it's a cool video and actually not too strange of a pose in retrospective, even my dog does similar stuff. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Untamed_Star@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 month ago I am not saying it is def not ai, I mean I don't know how good ai vids were in 2025 I just remember that one horrible coke ai ad but idk when that was and idk if the part that wad off was thw video itself or the continuity, cuz stuff like this doesn't realllly need a lot of continuity. it's a cat video compilation. I didn't see anything about ai in the comments immediately at least but that could be deleted by the creator anyway. permalink fedilink source parent [–] blackjam_alex@lemmy.world 35 points 1 month ago (2 children) https://youtu.be/hzhgprZ9abI Timestamp 4:10 I found it in video form. It's not proof of anything but that's the source of the frame. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 16 points 1 month ago looks perfectly normal once the cat moves and you can see how the anatomy works permalink fedilink source parent [–] IsaacscatNala@lemmy.ca [S] 3 points 1 month ago exactly permalink fedilink source parent [–] ChilledPeppers@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 month ago I hate this LLM-post world. permalink fedilink source parent [–] jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 month ago those "detectors" are highly unreliable, but look at it's left paw permalink fedilink source parent [–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 20 points 1 month ago (10 children) Unless you use something like synthID verification, stop using these detectors. They are 0% reliable permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [+] Pratai@piefed.ca -21 points 1 month ago (9 children) Yet they all agree with one another other. Funny how that is. If it’s not AI for one, it’s not for all, and vice versa. They’re accurate enough. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Jax@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 month ago You're wrong, someone found the clip and it's very clearly not AI. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Untamed_Star@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 1 month ago they could literally just use he same protocol... which could make them less realiable in some cases really. permalink fedilink source parent [–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 14 points 1 month ago (6 children) ah. want me to tell you your horoscope as well, while we're at it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] Pratai@piefed.ca -14 points 1 month ago (5 children) Embarrassing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 1 month ago (4 children) at least we agree that you are permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Pratai@piefed.ca -9 points 1 month ago (3 children) Blocked. Go annoy someone else. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 1 month ago your ai slop tools are wrong btw permalink fedilink source parent [–] IsaacscatNala@lemmy.ca [S] -1 points 1 month ago (1 child) tell that to yourself permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Pratai@piefed.ca -3 points 1 month ago No. permalink fedilink source parent [–] whotookkarl@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 month ago Exactly, cats aren't real they're just a computer half lucid apeing permalink fedilink source parent [–] IsaacscatNala@lemmy.ca [S] 2 points 1 month ago (1 child) really... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Pratai@piefed.ca -3 points 1 month ago Yep. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Pyro@programming.dev 41 points 1 month ago (16 children) I hate this post-LLM world permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments replies: [–] iamthetot@piefed.ca 44 points 1 month ago (11 children) I'm not saying this pic is necessarily really, however you should put next to zero stock in these "AI detectors". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [+] Pratai@piefed.ca -17 points 1 month ago (10 children) They’ve been close to 100% accurate by my testing permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 13 points 1 month ago (9 children) how do you test? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 1 month ago Using Al-driven AI-detectors permalink fedilink source parent [–] Pratai@piefed.ca -1 points 1 month ago (7 children) Send it AI pictures that you know are AI and it is able to determine its AI. Send it photographs that aren’t AI and it determines its not AI. How else would you test it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Zorque@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago (6 children) Send it pictures that look like AI but you know aren't, send it pictures that don't look like they're made by AI but you know they are. It's not just yes or no, it's a wider ranging analysis. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 6 points 1 month ago Send it photoshopped images permalink fedilink source parent [+] Pratai@piefed.ca -8 points 1 month ago (4 children) When I send it pictures that look like AI, it says it’s AI. And when I send it pictures I know aren’t AI, it says it isn’t. Your bias is personal it seems. I don’t have these issues. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Untamed_Star@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 month ago ??? That literally just says that it always agrees with you. I am not saying it's always wrong or anything but you can't say it's always right. You cannot only rely on that. Not like I know how it works but what could it so? Detect some patterns in pixels? AI would be changing anyway and would overcome that eventually. but i don't actually know how it works you're the one using it so you tell me ig. Besides from detectors like these having been proven to be wrong a lot. You cannot only use your personal experience. As an analogy to see why you should take the experience of others into account. Image someone drives drunk and nwver crashes so they think it's completely safe. (we're not comparing the risks nor stakes here). Usually, if everyone thinks you are wrong, you are probably wrong, so unless you 100% know the in's and outs of it, why it always in any hypothetical scenario or at least in most it would work... then you probably should check on it. I am bot blaming you or anything, we all have done worse stuff. Still I am guessing that if you're just saying "it works for me all the time" instead of explaining why it would, you probably don't have a technical reason to believe ot would. Sorry if this was like uhh idk insultive or whatever people say nowindays. also idk how to spell probably. permalink fedilink source parent [–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 1 month ago I hope you can see how that is just confirmation bias and not proof permalink fedilink source parent [–] Untamed_Star@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 month ago (1 child) Oh yeah also this is from a video, someone mentioned that, it's a cool video and actually not too strange of a pose in retrospective, even my dog does similar stuff. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Untamed_Star@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 month ago I am not saying it is def not ai, I mean I don't know how good ai vids were in 2025 I just remember that one horrible coke ai ad but idk when that was and idk if the part that wad off was thw video itself or the continuity, cuz stuff like this doesn't realllly need a lot of continuity. it's a cat video compilation. I didn't see anything about ai in the comments immediately at least but that could be deleted by the creator anyway. permalink fedilink source parent [–] blackjam_alex@lemmy.world 35 points 1 month ago (2 children) https://youtu.be/hzhgprZ9abI Timestamp 4:10 I found it in video form. It's not proof of anything but that's the source of the frame. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 16 points 1 month ago looks perfectly normal once the cat moves and you can see how the anatomy works permalink fedilink source parent [–] IsaacscatNala@lemmy.ca [S] 3 points 1 month ago exactly permalink fedilink source parent [–] ChilledPeppers@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 month ago I hate this LLM-post world. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] iamthetot@piefed.ca 44 points 1 month ago (11 children) I'm not saying this pic is necessarily really, however you should put next to zero stock in these "AI detectors". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [+] Pratai@piefed.ca -17 points 1 month ago (10 children) They’ve been close to 100% accurate by my testing permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 13 points 1 month ago (9 children) how do you test? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 1 month ago Using Al-driven AI-detectors permalink fedilink source parent [–] Pratai@piefed.ca -1 points 1 month ago (7 children) Send it AI pictures that you know are AI and it is able to determine its AI. Send it photographs that aren’t AI and it determines its not AI. How else would you test it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Zorque@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago (6 children) Send it pictures that look like AI but you know aren't, send it pictures that don't look like they're made by AI but you know they are. It's not just yes or no, it's a wider ranging analysis. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 6 points 1 month ago Send it photoshopped images permalink fedilink source parent [+] Pratai@piefed.ca -8 points 1 month ago (4 children) When I send it pictures that look like AI, it says it’s AI. And when I send it pictures I know aren’t AI, it says it isn’t. Your bias is personal it seems. I don’t have these issues. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Untamed_Star@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 month ago ??? That literally just says that it always agrees with you. I am not saying it's always wrong or anything but you can't say it's always right. You cannot only rely on that. Not like I know how it works but what could it so? Detect some patterns in pixels? AI would be changing anyway and would overcome that eventually. but i don't actually know how it works you're the one using it so you tell me ig. Besides from detectors like these having been proven to be wrong a lot. You cannot only use your personal experience. As an analogy to see why you should take the experience of others into account. Image someone drives drunk and nwver crashes so they think it's completely safe. (we're not comparing the risks nor stakes here). Usually, if everyone thinks you are wrong, you are probably wrong, so unless you 100% know the in's and outs of it, why it always in any hypothetical scenario or at least in most it would work... then you probably should check on it. I am bot blaming you or anything, we all have done worse stuff. Still I am guessing that if you're just saying "it works for me all the time" instead of explaining why it would, you probably don't have a technical reason to believe ot would. Sorry if this was like uhh idk insultive or whatever people say nowindays. also idk how to spell probably. permalink fedilink source parent [–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 1 month ago I hope you can see how that is just confirmation bias and not proof permalink fedilink source parent [–] Untamed_Star@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 month ago (1 child) Oh yeah also this is from a video, someone mentioned that, it's a cool video and actually not too strange of a pose in retrospective, even my dog does similar stuff. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Untamed_Star@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 month ago I am not saying it is def not ai, I mean I don't know how good ai vids were in 2025 I just remember that one horrible coke ai ad but idk when that was and idk if the part that wad off was thw video itself or the continuity, cuz stuff like this doesn't realllly need a lot of continuity. it's a cat video compilation. I didn't see anything about ai in the comments immediately at least but that could be deleted by the creator anyway. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Pratai@piefed.ca -17 points 1 month ago (10 children) They’ve been close to 100% accurate by my testing permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 13 points 1 month ago (9 children) how do you test? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 1 month ago Using Al-driven AI-detectors permalink fedilink source parent [–] Pratai@piefed.ca -1 points 1 month ago (7 children) Send it AI pictures that you know are AI and it is able to determine its AI. Send it photographs that aren’t AI and it determines its not AI. How else would you test it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Zorque@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago (6 children) Send it pictures that look like AI but you know aren't, send it pictures that don't look like they're made by AI but you know they are. It's not just yes or no, it's a wider ranging analysis. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 6 points 1 month ago Send it photoshopped images permalink fedilink source parent [+] Pratai@piefed.ca -8 points 1 month ago (4 children) When I send it pictures that look like AI, it says it’s AI. And when I send it pictures I know aren’t AI, it says it isn’t. Your bias is personal it seems. I don’t have these issues. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Untamed_Star@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 month ago ??? That literally just says that it always agrees with you. I am not saying it's always wrong or anything but you can't say it's always right. You cannot only rely on that. Not like I know how it works but what could it so? Detect some patterns in pixels? AI would be changing anyway and would overcome that eventually. but i don't actually know how it works you're the one using it so you tell me ig. Besides from detectors like these having been proven to be wrong a lot. You cannot only use your personal experience. As an analogy to see why you should take the experience of others into account. Image someone drives drunk and nwver crashes so they think it's completely safe. (we're not comparing the risks nor stakes here). Usually, if everyone thinks you are wrong, you are probably wrong, so unless you 100% know the in's and outs of it, why it always in any hypothetical scenario or at least in most it would work... then you probably should check on it. I am bot blaming you or anything, we all have done worse stuff. Still I am guessing that if you're just saying "it works for me all the time" instead of explaining why it would, you probably don't have a technical reason to believe ot would. Sorry if this was like uhh idk insultive or whatever people say nowindays. also idk how to spell probably. permalink fedilink source parent [–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 1 month ago I hope you can see how that is just confirmation bias and not proof permalink fedilink source parent [–] Untamed_Star@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 month ago (1 child) Oh yeah also this is from a video, someone mentioned that, it's a cool video and actually not too strange of a pose in retrospective, even my dog does similar stuff. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Untamed_Star@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 month ago I am not saying it is def not ai, I mean I don't know how good ai vids were in 2025 I just remember that one horrible coke ai ad but idk when that was and idk if the part that wad off was thw video itself or the continuity, cuz stuff like this doesn't realllly need a lot of continuity. it's a cat video compilation. I didn't see anything about ai in the comments immediately at least but that could be deleted by the creator anyway. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] lime@feddit.nu 13 points 1 month ago (9 children) how do you test? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 1 month ago Using Al-driven AI-detectors permalink fedilink source parent [–] Pratai@piefed.ca -1 points 1 month ago (7 children) Send it AI pictures that you know are AI and it is able to determine its AI. Send it photographs that aren’t AI and it determines its not AI. How else would you test it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Zorque@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago (6 children) Send it pictures that look like AI but you know aren't, send it pictures that don't look like they're made by AI but you know they are. It's not just yes or no, it's a wider ranging analysis. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 6 points 1 month ago Send it photoshopped images permalink fedilink source parent [+] Pratai@piefed.ca -8 points 1 month ago (4 children) When I send it pictures that look like AI, it says it’s AI. And when I send it pictures I know aren’t AI, it says it isn’t. Your bias is personal it seems. I don’t have these issues. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Untamed_Star@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 month ago ??? That literally just says that it always agrees with you. I am not saying it's always wrong or anything but you can't say it's always right. You cannot only rely on that. Not like I know how it works but what could it so? Detect some patterns in pixels? AI would be changing anyway and would overcome that eventually. but i don't actually know how it works you're the one using it so you tell me ig. Besides from detectors like these having been proven to be wrong a lot. You cannot only use your personal experience. As an analogy to see why you should take the experience of others into account. Image someone drives drunk and nwver crashes so they think it's completely safe. (we're not comparing the risks nor stakes here). Usually, if everyone thinks you are wrong, you are probably wrong, so unless you 100% know the in's and outs of it, why it always in any hypothetical scenario or at least in most it would work... then you probably should check on it. I am bot blaming you or anything, we all have done worse stuff. Still I am guessing that if you're just saying "it works for me all the time" instead of explaining why it would, you probably don't have a technical reason to believe ot would. Sorry if this was like uhh idk insultive or whatever people say nowindays. also idk how to spell probably. permalink fedilink source parent [–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 1 month ago I hope you can see how that is just confirmation bias and not proof permalink fedilink source parent [–] Untamed_Star@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 month ago (1 child) Oh yeah also this is from a video, someone mentioned that, it's a cool video and actually not too strange of a pose in retrospective, even my dog does similar stuff. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Untamed_Star@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 month ago I am not saying it is def not ai, I mean I don't know how good ai vids were in 2025 I just remember that one horrible coke ai ad but idk when that was and idk if the part that wad off was thw video itself or the continuity, cuz stuff like this doesn't realllly need a lot of continuity. it's a cat video compilation. I didn't see anything about ai in the comments immediately at least but that could be deleted by the creator anyway. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 1 month ago Using Al-driven AI-detectors permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Pratai@piefed.ca -1 points 1 month ago (7 children) Send it AI pictures that you know are AI and it is able to determine its AI. Send it photographs that aren’t AI and it determines its not AI. How else would you test it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Zorque@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago (6 children) Send it pictures that look like AI but you know aren't, send it pictures that don't look like they're made by AI but you know they are. It's not just yes or no, it's a wider ranging analysis. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 6 points 1 month ago Send it photoshopped images permalink fedilink source parent [+] Pratai@piefed.ca -8 points 1 month ago (4 children) When I send it pictures that look like AI, it says it’s AI. And when I send it pictures I know aren’t AI, it says it isn’t. Your bias is personal it seems. I don’t have these issues. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Untamed_Star@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 month ago ??? That literally just says that it always agrees with you. I am not saying it's always wrong or anything but you can't say it's always right. You cannot only rely on that. Not like I know how it works but what could it so? Detect some patterns in pixels? AI would be changing anyway and would overcome that eventually. but i don't actually know how it works you're the one using it so you tell me ig. Besides from detectors like these having been proven to be wrong a lot. You cannot only use your personal experience. As an analogy to see why you should take the experience of others into account. Image someone drives drunk and nwver crashes so they think it's completely safe. (we're not comparing the risks nor stakes here). Usually, if everyone thinks you are wrong, you are probably wrong, so unless you 100% know the in's and outs of it, why it always in any hypothetical scenario or at least in most it would work... then you probably should check on it. I am bot blaming you or anything, we all have done worse stuff. Still I am guessing that if you're just saying "it works for me all the time" instead of explaining why it would, you probably don't have a technical reason to believe ot would. Sorry if this was like uhh idk insultive or whatever people say nowindays. also idk how to spell probably. permalink fedilink source parent [–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 1 month ago I hope you can see how that is just confirmation bias and not proof permalink fedilink source parent [–] Untamed_Star@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 month ago (1 child) Oh yeah also this is from a video, someone mentioned that, it's a cool video and actually not too strange of a pose in retrospective, even my dog does similar stuff. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Untamed_Star@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 month ago I am not saying it is def not ai, I mean I don't know how good ai vids were in 2025 I just remember that one horrible coke ai ad but idk when that was and idk if the part that wad off was thw video itself or the continuity, cuz stuff like this doesn't realllly need a lot of continuity. it's a cat video compilation. I didn't see anything about ai in the comments immediately at least but that could be deleted by the creator anyway. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Zorque@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago (6 children) Send it pictures that look like AI but you know aren't, send it pictures that don't look like they're made by AI but you know they are. It's not just yes or no, it's a wider ranging analysis. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 6 points 1 month ago Send it photoshopped images permalink fedilink source parent [+] Pratai@piefed.ca -8 points 1 month ago (4 children) When I send it pictures that look like AI, it says it’s AI. And when I send it pictures I know aren’t AI, it says it isn’t. Your bias is personal it seems. I don’t have these issues. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Untamed_Star@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 month ago ??? That literally just says that it always agrees with you. I am not saying it's always wrong or anything but you can't say it's always right. You cannot only rely on that. Not like I know how it works but what could it so? Detect some patterns in pixels? AI would be changing anyway and would overcome that eventually. but i don't actually know how it works you're the one using it so you tell me ig. Besides from detectors like these having been proven to be wrong a lot. You cannot only use your personal experience. As an analogy to see why you should take the experience of others into account. Image someone drives drunk and nwver crashes so they think it's completely safe. (we're not comparing the risks nor stakes here). Usually, if everyone thinks you are wrong, you are probably wrong, so unless you 100% know the in's and outs of it, why it always in any hypothetical scenario or at least in most it would work... then you probably should check on it. I am bot blaming you or anything, we all have done worse stuff. Still I am guessing that if you're just saying "it works for me all the time" instead of explaining why it would, you probably don't have a technical reason to believe ot would. Sorry if this was like uhh idk insultive or whatever people say nowindays. also idk how to spell probably. permalink fedilink source parent [–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 1 month ago I hope you can see how that is just confirmation bias and not proof permalink fedilink source parent [–] Untamed_Star@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 month ago (1 child) Oh yeah also this is from a video, someone mentioned that, it's a cool video and actually not too strange of a pose in retrospective, even my dog does similar stuff. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Untamed_Star@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 month ago I am not saying it is def not ai, I mean I don't know how good ai vids were in 2025 I just remember that one horrible coke ai ad but idk when that was and idk if the part that wad off was thw video itself or the continuity, cuz stuff like this doesn't realllly need a lot of continuity. it's a cat video compilation. I didn't see anything about ai in the comments immediately at least but that could be deleted by the creator anyway. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 6 points 1 month ago Send it photoshopped images permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Pratai@piefed.ca -8 points 1 month ago (4 children) When I send it pictures that look like AI, it says it’s AI. And when I send it pictures I know aren’t AI, it says it isn’t. Your bias is personal it seems. I don’t have these issues. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Untamed_Star@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 month ago ??? That literally just says that it always agrees with you. I am not saying it's always wrong or anything but you can't say it's always right. You cannot only rely on that. Not like I know how it works but what could it so? Detect some patterns in pixels? AI would be changing anyway and would overcome that eventually. but i don't actually know how it works you're the one using it so you tell me ig. Besides from detectors like these having been proven to be wrong a lot. You cannot only use your personal experience. As an analogy to see why you should take the experience of others into account. Image someone drives drunk and nwver crashes so they think it's completely safe. (we're not comparing the risks nor stakes here). Usually, if everyone thinks you are wrong, you are probably wrong, so unless you 100% know the in's and outs of it, why it always in any hypothetical scenario or at least in most it would work... then you probably should check on it. I am bot blaming you or anything, we all have done worse stuff. Still I am guessing that if you're just saying "it works for me all the time" instead of explaining why it would, you probably don't have a technical reason to believe ot would. Sorry if this was like uhh idk insultive or whatever people say nowindays. also idk how to spell probably. permalink fedilink source parent [–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 1 month ago I hope you can see how that is just confirmation bias and not proof permalink fedilink source parent [–] Untamed_Star@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 month ago (1 child) Oh yeah also this is from a video, someone mentioned that, it's a cool video and actually not too strange of a pose in retrospective, even my dog does similar stuff. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Untamed_Star@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 month ago I am not saying it is def not ai, I mean I don't know how good ai vids were in 2025 I just remember that one horrible coke ai ad but idk when that was and idk if the part that wad off was thw video itself or the continuity, cuz stuff like this doesn't realllly need a lot of continuity. it's a cat video compilation. I didn't see anything about ai in the comments immediately at least but that could be deleted by the creator anyway. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Untamed_Star@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 month ago ??? That literally just says that it always agrees with you. I am not saying it's always wrong or anything but you can't say it's always right. You cannot only rely on that. Not like I know how it works but what could it so? Detect some patterns in pixels? AI would be changing anyway and would overcome that eventually. but i don't actually know how it works you're the one using it so you tell me ig. Besides from detectors like these having been proven to be wrong a lot. You cannot only use your personal experience. As an analogy to see why you should take the experience of others into account. Image someone drives drunk and nwver crashes so they think it's completely safe. (we're not comparing the risks nor stakes here). Usually, if everyone thinks you are wrong, you are probably wrong, so unless you 100% know the in's and outs of it, why it always in any hypothetical scenario or at least in most it would work... then you probably should check on it. I am bot blaming you or anything, we all have done worse stuff. Still I am guessing that if you're just saying "it works for me all the time" instead of explaining why it would, you probably don't have a technical reason to believe ot would. Sorry if this was like uhh idk insultive or whatever people say nowindays. also idk how to spell probably. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 1 month ago I hope you can see how that is just confirmation bias and not proof permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Untamed_Star@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 month ago (1 child) Oh yeah also this is from a video, someone mentioned that, it's a cool video and actually not too strange of a pose in retrospective, even my dog does similar stuff. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Untamed_Star@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 month ago I am not saying it is def not ai, I mean I don't know how good ai vids were in 2025 I just remember that one horrible coke ai ad but idk when that was and idk if the part that wad off was thw video itself or the continuity, cuz stuff like this doesn't realllly need a lot of continuity. it's a cat video compilation. I didn't see anything about ai in the comments immediately at least but that could be deleted by the creator anyway. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Untamed_Star@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 month ago I am not saying it is def not ai, I mean I don't know how good ai vids were in 2025 I just remember that one horrible coke ai ad but idk when that was and idk if the part that wad off was thw video itself or the continuity, cuz stuff like this doesn't realllly need a lot of continuity. it's a cat video compilation. I didn't see anything about ai in the comments immediately at least but that could be deleted by the creator anyway. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] blackjam_alex@lemmy.world 35 points 1 month ago (2 children) https://youtu.be/hzhgprZ9abI Timestamp 4:10 I found it in video form. It's not proof of anything but that's the source of the frame. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 16 points 1 month ago looks perfectly normal once the cat moves and you can see how the anatomy works permalink fedilink source parent [–] IsaacscatNala@lemmy.ca [S] 3 points 1 month ago exactly permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 16 points 1 month ago looks perfectly normal once the cat moves and you can see how the anatomy works permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ChilledPeppers@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 month ago I hate this LLM-post world. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 month ago those "detectors" are highly unreliable, but look at it's left paw permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 20 points 1 month ago (10 children) Unless you use something like synthID verification, stop using these detectors. They are 0% reliable permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [+] Pratai@piefed.ca -21 points 1 month ago (9 children) Yet they all agree with one another other. Funny how that is. If it’s not AI for one, it’s not for all, and vice versa. They’re accurate enough. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Jax@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 month ago You're wrong, someone found the clip and it's very clearly not AI. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Untamed_Star@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 1 month ago they could literally just use he same protocol... which could make them less realiable in some cases really. permalink fedilink source parent [–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 14 points 1 month ago (6 children) ah. want me to tell you your horoscope as well, while we're at it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] Pratai@piefed.ca -14 points 1 month ago (5 children) Embarrassing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 1 month ago (4 children) at least we agree that you are permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Pratai@piefed.ca -9 points 1 month ago (3 children) Blocked. Go annoy someone else. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 1 month ago your ai slop tools are wrong btw permalink fedilink source parent [–] IsaacscatNala@lemmy.ca [S] -1 points 1 month ago (1 child) tell that to yourself permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Pratai@piefed.ca -3 points 1 month ago No. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Pratai@piefed.ca -21 points 1 month ago (9 children) Yet they all agree with one another other. Funny how that is. If it’s not AI for one, it’s not for all, and vice versa. They’re accurate enough. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Jax@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 month ago You're wrong, someone found the clip and it's very clearly not AI. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Untamed_Star@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 1 month ago they could literally just use he same protocol... which could make them less realiable in some cases really. permalink fedilink source parent [–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 14 points 1 month ago (6 children) ah. want me to tell you your horoscope as well, while we're at it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] Pratai@piefed.ca -14 points 1 month ago (5 children) Embarrassing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 1 month ago (4 children) at least we agree that you are permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Pratai@piefed.ca -9 points 1 month ago (3 children) Blocked. Go annoy someone else. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 1 month ago your ai slop tools are wrong btw permalink fedilink source parent [–] IsaacscatNala@lemmy.ca [S] -1 points 1 month ago (1 child) tell that to yourself permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Pratai@piefed.ca -3 points 1 month ago No. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Jax@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 month ago You're wrong, someone found the clip and it's very clearly not AI. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Untamed_Star@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 1 month ago they could literally just use he same protocol... which could make them less realiable in some cases really. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 14 points 1 month ago (6 children) ah. want me to tell you your horoscope as well, while we're at it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] Pratai@piefed.ca -14 points 1 month ago (5 children) Embarrassing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 1 month ago (4 children) at least we agree that you are permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Pratai@piefed.ca -9 points 1 month ago (3 children) Blocked. Go annoy someone else. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 1 month ago your ai slop tools are wrong btw permalink fedilink source parent [–] IsaacscatNala@lemmy.ca [S] -1 points 1 month ago (1 child) tell that to yourself permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Pratai@piefed.ca -3 points 1 month ago No. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Pratai@piefed.ca -14 points 1 month ago (5 children) Embarrassing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 1 month ago (4 children) at least we agree that you are permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Pratai@piefed.ca -9 points 1 month ago (3 children) Blocked. Go annoy someone else. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 1 month ago your ai slop tools are wrong btw permalink fedilink source parent [–] IsaacscatNala@lemmy.ca [S] -1 points 1 month ago (1 child) tell that to yourself permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Pratai@piefed.ca -3 points 1 month ago No. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 1 month ago (4 children) at least we agree that you are permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Pratai@piefed.ca -9 points 1 month ago (3 children) Blocked. Go annoy someone else. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 1 month ago your ai slop tools are wrong btw permalink fedilink source parent [–] IsaacscatNala@lemmy.ca [S] -1 points 1 month ago (1 child) tell that to yourself permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Pratai@piefed.ca -3 points 1 month ago No. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Pratai@piefed.ca -9 points 1 month ago (3 children) Blocked. Go annoy someone else. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 1 month ago your ai slop tools are wrong btw permalink fedilink source parent [–] IsaacscatNala@lemmy.ca [S] -1 points 1 month ago (1 child) tell that to yourself permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Pratai@piefed.ca -3 points 1 month ago No. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 1 month ago your ai slop tools are wrong btw permalink fedilink source parent
[–] IsaacscatNala@lemmy.ca [S] -1 points 1 month ago (1 child) tell that to yourself permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Pratai@piefed.ca -3 points 1 month ago No. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] whotookkarl@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 month ago Exactly, cats aren't real they're just a computer half lucid apeing permalink fedilink source parent
[–] IsaacscatNala@lemmy.ca [S] 2 points 1 month ago (1 child) really... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Pratai@piefed.ca -3 points 1 month ago Yep. permalink fedilink source parent