Suffice it to say that this mountain of direct source evidence outweighs the highlighted images of conservative commentators like Chuck Callesto and Dinesh D’Souzaboth have been caught extension electoral disinformation in the past.
When it comes to AI hoax allegations, the more disparate the sources of information, the better. While a single source can easily generate an image of an event that seems plausible, multiple independent sources showing the same event from multiple angles are much less likely to be engaged in the same hoax. Photos that match video evidence are even better, especially since they make it possible to create compelling, long-form videos of people or complex scenes. It remains a challenge for Many AI tools.
It’s also important to track down the original source of the supposed AI-generated image you’re seeing. It’s incredibly easy for a social media user to create an AI-generated image, claim it came from a news report or a live recording of an event, and then use obvious flaws in that fake image as “proof” that the event itself was faked. Links to original images from an original source’s website or verified account are far more trustworthy than screenshots that could have originated anywhere (and/or been modified by anyone).
Telltale signs
While tracking down original or corroborating sources is useful for a major news event like a presidential rally, confirming the authenticity of images and videos from a single source can be more complicated. Tools like Winston’s AI Image Detector either EsItAI.com They claim to use machine learning models to determine whether an image is AI or not. But while Detection techniques continue to evolveThese types of tools are usually based on unproven theories that have not been shown to be reliable in any large studies, making them False positive/negative outlook A real risk.
Writing on LinkedInUC Berkeley professor Hany Farid cited two GetReal Labs The models show “no evidence of AI generation” in the photos of Harris’ rally released by Trump. Farid went on to cite specific parts of the image that point to its authenticity.
“The text on the signs and the plane do not show any of the usual signs of generative AI,” Farid writes. “While the lack of evidence of manipulation is not evidence that the image is real, we found no evidence that this image was AI-generated or digitally altered.”
And even when parts of a photo seem to make no sense, there are signs of AI manipulation (such as Deformed hands in some AI image models), considers that there may be a simple explanation for some apparent optical illusions. The BBC grades that the lack of a reflection of the crowd on the plane in some photos of Harris’s rally could be due to a large empty area of runway between the plane and the crowd, as It is shown in reverse angles of the scene.Simply marking strange-looking things in a photograph with a red marker does not necessarily constitute conclusive evidence of AI manipulation.
