Hacker News Reader

Comment by pimlottc | Hacker News Reader

I can’t really see any difference in those images on the Twitter example when viewing it on mobile

The animation when you change images makes it harder to see the difference, I opened the three images each in its own tab and the differences are more apparent when you change between each other instantly.

One of the few times a 'blink comparator' feature in image viewers would be useful!

But that’s not realistic?

If you have to have both and instantly toggle between them to notice the difference, then it sounds like it’s doing its job well and is hard to notice the difference.

The person who drew it would definitely notice.

What kind of artist is not going to be bothered with seeing huge artifacting on their work? Btw for me it was immediately noticeable even on mobile

If it's huge, then why are multiple people commenting that they don't see a difference?

That is a great mystery, to me it's as clear as if someone pasted a cartoon dog onto the image, it's extremely blatant and impossible to ignore by my normal human pattern recognition.

I'm looking at them on my iPhone 14 Pro and I am having a hard time seeing any meaningful difference that changes the way the artwork registers with me.

I can't really imagine a case where if I had only seen the AI edited one I would have any different reaction or response to viewing the piece of art compared to having only seen the original one.

Kid me found 13 FPS in games to be a smooth and cursive experience. Current me thinks 60 FPS is laggy.

Standards differ. I saw glazed images in the wild, was wondering why they have so much JPEG artifacts, until I saw the post of one of those anti-AI + glaze images on his profile.

At full size it's super obvious - I made a side-by-side:

https://i.imgur.com/I6EQ05g.png

I still don't see a difference. (Mobile)

Here's a maybe more mobile friendly comparison:

https://i.imgur.com/zUVn8rt.png

But now that I double-check, I was comparing with the images zoomed to 200%. On desktop the artifacts are also noticeable at 100%, but not nearly as bad as in my previous comment.

What phone are you using? It’s extremely obvious on my iPhone

Have you done a color blindness test before? Red-green is the most common type and the differences here are mostly shades of green.

I typically read HN in bed where the brightness is at the minimum setting. I turned the brightness up and I see it.

Second picture looks like you were looking at it through a dirty window, there's lot of pale white stains, or light reflections, it's really blurry.

Look at the forehead and arms. The processed version looks like it's been run through a posterization filter.

Something similar to jpeg artifacts on any surface with a normally smooth color gradient, in some cases rather significant.

I didn't see it immediately either, but there's a ton of added noise. The most noticeable bit for me was near the standing person's bent elbow, but there's a lot more that becomes obvious when flipping back and forth between browser tabs instead of swiping on Twitter.

look at the green drapes to the right, or any large uniform colored space. It looks similar to bad JPEG artifacts.

I don't have great vision, but me neither. They're indistinguishable to me (likewise on mobile).

I was on desktop and it looks like pretty heavy jpeg compression. Doesn't completely destroy the image, but it's pretty noticeable when blown up large enough.

It's really noticeable on desktop, like compressing an 800kb jpeg to 50kb. Maybe on mobile you won't notice, but on desktop the image looks blown out.

It took me a minute too but on the fast you can see some blocky artifacting by the elbow and a few spots elsewhere like curtain upper left.

The gradient on the bat has blocks in it instead of being smooth.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com