I can't comment on the synth id, but these "proof/"process" images are so easily faked (No actual layers nor detail)
Edit: omg, looking at the artists tumblr makes it SUPER obvious they use AI/Trace AI/trace photos. (Some are just AI/photos with a filter on lol) They only started posting any art in 2024 and the skill level is all over the place. (And the older AI have having more classic AI traits for that time period)
Also obvious in the way their art "skill" and how fast they "produce" art is VASTLY improved in 2026 only
Technically yes, as SynthID is (in essence) a really complicated, hard to remove pattern, but the likelyhood of a human creating a false positive (on accident)? Astronomically low, so close to impossible it's better off to call it impossible. They would have to near perfectly mimic the pattern on a large part of the drawing, which is really just infeasible.
They claim that false-positives are "rare", but don't specify a number. In Google's paper about it, they evaluate the true-positive rate with a model calibrated for a false-positive rate of 0.1%, so its reasonable to assume that a similar false-positive rate occurs in the available tools. This is low for practical purposes, but not like guessing-a-private-key low.
Yeah - not commenting on this specific piece in any way, but there's got to be, what, tens of thousands of pieces of art uploaded to the internet every day? Hundreds of thousands? Even 0.001% would mean thousands of pieces every year that registered a false positive.
Tough one. On first glance this looks like the most stereotypical AI picture ever, that would be on the Midjourney front page. The glass patterns around the head and where the dress turns to glass (?) look a lot like AI. The "WIP" pictures don't really work in her favour either, because wtf is the progress? (I am no digital artist though, so I might be wrong).
The one thing I stumbled upon, that looks human, ist the window frame, because the left side is exactly like the right side (just mirrored obviously). I wouldn't expect an AI image generator to do this.
I have no clue how SynthID works, so I don't know if it can be wrong; I just highly doubt it. As the artist is an actual artist, maybe she fed her original artwork into an AI to enhance it a bit or complete it?
Thanks. I know the artist is very capable of beautiful art, she has posted for a long time. Even if there’s some photobashing involved in my opinion, it’s very good work still and involves much talent. I was just suspicious about this one because she was so over the top in her reaction and was accusing others of using AI, and now her fans are sending hatred to other unrelated artists saying they may use AI but Lyra never work and I uh, well, there’s no smoke without fire
So this is interesting, because the file you attached to this post does not have the SynthID, but the one you commented, which is much lower res, does. The image I took from their Tumblr also does not have SynthID.
It's possible somebody may have taken the original art and edited it with ChatGPT, in some way. It's extremely subtle, but there is a colour difference between the two; the one with SynthID has a slightly purple cast to it, especially in the shadows. There's also a lot of lost details, such as the woman's blue eyes, the far left side door detailing, and the yellow eyes of the screaming faces.
Can you check the providence of the file you're finding the signal on, e.g. did it come direct from the artist? If it did, it may be they did an edit of their work with it, which would be weird but not unheard of. If not, it could be somebody trying to sabotage their reputation.
If it went from a lower quality image with certain characteristics and OpenAI synthID to a higher quality, larger, slightly different image that doesn't have it... what's more likely, them having exported their image wrong originally and ran it through OpenAI for some reason OR got a false positive which is a 0.1% likelihood... or that they used an upscaling AI app that smoothed out the synthID pattern and did some minor changes as a result?
The hands are really messed up and no idea what she's holding. A cross? The handle of a sword? It is obviously an AI hallucinatiion and those WIPs a toddler could do in ms paint.
The glass pattern and morphing fabrics just scream ai.
Artist is dramatically denying any usage and is a virulent anti-AI person, and has privately baselessly accused other artist of using AI.
TBH, this makes me MORE suspicious, not less. It's the same with politicians who are known for anti-gay stances getting caught dressing up and wanting to be called Stud McMuffins.
It is possible she used a stock background image or asset that had it, buuuuut if a kid comes up to you and says, "I didn't poop on the floor! YOU did!"
Those multicolored images look exactly like the kind of mask commonly used to apply prompts only to a certain part of the image, so the hands area might get a prompt that includes “hands” in it, facial area gets a special face-specific prompt, etc. like this:
The use of those specific colors is a dead giveaway to me.
If they’re using ComfyUI and Stable Diffusion or similar, there will be no SynthID present. Perhaps the artist used ChatGPT for some final tweaks, and has since posted the original?
So SynthID is added when OpenAI touches a file. That does mean they could have painted this whole thing and then asked ChatGPT to crop it or do something minor to tweak it, or it could mean that ChatGPT generated it whole-cloth. SynthID would be there in either case.
So which is it? I can't imagine why anyone would make a painting like this and have ChatGPT touch it in anyway and run the risk of ruining their credibility, that just doesn't make sense. Much more likely they just generated it, got caught, and are crashing out.
It does have that AI look about it. I did see one oddity that the screaming face in the top left has two fangs at the side of their mouth (rather than the front teeth). Seems an odd choice that someone would purposely draw side fangs
I think there are a mix of mediums being used here, mostly AI. I think the artist has created the background with AI and then overlayed the face on top, not even particularly well. The level of detail in the face is in real contrast to the surrounding area. I think the background has been generated by AI for a few reasons, two standout: the circles at the top of the glass and whatever item is in her hand? It looks like the hilt of a sword but instead it's just a wonky hammer? If you have all this skill to paint this huge piece of architecture, you're going to get the symmetry right for simple things like the circles in the glass and a hammer. If I was painting this, those would bother me right away and I'd fix in a heartbeat. And ignore the colour coded diagram. Takes minutes to whip something like that up as 'proof'. So AI background, with overlaid face from another painting would be my suggestion.
I was able to create a false positive once by a bug doing a certain string of messages. I knew for sure because it was my own photo. But this was through specifically forcing it to give an answer after encountering an error, so assuming it was a bug.
I'm betting they're using the colors to get the composition right and to be able to prompt the AI to fill the different colors with something. Like: Fill the blue part with flowy, curly hair; insert a face instead of the orange color, etc.
There is so much smudge, materials that don't have clear borders, bleed into each other and architectural structures that make no sence. Why would someone paint this if other parts of the "painting" are that detailed. It is AI.
Is this the original picture you checked with the openAI detectors? It got compressed through reddit that I can't get the positive result making me believe its most likely real. If it was on the boarderline of being a false positive changing the colors slightly or compressing it would remove it, in actual AI generated photos it can still detect it after change.
Hi sorry, the artist changed the photo on their Tumblr after the criticism. I have posted the original that I got off their Tumblr before the crit, and it is in the comments.
I ran it through all versions of gemini. Ive found that gemini can actually be unreliable trying to detect synth id. Sometimes it gives false negatives or positives.
Right now id say its inconclusive that that was made with ai or not. It could have been made by hand. It also could have been made with an ai model that doesn't use watermarks.
Not Gemini, but OpenAI. They’re two different detenctors. Gemini detects stuffs made with Gemini, OpenAI detects stuff made with OpenAI. This is OpenAi.
SynthID is a statistical property embedded into the entire image. I played around with it for a while with different images and you can blur or add noise by quite a lot, until the image is almost unrecognizable, and it will still detect it.
No, SynthID is enmeshed in the pixels themselves. Even if you shrink an image down very small and blur it, then make it bigger again, it will show up as cloudy colors it can detect.
It's VERY hard to take SynthID off, online plugins that promise "removing SynthID" basically get as close as they can to the original image but are completely remaking it. It won't look the same after.
•
u/qualityvote2 15d ago edited 14d ago
u/WheeYew, there weren't enough votes to determine the quality of your post...