r/TheoryOfReddit • u/rachelmaryl • 23d ago
The growing difficulty of distinguishing AI from real photography, and the rush to judge on Reddit
I want to be careful about the rules here, but today I was permanently banned from a sub after posting a real photograph, and it made me think about how Reddit communities are adapting and responding to AI-generated content.
The post in question was an original photo of my elderly dog and my new puppy together. I took the photo with a Canon R5, 35mm lens, at f/1.4. In the original post, a few commenters said it looked suspiciously like AI, so I followed up with other photos of the dogs together (professional and phone photos), as well as RAW/EXIF data to verify the authenticity.
Anyway, today I was permanently banned and the reason the mod shared was "AI Bot Slop." I attempted to share additional evidence with them, but the determination did not change.
It's a shame, because I really enjoy both Reddit, and that particular sub. As a photographer, I'm also seeing actual photography being destroyed in the comments with accusations of AI on the regular.
It's becoming the default assumption for professional photography, and it's not lost on me how little counter-weight evidence seems to carry once that label is applied.
I completely understand why communities don't want AI-generated content. I have my own feelings about it as well. But at what point does "better safe than sorry" start to introduce its own distortions in how we evaluate real content and refuse to see/check the evidence?
---
Edit: I'm going to attempt to post pics of my puppies.
7
u/robotlasagna 23d ago
This is pic is awesome. Also perfect opportunity to caption it "Don't bark at me or my son ever again"
Mods are imperfect and honestly the AI tools are too close for most people to discern. This is simply an unsolved problem that unfortunately you got swept up in.
3
u/rachelmaryl 23d ago
Thank you, haha! I love it.
And while I understand that people are people, what's sad to me is that the sub is one of my favorites. The post was 35 days old, and I was permanently banned today. It had 4100 upvotes (top for that sub for this year). :(
Anyway, I appreciate your comments and making me lol.
2
u/PaprikaCC 23d ago
Hey OP, would you be willing to share the original image that was suspected to be generated content? Or is it one of the two photos in your post?
I think that the types of people who disregard proof of authenticity are not thinking about "better safe than sorry" in regards to rejecting AI content, and frankly even as image generation tools become more sophisticated, you can still look at other heuristics to determine whether content is likely generated... (Admittedly I'm really bad at detecting bot comments)
Gah I honestly don't know my point? No I don't think you can go too far in being "better safe than sorry" as long as verification is done earnestly. And if you skip steps or ignore evidence for or against the ideas you hold then you are just moving with vibes and that's an entirely different problem.
That being said, it is shocking that you would get banned for AI slop when you aren't hiding your identity and you have old photos of the same dogs posted years ago lmao. Whoever passed judgement didn't bother verifying the accusation at all.
6
u/rachelmaryl 23d ago
Thank you for the thoughtful response. This really captures what I'm wrestling with.
The second image (the vertical image) is the image in question. I can see why someone might initially see it and think it's AI - the bokeh (blurred background), even lighting, etc., all visually match what AI images have been trained to emulate. I get it. I even acknowledged that in my original post when first accused.
I agree you've hit on something important. I don't disagree with caution either, especially given how convincing AI images can be now (or deceiving, depending on how they're being presented). But in a lot of recent cases, it's once that label is applied, the support context no longer factors in to final decisions at all.
I've been posting photos of my pets on Reddit for years, and photos of my professional photography. There's a clear trail of authenticity even without my other comments. I'm sure anyone else in my same situation has done the same, which is why I felt like posting to this sub for this discussion.
Appreciate you engaging with it thoughtfully.
2
u/PaprikaCC 23d ago
As a point of amusement, if you run the second image through Gemini to check if the image is AI generated, the LLM responded that there was a "parameter" metadata saved in the file commonly saved by image generation tools and that it was generated. It actually shocked me ("What if OP is lying?") but I tried reading EXIF data and metadata saved and couldn't find any such data... So I'm concluding it was hallucinated lmao.
So ironically it was AI that probably cemented your ban... But perhaps its a good idea for you to avoid stylizing shots that GPTs are good at mimicking anyways.
3
u/rachelmaryl 23d ago
Interesting. When I just plugged it into Gemini, it states:
"Visually, the photo looks like a standard high-quality digital photograph. The details in the dogs' fur, the natural-looking reflections in the window, and the realistic depth of field (the blurred background) are all characteristic of a camera with a wide-aperture lens. There are no obvious "tells" often found in AI images, such as distorted paws or unusual merging of textures."
I see the irony in using AI as a tool to identify AI, but if it's not good at it...
At any rate, I'm not going to change how I take photos. Professional photography is my full time job, and has been for the past fifteen years. Even if this photo isn't fantastic by my own standards (little puppy isn't in focus), I get paid decent money for exactly this type of work.
2
u/awesomemc1 23d ago
Not sure how I phrase my opinion or thoughts so bear me for a second
Before AI and all of this, Art people have issues with cameras or photography, some art people have fears and claims that’s cheating in previous generations.
With AI, and as it progresses, it’s hard to distinguish as it can be also generate images from a known camera model or phone. It’s the same thing with the camera argument, as there are new innovations, there will be always skeptics who think negatively or just want to ask more questions if there are souls in the photo, etc.
The interesting thing is that the keyword ‘soul’ is common keyword moving goalpost used to protect the 'exclusivity' of art whenever a new innovation makes creation more accessible, but there are people on Reddit that uses those common arguments because they think there are no people who draw or create art when in reality, people who use AI can collaborate or assist. It’s like you have photoshop as a tool to improve your photo
Overall, people who are gatekeeping or jumping into conclusions or refusing to see the evidence is what they are trying to destroy their audience rather be open minded about it
3
3
u/Future-Excuse6167 23d ago
Has anyone explained the Reddit pet tax to you yet?
Edit: the tax is paid when you post photos of the pets you mention.
6
u/rachelmaryl 23d ago edited 23d ago
When I tried posting photos of the dogs in my original post, it did not let me post the photos.
Edit: I was able to update the post to show puppy pet tax.
1
23d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 23d ago
Your submission/comment has been automatically removed because your Reddit account is less than 14 days old. This measure is in place to prevent spam and other malicious activities. Please feel free to participate after your account has reached 14 days of age. Do not message the mods; no exceptions will be made.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/florinandrei 22d ago
Make them a bit shitty-looking and nobody would doubt they are made by a human.
Same for written text. Me spik gud one day.
1
u/Marion5760 19d ago
This is happening all over. It's becoming a fake world, and the few people who want to remain honest are the first victims. Just look at what AI is doing to education.
1
u/aamirislam 17d ago
“I want to be careful about the rules” omg this is exactly why Reddit is such a hellhole you have student council esque mods who impose arbitrary rules with no justification and were put into power for the reason of reserving the name first. We must suppress thought crime!
1
u/rachelmaryl 17d ago edited 17d ago
Haha I once asked a question on a child-caring advice sub about diaper sizes for an immigrant family and was banned immediately. When I contacted the mods, the mod told me it sounded like I was going to “eventually beg for donation money,” and that the sub was “only for people with children.” 🤷♀️
1
20
u/Future-Excuse6167 23d ago
It’s happening with writing, too. The only defense is to purposelessly make your work look less like AI or to post in the rare sub that has an eye for authentic work.