Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:: Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Name
Email
Subject
Message icon

Other options

Return to this topic
Don't use smileys

Verification:

Please leave this box empty:

Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by Master Yoshi

- January 19, 2026, 11:14:11

I wonder why editing any image with Photoshop-like tools is considered an AI augmentation/created?
Image editing using tools has been around for many years, but people are skipping it and using different GenAI models to manipulate images much faster and more easily; these provide a completely different set of results.
I would say that you were using the wrong detectors for this exercise.

Posted by toto1234

- January 12, 2026, 10:44:40

Fakes were easier to fake when Google's image generation was heavily woke/DEI biased, with African Roman Emperors or African WW2 SS soldiers :-)

Posted by Dvorak

- January 12, 2026, 04:58:33

Google's SynthID (which is built specifically for Google-generated images) seems to work even for the final edit. Try sending it to Gemini with the query "Is this image ai generated?"

See here for more info: blog[dot]google/innovation-and-ai/products/ai-image-verification-gemini-app/

Posted by Redaktion

- January 11, 2026, 19:55:23

Can software save us from deepfakes? We put six detection tools to the test with a 'Nano Banana Pro' image. The results show that current tech is easily outsmarted. Simple edits using standard software were enough to drop detection rates to almost zero.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/The-Nano-Banana-Pro-experiment-AI-detection-tools-prove-useless.1201789.0.html