Can you describe what is wrong with the person behind? I can clearly see the hands issue and even I can see a strange hair on another person near her left ear. But the person behind seems correct to me.

Look at the dark eye, an artifact on nose, the lighting on the cheek behind shoulder. Fingers of her hand have abnormal thickness, index finger has very long nail, meaning they are not equal in length.

Thank you, now I see it all. This artifacts use to rhyme/mimicre with old-photo style and big artifacts on top-left quarter of image so they are not easy to see but now I see a usual stable diffusion style with noticeable disrespect to 3D objects everywhere.

The woman in the foreground seems strangely 2D, like the background woman is holding a cardboard cutout. The background woman is somehow too close.

The pupils aren’t quite right on the front woman’s eyes. Her right eye has a sort of lump and her left iris isn’t quite round.

The fabric over chest looks more like carved stone.

100% I’d not have said ‘AI’ on first look though, and if someone did a reverse-switcheroo and said ‘actually it’s real’ I could be convinced.

> It is mind-boggling how the "trends" and the non-stop race for validation make all lose their minds. How on earth a photo contest cannot see the false anatomy of the hands and person behind? Did someone in this concourse is actual photographer? Maybe not.

I think you're trying very hard to poke holes at a very run-of-the-mill process. It's easy to pick apart stuff post-facto when you have the benefit of context and hindsight, and you are certain of what you're looking at.

If instead you're judging artwork, it would be unthinkable to reason "this work is pretty good but the model's fingers might look a bit off, and that is a good enough reason to reject the prize".

Throwing blanket accusations of incompetence at the jury also says more about yourself than the contest.

The truth of the matter is that AI -generated images are becoming quite impressive and can be a challenge to tell apart. This is not a problem with a jury in a context. We had deep fakes in the recent past, and they are improving rapidly.

It's easy to try to elevate yourself by putting down others, but while you're there making claims like it's obvious that the streaming audio of Biden and Obama and Trump and Hillary hanging out playing Minecraft is bullshit, multiple high-ranking officials already fell for calls from people using similar tech to impersonate world leaders.

I am sorry, didn't want to offend anybody. But this is obvious for a trained eye, which a professional must have.

The jury https://www.worldphoto.org/2023-judges each member more than qualifies as a professional with a trained eye which means your assumption that it is obvious to a professional trained eye is provably false. I deal with AI generated images a lot and have seen a lot of these kinds of finger distortions in AI generated images as well, but with this creative category and the distorted william hope-esque style it's easy to attribute the distortions to other effects if you don't already know or assume it's AI generated.

> I am sorry, didn't want to offend anybody.

Calling out your need to put down others with petty, frivolous details to feel better about youself and your insecurities/frustrations is not an issue of offense. You're contributing to shut down an otherwise interesting discussion just because you feel the need to elevate yourself at the expense of others.

> But this is obvious for a trained eye, which a professional must have.

The fact is that you're clearly wrong, as demonstrated by this contest and the fact that the AI generated image was awarded the top prize by its jury.

Your only counterclaim is that you portray yourself as better than others without reason or substance, and in the process tried to make it about you and elevate yourself at the expense of others by spreading baseless accusations of incompetence.

Again, this says more about you than AI generated content and those who evaluate it, and this discussion is really not about you.

Not sure why you’re getting downvotes, your post is completely spot on.

That a professional jury awarded the prize to an AI-generated image is proof that AI has reached a good enough level to fool a trained eye.

To come later, with prior knowledge that it was AI-generated, point out “tells” and generally armchair-quarterback the process, proves absolutely nothing about the jury’s competence.

Trained eye for what? I'd assume that everyone judging that photo contest was a professional with a trained eye for photography; but that apparently doesn't imply having a trained eye for ML-generated images, and doesn't necessarily even involve having looked at ML-generated images, much less knowing which are the common "tells" for detecting them.

The person who generated the image seems to have decades of award winning experience in actual photography, so I wonder if that trained eye passes your test?

Seriously?

>Throwing blanket accusations of incompetence at the jury

Clearly you haven't spent much time in the art world. The idea of competence is fundamentally opposed with the reigning ideology in fine art (as opposed to commercial art).

Hard disagree, it's exceptionally obvious - the hands aren't just a little off, they're anatomically incorrect. And this is specifically a competition so one would assume that the judges would have at least minimal aesthetic training.

> Hard disagree, it's exceptionally obvious - the hands aren't just a little off, they're anatomically incorrect.

It really isn't. It's fine you tried to play Catch the Differences after knowing what to look at. That's not what people do with photos running in contests.

Aesthetic training time is really tough though.

Composition push-ups, color-theory pull-ups, subject lighting crunches. It’s not easy but you gotta get artistically ripped before you can be a judge art.