Previous posts: https://programming.dev/post/3974121 and https://programming.dev/post/3974080

Original survey link: https://forms.gle/7Bu3Tyi5fufmY8Vc8

Thanks for all the answers, here are the results for the survey in case you were wondering how you did!

Edit: People working in CS or a related field have a 9.59 avg score while the people that aren’t have a 9.61 avg.

People that have used AI image generators before got a 9.70 avg, while people that haven’t have a 9.39 avg score.

Edit 2: The data has slightly changed! Over 1,000 people have submitted results since posting this image, check the dataset to see live results. Be aware that many people saw the image and comments before submitting, so they’ve gotten spoiled on some results, which may be leading to a higher average recently: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1MkuZG2MiGj-77PGkuCAM3Btb1_Lb4TFEx8tTZKiOoYI

    • @popcar2@programming.devOPEnglish
      57•9 months ago

      I have. Disappointingly there isn’t much difference, the people working in CS have a 9.59 avg while the people that aren’t have a 9.61 avg.

      There is a difference in people that have used AI gen before. People that have got a 9.70 avg, while people that haven’t have a 9.39 avg score. I’ll update the post to add this.

          • @xkforce@lemmy.worldEnglish
            23•9 months ago

            So no. For a result to be “statistically significant” the calculated probability that it is the result of noise/randomness has to be below a given threshold. Few if any things will ever be “100% sure.”

      • Funderpants English
        12•9 months ago

        Can we get the raw data set? / could you make it open? I have academic use for it.

          • Funderpants English
            15•9 months ago

            Of course! I’m going to find a way to integrate this dataset into a class I teach.

          • Funderpants English
            10•9 months ago

            If I can be a bother, would you mind adding a tab that details which images were AI and which were not? It would make it more usable, people could recreate the values you have on Sheet1 J1;K20

          • @Mic_Check_One_Two@reddthat.comEnglish
            1•9 months ago

            I’d be curious to see the results broken down by image generator. For instance, how many of the Midjourney images were correctly flagged as AI generated? How does that compare to DALL-E? Are there any statistically significant differences between the different generators?

            • @popcar2@programming.devOPEnglish
              1•9 months ago

              Are there any statistically significant differences between the different generators?

              Every image was created by DALL-E 3 except for one. I honestly got lazy so there isn’t much data there. I would say DALL-E is much better in creating stylistic art but Midjourney is better at realism.

      • @MooseBoys@lemmy.worldEnglish
        10•9 months ago

        Sampling from Lemmy is going to severely skew the respondent population towards more technical people, even if their official profession is not technical.

      • @MysticKetchup@lemmy.worldEnglish
        6•9 months ago

        If you do another one of these, I would like to see artist vs non-artist. If anything I feel like they would have the most experience with regular art, and thus most able to spot incongruency in AI art.

        • @brewbellyblueberry@sopuli.xyzEnglish
          1•9 months ago

          I don’t feel that’s true coming from more “traditional” art circles. From my anecdotal experience, most people can’t tell AI art from human art, especially digital and the kind the examples are from - meaning, hobbyist/semi-pro/pro deviant art type stuff. The examples seem obviously hand picked from both non-AI and AI-side to eliminate any differences as far as possible. And I feel both, the inability to tell the difference and the reason the dataset is what it is is because, well, they’re very similar, mainly because the whole deviant art/art station/whatever scene is a masssssive part of the dataset they use to train these Ai-models, closing the gap even further.

          I’m even a bit of a stickler when it comes to using digital tools and prefer to work with pens and paints as far as possible, but I flunked out pretty bad, but then again I can’t really stand this deviant art type stuff so I’m not a 100% familiar, a lot of the human made ones look very AI.

          I’d be interested in seeing the same, artist vs. non-artist survey, but honestly I feel it’s the people more familiar with specifically AI-generated art that can tell them apart the best. They literally specifically have to learn (if you’re good at it) to spot the weird little AI-specific details and oopsies to not make it look weird and in the uncanny valley.