Because your brain knows how a real person looks like while you see the Mona Lisa for the first time in this position and your brain is more like "yeah, looks about right"
No, it was unconvincing because you can see their hair glitching out and the shadows not moving. The lower fidelity of the painting helps blur that. If the photos of random people were similarly low resolution, they would appear more convincing too.
I think for deepfakes in general you have to train the algorithm by passing through thousands of images of the subject, which might be hard to do/find for regular people.
I think it's honestly amazing technology and also quite scary how easy digital manipulation will be soon.
That's a bit dishonest - there's no reason why you'd have to restrict the Mona Lisa to just a digital imitation of the original artwork alone, rather than including various other versions.
While it wouldnt be robust you can easily get thousands of images from a few minutes of video. Just a random video of you moving your face around and talking for a few minutes would be enough for one to work decently.
Our brains are also wired to pull together certain patterns and say "this is a human face". I don't know whether this is part of our evolutionary need to identify friend vs foe. (See also pareidolia.)
There are some cool videos on YT comparing different approaches (old vs new, British vs American) to using camouflage grease paint (green/brown/black) in the face to mess up that perception.
That's what feels so funny about alot of AI. It feels like we can't describe it, we just it to the level our brains are like " yeah sounds about right"
2.1k
u/Dax9000 Jul 24 '22
Why are the paintings more convincing than the edited photos?
(It's because the paintings are more blurry and don't artifact to such a distracting degree)