While a small kinda innocuous example, this seems to showcase how trust can start to erode with these technologies in an implicit inconspicuous way.

Along the same line of this, when art students enter in their portfolios in schools/competition, some may use generative tech, some may not. Would the admissions office reject them because they have doubts about the tools used to generate? Would they be transparent in such decisions? Anyone have thoughts/insights on this?

The other way around (use AI to judge a submission/applicant) is also currently complicated and controversial, at least with new legislation in New York on transparency and accountability when companies use AI for hiring/screening applications (https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/07/10/1076013/new-york-ai-hiring-law/)

They clearly didnt know what they were looking for if they thought that photo was AI generated.

To get a mirror reflection of multiple subjects and have them each look unique is pretty difficult, especially with the correct angles.

My guess is they thought the colors looked too vibrant and thought it was an AI image.

This is frustrating because that picture looks absolutely nothing like an AI generated image. The judges are paranoid and suspicious because they keep hearing about the AI boogeyman, and apparently can’t be bothered to ask a more knowledgeable person before passing judgement. Of course, image synthesis will reach this quality in the near future, so what are they going to do then?

“When this image came up, we all loved it, then I said, ‘Hang on it looks a little AI-ish,’ then we all started talking about it and went well, we can’t know for sure it is or isn’t, but on the basis we’re suspicious we can’t allow it in.

1. They couldn’t reach out to the lady?
2. The hands are all normal shaped hands with the right number of fingers. It’s clearly not AI.