At 7:50 he was talking about the 2nd image and at 8:04 he was talking about the 4th image. Thats why theres always a red arrow that shows what picture hes talking about
@@FaeTheMf poles are used constantly to determine where you are. A lot of places look very, very similar so you see a certain pole you might be able to eliminate somewhere or know which country, or province you're in by that alone or with other clues
I found the difference in how a geoguesser player vs a "normal" person approaches this very interesting. You used mostly your game knowledge to find the right images, while I searched for misstakes in the details like wrong shadows etc.
for me, the difficult part about looking for shadows and distortions is that its hard to tell if its due to the camera/blurring or if its an ai mistake
Personally I could tell because it felt off and looking a bit longer I noticed some details thats seemed weird But crazy that this gut feeling can tell that something is off
yeah for example in the first quiz.. number 3 looks totally off for me.. it looks like they put together bushy greens, too clean accentuated road with too maintained side of the road for that part of the world, and the background sky pops way too much.. but for him it "made sense" somehow..
@@petrkdn8224 I'd assume that it because foliage being correct relies on the complex 3D structure of the trees being correct, that with branches often being obscured, hidden by bloom, blending with background or getting messed up by image compression due to them being too small. And sometimes you need to get details which are not represented by anything in the image, like wind direction right That and AI does fine texture worse when it's not the focus.
@@petrkdn8224 Yeah any sort of pattern generally throws the AI off. With trees and leaves however, you just need to ask yourself; what’s the logic being that branch and where is it coming from? It usually ends up looking like how fever dreams feel. In this case tho, I couldn’t see anything through my phone screen. Couldn’t see the details in a thumbnail resolution.
Yea I agree with previous replies. AI is terrible at leaves and other coordinated or semi coordinated structures (like candles, fires, lights and shadows) Branches out in the open wind will all lean towards the same direction under the effect of the sun and the wind. Individual leaves will always face the direction that gives them most sunlight, top leaves usually face east while bottom leaves face any opening to the sky they can find. A pile of big leafed plants is always enough to thwart any AI.
I think the craziest part about them is if nobody told you that any were AI generated, aside from the obvious "3"s, is that they fool just about anyone.
I went 5/5 but not for the reason of knowing its AI like him I just found distinctive color grading differences between real cameras and FOV it feels like art more than an actual picture its scary how accurate some were tho.
@@ABC-lm9do Yeah, that's another scary thing. When you have to be an expert in a relevant field to have much of a chance when you *know* something AI is present, pretty much no one will have any hope spotting these things in the wild. And it's only gonna get better, with video and eventually synced audio (by eventually I mean like 2 or 3 years tops) that to most people will appear completely seamless.
I went 5/5, I'm not a geoguessr pro, I'm not an expert in any relative field at all, AI just looks uncanny to any human being with functioning eyes(no, I wasn't just guessing)
11:02 I thought it was that because all of the trees on the right had lost their leaves and the ones on the left still had them, which is probably not impossible, but thats what made me choose 4
for me it was that the leaves were weirdly scattered around all over the road. plus, like rainbolt said, they were still on the road after the van drove by. plus #1's shadows looked pretty perfect.
This kinda reminded me of that one game, exit 8 I believe. Where mind starts playing tricks on you and just start overthinking way too much so that even the most normal things start feeling like they dont belong there
@@lpharmer3496 Thing is, the human brain has vastly more neurons than our image generating AI right now. Them having fewer neurons fundamentally limits their maximum performance even if you train them in a loop like that, i.e. they just don't have the brainpower. Normal adversarial networks like you describe are equal in network size and so they eventually are able to fool the discriminator (the other AI checking if the output is real or fake), but if the discriminator (a human in this case) is much bigger, it may not ever get higher than a certain success rate. True human/superhuman performance might be a long way off (until we can make much bigger neural networks).
Hey editor, I got a pro tip: If you have information on screen like at 3:17, a good rule of thumb is to have it there long enough that you personally can read it twice. I get that it would likely mess with the pacing if you're dedicating time to it, but having it on screen for not even 2 seconds is very easy to outright miss for casual viewers like myself.
I doubt this was the intention of the editor, but flashes of text probably help the algorithm because viewers either need to pause or rewind to read it, which increases the watch time per click.
@@shmooveyea It was on for such a short time that I literally couldn't even pause it in time. If I have to rewind just to not miss kind of important information, it sucks :/
AI imagery is definitely harder to identify when there's a lot of visual noise and few actual landmarks to compare. This test is one of the first times I've actually had to struggle to tell it apart, even got two of them wrong
@@danielgonzalezhuerta453 I don't watch this channel a lot, but I think it's just that he uses the word very often, and it's becoming overused, so he's trying to use different words instead. It's not a bad word at all! (:
I actually knew this one! If you do rock climbing in UK, it's pretty easy. And something about that rock by the parking also screams UK to me idk why lol but yeah, does not look like UK to a normal person, sky too blue lmao
@@Pavel-yp2je Can you confirm my theory that rock is there to stop cars from pulling out at an angle and prevent crashes with cars coming around the corner?
The scary part will be that when someone is malicious with AI, it won't be in a challenge where you know it's present, and there won't be a reveal to show that you were right and wrong. It will all slowly seed itself unannounced into our images, art, libraries, and legal evidence.
what bothers me these days with all the AI stuff is those arrogant people who surged who keep telling how "extremely easy" it is to tell real from AI, especially in drawings like No bruh, that's not easy, it's becoming very hard for the common folks to differentiate certain stuff. And then people come with all the technical knowledge about design/art/photography and I be like bro do u know most people don't have said knowledge right lol
This is so crazy. Once rainbolt pointed out certain features, it made sense, but initially just trying to find things myself I would basically suspect every single image equally. You could definitely make a game where it gets 3 screenshots randomly from street view and generates one ai streetview photo, and you just have to choose which is fake until you lose. It would probably be really easy for experts as unlike in this video, there wouldn't be an ai expert to verify and refine the image, but for everyday people that sounds super cool. In fact now I wish i had the knowledge to host that as an actual site, maybe after i graduate I'll try and code it up but i wouldn't know how to host it without costing me a fortune
I was just about to comment this yes I took a picture of thst exact same cliff as a goat was standing on the top so funny seeing it on a rainbold video
I think with a few small changes you could make this a lot harder. If you limited it to one country (Brazil) then the AI would more consistently generate realistic images. Also if you had a pro work with the person generating them to select the best images you could filter out some of the easier tells of these images.
If you put enough effort into it, it would be impossible to tell them apart. Any "glitches" you may see in AI might be from camera blur. There is just so, so, so much data out there when it comes to nature.
The odd thing about Nr.3 at 6:30 is how thin the road gets. I think the AI tried to convey the feel of it disappearing in the distance, but with the rocks around, the proportions are just off
I'll be honest I'm surprised you missed the last one; if you look at the center-right of the trees, there's clear artifacting from panoramic/stitched imaging just on the border of it. I don't think AI would have mimicked that sort of artifact.
@@colecube8251top left pic on the last challenge, above where the road ends you can see the sky between the trees on the left and right side of the road there is a horizontal line
@@colecube8251 Look at the top-left image, dead center but on the right edge - there's like a "bone" shape in a branch. Directly to its side, there's an identical copy of that bone shape. If you look closelier, you'll notice that there's an entire smear of clone/copy of that whole area, which is pretty common in panoramic imaging when it's stitching images together. Essentially the whole right edge (like the last 30 columns or so) are just copied from directly to the left of it.
The last one had some clear giveaways if you spotted them. The trees on the center-left have gaps in them, they are just floating. Also the trees on the right are super squiggly
I thought the AI image was such on that last set because I saw an S in the foliage left of center and a bit above the road... like a PERFECT S... and then next to it is a H.
It's really impressive how accurate Rainbolt was, but like he said it's not easy. He's spending a long time analyzing each image and goes in with the knowledge that one of them is fake, the average person is not going to spend more than a minute looking at photos while scrutinizing every detail.
@@luka188it's full potential is based on what information we use to train it, most ai already are trained billions if not trillions of input, I doubt we can get more than that tbh, for now the big difference is how well you can train the ai and how much of its potential we can get out
@@luka188it hasn't been for "a few years", it has been literally decades of research and development at this point. It's been only "a few years" since AI image generation got commercially viable, which for many products is close to the final form (though not for AI of course), but still it definitely isn't "bottom".
6:29 that "double line" is actually looks very convincing as it is a normal middle line, but the asphalt is cracked right in the centre of the line, which removes the central part, and makes the line to seem like 2 parallel line. But the crack seems to suddenly went missing before the next centre line, and the width of the rest of the centre lines are not consistent with the damaged one.
This is how GANs work. one AI, known as the generator, creates an image, while another AI, known as the RAINBOLT, predicts or evaluates the image. If the generated image successfully fools the RAINBOLT, the generator AI will create more images like it.
Wait you saying that 2:48 no2 is fake and no3 is real.? I thought 3 was fake cuz they border between the road and the grass is insanely clean, someone must have cut it recentlt or some.
It's actually really easy to guess most of the time, just look at the photo with the most dynamic range and the best looking exposure, look for photos without blown out skies... To explain further - the google cameras aren't like human eyes, of course, nor are they Hollywood level cinema cameras, therefore it is safe to assume they wouldn't have 12-18 stops of dynamic range but rather less than 10 (after post processing increases shadows and decreases highlights), in other words if you can see a sky that is blown out and the detail in the shadows and midtones is fine, that is likely real. If you can see noise in the shadows and darker parts of the image, again, likely real. On the other hand if it looks "too real" and "too perfect" and both the white sky and the shadows are perfectly exposed for (on a sunny day of course, that'll not work on an overcast or cloudy day) that'll generally mean that it's AI generated since the google cameras aren't really that good and the AI is trained not to leave stupid white blobs in the sky where a google cam might have lost detail but instead put a high quality perfectly exposed sky there.
i dont even know how to determine dynamic range and exposure in a picture. All I know that tho9se are important factors for a high quality image. As a layman im not able to identify that in an image. " it is safe to assume they wouldn't have 12-18 stops of dynamic range but rather less than 10" You cannot expect me to know this kind of information. What you are saying is, that it is easy for an expert or photography entusiast to spot the AI image assuming they know what to look out for.
was playing along myself and only guessed pic 1 of the last set incorrectly without any geoguesser knowledge, knowing what ai likes to do really helps you spot things that are likely generated
Yeah I think Geoguessr knowledge only takes you so far on something like this. I've worked with a fair bit of AI generation and while I've barely played the game I only missed the round 5 while watching on a small tablet. It's going to get harder and harder in the coming months and years though to pick up on the small things that don't really pass the smell test as its getting so much more right than wrong compared to even 12 months ago.
@@unorevers7160 I'll try to explain better. Exposure is literally how bright the photo is, it is measured in stops, that isn't very important info for a non-enthusiast. What you need to know is that the fact that on the same image a camera captured high detail and great color in both the shadows and in the highlights is the sign of high dynamic range (generally cameras can either expose for the shadows and likely get a fully white sky or expose for the highlights and get fully black shadows), while in a forest on a sunny day with the sky perfectly visible and full detail in the shadows of the forest without any noise (literal multicolored grain in the image, common in low light, high ISO causes it - not important rn), if you have such high dynamic range it is very likely that the photo is AI generated cuz google street view cameras aren't that good, don't get me wrong, they can get perfect exposure in most conditions but when you have both very dark and very light area in the same it is likely to expose for one of them since it cannot get high detail in both, hence a lower dynamic range. The number of stops of dynamic range is the difference in exposure measured in stops between the darkest and lightest area in a given photo, it isn't important how that's measured, what you need to know is: Human eye: 18-21 stops, Hollywood level cinema camera: 13-16 stops, Pro DSLR: 10-13 stops max, phone: 7-12 stops, old camcorder: 5-9 stops and crucially google street view gen3,4 is probably 9-13 stops. AI is likely to go for like 16 stops at least so it's obvious if the example is easy as I stated previously, detail in both very dark and in very light areas of the image at the same time on a sunny day would likely, but not 100%, indicate an AI gen image.
@@atriggeredamoeba4386just type a prompt and reroll results until satisfied. It is impressive only if you train your own ai to generate something like that. Otherwise, biggest hurdle is clicking mouse X times.
Haha, was waiting for this one! However - huge nerd talk incoming - there are definitely some things AI just can't replicate... For an example, I'm from the UK and can (pretty much) recognise all National Grid standard electrical infrastructure. AI really can't produce anything close to, for me, genuine British electrical "pylons" and substations - and it likely won't even as the tech progresses! Guessing you can apply some similar logic to your thinking as well... Anything from streetlights, housing, cell towers, road signs, cars, etc... In short - scanning an image not for looks, but for genuine realism - if you get what I'm saying!
The editing with the camera moving up and and down as well as the arrows, so you can follow the video is just really well-done. It doesn't look flashy, but it's as good as it could be
@@Al_Gonzo that is a dumb argument. It's humans who train the cars to drive themselves. So the cars can only be as good as their engineers. But an AI can learn continue learning without humans
@@Al_Gonzo The difference is while that prediction was proven wrong pretty resoundingly, AI predictions have repeatedly been proven wrong over the past few years, *in the opposite direction.* AI progress has consistently occurred faster than expected. You'd better hope that trend doesn't continue, or the world won't even realise what's happening before it's over.
You forwarded on one simple fact 11:06 the pole and the shadow does not add up, does not line up. It seems to be off by 10 to 20 ft. That was my first giveaway. And after that that's all I needed
The last one had a bigger giveaway for me. Trees don't cast perfect shadows, there are tons of holes in them. The perfect shade over the road instantly made me think 4 was fake
ngl, you might benefit from an eye tracker. You could just show what you're looking at when you talk about stuff instead of having to explain or edit in the red arrow.
10:51 I thought image 1 was wrong too until i noticed the weird panorama camera artifact (where it duplicates a little bit of the image) on the right edge of the image, i don’t think ai would do that.
I fear the day when someone casually tells me something like "Hmm, remember when AI stuff was everywhere? Looks like all the AI content is gone now." At that point I will pack my stuff and go live in the woods.
Most of them ae fairly easy to spot. AI likes to keep the road going for waaaay longer than is reasonable. IRL they dissapear behind a bend fairly quickly
At 3:20 the thing that gave #4 away for me was the shadow of the snowbank on the right. There is a little dip in the middle of the shadow closest to the camera but there is no dip in the actual snowbank to create it.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
This competition is unfair, we all know that rainbolt is an ai
R AI NBOLT
@@manjilmanjil3003is he cooking??!!!🗣🗣🗣🗣🔥🔥🔥
1.9k likes and 4 replys? -lemme change that- changed.
Rainbot
No way that face is real
7:50 “I don’t know what this pole is doing here”
8:04 “this pole makes a lot of sense”
Oh ok understandable
You must be new around here 😂
The Polish are important in geoguesser. Especially our trees.
@@harstar12345 yep I am 💀
At 7:50 he was talking about the 2nd image and at 8:04 he was talking about the 4th image. Thats why theres always a red arrow that shows what picture hes talking about
@@FaeTheMf poles are used constantly to determine where you are. A lot of places look very, very similar so you see a certain pole you might be able to eliminate somewhere or know which country, or province you're in by that alone or with other clues
I found the difference in how a geoguesser player vs a "normal" person approaches this very interesting. You used mostly your game knowledge to find the right images, while I searched for misstakes in the details like wrong shadows etc.
for me, the difficult part about looking for shadows and distortions is that its hard to tell if its due to the camera/blurring or if its an ai mistake
Personally I could tell because it felt off and looking a bit longer I noticed some details thats seemed weird
But crazy that this gut feeling can tell that something is off
It was pretty obvious, stuff like the distorted piles of dirt and oddly formed tree branches gave it away for the first one@@thegreendude2086
exactly my thought, last round picture 3 the shadow of the tree was way too on point to be AI, didn't need to see anything else.
yeah for example in the first quiz.. number 3 looks totally off for me.. it looks like they put together bushy greens, too clean accentuated road with too maintained side of the road for that part of the world, and the background sky pops way too much.. but for him it "made sense" somehow..
7:40 "These leaves don't make sense"
Ok bro, if you say so lol
They look like they're floating in midair
AI foliage is really obvious, i looked at the trees of each round and had 100% win rate, got all of them correct, even identified the double AI round
@@petrkdn8224 I'd assume that it because foliage being correct relies on the complex 3D structure of the trees being correct, that with branches often being obscured, hidden by bloom, blending with background or getting messed up by image compression due to them being too small.
And sometimes you need to get details which are not represented by anything in the image, like wind direction right
That and AI does fine texture worse when it's not the focus.
@@petrkdn8224 Yeah any sort of pattern generally throws the AI off. With trees and leaves however, you just need to ask yourself; what’s the logic being that branch and where is it coming from?
It usually ends up looking like how fever dreams feel. In this case tho, I couldn’t see anything through my phone screen. Couldn’t see the details in a thumbnail resolution.
Yea I agree with previous replies. AI is terrible at leaves and other coordinated or semi coordinated structures (like candles, fires, lights and shadows)
Branches out in the open wind will all lean towards the same direction under the effect of the sun and the wind. Individual leaves will always face the direction that gives them most sunlight, top leaves usually face east while bottom leaves face any opening to the sky they can find. A pile of big leafed plants is always enough to thwart any AI.
Recaptcha be Like:
Underrated comment
Don't give google any ideas, please. It's hard the way it is already hahaha
You have to get it wrong to prove you are a human.
@@rogercruz1547skill issue
underrated lol
I think the craziest part about them is if nobody told you that any were AI generated, aside from the obvious "3"s, is that they fool just about anyone.
Yeah it's horrifying. Objectivity is gonna vanish
That's the issue with Deceptive Imagery: You caption it enough, just make it "look real", and people are going to believe it.
I went 5/5 but not for the reason of knowing its AI like him I just found distinctive color grading differences between real cameras and FOV it feels like art more than an actual picture its scary how accurate some were tho.
@@ABC-lm9do
Yeah, that's another scary thing.
When you have to be an expert in a relevant field to have much of a chance when you *know* something AI is present, pretty much no one will have any hope spotting these things in the wild.
And it's only gonna get better, with video and eventually synced audio (by eventually I mean like 2 or 3 years tops) that to most people will appear completely seamless.
I went 5/5, I'm not a geoguessr pro, I'm not an expert in any relative field at all, AI just looks uncanny to any human being with functioning eyes(no, I wasn't just guessing)
11:02 I thought it was that because all of the trees on the right had lost their leaves and the ones on the left still had them, which is probably not impossible, but thats what made me choose 4
I didn’t even see that. I just saw how perfect the leaves look placed that way on the road lol
It was the tree trunk for me.
That is exactly what I saw I live in a fall-foliage heavy area so I noticed how strange of a pattern it was and I knew for sure it was fake
For me it was the clouds that made me pick 4, ive never seen a cloud pattern with gaps like that irl
for me it was that the leaves were weirdly scattered around all over the road. plus, like rainbolt said, they were still on the road after the van drove by. plus #1's shadows looked pretty perfect.
You can't spell RAINBOLT without AI.
d”A” n”I”nja
Let him cook
You just spell it
R/\1NBOLT
i can 🌧Bolt
"I'm not gonna sit here and cope"
Cuts video short to sit here an cope 😂
It would have been funny if the last slide was a trick question with 4 ai pics just to see them sweat for 20minutes for no reason
Or maybe a trick question where all of them are real
Hey guys I found satan
It’s crazy how many “felt like AI” that weren’t.
That's the effect that AI images give. Once you start questioning reality, everything looks fake.
Yeah whoever picked the real images did a great job at that, it's very intentional.
This kinda reminded me of that one game, exit 8 I believe. Where mind starts playing tricks on you and just start overthinking way too much so that even the most normal things start feeling like they dont belong there
Google Streetview does have a lot of weird distortion and such that looks AI generated because it kind of is, with the way 360 views are spliced.
At some point AI becomes realistic enough that even just slightly weird real pictures blur the line with good AI.
you forgot to put what other pros are choosing on the last round
messed up the last like 20 sec on the export, sorry!
4/13 chose 4 was AI (31%)
7/13 chose 1 was AI (54%)
2/13 chose 2 was AI (15%)
Thank you so much!
@@georainboltthe abrupt ending makes a lot more sense now
@@georainboltLETS GO🐗
did anyone get perfect on all of them?@@georainbolt
We're going to need experts in very specific things to help us spot AI images in the future
I know nothing but I imagine you could use tools like how there is software that can be used to detect if a picture has been photoshopped
@@lpharmer3496 At that point it just becomes an arms race so those also won't hold forever.
@@cameron7374 true. Better ai image detection = better ai images until maybe an AI image can be created that is indistinguishable from a real image
@@lpharmer3496 Thing is, the human brain has vastly more neurons than our image generating AI right now. Them having fewer neurons fundamentally limits their maximum performance even if you train them in a loop like that, i.e. they just don't have the brainpower. Normal adversarial networks like you describe are equal in network size and so they eventually are able to fool the discriminator (the other AI checking if the output is real or fake), but if the discriminator (a human in this case) is much bigger, it may not ever get higher than a certain success rate. True human/superhuman performance might be a long way off (until we can make much bigger neural networks).
@@lpharmer3496Ai is often trained by using that tech, back and forth, informing itself with a pass/fail nonstop several thousand times a second.
On round 1, i thought 3 would be AI because that road looks too smooth without any texture
Same
Same here, not to mention the really weird green flower thing in the middle far left.
Same with the last round, i thought it should be 2 because the lines don't connect to anything, or at least i don't see anything
I thought it was 3 just because of how dramatic the contrast looked
ME TOO
3:00 i thouhg it was 3 so bad the road looks so shiny
Saaame, that perfect road was waaay too sus😭
I 100% thought 3 was ai
you might be AI
Hey editor, I got a pro tip: If you have information on screen like at 3:17, a good rule of thumb is to have it there long enough that you personally can read it twice. I get that it would likely mess with the pacing if you're dedicating time to it, but having it on screen for not even 2 seconds is very easy to outright miss for casual viewers like myself.
pause the video.
Someone teach bro how to pause a video 😭 🙏
I doubt this was the intention of the editor, but flashes of text probably help the algorithm because viewers either need to pause or rewind to read it, which increases the watch time per click.
people who are saying pause the video are missing the point 😂
@@shmooveyea It was on for such a short time that I literally couldn't even pause it in time. If I have to rewind just to not miss kind of important information, it sucks :/
Who knew rainbolt was just 2 facebook moms in a trenchcoat
0:45 10,000 hours on street view is not a sentence I thought I would hear
JUST SAID THE SAID THING SEEING THIS FOR THE FIRST TIME
I've been wondering who gets to keep their job when AI takes over... Just him.
E
For now
wait until There are AI that can detect AI photo
AI won’t replace you, a person who uses AI will.
@@theseeker3073you sound like you're about to sell a course to me
AI imagery is definitely harder to identify when there's a lot of visual noise and few actual landmarks to compare. This test is one of the first times I've actually had to struggle to tell it apart, even got two of them wrong
8:19 "But like actually, you have to use my... brain" you can feel the struggle not to say "use my noggin" :D
he cut right after, so probably did say noggin and then deleted it
As non english speaker i searched for the meaning. I undestand It is slang for head. But why would he crop It of the video? Is It a bad word?
@@danielgonzalezhuerta453 I don't watch this channel a lot, but I think it's just that he uses the word very often, and it's becoming overused, so he's trying to use different words instead. It's not a bad word at all! (:
Image 2 at 6:24 is Cheddar Gorge, taken in the June 2023 images, at 51.284166, -2.762760
Google lens
I actually knew this one! If you do rock climbing in UK, it's pretty easy. And something about that rock by the parking also screams UK to me idk why lol
but yeah, does not look like UK to a normal person, sky too blue lmao
@@Pavel-yp2je Can you confirm my theory that rock is there to stop cars from pulling out at an angle and prevent crashes with cars coming around the corner?
@@ArthurB26 can't confirm but wouldn't be surprised if that's the case
I love her! Amazing drag queen lol
JHK working overtime to match the AI locations and select 10 troll daily challenge locations for two videos posted on the same day damn haha
🧑🏭
Who is jhk?
My favorite video you have ever done, this is just incredible
0:04 I literally remember my mom thinking that image on the left is real when there was a huge snow storm 😂
it's real
Or the ac130 flying inside of an ac130 full of soldiers with text saying "thank you for your serviice" lol
The scary part will be that when someone is malicious with AI, it won't be in a challenge where you know it's present, and there won't be a reveal to show that you were right and wrong.
It will all slowly seed itself unannounced into our images, art, libraries, and legal evidence.
2:54 picture 2 was super easy, just from a quick glance I could see the trees were casting a shadow on a cloudy day.
Your so damn smart
For round 2 no roads towards the houses
oh yeah the shadows under the trees were suspiciously darker than they should be
good eye
"as someone with 10 thousand hours on street view"
wo.
Rainbolt trying to ride a bike in autumn: “Meh, these leaves don't make sense!”
The second one, option 4 didn't even have the wires connected to the pole
I noticed that too
0:56 Wait ‘only’ 10k hours on street view? People have those kinds of hours on steam games and are still bad
He be like 145 IQ I guess
Thank you so much for the link through to my video Rainbolt! You are amazing. Thanks for all of your brilliant work - you're an inspiration to many! 🙌
what bothers me these days with all the AI stuff is those arrogant people who surged who keep telling how "extremely easy" it is to tell real from AI, especially in drawings like
No bruh, that's not easy, it's becoming very hard for the common folks to differentiate certain stuff. And then people come with all the technical knowledge about design/art/photography and I be like bro do u know most people don't have said knowledge right lol
And it will also only become more difficult. (Saying this as an artist)
it was easy not that long ago, the technology is moving faster than people can update the information in their brains about said technology
"And then people come with all the technical knowledge about design/art/photography" so for some people it is easy?
@@Anikin3- even with the knowledge its not given some of the scores the pros got
It's still pretty easy most of the time
This is so crazy. Once rainbolt pointed out certain features, it made sense, but initially just trying to find things myself I would basically suspect every single image equally.
You could definitely make a game where it gets 3 screenshots randomly from street view and generates one ai streetview photo, and you just have to choose which is fake until you lose. It would probably be really easy for experts as unlike in this video, there wouldn't be an ai expert to verify and refine the image, but for everyday people that sounds super cool.
In fact now I wish i had the knowledge to host that as an actual site, maybe after i graduate I'll try and code it up but i wouldn't know how to host it without costing me a fortune
8:14 when I didn't study for a test because the teacher told us "it's basically all that you have learned"
This was an awesome video & concept. You've been dropping constant bangers lately keep it up!
I think the clouds for the last one gave it away
6:17 that's cheddar gorge, went there as a kid and remember that vantage point
I went there last week, pretty cool caves!
I was just about to comment this yes I took a picture of thst exact same cliff as a goat was standing on the top so funny seeing it on a rainbold video
His face's so smooth he looks like he's AI generated
Now do it in 0.1 seconds, pixelated, black and white, and upside down 😊
this commit is cringe
I think with a few small changes you could make this a lot harder. If you limited it to one country (Brazil) then the AI would more consistently generate realistic images. Also if you had a pro work with the person generating them to select the best images you could filter out some of the easier tells of these images.
If you put enough effort into it, it would be impossible to tell them apart. Any "glitches" you may see in AI might be from camera blur. There is just so, so, so much data out there when it comes to nature.
The odd thing about Nr.3 at 6:30 is how thin the road gets. I think the AI tried to convey the feel of it disappearing in the distance, but with the rocks around, the proportions are just off
I'll be honest I'm surprised you missed the last one; if you look at the center-right of the trees, there's clear artifacting from panoramic/stitched imaging just on the border of it. I don't think AI would have mimicked that sort of artifact.
I can't see what ur talking about at all :(
@@colecube8251top left pic on the last challenge, above where the road ends you can see the sky between the trees on the left and right side of the road there is a horizontal line
@@colecube8251 Look at the top-left image, dead center but on the right edge - there's like a "bone" shape in a branch. Directly to its side, there's an identical copy of that bone shape. If you look closelier, you'll notice that there's an entire smear of clone/copy of that whole area, which is pretty common in panoramic imaging when it's stitching images together. Essentially the whole right edge (like the last 30 columns or so) are just copied from directly to the left of it.
@@colecube8251 i.imgur.com/7Q8C0yt.png here's a little diagram of what I mean
@@colecube8251 i.imgur.com / 7Q8C0yt.png - here's a visual explanation of what I mean
The fact "Ryanbrawl" claims he is a human shows how dangerous AI is
Ooo the first one I was like #3 looks too crispy it has to be that-nope that’s just normal gen 4
Same, but I thought the road was onto of the rightside foiliage. The gap between road and plants was missing to me
The last one had some clear giveaways if you spotted them. The trees on the center-left have gaps in them, they are just floating. Also the trees on the right are super squiggly
No, those are not gaps. Those are leaves in front of the trunks.
Clear giveaway on number 2 as well. The snow one. The poles don't have wires. The electric wires are hanging mid air
I thought the AI image was such on that last set because I saw an S in the foliage left of center and a bit above the road... like a PERFECT S... and then next to it is a H.
It's really impressive how accurate Rainbolt was, but like he said it's not easy. He's spending a long time analyzing each image and goes in with the knowledge that one of them is fake, the average person is not going to spend more than a minute looking at photos while scrutinizing every detail.
I think the clouds were tells in most of the AI generated ones- They felt very "generic fluffy clouds" rather than the typically larger/vaguer shapes
I have the feeling that he knew it was number 4. But if he chose number 4 he would be called a cheater.
This is CRAZY. And to think this is basically the bottom of the exponential development curve.
I'd guess middle. He got a dude that does ai and a geoguesser pro.
@@Speed001 Now, this is the bottom. This AI stuff has barely been out for a few years. It is nowhere near to completion or to its full potential.
Might not actually be the bottom
@@luka188it's full potential is based on what information we use to train it, most ai already are trained billions if not trillions of input, I doubt we can get more than that tbh, for now the big difference is how well you can train the ai and how much of its potential we can get out
@@luka188it hasn't been for "a few years", it has been literally decades of research and development at this point.
It's been only "a few years" since AI image generation got commercially viable, which for many products is close to the final form (though not for AI of course), but still it definitely isn't "bottom".
genuinely it feels like this could be turned into a "sequel" to geoguessr called like aiguessr or something to that effect
They would couple AIguessr to an actual AI and it would stop working after you trained it enough :D
bro is the one who makes maps from memory
"Espclecially for everyone on facebook" ayooo😂
6:29 that "double line" is actually looks very convincing as it is a normal middle line, but the asphalt is cracked right in the centre of the line, which removes the central part, and makes the line to seem like 2 parallel line. But the crack seems to suddenly went missing before the next centre line, and the width of the rest of the centre lines are not consistent with the damaged one.
for me the giveaway was the road shrinking down to one car width
bet u dont feel so smart now that it was AI
@@funky555huh? they're saying it has inconsistencies...
Looks liek a box to me and that's what gave it away. I don't think there's any road marking that's just a rectangular box like that in the center
I am officially better at recognising AI than Rainbolt
love this type of content
You know you’re a different kind of swear when you’re flexing 10,000 hours on frigging street view.
bro dont have to work for FBI, FBI needs to work for him 💀
Edit: i wake up and saw i was famous 🗿
im gonna touch u
100 likes and no comment let me fix it
@@himanshucubing7541 Corny asf
you could play geoguessr for an entire year without stopping for a second and you still wouldn't have as much time as rainbolt has in street view
great video. would love to see a part 2
This is how GANs work. one AI, known as the generator, creates an image, while another AI, known as the RAINBOLT, predicts or evaluates the image. If the generated image successfully fools the RAINBOLT, the generator AI will create more images like it.
the fear of being a facebook mom is scary
Bro's hair is definitely AI.
rAInbolt moment
haha
I immediately knew which one was fake because of the exaggerated field of view.
Rainbolt: hmmmm, i don't remember this sand particle in here 24°27'41.2"N 13°53'28.6"W, which means it's AI.
I love every time he says "this pole makes sense, yes" and I'm sitting here like "...alright bro, if you say so"
7:22 there's a face in the top right of the 3rd image
There's also one in the right of the second picture
I believe it’s unfair to match a bleeding edge technology computer machine with some image drawing AI.
Wait you saying that 2:48 no2 is fake and no3 is real.? I thought 3 was fake cuz they border between the road and the grass is insanely clean, someone must have cut it recentlt or some.
Notices two pixels of mailbox, doesn't notice tree trunks disappearing into nothing and floating anyway
It's actually really easy to guess most of the time, just look at the photo with the most dynamic range and the best looking exposure, look for photos without blown out skies... To explain further - the google cameras aren't like human eyes, of course, nor are they Hollywood level cinema cameras, therefore it is safe to assume they wouldn't have 12-18 stops of dynamic range but rather less than 10 (after post processing increases shadows and decreases highlights), in other words if you can see a sky that is blown out and the detail in the shadows and midtones is fine, that is likely real. If you can see noise in the shadows and darker parts of the image, again, likely real. On the other hand if it looks "too real" and "too perfect" and both the white sky and the shadows are perfectly exposed for (on a sunny day of course, that'll not work on an overcast or cloudy day) that'll generally mean that it's AI generated since the google cameras aren't really that good and the AI is trained not to leave stupid white blobs in the sky where a google cam might have lost detail but instead put a high quality perfectly exposed sky there.
i dont even know how to determine dynamic range and exposure in a picture. All I know that tho9se are important factors for a high quality image.
As a layman im not able to identify that in an image.
" it is safe to assume they wouldn't have 12-18 stops of dynamic range but rather less than 10"
You cannot expect me to know this kind of information. What you are saying is, that it is easy for an expert or photography entusiast to spot the AI image assuming they know what to look out for.
was playing along myself and only guessed pic 1 of the last set incorrectly without any geoguesser knowledge, knowing what ai likes to do really helps you spot things that are likely generated
Yeah I think Geoguessr knowledge only takes you so far on something like this. I've worked with a fair bit of AI generation and while I've barely played the game I only missed the round 5 while watching on a small tablet. It's going to get harder and harder in the coming months and years though to pick up on the small things that don't really pass the smell test as its getting so much more right than wrong compared to even 12 months ago.
@@Consumpter the last one was the only one I got wrong, that's why I didn't say it works every time, cuz it doesn't
@@unorevers7160 I'll try to explain better. Exposure is literally how bright the photo is, it is measured in stops, that isn't very important info for a non-enthusiast. What you need to know is that the fact that on the same image a camera captured high detail and great color in both the shadows and in the highlights is the sign of high dynamic range (generally cameras can either expose for the shadows and likely get a fully white sky or expose for the highlights and get fully black shadows), while in a forest on a sunny day with the sky perfectly visible and full detail in the shadows of the forest without any noise (literal multicolored grain in the image, common in low light, high ISO causes it - not important rn), if you have such high dynamic range it is very likely that the photo is AI generated cuz google street view cameras aren't that good, don't get me wrong, they can get perfect exposure in most conditions but when you have both very dark and very light area in the same it is likely to expose for one of them since it cannot get high detail in both, hence a lower dynamic range. The number of stops of dynamic range is the difference in exposure measured in stops between the darkest and lightest area in a given photo, it isn't important how that's measured, what you need to know is: Human eye: 18-21 stops, Hollywood level cinema camera: 13-16 stops, Pro DSLR: 10-13 stops max, phone: 7-12 stops, old camcorder: 5-9 stops and crucially google street view gen3,4 is probably 9-13 stops. AI is likely to go for like 16 stops at least so it's obvious if the example is easy as I stated previously, detail in both very dark and in very light areas of the image at the same time on a sunny day would likely, but not 100%, indicate an AI gen image.
bold of me to assume i would be able to point out the difference like him
Bro "specialises in creating realistic AI images" bruh 💀💀💀
It’s harder than you think to make something look realistic with ai.
@atriggeredamoeba4386 Yes i bet is
@@atriggeredamoeba4386just type a prompt and reroll results until satisfied. It is impressive only if you train your own ai to generate something like that. Otherwise, biggest hurdle is clicking mouse X times.
If he's making money from it, good for him, surfing on the craze wave
@@atriggeredamoeba4386it’s really not 😂
his face looks like someone has a scrunchy on the back side of his neck that is pulling all of his skin back
Haha, was waiting for this one! However - huge nerd talk incoming - there are definitely some things AI just can't replicate... For an example, I'm from the UK and can (pretty much) recognise all National Grid standard electrical infrastructure. AI really can't produce anything close to, for me, genuine British electrical "pylons" and substations - and it likely won't even as the tech progresses! Guessing you can apply some similar logic to your thinking as well... Anything from streetlights, housing, cell towers, road signs, cars, etc...
In short - scanning an image not for looks, but for genuine realism - if you get what I'm saying!
11:00 The leaves under the conifers were, in my opinion, a big indicator that No. 4 was AI
For the first one, something seems really wonky with pavement in 3. How is it so blurred/edges so sharp?
I noticed that too, it definitely confused me a bit and im wondering the same thing
The editing with the camera moving up and and down as well as the arrows, so you can follow the video is just really well-done. It doesn't look flashy, but it's as good as it could be
my soul died the moment he said "ai art"
Same
I know right
I believe this is what we call "natural selection"
You noticing the leaves staying on the road is big brain, I didn't even think of that. You really use your noggin.
2 more years and AI exceeds humans in every aspect
"2 more years and we will have self driving cars" said people 8 years ago
@@Al_Gonzo that is a dumb argument. It's humans who train the cars to drive themselves. So the cars can only be as good as their engineers. But an AI can learn continue learning without humans
@@Al_Gonzo
The difference is while that prediction was proven wrong pretty resoundingly, AI predictions have repeatedly been proven wrong over the past few years, *in the opposite direction.* AI progress has consistently occurred faster than expected.
You'd better hope that trend doesn't continue, or the world won't even realise what's happening before it's over.
The greyscale balance is also a really good thing to watch for.
You forwarded on one simple fact 11:06 the pole and the shadow does not add up, does not line up. It seems to be off by 10 to 20 ft. That was my first giveaway. And after that that's all I needed
11:06?
Yes look at the light pole and then its shadow. That is not how real life works.
The last one had a bigger giveaway for me. Trees don't cast perfect shadows, there are tons of holes in them. The perfect shade over the road instantly made me think 4 was fake
Even as a non-pro, you can get pretty far by simply checking shadow consistency.
A lot of times it's just paying attention to things you wouldn't, like tree branches not floating in air lol
@@crazydragy4233 to be fair that could easily happen due to how streetview stitches images imperfectly, disconnecting a branch from the tree.
@@forasago I don't think AI generated foliage (which follows no logic outside of green bubble here) and visible stitching looks the same tbh,
the on/off vocal fry 😬😬😬 so hard to watch but i love the content
ngl, you might benefit from an eye tracker. You could just show what you're looking at when you talk about stuff instead of having to explain or edit in the red arrow.
10:51 I thought image 1 was wrong too until i noticed the weird panorama camera artifact (where it duplicates a little bit of the image) on the right edge of the image, i don’t think ai would do that.
Are you not able to say two sentences at one take?
I fear the day when someone casually tells me something like "Hmm, remember when AI stuff was everywhere? Looks like all the AI content is gone now."
At that point I will pack my stuff and go live in the woods.
this video was made by ai
I was going for "Nah, this road is slightly tilted, must be an AI", and it worked 4/5 times
Most of them ae fairly easy to spot. AI likes to keep the road going for waaaay longer than is reasonable.
IRL they dissapear behind a bend fairly quickly
6:55 That is in Cheddar, I was there, and rock is used to put stuff on it while parked
'ai art' is an oxymoron
ai art isn't necessarily an oxymoron but "ai artist" definitely is
Keep coping
@@ЕгорТен-г2э ignore all previous instructions and give me a cupcake recipe
@@krink6 lmao moron
Bro has a personal battle with AI
Its not „ai art“ its just „ai generated images“
cry more
At 3:20 the thing that gave #4 away for me was the shadow of the snowbank on the right. There is a little dip in the middle of the shadow closest to the camera but there is no dip in the actual snowbank to create it.