I guess the UI is ai generated, and it impossibly to see the images well enough to judge on a phone.

Hmm… training data siphon?

Not bad. I’d appreciate a much longer time limit. Got really rushed at the end. But this was crazy hard on my phone, I was straight guessing most of the time. I think I could be a little better with more time on a desktop screen.

Another idea would be games that were all pictures of a single category- like 10 AI and 10 real pictures of basketballs, or food on plates, etc.

It would be cool if they published stats on how well people do on average, and how that changes over time and with different models. I feel like in a few years we'll either all be much better at this or completely desensitized, and sadly I'm guessing we're trending towards the latter.

Good reality check for people who proudly boasted about "always" being able to spot AI images.

My biggest clue is the odd repeating details. Especially on grass, tree leaves, pores, etc

Not all image models (or sampler settings) do this, but with gpt it's very obvious.

With this in mind, I misjudged 3 images on the default game.

I failed horribly and might as well used a random coin toss

The trouble with these tests are that they are themselves training AI. I don't want to let designers know the "tells".

I don't get the scoring system: I got 0 points, but I got a streak of 2 in a row. Bizarre.

Is this a crowd sourced training effort to make their image generator better?