Commenters discussed a web game that asks players to decide whether images are AI-generated, reporting mixed success and identifying recurring "tells." Several said practice quickly reveals a GPT-Image-2.5 house style: overly centered subjects, strange depth/bokeh, repeating textures (grass, leaves, pores), and slightly off local contrast. Others emphasized higher-level heuristics - ask whether anyone would plausibly take that photo, watch for unnaturally perfect composition, or look for odd repeating details - and said these methods work under the game's 10s-per-image pressure. A few noted that what you're really learning is one model's artifact set, and that future models will likely erase those tells.
Opinion divides sharply on the game's design and its implications. Many criticized the short timer and phone UI as forcing guesses and wanted untimed or category-specific modes, plus stats and model labels; some pointed out the privacy disclosure showing image views and responses are recorded, suggesting the game harvests training data. Others used the exercise to voice broader worries: some see AI images as degrading photography and replacing paid stock photographers, while others counter that stock imagery already mirrors mundane AI output. One commenter extended the concern to corporate culture, saying executives push AI adoption even when it undermines real expertise.
Summary generated by AI from the linked article. hn.today is not affiliated with Hacker News or Y Combinator.