(27-01-2026, 10:00 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Just weighing in that this manuscript page is very consistent with what we would expect from the current generation of LLM's (probably Gemini, in this case). Unfortunately, anyone with a computer can now make these things with the click of a button, so expect to see more of them...
I think it could happen both ways, so, yes, more AI/fakes can be showing up, but also genuine ones may also appear, due to increased digitization of old manuscripts. I would not rule out the latter entirely.
I did some testing for that page. Even AI fake testers like sightengine (You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.) have not perfect their art. The two fake samples forum members offered passed as not fake with flying colors, yet the text (without margins) of the candidate page is treated as not AI generated.
However, when the overall page is tested, it is flagged as 85-89% AI generated (depending on the resolution tested), so somehow the margins of that page gave it away as AI generated, and it seems it was generated at MidJourney (according to the test).
When I tested the page without the text (I blanked it out), including just the margin, it was flagged as AI generated.
I think the two forum sample fakes passed as not fake because they were photoshop or manual fakes. Can Aga Tentakulus and oshfdk please confirm if they used AI for their fake sampling? (if they used AI, then the sightengine tester is not good at its job and we need to be skeptical about the testing I did with that site). I am interested to know why their fakes passed the sightengine test as not fake. (Side note: It seems that AI patterns can be detected even if one takes a screenshot of the pages for testing).
I am sharing the above so that we can find ways of immediately testing the fakes when they come up next. I am also now inclined to regard that page as AI generated, unless proven otherwise.
[
attachment=13709][
attachment=13710][
attachment=13711][
attachment=13712][
attachment=13713][
attachment=13714][
attachment=13715]
(Yesterday, 01:37 AM)MHTamdgidi_(Behrooz) Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Can Aga Tentakulus and oshfdk please confirm if they used AI for their fake sampling? (if they used AI, then the sightengine tester is not good at its job and we need to be skeptical about the testing I did with that site). I am interested to know why their fakes passed the sightengine test as not fake.
Mine was AI-generated (Google Nano Banana specifically). I think Aga Tentakulus' point was that a fake can just as easily be created using a piece of parchment or parchment-like paper and a pen, so I assume that picture was just that - an actual piece of parchment with some Voynichese written on it.
[
attachment=13725]
As far as I'm concerned, it wasn't AI.
It was just a joke somewhere.
I've had it since 2015 or even longer.
Before embarking on a complicated analysis of the image, ask yourself where this puzzle came from.
Someone claims that Google offered them an image without any reference. How many times has that happened to you personally?
P.S. By the way, Google Lens alone already shows you the pasted text areas.
Thanks oshfdk and Aga Tentakulus for letting me know about your trial came from.
Ruby Novacna, thanks for your feedback. I have not used Google lens (I checked in photoshop for any such lines before but did not see any). If it is not too much of a trouble, if you copy an image for what you see that will help and finalize this inquiry. I agree that (as I had said before) the person who claimed it not following it up is odd. Perhaps he will explain more. There can be many reasons for why he is not doing so.
It seems the online tools are not themselves reliable in confirming AI/fake images (as they themselves admit "Results can be inaccurate ...").
I still will not rule out the possibility that new digitizations of old manuscript may find other manuscripts written using the VM "letters"—which is why I think it is more scientific to rule out a fake by verifiable methods than just simply saying it looks like it is. That is the main lesson of this matter for me.
(10 hours ago)MHTamdgidi_(Behrooz) Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I have not used Google lens
Do it now, it's simple and informative.
(7 hours ago)Ruby Novacna Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (10 hours ago)MHTamdgidi_(Behrooz) Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I have not used Google lens
Do it now, it's simple and informative.
Thanks, but I am not interested in doing so. I think you made a claim that will be helpful for me and others to show a proof for. So, I will leave it up to you to do so. Your perception of what is a clue can be different from others doing the same. Just because you say it is, does not work for me, for the same reason others doing fake example just did not work; it is neither reasonable, nor scientific, as a way of proving or disproving a claim. I need to see it to believe it. I am sure, however, that you can do so and help me put aside this matter. I look forward to it.
(7 hours ago)MHTamdgidi_(Behrooz) Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Your perception of what is a clue can be different from others doing the same. Just because you say it is, does not work for me,
Trying to find information about an image posted online is like a middle school test. I don't know what kind of proof you're expecting. The image posted on Facebook is clearly a joke; if you want to deal with this childish nonsense, good luck!
(Yesterday, 10:04 AM)Ruby Novacna Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Before embarking on a complicated analysis of the image, ask yourself where this puzzle came from.
Someone claims that Google offered them an image without any reference. How many times has that happened to you personally?
P.S. By the way, Google Lens alone already shows you the pasted text areas.
(4 hours ago)Ruby Novacna Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (7 hours ago)MHTamdgidi_(Behrooz) Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Your perception of what is a clue can be different from others doing the same. Just because you say it is, does not work for me,
Trying to find information about an image posted online is like a middle school test. I don't know what kind of proof you're expecting. The image posted on Facebook is clearly a joke; if you want to deal with this childish nonsense, good luck!
Thanks. As far I am concerned you have failed to prove your point and are not forthcoming with evidence. Instead you are engaging in using "childish nonsense" language to avoid offering a simple evidence, which would have required simply clipping the image you had seen of the alleged "pasted text areas" so that we could all benefit from your evidence. I sincerely do wish you can prove your point as I am open to accepting your evidence if offered. Last time you asked me for clarification, I spent good time offering it. Is it that difficult to reciprocate in the interest of proving even your own point?