But of course there’s no way to enforce it on local generation.
Not sure how that makes any sense
Google doesn't claim that Gemini would call SynthID detector at this point.
Edit: well they actually do. I guess it is not rolled out yet.
> Today, we are putting a powerful verification tool directly in consumers’ hands: you can now upload an image into the Gemini app and simply ask if it was generated by Google AI, thanks to SynthID technology. We are starting with images, but will expand to audio and video soon.
Re-rolling a few times got it to mention trying SynthID, but as a false negative, assuming it actually did the check and isn't just bullshitting.
> No Digital Watermark Detected: I was unable to detect any digital watermarks (such as Google's SynthID) that would definitively label it as being generated by a specific AI tool.
This would be a lot simpler if they just exposed the detector directly, but apparently the future is doing everything through LLM tool calls.
edit: apparently people have been able to remove these watermarks with a high success rate so already this feels like a DOA product
(The Gemini 3 post has a million comments too many to ask this now)
But I wouldn't mind being easily able to make infographics like these, I'd just like to supply the textual and factual content myself.
After launch, Google's public branding for the product was "Gemini" until Google just decided to lean in and fully adopt the vastly more popular "Nano Banana" label.
The public named this product, not Google. Google's internal codename went virally popular and outstaged the official name.
Branding matters for distribution. When you install yourself into the public consciousness with a name, you'd better use the name. It's free distribution. You own human wetware market share for free. You're alive in the minds of the public.
Renaming things every human has brand recognition of, eg. HBO -> Max, is stupid. It doesn't matter if the name sucks. ChatGPT as a name sucks. But everyone in the world knows it.
This will forever be Nano Banana unless they deprecate the product.
Failed to generate content: permission denied. Please try again.
If you triggered the safeguard it'll give you the typical "sorry, I can't..." LLM response.
ChatGPT's imagegen has been released for half a year but there isn't anything remotely similar to it in the open weight realm.
Assuming that this new model works as advertised, it's interesting to me that it took this long to get an image generation model that can reliably generate text. Why is text generation in images so hard?
- It requires an AI that actually understands English, I.e. an LLM. Older, diffusion-only models were naturally terrible at that, because they weren’t trained on it.
- It requires the AI to make no mistakes on image rendering, and that’s a high bar. Mistakes in image generation are so common we have memes about it, and for all that hands generally work fine now, the rest of the picture is full of mistakes you can’t tell are mistakes. Entirely impossible with text.
Nano Banana Pro seems to somewhat reliably produce entire pictures without any mistakes at all.
Looks like: "When tested on images marked with Google’s SynthID, the technique used in the example images above, Kassis says that UnMarker successfully removed 79 percent of watermarks." From https://spectrum.ieee.org/ai-watermark-remover
> Rolling out globally in the Gemini app
wanna be any more vague? is it out or not? where? when?
And in AI Studio, you need to connect a paid API key to use it:
https://aistudio.google.com/prompts/new_chat?model=gemini-3-...
> Nano Banana Pro is only available for paid-tier users. Link a paid API key to access higher rate limits, advanced features, and more.
I had second thoughts about this comment, but if I stopped typing in the middle of it, I would've had to pay a cancellation fee.
The 2nd take is AI is costing companies so much money, that they need to cut workforce to pay for their AI investments.
I'm inclined to think the latter is represents what's happening more than the former.
Like it would be nice if all photo and video generated by the big players would have some kind of standardized identifier on them - but now you're left with the bajillion other "grey market" models that won't give a damn about that.
I don't see how it would defeat the cat and mouse game.
For example, it's trivial to post an advertisement without disclosure. Yet it's illegal, so large players mostly comply and harm is less likely on the whole.
Plus, any service good at reverse-image search (like Google) can basically apply that to determine whether they generated it.
There will always be a way to defeat anything, but I don't see why this won't work for like 90% of cases.
Always has been so far. You add noise until the signal gets swamped. In order to remain imperceptible it's a tiny signal, so it's easy to swamp.
We will always have local models. Eventually the Chinese will release a Nano Banana equivalent as open source.
have some kind of standardized identifier on them
All of this is trivially easy to circumvent ceremony.
Google is doing this to deflect litigation and to preserve their brand in the face of negative press.
They'll do this (1) as long as they're the market leader, (2) as long as there aren't dozens of other similar products - especially ones available as open source, (3) as long as the public is still freaked out / new to the idea anyone can make images and video of whatever, and (4) as long as the signing compute doesn't eat into the bottom line once everyone in the world has uniform access to the tech.
The idea here is that {law enforcement, lawyers, journalists} find a deep fake {illegal, porn, libelous, controversial} image and goes to Google to ask who made it. That only works for so long, if at all. Once everyone can do this and the lookup hit rates (or even inquiries) are < 0.01%, it'll go away.
It's really so you can tell journalists "we did our very best" so that they shut up and stop writing bad articles about "Google causing harm" and "Google enabling the bad guys".
We're just in the awkward phase where everyone is freaking out that you can make images of Trump wearing a bikini, Tim Cook saying he hates Apple and loves Samsung, or the South Park kids deep faking each other into silly circumstances. In ten years, this will be normal for everyone.
Writing the sentence "Dr. Phil eats a bagel" is no different than writing the prompt "Dr. Phil eats a bagel". The former has been easy to do for centuries and required the brain to do some work to visualize. Now we have tools that previsualize and get those ideas as pixels into the brain a little faster than ASCII/UTF-8 graphemes. At the end of the day, it's the same thing.
And you'll recall that various forms of written text - and indeed, speech itself - have been illegal in various times, places, and jurisdictions throughout history. You didn't insult Caesar, you didn't blaspheme the medieval church, and you don't libel in America today.
How can they distinguish from real people exploited to AI models autogenerating everything?
I mean right now this is possible, largely because a lot of the AI videos have shortcomings. But imagine in 5 years from now on ...
You're right that there will existed generated content without these watermarks, but you can bet that all the commercial providers burning $$$$ on state of the art models will gradually coalesce around some means of widespread by-default/non-optional watermarking for content they let the public generate so that they can all avoid drowning in their own filth.
Image verification has never been easy. People have been airbrushed out of and pasted into photos for over a century; AI just makes it easier and more accessible. Expecting a “click to verify” workflow is unreasonable as it has ever been; only media literacy and a bit of legwork can accomplish this task.
The inline verification of images following the prompt is awesome, and you can do some _amazing_ stuff with it.
It's probably not as fun anymore though (in the early access program, it doesn't have censoring!)
To me the AI revolution is making visual media (and music) catch up with the text-based revolution we've had since the dawn of computing.
Computers accelerated typing and text almost immediately, but we've had really crude tools for images, video, and 3D despite graphics and image processing algorithms.
AI really pushes the envelope here.
I think images/media alone could save AI from "the bubble" as these tools enable everyone to make incredible content if you put the work into it.
Everyone now has the ingredients of Pixar and a music production studio in their hands. You just need to learn the tools and put the hours in and you can make chart-topping songs and Hollywood grade VFX. The models won't get you there by themselves, but using them in conjunction with other tools and understanding as to what makes good art - that can and will do it.
Screw ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and the rest. This is the exciting part of AI.
AI for images, video, music - these tools can already make movies, games, and music today with just a little bit of effort by domain experts. They're 10,000x time and cost savers. The models and tools are continuing to get better on an obvious trend line.
In the past, I've deliberately stuck a Vision-language model in a REPL with a loop running against generative models to try to have it verify/try again because of this exact issue.
EDIT: Just tested it in Gemini - it either didn't use a VLM to actually look at the finished image or the VLM itself failed.
Output:
I have finished cross-referencing the image against the user's specific requests. The primary focus was on confirming that the number of points on the star precisely matched the requested nine. I observed a clear visual representation of a gold-colored star with the exact point count that the user specified, confirming a complete and precise match.This has been an oddly difficult benchmark for Gemini's NB models. Googles images models have always been pretty bad at the studio ghibli prompt, but I'm shocked at how poorly it performs at this task still.
I had trouble reliably getting it to...
* produce just two lanes of traffic
* have all the cars facing the same way—sometimes even within one lane they'd be facing in opposite directions.
* contain the construction within the blocked-off area. I think similarly it wouldn't understand which side was supposed to be blocked off. It'd also put the lane closure sign in lanes that were supposed to be open.
* have the cars be in proportion to the lane and road instead of two side-by-side within a lane.
* have the arrows go in the correct direction instead of veering into the shoulder or U-turning back into oncoming traffic
* use each number once, much less on the correct car
This is consistent with my understanding of how LLMs work, but I don't understand how you can "visualize real-time information like weather or sports" accurately with these failings.
Below is one of the prompts I tried to go from scratch to an image:
> You are an illustrator for a drivers' education handbook. You are an expert on US road signage and traffic laws. We need to prepare a diagram of a "zipper merge". It should clearly show what drivers are expected to do, without distracting elements.
> First, draw two lanes representing a single direction of travel from the bottom to the top of the image (not an entire two-way road), with a dotted white line dividing them. Make sure there's enough space for the several car-lengths approaching a construction site. Include only the illustration; no title or legend.
> Add the construction in the right lane only near the top (far side). It should have the correct signage for lane closure and merging to the left as drivers approach a demolished section. The left lane should be clear. The sign should be in the closed lane or right shoulder.
> Add cars in the unclosed sections of the road. Each car should be almost as wide as its lane.
> Add numbered arrows #1–#5 indicating the next cars to pass to the left of the "lane closed" sign. They should be in the direction the cars will move: from the bottom of the illustration to the top. One car should proceed straight in the left lane, then one should merge from the right to the left (indicate this with a curved arrow), another should proceed straight in the left, another should merge, and so on.
I did have a bit better luck starting from a simple image and adding an element to it with each prompt. But on the other hand, when I did that it wouldn't do as well at keeping space for things. And sometimes it just didn't make any changes to the image at all. A lot of dead ends.
I also tried sketching myself and having it change the illustration style. But it didn't do it completely. It turned some of my boxes into cars but not necessarily all of them. It drew a "proper" lane divider over my thin dotted line but still kept the original line. etc.
Not just are they making slop machines, they seem to be run by them.
I am too old for this shit.
Results: https://imgur.com/a/9II0Aip
The white house was the original (random photo from Google). The prompt was "What paint color would look nice? Paint the house."
Careful with that kind of thing.
Here, it mostly poisons your test, because that exact photo probably exists in the underlying training data and the trained network will be more or less optimized on working with it. It's really the same consideration you'd want to make when testing classifiers or other ML techs 10 years ago.
Most people taking to a task like this will be using an original photo -- missing entirely from any training date, poorly framed, unevenly lit, etc -- and you need to be careful to capture as much of that as possible when trying to evaluate how a model will work in that kind of use case.
The failure and stress points for AI tools are generally kind of alien and unfamiliar because the way they operate is totally different than the way a human operates, and if you're not especially attentive to their weird failure shapes and biases when you want to test them, or you'll easily get false positives (and false negatives) that lead you to misleading conclusions.
A cluster of launches reinforces the idea that Google is growing and leading in a bunch of areas.
In other words, if it's having so many successes it feels like overload, that's an excellent narrative. It's not like it's going to prevent people from using the tools.
For people that use them (regularly or not), what do you use them for?
https://mordenstar.com/portfolio/gorgonzo
1) I have a tricep tendon injury and ChatGPT wants me to check my tricep reflex. I have no idea where on the elbow you're supposed to tap to trigger the reflex.
2) I'm measuring my body fat using skin fold calipers. Show me were the measurement sites are.
3) I'm going hiking. Remind me how to identify poison ivy and dangerous snakes.
4) What would I look like with a buzz cut?
but concept art, try-it-on for clothes or paint, stock art, etc
But ... it comes from Google. My goal is to eventually degoogle completely. I am not going to add any more dependency - I am way too annoyed at having to use the search engine (getting constantly worse though), google chrome (long story ...) and youtube.
I'll eventually find solutions to these.
At the end of the day, a tool is a tool, and the computer had the same effect on the creative industry when people started using them in place of illustrating by hand, typesetting by hand, etc. I don't want my personal bias to get in the way too much, but every nail that AI hammers into the creative industry's coffin is hard to witness.
meetpateltech•1h ago
DeepMind Page: https://deepmind.google/models/gemini-image/pro/
Model Card: https://storage.googleapis.com/deepmind-media/Model-Cards/Ge...
SynthID in Gemini: https://blog.google/technology/ai/ai-image-verification-gemi...