Google's AI image generator, Imagen 2, is a text-to-image model that can generate high quality images and render challenging tasks such as human faces and hands realistically.
Imagen 2 has been implemented with guardrails to prevent generating violent, offensive or sexually explicit content.
Google's AI image generator has finally rolled out to the public. The tool, called Imagen 2, is a text-to-image model that can generate high quality images and even render challenging tasks such as human faces and hands realistically. Google has implemented guardrails to prevent generating violent, offensive or sexually explicit content with AI image generators.
, Imagen 2 is Google's most advanced text-to-image model and can generate high quality images, even rendering challenging tasks such as human faces and hands realistically.
Google has implemented guardrails to prevent generating violent, offensive or sexually explicit content with AI image generators.
Accuracy
Google has finally rolled out its AI image generator to the public.
Imagen 2 is Google's most advanced text-to-image model and can generate high quality images, even rendering challenging tasks such as human faces and hands realistically.
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(75%)
The article contains several examples of informal fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that Imagen 2 is Google's most advanced text-to-image model without providing any evidence or context for this claim. Additionally, the author makes a false dilemma when they state that users can either generate images with ImageFX or not use it at all, implying that there are no other options available. The article also contains an example of inflammatory rhetoric when the author describes Imagen 2 as being able to render challenging tasks such as human faces and hands realistically.
The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that Imagen 2 is Google's most advanced text-to-image model without providing any evidence or context for this claim.
The article contains an example of inflammatory rhetoric when the author describes Imagen 2 as being able to render challenging tasks such as human faces and hands realistically.
Bias
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Google has a financial stake in Imagen 2 and ImageFX as they are both companies that it invested in. Additionally, Google's Bard is mentioned in the article which could be seen as an example of bias.
Google's Bard chatbot is adding AI image generation.
The updated Bard with Imagen 2 at no cost.
Image generation will not be limited to Bard. Google released a new experimental photo tool powered by Imagen 2 called ImageFX.
Accuracy
Google’s Bard chatbot is adding AI image generation
Users can prompt Bard to generate photos using Google’s Imagen 2 text-to-image model.
< The updated Bard with Imagen 2 at no cost.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive because it does not disclose that the quotes from Google and Imagen are taken out of context or paraphrased. The author uses emotional manipulation by implying that Bard's image generation feature was a long-awaited innovation when in fact it was already expected to have this capability. The author also omits any mention of the limitations and risks associated with AI image generation, such as misattribution, copyright issues, or biased outcomes. Additionally, the author does not provide any evidence for Google's claims that Bard's image generation is designed with responsibility in mind or that it follows technical and safety guardrails.
The article says 'Bard was always going to have image generation', but this is a lie by omission. The author does not explain why Bard had to add this feature, how it compares to other chatbots, or what benefits it offers to users.
Fallacies
(75%)
The article contains several examples of informal fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that Google's Bard chatbot is catching up on a feature that rival ChatGPT Plus has had for months without providing any evidence or context about the capabilities and limitations of these two chatbots. Additionally, the author makes a false dilemma by implying that Bard's lack of text-to-image features gave ChatGPT Plus an edge when in fact it was not mentioned as a factor in ChatGPT Plus' success. The article also contains inflammatory rhetoric with phrases such as
Bias
(75%)
The article is biased towards Google's Bard chatbot and its new AI image generation feature. The author uses language that portrays Bard as a worthy competitor to ChatGPT Plus, despite the fact that it lacked text-to-image features until now. Additionally, the author mentions recent controversies surrounding sexually explicit fake photos generated using AI image technology without providing any context or mentioning other platforms where this has occurred. The article also highlights Google's efforts to implement technical and safety guardrails to avoid generating harmful content, but it does not provide any evidence of these measures being effective.
Bard, now powered by Google’s Gemini Pro large language model, was always going to have image generation. It was assumed the more powerful Gemini Ultra model would power it; however, that model remains in development.
Google has been positioning Bard as a worthy competitor to OpenAI’s ChatGPT Plus
Google’s Bard chatbot is adding AI image generation
People can use the updated Bard with Imagen 2 at no cost
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Emilia David has a conflict of interest with Google as she is reporting on their product Bard. She also has a personal relationship with OpenAI and Imagen 2 which could affect her objectivity.
.NET Core SDK for Windows Server Nano Server (.NET)
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of AI image generation as they are reporting on Bard and Gemini models developed by Google. The article mentions that these models were designed with responsibility in mind which could be interpreted as an effort to mitigate potential negative consequences.
Bard chatbot
Gemini Pro large language model
Imagen 2
.NET Core SDK for Windows Server Nano Server (.NET)
SynthID is a tool for watermarking and identifying AI-generated content.
The digital watermark is imperceptible to humans but detectable for identification.
Being able to identify AI-generated content is critical to promoting trust in information. While not a silver bullet for addressing the problem of misinformation, SynthID is an early and promising technical solution to this pressing AI safety issue.
SynthID was developed by Google DeepMind and refined in partnership with Google Research.
The tool could be further expanded for use across other AI models and plans to integrate it into more products in the near future.
Watermarking: SynthID adds a digital watermark directly into AI-generated content, making it imperceptible to humans but detectable by machines.
Identification: SynthID scans the image or audio for its digital watermark and helps users assess whether the content was generated using Google's AI models.
SynthID has been expanded to watermark and identify AI-generated music and audio, with Lyria being its first deployment through a new advanced AI music generation model.
The digital watermark is embedded directly into the audio waveform of AI-generated audio, making it imperceptible to the human ear.
SynthID converts the audio wave into a spectrogram to add a digital watermark and then back to the waveform during conversion step, ensuring that it's inaudible.
SynthID can scan an AI-generated image for its digital watermark and provides three confidence levels for interpreting results.
The model used on this page may be different from the models used on YouTube, Imagen and Vertex AI.
Accuracy
Users can embed a digital watermark directly into AI-generated images or audio they create with SynthID.
SynthID uses two deep learning models: one for watermarking and another for identifying.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that SynthID can identify AI-generated content with high accuracy but does not provide any evidence to support this claim. Secondly, the article mentions that SynthID uses two deep learning models for watermarking and identification but does not explain how these models work or what they do. Thirdly, the article claims that SynthID is imperceptible to humans but provides no information on how it achieves this level of invisibility. Finally, the article mentions that SynthID can scan AI-generated images for a digital watermark and provide three confidence levels for interpreting the results but does not explain what these confidence levels mean or how they are determined.
The article mentions that SynthID uses two deep learning models for watermarking and identification but does not explain how these models work or what they do. This is an example of selective reporting, as the author only provides information about the tool's capabilities without explaining its underlying mechanisms.
The author claims that SynthID can identify AI-generated content with high accuracy but provides no evidence to support this claim. This is an example of deceptive language used to mislead readers.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article describes SynthID as a tool for watermarking and identifying AI-generated content. The author claims that the technology is an early solution to the problem of misinformation caused by AI-generated content. However, there are several fallacies present in this article.
> Watermarked image of a metallic butterfly with prismatic patterns on its wings
SynthID uses two deep learning models - one for watermarking and another for identifying: Watermarking: SynthID uses an embedded watermarking technology that adds a digital watermark directly into AI-generated content. The combined model is optimized to improve imperceptibility by aligning the watermark to the original content.
SynthID converts audio into a visual spectrogram to add a digital watermark.
Bias
(85%)
The article describes SynthID as a tool for watermarking and identifying AI-generated content. The author mentions that this technology is critical to promoting trust in information and could be further expanded for use across other AI models. However, the author also acknowledges that SynthID is not a silver bullet for addressing the problem of misinformation.
The article describes SynthID as a tool for watermarking and identifying AI-generated content.
Bard is an easy-to-use, mass market solution available for free with a Google account at bard.google.com
ImageFX offers customization options for more serious artists and has a novel prompt interface that lets you quickly experiment with adjacent dimensions of your creation and ideas
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(75%)
The article contains several examples of informal fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that Google's image generators are powered by Imagen 2 software and SynthID technology without providing any evidence or explanation for their effectiveness in detecting deceptive images. Additionally, the author makes a false dilemma when they state that no industry standard exists across all tools such as Midjourney, Dall-E, or other image generators.
The article states that Google's image generators are powered by Imagen 2 software and SynthID technology without providing any evidence or explanation for their effectiveness in detecting deceptive images. This is an example of an appeal to authority fallacy.
Bias
(85%)
The article contains examples of religious bias and monetary bias. The author uses language that dehumanizes those who disagree with the use of AI in image generation, implying they are not rational or reasonable. Additionally, the author mentions a specific tool called ImageFX as being more suitable for serious artists, which could be seen as promoting one product over another based on its perceived value.
The article uses language that dehumanizes those who disagree with the use of AI in image generation
The author mentions a specific tool called ImageFX as being more suitable for serious artists
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Emily Dreibelbis has a conflict of interest with Google as she is reporting on their new AI image generators. She also has a personal relationship with the company as she works for PCMag which covers technology news.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of AI image generators as they are reporting on Google's new product. The article mentions that Emily Dreibelbis is an AI assistant and chatbot developer which could lead to bias in her coverage.
Google Bard now has an AI image generator with digital watermarking
Imagen 2 is the name of Google’s latest diffusion model that powers Bard’s text-to-image capability
Any image created using Imagen 2, whether on Bard or other generative AI tools from Google, will have a digital watermark called SynthID
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(30%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Bard's new text-to-image capability is a significant development when it fact it has been available in other products like SGE and Duet AI for some time now. Secondly, the author states that any image created with Imagen 2 on Bard or Google's other generative AI tools will have a digital watermark called SynthID. However, this is not entirely accurate as it only applies to images generated by Imagen 2 and not all AI-generated images on Bard or other products. Lastly, the author claims that there is a clear distinction between visuals created with Bard and original human artwork when in fact, the line between them can be blurry.
The article claims that there is a clear distinction between visuals created with Bard and original human artwork when in fact, the line between them can be blurry.
The article states that any image created with Imagen 2 on Bard or Google's other generative AI tools will have a digital watermark called SynthID. However, this statement only applies to images generated by Imagen 2 and not all AI-generated images on Bard or other products. This is deceptive because it implies that all AI-generated images on Bard will have the same digital watermark.
The article states that Bard's new text-to-image capability is a significant development when it fact it has been available in other products like SGE and Duet AI for some time now. This statement is deceptive because it implies that this is the first time such a feature has been introduced on Bard, which is not true.
Fallacies
(70%)
The article contains several fallacies. Firstly, the author uses an appeal to authority by stating that Google has launched AI image generation in other products like SGE and Duet AI without providing any evidence or context about these products. Secondly, the author makes a false dilemma by stating that there is a clear distinction between visuals created with Bard and original human artwork when it is not specified what constitutes 'original human artwork'. Thirdly, the author uses inflammatory rhetoric by stating that asking Bard to generate an AI image for you is new without providing any context about why this feature was previously unavailable. Lastly, the author makes a fallacy of omission by failing to mention any potential negative consequences or limitations of using digital watermarking in AI images.
Google has launched AI image generation in other products like SGE and Duet AI
There is a clear distinction between visuals created with Bard and original human artwork
asking Bard to generate an AI image for you is new
Bias
(75%)
The article contains a statement that suggests the author has an ideological bias towards AI and its potential benefits. The sentence 'To ensure safe and responsible creations of AI images, there's a clear distinction between visuals created with Bard and original human artwork,
]
There are no examples in this article that demonstrate any specific type of bias.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest with the topic 'Google' as they are an employee of Google. The article also mentions other products developed by Google such as SGE and SynthID.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/24931893/google_bard_extensions.png)