Skip to main content
  1. Home
  2. Computing
  3. News

Meta’s detection tool fails to identify photos generated by its own Muse Image AI

Meta has created an invisible watermarking tool called Content Seal that is embedded in all images generated by the Muse Image AI.

Add as a preferred source on Google
Meta AI identification tool.
Nadeem Sarwar / Digital Trends

Earlier this week, Meta announced two new AI products, namely, Muse Image and Muse Video. As the name suggests, these are generative AI tools for making photos and video clips using natural language text prompts. Soon after their rollout commenced, these tools sparked controversy because Meta had automatically opted in Instagram users, allowing others to use their publicly posted media and convert them into remixed AI content. But it appears that Meta courted another loss on its side of the court.

What’s the problem?

Alongside its new AI tools, Meta introduced something called Content Seal, which serves as an invisible watermarking system. Technically, all the images created by the Muse Image AI carry a hidden signal that can be used to identify whether they were made using AI or not. To go with it, the company also launched its own AI identification tool that can read this invisible Content Seal watermark. But it appears that Meta’s AI sniffing tool is not as accurate as the company claims.

According to an analysis by Reuters, images made using the company’s Muse Image AI cannot be reliably detected as AI-generated by Meta’s AI identification software. The outlet analyzed 40 images that were created by Muse Image, but in only 45% of the cases was it able to identify that they were created using AI. In the remaining 55% of the cases, when the images were cropped to one-third or one-fourth of their original size, the AI detection tool developed by Meta simply failed.

Oh, yikes. That’s embarrassing!

That’s a notable flub. On its website, Meta claims that the Content Seal system carries a “hidden provenance signal that stays intact — even when cropped, compressed, resized, or screenshotted.” Following Reuters’ analysis, Meta told the outlet that its AI detection tool is still in preview and that it can’t work reliably when a photo is “heavily cropped.” On an FAQ page available on its AI detector site, Meta also makes it clear that if an image has been generated using a third-party AI product instead of Muse Image, the detection tool will not work.

Meta won’t be the only AI giant that has created a system like Content Seal. Google already has an AI image detection and watermarking system called SynthID in place. It has been adopted by the likes of OpenAI as well. That means if an image is generated using ChatGPT or Gemini, it carries the invisible SynthID watermark and can be detected using Google’s own AI identification tool, which is now available on Google Search, as well. However, Google also makes it clear that SynthID is not 100% foolproof.

Nadeem Sarwar
Nadeem is the Managing Editor at Digital Trends.
Google’s new Magic Pointer Play Store listing reveals a Gemini shortcut built for Googlebooks
The unannounced app turns the cursor into a contextual AI tool for search, image creation, and shopping
Plant, Text, Business Card

Google has quietly published a new Play Store listing for Magic Pointer, an unannounced app built for Googlebooks. Updated on July 10, the app turns the cursor into a Gemini shortcut that can act on whatever a user selects on screen.

Magic Pointer can send an image to Lens, generate a related image, or surface a shopping action without forcing users to open a separate chatbot. Regular Android devices currently show as incompatible, so the listing offers an early preview rather than a broad release.

Read more
You can stop using AI, but this new report says you probably can’t escape it
A UK survey found that most people feel AI exposure is unavoidable, raising harder questions about consent, privacy, and whether opting out is still realistic
AI Chatbots

More people are trying to use less AI, but avoiding it altogether may already be impossible.

A survey of 2,055 UK adults found that 42% deliberately limit how much AI they use. Another 70% said avoiding AI exposure would be difficult or impossible, even when they actively wanted less of it.

Read more
The face on an AI interviewer may matter as much as the decision it makes
Researchers found that race and gender matching changed how fairly rejected applicants viewed an automated interview, even though everyone received the same outcome
File, Computer Hardware, Electronics

An AI hiring system can treat every applicant the same and still leave some people feeling targeted. Researchers found that rejected candidates judged an automated interview differently depending on the race and gender of the avatar delivering the result.

Around 220 participants completed a simulated interview for a fictional customer support role with one of four photorealistic AI avatars. Everyone was rejected, yet perceptions of fairness shifted with the interviewer’s appearance. An algorithm audit could miss that reaction because candidates don’t experience the system as raw code. They experience a face asking questions and judging their answers.

Read more