Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Understanding Generative AI Capabilities in Everyday Image Editing Tasks

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2505.16181 v2 pith:Q6KU3PXI submitted 2025-05-22 cs.CV cs.AI

Understanding Generative AI Capabilities in Everyday Image Editing Tasks

classification cs.CV cs.AI
keywords editsrequestseditingeditorshumanpeopleperformtasks
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Generative AI (GenAI) holds significant promise for automating everyday image editing tasks, especially following the recent release of GPT-4o on March 25, 2025. However, what subjects do people most often want edited? What kinds of editing actions do they want to perform (e.g., removing or stylizing the subject)? Do people prefer precise edits with predictable outcomes or highly creative ones? By understanding the characteristics of real-world requests and the corresponding edits made by freelance photo-editing wizards, can we draw lessons for improving AI-based editors and determine which types of requests can currently be handled successfully by AI editors? In this paper, we present a unique study addressing these questions by analyzing 83k requests from the past 12 years (2013-2025) on the Reddit community, which collected 305k PSR-wizard edits. According to human ratings, approximately only 33% of requests can be fulfilled by the best AI editors (including GPT-4o, Gemini-2.0-Flash, SeedEdit). Interestingly, AI editors perform worse on low-creativity requests that require precise editing than on more open-ended tasks. They often struggle to preserve the identity of people and animals, and frequently make non-requested touch-ups. On the other side of the table, VLM judges (e.g., o1) perform differently from human judges and may prefer AI edits more than human edits. Code and qualitative examples are available at: https://psrdataset.github.io

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Visual Generation in the New Era: An Evolution from Atomic Mapping to Agentic World Modeling

    cs.CV 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Visual generation models are evolving from passive renderers to interactive agentic world modelers, but current systems lack spatial reasoning, temporal consistency, and causal understanding, with evaluations overemph...