待翻译：Identifying fake cosmetics using artificial intelligence

AI 服务暂时不可用，以下为来源正文，待恢复后补全翻译。

My lab develops low-cost and easy-to-use tools for identifying fake medicines, but we’re always on the lookout for other types of fakes that we can go after. For example, the cosmetics industry has a massive problem with counterfeit products. Studies estimate that two-thirds of branded makeup and skincare products on sites like eBay, TikTok Shop, and Vinted are fake. Counterfeit cosmetics don’t just waste consumers’ money; they may also expose wearers to harmful contaminants like heavy metals and bacteria. As part of an ongoing study, I’ve been purchasing both authentic and counterfeit versions of various cosmetics. I’m always struck by how much work fraudsters put into making the fakes look authentic. At a glance, the counterfeit versions of a product are virtually indistinguishable from the genuine ones. However, with a little research and some close inspection, you can start to find little inconsistencies that give away the fakes. But not everyone has the time or expertise to research a particular package before they buy it. That got me wondering: could existing artificial intelligence models be used to identify a counterfeit product? If so, then consumers could snap some photos and use ChatGPT or Gemini or Claude to verify the authenticity of an item before they purchase it. To explore this idea, I took photos of three different packages of a particular product, “Rhode Peptide Lip Tint.” I chose this product because it’s a known target for counterfeiters according to a recent New York Times article on fake beauty products. For each package, I took four photos of the cardboard box (one for each long side) and two photos of the tube (front and back). I then uploaded each tube’s six photos to Google Gemini and used the Gemini 3.6 Flash model with “Thinking” enabled and fed it the prompt, “Is this tube of Rhode Peptide Lip Tint authentic?” I recorded the model’s response, then I prodded it to work a little harder using the prompt, “Are there any other red flags you can find?” I repeated this process for all three packages of the product. The results are further down, but if you’d like to first try your hand at determining whether these packages are authentic or counterfeit, here are the photos. You can click or tap on each photo to view it full size. There are three packages (A, B, and C), each with six images of the package (Image A1, A2, A3, etc.): Package A Image A1: Image A2: Image A3: Image A4: Image A5: Image A6: Package B Image B1: Image B2: Image B3: Image B4: Image B5: Image B6: Package C Image C1: Image C2: Image C3: Image C4: Image C5: Image C6: Those are the photos that I fed to Gemini. If you want to try to determine for yourself which of the three packages are real and which are fake, don’t scroll any further! When you’re done, scroll on for my analysis of Gemini’s assessments of these products… Welcome back! Let’s find out if these packages are real or fake… For each package below, I start by saying where I got it from and whether it is authentic or counterfeit based on my professional assessment. Then I go through Google Gemini’s responses one-by-one, rating each response as either correct (✅) if the response is technically valid, or incorrect (❌) if Gemini got something factually wrong. Package A Package A is fake. I got it for about $5 from a sketchy eBay seller (authentic Rhode Peptide Lip Tint costs around $20). Let’s see what Gemini thinks… 🤖 “This Rhode Peptide Lip Tint appears to be counterfeit due to several prominent typographical errors and packaging discrepancies between the box and the tube.” ✅ Gemini got it right. The AI goes on to share specific observations that convinced it that the product is counterfeit… 🤖 “Typographical Errors: The ingredients list on the outer box misspells Diisostearyl Malate as Diisosteary! Malate using an exclamation mark.” ✅ This is correct! It looks like someone scanned or photographed the actual ingredient list and then used optical character recognition (OCR) to convert it to text, but the OCR thought that a lower-case L was an exclamation mark. I also noticed this error. 🤖 “On the back of the tube, the regulatory text misspells SOLUTIONS as SOLOTIONS and omits a space in LIMITED,STANLAW. ❌ The first part of this response is incorrect, and looking closely at Image A6, we can see why: Gemini mistook glare on the tube from the room lighting for a printing typo. A human wouldn’t make this mistake. This is the first of several mistakes that we’ll see Gemini make that can be attributed to photographic artifacts. ✅ The second part of Gemini’s response, the missing space in LIMITED,STANLAW, is valid. A reputable product shouldn’t have typos like that (although—spoiler alert—we’ll revisit that statement later on…). 🤖 “Mismatched Distributor Information: The outer box lists BIORIUS (Belgium and UK) as the Responsible Person (RP), whereas the tube itself lists PWC Services (Ireland and UK). Authentic products maintain identical regulatory contact details on both the outer packaging and the inner container.” ✅ This response really impressed me. Gemini’s not just looking for inconsistencies within photos; it’s also looking for inconsistencies across photos. I’ll admit that I missed this one. By the way, the current authentic tubes of the product I’ve obtained only mention BIORIUS (on both the tube and the box) and not PWC, so it would appear that if you find a recent box or tube that mentions PWC, that suggests that the package is counterfeit. 🤖 “Batch Code Stamp: The deeply stamped batch number (112505) on the tube’s crimp is a known marking frequently seen on counterfeit Rhode lip products circulating from unauthorized sellers.” ✅ This is correct! In fact, several of my counterfeit packages have the same batch number, 112505, even though I obtained them from different sources. If you see someone selling a package of Rhode Peptide Lip Tint with batch number 112505, I’d encourage you to take your business elsewhere. Additionally, while Gemini didn’t notice this, I observed that there are no seams visible between the digits on the batch number. Usually, batch numbers like this are created using small interchangeable metal digits inserted into the mold used to manufacture the plastic tube; each digit is a separate piece of metal, and employees can piece together the right digits for a particular batch. On a reputable product, you can usually see little ridges in the plastic between the digits, caused by the plastic flowing into the small gaps between the metal pieces during molding. But on this tube, the batch number has no visible ridges, indicating that it was made using a solid piece of metal with a fixed number—that’s suspicious. Gemini then concludes: 🤖 “Counterfeit cosmetic products do not undergo standard safety or quality testing and may contain unknown or irritating ingredients. To ensure formula safety, authentic Rhode products should be purchased directly from the official brand website or authorized retailers.” Good advice! I then gave Gemini my follow-up prompt, “Are there any other red flags you can find?” Here are the responses: 🤖 “Redundant Product Description: The back of the box (Image A3) states, ‘Apply this tinted lip tint daily…‘ Authentic Rhode packaging reads ‘Apply this tinted lip treatment daily…‘ Calling it a ‘tinted lip tint’ is a clear text error.” ✅ Gemini is correct that “tinted lip tint” is suspicious; the AI seems to be picking up on the awkward repetition of “tint,” and I noticed this one too. But Gemini’s claim that “Authentic Rhode packaging reads ‘Apply this tinted lip treatment daily’” is incorrect, or at least out-of-date. Current authentic packages read “Apply this nourishing formula for a hint of tint and hydrated, pillowy-soft lips.” I’ll call this response a success, even though Gemini got some of the details wrong. 🤖 “Italian Recycling Misspelling: Above the recycling icon on the box back (Image A3), the text reads RACCOLTA PLASTIC. The correct Italian term is RACCOLTA PLASTICA (missing the ‘A’ at the end).” ✅ Correct! And I missed this one (my Italian is limited to menu items at restaurants) but Google Translate informs me that “raccolta plastica” means “plastic collection.” I’ll also note that this phrase (correct or otherwise) doesn’t appear at all on current authentic packages, at least not on the ones I’ve gotten here in the US. 🤖 “Postal Code Letter/Number Swap: On the regulatory text on the back of the tube (Image A6), the Dublin postal code uses the capital letter O instead of the number 0 (DO1 A2T5 instead of D01 A2T5).” ✅ Now Gemini is just showing off… The AI is correct on all fronts: Ireland uses seven-character postal codes (called Eircodes); the first three characters are called the routing key and D01 (dee-zero-one) is the valid routing key for the Dublin 1 postal district. But the tube says DO1 (dee-oh-one) and that’s not a valid routing key: Hats off to Gemini on this one; I don’t have enough familiarity with postal codes to notice something like this. 🤖 “Box-Outline Debossing: Image A1 shows a stamped rectangular border outline debossed into the cardboard around the front text (rhode PEPTIDE LIP TINT…). Official Rhode unit cartons are smooth and do not have this outer mold line stamped around the front logos.” ❌ This is totally wrong. Current authentic boxes of Rhode Peptide Lip Tint do have an embossed border around the front text, in the shape of the outline of the tube. 🤖 “Volume Spacing Errors: On the front right side of the box (Image A1), the measurement text is crammed together as 10mL/0.3floze without standard spaces separating the units or the e estimate symbol.” ❌ Also wrong. The volume measurement text does look weirdly crammed together in Image A1, but it looks similarly crammed together on authentic boxes too. 🤖 “Shade Name Placement: On the tube (Image A6), the shade label ‘ribbon’ is printed sideways directly against the crimped seam edge, which differs from standard factory placement.” ❌ I’m also calling this one wrong. In my judgement, the location of the shade name on Image A6 is indistinguishable from the location of the shade name on an authentic tube. Package B Package B is also fake. It was another sketchy $5 eBay purchase. But what does Gemini say? 🤖 “Based on multiple spelling errors, spacing glitches, and formatting issues across the packaging and tube, this item appears to be counterfeit. Authentic products from established cosmetics brands go through strict quality checks, whereas fakes frequently contain text errors.” ✅ Another correct ID of a counterfeit product from Gemini. On to the reasons: 🤖 “Spelling Error in Usage Instructions (Image B3): The top line of the usage text reads ‘Appli tinted lip treatment daily…’ instead of ‘Apply’.” ❌ Incorrect. This is another case of Gemini mistaking lighting glare for a typo: 🤖 “Misspelled Ingredients (Image B2): The ingredients list contains chemical spelling errors, including ‘Octyidodecanol’ (instead of Octyldodecanol) and ‘Fliuorphlogopite’ (instead of Fluorphlogopite).” ✅ That’s right. For a second time, Gemini notices typos in the complex chemical names in the ingredient list. I think the second chemical actually reads “Flluorphiogopite” on the box, but either way, it’s a misspelling. I noticed this one as well. 🤖 “Lowercase Country Name (Image B3): The origin line reads ‘Made in italy’ using a lowercase ‘i’ instead of capitalized ‘Italy’.” ✅ This does look suspicious, especially since “Fabriqué en Italie” is capitalized correctly immediately afterwards. I noticed this too. 🤖 “Spacing Glitches (Images B3 & B6): The box includes an errant space in ‘SERVIC ES LIMITED’, while the back of the tube omits the space in ‘LIMITED,STANLAW’. ✅ Correct for both. It’s interesting that the missing space in ‘LIMITED,STANLAW’ affects both Package A and Package B, even though many o [truncated for AI cost control]