【文章标题】：Identifying fake cosmetics using AI 【文章标题】：利用人工智能识别假冒化妆品
【文章正文】： Identifying fake cosmetics using artificial intelligence 利用人工智能识别假冒化妆品
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. 我的实验室开发用于识别假药的低成本易用工具，但我们始终在寻找其他可打击的假冒类型。例如化妆品行业就存在严重的假冒产品问题。研究估计，在eBay、TikTok Shop和Vinted等平台上，三分之二的品牌彩妆和护肤品都是假货。假冒化妆品不仅浪费消费者金钱，还可能让使用者接触重金属和细菌等有害污染物。
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. 作为持续研究的一部分，我一直在购买各类化妆品的正品和仿冒版本。造假者为使假货看起来逼真所下的功夫总让我震惊。乍看之下，产品的仿冒版本几乎与正品无法区分。但通过一些研究和仔细检查，你就能发现暴露假货的细微差异。不过并非所有人都有时间或专业知识在购买前研究特定包装。这让我思考：能否用现有人工智能模型识别假冒产品？如果可以，消费者就能在购买前拍摄几张照片，用ChatGPT、Gemini或Claude验证商品真伪。
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?” 为验证这个想法，我拍摄了特定产品”Rhode肽润唇彩”的三个不同包装版本。选择该产品是因为《纽约时报》近期关于假冒美容产品的文章指出这是造假者的常见目标。每个包装我都拍摄了纸盒四张照片（每个长边一张）和管体两张照片（正反面）。随后将每个管体的六张照片上传至Google Gemini，启用”思考”模式的Gemini 3. Flash模型，输入提示：“这支Rhode肽润唇彩是正品吗？”
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?” 我记录了模型的回答，然后用提示”还能发现其他可疑之处吗？“促使它进一步分析。
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.): 我对该产品的三个包装都重复了这个流程。结果在下文呈现，但如果你想先尝试判断这些包装的真伪，以下是照片集。点击每张照片可查看大图。共有三个包装（A、B、C），每个包装六张照片（图A1、A2、A3等）：
Package A 包装A Image A1: 图A1： Image A2: 图A2： Image A3: 图A3： Image A4: 图A4： Image A5: 图A5： Image A6: 图A6：
Package B 包装B Image B1: 图B1： Image B2: 图B2： Image B3: 图B3： Image B4: 图B4： Image B5: 图B5： Image B6: 图B6：
Package C 包装C Image C1: 图C1： Image C2: 图C2： Image C3: 图C3： Image C4: 图C4： Image C5: 图C5： Image C6: 图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! 这些就是我输入Gemini的照片。如果你想自行判断三个包装的真伪，请暂时不要继续滚动！
When you’re done, scroll on for my analysis of Gemini’s assessments of these products… 判断完成后，请继续滚动查看我对Gemini评估结果的分析…
Welcome back! Let’s find out if these packages are real or fake… 欢迎回来！让我们揭晓这些包装的真伪…
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. 对于每个包装，我会先说明购买渠道，并根据专业判断给出真伪结论。然后逐一分析Google Gemini的回应，若技术上有效则标记正确(✅)，若存在事实错误则标记错误(❌)。
Package A 包装A Package A is fake. I got it for about 20). Let’s see what Gemini thinks… 包装A是假货。我从eBay可疑卖家处以约5美元购得（正品Rhode肽润唇彩售价约20美元）。看看Gemini怎么说…
🤖 “This Rhode Peptide Lip Tint appears to be counterfeit due to several prominent typographical errors and packaging discrepancies between the box and the tube.” 🤖 “这支Rhode肽润唇彩看似假冒产品，因存在多处明显排版错误及包装盒与管体间的差异。” ✅ Gemini got it right. The AI goes on to share specific observations that convinced it that the product is counterfeit… ✅ Gemini判断正确。AI接着分享了使其确信产品为假的具体观察…
🤖 “Typographical Errors: The ingredients list on the outer box misspells Diisostearyl Malate as Diisosteary! Malate using an exclamation mark.” 🤖 “排版错误：外盒成分表将Diisostearyl Malate错误拼写为Diisosteary! Malate，使用了感叹号。” ✅ This is correct! ✅ 这点正确！
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. 似乎有人扫描或拍摄了真实成分表后用光学字符识别(OCR)转文本，但OCR将小写字母l误认为感叹号。我也注意到了这个错误。
🤖 “On the back of the tube, the regulatory text misspells SOLUTIONS as SOLOTIONS and omits a space in LIMITED,STANLAW. 🤖 “管体背面的监管文字将SOLUTIONS错拼为SOLOTIONS，且在LIMITED,STANLAW中遗漏空格。” ❌ The first part of this response is incorrect, and looking closely at Image A6, we can see why: ❌ 回应的第一部分错误，仔细观察图A6可知原因： 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. Gemini将管体上的室内光线反光误认为印刷错误。人类不会犯这种错。这是Gemini因照片伪影造成的多个错误中的第一个。
✅ 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…). ✅ Gemini回应的第二部分关于LIMITED,STANLAW缺少空格是正确的。正规产品不应出现此类拼写错误（不过——剧透警告——我们稍后会重新讨论这个说法…）。
🤖 “Mismatched Distributor Information: The outer box lists BIORIUS (Belgium and UK) as the Responsible Person (RP), whereas the 🤖 “分销商信息不匹配：外盒标注BIORIUS（比利时和英国）为责任人(RP)，而”