Have I Been Trained? vs IntelliCode
Side-by-side comparison to help you choose.
| Feature | Have I Been Trained? | IntelliCode |
|---|---|---|
| Type | Product | Extension |
| UnfragileRank | 18/100 | 40/100 |
| Adoption | 0 | 1 |
| Quality | 0 | 0 |
| Ecosystem |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Paid | Free |
| Capabilities | 6 decomposed | 6 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Accepts an image file and performs reverse-lookup queries against indexed snapshots of popular AI art model training datasets (LAION, Stable Diffusion, Midjourney, DALL-E, etc.) using perceptual hashing and semantic embedding matching. The system likely maintains pre-computed hash tables and vector indices of known training data, then compares incoming images against these indices to detect matches or near-duplicates, returning provenance metadata if found.
Unique: Specializes in detecting whether images appear in AI model training datasets by maintaining indexed snapshots of LAION, Stable Diffusion, and other public training corpora, using perceptual hashing to match images even after compression or minor modifications, rather than generic reverse-image search
vs alternatives: More targeted than Google Images reverse search because it specifically indexes AI training datasets rather than the general web, and more comprehensive than individual model documentation because it aggregates multiple training sources in one query
Maintains a unified index across multiple popular generative AI model training datasets (Stable Diffusion, DALL-E, Midjourney, etc.) and exposes a single query interface to check an image against all indexed datasets simultaneously. This likely involves periodic crawling or partnership access to dataset metadata, normalization of dataset schemas, and a federated search architecture that queries multiple indices in parallel and aggregates results.
Unique: Aggregates training dataset indices from multiple competing generative AI models into a single queryable interface, rather than requiring users to check each model's dataset separately or use disparate tools
vs alternatives: Broader coverage than checking individual model documentation or using model-specific tools, and more efficient than manual searches across multiple platforms
Uses perceptual hashing algorithms (likely pHash, dHash, or similar) to match images even when they have been slightly modified (compressed, cropped, color-shifted, watermarked). The system computes a compact hash fingerprint of the query image and compares it against pre-computed hashes of training dataset images, using a configurable similarity threshold to determine matches. This enables detection of images that are visually identical or near-identical to training data despite minor transformations.
Unique: Implements perceptual hashing with configurable tolerance thresholds to detect training dataset images even after compression, cropping, or minor modifications, rather than requiring exact pixel-level matches
vs alternatives: More robust than cryptographic hashing (MD5, SHA) which fails on any modification, and more practical than deep learning-based similarity because it's faster and doesn't require GPU resources
When a match is detected, generates a detailed report showing which dataset(s) contain the image, metadata about the dataset (size, creation date, model association), and links to source documentation or dataset repositories. The system aggregates metadata from multiple sources and formats it into a human-readable report that provides context about how the image entered the training pipeline.
Unique: Aggregates and formats provenance metadata from multiple training dataset sources into a structured report suitable for legal or research purposes, rather than just returning a binary match result
vs alternatives: More actionable than raw dataset indices because it contextualizes matches with model associations and source documentation, and more comprehensive than individual model transparency reports
Accepts multiple images (via file upload, URL list, or API) and processes them in parallel or queued batches against the training dataset indices. The system likely implements job queuing, rate limiting, and asynchronous processing to handle multiple images without blocking, returning results as a consolidated report or per-image breakdown. This enables artists or platforms to audit large collections of images efficiently.
Unique: Implements batch processing with job queuing and asynchronous result delivery to handle multiple image scans efficiently, rather than requiring sequential single-image uploads
vs alternatives: More scalable than manual per-image uploads for large portfolios, and more practical than building custom batch infrastructure for individual artists or small platforms
Periodically crawls, ingests, and updates indices of public training datasets (LAION snapshots, Stable Diffusion dataset releases, etc.) to keep the searchable corpus current. This likely involves automated pipelines that detect new dataset releases, download metadata, compute perceptual hashes for new images, and update the search indices. The system must handle versioning to track which dataset snapshot was used for each match.
Unique: Maintains versioned indices of multiple training dataset snapshots with automated update pipelines, enabling users to understand which dataset version was queried and track how training data evolves over time
vs alternatives: More transparent than static indices because it tracks versions and update dates, and more comprehensive than relying on individual model documentation which may lag behind actual training data releases
Provides AI-ranked code completion suggestions with star ratings based on statistical patterns mined from thousands of open-source repositories. Uses machine learning models trained on public code to predict the most contextually relevant completions and surfaces them first in the IntelliSense dropdown, reducing cognitive load by filtering low-probability suggestions.
Unique: Uses statistical ranking trained on thousands of public repositories to surface the most contextually probable completions first, rather than relying on syntax-only or recency-based ordering. The star-rating visualization explicitly communicates confidence derived from aggregate community usage patterns.
vs alternatives: Ranks completions by real-world usage frequency across open-source projects rather than generic language models, making suggestions more aligned with idiomatic patterns than generic code-LLM completions.
Extends IntelliSense completion across Python, TypeScript, JavaScript, and Java by analyzing the semantic context of the current file (variable types, function signatures, imported modules) and using language-specific AST parsing to understand scope and type information. Completions are contextualized to the current scope and type constraints, not just string-matching.
Unique: Combines language-specific semantic analysis (via language servers) with ML-based ranking to provide completions that are both type-correct and statistically likely based on open-source patterns. The architecture bridges static type checking with probabilistic ranking.
vs alternatives: More accurate than generic LLM completions for typed languages because it enforces type constraints before ranking, and more discoverable than bare language servers because it surfaces the most idiomatic suggestions first.
IntelliCode scores higher at 40/100 vs Have I Been Trained? at 18/100. IntelliCode also has a free tier, making it more accessible.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
Trains machine learning models on a curated corpus of thousands of open-source repositories to learn statistical patterns about code structure, naming conventions, and API usage. These patterns are encoded into the ranking model that powers starred recommendations, allowing the system to suggest code that aligns with community best practices without requiring explicit rule definition.
Unique: Leverages a proprietary corpus of thousands of open-source repositories to train ranking models that capture statistical patterns in code structure and API usage. The approach is corpus-driven rather than rule-based, allowing patterns to emerge from data rather than being hand-coded.
vs alternatives: More aligned with real-world usage than rule-based linters or generic language models because it learns from actual open-source code at scale, but less customizable than local pattern definitions.
Executes machine learning model inference on Microsoft's cloud infrastructure to rank completion suggestions in real-time. The architecture sends code context (current file, surrounding lines, cursor position) to a remote inference service, which applies pre-trained ranking models and returns scored suggestions. This cloud-based approach enables complex model computation without requiring local GPU resources.
Unique: Centralizes ML inference on Microsoft's cloud infrastructure rather than running models locally, enabling use of large, complex models without local GPU requirements. The architecture trades latency for model sophistication and automatic updates.
vs alternatives: Enables more sophisticated ranking than local models without requiring developer hardware investment, but introduces network latency and privacy concerns compared to fully local alternatives like Copilot's local fallback.
Displays star ratings (1-5 stars) next to each completion suggestion in the IntelliSense dropdown to communicate the confidence level derived from the ML ranking model. Stars are a visual encoding of the statistical likelihood that a suggestion is idiomatic and correct based on open-source patterns, making the ranking decision transparent to the developer.
Unique: Uses a simple, intuitive star-rating visualization to communicate ML confidence levels directly in the editor UI, making the ranking decision visible without requiring developers to understand the underlying model.
vs alternatives: More transparent than hidden ranking (like generic Copilot suggestions) but less informative than detailed explanations of why a suggestion was ranked.
Integrates with VS Code's native IntelliSense API to inject ranked suggestions into the standard completion dropdown. The extension hooks into the completion provider interface, intercepts suggestions from language servers, re-ranks them using the ML model, and returns the sorted list to VS Code's UI. This architecture preserves the native IntelliSense UX while augmenting the ranking logic.
Unique: Integrates as a completion provider in VS Code's IntelliSense pipeline, intercepting and re-ranking suggestions from language servers rather than replacing them entirely. This architecture preserves compatibility with existing language extensions and UX.
vs alternatives: More seamless integration with VS Code than standalone tools, but less powerful than language-server-level modifications because it can only re-rank existing suggestions, not generate new ones.