Is the image AI-generated?

[is-the-image-ai]

[mf-dude]

[trr3rr]

He's a journalist

[wizardarchetypes]

Unfortunately, I think this is might be AI. I can't find a source for this video anywhere. All I can find is a repost of the video, that calls it AI: "The post features a 15-second AI-generated video of an endoscope probing a mouse burrow, showing rodents, glowing worms, and tunnel networks, captioned in Portuguese as "The guys didn't do this! lol" to highlight its fabricated charm." That doesn't have to mean it's AI, because that's a repost. If anyone has an original source for this video, and I'm wrong, I'd be very happy to see it! I don't mind being wrong, and I love videos of mice and insects!

That said, the case for AI: The camera doesn't make much sense. I've never mounted cameras on animals, but I have mounted radio tags and collars. It's actually very difficult for small animals like mice to support any amount of weight on their bodies this way. Mice aren't exactly beasts of burden; their backs aren't built to carry weight this way. I'd be surprised if a mouse could confidently traverse a tunnel like this with such a big camera on its back. I'm not saying it's impossible, but the way the camera is rigged to the mouse also makes no sense. It appears to be some sort of loosely-fit elastic strap around the 'waist,' which wouldn't stay upright like this.

When the mouse enters the tunnel, there's no light coming from the camera. The mouse walks into the dark tunnel. So when does the light come on, to illuminate the tunnel like we see in the rest of the video? I guess it could be remote-controlled, and the human turned the light on from outside, once the mouse was within?

The angle of the mouse's head doesn't change. Even as the mouse is supposed to be greeting other mice, their heads and necks move dynamically, while the POV mouse's neck doesn't so much as bend a single time. Look how the other mice move around to sniff, even placing a paw on the wall. POV mouse doesn't turn once to look at the insects or to smell the other mice from different angles. It just marches relentlessly forward. Why? The camera isn't attached to the mouse's neck or even shoulders at all; its neck and head should be turning even a fraction.

The centipede. The centipede looks like a piece of painted plastic from a bargain box of insect toys. Look how it moves its legs. That's not how centipedes move.

Again, I'd be pleased to be wrong! If you have more info on this video, let me know.

[bearyscientific]

The lighting was confusing me too... And the fact that the video is broken up into less than 4 second chunks is also indicative of AI, plus some of the jump-cuts seem oddly placed.

Also in regards to the camera weight, I know in my country it is illegal to put on trackers/recorders on wildlife that weighs >2% of their bodyweight

can be different in other countries in regards to small mammels but it really looks like: a, keeping tracked specimen alive is not a priority; b, the specimen not changing it's natural behaviour due to big fucking recorder strapped on a low priority; c, retrieving tracker is also a low priority unless a fishing line was also tied to the device or emits some signal to allow you to dig it up (thus destroying the burrow)

Also, yeah the entrance holes are big but it seems likely the mouse would get stuck with that big of a device strapped on as tunnels would get pretty narrow (mice can travel anywhere their heads can squeeze through afterall). Or the mouse would just shuck it off the first second it could as a waist strap would be so easy for it to slip.

(This is pedantic, but I think you'd get more ethical, cheaper, easier, and better data results just sending the camera on a endoscopy tube down the hole.)

[wizardarchetypes]

Yes lol! The reason I watched the video several times before I realized it's AI is because I was wondering what the plan for retrieving the mouse & camera would be!

Several people in the notes also pointed out how unnaturally the mouse moves from the hand to the burrow, sort of like it just floats down.

The jumpcuts are a giveaway; we never see the mouse navigate around the other mice it encounters. Watching this back again and reading everyone else's comments, yes, this is definitely AI.

(It would definitely be cheaper & more ethical to use an endoscopy camera, but I was open to the idea that some random person was just doing this for fun, not for science with any experience, in which case they wouldn't necessarily apply any of those rules to their own mouse-camera build LOL.)

[babyfoxcollectionthings]

[kaijutegu]

Hate to break it to you, but this is AI.

See how there's five toes there?

Lions have four toes in front- the fifth is offset. At this angle, you'd only see four, not five. The innermost toe is way too high and way too visible for this to be a real lion.

Here are some pics of lions from the Animal Photo Reference Repository to demonstrate what I mean by an offset toe:

It's pretty far back, you wouldn't see that tuft of hair from that angle.

Also it appears one of his middle toes has two claws, he's missing the offset toe on his other foot, and the cub's foot isn't sinking into the mane at some parts. It's really convincing- but it's not real.

[why-animals-do-the-thing]

I sent this to @kaijutegu last night because she’s my expert AI identifier, and I think it’s so interesting to see the differences in what we both noticed about this video. And yeah, this one is tricky! I was only half-sure it was fake.

She immediately noticed the feet and the cub’s eye shape changing. Super specific anatomical differences.

My thoughts were more along the lines of: that adult male lion looks too perfect for a wild lion, also where did he get his mane blown out. I noticed more of the behavior, too, that he’s being way too chill about a cub on his head and not reacting to it shifting around at all (even the most tolerant dads are going to grimace a little). And the cub looks too coordinated to me for a baby that little.

It’s neat to me how many ways there can be to catch AI fakes, even when they’re this good. You don’t have to be an expert in a specific animal’s behavior - heck, the anatomy aspect is probably more concrete and less subjective than a behavioral interpretation.

Here’s two screen-grabs of a very, very tolerant dad (and his facial expressions) with cubs about the same age as the fake one. This is Chisulo from Fresno with his current cubs.

[shithowdy]

this is your periodic reminder that for all the artifacts and errors and "tells" one could possibly list, the only reliable way to actually determine if an image is ai generated is to investigate the source. it is becoming increasingly common for "fake classical paintings" to circulate around curative aesthetic blogs, and everyone should be using this as an opportunity to not only exercise their investigative skills but also appreciate art more in general. you're all checking out the artists you reblog, right? 🫣

so what are some signs to look for? let's use this very good example.

what a lovely late-impressionist piece blended with evocative leyendecker-esque themes! why haven't you ever heard of this artist before? surely tumblr would be all over an artist like this. who is justin brown?

your two options from here are to do a search for the name, or a reverse image search. i prefer reverse image searching, particularly when it comes to a common name like "justin brown". so what does that net?

Immediately, without looking at any text, something is wrong: it barely exists. an actual historical piece would turn up numerous results from websites individually discussing the piece, but no such discussions are taking place. Looking at the text, though, does show the source-- and at least in this case, the creator was honest about their medium.

But let's also look at the "exact matches", in case a source doesn't make itself apparent in the initial sidebar results like this.

This section will often tell you post dates of images, and here it can be seen that the very first iteration of the image was posted 15 days ago. It did not exist online prior to that.

Seeing how long an unsourced image has been floating around is a skill applicable to more than just generative images! See a cool image of an artifact or other intriguing item with a vivid caption? Reverse search it! If all the results are paired with that caption and only go back a few months, you might just have viral facebook spam.

Sometimes generative creators are dishonest about their medium and do not tag it like in the example, so that's when establishing "jpeg provenance" becomes important. While it can be a little trickier to determine if someone is using generative images and not admitting to it if they aren't trying to pass it off as a classic, something to consider is the age of their account and the frequency with which they post. Here are some account red flags:

-Did they only start posting art after 2022, or if they did before, did their style/skill level WILDLY change? Not gradual improvement-- I'm talking amateur graphite portraits straight into complex digital renders. Everyone starts somewhere, newness is not a red flag alone; it's newness combined with existing in a vacuum away from any community.

-Do they post fully-finished paintings several times a week? -Do many of these paintings seem iterative of a similar theme or subject matter ("three well-dressed young men face each other under shade and dappled sunlight")?

-Does their style change in inconsistent ways? An artist that can swap between painting like Drew Struzan and Hokusai should be pretty well known, right? Why is no one hyping this guy?!

-Do they have social media besides the source instagram? If so, what are they posting about? Are there any WIPs? Doodles? Interactions with other artists? Gallery dates? 3am self-doubt posts? Or is it all self-promo? Crypto? Seemingly nothing art-related at all for someone pushing out 3 weekly paintings?

Basically, if it's important to you to omit this stuff when you curate, please don't just smash reblog if the source doesn't seem to be the OP themselves. Seeking out sources was important even before this became an issue, now it is more than ever.

peace n love

[ai-art-thieves]

It's Time To Investigate SevenArt.ai

sevenart.ai is a website that uses ai to generate images.

Except, that's not all it can do.

It can also overlay ai filters onto images to create the illusion that the algorithm created these images.

And its primary image source is Tumblr.

It scrapes through the site for recent images that are at least 10 days old and has some notes attached to it, as well as copying the tags to make the unsuspecting user think that the post was from a genuine user.

No image is safe. Art, photography, screenshots, you name it.

Initially I thought that these are bots that just repost images from their site as well as bastardizations of pictures across tumblr, until a user by the name of @nataliedecorsair discovered that these "bots" can also block users and restrict replies.

Not only that, but these bots do not procreate and multiply like most bots do. Or at least, they have.

The following are the list of bots that have been found on this very site. Brace yourself. It's gonna be a long one:

@giannaaziz1998blog

@kennedyvietor1978blog

@nikb0mh6bl

@z4uu8shm37

@xguniedhmn

@katherinrubino1958blog

@3neonnightlifenostalgiablog

@cyberneticcreations58blog

@neomasteinbrink1971blog

@etharetherford1958blog

@punxajfqz1

@camicranfill1967blog

@1stellarluminousechoblog

@whwsd1wrof

@bnlvi0rsmj

@steampunkstarshipsafari90blog

@surrealistictechtales17blog

@2steampunksavvysiren37blog

@krispycrowntree

@voucwjryey

@luciaaleem1961blog

@qcmpdwv9ts

@2mplexltw6

@sz1uwxthzi

@laurenesmock1972blog

@rosalinetritsch1992blog

@chereesteinkirchner1950blog

@malindamadaras1996blog

@1cyberneticdreamscapehubblog

@neomasteinbrink1971blog

@neonfuturecityblog

@olindagunner1986blog

@neonnomadnirvanablog

@digitalcyborgquestblog

@freespiritfusionblog

@piacarriveau1990blog

@3technoartisticvisionsblog

@wanderlustwineblissblog

@oyqjfwb9nz

@maryannamarkus1983blog

@lashelldowhower2000blog

@ovibigrqrw

@3neonnightlifenostalgiablog

@ywldujyr6b

@giannaaziz1998blog

@yudacquel1961blog

@neotechcreationsblog

@wildernesswonderquest87blog

@cybertroncosmicflow93blog

@emeldaplessner1996blog

@neuralnetworkgallery78blog

@dunstanrohrich1957blog

@juanitazunino1965blog

@natoshaereaux1970blog

@aienhancedaestheticsblog

@techtrendytreks48blog

@cgvlrktikf

@digitaldimensiondioramablog

@pixelpaintedpanorama91blog

@futuristiccowboyshark

@digitaldreamscapevisionsblog

@janishoppin1950blog

The oldest ones have been created in March, started scraping in June/July, and later additions to the family have been created in July.

So, I have come to the conclusion that these accounts might be run by a combination of bot and human. Cyborg, if you will.

But it still doesn't answer my main question:

Who is running the whole operation?

The site itself gave us zero answers to work with.

No copyright, no link to the engine where the site is being used on, except for the sign in thingy (which I did.)

I gave the site a fake email and a shitty password.

Turns out it doesn't function like most sites that ask for an email and password.

Didn't check the burner email, the password isn't fully dotted and available for the whole world to see, and, and this is the important thing...

My browser didn't detect that this was an email and password thingy.

And there was no log off feature.

This could mean two things.

Either we have a site that doesn't have a functioning email and password database, or that we have a bunch of gullible people throwing their email and password in for people to potentially steal.

I can't confirm or deny these facts, because, again, the site has little to work with.

The code? Generic as all hell.

Tried searching for more information about this site, like the server it's on, or who owned the site, or something. ANYTHING.

Multiple sites pulled me in different directions. One site said it originates in Iceland. Others say its in California or Canada.

Luckily, the server it used was the same. Its powered by Cloudflare.

Unfortunately, I have no idea what to do with any of this information.

If you have any further information about this site, let me know.

Until there is a clear answer, we need to keep doing what we are doing.

Spread the word and report about these cretins.

If they want attention, then they are gonna get the worst attention.

[niuniente]

Also, to spot these out there in the wild, pay attention to their most common usernames:

Gibberish (like; vhrjatikh)

Something-something-blog (like; autocurrentboisssblog)

Something-something-numbers-blog (like; autocurrentboisss1985blog)

Name-blog (like jasminezyrrikkkkblog)

For now, it is the safest to block, report and remove any followers you gain with such username as there is a high chance for it to be one of these bots.

[is-the-image-ai]

An image purported to be of the Xiaozhai Tiankeng cave.

The weirdly-blurred background typical of AI-generated images

Nonsensical shapes present in the background

Random "junk" around the rim of the pit, probably meant to be buildings

Plants growing in midair

Inconsistency in scale - the size of the "structures" indicates a relatively small cave entrance, but the texture and density of the plant growth indicates a very large cave entrance

The cave entrance appears to be jutting above the surrounding mountains

The unnaturally round shape of the entrance and sheer drop-off

Xiaozhai Tiankeng is a well-known and extensively-photographed site and it's painfully easy to demonstrate that it looks nothing like this

Verdict: AI-generated

[cripplerage-deactivated20260121]

Hey this is really really fucked up. Can we talk about this because holy shit

AI is producing ‘fake’ Indigenous art trained on real artists’ work without permission

One Indigenous artist said the process of using their art to train AI models that competes with them for work is a ‘very colonial mindset’.

[skeletonflower]

“People are training artificial intelligence on Indigenous art without the artists’ permission to create inauthentic works, which are selling online on platforms run by companies such as Adobe and eBay.

Indigenous artists in Australia say their work is being stolen and turned into another threat to their livelihoods and cultures while they are already struggling to compete with the tens of millions of dollars worth of fake art produced every year by non-Indigenous artists.”

[flemmboyant]

These stock websites also feature AI-generated images of Indigenous peoples in the style of a photograph. They’re already being used on the internet, such as by the government-funded Mining and Skills Alliance, which features a picture of a generated woman to promote its efforts to “raise the profile of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women”.

this is so insanely disrespectful jesus

[rockpapercynic]

A.I. photos are flooding social media and contributing to an Internet where we can't believe what we see. Spotting A.I. 📷s is an important media literacy skill.

None of us have time to research every image we see. We just need people to notice BEFORE THEY LIKE OR SHARE that an image might be fake. If unsure, check it or don't share.

I've started drawing some comics explaining the basic of AI spot-checking and media literacy in the age of disinformation. Follow along here or on my Twitter.

[shuttered-gallery]

"Temple Cat" by Emile Corsi, 1877

[lychens]

OP's entire blog operates off the gimmick of posting art under the name "Emile Corsi", with each piece dated sometime during the 1800's.

What isn't properly disclosed however, is that

1.) the artist never existed and

2.) every piece is AI generated

Leaving disclaimers about the true origin of this content in the tags isn't enough. Most users are not going to take the time out of their day to visit the original post, let alone scroll to the very bottom where, notably, everything pertaining to its actual source is left until the very end.

[sibirsibir]

Horse wearing reconstructed 2500-year-old Scythian horse armor unearthed in the Altai Mountains in Siberia

[is-the-image-ai]

Okay so I've seen some people asserting that this image is AI-generated. Let's address that.

The environment is too "crunchy" and lacks the typical soft-focus bloom found in AI images

Note the slight haze of digital "noise" throughout the image, which is typical of photos taken by mid- to low-range digital cameras (such as those used in smartphones.)

The background is in clear, sharp focus, rather than blurred into oblivion

Detailing is consistent throughout and doesn't devolve into visual gibberish

"But the horse looks weird!" You say.

That's because it's a fiberglass model of a horse, not a living animal. You can even clearly see the metal stand it's attached to.

And finally, the most damning evidence...

It's from a 2015 Facebook post.

Verdict: NOT AI-GENERATED

[loveboxers1]

[is-the-image-ai]

Weirdly blurred background

Bizarre distortions of background elements such as windows, ring ropes

Nondescript blobs scattered in one spot on the floor

Random object hanging from the ceiling

Three of the foreground ropes just mysteriously vanish

Dude's head is weirdly-shaped in a way that can't entirely be chalked up to his bizarre Anime Hair

Other odd body shape distortions (the curve of his right pectoral, the size of his right bicep, random abdominal bulges that I presume are supposed to be muscle outlines)

Unnaturally uniform sweat beading

Random bulgy veins

I don't even know how to describe what's going on with his shorts' drawstring

Verdict: AI-generated

[is-the-image-ai]

I stumbled across an Instagram account that is. Interesting. Username anchorball. Posts stuff that he claims is real sculpture but is not passing the smell test (never more than one "photo" of a specific piece for example). The kicker is that he has a website where he's claiming to sell some of these sculptures for up to $75,000.

Let's have a look, shall we?

"Tables" with one leg, lopsided couch, a number of crooked lines...

Bizarre, inconsistent architecture, weird lighting, misshapen people and objects in the background, indecipherable gibberish "text" on the walls...

More bizarre, unreal architecture

MORE bizarre architecture, crooked lines, misshapen background elements, that guy's knees are backwards...

These scenes was obviously intended to look like a workshop, but the giant amorphous chunks and blobs of unidentifiable... stuff cluttering up the background give it away.

Back to the bizarre, inconsistent architecture, crooked lines, and weird nonsensical details.

His whole gallery is full of examples like this, and you're right, not one piece of it passes the smell test.

I also noticed that he tags most of his uploads with "esculpture," which leads me to believe he's selling these globs of AI-generated barf as NFTs. Definitely not for the prices he claims, but still.

Verdict: AI generated

[zegalba]

Hassan Ragab: Recycled Plastic Art Nouveau Facade Chairs (2023)

[aeide-thea]

per ragab's original instagram post, these are AI-generated images, which (a) i think is important to be clear about, regardless of one's stance on the practice, and (b) renders the claim that they're 'recycled plastic' absolutely absurd…

[shithowdy]

these chairs all over my dash are ai generated and lying to you about their material in the caption.

as always, the big giveaway lies in the details and how they are not at all cohesive and kept at a low resolution. look at how the lines don't align with each other, and how random bits just kind of jut out. the fact that other photo angles of the sculptures do not exist is also a clue that the items are not real.

[foone]

Tumblr needs a community label for "contains AI content"

[maureen2musings]

simon.iphonex

[is-the-image-ai]

Even with literally everything else "off" about this image, there's one thing and one thing SPECIFICALLY that makes it blatantly, obviously fake:

You will never, NEVER get a single, non-panoramic photo with the sun and a rainbow, unless there's a MIRROR involved, because the sun is ALWAYS ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE SKY from a rainbow. You CANNOT photograph the sun BEHIND a rainbow. And you would certainly never photograph the sun behind and off-center of any solar optical phenomena (such as rainbows, halos, circumhorizontal arcs, solar light pillars, sun dogs, etc.) Period. That's just not how these things work.

The atmospheric phenomena that ARE visible in front of the sun are CORONAS and HALOS, and they look very, very different from this.

Read more here.

Verdict: AI-generated

[wgm-beautiful-world]

Strawberries tree in ITALY

[is-the-image-ai]

Strawberries do not grow on trees and cannot actually grow like this (there are several species of trees colloquially known as "strawberry trees" but they do not look like this.)

Unnaturally dense fruit

Unnaturally large fruits

Anyone who's ever grown strawberries knows that they don't all ripen at the same time.

You can literally see the leaves blending into the fruits in a number of spots

The texture of the fruits is wrong, being more akin to raspberries than strawberries

Fruits "further back" lose all definition

The leaves in the lower left corner are fuzzy and blurred, but the post rising up out of them is in sharp definition

The background is a disjointed mess

Verdict: AI-generated