I wasn’t “fooled by AI” but simply gooning the Inox Beretta 92 compact.
I did this to epic on my charge nurses computer last night and she thought it was magic. I’ve made it clear that I will provide these and many other services to the charge nurse as long as I don’t ever have to actually do it personally (I don’t want to have to explain to other adults what their job is). Thus the balance is maintained.
i see the watermark but is this actually a generated image? I’m normally good at being able to tell. this image feels fine to me though? like the reflections on the light switch cover and on the picture frame feel natural. the keyboard looks correct. i guess the vents on the slightly stubbly crt are a bit wonky and the calendar can’t decide between 1998 and 1958 lol
The lighting on the gun is completely mismatched from the image and tipped me off pretty quick.
is it though? looks like it’s reflecting the camera flash to me
Check out the noise on the computer screen which magically disappears over the dialog box. Gotta say though, lighting and everything else looks dead on, just the details.
someone told her about chatgpt
I would like to think that the timeline we are currently in would have been terminated had she pulled the trigger.
Fuck, this one got me. I didn’t see the watermark. Even looking closely the details don’t seem AI, the floppy disks on the table, the cup, the keyboard colouring, the phone wire. Even the numbers on the calendar seem plausible with the bad compression. I hate this doubting every picture I see on the internet
Damn. Even now that I know I’m struggling to find anything that could’ve shown me. Some things are a bit wonky, like the pants, the calendar, the background. But none of it would be enough to truly convince me if I hadn’t seen the watermark. Most of it is easily waved away with the fact that the image is blurry. And details like the books, the screen, parts of the calendar and basically everything else in the image scream “real image” to me.
I know it goes against the general consensus in here, but I think the image itself is real, was likely low quality because it’s 25-30 years old, and the Gemini watermark is because someone ran it through to upscale it.
In the 90s, March did start with a Monday in '93 and '99. But it’s unlikely you’d see TV static (with a decently emulated camera shutter effect) behind an error dialog window - is it the desktop background?
The weird hair colour could just be unnatural lighting.
Most other things could be chalked up to JPEG (although the calendar numbering seems like a stretch - I have never seen jpeg make a ‘3’ look like a ‘1’ in that specific way).
What gave me the highest suspicion was the jeans. The stitched parts (mainly the zip part) doesn’t look like real stitching, but like painted plastic. So unless there is some product that is actually plastic pants, printed with a jeans texture, that’s not a real picture.And once you know it is AI, it explains the background.
Ghost in the shell? Meet 5.56x45 in the shell.
Looks a bit like Scully lol
Hey, the screen is not the computer!
Sarah Connor at home:
This is the most 90s image I have seen in a long time.
Good job clanker, another human fooled successfully. See the watermark in the bottom right.
Fuck me… I only started looking more closely after your comment and noticed that the room’s proportions are fucked up. But, at a first glance, it looks like a photo from the 90s…
They even got the shadow on the wall from the camera flash…
Edit: also, the computer instructed to make this image was probably like “Hmmm. Mental note”
I wanna cry man, I wanna cry. HOW LONG do i have to ask myself “Is this AI?” whenever I see an image on internet?
Forever. I’m sorry.
Always from now on, it won’t end. And I think it’s a good example here, as it’s clearly indicated with the watermark. Without it I wouldn’t have been sure, this image is very good quality. My clues were the calendar is too conveniently place at the perfect location, and I tried to figure out which win version is that, and the thickness of the header of the warning dialog seems too thick compared to the taskbar. Then I started to look for other clues and noticed the watermark
I’m not a luddite, this technology has some good uses, and this is an important step in the good direction that they add a watermark. Next should be an ai notice added to the metadata of the image, so the hosting site could understand it and mark as such, and users can filter it.
Bad actors obviously could remove any kind of watermark or metadata, so this wouldn’t help against them, but as we see how it goes with drm there is no perfect way to make sure the slop can be always marked as such.
The crazy thing about the calendar is that it’s right. A year ago, I wouldn’t have even expected an AI generated image to get the correct number of days in a week, but not only does it get that right, but it correctly shows that March has 31 days and that March 1999 started on a Monday.
The placement isn’t that much of a giveaway either. Five or ten years before this hypothetical photo, that desk would have been just a desk, which is exactly where you’d have put a calendar. Old habits die hard, and I definitely knew people who still hung calendars next to their computer desk.
It’s only going to continue to get harder to tell.
I think it’s a good example here, as it’s clearly indicated with the watermark.
Define “clearly” 😅 it took a while for you and I to notice the watermark and over half the commenters still believe this is a real image.
My clues were … then I started to look for other clues and noticed the watermark
It’s a new thing, my eyes haven’t got used to it yet. I see more ai images without any watermark than with one.
March 1999, based on the wall calendar
98?
Looks more like 1958 to me, the whole thing is a blur. Doesn’t seem like a compression thing, more like AI generation.
Given that she’s holding what is the second most booty-ass rendition of what’s apparently supposed to be a Beretta Model 92 I’ve seen in my life, AI generation seems to be a fair assessment.
Edit: And the shadow on it makes no sense. Never mind the watermark in the corner.
Edit edit: And March 1998 began on a Sunday. The more you look the worse it all gets.
i love this deep dive lol
It also has the AI watermark in the bottom right corner. This one doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to pinpoint.
deleted by creator
I think it says 1998.
I read 1958, but it could just be blurry
I initially thought 1998, but March 1 wasn’t on Monday that year.
We can’t stop here, this is bat country!
At a former job many years ago, we had an employee get super mad at his PC. He left and returned a short time later with a revolver that he unloaded on said PC. All six shots missed the critical components and it was still running despite the new cooling. Cops hauled him away whilst still frothing at the mouth about his PC.
Like Homer looking for the “Any” key.
Was that employee Elvis?
Uh-huh
Another image of add to my “Women holding guns to computers/monitor” collection.
This one’s AI though, for some reason
oh
Folder dump plz
i only have 2 images though so do you still want to see them? (now one since someone said this is AI)
Is uh…is that like a sex thing? Or…ya know what? I’m not sure I want answers.
Nah dw, nothing NSFW here.
It is definitely not safe for whomsoever wants to use that monitor for work.
I was just thinking, this is not the first image like this I’ve seen and I’d really like to know the context I’m missing.
that one image where another one is holding a rifle into a pc monitor?
Came here to say that, maybe they were onto something…
SIGKILL
92% sure thats a Beretta 92 FS, possibly the compact variant, but very good pun either way!
Maybe we can cause a causality loop if someone shops it into a Sig P226.
Def not a sig, pretty sure you’re dead on. I wasn’t even making that pun, tbh. Wish I had, it’s a good one lol
I am a nerd of many realms lol, your pun actually made me go check, ‘wait, is that a Sig?’, haha!
