#fake images

[amalasdraws]

https://www.tumblr.com/bigmammallama5/732632789726478336?source=share do you have any tips on how to detect ai and deepfakes?

Good question and I'm gonna be honest, it's not always easy and it will only get harder and harder. I'm just an artist who has spent their personal time to dive into this topic and study images. I'm still learning and there is a lot I don't know. But let me show what I know. This will be long, but I will make a summary at the end! So far, even with ai having become better and better there are still almost always some things wrong with an image, and they all have a very specific look to them. So let me try to show you some and point out some of them.

As we all know, a biggest struggle ai had were hands. And even though here and there we still see messed up hands, I say "had", because the hands is actual a good example on how ai is improving and will only get better. Still, looking at pictures that show more hands is always worth it, because somewhere in the back there will be most likely at least one messed up hand.

Another issue a lot of ai still has is hair though!

It's very obvious still in many ai "drawings" and in those otherwise well rendered portraits. Hair starts to blend with the ears a lot, or with the clothes.

There is also often this very odd look between something too sharp and way too blurry

There is often a very specific texture to the hair. I actually do not know the artistic or specific name for it. I can only describe it as this weird sharp feeling that makes it look oddly pixely, and then you have areas where it's very blurry. And the kind of loops and almost flame like looking hair we see in the last pic out of the three here is also something very common with ai.

As an artist I know we make mistakes too! The way I draw hair is flawed too! But it's not only that it's flawed here, but it's following always the same pattern and falls into the same issues over and over again, no matter who is "creating" the image. Those flame like loops are a common one, next to the odd blends and weird sharp and blurry textures.

But ai is getting better, and we not only have "art" and something that tries to be a drawing/painting, but photos too.

A lot of those "photos" have a very specific texture and look to them! Again, it's not always the mistakes, but the very specific optic too. A lot of the images are oddly smooth, too rendered, with always blurry backgrounds. And when you look closer at the background you will see the mistakes! The crowd behind Jesus is a hot mess once you look closer. Bob Marley's hair has the same issue than I described before. Lincoln is surrounded by people with messed up hands and don't even get me started on the faces behind Caesar.

So a lot of ai images look alright on a first and quick glance, but as more time you spend with them, as more mistakes you will notice. The wehre is Waldo of ai horror.

And those "photos" shared here are still very obvious. Not just the mistakes and messed up details but the very specific aesthetic too.

Those images get better and better and as less details you have, as less mistakes you have!

With photos like this it becomes harder and harder. There are not many details and no hands. Not many mistakes can be made. Also the very obvious plastic looking smoothness isn't so much here anymore. It kinda still is...but differently. And always the blurry background!! Sometimes the hair is still a giveaway. Collars and clothe straps are also often still a giveaway upon close look. As is jewelry. Earrings will be different and necklaces often don't go all the way around, just end, or blend with the hair or clothes.

Often details on jewelry is also blurry and not shown properly. This is a trick with many details. With jewelry, batches, hair, ears, text. So it's often blurred out and not shown properly because ai doesn't know what to really show here.

It's often really just the small details and when we scroll down quickly we will miss them. Like the wedding ring on the middle finger, the pens on top of a closed pocket, the batches that are always blurry, messed up faces that blend with a blurry background.

And sometimes it's so subtle that I could only really tell that right is the ai image in comparison to the real photo on the left. The real photo shows hands clearly and even when things are blurred out it doesn't feel that it's done to hide things. The ai image on the right hides the hands. There is also a very dead look in the eyes :D

And here I could only tell because the text in the back doesn't make sense. Even blurred out we should be able to make out something here

And after seeing a lot of ai images I recognize the kind of blurred out bg in combination with a very smooth and well rendered foreground/characters.

And here the only giveaway is a closer look at the backgrounds as well

To summarize it:

Ai and fake news rely on a fast living world. We are being bombarded with tons of information and messages daily and we scroll past quickly. But the best tool, for now, in detecting ai is taking our time! Those images get better and better but so far there are still always some things off!! Especially in the background!

Hair. Often weirdly smoothed out and oddly sharp at the same time

Hair often blends with the ears or the clothes

Details are blurred out.

Jewelry doesn't match (example earrings). Details on metal often blurred out and never shown. Necklaces blend with hair or the clothes, and don't go around the neck.

Background is always blurred out.

In this blurred mess there are often hidden very messed up faces and/or hands.

A very specific smooth and yet too sharp/too rendered aesthetic combines with an always blurry bg.

Text, especialyl in the background, is not legible and doesn't make sense.

Backgrounds are often (so far) the dead giveaway. Somewhere in the back things become muddled and messed up. This shows also very well in ai decor/architecture. There will be odd lines that don't align or align too well. Curtain poles that end in the furniture, a plant that is behind a lamp suddenly having leaves in front of the lamp. As longer you look as more you will notice.

Conclusion:

Take your time with images! Sit with them! Especially when it's framed as important and political news. Is it ai and propaganda, or did it really happen? Don't fall for the quick buzz and outrage! Some things are obvious right away but with others you have to take your time. And it's time you have! If you are still unsure if a pic is real or not, do some research on top. Image reverse search. Can you find it anywhere else? Are other news outlets sharing it? Does the image/message make sense? For example there is now a deepfake of Bella Hadid voicing support for Israel. Ask yourself, does this make sense? If it feels out of line compared to previous behavior, do some research! Media literacy is not just as being able to recognize a fake or real right away, but being able to do research. To question things! Don't just take every post online for face value. Even when shared by a mutual you trust. They might have been tricked!

There are so many information online and it's great to have access to so information, but it's also difficult to wade through all of it. Media and truth are a weapon and it's being twisted and bend used to manipulate. Always has! But ai and so many people being able to post and share things, it becomes bigger and bigger and more dangerous. So don't just take everything that is handed to you and share it further no questions asked. Media literacy and being able to think for ourselves and do the research is important!! And as research becomes harder and harder, as sources are being messed up with ai and other fake news, it's even more important to sit with the images and study them. See the flaws, the mistakes. Compare it to other news and images.

This got long, and I started to ramble at the end. Sorry But I hope this helped

[tanked-up]

Price’s boys

[tomorrowusa]

Trump supporters are trying to blur Trump's racism by posting fake AI images of him being the object of adoration by African Americans.

One of the disseminators of such images is a white MAGA talk show host in Florida.

Unlike in 2016, when there was evidence of foreign influence campaigns, the AI-generated images found by the BBC appear to have been made and shared by US voters themselves. One of them was Mark Kaye and his team at a conservative radio show in Florida. They created an image of Mr Trump smiling with his arms around a group of black women at a party and shared it on Facebook, where Mr Kaye has more than one million followers. At first it looks real, but on closer inspection everyone's skin is a little too shiny and there are missing fingers on people's hands - some tell-tale signs of AI-created images. "I'm not a photojournalist," Mr Kaye tells me from his radio studio. "I'm not out there taking pictures of what's really happening. I'm a storyteller." He had posted an article about black voters supporting Mr Trump and attached this image to it, giving the impression that these people all support the former president's run for the White House. In the comments on Facebook, several users appeared to believe the AI image was real. "I'm not claiming it is accurate. I'm not saying, 'Hey, look, Donald Trump was at this party with all of these African American voters. Look how much they love him!'" he said. "If anybody's voting one way or another because of one photo they see on a Facebook page, that's a problem with that person, not with the post itself."

Basically, Mark Kaye is telling the BBC that he has the right to deceive people.

Another spreader of fake images is a Christian fundamentalist known as "Shaggy" in Michigan.

We tracked down the person behind the account called Shaggy, who is a committed Trump supporter living in Michigan.

"[My posts] have attracted thousands of wonderful kind-hearted Christian followers," he said in messages sent to the BBC on social media. When I tried to question him on the AI-generated image he blocked me. His post has had over 1.3 million views, according to the social media site X. Some users called it out, but others seemed to have believed the image was real.

FYI: This is "Shaggy". Is anybody shocked that the people spreading these fake images of blacks are old white MAGA zombies?

Apparently there are still people using oligarch Elon Musk's Twitter X. Don't expect Odious Elon to do anything about obvious attempts to deceive users.

Cliff Albright, the co-founder of campaign group Black Voters Matter, said there appeared to be a resurgence of disinformation tactics targeting the black community, as in the 2020 election. "There have been documented attempts to target disinformation to black communities again, especially younger black voters," he said.

If Trump supporters think that they have the right to spread bogus images, we then have the right to have some fun with them. 😋

[thingsilikealex99a]

The Marilyn Monroe Archives, indignation edition.

This is making the rounds again...

... and to add insult to injury, someone colorized it.

A Photoshop jockey combined a photo of Marilyn taken at a wardrobe fitting with a shot of burlesque star Dixie Evans. Everything from the neck down is Dixie.

That fake is out in the wind and people accept it as real... that's what annoys me.

(edit) Someone asked me for that colorized Marilyn pic without my pink FAKE across it. Not happening. I'm not about to help spread that.

[kinkajouwof]

GET AWAY FROM ME......BEAST WITH TEETH.............

[resolviendolaincognita]

This was generated by MidJourney AI.

Alpine lotus leaf flower

[nyenyel]

[Image description: a comic of Mabel from Gravity Falls. She looks sad at first, saying: "Whenever my crushes like me back it feels wrong."

Perking up, she says: "I guess I'm losing feelings! Time to choose a new crush!"

She looks through binoculars, and continues: "Which boy should I have a crush on? I want an epic summer romance!"

In the last panel, she's in front of the aromantic flag. She's staring blankly, saying: "What. What do you mean that's not how crushes work. What is comp-het?" End ID.]

I propose: Mabel is aromantic she just has comphet

[tanked-up]

Plot twist, he pushes him off

[ailurinae]

Not real. The location shown on the maps inset view does exist, though the "Glory's Enterprise Supermarket" is marked on google maps if you search for it, it has no reviews and no information - not surprising given that satellite view shows no buildings of any kind near there, supermarket, church or otherwise.

Furthermore, there is no Street View closer than ~28 miles to that location.

It's also notable that "Hope County" is not a county that exists in Montana: Unless you mean the alternate reality Montana portrayed in Far Cry 5

Hilariously and disturbingly, Montana tourism seems to have partnered with Ubisoft to promote tourism in southwest MT under that name.

What would that pitch even sound like? "Welcome to southwest Montana, just like in Far Cry 5. Except no religious fanatic anti-government cults, we promise"

Surely only good things are going on here (random street view drop - Montana)

[kidcooore]

⠀⠀⠀⠀ㅤ𔓘 ׄ      ִ    kidcooore's png ׄ    𓈒

[ultravhasart]

hyped for her new solo!

[hoofpeet]

Photo study :] 🐱🐟

[thefirstanomally]

If we could see the planets even half that well, we would be in extreme danger.

[godisarepublican]

[just-sfw-butts]

The second photo detail is more obvious. *The black outline from armpit to hip. Is that part of the lingerie? No. *The lingerie itself is so awkward, especially in comparison to the smoothness of image and lighting. *And the detailed texture of the couch. Weird. I'm no forensic photographer, but bleh, weird. If this were a retouched photo, or an illustration, it's such bad quality. But it's auto-generated a.i. stuff.

I try to avoid "magazine-style" photos. I try to be selective, if not consistent. I sift through content, though I try to limit my time. Anyhow, a difficulty has popped up of late. a.i. content. Looks kinda like photos, but still uncanny, and often with the hallmarks of fake photos. A messed up hand here and there. Other odd details. Generally, an unreal look, but not an illustration, not by a human.

So, I'm just saying please don't post it or reblog them. I'm not ordering anyone. It's just a request. It's weird, off-putting, and unnecessary. There's plenty of images to grab from... all over the damn place.

This is a plea, but not a beg.

If you agree, please consider posting about it.

Thank you for your consideration. We now return you to your irregularly scheduled butts.

So, no nudity, even, and posts are being required to have "sexually suggestive" tags. Okay, I get it on a technical level for some of them. Butt Jesus Fucking Christ.

[coleslawr02]

tw fake gun

chil doodles + wife from today