Okay, but the text on the ketchup bottle reads: “LOVE [corrupted Hebrew]”.
So at least the shirt design is extremely suspect, and the shirt having obvious generation artifacts seems like something a real person would notice and maybe not wear.
Interesting. What confuses me is 1) why JPEG artifacting would bastardize the word “JUICE” but leave “LOVE” totally legible and 2) why the star pattern is different on her t-shirt (i.e. there are way more and way darker). But the rest of the image even down to the grass pattern checks out. Odd.
I hate the AI conspiracy brained. Every image is generated to people like you, and it has to be proven otherwise, and even that isn’t enough. How would a generative model create this shirt so accurately, but then mess something up like just the pattern of the stars? If it were generated, there would be so many differences. It’s obviously not, but it is likely upscale or “enhanced”.
Sure, we should call out AI slop, but we can also be reasonable and stop. We don’t have to keep digging once it’s all figured out.
Nah. It’s definitely AI. 1: the text on the ketchup bottle 2: the hand holding (one is holding the others nub) 3: the mustard on the dog is wrong. Art is intentional, an artist would not have done these things. (I’m a pro)
Scroll down on the above site to solve the star conundrum. (There are multiple styles of the image to choose from.)
There may be multiple levels of AI involved. The original design may have been stolen from the site and had the original watermark removed with AI. When it was enhanced by the camera, the original corrections to the image caused the enhancement to become distorted. (As what happens when an image is ran through AI multiple times. Who knows how many times images on the interwebs now have been processed multiple times? It’s the modern version of a picture getting “jpeg’d” into oblivion.)
Or, the only thing AI in the picture from OP is the design with the watermark removed and placed on the shirt itself. That could cause the distortion and also pass AI detection tests if done correctly.
My final guess is also my first. It’s just simply broken photo enhancement. A picture like that would still have a dark foreground, even with a flash, due to the stage lighting in the background. (What I am saying is there is a high probability of an AI corrected picture that originally had a long exposure time. That is absolutely a condition that needs photo correction.)
tl:dr: the photo was originally too dark and “juice” was slopped-in by default.
The mustard pattern is the same in the source image I found and in a million other shirts that you can buy online. The original design may be AI generated, but anyone can get the shirt with that same pattern. It’s just the letters that look wonky.
IMHO, it’s not enough to say the entire image is AI.
Fuck me, I completely forgot about that. You can just highlight a portion of a real picture and input whatever the fuck. I was scanning the background, but it was all pristine because I bet it’s real.
Okay, but the text on the ketchup bottle reads: “LOVE [corrupted Hebrew]”.
So at least the shirt design is extremely suspect, and the shirt having obvious generation artifacts seems like something a real person would notice and maybe not wear.
https://svgmilo.com/products/i-squirt-on-png-juicy-wieners
Think I found a source.
Interesting. What confuses me is 1) why JPEG artifacting would bastardize the word “JUICE” but leave “LOVE” totally legible and 2) why the star pattern is different on her t-shirt (i.e. there are way more and way darker). But the rest of the image even down to the grass pattern checks out. Odd.
I hate the AI conspiracy brained. Every image is generated to people like you, and it has to be proven otherwise, and even that isn’t enough. How would a generative model create this shirt so accurately, but then mess something up like just the pattern of the stars? If it were generated, there would be so many differences. It’s obviously not, but it is likely upscale or “enhanced”.
Sure, we should call out AI slop, but we can also be reasonable and stop. We don’t have to keep digging once it’s all figured out.
Nah. It’s definitely AI. 1: the text on the ketchup bottle 2: the hand holding (one is holding the others nub) 3: the mustard on the dog is wrong. Art is intentional, an artist would not have done these things. (I’m a pro)
She’s got 1 rolled up short leg and the other is cut off, but they are the same length. Now I’m suspicious of the entire image.
Scroll down on the above site to solve the star conundrum. (There are multiple styles of the image to choose from.)
There may be multiple levels of AI involved. The original design may have been stolen from the site and had the original watermark removed with AI. When it was enhanced by the camera, the original corrections to the image caused the enhancement to become distorted. (As what happens when an image is ran through AI multiple times. Who knows how many times images on the interwebs now have been processed multiple times? It’s the modern version of a picture getting “jpeg’d” into oblivion.)
Or, the only thing AI in the picture from OP is the design with the watermark removed and placed on the shirt itself. That could cause the distortion and also pass AI detection tests if done correctly.
My final guess is also my first. It’s just simply broken photo enhancement. A picture like that would still have a dark foreground, even with a flash, due to the stage lighting in the background. (What I am saying is there is a high probability of an AI corrected picture that originally had a long exposure time. That is absolutely a condition that needs photo correction.)
tl:dr: the photo was originally too dark and “juice” was slopped-in by default.
It’s not just the letters in the image. The mustard pattern on the hotdog also doesn’t make sense. It’s AI.
The mustard pattern is the same in the source image I found and in a million other shirts that you can buy online. The original design may be AI generated, but anyone can get the shirt with that same pattern. It’s just the letters that look wonky.
IMHO, it’s not enough to say the entire image is AI.
Yeah or she might have just purchased a shirt that was funny that was one of millions on Amazon made with AI
But yeah if they altered the pic that’s super fucked up
Fuck me, I completely forgot about that. You can just highlight a portion of a real picture and input whatever the fuck. I was scanning the background, but it was all pristine because I bet it’s real.
This is the world we live in.
“Pics or it didn’t happen” has now become “Those pics may not have happened”.
Nothing and everything is real and fake. Can’t trust reality.
I wouldn’t worry too much about reality. It’s other people’s accounts and representation of it that you should be even more wary about.
It may be fake, but is it also gay? You can never tell anymore.