My first thought was that it looked like something AI would generate, but it’s all too coherent on a closer examination. Distinctly bound pages in the book, shelves that appear to converge to the same vanishing point, consistent scale, etc. Hopefully those things stay reliable identifiers…
I did read the article. I don’t doubt that it’s a real photo, we are in a factual history sub after all. I was just trying to say that the surreal nature of the photo makes it look AI generated at first glance, but with closer inspection, it’s clearly not.
Not every photo has an article attached to it detailing it’s authenticity, so it’s important we remain able to pick out AI generated fakes.
kind of image we are getting accustomed to identify as AI
It’s very sad that genuine articles like this will face increased scrutiny going forward.
My first thought was that it looked like something AI would generate, but it’s all too coherent on a closer examination. Distinctly bound pages in the book, shelves that appear to converge to the same vanishing point, consistent scale, etc. Hopefully those things stay reliable identifiers…
Read the article
You’re not my dad
I did read the article. I don’t doubt that it’s a real photo, we are in a factual history sub after all. I was just trying to say that the surreal nature of the photo makes it look AI generated at first glance, but with closer inspection, it’s clearly not.
Not every photo has an article attached to it detailing it’s authenticity, so it’s important we remain able to pick out AI generated fakes.
Read the comment without the chip on your shoulder.