• Thomas Douwes@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    2 days ago

    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

    • gerryflap@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      23 hours ago

      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.

      • Tower@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        20 hours ago

        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.