Found this on Facebook. Anesthesia for a almost full-body blackout tattoo? Wouldn’t it be unsafe to tattoo such a large area of the body in one session, even under anesthesia? Are there tattoo studios or clinics that offer this kind of procedure?

I’m wondering if this is AI-generated. The setup looks like a medical procedure rather than a typical tattoo session. Can anyone identify specific details in the image that might indicate AI generation?

There are apparently shadows for 3 steps but there's 4 of them, and they seem too far back to leave enough space for the shelves behind them. The scale and perspective everything doesn't quite match what you'd expect for that amount of space.

UPDATE:

Seems like it's mostly just lens distortion and a weird perspective.

OOP posted another photo (I added it as a comment on the post). I'm concluding it's real. Thanks to everyone who chimed in. Sorry to OOP for casting doubts on their project if they ever come across this.

I have seen paintings by elephants and monkeys, and they usually look like preschooler's drawing. This looks way too perfect to be painted by an animal, and the Malinois looks way to patient

Screenshot from Instagram. Nothing stuck out as AI to me except the yellow coloring. At first I thought it was just "vintage" looking, but now I'm concerned it's just the AI piss-yellow filter.

I do think the background looks like AI because it looks like a clear photo with blur over it. it doesn't fade to be blurrier the farther away things get. although for the people i can't 100% tell there's no obvious signs to me, but maybe it's a real picture that they just put an AI background on.

I just spent a minute trying​ to make my hand look like that, maybe it's possible and just weird. But the dog's head seems too evenly backlit when the woman's arm& shoulder are behind it.

The second dog's eyes might be too "imperfect" to be AI generated, but the front paws seem to sink too much into the rug? Also I'm not sure if the depth of field makes sense.

They're from accounts that are leaving "positive reviews" for a questionable dog breeder, different accounts but very similar messages (which I also suspect are AI generated).

This channel popped up on my feed since less than a week ago. They produce content that I like (what if-scenarios) but the speed they produce their content is really alarming. I have a good feeling they're AI but on the very off chance that they just stockpiled their videos before uploading or something, I don't wanna unsubscribe just yet

I need help with this, especially since the place tries to give off the vibe that it is a cozy upscale restaurant.

The video itself showed the process, but it was weird, like it only showed short clips of small areas of basic line art being done and no coloring or sketching, and even the line art parts had no sketch.

I spotted some natural inconsistencies (eyes are slightly apart and vary veeery slightly in height) but seeing as this is cropped to fit on the pin, I couldn’t really verify a specific artist either. My main issue specifically the random triangle-shaped carabiner on the lower left portion

INTRODUCTION:

Im an artist on instagram and follow and support small artists because they deserve their work to be seen!
HOWEVER I have a feeling that this artist is generating AI images, and then printing them to trace them over with pen. They have around 4K followers. (I covered their name and signature to protect their privacy)

I don’t want to support AI art, but at the same time I’m confused and I’m not sure if it is or not (that’s why I need your help).
I also wouldn’t want to stop supporting an artist thinking they use AI when they actually don’t.

WHAT MAKES ME THINK IT’S AI:

Image 1: as soon as I saw it, it really gave me AI vibes. The composition…idk, it looks AI-ish. The sign is super weird, and the confetti sometimes looks warped and weird. An artist would never choose to make them look like that in some specific spots.

Image 2: same drawing, zoomed on the sign. What the hell is that?? It looks like that standard AI font. Also the quality of the writing looks different from the parts in ink…as if they retraced the drawing with ink but then didn’t trace over the writing.

Image 3: The drawing feels like something AI would come up with, and also (idk if it’s something instagram does) but it literally says AI???

Image 4: Posted today and it’s what prompted me to make this post. I love and adore Jack Skellington and that is NOT how his bowtie looks. The rest is right, so I don’t feel like an artist would make the conscious choice of drawing it like that. I feel like the AI got confused and just gave him a normal tie, and a dress shirt(???) and then added the side-thingies to the jacket.

Image 5: this is a screenshot from a video they posted of them drawing with ink over what I think they’re passing out as a sketch…but if you look closely you can see it looks printed out. It has that halftone printing effect (yk, the dots)

Image 6: It again feels like AI…the texture is very weird.

I hate we even have to go through this…AI is taking away artist’s jobs and as an artist you really shouldn’t be using it…

If you could help me figure this out, I would be so grateful🫶

They say new episodes everyday which does tip me off. And yet I also do not want to believe it since the content is good unlike some AI pages (AHEM THAT STUPID FRUIT REALITY TV ONE).

If they do use AI, I would unfollow them because I am very anti-AI.

Link to Page: howtheysayit

My reasoning for doubting that they are real is the speed at which they are putting out content, they have been uploading daily and I thought maybe it was just because they have a profile somewhere else and is now uploading to TikTok, but I don’t see any other accounts or anyone talking about it. My main concern is the speed at which this person is uploading these.

There are some things that seem human-made, more like a collage but the background and the table, as well as the title crest and some other bits look fully AI generated

If you zoom in on the mountains you can see that the AI confused them with clouds and gave them a structure that no sane human would, the details are very rendered but lacking any sort of form or fundamentals, it is just so weird. The whole thing just has that AI feel that gives me the creeps.

I have a hard time believing anyone created this fully by hand

What do you think?

i'm not sure if new parents would take photos like these for a meme or if its ai. a lot of baby memes tend to be ai

Ive been looking for a 100% cotton blanket with a nice design and stumbled upon these! However i searched up the company on reddit and they do have a few AI claims from redditors but it was with items from 2 years ago with comment follow ups saying the AI listings dont exist anymore, if anyone has a sharp eye please let me know! I love the waterfall nymphs blanket but if it is indeed AI i will not be purchasing.(Also if you know a place that sells 100% cotton blankets with a beautiful design i would also love to know)

I got this video recommended to me, and while I haven't examined the script, I'm more questioning the animation. I feel this is kind of unique to identify, as rather than identifying direct AI output, you have to detect the output of some code or project written by an AI model.

The reasons I suspect it's AI is because:

Models beyond those that are likely sourced from the internet, they're made of extremely primitive shapes, which AI tends to do if you ask it to make something in 3D via code.

Text elements and other designs seem very similar to those I've seen from AI generated websites (eg. 0:17, 0:49)

There are some glaring animation errors I don't think any human would ever make without picking up on. Look at the school buses at 0:40, or how the walls clip with the windows at 0:20.

The voice seems to be an AI text to speech voice aswell, which is definitely not a good sign.

This is an official video posted by Riley Green featuring Payton Manning.

The short clips, repeated shots, fuzziness, facial expressions, background character movement, the list goes on. There's something off about the entire thing.

I could also take this a step further and make an argument that the song is AI generated too...

OK the style of this looks so totally AI, especially the episode with the dog. But if it is, I'm appalled. This is on the baby first channel. They make tons of shows. (You can see the dog at the very end)

Some things seem to kinda casually disappear, things are overly textured (like the dog), the announcer says they're painting but they're coloring with crayons, etc.

The video pauses midway bc I took my headphones out but I recorded the whole thing from YouTube.

Disclaimer: My kids don't watch this channel anymore, but did when they were little, back when it had a lot of live action cute stuff and lullaby programing overnight.

Pretty much what the title says. I feel inclined to believe this isn’t AI but the feet look a bit distorted and there is a weird looking lump under the towel.

Update: Thanks to many helpful people, I've found that this is AI. They actually asked to meet at a nearby Walgreens; they never showed up and shortly after texted me, "I take 200 for the bird."

I've been searching for my boy all day; I've put out seeds and budgie noises, but I haven't found him yet. For now I can only hope that he'll come back.

Trump recently shared a before-and-after photograph of a supposedly restored White House column, and several details caught my attention.

I'm questioning whether the "after" photograph has been digitally manipulated, potentially using AI.

Here's what I've noticed:

1. The staircase appears to have gained extra steps.

In the before image, approximately three steps are visible to the right of the column. In the after image, there appear to be six or more. I've compared this against independent photographs of the White House North Portico, which show shorter stair sections in certain locations. Construction equipment obscures some steps in the before image, but I haven't been able to establish whether the additional steps in the after image match the actual architecture.

1. The column's shadow appears unchanged.

Despite the apparent differences between the photographs, the shadow cast by the column looks remarkably similar in shape, position and intensity.

1. The camera angle appears virtually identical.

The column, windows, staircase and background architectural details align almost perfectly. This could indicate a fixed camera position, but it could also suggest that the after image was created by editing the original photograph.

1. Even the reflections in the windows appear unchanged.

The reflections and darker patterns in the windowpanes look remarkably similar between the two images. If these photographs were taken at different stages of a restoration project, it's worth asking why so many small background details appear unchanged.

1. The protective flooring also looks nearly identical.

The cardboard, tape, printed lettering and markings around the base of the column appear in almost exactly the same positions.

To be clear, the restoration itself is documented, and none of these observations individually proves manipulation. Similar lighting, a stationary camera and construction materials could explain several of them.

What I'm questioning is whether the "after" photograph is an authentic, independently captured image or whether the original was digitally altered to produce the comparison.

I've searched historical photographs and architectural documentation, but the exact column and staircase haven't been conclusively matched.

Does anyone with experience in image forensics, architectural photography or the White House's layout see anything unusual here?

I'd particularly appreciate independent photographs establishing the exact number of steps beside this column.

Original Trump post:

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/117443148049952515

White House architectural documentation (Library of Congress):

https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/dc0402/

Independent restoration photographs and historical records:

https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/photograph-records/71-583