I sourced this video the last time it was posted (youtube.com/watch?v=uKG12L7sP5c), and yet again I have to point out that regardless of your rationalizations: It's not a foster, not a stray, this is the actual mother, and the actual kitten of said mother. This channel posted even the birth of this kitten, but has questionable social media-editing, and questionable ability to take care of cats. -- watch?v=kvpYCO3z7sI - Here is its birth.
Earliest post on their IG is: https://www.instagram.com/listpull/reel/C3N09kGOsku/ -- which, again, is a typical AI-looking owl. I don't think people keep in mind that not all publicly available, or most known, AI is the same as what's been available to certain people/companies. I doubt you can claim "it wasn't that advanced back then". We are looking at a compressed, low-res video for this likely-AI cat on imgur, and here is AI-hype back in January, 2024: watch?v=lxAkt89WQtg
I sifted through, read some posts, and finally found what I suppose is the source: https://www.instagram.com/ederxavier3d/reel/DTaNGPkEYBd/
With the power of hindsight I still don't quite accept some of the rationalisations and exaggerations done by some users here, but I will point out that in frame by frame observations that the bird kind of just transforms into a profile of a fish, then a completely different kind of bird before leaving the frame. The cat's left hind paw didn't touch the snow to create that lower-left pattern of the hole, as it was folding inwards and stayed right under the cat. That's all I got.
It also just doesn't have to be either/or, since photoshop still exists, for sure, but AI requires little to no skill, whereas photoshop (when thinking in the large scale of things in terms of accessibility (money, piracy) and effort) is comparably more of an obstacle for today's social media ecosystems. I don't know what PS is like nowadays though, so I can't with certainty say just how much skill a person needs to produce images that look AI-generated.
I can't speak for that person, I just look at the tiniest details, and contextualize what I can. In the case of this candelabrum/menorah it's a manner of how it's manufactured, and that it would be very strange for the time-period they existed in to hold up a menorah that just has a hodgepodge of swirls and lines, all while crafting these things take a lot of time and effort, and so it stands to reason that it's a very thorough process. Shopping I think arguably would've made a nicer menorah.
On FB the same user posted two versions, with one having the very obvious doubled layers of Gemini's watermark to show it was generated using Google's AI.
Well, he's not wrong. He didn't point to any specifics in the photo, but made a solid argument; Historical photos should be very easy to source. Also, while AI-detection tools aren't all that accurate either, what's left is some minutia, and rationale now that AI has gotten out of hand: The foot of the candle has only pseudo-consistent patterns, and sources for the images are limited to quite exactly just some facebook post, and this imgur post.
If that isn't enough, well here's the same post, with one more comment, using imgur's new design, just in case of small errors stemming from using two different designs:
I just want to show the replies that existed at the time of this comment, and then you judge for yourself what could possibly have triggered this obviously-not-easily-triggered-by-anything-person:
Well, that, and how the intensely beige infrastructure, and "pallets", just subtly restructures throughout the ordeal, and how the gate connects on the right, and how that part of that corner connecting to the gate also has a kind of concrete skin-tag that just drops out of existence without a trace.
#5, #6, obvious AI, frame by frame comparison (#5 cardboard pattern near edge changes between swings before toy falls down. #6: why would the black spots bubble? also, toy details). Low quality makes for diffuse findings. #11 is an example of details in compression weirdly melding into greater detail. #12's toy wing's round surface has a tilt behaving differently between AI clips. #13 on the right a lot of dots should already be visible before moving body & legs, but only appear in frames after.
I'm here to say you-know-what. See those still images? Correct. Yes you can see it with your own two eyes. You can do it, I believe in you.
Adding two things for presuming credibility and honesty, and if this is an impersonator, or the actual person in this case: (1). Some images provided here cannot be found easily elsewhere, and features x-amount similarities. This could mean it's the actual person uploading their own unique set of images from their phone. (2). In the case of motivation and consistency, an impersonator can just steal images and ideas, and pretend to be OP, because OP has shared a lot of information over the years.
I thought so too, but this cosplayer in particular was used only as another example in this post: /gallery/BUKvcXU
One accusation later, and one 'tism-activation later (sorry): I have sifted through all I can find. I've looked at, and listened to all I found. I'm unable to corroborate the whole list of names that donorkort put together. My best estimate: DarkRatLord3000 on their accounts across social media platforms over the years come across as genuine, and consistent. I can connect a few names and accounts, but that's all I can do. I cannot explain OP's situation in detail better than what OP can.
While I can't find enough to string together something conclusive, I did find a snapshot for "cantw82d1e" on the WBM. The snapshot couldn't show a fuller userpage, so no info on when the account was made. It's an interesting list of names, and I'm baffled the Wayback Machine picked up one of them. "LitigousGoose" is already what DarkRatLord3000 use for their CashApp, but since that user/name can't specifically be found on imgur I would say this is a coincidence (at worst, manufactured by you).
I sourced this video the last time it was posted (youtube.com/watch?v=uKG12L7sP5c), and yet again I have to point out that regardless of your rationalizations: It's not a foster, not a stray, this is the actual mother, and the actual kitten of said mother. This channel posted even the birth of this kitten, but has questionable social media-editing, and questionable ability to take care of cats. -- watch?v=kvpYCO3z7sI - Here is its birth.
I agree, I had some back and forth with two other users. I could only source the video specifically, which led to a rabbit hole for the company in particular, which combined with a lack of other sources affected what I felt probable. After the shutterstock footage was shared I said roughly the same thing that you did.
After WouldYouNot could show shutterstock footage of this exactly (which differs from where this video specifically is sourced), I could for a second round see all details better, making more sense, and in a wider shot. My sleuthing could only answer for this video specifically. Getting the shutterstock footage did show what for the AI zeitgeist is either the source, which later got processed and cut, or what was trained on. I find it now more likely to have been processed, than overtly AI.
I find it compelling, but I find it curious that's how you choose to operate with this being the last priority of yours. On more obvious examples in the past (i.e. shark video I commented on), I could at least find the videos that the AI was trained on. So, with said bias, I still find this example of yours to seemingly be real footage, while what we get on imgur is the low-res that looks more like it's been processed and cut, over being overtly AI.
I've seen your rationalizations alongside Ree81, but if you cannot source this video any better than I can, I just have no reason to believe you.
Again: https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/198wb1k/look_how_far_aigenerated_video_has_come_tell_any/ -- January, 2024
Earliest post on their IG is: https://www.instagram.com/listpull/reel/C3N09kGOsku/ -- which, again, is a typical AI-looking owl. I don't think people keep in mind that not all publicly available, or most known, AI is the same as what's been available to certain people/companies. I doubt you can claim "it wasn't that advanced back then". We are looking at a compressed, low-res video for this likely-AI cat on imgur, and here is AI-hype back in January, 2024: watch?v=lxAkt89WQtg
Looked into the company, read the articles about it as well. I find it very strange for a company like that to pump out this type of footage, only starting in 2024, and has no obvious employees beyond Jeremiah "Jay" Monga, the founder, who has no experience at all in nature photography. I could also see that a lot of articles about them share an author: Ryan Offman. One article tried to claim it was from "2 years ago"/2023, but Internet Archive says different.
(2). Plants in the background. Most AI don't have the same object permanence us humans do, and it changes things in the background if even slightly. By the end, this weird round head of "lettuce" just gets stretched, and the "bamboo" just has a strong yellow dot by its yellow rings disappear entirely. Also, what environment just has both these things present? I also don't understand the change in eye-size & shape of the snout. Also, see image:
I always browse on PC, so even for low-resolution videos, I see more things. The AI zeitgeist comes with a cognitive bias, which doesn't always produce helpful advice, such as: "you can just tell". I'll demonstrate, with albeit few details that I can see on a bigger screen: (1). Spots on the leg. Shouldn't -drastically- change in size, and -should- be consistent despite blur. Another issue is that the video is low-res, which helps disguising flaws.
Sourcing this image sent me into diving into all sorts of articles, from one to another.... In short: This is AI. It was generated by a Florida-based company, "ListPull". I looked up the founder, Jeremiah "Jay" Monga, who has literally no experience whatsoever in nature photography. All the websites, and their related social medias, as well as articles about the company, has a lot of copy-pasted broad wording about what they actually do as a company. Between the lines, it's all tech-bro stuff.
Because the framing for this image is AI, I'll also have to unusually suggest another simple explanation: could just be the middle stitching of whatever leggings, yoga pants, sports tights, and the person wearing them could just have been larger/bigger in general.
welp, as much as I point out AI, rarely do I come across crotch splotches that end up in the AI zeitgeist - Not obvious to me: https://www.tiktok.com/@mellow_fade/video/7527713363111988511 - Couldn't find images/videos of this before July 16, so this is the best source I could find. I don't understand the surrounding smudge. Pressing/rolling some other wet ball/object with a middle edge/rim like that is one explanation, I guess. Smudge could be an 'erased' first try?