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.
Comment on Administrative task management
thomasdouwes@sopuli.xyz 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 1 day ago
Tower@lemmy.zip 1 day 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.
ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org 1 day ago
In the 90s, March did start with a Monday in '93 and '99. But it’s unlikely you’d see TV static behind an error dialog window.
ulterno@programming.dev 1 day ago
The weird hair colour could just be unnatural lighting.
Most other things could be chalked up to JPEG (although the calendar numbering seems like a stretch - I have never seen jpeg make a ‘3’ look like a ‘1’ in that specific way).
What gave me the highest suspicion was the jeans. The stitched parts (mainly the zip part) doesn’t look like real stitching, but like painted plastic. So unless there is some product that is actually plastic pants, printed with a jeans texture, that’s not a real picture.
And once you know it is AI, it explains the background.