• merc@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        42
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        I’ll be honest, the real pictures would fool me. The era where you could tell by the number of fingers or toes is gone, apparently. She does seem to change military branches a bit too often to be realistic. And, her colleagues seem a bit too unbothered by someone taking a picture of her with her shoes and socks off and feet up on a desk in an apparent military setting. But there aren’t any pictures I glance at and think “oh, that’s obviously AI”.

        • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          2 months ago

          My only immediate reaction would be “The fuck is that badge thing” followed by “why is the car British and why are there plate carriers strapped to the seats”. But otherwise I would initially think it’s just low quality slop, especially after the IDF thirst trap propaganda trend.

          • merc@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            I don’t know what modern military wear is. The badge thing seems strange, but I don’t know if it’s wrong. I can imagine putting plate carriers on the seats to dry them out if it has been hot and sweaty, but I don’t know if that’s actually common. As for the car, I would guess there are places where they might use what’s available locally, and who knows what that would be.

            You have to admit that it’s at least high-quality slop. No extra hands, no extra toes or fingers. No text that is obviously slop.

            • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 months ago

              High quality? Yes. Good under scrutiny? Absolutely fucking not.

              Just to further my the points I made. The badge is stupid and indistinct also why the fuck would they be wearing it in fatigues. The plate carriers are strapped to the seats in a way I’m not even sure would be possible for their size. And the car is a fucking mess of random design elements and even eras, this one is hard to put into words but the interior has bits taken from GM cars, Land Rovers, and even some Toyota elements, also the vents are all fucked.

              Point is that you can easily rip this image apart if you just look for things that just don’t make sense. Hell the plate carriers alone being strapped that tightly to the seats are fucking weird.

              • merc@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                2 months ago

                if you just look for things that just don’t make sense.

                Do we have to do that with every image we see now? I would bet that a real image also has a lot of things that don’t make sense. I feel sorry for people who genuinely have 6 fingers. It’s rare, but it happens.

                • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  No not really, most of the AI slop out there is still obviously flawed in some ways that are obvious. Liquids, consistent backgrounds, and general weirdness can all be solid signs but none of these things are individually signs of AI. Honestly the best way to pick it out isn’t any individual but of weirdness but compounding weirdness, this image for example has the plate carriers, no door handle on the car, the interior having multiple manufacturers design elements, the stupid badge, and that I can’t define what’s going on in the background. Any one of these could just be weird but together is a general tell tale of AI.

        • nymnympseudonym@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          24
          ·
          2 months ago

          Reminds me of people who proclaim AI can’t code for shit.

          I wonder if they’ve used Claude or Codex in the last ~3 months.

          • d15d@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            2 months ago

            I have and while it seems to be doing a decent job at things I’m bad at it is far from usable for the things i’m actually good at

            • flying_sheep@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              17
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              Which is often a sign for something not being good at anything, only you not being good at assessing something you don’t have expertise in.

              See also: journalism about events you’ve actually participated in.

            • nymnympseudonym@piefed.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              12
              ·
              2 months ago

              Yes exactly. At least for now, use the AI for things you are not expert at.

              I suck at graphic design so I get nanobanana to do that for me.

              For simple bugs or creating testcases or easy to describe new features, Codex does it because it does a good job 85%+ of the time saving me a lot.

              For really complex race conditions or vast complex enterprise applications… I’m literally an expert at debugging, a minority of human practitioners are better than me. Ofc I do that myself.

          • Flamekebab@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            Whilst I’ve not used those tools, I’ve used their competitors and they constantly hallucinate methods, parameters, and write pointless unit tests (as in mock a return value and then test for that return value).

      • djdarren@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 months ago

        Nothing says “serious journalism” like that article censoring the term “foot fetish”.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      Strictly speaking, AI images violate OnlyFans terms of service.

      But otherwise, sure. Who was actually harmed here? If she’d been real, would this have been better somehow?

  • dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    2 months ago

    They must be the easiest people to scam

    Seeing as how they got scammed into voting into :: waves hands at everything :: this, yeah. 100%, without a doubt, we have a huge voting block that are also marks for grift after nationalism-flavored grift.

    Joking aside, if we want long-term solutions, we absolutely must get to the bottom of how that keeps happening.

  • ceoofanarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    2 months ago

    Yep militaristic propaganda using “sexy” women is widespread and disgusting from the US to Israel though they usually manage not to use such obvious ai.

  • mfed1122@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Incredibly surprising that the AI did the feet better than the tits

    Nevermind the photo in the OP is altered to look more fake. Most reliable X post

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    What the hell is that on her chest? That should have been a dead giveaway but Magats be Magats. Sex is baaaaaad and siiiinnn, but we happily pay money to AI OnlyFans accounts!

  • DaddleDew@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Everyone understandably points out the 3 boobs, but the patches and insignas on the t-shirt is laughable too.

    • jontree255@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      There’s another picture of her where she’s wearing a skirt and stockings with her feet up on the desk while everyone else (including another female service member) in the room is wearing fatigues. Just consistently out of place.

    • NotANumber@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      This was edited to make MAGA seem dumber. The original from the article about this has only two tits and is more realistic.

  • Komodo Rodeo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    2 months ago

    MAGA families dealing with the consequences of having an unstable imbecile for a patriarch/matriarch

    senior citizen financial stability disintegration SFX

  • jtrek@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    2 months ago

    If they were smart they wouldn’t be maga. Because they are maga, you can infer they are stupid. Poor reasoning skills. Poor emotional regulation.

    • NotANumber@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      This was edited to make MAGA seem dumber. The original from the article about this has only two tits and is more realistic.

      I think most people would be fooled if they saw the original and not this edited version.