It’s very important to check your seals.
Who gone and put the whole freaking ocean in that little guy’s eyes!? 😍
I wanna hug this sea puppy so bad.
Alright, thar cute little guy will forever be known as Chocolate Chip.
My heart.
I can already seal what’s wrong with this little guy.
Not to worry, he’ll soon be pup and at 'em!
Water you dudes talkin bout
AI slop
A reverse image search brought me exact results from as early as 2013, which is long before A.I. was creating images like this. I agree that something looks off about the image, and it’s definitely enhanced in some way, but I don’t believe it to be A.I. generated.
The enhancement you describe I believe is image compression artifacts
I believe you’re right. The image itself is pretty low quality, at least on my end, and I think that adds to the confusion.
I agree that something looks off about the image, and it’s definitely enhanced in some way,
But it isn’t. That’s what is completely baffling about these accusations. They’re often made from a misunderstanding of the source material and an assumption that it must then be edited in some regard.
It isn’t touched up. This is just a flat image of a baby seal. Seal skin has a weird quality to it that makes it look slightly blurry and incredibly soft. I would know considering they sell seal pelts at the grocery store here where I’m from. Combine that with a touch of motion blur from the seal moving and at first look it might look odd but taking a closer look that disappears. Even the eyes one might go “Bit cartoony” but then you zoom in and realize the blue is reflection from the scrubs everyone has around them.
This is simply just a picture. No editing was done. I weep for humanity when we’re incapable of saying “I don’t know” or “I wonder why” and just default to “it is definitely enhanced”.
I am not saying you specifically edited the image, but there may have been some brightening or color contrast adjustment at some point, which is what I meant when I said “enhanced”. At the very least there may be some image compression from the many times the same image has been shared since 2013… In which case I suppose that would be “dehanced”.
Not that there anything wrong with editing or “enhancing” images. All professional photographers do it in one way or another, and it has been practiced since the early days of photography.
I think it is important for people develop critical thinking skills in order to differentiate between A.I. and non-A.I. images. Far too often I have seen people believing the most absurd things are real. There is nothing wrong with people calling it out when they see something that doesn’t look or feel right— even if, as is the case here, we are wrong in our assumptions.
This is how we learn.
People calling everything AI is honestly as concerning to me as the actual AI stuff. We’ve muddied the waters so badly. Denial of real life events is going to go hog wild now because it’s becoming reasonable to be suspicious of all photos and it’s getting quite difficult to tell what a fake is
I agree to an extent but this is obviously not AI and nothing about it even says as much except for maybe a bit of motion blur.
I post a lot. I regularly get these comments accusing a post of mine of being AI.
None of them have been correct.
It’s gotten to the point for me that if I see someone accusing something of being AI without solid reasoning that they’re pointing to? Well I just think they’re completely incapable of critical thought. So far I’ve been right.
Not even remotely.
You’re AI slop. AI told me so.
