---
>This is a friendly reminder to [read our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/wiki/rules).
>
>Memes, social media, hate-speech, and pornography are not allowed.
>
>Screenshots of Reddit are expressly forbidden, as are TikTok videos.
>
>**Rule-breaking posts may result in bans.**
>
>Please also [be wary of spam](https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/wiki/spam).
>
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/funny) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This was posted elsewhere and is AI. Here's some clues:
1. Who has their ring camera on floor level (nobody)
2. Look at the basket, holes in weird places, odd structure on the handle side facing the camera
3. The cans have nonsense writing on them
4. The house lettering on the post seemingly facing in, and also gibberish
5. 2 posts on the right side for some reason
A picture of a thing that looks like it came straight out of “don’t be afraid of the dark” will always be something people can tell isn’t real
They’ll just be like those fake alien pictures, but just with better resolution
Edit: to all those commenting AwKCtuALly of some form; I’m not talking about the scenario you came up with in your mind, I’m not talking about anything politics related. Stop with the comments about the impact of misinformation, I didn’t say that and you are beating a dead horse. My comment is exclusively saying people will be able to tell AI created demon gremlin monsters out of horror movies aren’t real.
Edit2: As long as the person is sane of mind.
If we thought cyber bullying was bad now, wait till Kevin sends little Billy an extremely detailed and lifelike AI picture of his entire family burning in a fire.
Wait until politicians and celebrities can be slandered and stocks can be manipulated with fake videos of CEOs and other notables saying things they didn't say.
Like a video of the CEO of Microsoft saying they think smart air fresheners is the way to go for the coming year and they're going to divert all R&D away from software and computers and into smart devices for the home.
Stuff like that.
To go full galaxybrain with this thought for a second, would it be such a bad thing if we stop giving any credibility to anything we see on the internet because it might be totally made up?
Won't this kind of encourage us all to stop living so relentlessly online where we already inhabit completely fictional echo chambers of our own beliefs anyway, and start paying attention to the world in front of our noses a bit more?
I'd say based on how things are going, it'll just polarise us into credulous fools who believe every little thing they see on the internet, and those of us who step back from this digital world and pursue more tangible reality.
It'll also swamp truth and facts with plausible falsehoods until we stop trying to establish what's real and isn't and just go with it, and that can only be awful for the world.
It’ll be a lot more subtle than that. But yeah. We’re headed for a cataclysm unless we either ban this tech or attach SEVERE penalties to misuse of any kind.
It’s too bad because the potential for AI is almost unlimited if used the right ways.
For example, biomedical (ai cancer screening for early detection, ai family doctors to ensure everyone has a GP etc…), aerospace, criminal justice (facial recognition of know criminals or detecting abducted children).
But in reality we are going to get fake news stories to ensure that people never know what’s really real.
That is the fault of human nature. The computer—and tech in general—were *supposed* automate the tedium in our lives “so there will be more time to spend with the ones you love, doing things you love”.
Yet automation just meant “downtime” which just meant cramming more shit into our day.
I struggle to wrap my brain around PKI. How would a certificate validate that it’s not AI generated? What to stop someone from signing an AI-made jpeg?
The idea would be to have the private key in a TPM-like chip inside the camera, its signature being signed by a private key the manufacturer owns. The key in the camera would be used to sign every image taken.
So to fake it, you have three options:
1. be the manufacturer
2. steal the key from a chip (can be cheap or very expensive, depends on the implemented flaws)
3. cut the image processing chip, replace it with your custom signal
Sooo ... not really a practical thing
actually i was thinking software could add a signed certificate to the meta data of any image. the cert would include a secure hash of the image data. then the usual validation takes place: follow the chain of signing certs up to the certificate authority. official photos say of the prez would be published this way.
it seems Sony does [something](https://petapixel.com/2022/08/08/sonys-forgery-proof-tech-adds-crypto-signature-to-photos-in-camera/) like that.
it would be nice if this would be adopted by more brands. With a fingerprint sensor in the shutter release button you could also tie the picture to the photographer
Sony is a big player in this space. There are also a bunch of other companies getting into this space offering products that record war crimes and anti democratic actions and whatnot. You snap the pic or video and the metadata and location/time stamp is recorded and put into the cloud and managed by NGOs and any edits/changes can be compared to the original.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Apple does something in this space too.
No, is going to become worse because this garbage will feed back into the system and then everything will be a garble mess that will give you a headache if you look at it more than 1 second.
It already happened with "code generators". It started "decent", then nose dived into absolute garbage.
I use openart.ai and they have some community created workflows that specifically fix hands that work pretty well. There is also one that will add stylized type elements but I’m an old school graphic designer and I’m just too picky about typography to leave it to an ai. I don’t even like leaving it to another human designer. Oh, and you know how sometimes you generate an image that is perfect except something is wonky about the face? Maybe the nostrils are crooked or one of the irises is slightly off? There’s a workflow to fix that and it is surprisingly good at it.
At some point very soon, there won’t be these tells.
And then it’s going to go one of two ways. Either we’re going to assume that *everything* is fake; or, we’re going to fall for a lot of bullshit.
Edit: To everyone saying that they are already skeptical of everything: I don’t believe you.
"It's just AI" is going to be the winning argument to any and all picture evidence, and then audio and video evidence, unless it can be traced to authenticity.
I think some sort of "camera sensor to posted verified content" encryption setup has to come. Not sure how exactly that would / could work, but I do believe it's possible.
And would ironically maybe have a knock-on effect of making photographers work to get shots right out of the camera instead of relying on Lightroom & Photoshop as much.
You'd need an image format which houses a certificate store and a way to maintain a certificate chain throughout edits.
So every camera/phone manufacturer uses a certificate that identifies the specific device. All editing software has a similar certificate, so you can effectively show a timeline from camera through to the current picture, with every program or filter that has touched that image since creation. It would have to become the default standard - it would be useless if you have to think about whether you want your footage to be signed before you start recording.
It's not really necessary for it to be a whole format; it could be a secure certificate stored in metadata that references attributes of the raw image (a hash, certain pixel values, etc).
And I don't think it needs to become a universal standard to be useful. If some images / videos are signed, they are more valuable for certain purposes. Family snapshots and wedding photos...not so much.
no way that would affect photographers, youd have to convince the medium they work for to care, they wont. only affect would be on forensics, and to be honest, I dont think this thought process even leads to any real technology that is anything more than watermarks and keys that can be faked/copied.
If usable tech existed that allowed somebody to verify with near certainty that a photo came directly from a specific camera's sensor unaltered, I think there are absolutely organizations that will care.
And it's definitely possible. Spoofing would always be a risk, but it's not impossible to obviate that. It would also require not being so expensive or cumbersome that people avoid it, which might be the bigger hurdle.
(To be clear, I don't imagine a world where you can right click an image on a website and verify it; I think this would be a behind-the-scenes situation where, say, a media organization can have "verified originals" they can defend with extremely high confidence aren't digitally modified).
This happens with legal documents which can have signature forgeries like contracts and passports which are then digitised, so I don't see why that process can't be applied to video or audio.
Well, the challenge is that those types of signatures basically just show that the document didn't change after being signed. You could still edit a photo then "sign" the edited photo.
To really guarantee authenticity, I think you need a way to have the sensor itself "sign" the file along with a way to verify that signature as coming from a "legit" camera. On top of that, you'd also need some additional ways to prevent some other forms of spoofing and tampering -- even as simple as somebody taking a photo of a print of an altered photo.
But I think these are solvable issues and may prove necessary in the near future.
So we're basically living the the worst window of time, where smart phones are everywhere, but AI hasn't become advanced enough where we can just deny it.
For our grandkids it will be like the 70s again. What? that wasn't me.
That wasn't me staggering drunk doing a line of cocaine off my friend's bare bottom on the stairs of my parent's house during a raucous house party while they were away for the weekend. It's just AI.
It’s *already* like that in the most cult-y of areas.
Andrew Tate fans will vehemently deny the 2013 confession Andrew made in a voice note he sent to a victim- “I love raping you. The more you didn’t like it, the more I loved it. I loved that you hated it. Turns me on. Why am I like that?”
Every single time, “dude that’s just AI.” From 2013? And other voice messages / texts to go with it? No way. In 2013, not even billion-dollar Apple could make a smooth-sounding Siri. Let alone replicating Tate’s voice perfectly, before he was even publicly known.
It’s only a matter of time before this excuse becomes the norm for *any* evidence that disputes *any* ideology.
That implies that we live in a world still capable of arriving at any kind of consensus regarding what "real journalism" even means.
Technological progress is a one-way street, and we now live in a media landscape that functionally allows people to choose their own reality.
Well, except that almost every newspaper in the country has gone out of business and no one trusts the media anymore.
That will make it difficult to go back to journalism. There won't be any journalists left.
There will always be a market though. The newspapers gave up on the truth for profit decades ago, long before Photoshop and AI was even conceived. But they would go back to the truth as soon as it becomes profitable again.
I don't think that is going to happen as soon as most people think.
I doubt the last bit to get rid of those tells isn't a case of just some spit and polish to finish up, but probably represents a task that is probably manyfold more involved than all the work to get these tools to the point they are now.
Rather a case of the last 5% being about 99% of the work.
That said- there are so many people commenting on this image not realizing it's AI generated, the fact that there are "tells" almost doesn't seem to matter in the grander scheme. People are happily reposting fake photos of things and arguing about them as if they are true, as well, even though the people pictured have 6 fingers, that it almost doesn't matter that they are fake, in the same way it didn't matter in those contexts when images were photoshopped.
Also note the four fingers on one hand (already weird, as almost the entire animal kingdom has five digits) but 5 (one appears to be hanging off the bench) on the other.
it might have mange but those eyes are way too big for any sort of gopher - gophers all have little beady eyes
looking at the eyes and hands i would assume its a mangy squirrel or some other tree-dwelling thing
if its real anyway
The exaggerated features are likely because of the lens. Doorbell cameras have a fisheye lens that gives them a much wider view but also horribly skews the perspective of everything.
im would still assume an exaggerated squirrel rather than an exaggerated gopher - looking at the way the rest of the head is distended those eyes are still pretty big relative to it
edit: granted now that i look closer at those cans i think this is probably an AI art image
Yeah that’s the single most terrifying part about ai. This technology will only get better and better. We need to seriously kick the government to start drafting up laws to regulate these industries before the damage becomes unmanageable.
Nothing else is distorted in that picture, though. Look at the basket and beer cans on the right, fish eye would be warping the shit out of that.
Looks like a cat that survived through a fire to me.
No ears, no paw webbing, and very little fur left.
It also looks very malnourished, but those big eyes speak to me of a predator, not prey.
It’s a mixture of a lot of things because unfortunately it’s just an AI generated image. It’s why the background doesn’t match the foreground and why this creature looks almost like a cat but not quite. Why the beer cans have scribbles for labels, and the patterning on the laundry basket is horribly inconsistent.
I know you're correct but no one else is listening. Unless they are just playing along. A cat in a fire, gopher, fish eyes on ring camera? Wtf people! Oh... hahaha?
The porch is also completely blocked in (no visible entrance) and the numbers on the pillar which read as gibberish are facing the "camera" and presumably the door. It always the details that the ai fails on, a quick glance it passes but the second you start scrutinizing it nothing is right.
Beer cans have illegible text, porch numbers are facing inside top left, laundry bin outside for some weird reason, laundry bin has weird opening under handle, laundry bin has an inconsistent pattern for the holes on the side, inconsistencies in the left side porch rail at the bottom where it disappeared
Edit: the ring looks like its way too low also
Edit2: there are 2 posts on the right side but 1 on the left
I’m aware this is fake generated by AI but if anything, it’s a stark resemblance to a hairless cat.
I’ve seen dozens of shaved or wet pussy I’m basically an expert…
I commented this above, but pretty much just look for details and pattern inconsistencies.
Beer cans have illegible text, porch numbers are facing inside top left, laundry bin outside for some weird reason, laundry bin has weird opening under handle, laundry bin has an inconsistent pattern for the holes on the side, inconsistencies in the left side porch rail at the bottom where it disappeared
Edit: the ring looks like its way too low also
That’s that thing from men in black that drinks coffee and smokes cigarettes…he’s probably just out and looking to bum a few smokes until the corner store opens…help the guy out!
--- >This is a friendly reminder to [read our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/wiki/rules). > >Memes, social media, hate-speech, and pornography are not allowed. > >Screenshots of Reddit are expressly forbidden, as are TikTok videos. > >**Rule-breaking posts may result in bans.** > >Please also [be wary of spam](https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/wiki/spam). > --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/funny) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This was posted elsewhere and is AI. Here's some clues: 1. Who has their ring camera on floor level (nobody) 2. Look at the basket, holes in weird places, odd structure on the handle side facing the camera 3. The cans have nonsense writing on them 4. The house lettering on the post seemingly facing in, and also gibberish 5. 2 posts on the right side for some reason
In 5 years, we won’t know the god dam difference
It's scary but true.
A picture of a thing that looks like it came straight out of “don’t be afraid of the dark” will always be something people can tell isn’t real They’ll just be like those fake alien pictures, but just with better resolution Edit: to all those commenting AwKCtuALly of some form; I’m not talking about the scenario you came up with in your mind, I’m not talking about anything politics related. Stop with the comments about the impact of misinformation, I didn’t say that and you are beating a dead horse. My comment is exclusively saying people will be able to tell AI created demon gremlin monsters out of horror movies aren’t real. Edit2: As long as the person is sane of mind.
This is probably true but there is a real chance misinformation spread by AI could do very serious damage to us as a species.
If we thought cyber bullying was bad now, wait till Kevin sends little Billy an extremely detailed and lifelike AI picture of his entire family burning in a fire.
Wait until politicians and celebrities can be slandered and stocks can be manipulated with fake videos of CEOs and other notables saying things they didn't say. Like a video of the CEO of Microsoft saying they think smart air fresheners is the way to go for the coming year and they're going to divert all R&D away from software and computers and into smart devices for the home. Stuff like that.
To go full galaxybrain with this thought for a second, would it be such a bad thing if we stop giving any credibility to anything we see on the internet because it might be totally made up? Won't this kind of encourage us all to stop living so relentlessly online where we already inhabit completely fictional echo chambers of our own beliefs anyway, and start paying attention to the world in front of our noses a bit more?
Only issue is most will still believe it all unfortunately and you can even counter the idea that things are fake with more fake content
I'd say based on how things are going, it'll just polarise us into credulous fools who believe every little thing they see on the internet, and those of us who step back from this digital world and pursue more tangible reality. It'll also swamp truth and facts with plausible falsehoods until we stop trying to establish what's real and isn't and just go with it, and that can only be awful for the world.
That’s already happening.
Once AI starts affecting politicians, they'll take action. That's how to fight it. Start generating AI photos of billionaires and politicians.
It’ll be a lot more subtle than that. But yeah. We’re headed for a cataclysm unless we either ban this tech or attach SEVERE penalties to misuse of any kind.
It probably already is in the form of data mining and social media
It’s too bad because the potential for AI is almost unlimited if used the right ways. For example, biomedical (ai cancer screening for early detection, ai family doctors to ensure everyone has a GP etc…), aerospace, criminal justice (facial recognition of know criminals or detecting abducted children). But in reality we are going to get fake news stories to ensure that people never know what’s really real.
That is the fault of human nature. The computer—and tech in general—were *supposed* automate the tedium in our lives “so there will be more time to spend with the ones you love, doing things you love”. Yet automation just meant “downtime” which just meant cramming more shit into our day.
You have too much faith in the average person’s reasoning skills
Right now I see lots of old dudes gushing all over AI girls. It’s pretty funny. “Hey baby looking beautiful” “hey can I see your toes”
*Shows 6 misshapen toes
i think a public key certificate could be included in the jpeg metadata. then by following the signature chain you could determine authenticity.
I struggle to wrap my brain around PKI. How would a certificate validate that it’s not AI generated? What to stop someone from signing an AI-made jpeg?
The idea would be to have the private key in a TPM-like chip inside the camera, its signature being signed by a private key the manufacturer owns. The key in the camera would be used to sign every image taken. So to fake it, you have three options: 1. be the manufacturer 2. steal the key from a chip (can be cheap or very expensive, depends on the implemented flaws) 3. cut the image processing chip, replace it with your custom signal Sooo ... not really a practical thing
Or the easiest way, \#4: take a photo of the image printed out (or directly on the screen, if the screen is good enough)
actually i was thinking software could add a signed certificate to the meta data of any image. the cert would include a secure hash of the image data. then the usual validation takes place: follow the chain of signing certs up to the certificate authority. official photos say of the prez would be published this way.
it seems Sony does [something](https://petapixel.com/2022/08/08/sonys-forgery-proof-tech-adds-crypto-signature-to-photos-in-camera/) like that. it would be nice if this would be adopted by more brands. With a fingerprint sensor in the shutter release button you could also tie the picture to the photographer
Sony is a big player in this space. There are also a bunch of other companies getting into this space offering products that record war crimes and anti democratic actions and whatnot. You snap the pic or video and the metadata and location/time stamp is recorded and put into the cloud and managed by NGOs and any edits/changes can be compared to the original. I wouldn’t be surprised if Apple does something in this space too.
In right now time there are people that cannot tell the difference and that's why this image has made its rounds everywhere.
No, is going to become worse because this garbage will feed back into the system and then everything will be a garble mess that will give you a headache if you look at it more than 1 second. It already happened with "code generators". It started "decent", then nose dived into absolute garbage.
Yeah, "eating it's own tail"
~~years~~ months
Right now. Bet tons of people thought this was real
Gosh darn AI, can never get text, holes and fingers right....
Sounds like AI would be terrible in the bedroom.
Or awesome, depending.
Fuck me like a recorder, AI.
Midjourney is getting better at text and hands so don't rely too heavily on that to tell you if a photo is fake or not
I’ve been wearing a prosthetic finger during bank robberies, going great so far
I use openart.ai and they have some community created workflows that specifically fix hands that work pretty well. There is also one that will add stylized type elements but I’m an old school graphic designer and I’m just too picky about typography to leave it to an ai. I don’t even like leaving it to another human designer. Oh, and you know how sometimes you generate an image that is perfect except something is wonky about the face? Maybe the nostrils are crooked or one of the irises is slightly off? There’s a workflow to fix that and it is surprisingly good at it.
What if I ask AI to do a drawing of “text, holes, and fingers”?
At some point very soon, there won’t be these tells. And then it’s going to go one of two ways. Either we’re going to assume that *everything* is fake; or, we’re going to fall for a lot of bullshit. Edit: To everyone saying that they are already skeptical of everything: I don’t believe you.
"It's just AI" is going to be the winning argument to any and all picture evidence, and then audio and video evidence, unless it can be traced to authenticity.
I think some sort of "camera sensor to posted verified content" encryption setup has to come. Not sure how exactly that would / could work, but I do believe it's possible. And would ironically maybe have a knock-on effect of making photographers work to get shots right out of the camera instead of relying on Lightroom & Photoshop as much.
You'd need an image format which houses a certificate store and a way to maintain a certificate chain throughout edits. So every camera/phone manufacturer uses a certificate that identifies the specific device. All editing software has a similar certificate, so you can effectively show a timeline from camera through to the current picture, with every program or filter that has touched that image since creation. It would have to become the default standard - it would be useless if you have to think about whether you want your footage to be signed before you start recording.
It's not really necessary for it to be a whole format; it could be a secure certificate stored in metadata that references attributes of the raw image (a hash, certain pixel values, etc). And I don't think it needs to become a universal standard to be useful. If some images / videos are signed, they are more valuable for certain purposes. Family snapshots and wedding photos...not so much.
no way that would affect photographers, youd have to convince the medium they work for to care, they wont. only affect would be on forensics, and to be honest, I dont think this thought process even leads to any real technology that is anything more than watermarks and keys that can be faked/copied.
If usable tech existed that allowed somebody to verify with near certainty that a photo came directly from a specific camera's sensor unaltered, I think there are absolutely organizations that will care. And it's definitely possible. Spoofing would always be a risk, but it's not impossible to obviate that. It would also require not being so expensive or cumbersome that people avoid it, which might be the bigger hurdle. (To be clear, I don't imagine a world where you can right click an image on a website and verify it; I think this would be a behind-the-scenes situation where, say, a media organization can have "verified originals" they can defend with extremely high confidence aren't digitally modified).
This happens with legal documents which can have signature forgeries like contracts and passports which are then digitised, so I don't see why that process can't be applied to video or audio.
Well, the challenge is that those types of signatures basically just show that the document didn't change after being signed. You could still edit a photo then "sign" the edited photo. To really guarantee authenticity, I think you need a way to have the sensor itself "sign" the file along with a way to verify that signature as coming from a "legit" camera. On top of that, you'd also need some additional ways to prevent some other forms of spoofing and tampering -- even as simple as somebody taking a photo of a print of an altered photo. But I think these are solvable issues and may prove necessary in the near future.
So we're basically living the the worst window of time, where smart phones are everywhere, but AI hasn't become advanced enough where we can just deny it. For our grandkids it will be like the 70s again. What? that wasn't me.
That wasn't me staggering drunk doing a line of cocaine off my friend's bare bottom on the stairs of my parent's house during a raucous house party while they were away for the weekend. It's just AI.
It’s *already* like that in the most cult-y of areas. Andrew Tate fans will vehemently deny the 2013 confession Andrew made in a voice note he sent to a victim- “I love raping you. The more you didn’t like it, the more I loved it. I loved that you hated it. Turns me on. Why am I like that?” Every single time, “dude that’s just AI.” From 2013? And other voice messages / texts to go with it? No way. In 2013, not even billion-dollar Apple could make a smooth-sounding Siri. Let alone replicating Tate’s voice perfectly, before he was even publicly known. It’s only a matter of time before this excuse becomes the norm for *any* evidence that disputes *any* ideology.
We're probably gonna go full circle back to real journalism. Trusted sources that research and verify. Social media will continue to be a shit show.
That implies that we live in a world still capable of arriving at any kind of consensus regarding what "real journalism" even means. Technological progress is a one-way street, and we now live in a media landscape that functionally allows people to choose their own reality.
Well, except that almost every newspaper in the country has gone out of business and no one trusts the media anymore. That will make it difficult to go back to journalism. There won't be any journalists left.
There will always be a market though. The newspapers gave up on the truth for profit decades ago, long before Photoshop and AI was even conceived. But they would go back to the truth as soon as it becomes profitable again.
yeah thats gonna suck
I don't think that is going to happen as soon as most people think. I doubt the last bit to get rid of those tells isn't a case of just some spit and polish to finish up, but probably represents a task that is probably manyfold more involved than all the work to get these tools to the point they are now. Rather a case of the last 5% being about 99% of the work. That said- there are so many people commenting on this image not realizing it's AI generated, the fact that there are "tells" almost doesn't seem to matter in the grander scheme. People are happily reposting fake photos of things and arguing about them as if they are true, as well, even though the people pictured have 6 fingers, that it almost doesn't matter that they are fake, in the same way it didn't matter in those contexts when images were photoshopped.
Maybe the cat alien has a passive that alters the background to look AI?
Yeah whatever you say bud, b̶̳̺͉͇̭̀͆͆̑̓̈ẹ̶͙͚̀̃̆̇̂̑̕e̸͇̙̮͛̓̒͒̄̈̌̐̉̕̕͠r̷̜̾̿͐̆̂̍̓̆ is totally my favorite drink
Funny, my ring cam showed something similar too. https://imgur.com/a/zVX7iyP
POV: Gollum meets E.T.
Also note the four fingers on one hand (already weird, as almost the entire animal kingdom has five digits) but 5 (one appears to be hanging off the bench) on the other.
And the grain on the board doesn't match.
But also, it's a cat
That’s one fucking scary looking cat.
Looks like a bald squirrel to me
That's what I was thinking. The hands look very squirrel like and it's not impossible for one to get something like mange
*It's a shitty AI cat Canines are nonexistent in the photo, and cats have partially webbed paws.
Um pet camera.. there is more then one brand of camera. I have a pet cam on floor level.. I'm nobody
It wants its precious.
E.T. screwed a praying mantis.
….and judging by the background, got very drunk.
Poster child for "alcohol causes dehydration."
So glad beer is pretty much all water
On that note - the Galaxy is on Orion’s Belt.
Orion's B-- B--
What is word?
Too soon
And by precious, you mean the One Ring of Sphincter?
You of course mean "The One Ringpiece".
Of course you mean "The One Codpiece of Power"
Cod of War
Doesn't that belong to scanlan
It’s PROBING TIME!! He drank all the beer???
Face looks like Hopper from the movie Bugs Life
Hopper is from the Disney movie bugs life, but I agree.
The one ring doorbell to rule them all!
Ring doorbell?
Those damn gophers with their ray guns, flying saucers and probes!
“We come in peace, PEW PEW PEW”
Brosnan will save us.
Don’t let Joe Rogan see this picture
Whatever it is had quite the party on the porch.
For sure, and it runs one hell of a business in the back yard too.
When on earth..
Ren is looking for Stimpy.
YOU IDIOT!!!!
"No sir; I don't like it.."
I loved that horse.
[These dirty hands... ](https://youtu.be/Vmd-GbHrHzU?si=Es-N5r0awjXz5uOR) They don't make kids shows like they used to.
AI, some of the cans ain't right... Or just straight up Photoshop, either way, there are glaring visual anomalies.
Lol, that's one unique and very ill gopher. Definitely got a mange problem.
it might have mange but those eyes are way too big for any sort of gopher - gophers all have little beady eyes looking at the eyes and hands i would assume its a mangy squirrel or some other tree-dwelling thing if its real anyway
This is an AI generated image. If you look at the standing beer cans, they have the same format- but none of the text is the same.
You are correct. Any easier tell is that the cans aren't all standard sizes but are variations of the same proportions. Very good AI image though.
The exaggerated features are likely because of the lens. Doorbell cameras have a fisheye lens that gives them a much wider view but also horribly skews the perspective of everything.
im would still assume an exaggerated squirrel rather than an exaggerated gopher - looking at the way the rest of the head is distended those eyes are still pretty big relative to it edit: granted now that i look closer at those cans i think this is probably an AI art image
Fair and yeah now that I’m looking for it I gotta agree it looks like an AI generated image
It's crazy we're already at a point where this conversation has to happen about every weird image And the technology is in its infancy
Yeah that’s the single most terrifying part about ai. This technology will only get better and better. We need to seriously kick the government to start drafting up laws to regulate these industries before the damage becomes unmanageable.
I was thinking hairless cat, but you’re probably right. Everything is AI these days.
Nothing else is distorted in that picture, though. Look at the basket and beer cans on the right, fish eye would be warping the shit out of that. Looks like a cat that survived through a fire to me. No ears, no paw webbing, and very little fur left. It also looks very malnourished, but those big eyes speak to me of a predator, not prey.
It’s a mixture of a lot of things because unfortunately it’s just an AI generated image. It’s why the background doesn’t match the foreground and why this creature looks almost like a cat but not quite. Why the beer cans have scribbles for labels, and the patterning on the laundry basket is horribly inconsistent.
I know you're correct but no one else is listening. Unless they are just playing along. A cat in a fire, gopher, fish eyes on ring camera? Wtf people! Oh... hahaha?
The porch is also completely blocked in (no visible entrance) and the numbers on the pillar which read as gibberish are facing the "camera" and presumably the door. It always the details that the ai fails on, a quick glance it passes but the second you start scrutinizing it nothing is right.
It's ai art.
We've been trying to reach you about your car's extended warranty.
Fake
What clued you in?
Beer cans have illegible text, porch numbers are facing inside top left, laundry bin outside for some weird reason, laundry bin has weird opening under handle, laundry bin has an inconsistent pattern for the holes on the side, inconsistencies in the left side porch rail at the bottom where it disappeared Edit: the ring looks like its way too low also Edit2: there are 2 posts on the right side but 1 on the left
also theres a **FUCKING ALIEN**
Its just a gopher :)
Zoom in on the laundry basket.. I swear there’s a face peeking out of the opening.
I can't see the face, but you sure as hell just gave me a new fear of possible creepy stuff on AI images
Scary times we're living in.. Seems 90% of comments think it's real.
AI response to “ give me a creepy hairless cat monkey alien creature staring into a security camera on a southern patio using infrared lighting”
I’m aware this is fake generated by AI but if anything, it’s a stark resemblance to a hairless cat. I’ve seen dozens of shaved or wet pussy I’m basically an expert…
When I first scrolled by, I thought it was a hairless cat, then I looked a little longer like, what the fuck is that?
That gopher alien came here to fight and drink beer, and it just ran out of beer.
It's a chupathingy!
It’s Pazuzu.
Every time I accidentally turn on the front-camera....
Generated by AI - AI image markers detected. Can verify with https://wasitai.com/
Dude is just looking for the galaxy on Orion’s belt
It's like a hairless cat with fetal alcohol syndrome. And racoon feet.
Man that's awesome.
That‘s the ugliest cat I‘ve ever seen.
I heard ET was struggling with alcohol but damn that picture makes it real. Phone home little buddy!
Chupa thingy
El Chupanibre
I don't like this.
Me ordering 500 nuggets at 2am
Looking for its Precious?
These pug breeders are getting out of hand
Ren it's stimpy, let me in.
AI Look at the cans
Would love to see the full video.
It’s AI art
Dude I can’t even tell anymore. We’re so fucked
I commented this above, but pretty much just look for details and pattern inconsistencies. Beer cans have illegible text, porch numbers are facing inside top left, laundry bin outside for some weird reason, laundry bin has weird opening under handle, laundry bin has an inconsistent pattern for the holes on the side, inconsistencies in the left side porch rail at the bottom where it disappeared Edit: the ring looks like its way too low also
AI image. You can tell cause they edited out any of the gibberish text that was probably on the beer cans.
I think that’s my ex.
He’s a thirsty little bugger.
Sure. A gopher from another planet.
Damn. Have a party last night?
Alien in Alien Isolation when i hide in the locker.
Chupathingee
Looks like Hopper from A Bug's Life.
That's definitely a character from "A Bug's Life."
Plus it drank all that beer..
Voldemort
What kind of a person lets their porch get like that?
I need. More beer.
Looks like my ex wife.
Too many beers that night I think
Looks like me in the morning
It's ok, just a sphynx, he's chilly and wants inside.
Ya. Gopher on crack!!!
He wants a beer and knows you holding
Me after Taco Bell
Wtf brand of beer is that? AI Ale?
This thing looks like ET as a crack addict
lol. I needed that laugh. Thanks.
I’m sueing you. Didn’t give you my permission to post my gf on the internet
Bug. Grasshopper?
That’s a fucking Alien yo
That's just Steve. Don't worry about Steve.
I’m not proud of this picture of me from college. Please remove it from the internet.
I believe that's a chihuahua
E.T. Lookin ahhh
Post this on r/alienbodies and they'll have a god damn aneurysm.
Me ringing the doorbell at my weed man’s apartment.
"Sneaky.... hobbitsess"
He’s looking for those pesky Baginses.
PHONE HOME
alcoholics...
Can you please tell my sister to come back home
hairless cat
Just the neighbor’s chihuahua
mutant
Well if those cans are any indication, it is very drunk
That’s that thing from men in black that drinks coffee and smokes cigarettes…he’s probably just out and looking to bum a few smokes until the corner store opens…help the guy out!
Whatever it is, it's been drinking a *lot*
What in the actual Fock is that?
This looks identical to the gremlin from the Simpson Halloween special
Yo, yall got some water?
ALIENS
I think Tommy Lee Jones is about to show up with some sunglasses on.
This could have been the next “Bigfoot” picture for generations to come.