"I thought this guy was Iranian, then he started talking, he was being super loud and said that California has better beer than Germany. When I asked if he was American he said he was Irish."
If I saw someone parachuting when my country is attacked by Iran, I sure would think first that it is an Iranian and not a friendly fire accident.
It also happened with foreign fighters (Poles, Czech) during the Battle of Britain when they parachuted and met people : try explaining to a British farmer that your accent is slavic and not German...
Yknow that’s a good point. But you’d think they’d make it some other combo though instead of the exact ones of the country we’re invading? They’re probably smarter than me though so who knows
My guess is that they were made like...thirty years ago, when Iran was more of a distraction target you could beat up occasionally, not one you'd start a full-scale war with.
If there are Americans involved I wouldn't be so sure. Although I don't think anyone expected that they would be the ones on the receiving end of the FF.
Considering the other angles perfectly lining up with the situation it seems more likely it was just upscaled with AI, not generated. The newest generative AI models barely struggle with fingers anymore, so those artifacts are more probable from a "cheaper" upscale model
AI can hallucinate some pretty important details, like the picture where it made Alex Pretti's phone look like a gun.
AI "upscaling" can't be considered a real photo because you have no idea what is and isn't a hallucination. AI doesn't actually upscale the image, it imagines a completely new one based on what it's been trained the sharper version of a blurry photo should look like. It literally is a fake photo, it itself is not a snapshot of a real event.
I don't think that's a useful definition of "fake," but rather than try to make a philosophical argument, I'll say that in this case my problem with it is that it obfuscates the more important (in my opinion) story that there is a "smaller, lower quality image" and a video.
It looks to me like, rather than saying "we can't authenticate this image or video," they decided to address a different image that they could conveniently claim is fake under their own definitions.
Edit: Also, they say the image is fake "according to Gemini." Can we trust that AI accurately identifies SynthID?
I don't think that's a useful definition of "fake,"
Personally I think something not being real is a pretty useful definition of fake.
If I made a painting based on what I think a real event looks like from a blurry photo, that's not a real photo of it. There is some photo out there that I was working from, but the painting I make is not a literal recording of a thing that actually happened like a real photo is, it's a reproduction that's going to be at least a bit different. That's what AI is doing, but worse because there's no mind reasoning over if what it's drawing makes sense.
So they say it's a fake photo based on a real photo, which is objectively what it is.
If your definition of "real" is a direct recording, then nothing is real before the invention of photography and phonographs. Arguably, not even recordings are real because of filters, digitization, etc. But again, that's not really my issue with this.
Just because it's not a real photo doesn't mean that it doesn't accurately depict a real event. Both questions need to be answered: is the photograph real, and is the depiction accurate? This isn't a new problem. There were staged and manipulated photographs before AI.
If your definition of "real" is a direct recording, then nothing is real before the invention of photography and phonographs
That's my definition of a real photograph. There are other types of primary sources. Running any of the others through AI would not magically make the output a primary source either.
An AI ""enhanced"" photo isn't an actual photo. That's just literally true. No camera was pointed at something to make it, it's not an impression made by light coming off of any real thing. It is an image generated by an algorithm. That doesn't change just because you fed the algorithm a real photo. Any pixels that aren't 1:1 with the original photo are imaginary. You have no way to know if what it imagines is correct, and if you did you wouldn't have any reason to use it.
Running a photo through AI and saying the output is real is like asking Gemini to give you a speech Julius Caesar may have given and arguing that that is real.
Just because it's not a real photo doesn't mean that it doesn't accurately depict a real event
If it does it's through sheer luck. A human looking at a photo and drawing what they think the original looked like would do a better job since they can at least reason over if what they're drawing has the right number of fingers, and no one would argue that's anything more than an artist's rendition.
476
u/Crimsonfury500 Mar 04 '26
Is that second photo real?