people are claiming this Kate Middleton photo is AI generated

well, what do the bot experts think?

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

Ape Out Shirt $21.68

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    i dont really care but.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      impressive still

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Ruh roh

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      that looks more like shit Photoshop than AI

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      There is no problem there, the hand and finger positions are perfectly coherent. Is your visual cortex broken?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        look harder. of course the hands are fine

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          it's probably something to do with the camera processing, this hand is blurry

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I think the photo is just heavily edited, there are many suspicious spots. the blurry hand isn't actually suspicious to me. I don't think this is AI however.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              and this is why cryptographic signatures are going to become necessary VERY SOON. as soon as someone argues in court that "you can't know if any picture or video is real anymore due to AI, watch this", it's game over.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Only government should be allowed to doctor images goy

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >generate picture with AI
                >crypto sign it using some secret snoy key
                >it is now a legitimate picture taken with a sony camera

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >cryptographic signatures are going to become necessary VERY SOON
                correct. this was announced last december

                https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Technology/Nikon-Sony-and-Canon-fight-AI-fakes-with-new-camera-tech
                >Nikon, Sony Group and Canon are developing camera technology that embeds digital signatures in images so that they can be distinguished from increasingly sophisticated fakes.

                first it will only be mandatory for journalists and maybe forensics, but once Apple support it in their phones, there will be pressure on social media companies to put warnings on images that don't have digital signatures from ~~*trusted*~~ manufacturers

                if the private key for any device leaks, then all images taken by that device will be retroactively marked as potentially faked. if the manufacturer key leaks, then all devices from that manufacturer will have to be recalled.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                someone will just approve a Chinese key and then all bets are off. it's not possible to use cryptography in this way without having to trust SOMEONE. and we all know you can't trust anyone.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >someone will just approve a Chinese key and then all bets are off
                the list of ~~*trusted*~~ manufacturers will be maintained by an ~~*independent*~~ and ~~*diverse*~~ group of ~~*experts*~~ who will instantly revoke the keys of any manufacturer who doesn't do enough to prevent ~~*misinformation*~~ from spreading

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                depressingly likely

                cells interlinked
                do you trust cloudflare? interlinked

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Not happening, this would mark shopped images. Celebrities would literally die if an unshopped photo of them was ever released

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >this would mark shopped images
                that's a valid criticism, except Photoshop will support this standard too. it will add its own digital signature, and only run when the OS is loaded with secure boot enabled, to prevent tampering. the metadata will also include the registration details of the Photoshop or Windows account, so that any deceptive image can be traced back to its creator with a warrant.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >photoshop photo
                >print it out or display it in high quality screen
                >take photo of it with approved camera
                what now?
                If the camera manufacturer is extra moronic you could hijack the sensor directly for better results

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >print it out
                i doubt you could take a photo of a printout and have it look as realistic as a photo of a real scene, and these cameras will probably include stereoscopic information to record whether the subject is flat or not. anyway, you'd have to rely on your printer not including these
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_Identification_Code

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Won't matter, I make glass plate photographs and I could easily transfer negatives printed from AI images onto glass plates and then donate the supposedly historical photos to a local library or something and at some point someone will think they're real history and all of history has changed.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                ah, the analog hole is back

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >cryptographic signatures
                Won't matter. Paranoid schizos will just keep on keeping on.

                >that pics fake because aliens broke the cryptographic stereo encoding upside the vorpal tunneling by way of iced ham

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                schizos don't hold up in court, that's what I was talking about

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              https://i.imgur.com/yCwk8IT.png

              look harder. of course the hands are fine

              >some editor looked at the original photo and thought "this kid's wrists are too fat, make them thinner"
              What a world we live in. Literal brainrot.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Close to 80% obesity rates, that is brainrot. If it was me, fat women would pay metabo tax.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                overweight and obesity*

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              It looks like it could be made by stitching images together to make a wider image, like a panoramic feature. Most of the suspicious spots are vertical motion and overlap in some part of the image.
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_stitching

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I don't think it's about getting a bigger photo, they just tried to combine the best parts of a bunch of shots taken of them sitting there to get something better than they could do with a single shot and fricked up.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              I don't get the one in the girl's stomach
              some fricked up motif?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              That whole windows looks normal, it's just white paint on the edges.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Why has no one pointed out the girl's skirt overlapping her brother's finger?
              I'm talking about her right hip (to the left of the image) and her brother's left hand (to the right of the image).
              If the hem of her skirt is really that loose, it's in danger of falling down.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                it's just a folded skirt

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              you forgot

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          yeah its the magic dark clothing behind the red sweater she's wearing
          if there's no one behind her, where does the dark clothing come from?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It's a pity about her son's right hand, then.

      Boy's right hand.
      Counter on the left doesn't even make sense being there.
      Weird tiling on the ground.
      Weird background layout. (They're in some kind of patio that transitions into a nonsense lawn in a weird way, but there is a tree between the patio and the yard, which we cannot see the base of for some reason?)
      Also the amount of detail in the background is oddly dense in a way reminiscent of AI.

      https://i.imgur.com/yCwk8IT.png

      look harder. of course the hands are fine

      It's a real picture, but the royal family is just so inbred that their hands are all fricked up like that

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Because they have no clue what AI-generated images look like. That picture obviously isn't AI-generated.

      This isn't an AI generation artifact though. It's from the algorithm that picks which of the 752,835 cameras to read a pixel from.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      yeah nice legs, my thinking exactly

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      photoshop

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Clearly hand was photoshoped in.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's not. AI can't do motion blur realistically, the mothers right hand kinda tells me it's a real photo.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It's a pity about her son's right hand, then.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        ai has been able to do hands for almost two years mongrel
        we aren't at dalle 2 anymore

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >ai has been able to do hands for almost two years mongrel
          But somehow no one ever shows the proof.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >ai has been able to do hands for almost two years mongrel

          https://i.imgur.com/1KBLdtV.png

          i dont really care but.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        He just has his middle two fingers crossed. It's clearly a real image.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Real.

      Good catch.
      I was looking at the dirt in the corners and on the sill. AI tends to omit that sort of thing or make it look inorganic.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >It's not. AI can't do motion blur realistically, the mothers right hand kinda tells me it's a real photo.
      Middleton's Razor: When faced with two possible explanations, AI Inpainting or MS Paint, MS Paint is most likely to be true.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The teeth look weird but children's teeth are weird. Her hands seem slightly longer than possible but it might be an illusion. The boy's right hand fingers are in a super weird shape but again children can be weird like that
    I'd say either real or real but passed through an AI powered filter. Don't newer smartphones automatically AI upscale every photo?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >The teeth look weird but children's teeth are weird. Her hands seem slightly longer than possible but it might be an illusion
      They are just british

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Terrible paint job on the window frames.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Boy's right hand.
    Counter on the left doesn't even make sense being there.
    Weird tiling on the ground.
    Weird background layout. (They're in some kind of patio that transitions into a nonsense lawn in a weird way, but there is a tree between the patio and the yard, which we cannot see the base of for some reason?)
    Also the amount of detail in the background is oddly dense in a way reminiscent of AI.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's real no question. Look at the lighting and quintessentially British teeth.

  7. 1 month ago
    Sneedy Pie

    looks real 2 me

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      There is no greater pleasure I get on this website than filtering tripgays. Goodbye.

      • 1 month ago
        Jordan - OS MASTER

        I actually just decided to change to a new one, so here's my new one for you to filter.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          you can filter every tripgay, so it doesn't matter what trip you have
          I recommend it to everyone, use BOTx
          go to Settings > Filter > Tripcode and enter /^!/, and nothing of value is lost

          yeah its the magic dark clothing behind the red sweater she's wearing
          if there's no one behind her, where does the dark clothing come from?

          >where does the dark clothing come from?
          kate's sleeve hanging down from her hand

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Nobody cares you dipshit dweeb

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The boy right behind her is Elon Musk's child, right?

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    if it were to be ai generated that would be ground breaking
    however one would have to assume its not:
    > the fingers are perfect (yes, i saw the comments, you are moronic) and in convoluted positions, not just resting
    > has motion blur
    > consisntent, but not obvious reflections
    > the floor does that have "ai cleanness"
    > the people depicted look similar, but not in a creepy face cloning way
    > perfect shoe ties
    > symmetric ears
    > zipper doesnt randomly change side
    > proper focus

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Extremely clearly NOT ai, and anyone who has any doubts about that is a fricking moron. Spend the 5 seconds it takes to figure out the hands actually make perfect sense.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It's not AI but still looks sketchy. Even non-photographic things like wrong season in the plant in the background.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        people dont seem to remember that Photoshop exists.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          agreed, lots of picrel and maybe some blur. What's confusing is why there's so much editing in the the first place.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It looks like they got some intern to clean up the photo and he went overboard with all the new things he learned on youtube

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Hey
    Wasnt there some guy who got arrested because the police claimed he abducted and killed a teenage girl, no body found ever, and the guy then went to /misc/ and was trying to explain how the teenage girl's facebook profile was basically all fake AI generated by some state actors like CIA to lock him up.
    It was quite interesting, look it up i hope someone finds those threads.
    Back then around 2016 nobody heard of full on AI generation of a person so the girl's pics were kinda weird and some of them had the same flaws a modern Dalle has, people were like
    >oh look that plant or that hand arent quite right
    But due to this consumer technology not officially "existing" back then, everyone was like
    >ehh some of her pics look weird but youre crazy bro you cant just generate a person

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      thispersondoesnotexist was registered at the start of 2019

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >thispersondoesnotexist was registered at the start of 2019
        and now we have this
        https://readwrite.com/onlyfake-the-deepfake-site-churning-out-sophisticated-fake-ids/
        "Using what it describes as neural networks to produce counterfeit documents for just $15, this enterprise threatens to significantly disrupt the market for forgeries with an obvious knock-on effect on identity verification procedures online."
        this is why Apple will introduce digital signatures for the iPhone camera, and online id companies will require you to use a phone that will include these sigs

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    more potential fucckery. again I don't care, but its obviously some photo manipulation, not necessarily AI.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/Q1kGaYi.jpg

      I think the photo is just heavily edited, there are many suspicious spots. the blurry hand isn't actually suspicious to me. I don't think this is AI however.

      Only right answers, everyone else just proved themselves to be subhumans lacking a visual cortex

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    kate is so pretty i wish she was my wife

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The top 1/3 of the image is original, it was "extended" by AI. All the artifacts appear beneath the top 1/3. Likely because Kate would not be able to wear jeans and boots after abdominal surgery (trust me, you wouldn't). News sites are still posting articles with the top part of the image, it was only the "full" image that was killed

      That's Catherine Princess of Wales to you shitskins

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You're a poor nobody and have zero connection to the royals.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The top 1/3 of the image is original, it was "extended" by AI. All the artifacts appear beneath the top 1/3. Likely because Kate would not be able to wear jeans and boots after abdominal surgery (trust me, you wouldn't). News sites are still posting articles with the top part of the image, it was only the "full" image that was killed

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Who cares?

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's a real pic that's been overprocessed by whatever shitty AI enhancing magic they're putting into cameras nowadays. Like, there was one where someone took a photo of the Hollywood sign with an iPhone and it fricked the text up so it said like Holywdoodnv or something...

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    AI artifacts dont look like that, honestly not sure what's going on i think it's just post processing

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      What did you use to make this?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        it's fotoforensics

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          How is this technique called then?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            youre a fricking cretin

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Sorry for not knowing everything you fricking Black person. I'm here to learn something about technology.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            error level analysis

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Thanks

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    /misc/ did a decent job of picking it apart and the newswires have all pulled the photo
    I'm sure it's standard for them to pretty up every pr photo but what I don't get is how the royal family would employ someone so shitty at photoshop

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The photo has now been recalled because the image source (HRH Prince of Wales) has edited it.

    /misc/ was right.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Shut it down!

      /misc/ is always right

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Okay moron. No they're no-

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >'ave ye got a loicense for that sloppa?
      lol
      if it were just regular photoshop editing, would they still do the same thing? doesnt confirm AI, but makes it more suspicious to me. this is what everythings going to be like moving forward, isn't it? infinity gaslight

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I think its real, just with photoshop work on top, leaving some strange artifacts like her zipper being misaligned, the sweater pattern, etc. As for AI, the tile pattern is too continuous to be AI generated, the chair supports are suspiciously continuous, and the fact that the kid in the back's feet are partially obstructed by the chair makes it seem like its legit. The kid on the right has his fingers in an unnatural position but it's not like its anatomically fricked. AI can't do continuity for shit so that's usually the go-to sign. The loose strands of messy hair is also something AI can't do and make it look realistic.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Idk who that is but those little fellas look autistic af

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    their bloodline needs to become extinct

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    just poorly done photo editing and photographer
    dunno if its cause of low quality jpeg, but the kid behind Kate is ever so slightly out of focus
    all that compositing/editing and still couldn't focus stack, sad!

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It's probably all default Photoshop blending and compositing. I bet this shit will be fingerprinted to a recent version of Photoshop, assuming anybody is allowed to do it, live, and publish it...

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's pretty obviously real

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I think that's not the AI photo I want to see of Kate Middleton, post the nudes

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      There's a topless pic of her but I can't find the unedited version on Google which is weird because I saw it recently. Can't remember what app though.

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Looks like bad photoediting, not the kind of mistakes ai makes.

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I would love to see a Kate Middleton porn

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Just popping in to remind everyone of her sister.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Looks like a twink

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    That’s an interesting question. Based on the web search results1, it seems that some photo agencies have pulled the photo released by Kensington Palace on Mother’s Day, citing concerns that it has been manipulated or edited. The Associated Press (AP) said that the photo shows an inconsistency in the alignment of Princess Charlotte’s left hand2. Some social media users also pointed out other possible signs of alteration, such as Kate Middleton’s missing wedding ring, her long arms, and part of Princess Charlotte’s arm being invisible3.

    However, these claims are not conclusive, and there is no official confirmation from Kensington Palace or the photo’s source that the image was artificially generated or modified. It is possible that the photo was edited for aesthetic or technical reasons, such as enhancing the lighting, color, or contrast, or removing unwanted elements. Such editing is common and acceptable in professional photography, as long as it does not alter the meaning or context of the image4.

    To determine if the image was generated by AI, one would need to use specialized tools or methods, such as reverse image search, image forensics, or deepfake detection. These tools can help identify the source, origin, and quality of the image, and detect any signs of manipulation, such as inconsistencies, artifacts, or anomalies. However, these tools are not always reliable or accurate, and they might not be able to detect sophisticated or subtle forms of AI-generated images5.

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    it's simply not possible for ai to make 4 people's faces look realistic. we are not at that stage yet.

  32. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    obviously fake ai white privilege propaganda down with the patriach!!!!

  33. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    frick the rest of the photo. people just going to ignore this hard straight line on the side of her face? clearly edited photo. proof of that also with her left arm.

  34. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >2024
    >people surprised that images are edited, sometimes badly
    Air brushed images have been around for over 2 decades. Why the frick would people assume they're suddenly straight off camera images? Every selfy I see is smoothed to frick, most people haven't shared a natural image of themselves in well over a decade.
    It wouldn't surprise me if this image is a composite of several images and they took the best expressions and merged them into one image. Having said that, it's still a sloppy photoshop job, not AI generated.

  35. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It has to be, how can a family be this ugly if they have royal blood? These kids look like they picked from the streets in the Norf.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >These kids look like they picked from the streets in the Norf.
      Yeah because there's no white kids in the souf innit

  36. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68534359
    >Kate photo: Princess of Wales says she edited Mother's Day picture recalled by agencies
    Literally a fricking nothing burger. Dumb b***h bought a camera and is now pretending to be a photographer.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      im not sold

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      She's also not "The Princess of Wales" because Principalities don't have such a title.
      I hate how the English LARP as European Royalty when they don't even know what titles mean.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The title Princess of Wales is older than every surviving principality in the world you absolute fricking imbecile

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Nta but I'm Canadian and know frick all about the monarchy, their family etc. until this post I thought the black girl was the queen to be.

  37. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Is there any AI capable of texture yet? All attempts I have seen make any texture look like coarse leather.

  38. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    She's come out and said she edited it herself but I doubt it was her. Somethings going on with Kate she's either ill or thinking about leaving big willy style

  39. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    This morning she came out and admitted she edited it herself.

    Got to give her credit in 1500 years of British royal history she's undoubtedly the first ever to get called out for shitty Photoshop editing skills.

  40. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >well, what do the BOT experts think?
    The royals family barbecues their children for moloch so how can she take a picture with them? They must be actors or CGI generated.

  41. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Charlotte's really looking like old Lizzy here
    I want to frick Kate so bad it's unreal

  42. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      i can't dispute numbers like that, but shoulder buttons aren't an AI invention

  43. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    "photo of princess of wales and her 3 kids posing for a nice family photo"

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      What are you trying to imply here? So many ways one could take it.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Hmm. Why does it default to asian children?

      Also presumably the royal family have access to more powerful LLMs than anon. If only because they are less likely to waste compute power on “stinky smelly braphog feet mmm yes so dirty stinky feet” prompts.

  44. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Looks real but taken with a phone that does some weird processing.

  45. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    My theory is she and Austin and perhaps others we haven't found out about yet were in the Ukraine to spread some money, weapons, and Christmas cheer to their allies, and there was some kind of strike that got 'em. Since they all have mysterious problems with the lower half of their bodies, my thinking is they were rushing into a bunker and made it past a blast door, but it didn't go down all the way and was cracked at the bottom, then the Khinzal hit and hot gas and debris rushed in through the gap, burning and peppering the people in the area with debris. But because the opening was quite low, the damage was concentrated on the lower parts of their bodies.

  46. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    AI tech from the highest source is almost original like your reality

  47. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The buttons on the kid's sweater are a bit odd
    On the neck and shoulder

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *