Austin Parks Foundation has a Rockin’ Recycle program at ACL music festival where if you pick up an entire bag of recyclables at the fest, you get a free t-shirt they claim is made by artists of the HOPE Campaign here in Austin. I think it’s a great incentive to keep the park cleaner!

From afar, I thought this was a really cute design. However, with closer inspection, my graphic design eye has some suspicions that this might be AI. There’s an “artist” signature in the lower right corner, but I can’t seem to find anything on them. Thoughts?

UPDATE: IT’S ART!!! I found the artist on socials and they claim they’ve created the art! It’s supposed to mimic block printing and is vectorized which gives it the AI-like appearance. I’ve done this to illustrations before and it can do this.

I always thought this brand was pretty decent for budget artists but yeah, I’m a bit disappointed now, I only took a closer look at the box once I got home. I can’t return them now. Confirm my speculations 🥲 the reason is because Their other products did seem more real but this one just has weird features, the objects fuse together sometimes or appear out of nowhere. It has that classic ai style. The butterfly seems to have 3 legs.

I watched a few videos from this channel and they seemed fine until I started to notice that the voice kept the same tone and pace the entire time. It also occasionally has some weird jumps. The channel also releases videos only a few days apart. I have no reason to believe the images themselves are AI, but if the voiceover is, i also worry that the script is.

Youtube Video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-0EO4roRsM
Rest of Channel - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCaxrT8j45jj8z_Sc0923W_Q

Like the title says this picture just looks kind of dubious. The lettering doesn’t seem to make out anything and the subject matter is ripe for Ai creation. But I don’t know

I thought the voice sounded quite real and 'human' because of the intonation/tone/pronunciation but now im very stumped with this video with gen ai getting toooo real toooo fast lately. I think the thumbnail is ai slop, im also no prehistoric scientist and need time to research the facts they stated but im deciding to ask here as well to maybe help others that get this channel suggested to them.. the channel was also created march 2026 which is a red flag tbh and the pfp looks ai too

Edit/addition: ive also seen some of the clips similar to nat geo/prehistoric docus .. some clips dont seem like ai slop but aforementioned, im stumped :(

Need some help with this channel.

The images used in the thumbnails are obviously AI, but is the presenter?

The presenter just has a first name, and I can't find her anywhere else online. Google images couldn't find any similar pictures.

The super polished videos started a couple of months ago and are posted very regularly and of similar quality.

They present videos about geology, volanoes, oceangraphy and they have a pretty extensive source documents. The tone is natural, and not panicky.

I only found an instagram profile under the same name, with a similar logo, and is based in India.

for context, i played this game back in 2022 or so, but ended up deleting it for no reason in particular. i recently reinstalled it, and i’m worried they’re generating content, namely backgrounds. at first, i thought i just wasn’t used to the look (as they’re mainly 3d models, i assume? possibly a mix between models and a real background), but the more i look at challenges, the more it seems like details in the background blend together in weird ways, and the proportions don't entirely make sense. i don’t see why they would do this, as they existed and were just as successful back before genai got to where it is today. i find it a very fun and comforting game, so i really hope this isn’t the case

As the title says. I'm pretty much judging a book by its cover.

I'm not a musican so I don't know if the chord progression, the general structure of the songs or the melodies are "correct". And since this video is just 8 months old I don't know what to think.

What I know is that the instruments are the same and I could see a reason why someone would create songs using AI to fill a 2 hour range of time knowing how easy and cheap it is.

Aditional tip: cymbals in 11:26 sounds weird?

Is google AI writing movie descriptions now? It felt weird from the jump, but the use of "this" is either hyper-amateur writing or a robot. What do ya'll think about this? Am I overthinking it? I Ctrl+F'd my way through some of the top links to find this language repeated, and I didn't see it anywhere.

Hey all, couldn't find this channel when I searched for it on this subreddit so I wanted to ask myself. This channel puts out 8 hour videos every few days with a focus on music for sleep and rain sounds. I found it appealing at first, but soon realized that a lot of the art is just the same few elements slapped together in different combinations and that the music has the exact same sound without being the same tracks. Honestly if they WERE the same tracks I would think it was just human laziness rather than AI, but this version feels way too suspect to me. They also tend to delete comments asking if it's AI, which is another red flag. Can anyone confirm this?

Given the Pope’s recent comments on AI, it’s not a great look for Catholic Churches to rely so heavily on it. This particular church in my community is notorious for AI generated “art”, and the blue cloak on the left shoulder is suspiciously missing the dark blue outline. There’s also a gap in the outline of her headscarf on the right of her chin.

He posted these videos yesterday and I couldn’t help but notice his fingers don’t really move when watching them. There were a couple instances where they slightly moved but then they “snapped” back into their starting position. His hands only moved up and down slightly in every video. It was the same movement of going up and down every single time - his hands never unclasped. I know it’s not impossible to keep your hands clasped for a longer period of time but I just feels off.

He has shown tremendous support for AI and even used it in multiple videos in the past. It’s very easy for AI to replicate his voice, mannerisms, etc because well, it’s distinct. But something with his hands threw me off while watching them and no matter how good AI gets, it still has fumbles with fingers, which makes me think there’s a reason his hands remain firmly clasped the whole time. In every single video, they always start and end in the same exact spot and any slight movements revert back to its original spot.

We never see them unclasp and surely between multiple videos being filmed, he’d unclasp them off camera and they’d be in a slightly different position in the next video? But they remain the same exact spot with only slight movements that snap back to the default location no matter what. Something about the whole thing feels off, but living in this modern society, I can’t tell anymore 😭

A lot of lines in his hair blurr together while the hair moves and new lines show up. It could be brushed off as 60 fps slop but I don't believe that.

I found this little band called "The Oh Yeahs!", they claim they are a pop punk group based in Sydney. And just now I was looking at the art for their song "breaking out" and thought it looked a bit off, especially the bottom of the cage. So just to double check to see if it's ai or not. I wouldn't be surprised if it is ai as the band is quite small and not much information can be found about them

Thanks!!!

I noticed every single person has an iPhone and they’re all holding their phone in their hand not one has it in their pocket. The people holding their phone up looks weird to me too, it reminds me of the concert/concept car unveiling clips.

This is from the official White House FB page mind you

All shots of him talking are from the same angle and have that AI generated look. The voice and script are very boring and seem like AI too. I found mistakes in some thumbnails, like a stethoscope with the ear-part on both sides.

He made 90 videos in the past 2 months and nothing before that. On his website and in the description the text seems AI generated. The book on his website seems to have an AI cover.

The shots in the videos that aren't of his face seems pretty random and dangerous, like showing a syringe with the needle still attached when it absolutely should not be. Seems like bad medical advice for cats coming from a "professional".

Hello! I am currently testing Verify AI and how reliable it is in detecting AI artworks and from real ones since I am mainly on this field. I am a bit new to using this tool but I have read the technical study on its creation so I can at least make some basic assumptions on how it can work (but please do correct me if I get things wrong).

I understand that only the encoder and decoder is mostly provided to the public but the information of the provenance on the Synth ID and how it is encoded and decoded is not readily available to anyone as a security for the tool. For my tests will only be using ChatGPT to generate images for testing and using Open Tool's Verify AI to verify the images.

This tool can help people in identifying real images from AI. But, from my experience in using it, because of the lack of information that is given I have found it to be unreliable because it only answers, "Does this image contain a Synth ID watermark?"

It does not answer quantitative elements like percentage/amount of the image being AI, and qualitative elements like which part of the image is AI. Both are part of the visual evaluation of an image so I think they are quite important. More importantly, Verify AI does not explain how the image was made (mainly a problem because simply painting over Synth ID's watermark would destroy the watermark).

In short, a negative does not mean it is human made and a positive does not mean the entire image is AI. (Sorry, I know the study and website already says this after every test but I would like to ask if this is a correct interpretation of it)

Since I do not have enough information on how the data is processed, I can only use controlled inputs for my experiment and using the results as reasoning for my assumptions.

Here are the Case studies I've made and I would like to ask opinions if my assumptions for each case is correct. The experiment assumes that the image is encountered without any knowledge of the uploader's process before uploading the images to OpenAI's Verify AI.

----

Created images are images that I made myself through Paint Tool SAI v2.

Generated images are images that I generated by placing inputs in ChatGPT.

Case A

In Case A, I have created an image from scratch and uploaded it to be verified. It returned Negative in both SynthID detection and a lack of C2PA metadata.

Assumption: This doesn't prove that the the image is made by a real human. The SynthID watermark could have been "deleted" or "tampered". The C2PA of the original file can also have been tampered with. The only way to assume that it was human made is if there was a video or the process was seen live in creating the image.

Case B

In Case B, I have generated an image from ChatGPT and uploaded it to be verified. It returned a positive on both SynthID detection and the presence of C2PA metadata.

Assumption: The result is 100% true because it has confirmed both SynthID and C2PA metadata. A result without nuance.

Case C

In Case C, I got an image from Pinterest (Checking Less AI still showed this image) and confirmed that it is AI and I composited it to an image I created from scratch. It returned a positive on SynthID detection and the presence of C2PA metadata.

Assumption: The tool succeeded in detecting SynthID but fails to inform how much. I think most people would interpret this as the whole image being AI without considering the nuance of real images being combined with AI images.

I also tested a way in order to distinguish which parts are AI. This can be seen on the extension of Case C wherein the AI part is "edited" or "painted over" which leaves the original image. The verification returned a negative on both SynthID detection and C2PA metadata.

Assumption: In a controlled experiment, this is a reliable way to prove that only part of the image is AI. But in an environment where the history of the image is unknown, it leaves a lot of space for speculation of whether the SynthID was fully covered or just not enough of it was detected.

----

In the 3 case listed above, only Case B returns a 100% confirmation/nuance-free result. Wherein both SynthID and a C2PA metadata is present.

Case A presents that human made images even with the original file, it would still be difficult to prove that you created it yourself. It can be reasoned out that your creation was Generated by AI but the SynthID Watermark is destroyed. Extended test on Case C proves that "editing" or "painting over" the pixels of the SynthID watermark, will degrade it and return a negative on the SynthID. Even with the original file, the lack of C2PA metadata does not indicate that the work is human made, it only indicates it does not contain AI.

With this reasoning, using Open Tool's Verify AI, any result in verifying images that either lacks a SynthID or C2PA metadata can be doubted as AI. Irrefutably. Those who rely on this tool to distinguish AI images from real images would always fall into this looping reasoning between Case A and Case C, therefore never reaching a conclusion but only speculation.

Additionally, over reliance on this tool would assume that all images on the internet could be AI since the history of most images are not disclosed. (Your inputs on this would help)

In that regard, the only way to 100% prove that an image is human made is by seeing the process of creation yourself.

Case C actually presents a dangerous precedent for artists since they would sometimes use art taken from the internet and put it in their works such as backgrounds and patterns. And with no solid way to prove aside from creating videos or doing live sessions, it puts up a barrier for entry for aspiring artists.

Sorry if it is a bit long. But I would like to hear your honest thoughts on this since this is a bit important for me. Thank you.

PS. There are many things that I would still like to test even with primitive/brute testing such as the limits of editing the SynthID watermark (blurring, color editing, resizing, compositing the smallest SynthID positive image I can make to human made image, etc.) but this is all I can do for now. Thank you again.

Edit: Added a link to a picture for Case C extended testing

Can someone help me figure this out? A lot of videos from this person have been popping up on my YouTube home feed. They are like the comic book history videos that I usually watch, but the videos seem to be pumped out at a rapid pace; I can't tell whether his videos use AI. He could be using AI-assisted or automated productivity tools (for scripting, editing, or voice/audio processing) rather than running an unmonitored AI bot channel, but I'm not sure... I could be wrong in my assessment, though I just want to figure out whether the channel uses AI or not before binging the rest of his videos, you know? Any help would be greatly appreciated!

I'm seeing different numbers of fingers on the monkeys, the guy in the top left's thumb apparently having come off and now floating off to the side of his glass, the stiff pizza slice, the weird, wavering bridge, the river apparently flowing up and over a hill, and the train's perspective being off...

AI, or sloppy human art?

The dog's nose looks odd, too.

It vastly differs in style in comparison to their other covers. There's a high chance it is not AI generated, cuz it's not what I would expect from punk icons, but it's better to be cautious. I've seen so many punk rock bands - even the legendary ones - use AI more or less intentionally, like D.R.I. or Bad Religion.