r/ufo • u/MadOblivion • Jul 23 '26
Probably Nothing......
This object appears in a video frame during the 1984 Dale Gardner EVA (STS-51-A)
Image 1-2 AI Enhanced
Image 3-4 Original No Enhancement
Source
John Stoll currently a Supervisor for NASA and JSC Multimedia and Communications at NASA and Rothe Development, Inc. https://rocketreach.co/john-stoll-email_2569898 Uploaded the digital transfers here https://archive.org/details/BestOfSTS-51A16mmTransfers
61
u/babers76 Jul 24 '26
Snakes that fell off the plane
22
u/Upset_Wrangler_7100 Jul 24 '26
*motherfuckin snakes
16
1
1
35
u/FloatingClay Jul 24 '26
Ai is legitimately the worst thing to happen to the ufo community. Now every film scratch, smudge, burn, artifact is a new phenomenon. AI is the death of critical thinking
4
u/Mental_Selection844 Jul 24 '26
Ha ha... It's actually the fact a "UFO community" exists that was the death of critical thinking 🤣
1
u/ludoludoludo Jul 25 '26
Lmaooo I mean you're right but you're saying this as if critical thinking was ever a thing on this subreddit AI or not
23
u/goatchild Jul 24 '26
space eel
5
u/DrunkAxl Jul 24 '26
I thought they were referred to as space snakes
6
6
u/cosmic_glimpse Jul 24 '26
What a coincidence. I'm in the middle of a video where someone mentions seeing a space eel while working in the SSP.
1
u/MadOblivion Jul 24 '26 edited Jul 24 '26
Pretty sure that is it's propulsion wake behind it. pretty wild to get in captured in a single frame. Perhaps it stopped there, turned slightly and shot out of sight before the next frame was up.
-2
u/Mental_Selection844 Jul 24 '26
Yeah that must be it, surely it couldn't be anything else, it absolutely must be an alien spaceship. I mean they're practically begging to be discovered!
Take me to your leader!
1
u/MadOblivion Jul 24 '26
Rumors are that NASA has known about them for a very long time. Also the Rumor is that ALL hard copies from these missions are stored in Israel currently. Why? No idea.
1
3
114
u/Winter-Ad2052 Jul 24 '26
There is no such thing as AI "enhanced", only hallucinated.
41
u/Ok_Dog_4059 Jul 24 '26
AI tried to figure out what a smudge on old film was and managed to make it worse. It happens a lot with old film and AI
1
-19
u/Fi1thyMick Jul 24 '26
Yea they can clean up the pixels and such. Just because you formed a definitive opinion regardless, doesn't mean it's not happening regardless of your personal bias
20
u/Kryptosis Jul 24 '26
“Clean up pixels” doesn’t actually mean anything…
-22
u/Fi1thyMick Jul 24 '26
Whatever you say
19
u/Kryptosis Jul 24 '26
I mean I did photo restoration and alterations for years. That’s a meaningless term thrown about by clueless clients.
-24
u/Fi1thyMick Jul 24 '26
Ok. I agreed to disagree fam. Would you prefer an argument? I'm really not it the mood
17
u/Kryptosis Jul 24 '26
You could try offering a reply that has substance instead of piping up with nonsense.
-9
u/Fi1thyMick Jul 24 '26
I don't wish to engage. I'm not a film/photo expert, real or imaginary. Are you that hard up to feel validated in some pointless superiority?
14
u/casual_creator Jul 24 '26
If you’re not a film/photo (or AI) expert, then you REALLY shouldn’t be trying to explain how AI “enhancement” works. Because you’re just repeating and spreading false information that causes people like OP to think they’re doing anything worthwhile or revealing new and accurate details but putting the image through AI.
I’m really not trying to be a dick, but this misunderstanding at large has GOT to stop and is damaging to this topic.
AI image upscaling does not reveal hidden details. It does not “clean up pixels.” Pixels cannot be cleaned up - they are the smallest part of an image, the literal building blocks. What it does is it looks at a blurry image of an apple. It looks at the individual pixels and then the pixels around it to try and figure out the context to guess what the image is. Then it compares that analysis to the millions of HQ images it’s been trained on until it can find a match (or as close to one as possible). Then it says, “okay, based on the data I’ve found, I think this is a blurry image of an apple.” Then it essentially creates a new image, using the blurry image as a blueprint, but with the details it learned from the HQ data it found. And it’s guessing.
And if it can’t figure out what the blurry image or object is? Well, it says “fuck it, I haven’t got a clue. I’ll make something up.”
The only purpose for using AI upscaling is to be able to say “hey, this looks nicer now.” Using it for any type of analysis or to figure out what a previously unknown object was is a complete waste of time.
-4
u/Fi1thyMick Jul 24 '26
Calm down karwn save your speeches for someone whose gonna read them.
→ More replies (0)-1
Jul 24 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
0
u/Fi1thyMick Jul 24 '26
Seriously. I could easily pretend to be an obscure expert to prove a meaningless point, but I'm not suffering enough serious inadequacies that it's that important lol
→ More replies (0)0
-22
u/ItsTriunity Jul 24 '26
Bullshite, AI enhancement is a thing. That's usually what gets posted on these subs.
22
u/schuylkilladelphia Jul 24 '26
That's usually what gets posted on these subs.
That's... exactly the point...
Also, as a test, try taking a low resolution photo of a smudge with motion blur. Ask AI to enhance it. It'll randomly hallucinate. But that hallucination will look higher resolution!
-2
u/dzernumbrd Jul 24 '26
You're lumping image restoration and image generation into the same bucket.
Generative Fill invents pixels that were never there.
Denoise analyses existing image data and tries to separate signal from noise.
Both use AI. Only one is generating new content.
So "all AI enhancement is hallucination" is simply false.
Products like Adobe Generative Fill are inventing details whereas products like Adobe Lightroom's Denoise are using AI without hallucinating.
Hallucination is primarily associated with generative models. Not all AI is generative, and many AI image enhancement tools are designed to denoise existing data rather than generate new content.
So you need to look at what tools are being used before you can dismiss it.
6
u/schuylkilladelphia Jul 24 '26 edited Jul 24 '26
AI image models don't use a de-noise algorithm*, and I'm not talking about generative fill either.
I'm talking about enhancing and upscaling. I've been using AI since sd 1.5. I've used every closed source to open source models, in t2t t2i i2v and v2v, and a shit ton of upscalers.
They are literally just in latent space inventing what would be in those pixels based upon training data, and with a blurry smudge there's nothing for it to do other than hallucinate.
People also love to put low resolution security footage of a person into AI and say this is the person in the photo. No, it's a entirely made-up person's face.
*Other when training, where noise is injected and evaluated for loss as the model learns etc.
-3
u/dzernumbrd Jul 24 '26
Different enhancement models do different things. Some are heavily generative. Some are primarily restorative. You can't make a blanket statement about all of them. Well you can but you'd be wrong.
1
u/schuylkilladelphia Jul 24 '26 edited Jul 24 '26
"Restorative" is the exact same. It's Gen AI. Latent space, generating pixels based upon training data, VAE, then poof your smudge hallucinated into a crisper smudge with made up details.
Edit: even models that operate directly in pixel space are still inventing those pixels in a smudge based on their training data (ex: GAN models)
1
u/dzernumbrd Jul 24 '26
You're arguing that some enhancement models hallucinate. I don't disagree.
The leap is claiming that therefore all AI enhancement is hallucination. That's a much stronger claim and you haven't proven it.
2
u/schuylkilladelphia Jul 24 '26
Reread what I wrote. All enhancement of a amorphous blob or blurry incomprehensible smudge is a hallucination. AI works amazing on things it knows very very well. But it has no secret omniscient knowledge, it's going to try to match those blurry blobs or the 4 pixels of someone's face on a security camera into whatever is in its training data. Run it with a different seed, and you'll see a different face. A different scheduler, another face.
Every AI enhanced image I've seen on all the UFO related subs have been hallucinations. They turn an out of focus light source with compression and distortions that someone copied by filming their monitor into a crisp chrome solid flying object. It's hallucination, not enhancement.
3
u/dzernumbrd Jul 24 '26
I have already agreed that enhancing a 4-pixel face is generative.
I don't agree that removing sensor noise from an otherwise intact image is the same thing.
"Some AI enhancement is hallucination" isn't the same claim as "all AI enhancement is hallucination". You're continuing to talk about specific types of AI enhancement.
→ More replies (0)9
u/DasKobra Jul 24 '26
Enhancement of a low quality asset with no knowledge of what is being enhanced inherently implies generation.
Any added information is therefore hallucination, unless you expect AI to magically know what a 'real' UFO looks like without having been trained with 'actual' examples.
1
u/ISO_UFO Jul 24 '26
Yeah, but he's saying noise reduction doesn't just invent new data. Look at every single astro photo and noise reduction is used. I could show you some before and after pictures if you'd like.
0
u/DasKobra Jul 24 '26
With Astro photography, since the object of study remains relatively still, they can afford to take thousands upon thousands of pictures of it across a given timespan. Noise is detected and measured as the changes between the pictures and it eventually averages out and that's how they are able to build and process highly detailed images of astronomical subjects.
1 blurry photo taken with a digital camera will never be able to be subjected to the same scientific and rigorous analysis, enhancement and process.
Also note how I didn't mention AI in the paragraph about noise reduction - that's because they historically haven't used it for that specifically. It's all maths.
3
u/ISO_UFO Jul 24 '26
Yes that's how they average out noise, but there's still noise left after stacking. Even my pictures with 40+ hours have noise. The final processed image still gets AI noise reduction ran on it. Maybe not everyone does this, but it's the leading software people use for it.
I have no idea what was done in this UFO picture. I'm not saying I trust it, but in general just AI noise reduction will not just make up data to fill in. It'll smooth it out and likely loose a little data making the texture softer... depending on how aggressive you go with it.
AI upscale will invent some data and shouldn't be used as a scientific analysis of anything. Could use older methods (nearest neighbor, bilinear, bicubic) could be used without too much concern.
-17
u/WooleeBullee Jul 24 '26
Do you consider photoshop filters hallucinations?
19
Jul 24 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
-14
u/WooleeBullee Jul 24 '26
No I think I do, perhaps you dont understand photoshop filters. They are also AI.
-32
u/MadOblivion Jul 24 '26
I don't know, i gave it a picture of my dog sitting inside of my truck. I told it to remove the truck and it took my dog, put him on the ground in the same parking lot and it was still the same dog. LOL
→ More replies (4)21
u/Langdon_St_Ives Jul 24 '26
Lots of dogs in the training data, so the added extra pixels will be very dog-like. In this case it's unclear what the feature is, so anything that ends up being added is pure hallucination.
→ More replies (3)
7
6
u/igrokyourmilkshake Jul 24 '26
AI is a great tool and has it's uses, but enhancing the unknown isn't one of them.
These diffuse models literally turn noise into anything the user is looking for, or the closest vector to what it's currently most like within the trained weights, biased by every word, letter, and the order of them in the prompt. I'm a fan of AI, but eventually someone else will pass around your enhanced images off as originals, they'll get debunked, and the true original images will then be dismissed outright by others (debunked by association).
0
u/MadOblivion Jul 24 '26
You know what is really funny? You know the recent UAP file dump from the government. One guy used AI to debunk a UAP but the AI just fabricated the shape of a hog floating balloon that never existed. The irony is that the de-bunkers are the ones that abused AI in this instance.
I am sure the text prompt was something like "Turn this into a realistic balloon" which is not a unbiased attempt at image analysis.
6
17
u/LastGuardianStanding Jul 24 '26
AI “enhance” just doesn’t work that way tho
-4
u/MadOblivion Jul 24 '26
Premium member image analysis is shockingly good in my opinion. It can get things wrong but it does not get everything wrong.
6
3
u/kitastrophae Jul 24 '26
Down with digital. Bring back optics.
0
u/MadOblivion Jul 24 '26
it is sourced from 16mm motion picture film which is my personal favorite video source. Something about film, most famous ufo captures are on old school film.
1
u/Mental_Selection844 Jul 24 '26
Yeah funny isn't it? How nearly everyone on the planet now walks around with a high quality digital camera in their pocket, but all the best "UFO captures" are on "old school film".
5
2
3
2
4
9
u/TodaysLunch Jul 24 '26 edited Jul 24 '26
OP is cross-posting from r/uapfiles, where his post got removed by the moderators (I'm not sure why). Anyway, I will reply the same thing here:
It is obviously a smudge on the 16 mm analog film frame, check out the source material here (time stamp 3:08, lower left corner). Screenshot here: https://imgur.com/a/3A1cjCQ
Edit: This video is encoded in several different formats, this is the one that OP took screenshots of (timestamp 3:09). Screenshot here: https://imgur.com/a/KmdEtTT
Still obviously looks like a smudge though, probably some dirt with some cotton fiber attached or similar.
4
u/RustyWallace-357 Jul 24 '26
Yeah, I don’t think so. This is a little much to be a nick
6
u/TodaysLunch Jul 24 '26
This is from the source with no manipulation: https://imgur.com/a/3A1cjCQ
I suspect OP actually enhanced the "unenhanced" images.
1
u/MadOblivion Jul 24 '26
OP cross referenced both formats. I suggest you check the other.
1
u/TodaysLunch Jul 24 '26
Can you link to the specific one you used in the images you posted? There are like 5 different formats: https://archive.org/download/BestOfSTS-51A16mmTransfers
0
u/MadOblivion Jul 24 '26
I downloaded both 720p and 1080p to cross reference frames and compression ratios. They may be two entirely separate scans.
4
u/TodaysLunch Jul 24 '26
OK, I found it, this is the video you took a screenshot of and then posted: https://archive.org/download/BestOfSTS-51A16mmTransfers/Best-of-STS_51_A-16mm-Transfers_1080p.mp4
Still obviously looks like a smudge though, probably some dirt with some cotton fiber attached or similar: https://imgur.com/a/KmdEtTT
2
u/MadOblivion Jul 24 '26 edited Jul 24 '26
At least i am no longer being accused of manipulating the content. I had one guy trying to prove me wrong with his source from Youtube. Youtube does not have a better NASA source, than the one i have provided.
4
u/TodaysLunch Jul 24 '26
You could have avoided this by linking to the precise source and timestamp. This is on you.
1
u/MadOblivion Jul 24 '26
One interesting note, The object is again reflecting light and shadowing in the correct direction in relation to the sun. You can't tell by the Satellite because the shuttle positioned itself between it and the sun so that Dale would not be blinded by the sun.
But that does give us 180 degrees roughly to the sun from the camera recording viewpoint.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Fi1thyMick Jul 24 '26
The AI enhanced zoomed in versions probably look a little different than a knick or a smudge, but in the actual still, that's what it looks like honestly. I was kind of excited for this until I saw that and then watch The source video that he used to reference it. It definitely has knicks showing up in that area
1
u/Fi1thyMick Jul 24 '26
You mean like in actual film where you see the knicks and such from repeated use? I never knew what those were called, but watching the source I see what you mean
2
u/TodaysLunch Jul 24 '26
I'm not sure about the formal name, but "smudge" describes it well enough.
Yes, actual film. Nasa used the 16 mm analog film camera Arriflex 16mm SRII for this mission (among other models):
"Astronauts operated this Arriflex 16mm motion picture camera on a number of Space Shuttle missions to film inside the orbiter and through the windows. Introduced in 1982 at the beginning of the Shuttle era, the Arriflex 16mm SRII camera was the first compact high-quality motion picture camera to be used by astronauts. Its size and quality made it well-suited for filming in space, and also for news reporting and shooting television programs."
1
u/swampgasorr Jul 24 '26
“Obviously a smudge” he said lol. Bro why do you feel the need to make shit up?
1
u/TodaysLunch Jul 24 '26 edited Jul 24 '26
If you watch the source material, there are similar smudges all over the image several times a second. Why would I assume that it is something else when it looks very similar to all other smudges? Like this one for example? https://imgur.com/a/eSmZyUd. Or maybe it's a Tron Recognizer?
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
u/dmigowski Jul 24 '26
Could also be a frackle of dust on the movie material. It it is only one frame, it says absolutely nothing.
0
u/MadOblivion Jul 24 '26
A high ranking Russian official said once that the ET presence is real and it is not that they fear to tell us about NHI. He said their fear is that the scale of visitation occurring would cause mass panic. That got me thinking, if they are coming and going as they please our standard video equipment is more than likely not capable of capturing these craft in transit but perhaps looking at the video frame by frame it is possible to capture an image.
2
u/Mental_Selection844 Jul 24 '26
Oh a real, actual, high ranking Russian official? Man that sounds super duper official, it must be true!
I think you're on to something there though, the reason we don't know about them is because of our camera technology. Maybe we should all use "old school film" because as you stated above, that format has captured all the best UFO sightings.
It wouldn't have anything to do with the massively imperfect way film works to capture and project an image would it? Nah it must be aliens who love old school movies and stuff.
1
u/MadOblivion Jul 28 '26
The rumor is that all of our technology is based off early crash reverse engineering. So you would imagine an alien species might find that easy to manipulate.
1
2
u/Alexjr977 Jul 24 '26
damn we are cooked
is this black goo from alien covenant
/s
1
u/MadOblivion Jul 24 '26
Most people have very limited imaginations. When they think of Aliens they probably imagine them riding a spaceX rocket. They think with what they know.
2
u/celshaug Jul 24 '26
Sky Eel.
1
u/MadOblivion Jul 24 '26 edited Jul 24 '26
I also have screenshots up close of what appear to be two transparent tentacles twisted together. It really got me thinking of Stephen Greer's claims of them having energy based tentacles. In my Screenshot the tentacles are reaching towards the satellite and touching it.
The wild thing for me is that the tentacles are reaching out from the position of the Shuttle as if whatever it is was near the shuttle itself.
If you pay close attention to the EEL the AI also chose to twist the needle like shape protruding out to the right. I find that incredibly interesting. The AI really did an INCREDIBLE job here.
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
u/Creepy-Spell-4478 Jul 28 '26
eels are difficult to get off the hook. don't know how it got up there though
2
1
u/LesPeterGuitarJam Jul 24 '26
It's the Derelict.. It's full of engineers.. Or a pissed of android with a God complex..
Hopefully no black goo will spill out...
1
1
1
u/ExoticPancakes Jul 24 '26
Looks like bait on a fishing pole
0
u/MadOblivion Jul 24 '26 edited Jul 24 '26
Kinda what i was thinking, although i think the trail behind it is some kinda of wake or exhaust of some sort. Gases do disperse fast but you can still catch a freeze frame of it getting expelled. The Exhaust perhaps could be some type of gravitational wake.
1
1
u/SpiritsoftheCicada Jul 24 '26
It’s Maui from Moana turning from an eel and a narwhal to a hammerhead shark
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Mental_Selection844 Jul 24 '26
That UFO has a ridiculous amount exhaust smoke, it will never be allowed in the London ULEZ! They'll have to invade another city.
1
1
1
1
u/jonfranklin Jul 24 '26
It looks like part of a coupling. Like they have on the different boosters that separate after launch.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/LastGuardianStanding Jul 24 '26
I just mean that, you have a piece of software making nothing but assumptions and hallucinations about the image. That image was likely film, but if it was early digital there is no way the information or data is available in the picture for the AI to analyze and enhance.
So the AI is literally doing the same thing as a human, magnify and guess.
We’re looking at 2 completely fake photos, and 2 really old photos. Nothing more
1
1
u/IncreaseSweaty4959 Jul 24 '26
This is an optical illusion caused by a tiny insect (such as a caterpillar or larva) crawling or clinging to the airplane window pane.
Because the camera is focused entirely on the small bug just inches away from the lens, the background (the bright blue sky far outside) is completely blurred out of focus. This creates a distorted sense of scale, making a small insect look like a large, strange object cruising alongside the plane at high altitude.
1
u/CryptographerLow6360 Jul 24 '26
looks like you cut out a cat in mario paint and pasted that in that sky
1
u/Countryvibing1988 Jul 25 '26
Guys I thought this was a cottonmouth that had had been slashed up good on the head. idk why but that's where my mind took me. Outside of that, I don't have a better guess....
1
1
u/Standard_Old_Guy Jul 25 '26 edited Jul 25 '26
AI enhanced is code for AI created.
Seriously it looks like a booger smeared on a piece of glass that's been held up in front of a photo taken from the space station.
1
u/jjalonso Jul 26 '26
Question... If this thing goes at thousand of kilometers per hour and some metal stuf is hanging by a wire. It should not be stretched and straight to the back ?
1
u/MadOblivion Jul 26 '26 edited Jul 26 '26
My theory is that it actually stopped where you see it, turned slightly and then shot off before the next frame came up. You can see propulsion wake in Space but you only catch it in a couple frames at best<if at all> before the vacuum of space disperses it.
Also i have identified more than one "Object" in this mission that is reflecting the sunlight from the rising sun to the left and shadowing to the right. I have also discovered a similar occurrence in other NASA missions.
We can say this is damage to the film and a defect all day long but when defects start reflecting sun light that is when it starts to tickle my brain.
1
1
u/DaffyLucky Jul 28 '26
Litterally a glass crack
1
u/MadOblivion Jul 30 '26
I think when we have something truly unexplainable everyone just starts throwing darts in the dark. I find that to be a very good sign that it is something legit.
1
u/DaffyLucky Jul 30 '26
Bruh you are doing the same thing but making it stick with the version you want
1
u/MadOblivion Jul 30 '26 edited Jul 30 '26
Making it stick? No, when i tell the AI to not make up features it listens. I was trying to clear up some objects that were slightly more blurry and it will flat out refuse. It might "slightly" improve it but it needs better quality pixel data to make the high quality enhancement without altering details.
In this case it did a great job simply because it had enough pixel data to work with.
1
u/Lowmax2 Jul 28 '26
Need more pixels.
1
u/MadOblivion Jul 28 '26
Would be helpful but this is actually enough to work with. The "trail" behind gradually it runs out of focus the further away it is from the "object". That tells me the distance is substantial and it is not just an artifact or a scratch. The sun rising from the left is also reflecting and shadowing correctly on the object.
If that trail was a scratch or a defect of some kind it would it would have a higher contrast like it doesn't belong. Basically it would stand out like a sore thumb if it were a film defect of some type. The fact that it is hard to see and appears to run out of focus the further away it is tells me it is present in the scene.
1
u/Mundane-Ad6715 Jul 30 '26
My guess is a photo taken while fishing with the reflection of the sky hitting top of water
1
1
u/Beautiful-Clock2939 Jul 24 '26
Looking at artificial intelligence hallucinations and saying “yep, aliens!” is so fucking funny. We’re laughing at you not with you
1
1
0
u/sky0175 Jul 24 '26
I'm done with this UFO thing, even with the experience I had. (I made a post about it.) The amount of fake news, AI BS, and all these young, famous podcasts spreading misinformation and hosting a bunch of nonsense people is just too ridiculous
The only podcast I still watch is Gerb. Hope it last until it won't.
0
u/Behold-Roast-Beef Jul 24 '26
Wouldn't it be crazy that what was being kept a secret was that there was a whole ecosystem in space that we were unaware of?
1
0
0
u/Prmarine110 Jul 24 '26
What options exist if the object is only on a single frame of the video, as stated? All things being equal, the simplest explanation is most likely the truth.
1
0
u/Final_Echo Jul 24 '26
Lately I come to this sub just to enjoy comments. Sometimes wondering if those people making funky comments are full time comedians or they’re running some cia deception psy op… Nah probably comedians, lots of funky comedians jerking about alien stuff all day long.
1
0
0
u/Ordinary-Length3333 Jul 24 '26
Why was this even allowed to be posted and why are all these juveniles allowed to comment in these posts?
1
u/MadOblivion Jul 24 '26
Good question, This is Reddit after all. A well Astroturfed and controlled platform.
0
u/HunkySpectacles Jul 24 '26
Guys, come on, please downvote AI image posts. It's not an enhancement in any way whatsoever. It is a generated image that uses the original image as part of it's prompt. There is no logical way that it could show any true "enhancement". It's just a random generated image of what the blurry thing COULD look like and it's usually super super wrong.... idk why I comment. Why don't you take a blurry photo of yourself and enhance it and then show us how many totally different people the enhancement creates...
0
u/MadOblivion Jul 24 '26
Don't you get it? AI is getting REALLY GOOD now. Sure it gets things wrong sometimes but it also gets things right.
in 5 years anti AI comments will just get downvoted off this site because everyone and their momma will be using AI in every aspect of their own lives.
1
u/HunkySpectacles Jul 24 '26
Lol it's not about getting them right or wrong, it's literally the way an image gen model works. It literally is not enhancing anything dude. It's just making stuff up based on pixels... AI can look really good while being extremely inaccurate about what exists in the real world. You clearly don't understand my original point or how image gen AI works at all, so Idk what to tell you.
2
u/MadOblivion Jul 24 '26
Having worked with AI since the Start, At first i could not even give it an image. Then it started to let us feed it images, did it suck with images? YES, absolute GARBAGE.
Now fast forward a few years to today, AI image analysis has improved 1000x and no i am not being dramatic. It LITERALLY improved 1000x from where it began in just a few short years.
5 years from now the argument you present now will just be laughed at because AI will get almost nothing wrong.
This is the near future reality, You will be ignored as a human being and AI will be listened to because people will trust AI over a random stranger on the web.
1
0
0
u/LinkedInParkPremium Jul 26 '26 edited Jul 26 '26
You should be banned for posting this trash OP.
1
0
u/Round_Marsupial_4493 Jul 28 '26
Can we stop using AI on blurry images? They end up get reposted without the original and add nothing but noise.
64
u/Laxility Jul 24 '26
Looks like something on a fishing line on top of water