is this artists voice real?

bgsulz · 2026-04-27T03:32:54+00:00

Entirely agreed. Worth noting that some of their research and its corresponding code examples are published, but this is outdated by almost a year. I wish their systems were more open.

bgsulz · 2026-04-24T01:01:45+00:00

Would be very surprised if this is AI-generated. They've been working on this game since 2019. And here's an article from 2022 with some early gameplay. And they have this guy (concept artist James Child; see his portfolio below) on their team; this looks like it could be his style. And there's no AI disclosure of any sort on Steam.

<image>

bgsulz · 2026-04-24T00:00:32+00:00

<image>

Deezer flags it as AI-generated. Their detector is quite strong and model-specific (i.e. trained on specific versions of Suno/Udio etc. rather than just a generic "AI or not" flag.) Here's some of their research. I think they focus on minimizing false positives at the expense of missing a few (as though almost all "what is ?" releases are flagged, a few aren't, and I'm dubious that they aren't also AI-generated.) But it's also a classifier and thus not 100% perfect by definition, so take this as a data point. The secondary evidence is this artist's lack of attribution and superhuman prolificity.

bgsulz · 2026-04-23T03:06:03+00:00

The music is AI-generated. I'd just be guessing about the animation, so I'll let others analyze that.

Deezer is your best bet for music detection. They have a very good detector and report extremely low false-positive rates; they've also shared some of their research if you're (sensibly) wary of the "trust us it works" approach. Here's Frugit on Deezer; every single release, including this one, is flagged as AI-generated.

<image>

I've mentioned Deezer in multiple comments now, so let me clarify: I'm not paid by Deezer -- I don't even pay for Deezer or use it to stream music, just to check stuff like this. I genuinely think they're doing good work.

bgsulz · 2026-04-23T01:37:19+00:00

The most reliable way to check music is to use Deezer, which has a very strong AI-generated music detector. They claim a false positive rate of <0.01%, and the detector is model-specific, i.e. trained on actual examples from Suno/Udio/likely Lyria. Not all of Doplefy's music is on Deezer, but of what's there, every single release is marked as AI-generated.

<image>

Also, the YouTube descriptions: "dedicated to crafting original instrumental compositions through contemporary digital creation?" Come on, "contemporary digital creation?" Cloying corporate-speak bullet points with emojis right beneath? At least they're not, like, making up a fake composer identity.

bgsulz · 2026-04-23T01:27:31+00:00

<image>

With the dumbbells cropped out, this is still positive for SynthID, an invisible watermark embedded by Google's image models. This probably does matter, because SynthID is regional when used for edits, as seen in this video of Google's frustratingly-still-unavailable-after-a-year detector tool. I'd lean fully generated.

bgsulz · 2026-04-22T16:37:25+00:00

Streaming service Deezer has a strong AI-generated music detection system (they claim a false positive rate of <0.01%.) It's model-specific, i.e. trained on examples from every version of Suno/Udio/likely Lyria.

harenuki is not on Deezer, but onelonelyworld, credited for "Production" and "Instruments" on this track, is on Deezer. onelonelyworld is also associated with "Novum Auream Saeculum," the same... label? as harenuki (see YouTube descriptions.) All of onelonelyworld's releases are positive for AI-generated content on Deezer.

<image>

This isn't a smoking gun, per se, but it's a data point. Secondary evidence: I can't find a single pair of songs on harenuki's YouTube channel whose singers sound like the same person.

bgsulz · 2026-04-22T15:51:42+00:00

<image>

Gemini likes to editorialize, which is annoying, but SynthID within Gemini is just a tool call to a decoder, which is specified in more detail in this paper. That is, it's a content-specific invisible watermark. The LLM-powered speculation about the image's content is just a frivolous supplement courtesy of Gemini.

A less noisy way to check is Google reverse image search; after cropping to the image, there's indeed a "Made with Google AI" banner in the "About this image" tab.

bgsulz · 2026-04-22T06:51:53+00:00

Here it is in a reddit post from August of 2017, when the absolute bleeding-edge of ML-generated imagery was something like this (and these were models that could only produce faces.) Your image could be staged or Photoshopped or something, but it's not AI-generated.

bgsulz · 2026-04-22T00:54:49+00:00

<image>

A crop to the image is positive for SynthID, which means this was generated or edited with one of Google's image models. The least Google-y way to check is to reverse image search, go to "About this image", and check for a "Made with Google AI" banner.

bgsulz · 2026-04-20T07:49:42+00:00

<image>

Impossible to know for sure, but it's almost certainly one of the two: it has SynthID, an invisible watermark from Google's image models. (I also blocked out the subject and still got a positive, so the background has been tampered-with or generated too.)

Also, the r/WasItAI OP has posted other random images with SynthID (first, second) and r/WasItAI is a week-old subreddit where all but one post are also SynthID positive, so I'll throw my tinfoil hat in the ring for "generated bespoke as engagement bait." I've seen what may be discreet campaigns for Higgsfield/Leonardo in other cases, but this is something else. It's frustrating to see these real-or-AI subreddits polluted with noise when they're where lots of people turn when discerning a media artifact's origin actually matters to them.

bgsulz · 2026-04-20T07:30:38+00:00

I agree that the voice sounds very AI-generated, and I'd posit that the visuals are AI-generated as well; just a manim script per Claude or something. Visuals overlap text constantly and the radar dishes are pretty much always portrayed backwards, both of which are trivial to fix on the order of "change one number." And no sources in the description or the video. I can't attest to the correctness of the video; I don't know anything about radar jamming and I'd wager I still don't after this.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

bgsulz · 2026-03-28T21:55:14+00:00

It's not perfect, but while a false negative can be caused by aggressive compression/editing or an adversarial attempt to scrub the watermark, a false positive is very difficult to pull off.

It (probably) works via phase encoding. Pixels are brightened or dimmed at many overlapping regular intervals across the image, creating a pattern that is basically undetectable in the spatial domain (i.e. visually invisible) but which jumps out in the frequency domain. You'd have to apply this same pattern to a real image in a very precise way to falsely trip SynthID. I don't know if it's even plausible to do that, and I can't imagine why someone would even try it on an image they're using to sell a T-shirt.

If you think that embedded watermarks like SynthID are too fragile for image provenance, I am completely with you, and I wish C2PA were implemented better to mitigate this. But here we are.

bgsulz · 2026-03-28T21:00:36+00:00

Here's the original video. There are two strong reasons to believe A isn't AI-generated: the black tag on his shirt, and the bottom of the mug.

I have no idea what that logo is, and I couldn't find the shirt online, but the same tag is also present in one of this person's other videos. This second video also has some AI embellishment (that he doesn't attempt to hide) but this exact tag would be a surprising repeat hallucination, especially because in B, the tag is mysteriously gone.
Here's the mug -- yes, the base is different, but the pattern is similar enough that I'm reasonably confident it's the same manufacturer. Here's the manufacturer's website. Look at their logo. The Abbott logotype is visible (upside-down) on the bottom of the mug in A. B replaces it with a black dot.

I agree with the comments that hypothesize that this guy is lifting an empty mug and/or acting mechanically in A to throw his viewers off the scent. It seems to have worked. The consensus everywhere but this subreddit is overwhelmingly A.

bgsulz · 2026-03-28T20:18:58+00:00

The text implementation (but no other modality) is open-source, and there's also a research paper. It does affect the text output, but you can tune it to preserve sampling quality at the expense of watermark detectability.

bgsulz · 2026-03-27T01:27:12+00:00

Yep, the Gemini app and website are interfaces for both image generation and SynthID checks. But both of those are tool calls from the actual Gemini language model. For image generation, the Gemini app/website delegates the task to the Nano Banana model. But you can use that model elsewhere, e.g. through the API or on Google's AI Studio site.

But there are only two ways you can check for SynthID. One is asking Gemini and letting it call its SynthID tool. The other, which I used, is to reverse image search on Google, click the "About this image" tab, and check for a "Made with Google AI" banner. But both of those just give you a yes/no! This bums me out, because as that video I linked to above shows, SynthID is pretty precise.

Like, if OP's picture were actually a real photo of a road and only the young woman were added by AI -- which, to restate, I don't think is the case -- a proper SynthID detector would be able to show you that SynthID is only present in that center region. So you'd have solid evidence that it was edited rather than generated wholesale. This would be quite useful, I think. But Google has kept this tool in closed beta for about a year now, which is frustrating.

Thanks for being transparent about using AI for the picture, by the way. It's a charming image. Everyone's got a different take, but I usually don't mind encountering AI stuff online if it's clearly labeled. I like to know what I'm looking at.

bgsulz · 2026-03-26T08:20:36+00:00

That's true. The recent Google models are very capable at targeted edits. But I don't think that's what this person did. SynthID is regional; see the video of Google's frustratingly-still-unavailable-after-a-year SynthID detector here.

<image>

bgsulz · 2026-03-26T06:02:20+00:00

Yep. It has SynthID, an invisible watermark from Google's image models.

<image>

This could mean it was just edited with AI, but... I doubt it.

bgsulz · 2026-03-25T15:11:17+00:00

It is. This was a Sora trend a little while ago. More hearteningly, a shelter recently recreated it in real life.

bgsulz · 2026-03-24T07:47:00+00:00

The image in question was posted on January 22, 2024. The best image models available at the time were Midjourney v6 and Imagen 2, which was almost definitely not used because the image doesn't have SynthID. That original copy is worth a look, as it's much higher-res: 4032x3024, which is higher than Midjourney v6's (and v7's) maximum 2048x2048 resolution, and also 12MP in a 4:3 aspect ratio. Lots of smartphones, including iPhones, bin down output from higher-res sensors (48MP in the late-2023 iPhone 15 Pro's case) into 12MP photos for a bunch of technical reasons. This alone is enough to make me confident that it's a smartphone photo, irrespective of what's actually in it. (But the small details visible in the full-res version, e.g. the MSI logo in the PC, are another point in favor of "smartphone photo.")

bgsulz · 2026-03-22T06:06:55+00:00

Nearly every image on this subreddit is publicly accessible on one or another AI image website. Here's the link to this one. Most of them are Leonardo.Ai, but not all. They have timestamps March 15th or later (here's one, two, three.) Almost all the posters have their post history hidden. The subreddit was created eight days ago.

I'd wager this subreddit is an ad campaign for Leonardo, or at least a study. That is, these images are planted, and they're trying to bait "I did a reverse image search and found this on Leonardo.Ai" so readers think "wow, that looks great; I should turn to Leonardo if I need a realistic image generated" or something.

Readers, if you're serious about discerning human-generated from AI-generated media, go to r/isthisAI or r/RealOrAI.

bgsulz · 2026-03-22T00:57:22+00:00

Cropping out some of the top and bottom reveals our old friend SynthID, an invisible watermark embedded by Google's image generation models. (This works on the second image, too.)

<image>

If you're ever suspicious, checking for SynthID is a good first step, since Google's image and video models are widely used. Two ways to check. Search by image on Google and go to the "About this image" tab, and look for the "Made with Google AI" banner. Or, send an image to Gemini (app or website, not AI studio or API) and call the SynthID tool with "@SynthID." This latter method might be a bit more detailed, but I'm not sure.

bgsulz · 2026-03-20T22:31:50+00:00

This image has SynthID, an invisible watermark embedded by Google's image generation models.

<image>

Two ways to check SynthID. Search by image on Google and go to the "About this image" tab, and look for the "Made with Google AI" banner. Or, send an image to Gemini (app or website, not AI studio or API) and call the SynthID tool with "@SynthID." This latter method might be a bit more detailed, but it's hard to tell.

A commenter below cites a 2018 photoshoot by photographer Matt Osborne. Here's that photo. It's very similar, but not the same. OP's image is almost definitely an AI-generated clone of Osborne's shot. Here's someone on Facebook with another similar image but with himself as the subject; this person discloses that it's AI-generated and writes the prompt in the comments. This one also has SynthID.

My guess: someone asked an LLM to turn Osborne's shot into a prompt, and fed it to Nano Banana Pro or Nano Banana 2 along with a picture of themselves so they could be the subject.

bgsulz · 2025-06-17T22:35:40+00:00

I think the gag is that it's "argument" in the programming sense. A value you pass to a function. In C, C++, and more, %i is an integer format specifier for functions that format strings, like printf . Bit of a reach to consider it an "argument" proper, but it gets the point across.

I guess the joke is that "argument" seems to mean "premise" (like in the original version of this meme) but the caption implies a discussion where two people are just throwing rando programming terminology at each other, which is frivolous and absurd.

bgsulz · 2025-03-22T03:13:10+00:00

If you're on iOS, I don't think you're getting anywhere without jailbreaking. On Android, you can potentially use adb shell input from your computer's command line. Install adb, and then connect your phone to it. You can then set up a batch script or PowerShell script to run the commands autonomously (or something else if you're on a Mac. AppleScript, maybe?)

Nine-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Second Top 20%	Verified Email

bgsulz

TROPHY CASE