←back to thread

263 points josephcsible | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
tyushk ◴[] No.46178228[source]
> A BBC journalist ran the image through an AI chatbot which identified key spots that may have been manipulated.

The image is likely AI generated in this case, but this does not seem like the best strategy for finding out if an image is AI generated.

replies(11): >>46178306 #>>46178326 #>>46178446 #>>46178714 #>>46178833 #>>46178906 #>>46178907 #>>46179028 #>>46179295 #>>46179902 #>>46184661 #
1659447091 ◴[] No.46178306[source]
Under the other photos it says A photo taken by a BBC North West Tonight reporter showed the bridge is undamaged and A BBC North West reporter visited the bridge today and confirmed it was undamaged

They may have first ran the photo through an AI, but they also went out to verify. Or ran it after verification to understand it better, maybe

replies(1): >>46178477 #
lazystar ◴[] No.46178477[source]
So.. is this where the AI hype train starts to lose steam? One AI hallucinated and caused the incident, and another AI program just wasted everyone's time after it was unable to verify the issue. Sounds like AI was utterly useless to everyone involved.
replies(3): >>46178516 #>>46178583 #>>46178969 #
bigiain ◴[] No.46178969[source]
> One AI hallucinated and caused the incident

I suspect that AI was prompted to create the image, not that this was an incidental "hallucination".

Cynical-me suspects this may have been a trial run by malicious actors experimenting with disrupting critical infrastructure.

replies(1): >>46179301 #
1. permonst ◴[] No.46179301{3}[source]
There is precedent for state actors putting a lot of effort into a hoax like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbian_Chemicals_Plant_expl...