At 18 seconds into this speech Trumps Pinky disappears under his hand and his ring finger 'becomes' his pinky. This is clearly AI.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 1 year ago (10 children)

Hijacking top post again, to point out the red flags

  • 🚩OP posted ABC official video with custom made post title to suit his narrative
  • 🚩OP used a software AI detector (made by AI unbeknownst to them) to tell that this video is ~70% chance of being AI, not their own expertise or critical thinking
  • 🚩 OP is misdirecting the audience by making them focus on a specific part to support their narrative instead of letting the video speak for itself.
  • 🚩 all the anomalies happen around the 0:19 timestamp. The blur in the tree leaves in the window, the face/mouth movement and the hands. Occam’s razor would tell you this is a classic cross dissolve.

There’s no such thing as an AI filter on this. It’s plain old video editing. He misspoke as I explained below.

I want this guy gone and out of our lives as much as the next guy, but if we lose our critical thinking skills and will begin with these herd upvote stampedes without even considering OP might be trying to steer the narrative, we lose a lot of credibility with potential (new high quality) users.

This seems to be posted on a fringe instance on a poorly moderated community, hence me going hard against this, as I don’t think reporting this post with help. So please downvote this post.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    This is a pretty assinine take

    • you're not rebutting this.
    • does this program work or not? You're making an ad hominem attack rather providing any insight into whether this detector is or is not effective or why
    • op is offering supporting evidence for their position. Is this evidence valid or not? What the fuck does "let the video speak for itself" mean? If you don't agree with evidence argument with your own
    • occam's razor states that the simpelst explanation is usually the correct one. It is a broadly applicable maxim to help one think critically. If this is or is not a cross dissolve then show fucking evidence. Make arguments.

    Jfc

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    You're fighting hard against a well reasoned set of points. The only evidence possible here is looking at it with your eyes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    This isn't what reason looks like. Reason is supported by arguments and evidence.

    And your reading comprehension is truly awful if you think I'm fighting for anything. These are not well reasoned points. I am not arguing against them or for them, I am not arguing for the op or against the op.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I am not arguing against them or for them

    ok, and the OP just wrote to me he doesn't care either way. That's the problem. You and OP are just apathetic muppets bored out of your mind, no strong beliefs either way, but don't mind accidentally spreading misinformation.

    If you don't care, what are you doing on this platform arguing? You realise there are more people on Reddit you can troll right? We're trying something different here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment