We can conclude: that photo isnāt AI-generated. You canāt get an AI system to generate photos of an existing location; itās just not possible given the current state of the art.
Thatās a poor conclusion. A similar image could be created using masks and AI inpainting. You could take a photo on a rainy day and add in the disaster components using GenAI.
Thatās definitely not the case in this scenario, but we shouldnāt rely on things like verifying real-world locations to assume that GenAI wasnāt involved in making a photo.
The āhow will we know if itās realā question has the same answer as it always has. Check if the source is reputable and find multiple reputable sources to see if they agree.
āIs there a photo of the thingā has never been a particularly great way of judging whether something is accurately described in the news. This is just people finding out something they should have already known.
If the concern is over the verifiability of the photos themselves, there are technical solutions that can be used for that problem.
And itās gonna get worse, because itās a very lucrative industry AND itās highly effective for propaganda.
Sorry, big derailment of subject here:
The author described 40cm of rain, which was unusual to me, since we normally describe the rain in millimetres.
Then they translated it to American as 16 inches or 70 gallons per square yard.
The neat thing about 400 mm is, that itās also 400 litres per square metre.
And itās also crazy much, my heart goes out to Valencia.
The photo seems off somehow, I wonder if it is taken with a phone with some kind of AI sharpening algorithm.
