Another good reason not to actually pick one up - they might not be playing. Tonic immobility can be disturbingly realistic.
The good news there, I guess, is that rabies is pretty rare among 'possums, as opposed to things like raccoons:
However:External Quote:
Source: https://www.terminix.com/wildlife/opossums/learn-about/External Quote:
So far, there's no additional footage for comparison, but It looks much more like a recording and/or processing glitch, where AI is more likely to have been used for trying to improve the footage, instead of for generating the entirety of it.
I can't see the hair moving independently from the head in the slowed down footage, it seems some frames were dropped instead. Also, there's motion blur and artefacts in the hair when the frames are reviewed.
I would expect morph cut to fill in frames, but the footage seems to be missing a few instead.
You mean top 5% to 10%. People regularly get this confused...particularly on online "IQ test" results that tell them they are in the top 90% of the population LOL.
why would an online IQ test tell anyone that?
If I were a faker of videos (which I'm not) I would have taken away the hands of the guy behind him who seems to be giving him some assistance.
I guess there's one app that does this, because this isn't the first time I've seen such a screenshot posted. The IQ is right there! It shows you how people only see what they want to see.
92of them if the guy posting the "Tweet"is in the room.
If 91% of people are smarter than him, doesn't he find himself in the top 91% (albeit at the bottom of that group)? And that he's in the bottom 9% roughly speaking?
Good spot.
The spotter? He only touched the bar after Hegseth's elbows had locked out. You mean if the spotter had actually helped him lift the barbell you would have edited his hands out? That would have made people expecting him to fail grab the popcorn.
Of course,but I didn't want to point that out while not being able to point out anybody in the bottom 2% -- wouldn't be fair.
OK, this one is sort of fun. Obviously it is AI, but how far into it do you get before spotting what is, o you, a definite give away...
Might want to follow the link if it displays for you too big to keep on the screen, you need to see the whole screen for some of the "tells."
That's definitely one.
Very much fun! Especially the panda!OK, this one is sort of fun. Obviously it is AI, but how far into it do you get before spotting what is, to you, a definite give away...
That's the second unit badger.
And why does it vanish into thin air when the badger turns around? Hmmmm... this may not be real...
That's a representation of an action camera LED fill light. It's supposed to be the light source in the burrow.
That's supposed to be a 360 camera effect, but the camera must be mounted on a stick to produce the effect represented in the video. The goal was to produce a seamless transition between the footage from the external camera and the footage from the piggybacked camera. This is the reason for the action camera suddenly disappearing in the burrow.
Everyone knows they typically outsource electrical work to red foxes.
This is quite a broad question, if not rhetorical. For the past few years, photo and video editors have incorporated AI tools to produce special effects, fill in frames, add movement, detail, add/remove objects, post-processing and so on. However, if you're asking whether the intro was generated solely from text prompts or video/image seeds, then the answer is no. For instance, the scenery below is copyrighted content from the movie "Clash of the Titans" (2010). They modified it by at least adding lighting effects, which are probably AI-generated, as indicated by the "AI Visualisation" tag in the lower-right corner:
Making it illegal to publish photorealistic AI-generated content without a visible tag is one way forward in countering this type of misinformation. It would expose independent channels to hefty fines and prosecution. In the near future, expect it to become law in almost every country.
I did some research to see the various tools that are available. Pretty mind blowing. Seedance 2.0, Luma Agent, etc.
Very interesting. The "movie" part was still obviously slop, and no, you didn't sneak the resheathing of the katana past me, that had me facepalming, but the "making of" part of that was quite well done. After some of the usual tells he owned up to still being occasional part of the AI output (in particular the car door goofs), I was genuinely expecting things like the spacial arrangement of crew/dollies/stands, etc. to be occasionally messed up. So I suspect he spent more time over the making of parts than the short itself.
