By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
This 'No Official Involvement' line can't seriously be expected to hold? on 16:10 - Mar 24 by ITFCSG
I mean, it doesn't take much effort for the Club PR team to put out a statement disclaiming any involvement with Farage's propaganda show but yet they have been silent.
Why?
Because they might need to look at the contracts of the staff running the tour to establish if they are complicit.
0
This 'No Official Involvement' line can't seriously be expected to hold? on 16:25 - Mar 24 with 2046 views
This 'No Official Involvement' line can't seriously be expected to hold? on 16:15 - Mar 24 by redrickstuhaart
Evidence of AI please?
Explanation for the trophies?
It is widely reported that the Comms Director met them.
They must have known in advance given the security side of things.
The silence is telling.
If you look at the picture of him holding the shirt in front of the pitch the name looks clean and neat. This is also a photo opp you get with the tour, and it has been confirmed that the shirt was bought prior to this, not given. (anyone could order a shirt with the name farage if they want)
If you look at the image in the dressing room, the name looks fuzzy. It definetly looks AI. It's amazing what AI can make
This 'No Official Involvement' line can't seriously be expected to hold? on 16:25 - Mar 24 by Samuelowen88
If you look at the picture of him holding the shirt in front of the pitch the name looks clean and neat. This is also a photo opp you get with the tour, and it has been confirmed that the shirt was bought prior to this, not given. (anyone could order a shirt with the name farage if they want)
If you look at the image in the dressing room, the name looks fuzzy. It definetly looks AI. It's amazing what AI can make
[Post edited 24 Mar 20:42]
Reform have posted a video, you see the players names change. Farage is snapped from the image then pasted back in with motion, ending up in front of multiple Farage 10 shirts.
I expect only the media suite picture and the pitch side shirt signing is real. The rest carefully edited and created.
Nice effort
2
This 'No Official Involvement' line can't seriously be expected to hold? on 16:36 - Mar 24 with 1955 views
This 'No Official Involvement' line can't seriously be expected to hold? on 16:25 - Mar 24 by Samuelowen88
If you look at the picture of him holding the shirt in front of the pitch the name looks clean and neat. This is also a photo opp you get with the tour, and it has been confirmed that the shirt was bought prior to this, not given. (anyone could order a shirt with the name farage if they want)
If you look at the image in the dressing room, the name looks fuzzy. It definetly looks AI. It's amazing what AI can make
[Post edited 24 Mar 20:42]
All the shirts look different in the picture and there is no noticeable fizziness or any of the usual telltale signs of AI use.
Doesn't mean it isn't but I have seen no good evidence to conclude that it is either.
This 'No Official Involvement' line can't seriously be expected to hold? on 16:33 - Mar 24 by lurcher
Reform have posted a video, you see the players names change. Farage is snapped from the image then pasted back in with motion, ending up in front of multiple Farage 10 shirts.
I expect only the media suite picture and the pitch side shirt signing is real. The rest carefully edited and created.
Nice effort
The change comes with a separate shot, not with some transition effect. Its a whole new frame, so far from conclusive.
This 'No Official Involvement' line can't seriously be expected to hold? on 16:59 - Mar 24 by ElderGrizzly
Each shirt is slightly different behind him, not an 'AI Copy' and they have kept Clarke's shirt on the right and Mehmeti's on the left.
Not conclusive, but I'd suggest it is real
You don't understand how AI image generation works if you think that. The shirts wouldn't be copy'n'paste with AI. Each one would be generated with a slight variation. Photoshopping would be more duplication.
Sore, some of what it picks up is from the original images used for the AI generation - the still that would have been used for the dressing room, and inherent lighting for example.
The hints are more in the points about the skin, clothing, shoes etc which appear a 'little too perfect'. Is it 100% AI? Not possible to say, but the rating is pretty high.
My suspicion is that the Farage media team took a roll of useful material that was then passed through AI to stage some of the shots. Agree, not conclusive, but I suspect some of the material being released is a distortion of exactly what was possible on the day.
Of course, with one shirt (in another staged shot) showing FURAGE, it's clear that some people are having a field day manipulating some of it.
2
This 'No Official Involvement' line can't seriously be expected to hold? on 14:56 - Mar 25 with 1443 views
This 'No Official Involvement' line can't seriously be expected to hold? on 17:42 - Mar 24 by SuffolkPunchFC
You don't understand how AI image generation works if you think that. The shirts wouldn't be copy'n'paste with AI. Each one would be generated with a slight variation. Photoshopping would be more duplication.
Sore, some of what it picks up is from the original images used for the AI generation - the still that would have been used for the dressing room, and inherent lighting for example.
The hints are more in the points about the skin, clothing, shoes etc which appear a 'little too perfect'. Is it 100% AI? Not possible to say, but the rating is pretty high.
My suspicion is that the Farage media team took a roll of useful material that was then passed through AI to stage some of the shots. Agree, not conclusive, but I suspect some of the material being released is a distortion of exactly what was possible on the day.
Of course, with one shirt (in another staged shot) showing FURAGE, it's clear that some people are having a field day manipulating some of it.
I work with AI a fair bit and that shot of him in front of the Farage 10 shirts looks AI to me.
As you say, AI doesn't just copy and paste, it generates each new thing individually. I've had problems for that very reason recently, as we needed a woman in a lift over several days, but the woman kept looking slightly different. Took forever to fix.
This 'No Official Involvement' line can't seriously be expected to hold? on 14:56 - Mar 25 by The_Flashing_Smile
I work with AI a fair bit and that shot of him in front of the Farage 10 shirts looks AI to me.
As you say, AI doesn't just copy and paste, it generates each new thing individually. I've had problems for that very reason recently, as we needed a woman in a lift over several days, but the woman kept looking slightly different. Took forever to fix.
If they had AI generated some of the images, particularly those in the changing room which it has now been confirmed the players are massively unhappy about, surely the club would have come out and stated as much? I know they aren't wanting to say much on the issue, but it would be such an easy way to ease some of the backlash if they could say that Reform were not given the access it appears they got from the images. For me this is the biggest evidence that they are real photos.
0
This 'No Official Involvement' line can't seriously be expected to hold? on 15:58 - Mar 25 with 1257 views
This 'No Official Involvement' line can't seriously be expected to hold? on 15:37 - Mar 25 by rkc123
If they had AI generated some of the images, particularly those in the changing room which it has now been confirmed the players are massively unhappy about, surely the club would have come out and stated as much? I know they aren't wanting to say much on the issue, but it would be such an easy way to ease some of the backlash if they could say that Reform were not given the access it appears they got from the images. For me this is the biggest evidence that they are real photos.
Someone not saying something is not evidence of anything. The club have made a brief statement and as far as they're concerned, it seems, that's enough. Just because you think they should get into details doesn't mean they should or would.
People have put it through detectors designed to detect AI which have concluded 'most probably', yet you think someone not saying something is the biggest evidence.
This 'No Official Involvement' line can't seriously be expected to hold? on 16:58 - Mar 24 by Zx1988
Still not buying it.
If they've gone to the lengths of AI-ing that shot, why would they leave Clarke's shirt on the right of the shot, and the other shirt on the left?
As for the comments about lighting etc., that's exactly how the dressing room is.
I suspected that particular image immediately I saw it the other day. Whilst it's true that the lighting in the changing rooms does make everything real look a bit fake in there, if you put a peg on your nose and watch the Ref*rm 30s video you will actually see that Far*ge is spirited in in the video in front of those shirts. It's not hidden at all, slow it down even further if you don't believe it.
So that image categorically is AI-manipulated - whether there were five FUHRAGE 10 shirts ever hanging up in there is pretty unlikely*, but one thing is certain - the frog-faced fraud was NOT actually sitting there in front of them.
* I think almost certainly not given the report above and the commonality in angle of the name on all five, with the introduced randomness on a seed image accounting for the minor differences between each.
Good work by Philogene...... GREAT WORK BY PHILOGENE!!!
This 'No Official Involvement' line can't seriously be expected to hold? on 16:59 - Mar 24 by ElderGrizzly
Each shirt is slightly different behind him, not an 'AI Copy' and they have kept Clarke's shirt on the right and Mehmeti's on the left.
Not conclusive, but I'd suggest it is real
I'm pretty sure you're wrong on this one Grizzles. Have a look at the video - if you can stand the smell - from 9s slowed down to 25% speed. the fraud is parachuted in (not hidden) and then when he appears to be sitting there there's a realistic looking shadow behind its left knee, but not behind its left foot, torso or anything much else.
apologies for this link:
Good work by Philogene...... GREAT WORK BY PHILOGENE!!!
This 'No Official Involvement' line can't seriously be expected to hold? on 15:37 - Mar 25 by rkc123
If they had AI generated some of the images, particularly those in the changing room which it has now been confirmed the players are massively unhappy about, surely the club would have come out and stated as much? I know they aren't wanting to say much on the issue, but it would be such an easy way to ease some of the backlash if they could say that Reform were not given the access it appears they got from the images. For me this is the biggest evidence that they are real photos.
I'm not sure what they can say immediately, without potentially making things worse . The club has made a massive misjudgement in providing a platform for the creation of this propaganda. I'm absolutely certain that what we've seen published by Reform is a mix of raw footage taken during the tour, and then clever use of AI to create an illusion of what happened.
The club may also be investigating what inside 'assistance' they may have received.
Reform don't appear to have made any false claims publicly, which would be something that could quickly and easily be rebuked. This limits how the club can respond.
The club may have a case for brand damage through 'Misrepresentation', but if that is an avenue for them to pursue, they will have to build the case which takes time, and be very careful what they say publicly until a case is heard.
This mess is obviously of their own making, showing at the very least naivety, and potentially one that will be very difficult to extricate themselves from - and potentially impossible to undo all the damage done.
0
This 'No Official Involvement' line can't seriously be expected to hold? on 23:19 - Mar 25 with 901 views
This 'No Official Involvement' line can't seriously be expected to hold? on 12:31 - Mar 24 by lowhouseblue
i'd put money on it being filmed on a phone and then being well edited. i'm sure they did it openly. the club should have an explicit non-commercial etc use of stuff filmed on the tour, which applies to everyone, but if they don't then there's little the tour guide can do once it's started.
No chance it’s filmed on a phone, but they do have a clause along those lines inthe stadium and tour T&C’s…. Meaning we have explicit permission for the video:
4. Save only as set out at paragraph 5, no person (other than a person who holds an appropriate licence) may bring into the Stadium or use within the Stadium any equipment which is capable of recording or transmitting (by digital or any other means) any audio, visual or audio-visual material or any information or data in relation to the Match or the Stadium. Copyright in any unauthorised recording or transmission is assigned (by way of present assignment of future copyright pursuant to section 91 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988) to ITFC.
0
This 'No Official Involvement' line can't seriously be expected to hold? on 07:10 - Mar 26 with 753 views
This 'No Official Involvement' line can't seriously be expected to hold? on 23:19 - Mar 25 by Matt_Netherlands
No chance it’s filmed on a phone, but they do have a clause along those lines inthe stadium and tour T&C’s…. Meaning we have explicit permission for the video:
4. Save only as set out at paragraph 5, no person (other than a person who holds an appropriate licence) may bring into the Stadium or use within the Stadium any equipment which is capable of recording or transmitting (by digital or any other means) any audio, visual or audio-visual material or any information or data in relation to the Match or the Stadium. Copyright in any unauthorised recording or transmission is assigned (by way of present assignment of future copyright pursuant to section 91 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988) to ITFC.
"No chance it’s filmed on a phone". How much expertisie do you have on filming and/or filming on phones? There's a couple of experts in this thread who say it could've been filmed on a phone, let's hear your credentials to say, "No chance". If you've got more than me then you're Sir Ridley Scott and I claim my £5!
This 'No Official Involvement' line can't seriously be expected to hold? on 15:58 - Mar 25 by The_Flashing_Smile
Someone not saying something is not evidence of anything. The club have made a brief statement and as far as they're concerned, it seems, that's enough. Just because you think they should get into details doesn't mean they should or would.
People have put it through detectors designed to detect AI which have concluded 'most probably', yet you think someone not saying something is the biggest evidence.
I have a bit of experience with AI detectors and didn't recognise the one that was referenced above, so went to the two I have used before which are Hive Moderation and Truth Scan. When I copied that image of Farage in front of the Farage 10 shirts it came back as being a 0.7 and 3% chance (respectively) of being AI generated. AI detectors are fallible, and different detectors can come back with wildly different scores, but having two of the most well known AI detectors giving such a low chance of it being generated or altered by AI is a fairly reliable indicator that the image is real.
I noticed in another thread you posting confidently that this image was AI generated, have you got anymore evidence for that than some other post you read? You seem to be big on evidence so I imagine you wouldn't want to confidently go spreading misinformation.
1
This 'No Official Involvement' line can't seriously be expected to hold? on 10:33 - Mar 26 with 573 views
This 'No Official Involvement' line can't seriously be expected to hold? on 10:27 - Mar 26 by rkc123
I have a bit of experience with AI detectors and didn't recognise the one that was referenced above, so went to the two I have used before which are Hive Moderation and Truth Scan. When I copied that image of Farage in front of the Farage 10 shirts it came back as being a 0.7 and 3% chance (respectively) of being AI generated. AI detectors are fallible, and different detectors can come back with wildly different scores, but having two of the most well known AI detectors giving such a low chance of it being generated or altered by AI is a fairly reliable indicator that the image is real.
I noticed in another thread you posting confidently that this image was AI generated, have you got anymore evidence for that than some other post you read? You seem to be big on evidence so I imagine you wouldn't want to confidently go spreading misinformation.
Except if you watch the Ref*rm video you will see (without needing any software to help) that Fuhrage is dynamically dropped into the video into that very pose in front of the five shirts. It's not hidden, it's a part of the storyboard.
So if the 'photo' is a still from that video, it definitely is AI created / manipulated. Whether there were ever 5 shirts hanging there is a separate issue, but seems doubtful on the basis of the above and the similarities (not identical, but you wouldn't expect that) in the fold patterns of the shirts where the name is printed.
Good work by Philogene...... GREAT WORK BY PHILOGENE!!!
This 'No Official Involvement' line can't seriously be expected to hold? on 15:58 - Mar 25 by The_Flashing_Smile
Someone not saying something is not evidence of anything. The club have made a brief statement and as far as they're concerned, it seems, that's enough. Just because you think they should get into details doesn't mean they should or would.
People have put it through detectors designed to detect AI which have concluded 'most probably', yet you think someone not saying something is the biggest evidence.
Ah yes, the famously reliable AI detectors. No stories at all online about people putting through photos and artwork they've made themselves and it being flagged, no sirree.
0
This 'No Official Involvement' line can't seriously be expected to hold? on 10:38 - Mar 26 with 553 views
This 'No Official Involvement' line can't seriously be expected to hold? on 10:27 - Mar 26 by rkc123
I have a bit of experience with AI detectors and didn't recognise the one that was referenced above, so went to the two I have used before which are Hive Moderation and Truth Scan. When I copied that image of Farage in front of the Farage 10 shirts it came back as being a 0.7 and 3% chance (respectively) of being AI generated. AI detectors are fallible, and different detectors can come back with wildly different scores, but having two of the most well known AI detectors giving such a low chance of it being generated or altered by AI is a fairly reliable indicator that the image is real.
I noticed in another thread you posting confidently that this image was AI generated, have you got anymore evidence for that than some other post you read? You seem to be big on evidence so I imagine you wouldn't want to confidently go spreading misinformation.
You've seen a couple of AI detectors, I have too. Who knows?
What I do know is that Farage can't appear out of thin air and hover, which he does before being sat in front said shirts in his video of the same shot. What do your AI detectors think about levitation?
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
