I was waiting for someone else to reply first because it looked obvious to me. All 4 pics are 99% ai according to a tool.
So either she is real and they have been manipulated, the tool is wrong, or slapstick babes is now trying to con people into paying model fees for a custom of "Dixie" who is ai generated.
Edit: Striked out to avoid any confusion. Please read Slapstick Babes responses below. The 4 images were altered, not ai generated.
mFeelzGood said: I was waiting for someone else to reply first because it looked obvious to me. All 4 pics are 99% ai according to a tool.
So either she is real and they have been manipulated, the tool is wrong, or slapstick babes is now trying to con people into paying model fees for a custom of "Dixie" who is ai generated.
Thanks for confirming! I'd get specific on the tells but I know they would just use that to "refine" it.
Yeah it's exhausting seeing the proliferation of gen-AI garbage everywhere and sad to see it even reach a known producer. I'd love to give benefit of doubt and assume it was an "error" or a hacked account but I'm not willing to buy it.
I've been a fan of Slapstick Babes for a while now. I'd be surprised (and disappointed of course) if they suddenly started pushing AI content for real. It would be an odd pivot for a producer with so much infrastructure and experience making real stuff. The good news is that AI video is shit and will continue to be shit for the foreseeable future, so I guess we'll find out when the video coming soon...comes.
BTW, I take "AI detector tools" with a grain of salt. They're every bit the blind guessing nonsense as the AI content they're supposed to "detect."
It could be that ai or other tools were used to upscale the image or change the background. If it is real and the tool is just detecting the post processing, sorry about my claim. Still, I think you are better of not using AI to "enhance" real images and just upload the raw previews or content, or else it looks fake.
Rusalka said: Why did you use AI to generate the last pic? Admittedly the rest are suspicious as well but the last one is the most blatant.
The model is real. Ai was used to edit the background, and it enhanced the pie splatter on her ass, and to put her hand on her hip. I haven't had time to edit the photos in photoshop. Here are the originals. So there's no conning people. Sorry to offend people on here.
It could be that ai or other tools were used to upscale the image or change the background. If it is real and the tool is just detecting the post processing, sorry about my claim. Still, I think you are better of not using AI to "enhance" real images and just upload the raw previews or content, or else it looks fake.
Was just knocking the noise in the image down. All the skin smoothness and image pop was in photo shop. I didn't realize making minor tweaks would bring such an uproar lol also that could have been the original photo I edited, not sure if that program picks up photoshop as ai?
TheSpecialist said: I've been a fan of Slapstick Babes for a while now. I'd be surprised (and disappointed of course) if they suddenly started pushing AI content for real. It would be an odd pivot for a producer with so much infrastructure and experience making real stuff. The good news is that AI video is shit and will continue to be shit for the foreseeable future, so I guess we'll find out when the video coming soon...comes.
BTW, I take "AI detector tools" with a grain of salt. They're every bit the blind guessing nonsense as the AI content they're supposed to "detect."
Thanks for being a fan, no AI models on my page. You guys realize I'm a photographer as well and what photograph with my camera and edit in photoshop is not what you're going to see in the videos, right? Anyways all women I use are very much real.
Rusalka said: Why did you use AI to generate the last pic? Admittedly the rest are suspicious as well but the last one is the most blatant.
The model is real. Ai was used to edit the background, and it enhanced the pie splatter on her ass, and to put her hand on her hip. I haven't had time to edit the photos in photoshop. Here are the originals. So there's no conning people. Sorry to offend people on here.
Appreciate your clarification! Sadly I know Adobe's filter and tools have degraded significantly and lots of the clean passes give that Barbie-doll texture that really makes the image seem uncanny. Imo the raw footage and stills you show now look way better even if it has the motion blur. Big ups and thanks for response!
Rusalka said: Why did you use AI to generate the last pic? Admittedly the rest are suspicious as well but the last one is the most blatant.
The model is real. Ai was used to edit the background, and it enhanced the pie splatter on her ass, and to put her hand on her hip. I haven't had time to edit the photos in photoshop. Here are the originals. So there's no conning people. Sorry to offend people on here.
So glad you said this. the whole AI witch hunt needs to settle down.
Rusalka said: Why did you use AI to generate the last pic? Admittedly the rest are suspicious as well but the last one is the most blatant.
The model is real. Ai was used to edit the background, and it enhanced the pie splatter on her ass, and to put her hand on her hip. I haven't had time to edit the photos in photoshop. Here are the originals. So there's no conning people. Sorry to offend people on here.
So glad you said this. the whole AI witch hunt needs to settle down.
Supposedly some of Hemmingway's writings were also falsely labeled as AI generated by some tools as proof that these tools are not always correct.
Love you, too
)
