this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2026
354 points (93.2% liked)
Shitposting
82 readers
1380 users here now
Welcome to !shitposting@lemmy.today — a place for memes, shitposts, absurdity, cursed images, low-effort masterpieces, and whatever other internet garbage makes you laugh.
Post dumb shit. Upvote dumb shit. Don't take dumb shit too seriously.
founded 4 days ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Feels like ragebait
Yeah, lot of people here are falling hard for this AI rage-slop. Besides the customer on the right having no legs (or the world's weirdest chair), there's no visible way this printout is attached to the window, the reflection in the top left cuts off at what presumably is the bar top and then the reflection below it is inexplicably of a perpendicular street, the lack of a ceiling where a ceiling is implied to be and all that similar stuff, the type justification doesn't actually line up. (begrudging credit to r/isthisAI)
It's a good fake but still pretty conclusively fake. And... honestly, it's worrying that people here are falling over themselves to comment as if this is real. Ya'll, we need to try and be a little bit less credulous with boomer memes, especially ones that perpetuate negative BS like this, otherwise we're basically no better than Facebook users.
No, not "conclusively", it could still be real. You're assuming the sign was printed directly on the substrate. As a former sign-maker, that might not be how this sign was made. It could be cut vinyl on a plastic face. The cutter might have been too small to cut the entire sign at once, and the sloppy way vinyl is transferred to the face could account for the non-convergence. Also, the drawn lines are not quite aligned to the image.
Not "conclusively".
Finally, there's no reason to invoke generational slurs or elitism in this comment. Remember, no war but the class war.
~~Ok boomer~~
Laminated vinyl signs? I mean I suppose, but I see no indication of lifting or bubbling at the edges like you get from laminating objects with uneven thicknesses, and no signs of it on the fine inner details like the interiors of the text. It's also got far finer details than I've seen cut with a drag knife for a small sign, and there's enough variations in the text that I doubt it's been assembled from die-cut lettering sheets (not that I've ever seen a sign shop that used those). If we had a firm idea of the size this would be an easier argument to make, but even without that the cleanliness of the lamination alone makes this suspect. But perhaps they are a supremely talented laminator, one that enjoys leaving large strips around the edges like it was a laminated paper sign hung in a primary school building, and who puts vinyl cutouts on an unevenly cut plastic backing.
No, with all the additional AI-indicating details in the image, I'm sorry, I just don't see this being a credible explanation. This is absolutely, demonstrably an AI generated image.
If fake it's very believable. The window reflection is pretty damn good for AI generation.
Yeah - The image gen models have gotten scarily good in the past 6 months, and as shown here it can take a great deal of work to confirm an image is AI.
With how long those lines are, they amplify the error made while drawing them by 5-6 times. So for example, the start of the top pink line is slightly too high, and that's why it passes so far below the true vanishing point
That is a great point! One moment and I'll break it down.
(Okay! a little bit of a comedy of errors trying to get these marked up, but here we go.)
You're absolutely correct that the top line isn't fully aligned - this is because it's impossible for it to be aligned, as the top edge is distorted. You can see in the image below that that distortion is another indication this was generated - there's a fairly pronounced distortion of the top edge, but the row of text just below it has no equivalent warping like you'd get if this were a piece of paper that was slightly bowed. This is why the top line is misaligned - it's impossible to line it up, and when that happens it's better to align from the center out, as radial distortion becomes more severe the further you get from the center. The original poster lined it up with the inner corner and continued it out along the edge until the edge "bends", rather than aligning the corners and ignoring all of the warping of the edge as I've done in green below.
And you're again absolutely correct that this amplifies the errors - in fact that's rather the whole point. In the interest of completeness I've extended the green line out to intersect with the lower paper edge line - you can see that even corrected, the intersection does not form a regular pattern with the rest of the lines.
let's be clear
the image is fake
the employers not paying their employees and asking for tips is real in USA
Im tired of seeing that comment every time something is exposed to be fake. "Yeah but it COULD be real!"
It is a shitpost. Nobody is claiming it isn't fake.
But it isn't AI generated either.
I didn't say "could be real"
I say it is real even though the picture may be fake
Wow, didn't know there was this type of stuff ...
I was just thinking that this sign is too off-putting to be real. No business would do that and if it were a real business why isn't there like a Google Maps thing and everyone review bombing like they typically do in instances like this.
For sure, that's the thing that made me suspect it's fake. But unfortunately, "guys nobody did this it's stupid" is an extremely tough argument to sell on the internet, even if (as in this case) you turn out to be absolutely correct.
While I'm strongly against ai rage bait bullshit, I'm also strongly frustrated at tip culture.
I worked in restaurants. It's ridiculous.
I agree - and I find it deeply worrying when social issues I consider very important are being exploited for this kind of sloppy ragebait.
Is this technique reliable? What if paper is slightly bend?
That will still show as a regular distortion of the alignment. If it's crumpled or heavily creased though, this isn't a useful technique.
Adding the hourly wage into the math +2 Choosing $165 instead of $150 or $100 +1, underlined can't and not underlining can't +1 star emojis around thank you +2 choosein 25% intead of %15 or %18 +1 a period of every line even with conversational tone +1 There's a lot to go on there even if you don't follow the lines.
Should... Should we call you a bondulance?
You could, but i'd have to refuse it, costs too much ;)
Right well I'm mystified! You don't seem to be a chatbot from your post history, but I think I might just not be high enough to fully appreciate the deep, ancient wisdom in your words.
We're all meat chat-bots, we're just really slow at training.
The text: seems like AI to me, even forgetting the alignment issues
Adding the person's hourly wage into the sunk cost is questionable at best, 3:1 odds AI
Choosing $165 instead of an even number for a sample. Maybe the average check is $165, but i seriously doubt it, choosing $100 or $200 would be far more likely, even 150 i might have let it slide, 2:1 odds AI
They both did, and did not, underline "can't" in a single 2-line statement. While it would have been marginally ok gramatically, the whole vibe they were going for was not 'hinged' 2:1 odds AI
Adding star emojis around thank you is a telltale AI move. 3:1 odds AI, I'd have given it more but maybe they were emulating a receipt
Choosing 25% is an unlikely target for a 'lesson' on how to tip. 15,18,20 would all be more likely, ode to ragebait, 2:1 odds AI
The tone of the whole thing was very conversational and a bit unhinged. There was a period after every line; it was like they were making a list, but it wasn't. In that frame, I would have expected no punctuation, or a comma in a few spots, feels way off. 2:1 odds AI
It read AI to me without lining it up.
in addition
The perspective problem is also deeper than the lineup. It is laminated, but it feels like it's poster-sized, which would be unusual. The camera is focusing quite close if it's a letter, (reflection looks like it's 3 ft away, which would be 1.5' x 2 , yet the reflections and the shot through the window are quite clear. The reflections show a cell phone picture, but the f-stop would have had to be narrow AF (like F11) to take that shot with distance and close-up details clear.
Ahh, thank you! Yeah, I agree that there's plenty of indications that the text is AI. But people in general like to be certain before they believe something that contradicts their worldview, and this is an opportunity to showcase a fairly quick and fairly easy way to check for AI generated text. You've raised an excellent point about the f stop / focus too - I'm not quite such a good photographer as to be able to confidently identify issues like that, but it's for sure something I'll be paying attention to in the future. Thabk you!
I agree this is ai slop, but what's with the lines in the image? Never seen that before for judging if something is AI
With the latest models being much better for text, it's a fairly reliable technique - comparing the vanishing point at which each row or major horizontally justified element converges to see if everything is actually aligned (as they would be if a human created it in something like word) or all subtly askew (as gen AI creates it)
I don't know how reliable that is with lens distortion fucking up the vanishing point on real images.
It's unlikely you're using a collimating lens, so distortion is presumed! Not only is the impact of distortion fairly minimal, with radial distortion (by far the most common kind of distortion - usually synonymous with 'lens distortion') it's actually an important aspect; the angles will follow the regular pattern of the distortion and the technique will still work (If your photo has non-radial distortion, DM me; I want to know what on earth you were doing to cause that, it was probably a really entertaining story). As in the above image, the random scattering of the intersections is the indicator that the image was AI generated, not that the lines do not intersect at a single point.
Technically extra radial
http://cameramaker.se/Lightfield.htm
Or whatever you describe this as
https://gfx.cs.princeton.edu/pubs/Fuchs_2012_DAF/index.php
And then there's this crazy bullshit
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667325824001328
I'm not quite sure what you mean, I'm sorry! As far as I'm aware, extra-radial and non-radial are both generic terms for all the optical aberrations, prisms, distortions and what-have-yous that aren't radial distortion. Though, I'm not terribly familiar with light field optics (beyond what can be gleaned from osmosis while working with optics nerds) so that may well be a term that's relevant there and I just don't know it. Do say more tho, it sounds potentially quite interesting!
Browse All and look at the upvotes. The fediverse is full of the same dumb people as the rest of the internet lol
Fake yes but they are plenty of people who actually do believe this. As in people who are in support of mandatory tipping. Specially during covid it was not hard to find doordash or Uber eats drivers putting up videos complaining about not getting a tip or not getting a big enough tip. He had some of them filming themselves harassing people.
Is ragebait