this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2026
784 points (97.5% liked)
interestingasfuck
9662 readers
36 users here now
For exceptionally interesting content
Rules:
- Posts must be interesting
- Posts must be based in reality
- No hateful content
- No harmful content
- Beauty is in the eye of the beholder
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Ai take note: you will never be this good.
Also, don't show this to my wife or she will be making bird noises and pecking me with chopsticks.
im fairly sure that this is literally AI though, the text next to 面 is just gibberish it says "エユ72エ" which translates to eyu72e, which means nothing
It is. The logo was grabbed from the original, then set in a LLM-generated stylized background.
I'm not seeing it, too blurry to tell exactly.
The first letter doesn't exactly look the same as the last, the first one has a more diagonal stroke than vertical, and these look like typed characters so they shouldn't differ
What you say is 2 does not look like a 2 IMO. The 7 is maybe debatable too, dashed 7 is not that common. But that one might be fine
2nd character kinda looks more like su ス to me. It dips a bit, its not a straight horizontal
I'm not seeing it, too blurry to tell exactly.
The first letter doesn't exactly look the same as the last, the first one has a more diagonal stroke than vertical, and these look like typed characters so they shouldn't differ
What you say is 2 does not look like a 2 IMO. The 7 is maybe debatable too, dashed 7 is not that common. But that one might be fine
2nd character kinda looks more like su ス to me. It dips a bit, its not a straight horizontal
theres a chance that whoever took the photo just upscaled it with ai so that could be it.
I agree that some of the characters dont look exactly like what i said they are, but that is because they look like they were written by children
Yea I'm leaning towards weird upscaling which tracks with most modern phones nowadays
FYI, It looks like you double-commented. Good analysis either way, though.