The state of AI and what it means to online scams

[DaChief]

If any of you were on ST or I-Pun today, you may have seen me post this image and claiming that this woman, named Phoebe, was 23-year-old who wanted to do spanking clips. I claimed we were asking for input on what people wanted to see and assured everyone she was fine showing her face. 

I then changed my talk track to tell people that "Phoebe" doesn't exist. This image was generated using a text-to-photo AI generator. Online scammers are churning out images like these and then combining them with a believable pitch to suck people into romance scams, identity scams, etc. Yes, you've all heard about it. Now look at it. See what is being presented to you, knowing that this image depicts a woman who does note xist in the real world. Would you fall for it if I weren't telling you what's really going on? 

This isn't the future of online scams; it is happening right now. As good as this image is, there are subtle artifacts which expose it as a fake. I can see them, because photography is a hobby of mine, so I have a trained eye. A few scammers have already tried to fool me with these types of images, although it hasn't happened on this site yet. It's only a matter of time though. The question is, can you see the artifacts as I do? Some of you can, but many of you cannot. The scammers bank on that.

Take a good look, and feel free to ask any questions. I'll be in and out most of today, but I'll answer as time permits. 

[FlowJohnson]

Yeah I don't think we're at the point where either AI chats or photos are identical from real ones. We'll probably get there, but for now just make sure you're capable of telling the difference and watch out for red flags/warning signs.

[DaChief]

I don't have any insights into programs like ChatGPT. If others do, I'd encourage them to speak up. I've been researching the imagery end of things due to my aforementioned interest in photography. 

The image of "Phoebe" is a low GPU render though, meant to emulate what a cell phone, tablet or point and shoot camera might produce. Here's "Olga." This is a high GPU render meant to emulate what a professional photography can produce. The artifacts are present, but only a very keen eye can find them. Scammers wouldn't be likely to use this type of image though, because even the dimmest bulbs in the sockets of these websites would smell BS if this showed up in their DM. Again, this woman doesn't exist in the real world. 

 

[Spanknutt]

One problem with identifying real vs. AI-generated is some real people use filters that make their images look similar to AI. I attended a seminar on ChatGPT and Dall-e a couple weeks ago and one of the watch-outs mentioned was phishing scams. Often, these come from overseas and are poorly-worded (like some of the troll posts here, lol) and they are easy to spot. Now, they will be able to write with perfect grammar at whatever level they want to. It will be even harder to determine real from fake so everyone will need be even more aware of the possibility of scams, malware & ransomware attacks, etc.

The guy who introduced me to ChatGPT showed me two writings on the same topic. The first he instructed to be written at a 3rd grade level and the second at a Masters level. It was mind-boggling to watch. In case people do not yet know about ChatGPT, it has passed bar exams, medical exams, and such. It basically knows everything that has ever happened in history up through 2021. It can write stories, poems, screenplays, etc. real-time. It's fun to play with (and free for now) but scary as Hell at the same time. It's a new world we live in.

[danadares]

I don't know much about this, and wouldn't get involved with it anyway, but is an old-fashioned savvy human scammer less dangerous than and an artificial one?

[FlowJohnson]

2 hours ago, danadares said:

I don't know much about this, and wouldn't get involved with it anyway, but is an old-fashioned savvy human scammer less dangerous than and an artificial one?

I think the danger is AI making it easier for human scammers. Used to be the case that a photo of someone's face with the date written on a piece of paper was enough to weed out fakes in terms of online communication. Not so much anymore

[DaChief]

1 hour ago, danadares said:

I don't know much about this, and wouldn't get involved with it anyway, but is an old-fashioned savvy human scammer less dangerous than and an artificial one?

All scammers are dangerous. The thing is they now have new tools which make them more dangerous. For sites like this, people who knew how could use reverse image lookup tools to determine if a picture was stolen, and that would be a dead giveaway of a con. With these AI generated images, they become (for now) untraceable back to the AI engine generator, which means the reverse image lookup tools are impotent to expose the true origins of the image. That may change though. 

These types of images are already being used on FetLife and I-Pun by scammers and there's no doubt in my mind the Tinder, PoF and other mainstream dating sites are being flooded with them. And people are slow to catch on, because the reverse image lookup tools can't trace these photos (yet). A savvy cat fisher who knows how to use these AI tools just becomes more savvy, more bold and more dangerous. And that's just the dating end of it.

But other scams involving money can still surface outside of the dating realm. The realistic images of children which can be created are haunting, and with the war in the Ukraine, well, now these scam artists can queue up child adoption scams. Because there's a real child in that photo, right? And reverse image lookup tools don't show a history to that image, right? So, this must legitimately be an image of a child orphaned by the war in Ukraine, right? Wrong. That child is just as non-existent as the two "women" I showed you here.

This can go beyond dating. Two events happened last week which prompted what I'm doing now. The first, and perhaps most well-known, was when AI generated images claiming to show the NYPD subjecting Donald Trump to a violent arrest surfaced on Twitter. That event never happened. The images were debunked in only an hour or so, but people are still circulating them and claiming the images are real. Propaganda.

The second, and less known event was that "photographer" Jos Avery came clean and admitted that all of his work was AI generated and that he does not even own the Nikon D810 he claimed to have used in his "photography." This guy was a rising star in the community. Now add fraud to propaganda cat fishing scams. 

This is the world we now live in, where scammers can generate untraceable images on non-existent people to weave into their talk track. That talk track, as @Spanknutt pointed out, can now be presented without the stilted language which used to be a red flag due to chat-to-text AI programs. It's a wide-open ball game for scammers, political hard liners and fame seekers. Too few people fully understand just how easily these new AI programs can fool even the most jaded online veteran.

Go back to the Trump thing; people are still circulating the images and claiming they're real. Because they want it to be real. Yet it's been debunked. But they look at pictures of the NYPD throwing Trump to the ground and handcuffing him. How can it be fake? How can that child not be a Ukrainian orphan waiting to be adopted? And, hey, Chief, when you and Phoebe start filming, could you hand spank her OTK on a wet bathing suit bottom for me? 

A savvy scammer is always a danger. A savvy scammer with these tools becomes even more dangerous. Forewarned is forearmed, so keep your wits about you. The age of AI is about to change cat fishing, fraud and propaganda as we once knew it, and people need to know how the unscrupulous can now manipulate the unaware. 

[Chawsee]

10 hours ago, DaChief said:

If any of you were on ST or I-Pun today, you may have seen me post this image and claiming that this woman, named Phoebe, was 23-year-old who wanted to do spanking clips. I claimed we were asking for input on what people wanted to see and assured everyone she was fine showing her face. 

I then changed my talk track to tell people that "Phoebe" doesn't exist. This image was generated using a text-to-photo AI generator. Online scammers are churning out images like these and then combining them with a believable pitch to suck people into romance scams, identity scams, etc. Yes, you've all heard about it. Now look at it. See what is being presented to you, knowing that this image depicts a woman who does note xist in the real world. Would you fall for it if I weren't telling you what's really going on? 

This isn't the future of online scams; it is happening right now. As good as this image is, there are subtle artifacts which expose it as a fake. I can see them, because photography is a hobby of mine, so I have a trained eye. A few scammers have already tried to fool me with these types of images, although it hasn't happened on this site yet. It's only a matter of time though. The question is, can you see the artifacts as I do? Some of you can, but many of you cannot. The scammers bank on that.

Take a good look, and feel free to ask any questions. I'll be in and out most of today, but I'll answer as time permits. 

Phoebe is fake?? Holy smokes! Thank you for bringing this kind of thing to our attention, DaChief. Could you please share with us some things to look for that are give-aways that a photo like this is a phony?  

[FlowJohnson]

4 minutes ago, Chawsee said:

Phoebe is fake?? Holy smokes! Thank you for bringing this kind of thing to our attention, DaChief. Could you please share with us some things to look for that are give-aways that a photo like this is a phony?  

For that photo, look at the face. The eyes, specifically. The one eye/eyebrow are super odd, and the face in general is asymetrical. There's also some weird blurring in the background that wouldn't be created by a normal camera. If you take her face as a whole, it kind of looks a bit like it doesn't belong on her body. Always trust your instincts when it comes to the faces. There's also some weird shading/color issues with her lower hair/neck that you can see sort of a box with different coloration... though that might have been to remove a watermark as I don't usually see that in AI photos.

Honestly the main red flag I'd look out for right now, is how overproduced the photo looks. It looks too good. AI art at the moment isn't too good at reproducing candid/shitty selfies and that kind of thing. The other thing AI is bad at is consistency, so if they have only a single photo, or if there's differences between the various photos on their profile... all things to keep an eye out for.

[DaChief]

43 minutes ago, Chawsee said:

Phoebe is fake?? Holy smokes! Thank you for bringing this kind of thing to our attention, DaChief. Could you please share with us some things to look for that are give-aways that a photo like this is a phony?  

@FlowJohnson nailed this with the artifacts, and the only thing I'd add is to look at the left side of her blouse. It appears to be caught in a breeze, yet those billows aren't pulling on the rest of the blouse. 

[DaChief]

48 minutes ago, Chawsee said:

Phoebe is fake?? Holy smokes! Thank you for bringing this kind of thing to our attention, DaChief. Could you please share with us some things to look for that are give-aways that a photo like this is a phony?  

And in the photo of "Olga," look at the middle necklace, up in the left, right near where it meets the garment. There's a light reflection coming off of the chain which is an unnatural light reflection for a chain that thin. For the second artifact, you have to open the image and zoom in to full resolution. Then scroll down to the area of her left breast. If you look closely, you'll see the hair intermeshes with the dress near the breast in a way which resembles a safety pin. 

[Chawsee]

55 minutes ago, FlowJohnson said:

For that photo, look at the face. The eyes, specifically. The one eye/eyebrow are super odd, and the face in general is asymetrical. There's also some weird blurring in the background that wouldn't be created by a normal camera. If you take her face as a whole, it kind of looks a bit like it doesn't belong on her body. Always trust your instincts when it comes to the faces. There's also some weird shading/color issues with her lower hair/neck that you can see sort of a box with different coloration... though that might have been to remove a watermark as I don't usually see that in AI photos.

Honestly the main red flag I'd look out for right now, is how overproduced the photo looks. It looks too good. AI art at the moment isn't too good at reproducing candid/shitty selfies and that kind of thing. The other thing AI is bad at is consistency, so if they have only a single photo, or if there's differences between the various photos on their profile... all things to keep an eye out for.

Even after studying her face, I admittedly still don't see anything wrong with her eyes or symmetry. She looks like a beautiful, friendly person. I did notice the blur in the sand on the left side of the picture, along her arm. But otherwise, my focus still isn't as keenly attuned to these details as it is for you and DaChief. Thanks for the tips!

[Chawsee]

18 minutes ago, DaChief said:

And in the photo of "Olga," look at the middle necklace, up in the left, right near where it meets the garment. There's a light reflection coming off of the chain which is an unnatural light reflection for a chain that thin. For the second artifact, you have to open the image and zoom in to full resolution. Then scroll down to the area of her left breast. If you look closely, you'll see the hair intermeshes with the dress near the breast in a way which resembles a safety pin. 

I didn't notice either of these details until you pointed them out. Wow, I have a lot to learn on this topic. 

[DaChief]

2 hours ago, Chawsee said:

I didn't notice either of these details until you pointed them out. Wow, I have a lot to learn on this topic. 

For what it's worth, only a keenly trained eye would have caught the hair and fabric intermesh. I saw it because I do portrait photography, and because I generated that image for the purpose of finding artifacts I never thought to look for. I did that because I wanted to figure out what I missed in Jos Avery's stuff. Because I never caught it in his "photos," I literally made that image and a few like it so that I could learn what to look for, because even as someone who does photography, Avery fooled me. 

[danadares]

18 hours ago, DaChief said:

All scammers are dangerous. The thing is they now have new tools which make them more dangerous. For sites like this, people who knew how could use reverse image lookup tools to determine if a picture was stolen, and that would be a dead giveaway of a con. With these AI generated images, they become (for now) untraceable back to the AI engine generator, which means the reverse image lookup tools are impotent to expose the true origins of the image. That may change though. 

These types of images are already being used on FetLife and I-Pun by scammers and there's no doubt in my mind the Tinder, PoF and other mainstream dating sites are being flooded with them. And people are slow to catch on, because the reverse image lookup tools can't trace these photos (yet). A savvy cat fisher who knows how to use these AI tools just becomes more savvy, more bold and more dangerous. And that's just the dating end of it.

But other scams involving money can still surface outside of the dating realm. The realistic images of children which can be created are haunting, and with the war in the Ukraine, well, now these scam artists can queue up child adoption scams. Because there's a real child in that photo, right? And reverse image lookup tools don't show a history to that image, right? So, this must legitimately be an image of a child orphaned by the war in Ukraine, right? Wrong. That child is just as non-existent as the two "women" I showed you here.

This can go beyond dating. Two events happened last week which prompted what I'm doing now. The first, and perhaps most well-known, was when AI generated images claiming to show the NYPD subjecting Donald Trump to a violent arrest surfaced on Twitter. That event never happened. The images were debunked in only an hour or so, but people are still circulating them and claiming the images are real. Propaganda.

The second, and less known event was that "photographer" Jos Avery came clean and admitted that all of his work was AI generated and that he does not even own the Nikon D810 he claimed to have used in his "photography." This guy was a rising star in the community. Now add fraud to propaganda cat fishing scams. 

This is the world we now live in, where scammers can generate untraceable images on non-existent people to weave into their talk track. That talk track, as @Spanknutt pointed out, can now be presented without the stilted language which used to be a red flag due to chat-to-text AI programs. It's a wide-open ball game for scammers, political hard liners and fame seekers. Too few people fully understand just how easily these new AI programs can fool even the most jaded online veteran.

Go back to the Trump thing; people are still circulating the images and claiming they're real. Because they want it to be real. Yet it's been debunked. But they look at pictures of the NYPD throwing Trump to the ground and handcuffing him. How can it be fake? How can that child not be a Ukrainian orphan waiting to be adopted? And, hey, Chief, when you and Phoebe start filming, could you hand spank her OTK on a wet bathing suit bottom for me? 

A savvy scammer is always a danger. A savvy scammer with these tools becomes even more dangerous. Forewarned is forearmed, so keep your wits about you. The age of AI is about to change cat fishing, fraud and propaganda as we once knew it, and people need to know how the unscrupulous can now manipulate the unaware. 

Thank you for this explanation. I know AI is used recently for creating artwork that is remarkably impressive, simply by entering a text description to give the algorithms a directive, and to a lesser extent, computer manufactured music that sounds like it was made by skilled musicians. I had not thought too much about how that technology could be used for criminal intent, but you've enlightened me.

I don't take photos online to be fact anyway, but these AI images will certainly help those spreading disinformation. As much as I love the internet, it may be the most dangerous thing ever invented.

[NeedDiscipline9]

On 3/26/2023 at 12:21 AM, DaChief said:

For what it's worth, only a keenly trained eye would have caught the hair and fabric intermesh. I saw it because I do portrait photography, and because I generated that image for the purpose of finding artifacts I never thought to look for. I did that because I wanted to figure out what I missed in Jos Avery's stuff. Because I never caught it in his "photos," I literally made that image and a few like it so that I could learn what to look for, because even as someone who does photography, Avery fooled me. 

Regarding the picture of the "beautiful" woman in the blue dress - I don't need to look closely - I can see from a mile off that she's not my type at all. All that jewellery means she'd be very high maintenance and plastered in makeup is a real turn-off for me. If I do look closely I see a face without a single blemish - that would be enough of a red flag though I suppose a lot of makeup would help present that way.

I have been reading through the missives on this post and appreciate the heads up on the use of AI to help scammers present with better language skills - not that I am looking as I'm happily married to to a wonderful woman who's not afraid to administer discipline whenever it's required.

😃

[danadares]

I don't know much about the topic but, even if the picture is an actual photo of a real person, that means nothing with regard to trust. Someone once sent me photos that they paid to have taken, not of themselves, and not to try to scam me with them. If they didn't tell me what they were, how could I know or check to verify anything? I know I wouldn't spend time checking every pixel to see if I could find something artificial. I just would not trust any photo from someone I don't know personally.

[DaChief]

1 hour ago, NeedDiscipline9 said:

Regarding the picture of the "beautiful" woman in the blue dress - I don't need to look closely - I can see from a mile off that she's not my type at all. All that jewellery means she'd be very high maintenance and plastered in makeup is a real turn-off for me. If I do look closely I see a face without a single blemish - that would be enough of a red flag though I suppose a lot of makeup would help present that way.

I have been reading through the missives on this post and appreciate the heads up on the use of AI to help scammers present with better language skills - not that I am looking as I'm happily married to to a wonderful woman who's not afraid to administer discipline whenever it's required.

😃

That was also meant to be an artistic, professional portrait shot. The no blemishes are something which either makeup of photoshop would edit out if she were a real person. 

[chaoticGoodness]

I work in cybersecurity and I can say that we're starting to see the quality of phishing e-mails improve. The majority of cyber criminals and online scammers don't speak English as their first language and this often makes identifying phish e-mails easier, but now that they have chat GPT to help them with the language, the e-mails are becoming more realistic.

[Lotsapappa]

Phoebe is only 23 and has a condo in Bahamas. I am very lucky I got in at ground floor of VIP only ICO and NFT offerings. I say lucky as Phoebe accidentally texted my cell phone the link as she apparently reversed the last two digits! But has agreed to honor the deals. I am making lots of money but somehow my account and now my Amazon account per recent text are both frozen. She is trying to help me unfreeze and link directly into my JPM account. 

I was broker in 80’s and even legit firms with properly licensed individuals were looking to sell penny stock crap with celebs backing. I would say do not try to stay a step ahead but go offline and met licensed Fin Services individuals in their office locations or work through your own employers HR department for those services. 

Phoebe has a sister that needs surgery and has almost raised the funds but this is Spanking site and don’t want to distract or bring people down. 

[nicoleS39]

On 3/26/2023 at 12:45 AM, Chawsee said:

I didn't notice either of these details until you pointed them out. Wow, I have a lot to learn on this topic. 

WOW...I do not have a clue. Geeeezzz....

[Bramblewine]

I see one obvious detail on Olga that tells me she's fake: her cleavage isn't all there. Her right breast (left from our perspective, since we're facing her) is outlined, but not her left. On a real woman, if her neckline is that low the outlines of both breasts show.

On Phoebe, it's harder to see, but upon thinking about it, the state of her hair is not at all realistic. The ends of it look wet, like she's just been swimming or showering, but the rest of her hair and all of her body are not wet at all. The way it's looking kind of tangled and sticking out, is probably meant to look like the wind is blowing through it, but if the wind were strong enough to do that, her clothes would be getting blown too. They're not.

My hair is the same type as hers--thick in quantity and slightly wavy--and under absolutely no circumstances does it look like that. If I had wet hair, windblown hair, or had just gotten out of bed (the other possible source of that mussed look), it would be quite different.

[Bramblewine]

And on both of them, the distance from their shoulders to their breasts is much too long to be realistic. Real women's breasts align with their armpits at the top and come down to about the middle of the ribcage. Very big and saggy breasts may appear to hang lower, but they can't be rooted any lower. Phoebe and Olga both have perky, average size breasts that start so far below their shoulders that for that to be real, the breasts would have to be somewhere between the lower ribcage and the stomach.