I looked at some of the videos. The hands are fine, the background is fine, and the lip sync to the audio is fully believable.

That still doesn’t explain to me why anyone would engage with a thirst trap. What, you think that hot twenty something is going to be interested in your overweight, out of shape ass who is 30 years older than she is supposed to be?

They’re desperate and not capable of introspecive rational thought. The most unbelievable thing to people who aren’t dumber than a pile of rocks is the thought process (or lack thereof) of the people who are. I recommend trying not to rationalize it yourself for their behalf, you’ll end up with psychic damage

Yes they actually think that.

Perry sure they’ve mentally resigned themselves to living life in their mental land of make believe

What, you think

I’m gonna stop you right there. No, they don’t.

It’s already too realistic :(

Yeah, people really need to stop pretending AI slop still produce wonky hands and smeared background. Yes, you will still find those, but you can’t rely on that anymore. Even videos when well made are hard to tell if it’s AI or not.

The current tell is “weird eye-lines and physics” no one looks anyone in the eyes and everything is very “dream where youre trying to run but gravity turned off for some reason”

Even the floaty physics are almost gone. The new models and processes are fixing that.

The glaring “floaty” physics is amateur tell hour, I’m actually surprised it’s even still an artifact. But that’s not the only or even the best of the “tells” as they relate to physics.

Probability, consistency, and continuity are always going to be issues present to some degree for one simple fact:

A camera takes a snapshot of the actual physical universe. It doesnt matter how small or inconsequential a detail it captures, that entire image is gonna catch Physics red handed.

An AI generation is making up everything, all the laws and rules. Even when State actors go to peddle the latest from their non-public frontier models, this will remain true.

Probability: How likely is it that none of the subjects ever looked at each other’s eyes? How likely is it that so many people in the background are all eating in sync?

Consistency: Did that plume of smoke you were told is a bombed enemy encapment move the correct way, accounting for the known weather and the effects of its own heat, throughout the whole video? Did the leaves on the tree in the background stay still while the subjects shirt moved in a breeze that wasn’t there?

Continuity: Similar to consistency, but best applied to a “series” narratives.

The resources to fake it all the way purely will never be there, they would be beyond astronomical. The human editing needed to seal in those gaps takes some time.

The lies are needed faster than they can be made detection proof.

Well, it makes sense, that if sex sells (and also rallies, look at 30s’ and 40s’ propaganda), then believable digital succubi are the most expected application of computers once that becomes possible.

It’s actually funny how, looking at stuff retrospectively, the main change of 60s was less idealized sexuality in art and propaganda and artifacts like that, but more in participatory culture.

Things like pr0n in the Internet are sometimes described as continuation of that, I think they are more of a reversal. Pr0n helps to make things taboo.

Not for everyone, of course, but for people with social disabilities. Of the very kind that join radical groups, listen to romanticist (in the XIX century meaning of the word) music, and/or, like me, just kick rocks till being 30 for everything social.

It’s the difference between participatory and herd culture in general. Say, 00s’ Web, where people would have simple webpages, against today’s Web, where technical ability to do something doesn’t matter because people almost fear those doing anything outside of big platforms with company employees as invisible herders. It’s weird, freaky, strange. As if you were doing something illegal.

Those who participate can’t be led by promise of satisfying this or that desire. With the Web example, look at Telegram ; it’s not secure despite its creators almost claiming that, but it does satisfy the desire for having conversation spaces similar to Web forums, with easy discovery ; on most big platforms, that’s made intentionally inconvenient to make people reliant upon recommendations, and recommendations are formed to satisfy advertising conversion goals.

Now, that’s a desire rather high in Maslow pyramid. Sex is far more basic and important for control.

I’ve also recently seen a few Facebook posts by one good newspaper’s main editor, with his excitement about Claude, mostly on using it to learn and think about anthropological stuff. So it’s an intellectual succubus as well. Pretty smart people are vulnerable in the same general way as those lonely people, just with a different profile.

Let’s back up. If you’re posting “good morning beautiful” to ANYONE YOU DON’T EVEN KNOW, you’re probably a piece of shit. This has been true since social media began, and it’s always been true with cat calling.

Idk, if it’s an explicit thirst trap account that’s plugging for OF or something then it’s fine to post that since they’ll probably appreciate the engagement.

But yeah your right 99% of the time, just like making unsolicited comments to strangers irl is wrong 99% of the time unless it’s in a strip club where the women presumably want that kind of attention.

Fine, but self-awareness comes in stages. Learning to recognize that others are scamming them is an easier step than recognizing that they’re scummy.

Yes, boomers, the people that have saddled the rest of us with existential crises are pieces of shit

Eh, sorry, but that’s a valid instinct and interest. Yep, someone fully realized as a person and with good social surroundings won’t likely want that. Plenty of people are unfortunately not.

Now when you’re not getting any hints or do have good social surroundings yet go for such a bait, you are not very wise and might not be a good person.

But - sometimes English-speaking Web seems kinda puritan still.

If you are going to answer that last part with observation that such comments are cringe and unlikely to attract another person in a non-puritan setting as well, I am aware of that. Clumsiness exists, stupidity exists, various wounds exist. Have some humanity.

I went through a few of those videos. Could not notice any artifact. If I had to evaluate myself I’d say it is actresses.

Really not easy to say those videos are made by AI.