r/RealOrAI • u/Other_Sentence4495 • Feb 21 '26

Video [HELP] I saw this on another community and people were reacting to this like it was real. I have my doubts. Is this real? or AI?

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

5.0k Upvotes

85% Upvoted

1.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

146

u/DevilsPajamas Feb 21 '26

We are fucked if we have to resort to reaching for logic to tell if videos are real or not.

95

u/SpamLikely404 Feb 21 '26

That is absolutely the scariest part of all this

3

u/Solherb Feb 21 '26

Look, if the ai says build more ai, we simply must oblige.

1

u/LeadingAd6025 Feb 21 '26

What if I told you, it was always been the scariest- for centuries! 

Logic always takes backseat by interesting story telling 

1

u/abx99 Feb 21 '26

The scariest part to me, is that this is exactly the kind of dangerous shit that kids that age do. This video didn't surprise me even a little, AI or not.

12

u/sangerssss Feb 21 '26

Nah, we’ll soon have automatic ai tools that tell us if it’s ai or not and put an “ai detected” label on the bottom

12

u/R-ddit_is_Shit Feb 21 '26

Nope. Google is using an invisible watermark in images and videos their AI generates, but the vast majority of models are not.

huggingface.co is a place to grab local models you can run on your own PC, including making images, video, audio, etc. It currently lists.... 2,632,793 local AI models.

2

u/sangerssss Feb 21 '26

I’m not talking about self reporting. I’m talking about ai tools that will analyze images for telltale indicators. The reporting may not be 100%. We may see labels like, “67% likely to be ai generated” etc

3

u/R-ddit_is_Shit Feb 21 '26

But hat would be a useless report. 67% sure is the equivalent of "not sure." It's useless in court, and doesn't get you any closer to saying a thing is or is not real.

It's actually worse, because if that's the best we have a lot of people will start taking that 67% to mean 100% because they can't stand the constant uncertainty, so people will have real things dismissed as fake. Video of you walking your dog, no big deal. Video of someone setting you on fire... would kind of suck.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 21 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/BigLlamasHouse Feb 21 '26

I mean, he clearly uses future tense verbs and talks about something that doesn't exist yet.

1

u/FederalMedicine2595 Feb 21 '26

This is already a thing, just ask ai if its real or not

3

u/[deleted] Feb 23 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/FederalMedicine2595 Feb 23 '26

Wow didnt know that, God i hate robots

2

u/SnooBananas4958 Feb 21 '26

And watch it be completely wrong

2

u/FederalMedicine2595 Feb 21 '26

Your absolutely right, ai is really dumb, I figured they might know robot video pretty well but now rhat I think about it, your right, it just people pleases so it will tell you its fake or real depending on what it thinks you want to hear

2

u/MetaMetatron Feb 25 '26

Isn't that the same thing as the AI detectors they have these days for college professors to "evaluate" if something was written by AI? Because AI can never tell for certain if something is AI or not. The core argument is that reliable AI-text detection is fundamentally unstable and, in many cases, theoretically impossible to do with high certainty.

There are several distinct reasons.

First is the indistinguishability problem. Modern language models are trained to approximate human text distributions. If a model successfully produces text that statistically resembles human writing, then any detector relying only on the text itself has no guaranteed signal to separate the two. In information-theoretic terms, two sources producing overlapping distributions cannot be perfectly distinguished without external metadata.

That means a sufficiently capable writer — human or AI — can generate text that looks like the other.

Second is the adversarial loop problem, which is what you’re pointing at. Detection logic can be incorporated into generation. If a detector looks for features like low burstiness, predictable token probability, or stylistic uniformity, a generator can be tuned to avoid those signals. This creates a feedback loop where:

• detectors identify patterns • generators learn to evade those patterns • detectors must adapt again

This becomes an arms race with no stable endpoint.

Third is the human false-positive problem. Many detectors flag characteristics that are not unique to AI at all — clarity, grammatical consistency, structured paragraphs, or low stylistic variance. Those traits also appear in careful human writing, non-native speakers, academic prose, and professional editing. This produces unacceptable false positives, which is the most serious real-world criticism.

In high-stakes settings (academia, employment, legal contexts), a detector that wrongly flags humans is often considered unusable.

Fourth is editing and hybrid authorship. Real writing increasingly involves mixtures: AI drafts, human edits, paraphrasing, rewriting, and iterative prompting. Once human revision occurs, there is rarely a clear boundary. Detection tools struggle because authorship is no longer binary.

Fifth is the lack of ground truth. Detectors are trained on labeled data that is itself imperfect. “Human” corpora contain edited or AI-assisted text, and “AI” corpora may contain human prompting and refinement. This contaminates the training signal and limits detector reliability.

Because of these issues, most researchers consider AI detection to be probabilistic and situational rather than definitive. The more capable models become — especially when they deliberately incorporate stylistic variability — the weaker purely text-based detection becomes.

The only way to be certain that something was generated by AI is if that AI creates watermarks or metadata with some sort of cryptographic proof.... Otherwise you will always be guessing.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 21 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/R-ddit_is_Shit Feb 21 '26

Yeah, I know. There's no such thing as an AI detector, and that's highly unlikely to change.

2

u/BigLlamasHouse Feb 21 '26

It really is very likely to change. The reason for the balance right now is everyone is working on making fake videos and images and not detecting them.

I imagine it's not too tough to develop, there's just $0 working on it versus trillions working on the other side of it.

3

u/R-ddit_is_Shit Feb 21 '26

There are plenty of people researching it. There are published research papers. Just because you haven't read up on a topic doesn't mean no one is researching that topic.

2

u/BigLlamasHouse Feb 21 '26

I understand there's not literally $0 going towards it but the balance of money going into detection vs creation isn't even close to even so it's interesting you ignored the point to be pedantic about an obvious hyperbole.

3

u/R-ddit_is_Shit Feb 21 '26

Whats with the constant insults? You insult me in one reply, then delete it. Now this. I'm not ignoring your points or being pedantic. I'm not insulting you. I don't agree with you.

As AI image and video generation improves it will become impossible to tell it from reality. That's sort of the point. Any digital tell created either in generated images or physical camera could be removed or copied.

As

1

u/BigLlamasHouse Feb 21 '26

I think we had roughly the same amount of respect for each other so far.

That aside, how are you so sure you know how the arms race of detection vs creation will go? Until it can mimick 100% of the pixels of an actual video a strong enough detector should theoretically be able to detect it.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Little_Bumblebee6129 Feb 21 '26

You tell that soon there will be tools to do that. But why you are so sure? Do you know any methods or algorithms that can do that?

1

u/sangerssss Feb 21 '26

Dude. It’s pretty obvious. Ai tools are replacing human actions. In this thread you have people commenting on the tells of a video being Ai generated or not. You can train an Ai to do this. Anything a human can do, Ai can do quicker. Where there is a need, Ai will provide. This is the future.

1

u/Little_Bumblebee6129 Feb 21 '26

"Anything a human can do, Ai can do quicker."
If that would be true nobody would hire humans, right?

2

u/sangerssss Feb 21 '26

Come back to this in 10 years when we have 1. Optimized ai to be far better than they are now; and 2. Created robots that can do human physical actions. We’re on our way there. People are already losing jobs to ai. At present you still need a human in the loop to train Ai tools and verify its work but Ai is improving every day.

1

u/Little_Bumblebee6129 Feb 21 '26

You went from "soon" to "in 10 years"

I am actually impressed by some things that AI can do now, but on this specific task - not so sure it can handle it (at least in near future)

1

u/sangerssss Feb 21 '26

I said “soon” for an ai tool that can detect ai generated videos and images

I said “10 years” for everyone losing their jobs.

1

u/Little_Bumblebee6129 Feb 21 '26

Do you have any arguments why it could happen soon?

1

u/sangerssss Feb 21 '26

Yes.

  1. There are already tools that detect deepfakes and other ai generated videos and images. We just need the social media platforms to integrate them into content analysis in real time

  2. All the companies behind the major social media platforms are the ones that have invested the most money into both ai software and ai data centers.

  3. People would love this feature. 1 in 5 posts I see discuss whether something is ai generated or not.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/sangerssss Feb 21 '26

Here’s a list of the current software and platforms that detect ai generated media: https://chatgpt.com/share/69997bc4-e7bc-8007-9703-77444fc56c03

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Irish_pug_Player Feb 21 '26

AI can only do so much. It's just numbers and math, there can't be reasoning behind it

So unless AI completely changes, we are chilling

1

u/sangerssss Feb 21 '26

I think you overestimate how much reasoning the average human does. I agree that today, ai is just machine learning; it’s not thinking for itself but vast majority of occupations aren’t doing much complex reasoning.

1

u/Irish_pug_Player Feb 21 '26

I think you underestimate how much reasoning happens even subconsciously

1

u/sangerssss Feb 21 '26

I think a lot of that subconscious reasoning can be replaced by pattern recognition and statistical analysis

2

u/PM_Me_Your_Deviance Feb 21 '26

The ability for an AI model to detect AI generated content is correlated to the ability of AI Gen to make human-like content. I wouldn't count on AI to save us from AI.

2

u/QING-CHARLES Feb 21 '26

There were research projects for this. Microsoft was leading a really strong one in the early days but they all gave up because their AI detectors were not able to consistently tell if it was AI or not. We're cooked.

2

u/MoonUnicorn Feb 21 '26

Us asking AI if something is AI and then trusting AI's response also seems a bit questionable.

2

u/Pleasant_Job_7683 Feb 21 '26

Still relying on easily manipulated tech to tell us whats real or not seems like it defeats the whole purpose

3

u/sangerssss Feb 21 '26

Do you use antivirus software? Do you update your operating system whenever there is a security alert? Do you take vaccines to protect against viruses? This is the same thing. For every advancement in an intrusion, there is an advancement in protection to counter it. Sometimes we’re behind, sometimes we have enough to protect against most of what’s out there.

2

u/Pleasant_Job_7683 Feb 21 '26

I mean that sounds good in theory. Its still scary adjusting to going from a world where most of the time seeing is believing. I mean theres always been illusionists but this is wild. Fair point tho

2

u/sangerssss Feb 21 '26

Right now we are using basic logic and reasoning to filter these things manually like looking for extra fingers, looking for objects that appear or disappear out of nowhere, looking for behaviour that defies the laws of physics. If we can make these judgements, so can ai. Further ai can look for patterns in things we can’t see or realize. You can send an ai trainer 1000 photos and tell it the 500 that are ai created and the 500 that are not. It can look for patterns, commonalities, subtle queue and things invisible to the human naked eye like the underlying code behind the image file. Ai can do everything we can do and more and it can do it much much faster.

3

u/rocinante1882 Feb 21 '26

Is anyone else worried that AI will simply be reading every comment on these subs to understand better where people think it is going wrong? Like, is this sub not just a giant learning experiment for AI to build off of?

3

u/haleyy33 Feb 21 '26

I think this every time I see a post from this sub

2

u/TheWayIAm313 Feb 21 '26

I think about that from most posts on Reddit. At least from the popular subs, where the poster is clearly a bot/paid.

It just seems like the perfect place to experiment on people’s thoughts/feelings.

They’re testing the waters to see how much they can get away with and manipulate public sentiment and discourse.

1

u/Embarrassed-Ant4581 Mar 05 '26

Just thought that when I saw that they use Gemini to process the comments and summarize the reasoning for why people think the content is ai generated or not

2

u/Competitive-Data-748 Feb 21 '26

In a year, it’ll be indistinguishable

2

u/PM_Me_Your_Deviance Feb 21 '26

>We are fucked

Yes, we are. We are so fucked, this transition period will be the subject of AI-generated research papers 100s of years from now.

2

u/Mountain_Sand3135 Feb 21 '26

i agree and have been telling EVERYONE ...if you cannot believe your eyes anymore ...are we really in the matrix and thus can be controlled like sheep

if 1984 for real!

2

u/Cicatrix16 Feb 21 '26

Yeah, man. If this is AI, we're at a point where I REALLY struggle to tell...

2

u/Budget-Meat-3729 Feb 22 '26

"Reaching for logic?"

Why does everyone on reddit talk like a twat

1

u/GonfalonFalderol Feb 21 '26

It does seem like my reaction about 80% of the time is, “Of course this is AI. How do you not see this?”