You're viewing a single thread.
Sure this isn't Dall-E 2, "make me a city on a hill with castle on top?"
Really has that feel.
I get that everyone likes to witch hunt AI art as if it's the bane of humanity, but this is such an idiotic comment. You can literally Google the city.
The bottom layer of the photo was altered, you can see something like a parked cae that repeats itself, middle of the OP image, the two bottom layers partially repeat.
Altered photo, sure. But this is a famously known city and suggesting it's just an AI image is ridiculous. You can literally take 1 minute to search this city name and see countless night time images similar to this one.
The city is real but the image is not reality.
My man, it is. It's only slightly altered. Like I said, there's dozens of images online that look the same. I imagine the glitch at the bottom is an attempt to avoid auto copyright detection bots.
Do you live in the castle or something? You seem kinda personally defensive about this.
I think the original photo posted was heavily edited, hence the complaints. Not sure if you were looking at the newer edit or not (see other comments for context)
It wasn't that heavily edited. Like I said in another comment, a quick Google image search shows tons of official photos that were shot with a similar style. It just looked like it had a long shutter exposure making the lights look a lot more vivid/bright than natural and the bottom had been altered in a way that seemed to try and avoid auto copyright detection. Anyway, people are welcome to believe what they want.