Under the other photos it says A photo taken by a BBC North West Tonight reporter showed the bridge is undamaged and A BBC North West reporter visited the bridge today and confirmed it was undamaged
They may have first ran the photo through an AI, but they also went out to verify. Or ran it after verification to understand it better, maybe
They sent someone to take a real photo of the bridge to confirm it's okay. That's hardly rushing the story out, even if their analysis of the fake image is iffy.
It's a bit of a non story, even with the fake image.
From the article:
Trains were halted after a suspected AI-generated picture that seemed to show major damage to a bridge appeared on social media following an earthquake.
...
Railway expert Tony Miles said due to the timing of the incident, very few passengers will have been impacted by the hoax as the services passing through at that time were primarily freight and sleeper trains.
"They generally go slow so as not to disturb the passengers trying to sleep - this means they have a bit of leeway to go faster and make up time if they encounter a delay," he said.
"It's more the fact that Network Rail will have had to mobilise a team to go and check the bridge which could impact their work for days."
Standard responsible rail maintainance is to investigate rail integrity following heavy rains, earthquakes, etc.
A fake image of a stone bridge with fallen parapets prompts the same response as a phone call about a fallen stone from a bridge or (ideally !!) just the earthquake itself - send out a hi-railer for a track inspection.
> A BBC journalist ran the image through an AI chatbot which identified key spots that may have been manipulated.
The image is likely AI generated in this case, but this does not seem like the best strategy for finding out if an image is AI generated.
Under the other photos it says A photo taken by a BBC North West Tonight reporter showed the bridge is undamaged and A BBC North West reporter visited the bridge today and confirmed it was undamaged
They may have first ran the photo through an AI, but they also went out to verify. Or ran it after verification to understand it better, maybe
It's not, but when you have 30 minutes to ship a story...
They sent someone to take a real photo of the bridge to confirm it's okay. That's hardly rushing the story out, even if their analysis of the fake image is iffy.
Reminds me of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall;_or,_Dodge_in_Hell with the Moab plot point.
Yet another attack vector for the Russians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_sabotage_operations_in...
Am I bovvered?
If your cat has worms, do you blame it on Russia or Best Korea?
> If your cat has worms, do you blame it on Russia or Best Korea?
Best Korea of course. The Worst Korea could never do this kind of thing.
It's a bit of a non story, even with the fake image.
From the article:
... Standard responsible rail maintainance is to investigate rail integrity following heavy rains, earthquakes, etc.A fake image of a stone bridge with fallen parapets prompts the same response as a phone call about a fallen stone from a bridge or (ideally !!) just the earthquake itself - send out a hi-railer for a track inspection.