A realistic photo can raise questions
A striking image appears in your social feed and people begin arguing about whether AI created it. Some suggest counting fingers or inspecting reflections. These details can be clues, but modern image generators are improving rapidly, and camera photos can also contain strange artifacts.
Visual clues are not proof
Odd lettering, inconsistent geometry or unnatural reflections may justify a closer look. Yet an AI image can avoid those mistakes, while a genuine photograph can show unusual distortion or compression. A single suspicious detail is not sufficient evidence to accuse someone of publishing a fake.
Look for provenance information
Content Credentials, based on the C2PA standard, can preserve details about how an image was created or edited. Adobe's Inspect service and supported browser tools can display available credentials, including whether generative AI was used. These records are more informative than simply guessing from appearance.
Missing credentials prove little
Not every image carries Content Credentials, and some online platforms strip metadata during uploads or processing. An image without credentials is not automatically a real photograph. Credentials also do not independently prove that a photographed event happened as described.
Trace the original source
For images attached to major claims, look for the original publisher, the earliest available version and its date and location. Reverse-image search can reveal older posts that reused the same photo in a different context. Misleading captions on genuine photos can be as deceptive as synthetic images.
Use several clues together
Visual inspection, provenance records and independent context checks serve different purposes. Together they offer a better way to judge authenticity, but no one method guarantees a perfect verdict. Be cautious of any tool that promises flawless AI detection from a single picture.