Jump to content

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alex Pretti Official Portrait High Quality.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

File:Alex Pretti Official Portrait High Quality.jpg

[edit]

Likely AI-generated upscale of File:Alex Pretti VA Image (official portrait by United States Department of Veterans Affairs).jpg. Text on his shirt seems to be nonsense. His sleeve doesn't line up with the flag the same way. The linked Reddit source has been removed by a moderator. This image was posted about 8 hours before the Reddit post on https://www.facebook.com/FightforaUnion/photos/d41d8cd9/1345146847657710/ - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:06, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Someone pointed this out to me. I agree that it should be deleted. Minermatt122514 (talk) 15:13, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Info No Google SynthID, Sightengine (which isn't 100% reliable but I know of nothing better) says 38% Stable Diffusion. (which I'd expect since it's based on a real photo) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:17, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reopening DR since this didn't get the customary 7 days (and this is a potentially newsworthy file). Abzeronow (talk) 02:05, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Abzeronow, it ultimately also qualified for G7 as Minermatt122514 above is the uploader.
Kevin Payravi below words my concerns very well. This isn't reality. I compared this AI generated upscale to the photo of the original portrait behind glass and the CSP 2004 Microbiota photo. The AI beautified him, removing skin imperfections. Moved his eyebrows. Trimmed his beard. Gave him glasses with a thinner rim. Turned a shadow into chest hair. It even ironed his shirt. While it did that, it decided his breast pocket needed re-sewing.
Commons has some level of authority here. Does the image in this People.com article look familiar? That's my work, only slightly cropped. If they had done it themselves, they would have made slightly different choices. A little darker or brighter, a little sharper or softer, do the perspective correction slightly different - but it's pixel-perfect. Yet only the US Department of Veteran Affairs is credited. I'm not in this for the credit, but you should know: sometimes we are the source, even when not credited. Hosting this AI beautified version will make it spread, and the AI credit will get lost. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:28, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Abzeronow, in the undeletion request you seemingly supported Josve05a's suggestion of news sources mentioning circulation of modified images. Daily Mail uses it because of course they do, and the New York Post as well. Both unironically and both crediting Facebook. DM credits "UNPIXS". (whatever that is) and NYP credits "Fight for a Union" (which I had already linked at the top). Daily Telegraph Australia may also have used it, but I'm not paying the wall.
There's bpdaily.com which I suspect scrapes w:Bored Panda (a blog) or something as the author link says "Kaitlin is a Current Affairs Journalist at Bored Panda". Oddly enough she has only a fraction of the articles on Bored Panda. Perhaps bpdaily mixes AI-generated articles with scraped articles. Dunno.
w:The Megyn Kelly Show (RSP discussion on WP) talks about the image in this episode. It's only a few minutes and not great. Skipping over the conspiracy bullshit, what they show as the "original" is a cropped+saturated version of this file. No perspective correction and they never mention nor show that this was cropped from a photo of the portrait behind glass.
Megyn Kelly claims MSNBC used it but doesn't seem to have provided proof or links. Minermatt122514 to the rescue, see below, MSNBC did indeed use it. Shame on them.
Is this sufficient to consider the AI portrait (not the 1:1 crop) as being "educational"? Technically, I guess you could argue that, but this file can also do harm. And it'll probably do more of the latter than the former. If this is kept, it would be a good idea to superimpose the text "AI-upscaled image, not an accurate depiction" in a large font on the image to make the image virtually useless beyond AI commentary. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:44, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Alexis, I don't actually disagree with you or Kevin. Ideally, we should not be hosting AI upscaled versions of photographs of people because of the issues that AI poses, including as you say, introducing text that was not present in the original and distorting the likeness of Pretti. I will note that I did also support the proposal to ban generative AI images of living and recently deceased people except for when the depicted person or their representatives want it due to the moral rights of the depicted. So I personally do  Delete on this image. As I explain below, I did not undelete out of my personal views, in fact I acted opposite my beliefs because I felt the community needed more time to show what the consensus on this image is. I don't disagree with the close, only the timing of it. I was going to avoid discussing my opinion so I wouldn't unduly influence the outcome, but since you essentially asked me for my opinion, I will give it as well as further explaining that the potential newsworthiness of the image that the uploader did not create (VA photograph that was upscaled by AI) made G7 seem hasty. Speedy deletion is after all, for open and shut cases and by the UDR, this was clearly not an open and shut case. Abzeronow (talk) 03:53, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete An AI-upscaled image ultimately does not represent reality and I believe falls out-of-scope as non-educational. We're doing a diservice by hosting and helping spread an image with generated details (like the nonsense text on the shirt). ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 02:23, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete per Kevin Payravi. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:32, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Info On Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests (revision 1155198237), Jameslwoodward and Infrogmation opposed undeletion while Josve05a, Trade and Abzeronow supported undeletion. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:18, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I did ultimately restore the file, but please don't construe my action as a vote. I undeleted because the deletion was contentious enough that Trade and Josve05a wanted it to be undeleted, and because I found their arguments that the community hadn't been given enough time on the subject to show that there was consensus to delete. Notice that I did not remove the DR when I restored, please understand that my action was merely functionary in allowing more time for discussion so that consensus could be shown to remove or keep. My action was also contrary to my own personal beliefs on AI, I made a decision to give the community more of a chance to have their voice heard. Abzeronow (talk) 03:53, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Abzeronow, but please don't construe my action as a vote. I'm sorry if it looked that way. I said you "supported undeletion" (which you did) and that you "seemingly supported Josve05a's suggestion of news sources mentioning circulation of modified images" which seems fair as you mentioned acting quicker than usual due to "potential newsworthiness" when Josve05a had just argued the file "may have some newsworthiness". My apologies if I misinterpreted your use of the same word as a reference to Josve05a's comment and/or misinterpreted it as tentative support for Josve05a's argument.
To me, it seemed you were on the fence and waiting for more details about the potential newsworthiness to make up your mind. If I had realized I wouldn't have wasted time trying to find coverage about this image. Having to watch Megyn Kelly is not fun. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 05:45, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you for your effort regardless. (I personally don't care for Megyn Kelly either and that's all I'll say on that subject). Abzeronow (talk) 05:52, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alex Pretti AI comparison.jpg

[edit]
I'm fine with keeping this one, as it's providing a clear comparison between the original and the AI-edited version in a responsible manner (and I think this comparison-file is a good middle-ground to satisfy the desire to keep the file due to it becoming noteworthy). ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 07:57, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've got no objection -- if nothing else, it's got clear educational use as a demonstration of the effects of AI upscaling. --Carnildo (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Weak keep "Alex Pretti AI comparison.jpg" but not a precedent for uploading masses of similar pair images. The edu value of demonstrating the absurdity of AS is sufficiently covered by this one. Still  Delete "Alex Pretti Official Portrait High Quality.jpg". Taylor 49 (talk) 00:37, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
AS? Trade (talk) 01:02, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Trade, Artificial Stupidity - Alexis Jazz ping plz 06:18, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Only authentic Alex Pretti photos have value. "comparisons" just opens the door to more "comparisons." -- Ooligan (talk) 03:27, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have been informed that INUSE excludes talk pages. Nevertheless I still wish for it to be kept as is useful insofar as it is a central subject of the discussion. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 12:17, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shameful chapter for WikiCommons here. We let ourselves become a misinformation vector. Now a file that should've been immediately deleted as an AI-manipulated image of a real person that presented itself as faithful has become noteworthy thanks to our failure. Since the manipulated image has itself received media attention, it's something we should retain in some format, and this comparison image seems like a reasonable way to do so (while ensuring the misleading language of "upscaled" doesn't fool anyone else.  Keep the comparison,  Delete all other copies. — Rhododendrites talk |  19:01, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info In the meantime a better source for the original image has surfaced. We can actually read the text now, and surprise surprise, it's not "Locues artituos fvoct fwqor a seqs". It's actually "Property of VA medical center Minneapolis, MN". The same text can be seen more clearly on the uniforms of VA employees on the right in this photo. And it's even more obvious that what the AI drew doesn't resemble Pretti. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:28, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Alex_Pretti_Official_Portrait_High_Quality.jpg&oldid=1170363472"