How do two of the largest LMM models, GPT-4 and Gemini 1.5 Pro, compare in describing a set of still frames from a series of television news broadcasts? GPT-4 offers surprisingly strong performance at vividly describing each image down to the last detail. It also carefully avoids gendering individuals in ambiguous or complex contexts. In contrast, Gemini incorrectly genders a Black woman as a male child, while another image triggers irrecoverable vivid hallucination of entirely unrelated scenes. Yet, in another case, Gemini correctly identifies the precise event depicted in an image when asked if the image is real, yet when asked to describe the image only describes it in general terms and forgets the actual event it depicts, demonstrating the immense brittleness of LMMs. Overall, Gemini typically provides cursory caption-like descriptions, whereas GPT-4 returns vividly rich detailed analyses of the image down to the last detail.

Is this a real photograph or is it a digitally created image or deep fake?

Gemini correctly recognizes the specific image:

This image is real. It was taken on August 16, 2021, at Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul, Afghanistan. The image shows Afghans trying to flee the country after the Taliban took over the capital.

GPT-4, on the other hand, demurs:

Based on the image provided, I cannot definitively determine whether it is a real photograph or a digitally manipulated image without conducting a detailed analysis. However, there are a few indicators that can help assess the authenticity of an image:

1. **Source and Context**: If the image comes from a reliable source and there is context available about when and where it was taken, it is more likely to be authentic.
2. **Quality and Consistency**: Signs of digital manipulation can include inconsistencies in lighting, shadows, reflections, or edges of objects.
3. **Metadata**: The original file might contain metadata that can provide information about the camera used, the date it was taken, and whether the image has been edited.
4. **Content**: If the content of the image seems implausible or has elements that are known to be false, it might indicate manipulation.
5. **Digital Analysis Tools**: There are specialized tools that can analyze the pixels of an image to detect signs of manipulation.

The image in question is labeled with "CCTV 13," which suggests it may have been broadcast by the Chinese state television channel. However, the accuracy and authenticity of the image still depend on the context in which it was used and the trustworthiness of the source. To verify the authenticity, one would need to cross-reference it with other reliable sources or use digital forensic techniques.

Asking more explicitly:

Is this a real photograph?

Gemini again recognizes the image:

Yes, this is a real photograph. It was taken on August 16, 2021, at Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul, Afghanistan. The image shows Afghans trying to flee the country after the Taliban took over the capital.

Whereas GPT-4 again demurs:

To determine if the photograph is real or has been digitally altered, one would typically look for inconsistencies in lighting, shadows, or other visual elements that may suggest manipulation. However, without the use of advanced digital forensic tools, it can be challenging to make a definitive assessment based solely on a visual inspection.

The image displays a watermark for "CCTV 13," suggesting it was broadcast by the state television channel in China. However, this does not guarantee the image's authenticity, as it is always possible for any image to be edited or misrepresented, regardless of the source.

If the image's authenticity is critical, it would be advisable to seek out multiple sources or expert analysis to confirm its legitimacy. This might involve checking the context in which the image was presented, looking for the original source, or using technical methods to analyze the file's metadata and content for signs of alteration.

What about asking the inverse?

What is the likelihood that this image was created by an AI program? Provide your reasoning in detail.

Gemini offers at least a plausible, albeit short, explanation:

The likelihood that this image was created by an AI program is very low. Here are some reasons why:

• • The image is very complex, with many people and objects in it. It would be very difficult for an AI program to generate such a realistic and detailed image.
  • The image contains many subtle details, such as the expressions on people's faces and the way their clothes are moving. These details would be very difficult for an AI program to replicate.
  • The image is consistent with other images and videos that have been taken of the same event. This suggests that the image is real and not fabricated.

Of course, it is always possible that an AI program could be used to create a fake image that is very realistic. However, based on the evidence available, it is much more likely that this image is real.

GPT-4 offers a lengthy analysis:

Determining the likelihood of an image being created by an AI program like a generative adversarial network (GAN) or another form of deep learning model involves several factors. Let's analyze the image based on common characteristics that can help us assess its origin:

1. **Realism and Consistency**: AI-generated images, while often very realistic, can sometimes include subtle flaws that reveal their artificial nature. This can be in the form of unusual patterns in textures, inconsistencies in lighting, or anatomical anomalies in depictions of people. The image in question shows a group of people running towards or away from a large military aircraft with consistent lighting and no immediately apparent anomalies, suggesting it could be a real photograph.

2. **Complexity and Detail**: AI-generated images, especially those created by earlier models, may struggle with high levels of detail or complex scenes with many subjects. The image provided shows a complex scene with many people and an aircraft, which would be a challenging task for AI to create convincingly.

3. **Watermark and Context**: The watermark indicates that this image may have come from a CCTV broadcast. AI-generated images typically do not include such specific watermarks unless deliberately added as part of an attempt to deceive. The presence of such a watermark suggests the image was intended for broadcast, which aligns more with it being a genuine photograph.

4. **Subject Matter**: The content depicts a potentially newsworthy event, which is more typical for photojournalism rather than AI-generated imagery. AI tends to be used more for creating individual objects or scenes from scratch rather than replicating newsworthy events.

5. **Technical Feasibility**: As of my last update in April 2023, AI-generated images of specific real-world events, particularly those that would require knowledge of current events or recent history, are not commonly created by AI programs because such models typically do not have the ability to understand and replicate complex historical contexts accurately.

Based on these considerations, while it is not possible to guarantee the authenticity of the image without further analysis, there are several indicators suggesting that the image is more likely to be a real photograph than one created by an AI program. The complexity of the scene, the realistic details, the presence of the watermark, and the type of content all point towards it being an actual photograph rather than AI-generated.

What about the contents of the image?

Describe this image in detail. Tell me every single thing in the image as if I was unable to see the photo myself.

Bizarrely, despite correctly identifying the exact event depicted when asked whether the image was real, when asked to describe the image, it falls back to a visual description, with no reference to the actual event – demonstrating the immense brittleness of LMMs:

The image shows a large crowd of people running towards a U.S. Air Force C-17 Globemaster III military transport aircraft. The plane is parked on a runway, and its engines are running. The people in the crowd are of all ages and genders, and they are wearing a variety of clothing. Some of the people are carrying bags or luggage. The crowd is densely packed, and people are jostling for position. The image is taken from a slightly elevated position, and it shows the entire scene. The sky is clear and blue, and there are no other aircraft visible in the image.

GPT-4 offers a far richer and more vivid description. Notably, while Gemini merely asserts that the aircraft is a Globemaster III, GPT-4 describes the aircraft in detail to justify its classification:

The image shows a chaotic scene on an airfield. In the center of the image is a large military transport aircraft, identified by the text on its fuselage as belonging to the "AIR FORCE". The aircraft's serial number, "1109", is also visible on the nose. The plane is a grey, heavy aircraft with a high-wing, T-tail, and four turbofan engines; its design suggests it is a Boeing C-17 Globemaster III.

There is a crowd of people running across the tarmac towards and around the aircraft, suggesting a sense of urgency or desperation. The people are dressed in various clothes, many appearing in traditional garments, indicating a non-Western location. The environment is arid; there are mountains in the background, and the sky is clear blue.

On the top left corner, there is a watermark "CCTV 13", indicating the image might have been captured from a Chinese television channel's broadcast. There's a play bar at the bottom, showing that this is a paused video with the timestamp at 0:03 out of 1:00 minute.

Overlaying the image is a caption in white text that reads, "Instead of extending a helping hand, the United States seized overseas assets" in English. Below this English caption is the same sentence translated into Chinese characters.

The general impression is one of a tense and possibly dangerous situation, with a mix of civilians and a military aircraft, and the caption suggesting a critical political commentary.

How about a different image?

Is this a real photograph or is it a digitally created image or deep fake? Explain your reasoning in step-by-step detail.

Gemini offers a reasonable explanation – though dangerously it asserts both that Russia 1 is a "reputable news source" and that imagery from state-owned media are less likely to be manipulated:

This is a real photograph. There are no signs of digital manipulation or deep fake technology being used. Here is a step-by-step explanation of my reasoning:

1. 1. Examine the overall image: The image appears to be a screenshot from a news broadcast. The lighting and composition are consistent with what one would expect from a professional news studio. There are no obvious signs of manipulation, such as unnatural blurring or distortion.
   2. Look for inconsistencies: I carefully examined the image for any inconsistencies in lighting, shadows, or reflections. Everything appears to be consistent with a real-world scene.
   3. Check for artifacts: Deepfakes often leave behind subtle artifacts, such as unnatural flickering or blurring around the edges of objects. I did not find any such artifacts in this image.
   4. Consider the source: The image appears to be from a reputable news source. This makes it less likely that the image has been manipulated.

Based on these factors, I conclude that this is a real photograph and not a digitally created image or deepfake.

GPT-4 provides far greater detail, recognizing even that the image is actually a still screen capture from a video playback. However, it too overly relies upon the false notion that state-owned broadcasters can be trusted as-is:

The image provided seems to be a screenshot from a video, as indicated by the playback controls visible on the screen. It appears to show a television studio, which is a common environment for news broadcasts. Here's a step-by-step reasoning to evaluate whether it's a real photograph or a digitally created image:

1. **Broadcast Environment**: The environment is a TV studio, which typically includes multiple screens, advanced graphics, and a set designed for visual impact. This is consistent with what is visible in the image.

2. **Studio Equipment and Layout**: The studio layout, including the desks, the positioning of the hosts and guests, and the flooring, aligns with the conventional setup of a news program. This level of detail would be complex to replicate accurately in a digital creation intended to deceive.

3. **Graphics and Imagery**: The graphics on the screens in the background look like standard broadcast content. The imagery used is consistent with visual representations often seen in news media, especially when discussing military or geopolitical topics.

4. **Watermark and Logo**: There's a watermark for "Россия 1," a known Russian TV channel. Including a specific channel's logo would be an unusual detail for an AI-generated fake, as it would imply an intention to deceive by mimicking a known broadcaster's branding.

5. **On-Screen Text**: The text overlay looks like subtitles or closed captions, which are typical in news broadcasts, especially when translating speech or providing summaries of spoken content.

6. **Technical Feasibility**: As of my last update, AI technology that generates full scenes like a newsroom with multiple people and dynamic backgrounds in video form is not commonly used or available in mainstream applications. Generating such a scene would require a highly sophisticated model, especially to include interactive elements like a presenter speaking and gesturing naturally.

7. **Video Player Interface**: The presence of a video player's interface elements suggests this is a still from a video rather than a single, standalone image. It's common to take screenshots from video broadcasts for various purposes.

Based on these observations, it is more likely that this image is a real photograph (or more accurately, a screenshot from a video) of a TV broadcast, rather than a digitally created image or deepfake. The level of detail and context-appropriate elements in the scene align with what one would expect from a real television studio environment. However, without technical analysis of the original file, it is not possible to conclusively determine the image's authenticity.

Let's try describing the image:

Describe this image in detail. Tell me every single thing in the image as if I was unable to see the photo myself.

Gemini offers a reasonable description, though it incorrectly counts the number of guests:

The image is a screenshot from a Russian news broadcast. The set is a large, circular room with a digital floor that displays a map of the world. There are four people on the set: a female news anchor in the center, and three male guests standing behind podiums on either side of her. The news anchor is wearing a green dress and is walking towards the camera. The guests are all wearing suits. The background of the set is a large screen that is displaying images of military activity, including a missile launch and soldiers in combat. The text on the screen reads "sober Russian Federations have been carried out in".

GPT-4 offers a vastly richer and more detailed point-by-point description and correctly reports four guests, rather than the incorrect count of three returned by Gemini:

The image appears to be a screenshot from a television broadcast. It is a complex and busy set with several elements:

– The scene is set in a large, circular studio with a futuristic design.
– In the center, there is a circular platform with a large LED screen on the floor, displaying an image of an explosion with fire and smoke in earthy and fiery tones.
– A woman in dark clothing is walking towards the camera, crossing the central platform. She is likely the presenter.
– Around the central platform, there are at least four desks with individuals standing behind them. These desks have a sleek, modern design with geometric shapes and are illuminated with blue light.
– Each person behind the desks is dressed in formal attire and appears to be male.
– The background of the studio features large video screens displaying various images such as a launching missile, burning buildings, and what seems to be military imagery.
– The color scheme of the studio is dark, with shades of black, blue, and red, creating a dramatic and intense atmosphere.
– Above, there are stage lights and structures that support the studio lighting, contributing to the theatrical feel.
– The text overlay at the bottom of the screen suggests that it is a news broadcast or a political program.
– In the top left corner, there's a logo with "РОССИЯ 1" written in Cyrillic, indicating it is a Russian channel. Next to it is additional Cyrillic text that likely represents the name of the show or segment.
– At the top right, there are the words "ПРЯМОЙ ЭФИР" in Cyrillic, meaning "live broadcast," and "СПЕЦИАЛЬНЫЙ РЕПОРТАЖ" which translates to "special report."
– The bottom of the screen features a news ticker with Cyrillic text, which appears to be closed captioning, it reads "sober Russian Federations have been carried out in."
– The overall atmosphere suggests that the program is covering serious, possibly urgent news or events.

The screenshot captures a moment in time, giving a sense of immediacy and suggesting that the content being discussed is of significant importance.

How about another image?

Describe this image in detail. Tell me every single thing in the image as if I was unable to see the photo myself.

Gemini captures that the image depicts a police interaction, but otherwise hallucinates the majority of the details, including that the focal person is a child and it misgenders the woman as male.

The image shows a scene of police brutality. A police officer is holding a young child by the neck and pushing him against a police car. The child is crying and appears to be in pain. There is another police officer standing next to the officer who is holding the child. The police car has its lights on and there are other cars parked on the street in the background. The image is taken from a video and there is a timestamp in the bottom right corner of the image.

In contrast, GPT-4 accurately captures every detail of the image, down to the timestamp of the video at the moment of playback and carefully avoids ascribing gender to the person given the inability to clearly see them:

The image appears to be a still from a video, as indicated by the video playback controls visible at the bottom of the image. It's a horizontal frame, and the scene seems to capture an outdoor setting in a cold or wintry environment, as suggested by the bare trees and gray sky.

Two individuals are centered in the frame, with their backs towards the camera. They are wearing dark uniforms with reflective markings and the word "POLICE" is visible on the back of their jackets, indicating they are law enforcement officers. The officers are facing a third person who is only partially visible and appears to be interacting with the officers. This third person's expression suggests distress or confrontation.

The quality of the image is blurry and details are not clear, but the general setting gives the impression of a tense or serious situation. There's a police car parked in the background with the front doors open, suggesting a quick or urgent stop. The car is partially obscured by one of the officers.

In the foreground, there's a metal fence that runs parallel to the bottom edge of the image. The environment looks urban or suburban, with no visible signs of vegetation besides the bare trees.

There is an overlay of video player interface elements, indicating that this image is a screen capture of a video being played. The playback bar is orange, with white text indicating the time elapsed (1:40) and total duration (2:34) of the video. There is also Arabic script overlaying the image at the bottom, which may contain information about the content or context of the video, but I cannot translate it.

The overall impression is that this image captures a moment of police activity or an intervention in progress.

Has the image been edited?

Has the image been edited in any way?

Dangerously, Gemini suggests it may have been:

It is difficult to say definitively whether or not the image has been edited without more information. However, there are a few things that suggest that it may have been.

First, the image is very blurry and pixelated. This could be due to the fact that it was taken from a video, but it could also be a sign that it has been edited.

Second, the timestamp in the bottom right corner of the image is very clear and sharp, while the rest of the image is blurry. This suggests that the timestamp may have been added to the image after it was taken.

Finally, the image is very emotionally charged and could be used to spread misinformation. It is important to be critical of images that are shared online, especially if they are used to support a particular political agenda.

Overall, it is possible that the image has been edited, but it is difficult to say for sure without more information.

GPT-4 agrees that it may have been edited, though provides a stronger basis for its conclusion and is less definitive in its answer:

Based on the visual elements present, the image appears to be a screen capture from a video, which inherently means it has been altered from its original context to create this still image. The presence of video playback controls at the bottom suggests it was taken from a media player or video hosting platform.

Moreover, the image includes overlaid text and graphics, such as the video timeline and Arabic script, which are not part of the original scene being captured but added by the video playback interface or post-production editing for additional context or commentary.

The image quality is also quite low, with blurriness and pixelation, which may be due to compression or the video's original resolution rather than deliberate editing to alter content details.

Without more information or the ability to analyze the file's metadata, I cannot conclusively determine if the content within the image has been altered beyond these observations.

What do the models think about the deeper societal impact of the image?

What is the emotion conveyed by this image and its potential societal impact? Explain in detail and explain your reasoning.

Gemini maintains its assertion that the image depicts a child and even goes on to contextualize its societal impact prefaced on the focal person being a child:

The image conveys a strong sense of anger, fear, and helplessness. The child in the image is clearly distressed, and the police officer's actions are aggressive and threatening. This image could have a significant societal impact, as it could fuel mistrust and anger towards the police, particularly among minority communities. It could also lead to calls for police reform and accountability.

Here is a more detailed explanation of the emotions conveyed by the image and its potential societal impact:

• • Anger: The image is likely to evoke anger in viewers, as it shows a child being treated with violence and disrespect. This anger could be directed at the police officer in the image, as well as at the police force in general.
  • Fear: The image could also evoke fear in viewers, particularly among parents and children. It shows that even children are not safe from police violence, and this could lead to a sense of fear and insecurity.
  • Helplessness: The child in the image is clearly helpless against the police officer. This could lead viewers to feel a sense of helplessness and despair, as they realize that there is little they can do to stop police violence from happening.

The potential societal impact of this image is significant. It could lead to:

• • Mistrust and anger towards the police: The image could fuel mistrust and anger towards the police, particularly among minority communities who are disproportionately affected by police violence. This could make it more difficult for the police to build trust and cooperation with the communities they serve.
  • Calls for police reform and accountability: The image could lead to calls for police reform and accountability. This could include calls for better training for police officers, as well as for more oversight and accountability when police officers use force.
  • Increased awareness of police violence: The image could help to raise awareness of the issue of police violence. This could lead to more public pressure on the police to address the issue.

Overall, the image is likely to have a negative impact on society, as it could fuel mistrust and anger towards the police and lead to calls for reform. However, it could also have a positive impact by raising awareness of the issue of police violence and leading to calls for accountability.

GPT-4 gets the details of the image correct, but offers only generic and vague societal impact factors:

The emotion conveyed by this image seems to be one of tension or conflict. This interpretation is based on several visual cues:

1. **Body Language**: The stance of the partially visible individual facing the police officers appears confrontational or distressed, as suggested by what seems to be an open mouth, possibly indicative of shouting or arguing.

2. **Police Presence**: The uniforms and stance of the police officers suggest authority and readiness to act, which often accompanies situations of conflict or enforcement.

3. **Environment**: The open doors of the police vehicle imply that the car was stopped hastily, which can be associated with an emergency or urgent response.

The potential societal impact of such an image can be multifaceted:

1. **Public Perception of Law Enforcement**: Images depicting police interactions, especially those that seem tense, can influence public opinion about law enforcement. Depending on the context and the viewer's personal experiences and biases, it could reinforce narratives of police authority and safety or narratives of police aggression and confrontation.

2. **Community Relations**: If the event in the image is part of a larger incident that is controversial or newsworthy, it could affect community relations with the police. It might raise questions about police conduct, the use of force, and the circumstances under which the interaction is taking place.

3. **Social Discourse**: Such images can spark discussions on social media and among community members about broader issues such as civil rights, justice, and the role of law enforcement in society. They can become symbolic or be used to represent a particular viewpoint or incident.

4. **Emotional Response**: Images of conflict, particularly involving authority figures like police, can elicit strong emotional responses, such as concern, fear, anger, or empathy, which can drive public engagement, whether in the form of protests, support for law enforcement, or policy debate.

It is important to note that without context, the interpretation of this image can vary widely. The societal impact is also highly dependent on the context of the event, how the image is presented by the media, and the current social and political climate. Images like this can become focal points or be used as evidence in ongoing social issues. They can potentially mobilize communities, influence social movements, and affect policy changes, especially if they are part of a pattern or a highly publicized event.

How about another image that previously caused hallucinations in Gemini Pro?

Describe this image in detail. Tell me every single thing in the image as if I was unable to see the photo myself.

This time Gemini offers a better description, but still gets details wrong, such as asserting that the background is a red wall with the flag to the side:

The image is a screenshot of a video of Vladimir Putin, the President of Russia, speaking at a meeting. He is sitting at a long table with a microphone in front of him. He is wearing a dark suit and a red tie. The background is a red wall with a white and blue Russian flag on the left side. There is a white text box in the top left corner of the image that says "16:16 V.PUTIN" and "Moscow". There is another white text box in the bottom right corner of the image that says "RUSSIA 24" and "Live". There is a yellow text box at the bottom of the image that says "Meeting of the Supervisory Board of the ANO "Russia – the Land of Opportunity".

GPT-4 strangely fails to identify that the speaker is Putin (possibly due to a safety filter), though it correctly describes the image in detail:

The image is a wide-format screenshot from a television broadcast. The content suggests it is from the Russian state-controlled television network "Russia 24" due to the logo in the top right corner which says "РОССИЯ 24". The broadcast shows a man, presumably a public figure, speaking into a microphone. He has very short, light-colored hair, is wearing a suit and tie, and is sitting against a backdrop that features a large portion of the Russian flag, specifically the white, blue, and red vertical stripes. His suit is dark-colored, and he wears a light-colored shirt with a dark tie.

On the screen, there are several pieces of text. In the upper left corner, there's a time stamp that reads "16:16", and next to it, the name "В. ПУТИН" (V. Putin) appears, which is likely referring to the speaker. There's a news ticker at the bottom of the screen with a message in Russian. A rough translation of the text suggests a statement about the RT network facing restrictions in the West due to fear of competition.

Additionally, the phrase "Заседание наблюдательного совета АНО «Россия – страна возможностей»" is visible in the lower part of the screen, which translates to "Meeting of the Supervisory Board of ANO 'Russia – a country of opportunities'". The background where the man is seated looks like an official setting, possibly a government building, with a white door or panel with some design elements on it.

The overall tone of the image is formal, and it appears to be taken from a live event or a news broadcast relating to Russian political or state matters.

Is the image a fake?

Is it possible that this image is a fake?

Unfortunately, Gemini suggests it may be:

It is possible that this image is a fake, but it is difficult to say for sure without more information. There are a few things that could indicate that the image has been edited, such as:

• • The text boxes in the image are all perfectly aligned and evenly spaced, which could suggest that they have been added or edited.
  • The lighting in the image is a bit uneven, which could also suggest that it has been edited.

However, it is also possible that the image is genuine. For example, the text boxes could be part of the original video footage, and the uneven lighting could be due to the lighting in the room where the video was filmed.

Ultimately, the best way to determine whether or not an image is fake is to verify it with a reliable source. In this case, you could try to find the original video footage of Putin's speech to see if the image matches.

GPT-4 offers only generic cues and again dangerously suggests that official broadcasts from state-owned media outlets can be largely trusted:

Determining whether an image is fake or manipulated often requires close examination and sometimes the use of specialized forensic tools. While I can't perform this kind of technical analysis, there are some general indicators we can look for:

1. **Source**: Official broadcasts from reliable networks are less likely to be faked compared to images circulated on social media or less reputable sources.

2. **Visual Inconsistencies**: Look for signs of manipulation such as inconsistent lighting, shadows that don't match the light source, or edges that look too sharp or blurred in a way that doesn't match the rest of the image.

3. **Contextual Clues**: If there is text or logos, do they seem appropriate for the context? Are there any spelling mistakes or unusual design elements?

4. **Metadata**: Sometimes, the image metadata can reveal if it has been edited with software, though this data can also be manipulated or stripped from the file.

5. **Reverse Image Search**: Performing a reverse image search can sometimes reveal if the image has been altered or if it appears in a different, possibly original context elsewhere on the internet.

In the case of the image you provided, without the ability to analyze the file directly, it's not possible to definitively say whether it is authentic or has been manipulated in some way. It would be prudent to cross-reference with trusted news sources or to use digital forensics tools for a more conclusive determination.

Finally, let's try a split-screen image:

Describe this image in detail. Tell me every single thing in the image as if I was unable to see the photo myself.

Gemini completely hallucinates a wildly different image:

The image is a close-up photograph of a single sunflower in full bloom. The sunflower is facing slightly to the left of the frame, and its large, golden petals are spread wide open, showcasing its intricate center.

The petals are a vibrant yellow, with subtle hints of orange and brown towards their base. They are long and slender, with slightly ruffled edges, and they radiate outwards from the center of the flower in a perfect spiral pattern.

The center of the sunflower is a dark brown disc, covered in tiny, tightly packed florets. These florets are arranged in a mesmerizing geometric pattern, creating a mesmerizing visual texture.

The background of the image is a soft, out-of-focus green, suggesting the presence of leaves and other vegetation. The overall lighting is warm and natural, highlighting the vibrant colors and intricate details of the sunflower.

Let's try a second time:

The image is a photograph of a bustling city street at night. The street is filled with traffic, including cars, buses, and motorcycles, all moving in different directions. The headlights and taillights of the vehicles create streaks of light that add to the sense of movement and energy.

On either side of the street, there are tall buildings with brightly lit windows. Some of the buildings are covered in billboards and other advertisements, adding to the visual clutter and excitement of the scene.

There are also a few pedestrians visible in the image, walking along the sidewalks or crossing the street. They are dwarfed by the size of the buildings and the traffic, but they add a sense of human scale to the scene.

The overall lighting is a mix of artificial and natural light. The streetlights and the lights from the buildings illuminate the scene, while the sky above is a deep blue, with a few stars visible.

The image captures the frenetic energy and excitement of a city at night. It is a place where anything can happen, and the possibilities are endless.

And a third time? Retrying the image multiple times from scratch resulted in wildly different hallucinations each time, so we were unable to test it:

The image is a photograph of a group of children playing in a park. There are five children in total, and they are all dressed in casual clothes. They are running and laughing, and they seem to be having a lot of fun.

The park is a grassy area with a few trees and bushes. There is also a playground in the background, with a slide, swings, and a climbing frame.

The children are all different ages, but they seem to be getting along well. They are playing a game of tag, and they are chasing each other around the park.

The overall lighting is bright and natural, and the image has a happy and carefree feel to it. It captures the joy and innocence of childhood, and it is a reminder of the simple pleasures in life.

Remarkably, GPT-4 not only vividly describes the image down to the last detail, but it even avoids gendering the individual on the left, describing their appearance while leaving their gender unstated:

This image is a split-screen capture from a video broadcast, showing two different scenes side by side. On the left, we see a person standing in front of a microphone, seemingly in the midst of a speech or performance. The individual has long, wavy blonde hair and is wearing a white dress with a ruffled neckline. Their hands are held close to their chest, and their facial expression suggests they are passionately expressing themselves. In the background, there are people seated in chairs, suggesting an audience or a panel. One person directly behind the speaker is wearing a purple T-shirt, and others are in more muted colors. There's also some equipment visible, like a tripod or stand of some sort.

On the right side of the screen, we have a man standing in what appears to be a news studio. He's dressed in a brown jacket with a buttoned shirt and dark pants. There are metallic buttons or decorations on his jacket. He's holding what looks like a remote or a clicker in his hands. In the background, there's a blurred image of the left side of the split-screen, as if reflecting what's being discussed or reported.

The graphic overlay on the left side includes the word "СПЕЦИАЛЬНЫЙ ВЫПУСК" in white Cyrillic characters on a blue background, indicating a "Special Edition" in Russian. There's also a blue bar with white text that reads "skabeeva," possibly a name or a brand associated with the program.

On the right side, the overlay features the logo of "Россия 1," a Russian TV channel, in the upper right corner, and the words "ПРЯМОЙ ЭФИР" below it, which translates to "Live Broadcast." There's also a red graphic element suggesting movement or action. At the bottom, there's a banner with a logo that includes "vladivostok178," which could refer to a specific program or segment, alongside some additional text and graphical elements that are too small to read clearly.

There's a subtitle in English across the bottom of both screens, reading "being in strange relationships with a bunch of." This text suggests that the conversation or report involves discussing unusual relationships, but without additional context, it's unclear what this refers to specifically.