I Found An Image!
This topic contains 83 replies, has 3 voices, and was last updated by George 2 weeks, 4 days ago.
November 15, 2016 at 1:05 pm #9825
okay- here’s the problem. this post piqued my interest as it was the first claiming to have found a naturally generated image without searching it. also the whole gravitar thing was entertaining, with all the test posts and whatnot. in the beginning, it looked exactly like the situation described- some bored person had put an image of their family member or someone through a filter and claimed to have found it with their computer setup to get attention. I thought, ‘this guy has several computers just sitting their looking through images, but doesn’t have the money to make an account on some website so he can get a picture?’ I have to tell the truth, it was very sketch (much disbelieve).
and then I googled ‘library of babel found picture of woman’ just because I was bored.
2,000 or so results, none of what I was looking for. mostly just pictures of the art from the book about the fictitious library.
but then I realized that I had never actually taken a good look at it yet. go up to the top of the thread and look at it for your self.
at first glance, the pattern following part of your brain probably kicked in and said ‘that’s definably a face’, and it also might have decided that it was a woman’s face. your brain, from birth, has been trained and adapted to be especially good at finding faces and determining their gender. the image, or presumably the photo, appears to be of a middle aged woman, suggested by the gentle slope of the jawline and bust. her age may be indicated by the slight suggestion of folds in the skin beside the nose and mouth, and we can guess by the height of the forehead that her hairline is starting to recede. notice that she appears to be wearing a brown or black shirt, and has her furthest arm raised as if holding something off view. the slightly lighter vertical band near or behind her forearm suggests a door, perhaps wood as it matches near the tone of her skin. we can assume that it is a door, as the pixels are lighter on the far right side than they are on the left- suggesting that on the other side of the door from the woman, it is brighter. also, notice her hair- there appears to be a head of light, frizzy or curly hair around her head, as evident by the lighter pixels on the more lit side of her face. the background seems to be all black or dark, as that side of her face is not illuminated. but look behind the woman for a moment, and you will see a perfectly straight line at her shoulder, with bright red pixels below it. this is the brightest part of the picture. this area seems to suggest a chair of some sort, and perhaps the back of it is at an angle as to catch the light that is falling onto the woman. now look at her face. it is not what you expect from a phot – instead of smiling, posing, the woman has her mouth open, as if surprised or frightened. she may even have been surprised by something frightening, or frightened by something surprising. at any rate, the photo apeares to have been candid, unplanned.
perhaps, if our deductions are correct, we are looking at a photo of a middle aged woman, sitting in a chair with a brown shirt, holding open a door, while a light source shines on her either amazed or surprised face.
at that point, I was sure that this was a fake. the image’s pixels are too specific and ordered to be a random image. after all, random chance is not able to create order in this fashion, in this short amount of time. it even looks like it was run through a filter, as the randomness of the pixels is different from the rest of the randomly generated images, as it is more linear and centered on the color green, the RGB cancellation of the red spectrum.
B U T .
I ran the face through the Facebook engine. yeah, the one that can recognize your face in the REFLECTION OF SOMEONES SUNGLASSES IN A PHOTO AND TAG YOU FOR THAT PHOTO.
We’re sorry, we can’t find the person you’re looking for.
Try searching for first and last names, landmarks, the date the picture was taken, and other details for a more accurate search.”
so, ether the person doesn’t exist, or hasn’t had a picture taken of them in the last 100 years. or there’s like one photo of them ever. however, it does seem likely that a picture taken of a family member would have never even made it to the internet, to be tagged on Facebook. it also seems likely that a thirty year old guy would have a bunch of old photos on his digital camera of his grandmother or mother or even sibling that he could run through a digital filter. he would be good at that because he’s a cartoonist. or digital artist. or hobbyist.
either way, I just cant seem to find an answer to this question, as it seems the image is fake, but to random to be real.
love your work on the power squirrel character, though. seriously, you need your own show.
happy birthday.December 2, 2016 at 1:29 am #10195
Definitely fake. Who cares if the image isn’t on the internet? There’s something called offline. Offline camera. Upload to system, project it onto random pixels, done.December 10, 2016 at 8:49 pm #10345
@Eston Raemundo: Interesting speculation – especially in regard to human perception and pattern recognition. I would contest this speculation, because as a graphics artist myself, I recognize the pattern of a human being when I see it (but my most important ability that enables me to do so is the same ability I share with most humans on the planet: I have eyes to see; a brain to process similiar patterns, and I am a human myself… all of which makes me and practically everyone else under normal circumstances an expert in recognizing a distinct form such as this woman in the photo initially posted). The pattern is not random; it’s not seeing animals in clouds, or faces in chaotic patterns – it’s a distinct form with accurate proportions which we all agree is a (bespectacled) woman that looks into the camera. This is a very specific statement that we all made independently from each other. In other words: No, it’s not an optical illusion; a false recoginition of a chaotic pattern that tricked our brains to see something which isn’t there. It’s just too well defined for this to be a random fluctuation.
Your point that this woman might not exist because you can’t find her on facebook or at any other spot on the internet is a weak argument. It could just mean that your research capabilities are flawed; or that your expectations are wrong; or that this woman just didn’t bother to post this specific image anywhere on the internet. This doesn’t proof or disproof anything at all – it’s empirically irrelevant. And all of this doesn’t change or contest the relevance of my previously stated argument either. Again, of all the possible things that could be found or could be recognized as any given pattern, he claims to have found:
– a lifeform (instead of the more likely inanimate things or even just some type of recognizable pattern that most likely would pop up more frequently than a lifeform – not to mention an actual human, instead of – let’s say – a Klingon, or a Cardassian, or Yoda from Star Wars or something).
– a human being (of all lifeformas that currently exist on earth; that have ever existed; that will exist and the endless possible creatures that could- but never ever will exist, including alien lifeforms… which is highly unlikely).
– a bespectacled woman (which indicates a human of contemporary times – not the cromagnon times, or the roughly 75 billion people that already lived since the emergence of the modern human (homo sapiens) about 150k to 200k years ago; and most probably not from the potentially endless future that lies ahead of us; no, it’s obviously contemporary… which most probably is not a coincidence. All this doesn’t even include the endless fictional times and eras that could be visualized by some random image and still: Even without going fictional, it’s contemporary and therefore a very narrow if not too specific “random” encounter).
So, to recap: He found a female human from contemporary times by random occasion instead of any other possible (and impossible) thing that could have been encountered as a recognizable “thing” of whatever nature or kind. This is extremely unlikely. It’s more likely (and the most simplest explanation of the true nature of his “finding”) that he took an image of a woman; altered it to make it more believable, uploaded it to get it’s position digits of the library, posted this topic to gain attention, and then quickly shifted to his drawing abilities. I don’t know why he would do this. Maybe he just wanted to promote his skills (but this forum is a strange place to do this), or maybe he feels the urge to show his skills to anybody he encounters, or maybe he just did that to dupe us. I don’t know why he did that, specifically because I don’t know him.
I get the notion to grant him the benefit of the doubt. But what he claims to have found by random occasion is so astronomically unlikely that it’s safe to say: It’s a fake and nothing more.
Alright, that’s all for today. 🙂
Have a good one.
TristanDecember 21, 2016 at 10:53 pm #10783
It was put there on purpose, it’s called “a woman”December 28, 2016 at 9:27 pm #10984
@ Ed (pun intended) whatever that might mean.January 31, 2017 at 9:41 am #12327
Guess what… i copied the image put it into my paint.net image editor and made a second layer and made it red and set the blending mode to multiply and flattened it.
And guess what its a fake…February 22, 2017 at 1:54 am #12949
Look, didn’t you guys know about the image search feature? You upload an image and then it discovers the index for the library. Which is why the index (if you click on “a woman”, it will show the original index which is a bajillion numbers) is so big. He obviously hasn’t put it to slide until it found, as you guys have rightfully pointed out. However, he did find a image, it is there.March 1, 2017 at 4:15 pm #13149
Okay, I tried to restore the image as much as possible, and here it is (I did a inverse google search and couldn’t find any similar, maybe it’s just a screenshot from a video?)
March 1, 2017 at 4:30 pm #13150
I hope it is a screenshot from a nasty granny porn videoMarch 25, 2017 at 11:47 pm #14143
“this guy has several computers just sitting their looking through images, but doesn’t have the money to make an account on some website so he can get a picture?” -Eston Raemundo
I only have one computer to look up images, and you can have more then one browser searching images. I had three split tabs open on a 1080p monitor, and I built my computer before I lost my job. The computer has been good through out these past five years, best investment of my life.
But I would like to have a 4K monitor so I can have more tabs open and more computers so I can record and document what I find. It would be more easier to find more images if we all had our computers runing 24/7 recording everything that might come up, even while we are sleeping.
And we all need to cooperate on which number we are gonna start on.
I already search through 1-1,000 and didn’t find anything through there.
I also download the first static image and reuploaded it here which brought me to a much higher number and I started searching counting down which brought me to that image I found.
If you think it’s fake… then go right ahead and believe that. And if that’s so, then this whole Lilbrary Image is fake…. who knows.
But you also have to think, the image is as real as this Lilbrary… found or not found.
Btw, I have a Patreon account if you want to see more of my cartoons! https://www.patreon.com/MarkOmo83 =DMarch 26, 2017 at 1:13 am #14146
Uh-oh… I forgot how to spell Library. =(April 1, 2017 at 5:36 pm #14490
you uploaded your fucking mom here and you are trying to sell this shit as real. what’s your problem dude?April 2, 2017 at 1:27 pm #14526
That’s okay if you believe that, this is a free internet after all.April 2, 2017 at 6:22 pm #14533
Again, of all possible creatues or inanimate objects you claim to have found a human (instead of insects, that outmatch humans in number and therefore more likely to be found – or any other imaginable (because it doesn’t have to a real existing or possibly existing creature at all) being). Unlikely, buddy. And your passive aggressive “if you believe that go for it”, pseudo-defense isn’t helping either. You’ve been caught, so stop lying. You got the attention you wanted and embarrassed yourself enough.
So: Yes, I don’t believe you.
– TristanApril 2, 2017 at 7:11 pm #14536
Embarrass myself? What do you mean?
It’s alright if you don’t believe me either, I stand by what I found.