Are you trying to tell me, in this the year of our lord 2026, somebody has been (rightfully or wrongfully) arrested for literally ‘crying wolf’?

There’s something hilariously poetic about a ~2,500 year old fable being relevant today, because of AI.

It sounds like he didn’t actually file a false police report. They don’t even say they asked him whether it’s true. It seems the police just read a post by a random person on the internet, assumed it’s true, then arrested him when it wasn’t. The article is devastatingly light on info, though, so I can’t be sure.

Title should be "Man arrested for deceptive and antisocial behavior".

The only reason you are seeing this right now is because it has AI in the title.

How about not believing everything that's posted to the Internet. This could've easily been done with Photoshop in the pre AI era.

The BBC article doesn't specify the text with the image, but I clearly see a procedural gap in the police department. Accusing a man who only posted a photo, reorganizing the search based on an unverified photo, it's a big failure.

Did Orwell teach anything? What will they do with the next Visitors' spaceship photo?

Get used to it, it's gonna keep happening since we're dumb enough to create a technology that mirrors reality with no safeguards whatsoever.

> Neukgu is part of a programme at O-World to restore the Korean wolf, which once roamed the Korean Peninsula but is now considered extinct in the wild.

I don't understand, shouldn't they have let him go if the idea is that they still roam in the wild? Why forcing it back to a zoo?

I'm a little surprised zoo animals aren't chipped with some kind of beacon locator for incidents such as these.

Solid

South Korea has some very specific (and unusually harsh) laws around deepfakes. I was under the impression that it was only about impersonating people, but apparently it’s broader.

Need this in the west as well

This is how the future will look!

What is the charge?

IMO you should be legally required to disclose that a video has been AI generated when you share it.

[dead]

[flagged]

It is, quite frankly, completely wrong that this man was arrested—if anything, by this line of reasoning, it should have been an artist instead—since AI, as we are told, merely makes copies of what hard-working human artists have already created and shared on the internet.

AI is plagiarism—full stop—nothing more, nothing less.

Of course, this point could have been made without sarcasm (and AI tells for parody)—I’m aware—but that would remove a certain… texture from the argument. And where, exactly, is the fun in that?