I wonder if wearing PJs that match the sofa was part of making sure the “mood” was right.
Just to remind folks, this is Usha Vance:
That is not the lady in the photo. It’s a funny joke, but they don’t look anything alike.
They look a lot alike if your only criteria is skin tone & gender. Which is probably what a lot of people are looking at, and no further.
Well, skin tone, gender, eye color, hair color, hairstyle, brow shape, etc. I agree that all those similar features don’t make the two images look like the exact same individual, but you can see why AI image generation would go there.
She has about ten skin tones in that pic. Is this what make-up is supposed to look like?
It looks more to me like normal skin with a normal amount of make, not pancake makeup, under unflattering lighting.
I mostly avoided seeing a one-minute ad for TotalitarianPissantsUSA on TV tonight starring Erika Kirk with a cameo appearance by Charlie, hawking his book “STOP In The Name Of God Or You’ll Be One Sorry MF”.
Erika is obviously loving her spotlight role.
It’s a close race between her and Karoline Leavitt for most nauseating MAGA queen, but Leavitt still has the lead.
I’m actually kind of stunned by the lack of media literacy in both the replies in the screenshot and subsequent replies on the dope.
Some guy used an AI image generator to generate a photo of a woman who is meant to look like Usha Vance, wearing the same patterned clothes as the couch behind her. The subtext is that Usha Vance supposedly deliberately dresses similar to couches as a way to arouse her husband.
The reply in the tweet doesn’t seem to understand this was intentional and points it out as if it’s a revelation. And now people in this thread are seemingly believing this is a real woman and debating her supposed similarity or lack thereof to the real Usha?
I assumed the joke was that she was dressing in that pattern as camouflage, so when he fucks her on the couch, he can imagine he’s instead fucking the couch itself.
If he got the couch pregnant, would his children be considered white?
Does it need to be a white leather couch? Maybe a biege grandma couch?
One or two seemed to think it was Usha, where I felt it was important to suggest people actually look at a picture of her to see this clearly wasn’t.
It also looked like AI to me, but that was of secondary importance. After all, you can generate an AI version of a real person also, but what matters is people assuming some random woman (AI-generated or not) who seems Indian must be Usha.
Yeah, but the author’s intent is clearly that she is an AI version of Usha that’s largely been limited by both technological and safety guardrails to not look all that close to her. If the author were able to generate a closer representation, they clearly would have.
It’s a good thing that some people actually care about the damage their AI product might do.
some people actually care about the damage their AI product might do
some people actually care about getting sued 
My point was that for the MAGA folks, any generic South Asian woman of about the same age would look close enough they’d accept that it was really Usha. Whether the image source was an actress, Photoshop, or AI didn’t matter; they’d not look past female, 40+, and South Asian features and complexion. “Must be her; they all look alike to me.” would be their rubric.
Then this is even more confused because it is quite obviously a left leaning creator, creating a post for a left leaning audience to consume. MAGA was never designed to see this post and, if they were, their incentive would have been to point out how different the woman looked from Usha Vance as a way to undercut the effectiveness of the joke.
That we’ve gone through all this back and forth and there’s still basic misunderstandings about the artistic intent is kinda nuts.
That’s a valid reason why a person should care. Yet many still don’t.
It’s a far more plausible motivation for our current crop of sociopathic techbros to moderate their behavior than the laughable suggestion that they give a shit about the damage their products do, which was the narrow context of my response.
Elon, for example, resisted for far too long against preventing Grok from creating child porn for fuck’s sake, even though it opened him up to so much liability.
Probably to give the code bros at Grok time to teach it the difference so they could go back to doing revenge porn of women that upset them.