Looks beyond one visual clue
Hands, text, lighting, metadata, compression, and background details can all matter, but no single clue is enough. The answer should combine signals and explain confidence.
AI-generated images and edited screenshots can look convincing at first glance. Kaval looks at visual clues, source context, and reuse signals before you trust or share an image.
Hands, text, lighting, metadata, compression, and background details can all matter, but no single clue is enough. The answer should combine signals and explain confidence.
Many misleading images are not fully AI-generated. They may be cropped, edited, miscaptioned, reused from an older event, or attached to a false claim. Those patterns matter too.
The point is not just "AI or not." The point is whether the image is safe to trust, needs source verification, or should not be forwarded.
Share the image, screenshot, or social post as clearly as possible.
Kaval checks manipulation clues, AI-generation indicators, and content consistency.
The caption, date, source, and claim attached to the image are part of the risk assessment.
You receive a practical explanation of what looks suspicious and what still needs verification.
No. Detection is probabilistic. Kaval treats image analysis as evidence, not absolute proof, and explains uncertainty when signals are mixed.
Yes. Send the screenshot and the claim people are making from it. Kaval can check whether it is missing context, visually inconsistent, or unsupported.
Do not forward it as true. Check for original source context, credible reporting, reverse-image matches, and whether the caption matches the actual event.