I have recently come across a user (I am sure there are many) that is uploading images that are AI generated or at least heavily enhanced. I realize this is probably nothing new, but I feel that if this behavior is allowed to continue this will no longer be a nature lovers’ site. With the rapid incr…

OK, this has been released: https://www.inaturalist.org/blog/118284

This issue has been discussed in a couple of earlier threads: https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/ai-images-and-how-to-flag-them/58420 https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/beware-ai-images-on-inat/44346 You may want to take a look at those threads to see other users’ thoughts on how to address the issue.

Yes, I would say anytime that you think an image is wholly AI-generated, you should flag it. Photo enhancing with AI is a tougher matter to handle, but it is probably best to start by politely asking the user whether they have used AI-based enhancing tools. There have been some cases where users hav…

If the picture were wholly or mostly from AI, it would seem reasonable to mark it “no evidence of organism.” Don’t know if we want to do that.

Thank you. I marked as no evidence last night. My issue with that is that I can’t honestly say there is no organism. It is possible that the user photographed the observation and then used AI enhancing. It is still as offensive to me. However, I know how sensitive this topic is becoming so I want to…

[image] cthawley: But I too wish there were a clearer policy and way to deal with these situations. Maybe a feature request for a new kind of flag similar to copyright would be a good idea? When AI is used even just to upscale images. It can often “fabricate evidence”. Especially with things…

[image] zoology123: It can often “fabricate evidence”. Especially with things like wing veins of insects. It can make up veins that don’t exist. Seems like AI has already ruined iNaturalist then.

I just read the guidelines again and it is mute on the issue. Maybe a photo pre-processing section in the guidelines would help: Cropping should be encouraged. I think adjusting light and white balance are acceptable. Retouching should be banned or at least discouraged. AI enhancement should be…

[image] vbjanos: I just read the guidelines again and it is mute on the issue. Most guidelines were decided upon 10 years ago I suppose, usage changes… I just got a new phone and AI enhancement is turned on by default. I’d therefore say most pictures taken by a phone camera in the last few y…

[image] fincadinamica: it seems that it should be required of users that they specify if their images are AI generated or enhanced I would say that, simply, it would be better to strictly forbid the use of such images and users that upload such pictures should be seriously warned not to do so…

“AI enhancement is turned on by default” That’s…pretty terrible. So now less realistic photos will become the default, all because of tech companies obsession with forcing AI into everything

AI Generated or Enhanced Images as "observations"

General

saturnring July 25, 2025, 4:32am 7

Seems like AI has already ruined iNaturalist then.

Topic		Replies	Views
Use of AI upscaling General	62	2567	August 1, 2024
Beware: AI Images on inat General	187	11147	October 7, 2025
Evidence accurately depicts organism or scene” Data Quality Metric questions General	34	838	October 10, 2025
Coming soon: Deep fake nature photography? General	26	2472	August 23, 2022
Article on AI generated image(s) on iNat General	66	2929	April 2, 2026

AI Generated or Enhanced Images as "observations"

Related topics