WHO’S REALLY BEHIND MARINI’S PROFILE?When I first came across
Chloe Marini’s Instagram, my reaction was instant:
this is AI, no doubt about it. That
smoothness, that
perfection, those
details that scream
“too good to be true”.
One hundred percent artificial.
So I started digging. Her bio, of course, links to an
OnlyFans account with plenty of
likes, which means plenty of
subscribers. My first thought was:
someone hiding behind an AI avatar, selling content as if it were real, without ever saying it’s fake. Not the first time we’ve seen this.
But then things got
messy. I found another account with the same name,
Chloe Marini, but under a different
Instagram handle. And there, what shows up is a
very real girl.
Attractive,
natural, with videos that leave no doubt. Which raises the question: is the
real Chloe being used to generate AI videos, or is she herself experimenting with these
tools to multiply her presence?
Honestly, I can’t say for sure what’s behind this profile. What I can tell you is that some of the videos I’ve seen are
100% AI-generated, no discussion. So here’s the
board with all the
pieces laid out: a mix of
real and
artificial, of
authenticity and
deception.
I’ll share a few of these
clips, and from here, the
conclusions are yours.
# Watch videos
The slow motion of the day.
RANDOM AI-GENERATED IMAGES VOL21While AI accelerates, we’re still trying to understand it—and predict it.
Lately it feels like artificial intelligence isn’t just moving fast:
it’s gone feral. In his latest interview, Geoffrey Hinton—the “godfather” of all this—drops a few unsettling truths: countries compete with countries, companies compete with companies, and when everyone floors the accelerator at once,
there’s no such thing as a collective brake. Nobody wants to be the one to lift their foot while the rest pull ahead.
Hinton sketches a future where AI could replace much of intellectual work,
widen the wealth gap, and strain democracy. He talks about
superintelligence in 10–20 years, and about what’s already here: the
overwhelming advantages of digital systems over humans (they copy for free, learn at another scale, don’t sleep). Then comes the awkward question: if automation doesn’t create enough new jobs this time, who’s paying the rent for those left out?
History says every technological revolution kills some jobs and creates others. The printing press, the steam engine, electricity, the internet… There was always work in the end—different work, but work. And yes, it’s also true that
nobody in 1995 pictured influencers, community managers, or people making a living fine-tuning algorithms. Maybe that happens again. Or maybe not. If the curve steepens the way Hinton suggests, the adjustment could be
faster and more
brutal than we’re used to. Hence the talk of basic income, new social contracts, real lifelong learning (not a sticker), and regulation that doesn’t kill innovation—or hand the future to three players with server farms in the desert.
If you want to hear him unfiltered, the interview is here:
watch the episode.
And now, back to our thing…
While the gurus decide whether they’ll save us or sack us, we stick to what we do:
random images created by AI. Beautiful women, flawless skin that doesn’t exist, gazes nobody set, curves a network imagined after devouring millions of pixels.
It’s synthetic, sure… and it still stirs something very human.
The paradox is delicious: maybe AI will take our jobs, worsen collective decisions, or multiply inequality—but today,
today, look at what it already does.
It fantasizes, provokes, and hooks. And here we are, finger on the mouse, thinking that maybe it’s worth living (and dying) with this spectacle in the background. Relax: the apocalypse isn’t here yet; in the meantime,
enjoy the simulation.
# See images
Elizabeth Hurley and the dress that left everyone stunned at the premiere of “Four Weddings and a Funeral” in 1994.
instagram.com/elizabethhurley1