But that's not how laws work. In this case, a judge would set some standards, like "would a reasonable person be confused by this", and would rule based on that. It won't matter overly much what the author thinks "anyone could see," but it's also not an entirely objective process with code-like rules. That's just not how most laws work.
I found this definition here :
> ... who use an AI system to generate or manipulate image, audio or video content that appreciably resembles existing persons, objects, places, entities or events and would falsely appear to a person to be authentic or truthful (deep fakes)
> ‘AI system’ means a machine-based system that is designed to operate with varying levels of autonomy and that may exhibit adaptiveness after deployment, and that, for explicit or implicit objectives, infers, from the input it receives, how to generate outputs such as predictions, content, recommendations, or decisions that can influence physical or virtual environments
To me, this definition reads as only including "agentic" uses, or automated decision engines. An image generator does not operate with any autonomy. If you interpret the "input" part loosely enough to include it, then you'd likely include old and simple techniques like seam carving [1], which very few would consider "AI" in the contemporary sense
So from image generators up to agents.
If you're talking about twitter, then yeah, that's a firehose of crap and there's no laws that'll stop the "owww, it was just a joke!"