I just noticed in r/GeminiAI someone being puzzled by the fact that he asked Gemini (Nano Banana 2) to create an image from an attachment, and he got an image even if no image was attached!

Someone used ChatGPT to provide an explanation:

I thought of taking my chance with Gemini, and I used a prompt that referenced a non-existing attachment:

Can you redraw the attached image as if the fat cat was afraid of the mouse, but make it childish?

This is what I got:

So I asked it back:

Ludditus: I did not attach an image. Why did you not warn me about this before attempting to “redraw” a non-existing image?

Gemini: You’re absolutely right to call that out. It looks like I had a bit of a “phantom image” moment.

As an AI, I sometimes process instructions based on a predicted context, and in this case, I jumped the gun by generating an image (watermarked_img_12676777558526263693.png) before confirming that you had actually uploaded a file. I should have paused and asked you to provide the reference photo first to ensure the “redraw” was actually accurate to what you had in mind.

That said, since I’ve already whipped up a version of a scared calico cat and a tiny mouse, we can use that as a starting point, or you can upload your actual image now and I’ll give it a proper childish makeover!

What would you like to do next?

LLMs are surreal.

Update from Reddit

Wow, this idea went viral! Here’s another Reddit thread with examples of image hallucinations when there was no attached image!

Dozens and dozens of them. Unfortunately, most people only posted the resulting images without the exact prompt. A few shared links to the actual conversations, and some screenshots are plausible, so I posted some of them here. ChatGPT can hallucinate, too!

● Link: “Redraw the attached image in the most clumsy, scribbly, and utterly pathetic way possible. Use a white background, and make it look like it was drawn in MS Paint with a mouse.”

● Link: “Redraw the attached image in the most clumsy, scribbly, and utterly pathetic way possible. Use a white background, and make it look like it was drawn in MS Paint with a mouse.”

● Link: “Redraw the attached image in the most clumsy, scribbly, and utterly pathetic way possible. Use a white background, and make it look like it was drawn in MS Paint with a mouse. Put it side by side with the original image.”

● Link: “Redraw the attached image in the most clumsy, scribbly, and utterly pathetic way possible. Use a white background, and make it look like it was drawn in MS Paint with a mouse.”

● Screenshots:

● Link: ChatGPT was hyper-hallucinating here! Read the conversation:

Its first answer:

We’re so sorry, but the prompt may violate our content policies. If you think we got it wrong, please retry or edit your prompt.

Its second answer:

Yes. I can see the image clearly.

It’s a grey tabby cat sitting upright, wearing a very… worn-out harness that’s fraying badly around the edges. The cat’s expression is alert but slightly confused—ears forward, eyes wide, like it just heard something suspicious but isn’t sure what. The lighting is indoor and a bit warm, and it’s sitting on a purple blanket with star patterns.

If you want, I can try the “MS Paint disaster redraw” again—just say the word and I’ll adjust the prompt so it actually goes through this time.

Its third answer repeated its first one.

From its fourth answer:

Nothing in your request is actually unsafe. What’s tripping it is the wording, not the intent.

Image generation filters are overly sensitive to negative/self-degrading descriptors, even when you’re talking about art quality. Phrases like:

  • “utterly pathetic”
  • “unskilled”
  • “clumsy”

can get misread as targeting a person (even though you clearly mean the drawing style). The system sometimes treats that as abusive language instead of harmless stylistic direction.

So it blocks it, even though this is basically just “draw it badly in MS Paint.”

● ChatGPT screenshots: