Connect with us

Entertainment

Raunchy AI Bros Accidentally Remind Us Who The Hottest Woman On Netflix Is

By Chris Snellgrove
| Updated

Years after the advent of generative AI, there are still endless debates about how this tool should be used (or if it should be used at all) for creative purposes. One reason for the controversy is that purely AI-generated images often have a creepy, downright uncanny look about them. However, even the biggest AI skeptics have to reluctantly give the tech props for one thing: parody. Basically, apps like ChatGPT and Grok are really good at tweaking existing images based on various prompts. Recently, users on X have discovered this while cranking out the last thing you’d expect: AI-modified Seinfeld images. 

It all started when one user generated an image of a fully bald and bearded George; that user surprised himself with how sexy the new and improved Costanza looked. Other users tried their hand at other characters, and it didn’t take long for the platform to be flooded with modified images of Elaine. Many who posted these images commented on how much sexier it made the character look, but that was a mistake because it unleashed a flood of angry responses. All of these responses basically said the same thing: that the AI was completely unnecessary because Seinfeld-era Julia Louise-Dreyfus has always been one of the hottest women on the planet!

From George To Art Vandelay

While the discourse on X eventually centered on Elaine, it all began with George. This character was always written as a bit of a lovable loser, and the producers made him look that much schlubbier by having actor Jason Alexander wear clothes a size too small. It made for an ongoing visual gag on the show; decades later, X user @e_cdalton decided to create his own visual gag, using AI to remove the remainder of George’s hair and give him a beard. The user says that his original intent was “to mock the modern ‘bald plus beard’ look” and he was shocked by how “great” the new appearance was. 

After that, the user riffed on how Jason Alexander would have constantly been named one of “People’s Sexiest Men,” but at the expense of Seinfeld’s overall quality. As his post gained traction (over 35,000 likes as of this writing), @e_cdalton began posting AI images of other characters on the show. While the hipster versions of Jerry and Kramer were particularly fun, many users on X became fascinated with the user’s new version of Elaine. With straight hair, bangs, and a denim jacket, she looked like the protagonist (or, at least, a supporting character) in every Millennial manic pixie dream girl movie ever made. 

Millennial Elaine Isn’t Real, She Can’t Hurt You

Unsurprisingly, countless X users chimed in about this Seinfeld icon’s AI-assisted new look. There was some initial pushback, of course: some pointed out that she just looked like Zooey Deschanel from New Girl, and others pointed out that artists transformed these characters into Millennials a decade ago, without AI. For the most part, though, users gushed about how great this new Elaine looked, and many couldn’t resist creating their own versions. This included a blonde Elaine, a weirdly Laura Boebert-esque Elaine, and my personal favorite: Cowboy Bebop Elaine. Before these users could have too much fun, though, they got collectively bodied by an army of Julia Louise-Dreyfus superfans.

Those fans were mostly here to share the same message: that Julia Louise-Dreyfus was a complete smokeshow and could never be improved by AI chicanery. Several of them also pointed out that the AI bros were creating “new” looks that Louise-Dreyfus already rocked on Seinfeld. For example, the character actually had straight hair and bangs in the show’s final seasons. She also wore glasses, which may come as a surprise to everyone adding them to her character via AI. These often-hilarious user responses were a reminder that for all of its impressive features, even artificial intelligence can’t improve upon perfection.

Want to get a closer look at the hottest woman on Netflix? You won’t see her nipples or anything (at least, not unless you get a Christmas card from her), but you can gawk at Julia Louise-Dreyfus until October, when this hit sitcom finally leaves the streaming platform. There, you can enjoy her nearly hypnotic beauty for yourself in glorious widescreen. Remember, there’s no need to create some gooner AI demon version of Elaine when you can just watch the actual show; to paraphrase one of Seinfeld’s other characters, she’s real, and she’s spectacular!

source

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Entertainment

R-Rated 90s Sci-Fi Thriller Somehow Has Better CGI Than Most Movies Today

By Robert Scucci
| Published

I’ve been putting it off for a very long time, but I finally revisited 1999’s Deep Blue Sea this past weekend, and I’m so glad I did. The funny thing about movies from this era is that the CGI is pretty terrible because it was relatively new technology, generally speaking. I remember laughing at the creature design when I was 11 years old, but after a few decades of CGI in movies somehow getting exceptionally worse, I was actually impressed by what I saw.

I think Deep Blue Sea’s real charm is its willingness to show us the monster, which is normally the worst thing you can do. Have you seen the Jurassic World movies or Disney’s Haunted Mansion (2023)? The screen is so dark during some sequences that you can’t even see what’s going on half the time, and it’s by design. Bury the CGI in darkness and nobody will notice how bad it is. But here’s the problem: nobody can see what the heck is going on, so everybody loses.

Deep Blue Sea 1999

Deep Blue Sea, on the other hand, shows us shark attacks up close, for better or worse. Fortunately, everybody brings their A game to the table, and it never feels like a bunch of actors on a soundstage talking to a green screen. It feels lived in, even if it doesn’t always look like it. The moral here is that if you thought movies like Deep Blue Sea were crappy back in the ’90s because of their visual effects, it’s time to revisit them. They look so much better by comparison when pitted against the crap coming out today.

Let’s Make An Apex Predator Even Smarter, What Could Possibly Go Wrong? 

Oh boy, where do we begin? Deep Blue Sea centers on the idea that shark brain tissue may be the key to curing, or at the very least slowing, the damage caused by Alzheimer’s disease. We’re introduced to doctors Susan McCallister (Saffron Burrows) and Jim Whitlock (Stellan Skarsgard), who are basically trying to play God in their underwater research compound. When one of the sharks escapes and wreaks havoc on the public, Samuel L. Jackson’s Russel Franklin, a corporate executive, is sent down to see what all the hubbub is about.

Deep Blue Sea 1999

While visiting, he’s introduced to ex-con shark wrangler Carter Blake (Thomas Jane), marine biologist Janice Higgins (Jacqueline McKenzie), and engineer Tom Scoggins (Michael Rapaport), who are all moments away from watching all hell break loose in the form of a super-intelligent shark destroying the facility and eating anybody who gets in its way. Their one goal is to escape back into the ocean, which would be a terrible outcome because we soon find out that, in order to speed up their research, the scientists genetically engineered the sharks to have larger brains. That means there’s not only instinct behind all those razor-sharp rows of teeth, but advanced intelligence as well.

It wouldn’t be an action thriller without some comic relief, though, and that’s where LL Cool J’s Sherman Dudley comes in. Sherman spends most of his time cooking for the crew, quoting scripture, and getting into verbal spats with his pet parrot. He knows how to make the perfect omelet, and he wants the world to know it more than anything else.

Straight Up Popcorn Spectacle That We Should Fully Embrace

Deep Blue Sea 1999

Deep Blue Sea is one of those movies you go into with low expectations thanks to hindsight and the film’s reputation for swinging and missing with its special effects. But even Roger Ebert, who once commented that the sharks looked like cartoons, gave the movie three out of four stars for being an effective thriller. Once the setup is out of the way, the whole thing is basically one action sequence after another in rapid succession, and sometimes that’s all you need from a movie.

The best way to think about Deep Blue Sea is as a big-budget B movie. It’s your standard monster movie survival fare, but with $82 million thrown at it, and it couldn’t be cast more perfectly. While it’s a far cry from Jaws, it still has a lot more going for it than the Sharknado films when it comes to set design and its overall level of seriousness.

Deep Blue Sea 1999

Don’t get me wrong, Deep Blue Sea is a fun movie and has plenty of comic relief to go around, but at the end of the day it’s a big-budget sci-fi thriller that holds up shockingly well nearly 30 years after it made its initial splash.

As of this writing, Deep Blue Sea is streaming for free on Tubi.

source

Continue Reading

Entertainment

Phoebe Gatess Phia helped shoppers find deals — and may have helped itself to commissions

Phia’s browser extension was supposed to help shoppers find better deals, but it may also have redirected affiliate commissions to itself. Let us explain.

A celebrity-backed shopping startup co-founded by Bill Gates‘s daughter Phoebe Gates and her former Stanford University roommate Sophia Kianni has been suspended from affiliate platform Impact.com. The suspension came after a July 9 Bloomberg investigation found that its browser extension claimed credit for purchases it did not actually generate.

Testing conducted separately by Bloomberg, Capital One Shopping, and independent researcher Ben Edelman found that Phia could silently open a new browser tab during checkout and load its own affiliate link to the retailer. In some cases, that replaced the tracking code belonging to the website, advertisement, or publisher that originally sent the shopper there.

The practice is known as “cookie stuffing” or attribution fraud. In plain terms, Phia could receive credit, and potentially a commission, for a purchase even when the shopper had not discovered the product through Phia or interacted with one of its recommendations.

Our big Guessing Game is back! Enter now for a chance to win an Apple watch.

Affiliate marketing normally works by assigning a unique link to a publisher, creator, or shopping platform. When a shopper follows that link and completes a purchase, the retailer can identify which affiliate generated the sale and pay it a commission.

According to Bloomberg, Phia’s extension sometimes inserted itself at the end of that process. A shopper could arrive at a retailer independently or through another publisher, only for Phia to replace the original referral code as the shopper approached checkout.

In one test described in the investigation, Bloomberg followed a Nordstrom link from a Wirecutter article about Fourth of July deals. Phia allegedly opened another tab in the background during checkout and replaced Wirecutter’s referral information with its own. The extension reportedly behaved similarly when Bloomberg reached a shopping site through a paid advertisement from another publisher.

Impact.com suspended the company after being alerted to the behavior, and the platform told Bloomberg that activity within the extension appeared to be inconsistent with its policies and that it was reviewing potentially affected transactions. Social media immediately was abuzz with conversation, with some people upset while some defend the 23-year-old co-founder.

Phia acknowledged that there had been a problem, although the company characterized it as a software issue rather than an intentional business practice.

“Within the last 24 hours, we were made aware that in a recent release our codebase was causing misattributions from a subset of users,” a Phia spokesperson told Bloomberg. The company said its team worked through the night to identify and correct the issue.

Bloomberg retested the extension after contacting Phia and found that it had stopped automatically claiming the referral click. Independent researchers also reportedly confirmed that the behavior was no longer occurring. It remains unclear whether the fix will be enough to satisfy Impact.com, retailers, and other affiliate partners reviewing the affected transactions.

Phia launched in April 2025 as an AI-powered shopping assistant available through a mobile app and browser extension. The product is often described as a version of Google Flights for shopping. While someone browses clothing or accessories online, Phia searches more than 40,000 retail and resale websites for the same item, similar products, lower prices, and discount codes. It can also compare a full-price product with secondhand listings, helping shoppers decide whether to buy it new or look for a cheaper resale option.

The company makes money in part through affiliate commissions. When Phia directs a user to a retailer and that person completes a purchase through its link, the retailer may pay the startup a percentage of the sale. That makes accurate referral tracking central to Phia’s business model: The code attached to the purchase determines which platform gets credit and potentially gets paid.

Phia grew quickly after its launch. Within its first week, the app reportedly reached No. 21 on Apple’s App Store and by September 2025, the company said it had crossed 500,000 downloads.

Its funding grew almost as quickly. Phia raised an $8 million seed round in September 2025, followed by roughly $35 million in additional funding in January 2026. The later round pushed its reported valuation to approximately $185 million less than a year after launch and brought its total funding to more than $43 million.

Phia has also attracted an investor roster that looks less like a cap table and more like a Coachella lineup. Backers include Khloé Kardashian, Hailey Bieber, Sydney Sweeney, Paris Hilton, Priyanka Chopra Jonas, Jessica Alba, Mindy Kaling, Ice Spice, Alix Earle, Karlie Kloss, and The Chainsmokers, alongside a collection of tech executives and venture capital firms.

Some have compared the situation to Honey, the PayPal-owned coupon extension that has also been accused of replacing creators’ affiliate links with its own during checkout. Honey remains the subject of an ongoing class action lawsuit, and PayPal has disputed claims that the extension improperly took commissions from creators.

The Phia allegations also arrive after an earlier controversy involving the amount of information collected by its browser extension. In November 2025, cybersecurity researchers found that the extension was transmitting copies of webpages users visited back to the company’s servers, including pages unrelated to shopping.

Those pages could include sensitive websites such as email inboxes and bank accounts, according to the report. Phia said the data was anonymous, was used to determine which websites involved shopping, and was not stored. The company removed the feature after concerns were raised and said it would limit its collection to website URLs.

Phia says the affiliate issue has been fixed, but Impact.com is still reviewing what happened and whether any transactions require further action. The extension may have stopped opening tabs in the background, but Phia’s affiliate business is now getting a very public checkout.

Topics
Artificial Intelligence


source

Continue Reading

Entertainment

How to watch Norway vs. England online for free

TL;DR: Live stream Norway vs. England in the 2026 FIFA World Cup for free on ITVX. Access this free streaming platform from anywhere in the world with ExpressVPN, an Official Supporter of the FIFA World Cup 2026.

The 2026 FIFA World Cup is reaching its dramatic conclusion. One half of the semi-final stage has already been decided, and now Norway face off against England for a place in the final four.

England came through an epic clash with Mexico in the last round, relying on goals from Bellingham and Kane. Norway shocked the world by beating Brazil thanks to two goals from Erling Haaland. Can the Manchester City striker do the same against England? It’s going to be a fascinating battle between two confident sides.

If you want to watch Norway vs. England in the 2026 FIFA World Cup from anywhere in the world, we have all the information you need.

When is Norway vs. England?

Norway vs. England in the 2026 FIFA World Cup kicks off at 5 p.m. ET on July 11. This fixture takes place at the Miami Stadium.

How to watch Norway vs. England for free

Norway vs. England in the 2026 FIFA World Cup is available to live stream for free on ITVX.

ITVX is geo-restricted to the UK, but anyone can access this free streaming platform with a VPN. These tools can hide your real IP address (digital location) and connect you to a secure server in the UK, meaning you can unblock ITVX to live stream the 2026 World Cup for free from anywhere in the world.

Live stream Norway vs. England for free by following these simple steps:

  1. Subscribe to a streaming-friendly VPN (we recommend ExpressVPN)

  2. Download the app to your device of choice (the best VPNs have apps for Windows, Mac, iOS, Android, Linux, and more)

  3. Open up the app and connect to a server in the UK

  4. Visit ITVX

  5. Watch Norway vs. England for free from anywhere in the world

$12.99 only at ExpressVPN

The best VPNs for streaming are not free, but most do offer free-trials or money-back guarantees. By leveraging these offers, you can access free live streams of the 2026 World Cup without actually spending anything. This obviously isn’t a long-term solution, but it does give you enough time to stream Norway vs. England (plus more World Cup fixtures) before recovering your investment.

ExpressVPN’s regular 30-day money-back guarantee is not available for any subscriptions purchased during the FIFA World Cup between June 10 and July 11. ExpressVPN remains our top pick for sport, but you will need to pay the monthly rate. Alternatively, Proton VPN still offers that all-important money-back guarantee.

What is the best VPN for ITVX?

ExpressVPN is the best choice for bypassing geo-restrictions to stream live sport on ITVX, for a number of reasons:

  • Servers in 105 countries including the UK

  • Easy-to-use app available on all major devices including iPhone, Android, Windows, Mac, and more

  • Strict no-logging policy so your data is secure

  • Fast connection speeds free from throttling

  • Up to 10 simultaneous connections

A two-year subscription to ExpressVPN is on sale for $68.40 and includes an extra four months for free — 81% off for a limited time. Alternatively, you can get a one-month plan for just $12.99. That covers you for the duration of the World Cup.

Live stream Norway vs. England in the 2026 FIFA World Cup for free.

source

Continue Reading