Catfished By AI Images? That Viral Travel Spot Might Not Even Be Real
Three sisters stood beside a dusty roadside somewhere between Bangkok and Nonthaburi, leaning close together as they examined a map glowing on a smartphone screen. The sound of motorbikes echoed in the distance while the humid air pressed in from the surrounding brush. One of them rose and looked around, trying to match the surroundings to the photos they had seen online. She handed the phone to another sister, who paced slowly along the roadside, comparing downloaded images with the nearby buildings and patches of vegetation.
Then a shout broke the quiet. The other two hurried over to see what had happened.
“The lake was AI-generated. It doesn’t actually exist,” said Joan Min, 28, a bank manager from Manila who was traveling with her sisters. She had just confirmed the information with staff at their hotel’s travel desk. The answer was clear: the marsh filled with pink water lilies, supposedly offering a nighttime view of the Bangkok skyline, was not real.
What they had been searching for was a digital fabrication—an image created by generative AI that blended two different places into a single convincing scene. The picture appeared authentic enough online to inspire their trip. Min sighed, frustrated and stunned. “This is so stupid,” she said.
The image they found online likely combined Thailand’s Thale Bua Daeng lotus lake with a view of Bangkok’s skyline, creating a location that never actually existed. The incident reflects a growing problem in the age of generative media. More travelers are planning trips based on places they first see on social media or video platforms, only to discover the destinations were digitally invented.
The sisters were far from the only people misled this way. Late last year, AI-generated travel content published on the website of Tasmania Tours led visitors to search for hot springs that don’t exist. The article and accompanying images promoted “Weldborough Hot Springs” in northeast Tasmania as a peaceful forest getaway popular with hikers.
Scott Hennessey, owner of Tasmania Tours, later admitted the mistake in an interview with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. He explained that marketing work had been outsourced and the blog was published while he was overseas. “Our AI has messed up completely,” he said. The company later told CNN that the backlash online had been devastating.
Other incidents have surfaced as well. Two travelers in Peru reportedly set out to find a place called the “Sacred Canyon of Humantay,” which turned out to be fictional. In Malaysia, an elderly couple drove more than 370 kilometers from Kuala Lumpur to ride a cable car they had seen online, only to learn the attraction had been created by AI.
These cases highlight the risks that come with the growing use of generative technology in the travel industry.
For photographers and travel professionals, the debate over authenticity has been building for years. Image editing and enhancement have long been part of photography, but the ability to create entirely new scenes from written prompts has raised new concerns.
Lisa Michele Burns, a travel photographer, said the technology has advanced to the point where regulation may be necessary. She argues that heavily altering images—such as merging locations or inserting artificial elements—creates unrealistic expectations and undermines the value of real travel experiences.
According to Burns, such practices feed a culture that prioritizes perfect visuals over authenticity. The impact of those expectations can be felt directly by travelers and the communities they visit.
Wildlife photographer and travel expert Johan Siggesson described encounters with visitors in East Africa who expected every sunset to match the dramatic, highly saturated images they had seen online, complete with perfectly framed wildlife silhouettes. When the skies were softer or dust muted the colors, some felt disappointed.
But, Siggesson noted, that softer light represents the true landscape. The disappointment, he explained, comes from comparing reality with an artificial image rather than appreciating the actual environment.
He added that genuine travel photography involves unpredictability—changing weather, imperfect lighting, and unscripted moments. Those elements are part of what make travel meaningful. When imagery becomes overly fabricated, destinations risk being treated like fantasy products instead of real places with authentic experiences.
The gap between digital expectations and reality can also lead to disappointment, distort local cultures, and potentially create safety issues if travelers chase locations that do not exist.
Some companies are beginning to respond. Icelandair launched a campaign called “Is This Real or AI?” in late 2025 and early 2026 after research found that one in five travelers had been misled by exaggerated or false reviews. More than half of those surveyed said they were concerned about AI-generated content, and a quarter said they questioned whether travel photos online were authentic.
The airline’s campaign used videos and social experiments that challenged people to tell the difference between genuine photographs of Iceland and images created by AI.
Bogi Nils Bogason, CEO of Icelandair, said the company believes real experiences documented by photographers and local residents help set accurate expectations for travelers. While technology has a role in the industry, he said, the human element of travel must remain central.
Cruise Critic, one of the world’s largest cruise review platforms, recently introduced a strict AI use policy as well. Under the new rules, photos submitted by members must be their own work and cannot be generated by AI or digitally manipulated. The company says AI-created stock images or cruise line renderings may still appear in limited situations, but they must be clearly labeled so users can distinguish them from real-world photos.
Still, efforts by individual companies can only do so much without broader regulation. At the moment, there are few consistent national laws or international standards governing the use of AI-generated travel imagery.
Ji-Hyan, a 34-year-old backpacker from Singapore, summed up the frustration during a conversation on a flight from Delhi to Kolkata. She said travelers are essentially expected to figure out on their own which images online are real and which are fabricated.
Without stronger rules or enforcement, she said, tourists can easily be misled.
Another passenger nearby added that labeling requirements alone may not be enough if there are no penalties for ignoring them. Until governments close the gaps, travelers are left searching for reliable information in a digital landscape increasingly filled with AI-generated content.
For now, the burden often falls on tourists themselves—navigating a travel world where some destinations exist only on screens, created from pixels and algorithms rather than reality.
About Post Author
