For months, a global alarm was raised over Anisa Mahmutović’s allegedly “caricature-like” appearance supposedly processed with artificial intelligence, even though the original RTV Lukavac photograph proves that there was no AI manipulation whatsoever in that allegedly “caricature-like” image — it is simply Anisa as she actually looks. And then Meta, without so much as blinking, slapped an “AI-generated content” label on Anisa’s Facebook post featuring her dog Max.
Dear brothers and sisters, we understand when people use artificial intelligence to erase wrinkles, add hair, or relocate themselves to the Maldives. But using AI to “touch up” a dog — now that is a whole new chapter in digital civilization. What on earth was wrong with Max in the first place — and/or does Max even exist?
THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION – AGAINST THE ABUSE OF JOURNALISM – SATIRE(ING)
EDITOR’S COMMENTARY
By Danijel Senkić, journalist and Editor-in-Chief of Dokumentovano.ba
And here we are again, back to Anisa’s artificial intelligence.
Just when we thought that, in the great Bosnian-Herzegovinian saga of “artificial intelligence (AI) and the photograph of Anisa Mahmutović,” everything had finally been said — because the photograph is original — Facebook decided to give us a brand-new chapter.
And what a chapter it is.
The dog.
Yes, you read that correctly.
The dog.
Above Anisa Mahmutović’s post, next to the photograph of her Max, Facebook calmly displayed:
“AI-GENERATED CONTENT”
And that is where the story gets particularly interesting.
Because for months, the alarm bells were ringing over the alleged AI manipulation of Anisa’s appearance.
And now, apparently, artificial intelligence has made its way to the dog as well.
Now, easy does it.
We are not claiming that the dog does not exist.
We are not claiming that the dog was made up.
We are not even claiming that the dog ever gave consent to become the subject of this satire.
We are simply looking at what Anisa herself publicly posted and what Facebook displays alongside that post.
And Facebook says:
AI-GENERATED CONTENT.
And that is where common sense begins to run into trouble.
We won’t even get into the fact that Anisa wrote that her dog is the only creature that is always waiting for her at the door. Defter hefte has already written about that.
ANISA HAS BEEN SOUNDING THE HORN FOR MONTHS: “THEY’RE MANIPULATING MY PHOTO IN GPT CHAT!”
It all started on May 13.
At the time, Anisa Mahmutović publicly claimed that Mirnes Ajanović was, among other things, organizing “harassment” involving:
“photo montages in GPT chat”
…although a serious journalist should know the proper name — ChatGPT. But, well, Anisa is only human; everyone makes mistakes. Especially considering that Mirnes was not even the author of that photo of Anisa in the first place — Dokumentovano.ba was.
And from that moment on, GPT almost acquires the status of a third party to the conflict.
Anisa talks about GPT.
The Association BH Journalists sounds the alarm — the image is allegedly “caricature-like,” journalists are being targeted, and so on and so forth.
The story spreads.
Domestic organizations get involved.
European journalists’ organizations get involved.
What started as a single photograph turns into a serious public dispute.
There was just one small, rather uncomfortable detail:
the allegedly AI-edited GPT photograph of Anisa Mahmutović published in the Dokumentovano.ba article — and therefore not by Mirnes Ajanović’s lawyer — is an original photograph that had already existed, and still exists today, on RTV Lukavac.
Original.
On the internet.
Publicly available.
Anyone who types “Anisa Mahmutović” into an internet search engine will find that very photograph from RTV Lukavac.
Mlada novinarka Anisa Mahmutović izdvaja se istinskim vrijednostima profesije
And there is also a video recording in which the exact same appearance can be seen.
So, Dokumentovano.ba did not sit down at a computer and say:
“ChatGPT, create Anisa Mahmutović for us.”
Instead, a previously published photograph of her was found through an ordinary internet search, and her appearance was used in the article’s illustration without alteration — identically as it appeared in the original photograph.
That is a huge difference.
Because there is one thing to create an illustration to accompany an article.
And quite another to paste someone’s head onto inappropriate content, invent a situation in which that person was never present, or falsely portray a real person as doing something they never did.
That is not what happened here.
Anisa’s appearance was — Anisa’s appearance — identical in every detail.
Exactly as it had already been publicly published.
But it didn’t matter.
Anisa’s “GPT look” had already been let out of the bottle.
AND THEN — THE DOG!
Then, on August 10, Anisa Mahmutović posted a photograph.
A cute dog in the picture.
The post told a story from the dog’s perspective:
“I graduated in Journalism, I was a psychologist and listened to women’s stories…”
And then, as Anisa apparently writes:
“My name is Max…”
The story goes on about how he has been by his owner’s side for years, how he waited for her, loved her, protected her…
Lovely.
Emotional.
Cute dog.
All good.
But above the dog’s post, there it is:
AI-GENERATED CONTENT
Now, this is where we have to stop.
Because by now, we have seen all sorts of things.
We have seen people use AI to remove a few wrinkles and tighten themselves up.
Add a little hair.
Lose a few kilos.
Build up their muscles.
Put themselves in front of the Eiffel Tower even though they were actually standing in a field that day.
Create an ocean behind themselves while sitting on the sofa.
We have also seen people use AI to create entire illustrations.
But someone using AI to touch up a dog?
Now that is something we haven’t seen before.
So, if any of you have done the same, write to us. We’ll publish it, so the public knows there is someone else out there like Anisa.
WHAT DID THE DOG DO TO DESERVE THIS?
Let’s make one thing clear right away:
Using AI for an illustration is not a sin.
It isn’t forbidden.
It isn’t unusual either.
It’s 2026.
Surely no one still expects a portal editor to take out a box of tempera paints, a drawing pad and a number-four brush and hand-paint an illustration for every article.
AI is used.
Photographs are edited.
Graphics are created.
Illustrations are created.
Visual content is created.
The problem only arises when AI is used to attribute something to a real person that they did not do, or to manipulate their likeness into a false and harmful context.
So the mere use of AI is not a problem.
But that is precisely what makes this whole story even funnier.
Because the person who spent months talking about the alleged AI manipulation of her own appearance — even though it was not manipulated at all, but simply exactly as it was — is now herself publishing content accompanied by a Facebook label:
“AI-GENERATED CONTENT.”
And this time, it’s attached to a dog.
Which leads us to one perfectly innocent question:
What exactly needed fixing on Max?
His ears?
His muzzle?
His expression?
His fur?
His smile?
Because to us, every dog looks perfectly fine.
Cute.
Animals are beautiful, after all, precisely as they are.
They don’t need Photoshop.
They don’t need filters.
They don’t need Botox.
And, for heaven’s sake, they don’t need GPT to be dogs.
EITHER MAX IS A REAL DOG AND THE PHOTOGRAPH WAS EDITED — OR AI HAS NOW OPENED A CANINE DEPARTMENT
Of course, we do not know exactly what AI did in that Anisa post.
Maybe the photograph was edited.
Maybe part of the image was generated.
But one thing is indisputable: an AI tool was used in a way that prompted Facebook to place that label on the post.
And perhaps AI was used somewhere else in the content.
Anisa knows.
We don’t.
And that is why we are not going to do what THEY did for months:
make things up that we have no evidence for.
But we can ask a question.
If Max is real and has been with Anisa for twelve years, as the post says:
why use AI?
The dog is already there.
Photograph the dog.
Post the dog.
Done.
And if AI was only needed to make Max look a little “prettier,” then we have an almost philosophical problem:
WHY?
What is wrong with Max?
MAYBE MAX THE DOG JUST WANTED A BETTER PROFILE PICTURE
Maybe we are being unfair.
Maybe Max looked at the original and said:
“Anisa, I’m not happy with the exposure.”
Maybe he asked:
“Get rid of my eye bags.”
Maybe he insisted:
“Touch up my left ear a little.”
Maybe he said:
“This shot doesn’t give me enough journalistic integrity.”
We don’t know.
Max the dog has not commented so far.
The Association BH Journalists has also yet to issue a statement concerning his media representation.
If they do, we’ll publish it.
THE BIGGEST IRONY IS THAT AI WAS NEVER THE PROBLEM
And this brings us to the heart of the matter.
Dokumentovano.ba does not claim — and no one can reasonably claim — that using AI is inherently bad.
Quite the opposite.
AI is a tool.
Like Photoshop.
Like a graphics program.
Like a camera.
Like a computer.
What matters is what you do with it.
If AI is used to create an illustration for an article — no problem whatsoever.
If it is used to create a cute picture of a dog — again, no problem whatsoever.
If someone’s lighting is improved — that’s their business.
But if someone’s head were placed onto inappropriate material, or if they were falsely portrayed as having done something that never happened, then that would be an entirely different matter.
And that is precisely what did not happen with the photograph of Anisa Mahmutović.
Her original appearance was taken from a previously published photograph from RTV Lukavac.
The original exists.
The screenshot exists.
There is also video footage.
It can all be compared.
Same appearance.
Same Anisa — down to the smallest detail.
She wasn’t invented.
She wasn’t edited into some fake scene.
She wasn’t given a different face.
It wasn’t even a caricature.
Her existing, original appearance was simply used as part of an illustration accompanying an article about her.
As for the fact that her lawyer took a different position from ours — that’s Anisa’s problem.
PRENOSIMO: ZBOGOM PAMETI! Advokat napisao da mu je klijentica “karikaturalna”
AND THAT IS HOW A MEDIA CONTINENTAL — AND THEN GLOBAL — WAR WAS BORN
And now we come to the part that is no longer funny at all.
Because it was precisely Anisa’s claim about some alleged “GPT photo montages” that became one of the elements of the May 13 statement from which this enormous escalation began.
From there, we arrived at the Association BH Journalists.
Then from domestic reactions to European and international ones.
From statements to more statements.
From accusations to responses.
From lawsuits to responses to lawsuits.
From lawsuits to new lawsuits — and supplements to lawsuits.
From all of that to criminal complaints and prosecutorial cases, including international ones.
And the photograph of Anisa?
Still the same.
On RTV Lukavac and in internet search results.
SO, ANISA, LEAVE THE DOG ALONE.
If Max is real — and we have absolutely no reason to claim that he isn’t — he would be perfectly lovely without any editing.
He doesn’t need AI.
He doesn’t need a filter.
He doesn’t need a political position.
And least of all does he need to end up as a new piece of evidence in a global war that began because of the false claim that someone else had allegedly used GPT to create Anisa’s appearance.
Let Max remain the only innocent creature in this story.
Because at the rate this is going, the only thing missing is someone claiming:
“LAWYER MIRNES AJANOVIĆ IS TARGETING THE DOG.”
And then the Association BH Journalists will have to establish:
A HOTLINE FOR VULNERABLE PETS ALTERED WITH ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
Then the European federation will express concern.
The international federation will demand an urgent response.
And Max will have to issue a statement.
Fortunately, for now, his right to remain silent remains fully protected.
SO, AI IS ALLOWED — IT JUST SEEMS TO BE A PROBLEM WHO USES IT
That is why this post is so amusing.
Not because AI was used.
That is not a problem at all.
But because it demonstrates just how absurd it was to turn an ordinary media illustration featuring Anisa Mahmutović’s authentic appearance into a story about alleged “GPT photo montages”, only to publish one’s own content several months later quite normally, accompanied by Facebook’s:
“AI-GENERATED CONTENT”
And so be it.
Anisa can use AI.
So can we.
Half the world uses it.
Just let’s stop turning it into a criminal-political-media-technological catastrophe.
Because if everyone had simply checked on May 13 whether what Anisa wrote was actually true — or had looked at our May 15 article — perhaps today we would not have dozens of statements, court proceedings, lawsuits, criminal complaints and international correspondence…
…and a global war with no end in sight until the defamatory statements against Mirnes Ajanović are withdrawn.
KAKO SU POLITIKA I KVAZIMEDIJI PRETVORILI KOMISIJU PSBiH U SREDSTVO NEZAKONITOG OBRAČUNA
Maybe everyone would have simply said:
“Ah. It’s the same photograph.”
“Anisa’s appearance hasn’t been caricatured.”
And then gone on with their lives.
But then we would never have gotten Max.
And Max, we admit, is actually pretty adorable.
With AI or without it.