embersofsuffering
107183
1691
51
Breaking down a few typical flaws with AI generated images for the unobservant from simplest to most complex understandings. I will completely ignore the cat as most people only question if a person/character is AI or not.
Level 1
AI generation has gotten better about this but the easiest thing to spot, still, are the hands. Some examples of "bad hands": Index finger half the size of other fingers, thumbs on wrong side of the hands, fused fingers or missing fingers entirely.
Level 2
The more you try to understand the details within the image, the less sense they make. Random floating strands of fabric, patterns that become tangents or blend things like the hair into the shirt. This particular image even made a tangent between the fingernails and the dress.
Level 3
Quite a bit harder for non-artists to understand but a lot of these details completely break the forms of objects. If I wanted to fix all the forms on this image I would be spending more time painting over the whole thing than if I just painted it from scratch.
Ghostwish
Unfortunately, they're already getting around this by just making the art in an overly simple style. Source: numerous scam bots I've been hunting down on Discord.
EuroCakes
I feel like robot captas are going to start asking what hands look like here soon….
IrukandjiJelly
Also: Detail moving from the subject's right side, to its left side, when shown from behind. (See: sleeve-dangle hanging from buttons(?).)
tryingmybest1
For now, in 6 months we’ll need a new set of identifiers.
jplusc
that's what the Voight-Kampff test is for. we'll just use that soon enough. : )
DataKooma
The hand thing doesn't really apply anymore already.
AllTheGoodOnesWereGone
It’s evolving much faster even than that. Soon we’ll be looking for flaws to determine that a human made it. The hen shortly after that the machines will learn how to precisely simulate human mistakes lol.
EveryUsernameIsTaken4
"bad hands" is tough because it applies to human artists as well. But senseless detail is a good one! AI is great at making things look convincing when squinting
painstream
I promise it's not AI. I'm just bad at hands! ;_;
JimboTCB
AIs are just going to turn into Rob Liefeld and start composing pictures so that anything they can't draw right is out of frame
Revicus
Some people intentionally set up their prompts that way, like including phrases like "hands behind back" for a classic example.
IrukandjiJelly
Also: Inconsistent detail between scenes. (See: sleeve-dangle changing length; earrings change.)
DaveSamsonite
Whee do the earrings change? It show a detailed view and a partial view obscured by length. Also, flowy sleeves look different when arms are at different angles.
okkilby
Which level is it that's gotten the cat shadow facing the wrong way with non matching paw positions?
gljames24
Also it's leg has doesn't really shift correctly from the knee into the foot.
Whatdoyousaytoanicecupoftea
Matrix
BDBottom
Now that you mention it the cat also looks really off, especially the eyes.
DaveSamsonite
Eyes not matching is very common with Midjourney and Stable Diffusion
pixelscapes
Excellent summary. Another thing that I notice crops up a lot in character design is arbitrary strings or strands trailing off the form. (Like the strings to the hand here, off the corner of the sleeve, hairs that snake off in unnatural directions)
FiftyShadesOfMascarpone
And if there are patterns, like the presumed-floral pattern on the dress, you can never make out actual details like flowers and leaves. It's just a chaotic, maddening mess of metastasizing chthonian form that looks less like anything particular the longer you look at it.
miked854
The pattern not making sense is what I look for. Like the what the source says about patterns not meshing is off: its not missing the transition between wavy and straight hair, it's just seeing wavy and not wavy in 2 places. When it does something like lace it just spits out random speckles because that's what lace averages out to.
titaniumsnail
I call those senseless patterns for "AI-greeblies" after greeblies, random detail used on models. Often seen on sci-fi space ships.
DaveSamsonite
I think OP is confusing patterned lace for hair and unnecessary details; a watch chain for random marks; and a pointing stick on a string for a defect. Thumb is a pinky aligned on the stick. It certainly could be AI generated but it’s better than 99% of the things out there and why is it so fuzzy. The illegible printed text to me is the thing that make it most AI like to me.
[deleted]
[deleted]
DaveSamsonite
The ears look really weird to me
pixelscapes
Illegible fake text is definitely a red flag for AI, yep. Beyond that, I think the original critiques still stand for the not really floral patterning, etc. I don’t think the watch chain theory works… Notice that the back view has the weird strings connecting to multiple fingers on _both_ hands.
DaveSamsonite
It’s a pointing stick on a chain as you can clearly see in the higher res image I provided.
pixelscapes
… although, 2018 would be damn early for this level of AI art!
CitizenPrime
All those things will be solved eventually
FuryFuryMon
In a year or two nobody will notice with how fast this stuffs progressing
AwkwaBen
I know this is indeed AI. But imagine if it wasn't and someone was just ripping on bad design choices that someone actually drew. I'm amused by the thought.
MerriMod
What's funny is seeing artists making images and comics specifically mocking AI renderings, but even when intentionally trying to draw as badly as possible, they still can't match the nonsense AI pumps out because the human brain doesn't let them.
Redyls
IPKOB
Believe it or not that one is actually real
ReverseTrapTsukasa
FailureFactory
This gets so much worse the longer you look at it.
Jwhite777
That is creepy AF lol
DaveSamsonite
A bit sharper version
HandoB4Javert
sille
I can see the bottom of many bowls, bitch
AFelineMassofEyes
Wait where did you get this
HomeRunWoman
Be not afraid.
HandoB4Javert
You. should hear the purring...
kleinkaasje
@botdrawa hands holding hands
BotDrawA
@rommedou Here's your (experimental extra) drawing of a "hands holding hands, by Zdzisław Beksiński (1929–2005)"
kleinkaasje
Not what I meant but I guess that’s on my crappy description
BotDrawA
@rommedou Here's your drawing of a "hands holding hands"
trapdoorogre
Wow. That's better than it used to be.
mouseasw
@drawbota hundreds of hands
igglebotato
thanks I hate it
JustAnotherVictimOfAmbientMorality
Machine Learning-generated imagery is stunningly perfect for exactly 1 second, then it's one of those "the longer you look the weirder it gets" images. So far. It's getting better by the day, in every aspect OP mentions. Hands and eyes used to be a huge hurdle, now there are models that perform decently in that area. GPT 4 now generates images that it can adjust based on your verbal comments. We are moving closer to "discussing" the generated image with the algorithm and flagging details //
Fait
It's not just that its senseless detail for me, its more that its like fractal patterns. I see it a lot in the landscapes, no matter how nice it looks, as soon as you look closer, there is detail in detail. None of it actually makes sense except when you step back or squint a little. These weird details actually make me feel a little sick. It gives me a feeling of unease. like a cluster of spider eggs.
JustAnotherVictimOfAmbientMorality
that have to be changed. The one thing OP doesn't mention is this: it keeps getting better, month by month. The stuff that worked last year may not work now. What works now may not work next year. Eventually, your brain will be unable to spot the difference and you will need algorithms for that too.
KilliK69
i had a similar conversation with an amateur photographer years ago, a purist who was adamant that digital film ll never replace analog because of its flaws. told him that ll eventually replace it minus some special cases, because it gets improved every year, it's easier to use and it's cheaper. well, i was right. and the same thing ll happen with the AI. eventually.
Fait
Weirdly, as someone that works in art for AAA games companies, and was initially sad about AI and how it may threaten us, I have actually become less worried as time has gone on, its actually seemed to get worse in a way. What it's good at has become more apparent and narrower. It's limitations are a lot more apparent, and are things that look like they will never get better.
Eypisod
How long do you think it will take before you can no longer tell ?
YeastInfectedWhiskerBiscuit
You already haven't been able to tell for years now. Big business and film/advertising studios have been creating fake people for years, Using both photoshop and image generation. It's just access to the general public to the tech is recent. And the technology is advancing at light speed.
embersofsuffering
It gets harder every day. As an artist, I am not concerned about it. It will just make live drawing and painting more valuable.
HandoB4Javert
AI Video...
Katateochi
like how AI? I feel this is too coherent to be purely AI created, without human guidance.
HandoB4Javert
Human prompted: Make an Ad for Chevy Goliath
TI99Kitty
Here's the original (not landscape letterboxed into portrait): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MI7Tq6sRxE4
L4t3xs
I am sold. Just need to take a mortgage to afford the fuel.
Ih8thisSoMuch
Thank you for this - being ignorant in the ways of AI makes it hard for me to discern at times but this is helpful. Especially that form/hair thing. I am torn between the apparatus (the technology, which I love) and the application (some hard to do things should remain hard). Enabling comprehensive genome interpretation is obviously great, but I want a human mind behind the art that I ingest. Even the computer generated music & animation that I love needs that human passion or it's just data.
Hoptimonium
Art created by a human mind enslaved to capitalist greed is not inherently better than a less talented artist using AI to create their vision.
slowshootinpete
I don't think it's about the medium making the art better, but whether there's intentionality present. AI can't make decisions on its own, which is why it generates compositional nonsense like hair patterns that turn into fabric on a dress. A human can learn to detect and avoid mistakes like that, is all.
Hellscourge
THe basic rules for spotting AI images is the same as handling with fey. Count the teeth, count the fingers. And most importantly, the art has a generic look to it. Its like copying the homework and changing the numbers around, but the end result is still the same.
Larktonguesinadicecup
A recent study showed that people have an emotional response to AI art just like they do to human-generated art, that they're not good at discerning, and that if they're told a piece is made by a human, they'll rate it as more emotionally affecting even if it is in fact AI.
AI art is in its absolute infancy, and we're already lost. Posts like this will be hopelessly dated within a year, and that human passion you're looking for won't be something you can sense by yourself.
Sxualhrssmntpanda
Almost like the human passion being felt can exist on either side of a nice image.
Larktonguesinadicecup
That, and that the AI is perfectly capable of learning what technical elements constitute the "soul" of the artist, because they're material and perceptible, and thus reproducible, rather than vague magical thinking about some comforting but unprovable X factor that only humans can produce. We used to think computers couldn't beat us at chess because only a human has the intuition and spirit to play it. Then Go. Then it was music, now visual art, soon video.
YeastInfectedWhiskerBiscuit
A human still has to come up with the composition and sometimes spend a considerable amount of time trying to come up with that magic touch of a prompt that gives it's maker exactly what they're looking for. Yea, generating AI art is easy. Generating GOOD AI art IS NOT. It still takes artistic knowledge and know-how, along with art history, art methods, and techniques, topped off with a deep vocabulary and, most of all, the ability to be creative. So no, it's not always easy.
ArcaneConjecture
"...Some hard to do things should remain hard." Why? WHY? Why not let people have fun? If you don't want to look at the AI art, don't look.
drangir
Because it was built on stolen data from people that didn't agreed for such use. It would be incredibly expensive and hard to do models right with proper consent.
Nateinthewild
Well it's trained by stealing art from hardworking artists, and the AI people immediately went to trying to sell their work for profit.
slowshootinpete
You CAN have fun, whether you draw traditionally or use an AI generator. If you're making something for yourself and enjoy the process or the fruits of your labor, you can do whatever you want. When we're creating things for other people to consume, though, we should always expect criticism.
totallyrealname
Don't be disingenuous, ever since this started it was never about fun. AI bros spent more time trying to dunk on pros than learn anything.
Hoptimonium
Why is "bros" used as a disparaging term but never "sisters"? Seems sexist to me.
Dustorn
For my part, I've just been using it to make DnD tokens that no one outside my party will ever see (and I'm pretty upfront with them, even using an AI that one of them, an artist himself, recommended - he's been using it to remix his own work). That is, of course, not to say that most examples of it aren't misuses of it, or even that my use isn't a misuse (I suppose I could always commission an artist), just providing a sole perspective of it being used for a bit of fun and nothing more.
totallyrealname
Nothing wrong with that use, but I still dare anyone to attempt to make anything useful from it without using the names of living artists whose life and career is being directly impacted by it. Nobody consented to their data getting scraped, and until there is regulation in place what little bit of fun and use it has is not worth the millions of jobs getting impacted. Techbros spend so much time creating dystopian systems, I don't understand how people keep defending them.
kinglysandus5
I think I am the problem. Even after going over the details you point out, it is still indistinguishable from human-generated art to me. Art is art, I have never been critical enough to tell the difference between different artists.
irrational1618
It seems like most of these details issues could be fixed pretty easily in Photoshop. Someone could use AI to create the bulk of the image and then just go in and do detail fixes.
marthafarquar
I can usually spot AI images of people instantly from the weird sallow skin tone and screwed up eyes where they never seem to get the pupils and corneas right.
IrukandjiJelly
And the teeth!
PTNLemay
Hands, eyes, and teeth. The holy Trinity of Difficult to draw. Even for human artists it takes quite a bit of work to get those right.
Durahl
I probably wouldn't even be that mad at AI generated art if were to be used as an additional tool to elevate one's work but so far, it's the other way around without one's work making any contribution. As in that they don't even bother fixing the obvious errors that get added to the pictures. It's really just smacking a string of words into a box, hit enter a bunch of times without "proof reading" for the result and then uploading it to a site calling it a day. Like buddy... ¹
Durahl
You already haven't done a thing why not at least have the a) decency to correct the errors the AI produced or b) keep the shit to yourself until the program has reached a point where it's actually worth uploading!? 😑
titaniumsnail
The thing is that most AI prompters don't know shit about art. They never learned about composition, anatomy, colour theory and so on, so their stuff will look half assed no matter what they prompt.
Durahl
Who the heck needs to know anatomy to know a hand or foot looks totally borked? 🤨 If an AI draws the shadow of a muscle slightly wrong no one bats an eye, same with hair suddenly flowing into the clothing ( I could literally see this being a thing in someones universe ) but an overwhelmingly humanoid looking character suddenly having 4 / 6 Fingers and a Clubfoot sure as heck seems like a prime case that needs fixing by the Creator ( not even gonna bother calling those lazy bums Artists )
YeastInfectedWhiskerBiscuit
On the contrary. Making an AI image is easy, making good AI images is hard, prompting great Images is even harder and does, in fact, require artistic skill and knowledge, on top of a fantasticly deep and diverse vocabulary. So they have to know composition, anatomy, color theory, art history, artistic methods and techniques because it's all used by someone who's genuinely trying to create a beautiful piece of art who's prompting could take hours or even days to come up with.
YeastInfectedWhiskerBiscuit
Using AI to generate images or art is easy. Making good AI art and images is not easy. And does, in fact, require artistic skill and knowledge, along with a greatly expanded vocabulary on top of it. Just because their brush has moved from their hands to their minds/mouths doesn't mean an artist hasn't come up with a whole new set of troubles they need to learn about and practice. Believe it or not, the great majority of artists do use AI to enhance their work. It's a great tool.
Filolial
I've been generating quite a bit, a lot is trial and error, having good syntaxes and negative tags, you can get really advanced with what you generate. But I only use it for personal use, or share with close friends, I am against selling it, uploading online? Sure but disclose its AI and what model is used, and what the model is trained on.
CheshireCad
One equally-important lesson is how NOT to spot AI. This image got to the FP recently, and a bunch of people were violently adamant that it was an AI-generated deepfake meant to fool people. Even after it was proven that those 'american jobs' signs actually existed, they insisted that someone must have photoshopped them onto an AI image to make it look real, but left in a bunch of AI-looking artifacts, including on the signs that they had just photoshopped in.
TI99Kitty
TBF, it does have a CGI look to the surfaces. Also, the impulse-buy stuff looks very "Ais can't do text"-y. Except for the M&Ms, I mean.
CheshireCad
In truth, it's a real photo, that was just resized slightly in an AI-powered app or website. It turns out that basic logic, and the ability to admit that your initial assumption might be wrong, are more valuable than any knowledge of AI quirks.
shponglefan
Awhile back an artist had their art removed / banned from r/Art because a moderator mistakenly thought it was AI generated. That's going to become even more problematic in the near future.
embersofsuffering
Its been a problem since its release. Anime Conventions, Comic Conventions, etc, have started to require video proof of painting and a few digital artists have been rejected from selling at conventions because of false accusations/lack of proof.
xizar
https://news.artnet.com/art-world/artist-ben-moran-banned-from-subreddit-ai-art-2240795
jethroismaxbaer5772
Conclusion: Rob Liefeld was an AI.
HandoB4Javert
cAIt
CoeurFranc
I use AI a lot and I simply correct all this with Photoshop.
Revicus
Probably the best way to go about it at present. An AI image generation model doesn't really have a way to know what it's done wrong.
CheshireCad
Or inpainting the iffy parts until they look right.
Cneut
Senseless detail is by far the easiest (non obvious) way. If you look at jewelry or trims, you'll immediately be stricken with the thought
nclu
Cneut
of "no human would ever draw this" when there's no pattern or even attempted symmetry, just a mash of random detail.
onlyawfulnamesleft
The human form breaking into its surroundings in a mash of detail sounds like H.R. Giger, but I get your point.
Snooj
"Todd McFarlane was here."
Hoptimonium
Idk, plenty of real amateur art has senseless details. Not to the extent AI uses, but once AI gets a little better this won't be an easy way to tell
ILDL
This is true, but amateur art doesn't look like AI art at all. AI makes professional looking art on initial glance.
Mokisan
For actual hyper-detailed art google Patrick Woodroffe. Many intricate details, but properly patterned. Contrast with AI, un-patterned.
MarioBoon
But when you use the prompt "pattern" it will be patterned.
pleaseconsiderthatImightbejoking
This is going to get a lot less useful when AI powered brushes start getting introduced.
SeriouslyWhosDownvotingThis
Actual easiest is other imgurians pointing out that something is AI and therefore not worthy of an upvote
aminalhouse
Especially noticeable when AI will generate any kind of building or structure. The window designs are usually all over the place
TomahawkJackson
I think the thing that people have missed in the AI Art debate is that at the end of the day, it's just a tool - and it's a tool that *increases* the value of Artists as a whole. Rolls Royce didn't go out of business because Henry Ford came along and made assembling cars easy. Henry Ford made Rolls Royce cars *exceptionally valuable* for their hand-built qualities...
TomahawkJackson
I've mused in the past that the number of people who would buy, say, a WLOP or Greg Rutkowski *original* print or t-shirt or whatever is arguably greater than the number of people who even knew who the hell they were this time last year... And the people who use StableDiffusion to make themselves computer wallpaper in your style were never your customer in the first place. AI Art makes human-created art _actually_ valuable.
TomahawkJackson
...and the smartest artists are the ones who incorporate AI - AS A TOOL - into their workflow, the same way typesetters incorporated Quark Express, Photographers did Adobe Photoshop, the way Stanley Kubrick embraced the Non-Linear Video Editor for Full Metal Jacket way back in 1986...
kojenk
No thatsbthebnost common bulshit point constantly brought up since the start. Wtf are you on about. People who talknlike this are the ones missing that people are tired of folks abusing the tool and cooperations firing artists and va's for automated trash as they can't be bothered to use the "tool" properly. It's just fucking "nfts will help artists" all over again. "That knife slitting your throat open right now is used to cut vegetables 99.999% of the time dotcha know!"
TomahawkJackson
That's not an inherent function of AI. You're describing an inherent function of Late Stage Capitalism. Those two things shouldn't be conflated.
kojenk
Irrelevant. People are also talking about rules and restrictions so the tool doesn't get abused. The damage and the tool will be associated together until it no longer used as a bludgeon. Talking like this cause its convenient for you but disastrous for others lives makes you scum. We're not talking theory and hypotheticals here, you don't get to talk this away when it's become its central terrible function and use worldwide.
tjm1226
Rob Liefeld was AI before there was AI (couldn’t draw feet and so many useless detail; everything had pouches. Even the pouches had pouches).
miked854
And both sides are facing the reader a'la his infamous Captain America cover and every woman's ass and tits.
KilliK69
someone should train an AI solely with Rob's artwork. the results will be .. fascinating.
TI99Kitty
Basically any artist that worked for Image in the '90s. Jim Lee's artwork, for example, isn't as hideous as Rob's, or as anatomically incorrect, but still has a lot of useless detail that not only doesn't add anything to the aesthetic, but also doesn't make any sense why it's there. And that's something almost all of them share. The fact that Liefeld can't draw is just a bonus.
uden10
Like that factoid about the IQ overlap between bears and dumb people...
chromed
Exactly my thought. Half of these "indicators" could just be a less than perfect human artist.
embersofsuffering
Bold of you to assume having 50 pouches is senseless. Where else am I supposed to keep my snacks?
sircowdog
Some.of the best AI art that I've seen has a real artist touching it up and making modifications. Only the laziest "artists" are just churning stuff out unedited.
NATA5
Hands are getting better but the biggest thing to remember is that when a human is making art, every single thing has thought and decision making behind it. As you mentioned, a lot of ai art will have shapes and forms that don’t follow. Chains and hair blend into one another. As an artist I have to think about where the chain begins and ends.
zampa
Because a human artists knows what s/he draws, and it's structure, while AI draws outer appearance using statistics applied to parameters entered. They don't actually KNOW what they're drawing.
NATA5
Some of these things can be corrected by editing afterwards but ai art is one of those you know it when you see it things. The longer you look the more it doesn’t seem right. The more ai art you see the better you’ll get at recognizing it.
YeastInfectedWhiskerBiscuit
Uh, Someone using AI has to think if the exact same thing and deal with the same struggle. Just because their vocabulary is their paint brush instead of a hand doesn't make it any easier or less worthy of thought, trial, and error until you get it right. Analog artists act like they're someone special, gatekeepers even. And they're not. They're not special, and only succeed in being whiny little A**holes with personal issues.
NATA5
You must be an analog artist then!! 5/10 troll. Here’s a star for effort:
Revicus
I've made tons of AI-generated art for fun or when I need pictures in a hurry for online D&D, and... no. They don't. There is no way to use a text prompt to "tell" the underlying model to do something like "Pay more attention to where patterns begin and end!" You can retouch an image yourself afterwards, or inpaint, but you can't just tell it "No extraneous details, please!" when it doesn't understand what those even are. There's a reason hand generation was improved - new models, not prompts.
lemmerustlethosejimmies
I don't want the works of actual artists diminished but... I honestly find a lot of AI images gorgeous now that flaws are being worked out. Especially for things like Warhammer 40k, it can make things of incredibly detailed art that do homage to the "epicness" of the setting.
Zedrapazia
As long as you don't call it art, that's fine. I for example use AI generated images to show the artists I commission what I want because I can't draw or explain it in any way understandable. Makes it easier both for me and the artist.
PTNLemay
Genuine question, should musicians who create songs by remixing the work of others (like DaftPunk) not be considered artists?
Is the major difference the consent of the original artists of the sound-bites? Because that feels similar. Remixes feel like art to me. But how is that different from Ai remixing someone else's art styles?
Zedrapazia
I'd describe it the easiest with the involvement of a human. A Draft Punk DJ still had to mix the music himself, even Vocaloids still have to be worked on by real humans with creativity. AI on the other hand is only mixing existing things until it gets a result. No creativity there.
Showsni
Because AI doesn't remix art styles; it starts with pure random noise, and makes changes to it until it matches something it "recognises" as what it's been told to make. Like if a musician hit random notes on a piano, and then changed the notes until it sounded like real music.
MarioBoon
So you've just discribed electronic music and sequencers. The opening sequence of Baba O'Reilly was completely random loops till Pete Townsend decided this sounded good to him.
PTNLemay
Exactly. I definitely side on the "defend the human artists" side of the argument. But on some level I think that if the output is beautiful, it should count as art. Even if the only human input is a user deciding "Ok stop shuffling here, this looks great".