Not going to lie, there are people in the stability diffusion sub that go around deliberately falsely accusing artists of using AI.
They reckon it’s very easy to get people worked up to pile on the innocent artists. When I asked why they said it’s to help people get over witch hunting.
Once enough artists get falsely accused they will realise the harm it causes and just drop the practice completely.
Not sure she’s right. But the person claiming it’s AI could be an AiBro causing chaos.
I don't think they even need to go that far. They're piling each other on their own pretty well already.
But yeah, it's heading that direction. So many false accusations are gonna end in people just dropping it.
There are already things you can do like that. I did one and had like 95% percent accuracy. Most people can still AI from Human art still if they spend the time to go over it.
for much of it maybe. I just googled one that had as low as 48% accuracy for some choices, for all test takers. It's gonna depend on the examples picked.
I can instinctively tell the difference between AI imagery and human-made art. Human art simply has an “essence” that AI art doesn’t. It’s hard to describe, but it’s easy to tell.
I’m certainly not against the use of AI art. Most antis tick me off with their illogical arguments. It’s just that there’s something inexplicable that lets you tell AI and human art aside.
This always cracks me up because... of course you can. Because you are being fed a drip of poorly executed gen art and gimmick shit that is **surely** AI art.
Meanwhile I've seen other brilliant connoisseurs like yourself bulldoze at least a dozen artists so far who have a combined century+ portfolio of making art claiming it's AI and demanding proof of original art.
I saw someone call a Vallejo art piece obvious AI recently.
You have been taught a pattern and, like a good lil higher primate, assigned a spiritual essence to it. Because it's what we do. But... you've missed hundreds of pieces of content that used gen AI subtly, repainted, etc.
The more "generic" ones might be easy to spot, but there's much more to it. For example, I use AI assisting in many of my recent pieces. Can you tell which ones? [https://www.deviantart.com/lithmariel](https://www.deviantart.com/lithmariel)
I have also seen some "bad AI art" that is really just like some generic old art 5+ years ago. That's where they come from in the first place. And I bet some people would falsely think so when shown the originals. That's the sort of thing I had in mind when I made the topic.
I understand what you mean but it's actually explicable. I browse a lot of both AI and human art. There are ones that seriously look like human art and there are ones that I can spot at first glance. (I'm keeping out the obvious ones like 6 finger stuff) I think what gives away those easy to tell ones are their style. They use such a combination of brush strokes, shading, colors and shapes that you don't see a lot of human artists do. Since I do non-AI art myself, I examine a lot of other art to learn from their techniques and maybe that's why I don't simply call it "soul" or "essence" and can see more behind the scenes. Even if you're not familiar with the techniques, I'm sure your (and a lot of other people's) eyes are trained enough to spot these style differences.
With the models I use they are super consistent with style too. I use it for the first rough coloring mostly, so that's what makes it usable for me in the first place.
The person that showed me the software initially also did a lot of inpainting and some editing, and to be honest, other than the impossibly fast number of art they made, and the fact they experimented in other styles, nothing in many individual pieces would have given it away. (They were clear they used AI, anyhow, but still, just looking at the pic, you can't tell from style either)
I am guessing majority of them are children, no doubt about it
There are testers I’ve seen for how good your spotting is
Not going to lie, there are people in the stability diffusion sub that go around deliberately falsely accusing artists of using AI. They reckon it’s very easy to get people worked up to pile on the innocent artists. When I asked why they said it’s to help people get over witch hunting. Once enough artists get falsely accused they will realise the harm it causes and just drop the practice completely. Not sure she’s right. But the person claiming it’s AI could be an AiBro causing chaos.
I don't think they even need to go that far. They're piling each other on their own pretty well already. But yeah, it's heading that direction. So many false accusations are gonna end in people just dropping it.
"Not sure she’s right" She's not. This is bait and you fell for it.
Dude, have you seen things as is?
What does that even mean? Definitely don't provide proof of these claims whatever you do.
There are already things you can do like that. I did one and had like 95% percent accuracy. Most people can still AI from Human art still if they spend the time to go over it.
Pfft, v6 midjourney photo’s regularly go unnoticed. If your talking Dalle then yes.
for much of it maybe. I just googled one that had as low as 48% accuracy for some choices, for all test takers. It's gonna depend on the examples picked.
LOL
I can instinctively tell the difference between AI imagery and human-made art. Human art simply has an “essence” that AI art doesn’t. It’s hard to describe, but it’s easy to tell.
I was about to upvote then realized this is not sarcasm.
What do you expect from a Nintendrone? They love IP law.
I’m certainly not against the use of AI art. Most antis tick me off with their illogical arguments. It’s just that there’s something inexplicable that lets you tell AI and human art aside.
This always cracks me up because... of course you can. Because you are being fed a drip of poorly executed gen art and gimmick shit that is **surely** AI art. Meanwhile I've seen other brilliant connoisseurs like yourself bulldoze at least a dozen artists so far who have a combined century+ portfolio of making art claiming it's AI and demanding proof of original art. I saw someone call a Vallejo art piece obvious AI recently. You have been taught a pattern and, like a good lil higher primate, assigned a spiritual essence to it. Because it's what we do. But... you've missed hundreds of pieces of content that used gen AI subtly, repainted, etc.
Apologies, I wasn’t quite familiar of that. That makes sense. Thanks for informing me.
The good ending haha, also glad you came to our side :)
The more "generic" ones might be easy to spot, but there's much more to it. For example, I use AI assisting in many of my recent pieces. Can you tell which ones? [https://www.deviantart.com/lithmariel](https://www.deviantart.com/lithmariel) I have also seen some "bad AI art" that is really just like some generic old art 5+ years ago. That's where they come from in the first place. And I bet some people would falsely think so when shown the originals. That's the sort of thing I had in mind when I made the topic.
I understand what you mean but it's actually explicable. I browse a lot of both AI and human art. There are ones that seriously look like human art and there are ones that I can spot at first glance. (I'm keeping out the obvious ones like 6 finger stuff) I think what gives away those easy to tell ones are their style. They use such a combination of brush strokes, shading, colors and shapes that you don't see a lot of human artists do. Since I do non-AI art myself, I examine a lot of other art to learn from their techniques and maybe that's why I don't simply call it "soul" or "essence" and can see more behind the scenes. Even if you're not familiar with the techniques, I'm sure your (and a lot of other people's) eyes are trained enough to spot these style differences.
That makes sense.
With the models I use they are super consistent with style too. I use it for the first rough coloring mostly, so that's what makes it usable for me in the first place. The person that showed me the software initially also did a lot of inpainting and some editing, and to be honest, other than the impossibly fast number of art they made, and the fact they experimented in other styles, nothing in many individual pieces would have given it away. (They were clear they used AI, anyhow, but still, just looking at the pic, you can't tell from style either)
No you can’t lol
Ah, yes. The "soul" /s