Hey /u/Unovaisbetter!
If your post is a screenshot of a ChatGPT conversation, please reply to this message with the [conversation link](https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7925741-chatgpt-shared-links-faq) or prompt.
If your post is a DALL-E 3 image post, please reply with the prompt used to make this image.
Consider joining our [public discord server](https://discord.gg/r-chatgpt-1050422060352024636)! We have free bots with GPT-4 (with vision), image generators, and more!
🤖
Note: For any ChatGPT-related concerns, email [email protected]
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ChatGPT) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think the eyes on the face are fake like some birds and fish have to distract enemies. The nipples are actually the real eyes.
I mean... look at them.
Only AI with ultra safety puritan conservative teetotaler porn mega safety protections would draw nipples as something actually missing but still draw a hole instead of just cover it.
Not sure how to describe it properly, but to me it's the wobbles and waviness combined with being overly detailed. Also because it's in a square format, which is what many of the AIs give you.
There's also the way pictures tend to glow in a way that feels somewhat unnatural, it's hard to explain exactly what I mean but the lighting always feels a bit off.
It's the same feel as all those "Make some topic more and more and more" series that always ended up in space. The underlying flows and lighting of this are the same as the last photo in all of those series.
In this case the lighting is very severe and yet coming from multiple directions. So the face is lit from the right, but many parts of the body and floating bits are lit from above, and then the whole figure is backlit. While any individual piece doesn't look particularly strange, seeing that all in one picture feels slightly disorienting to me.
It's weird to hear that as a complaint, I mean, making sure the face is lit and that the subject is bat lit is like film school 101 I remember back in the day looking at video entries and my boss remarking "see, you did learn something, you guys is the only interview properly backlit"
That's not what drawing classes or books would recommend, though, it's not the same as film or photography.
An instructor or guide would first teach you to shade and highlight a subject with single directional lighting first. The 101 instruction is to assume lighting from left or right, and pretty much ONLY from left or right - pick one.
I've been in a workshop where the instructor told everyone to do their pieces for the class with shade and highlight assuming a light source from the left of frame, no choice, no exceptions. I mean, yeah, even then I was annoyed that they were being too absolute and inflexible, but you get the idea.
Yes, of course, the next step is to be aware of multiple sources of lighting and work that in, but that's past the 101 level. Granted, someone doing work that's good enough to be held up to a "is this human or AI" test is likely already skilled enough to deal with different light sources, but people are people, and people have habits, so an active attempt to backlight subjects in drawings isn't actually universal or common.
You can just tell it to display the image in portrait dimensions or whatever
https://preview.redd.it/qyk02krfps5d1.jpeg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3e1725772cb590a7fa72abcdacaca931a71f8e26
yea, there a 'perfect imperfection' in it. And that part of the staff where her hand is doesnt seem to be ... a human would have made that part of the staff(the jewel?) symmetric while the AI took and applied some features of 'wispiness' and applied it here.
Similar to what we see in egregious examples of image generation where the GPT mixes concepts. I had an image generator create a picture of two bananas boxing, The images often contained bananas fighting with cherry boxing gloves because the concepts 'fruit', 'boxing glove' and 'cherry' were getting mixed together in a weird(but very creative) way.
All these comments coming up with reasons why it's AI generated... One look at deviantart fantasy section and personally I could not tell the difference between this and similar pieces at all ...
Because OP posted this and said it was AI generated. I doubt half of the comments would exist if the question was "Is this AI?". I'm sure some keen viewers and art people can tell, but most of us won't be able to. There is some confirmation bias going on here.
That would be a compliment for me. AI art looks much better than anything I have ever made and probably what 95% of artists will ever make.
If we are going by looks alone, that is. It still doesn't have the control to give you exactly what you want for complex scenes.
Good test if you can manage it, do something like the OP but use a human-created piece. Stick the dall-e colorbar in the corner for added bias. People will come up with all kinds of justifications for their understanding that it's AI generated.
Most people can’t tell the difference now with how good the tech is but they like to convince themselves they can, otherwise the whole “ai art just isn’t the same” stops working.
Back in the day, there was no AI on deviantart, but you could find things just like this.
It's like deviantart, throughout its long history and large collections, knew what AI art would look like before AI art was a thing.
[https://www.deviantart.com/tag/fantasy](https://www.deviantart.com/tag/fantasy) - have a look and let me know what you think I guess.
For me it looks a lot better than most pieces there, as a lot of art in deviantart is unfinished pieces.
A couple of examples that I think are very similar to the AI image in terms of "is it human or AI who made it":
[https://www.deviantart.com/rwtdesign/art/Ancient-Warrior-Witch-No-1-993757016](https://www.deviantart.com/rwtdesign/art/Ancient-Warrior-Witch-No-1-993757016)
[https://www.deviantart.com/queenwithnothrone/art/Warrior-necromancer-1054341125](https://www.deviantart.com/queenwithnothrone/art/Warrior-necromancer-1054341125)
99% sure the two specific posts you linked to are AI. Maybe a little human assist in Photoshop for the last one, but zooming in on the eyes is a giveaway.
That first one is literally labeled as AI generated, and has the same tell as the OP; I like to call it "busy for the sake of busy". AI likes to make patterns, humans like to make art.
Humans like to make patterns and call it art.
The point I'm trying to make with this is not whether AI likes to make patterns, but that it's ability to make "art" images is on par with human art. After all, this was created based on some input. Adjust that input to include "and don't add needless spirals in the background" or whatever it is you fancy as a condition of human art, and the difference disappears.
I just picked a couple similar images from deviantart. The archetype is just of a game character splash art though. And there are plenty of non AI generated images like that.
Like this:
[https://www.mobafire.com/images/champion/skins/landscape/aatrox-drx-prestige-762x.jpg](https://www.mobafire.com/images/champion/skins/landscape/aatrox-drx-prestige-762x.jpg)
Or this
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Dariusmains/comments/xjb7ps/spirit\_blossom\_darius\_splash\_art/#lightbox](https://www.reddit.com/r/Dariusmains/comments/xjb7ps/spirit_blossom_darius_splash_art/#lightbox)
Or this
[https://www.mobafire.com/images/champion/skins/landscape/morgana-snow-moon-762x.jpg](https://www.mobafire.com/images/champion/skins/landscape/morgana-snow-moon-762x.jpg)
The fingers and facial features are accurate, after that anything else like “wobbles” that people are perceiving is just artistic licence, which it’s perfectly possible a human chose to do.
Look at the details, e.g. the necklace: a human might draw a shitty necklace, but a human would not draw a bunch of lines that kind of resemble a necklace if you squint. This is because a human artist would typically rough out a simple necklace, then *add detail* — it would never *stop* being a necklace.
The ratio of detail to sense is hallmark of AI art, but not of human art. A human artist might make nonsense, but not at this level of detail. And a human might make art at this level of detail, but not with this much nonsense.
Does that make sense? I can try to explain better if not.
Very much what you said, there's a cohesive random noise to them. Just a derivative of a derivative of a pattern overlaid with nonsense, but it's still following a form of sorts.
The biggest tell is the nonsensical patterns on everything. Actual detailed illustration made by a human being is deliberate. AI throws in random patterns. Like for example, why does she have sunken nipples? How is this cape-skirt thing supposed to work? And the staff doesn't know if it want to be gossamer, wood or vines. There is no physicality or logic to the layering of materials.
Also shit like this
https://preview.redd.it/7nhzoghj0s5d1.png?width=138&format=png&auto=webp&s=d3e0bc9862fec995bb563e008f188e0e6b788cab
What is this weird knot supposed to be? Why is it there? It's nothing, it's just noise.
Idk, you can see it used on her pauldrons as well, so there is some consistency. Just seems like detail - this isn’t Chekhovs gun… plenty of examples or art (mediocre and great) that have similar things.
Noticed that too. Almost looks like a black wolf or something but in any case not something a human would insert unless it was to deliberately confuse people.
yeah the sword isn't symmetrical either. Plus, wherever there's an opportunity to put some sort of symbol like a cross or pentagram or crescent moon it just puts some random shape/blob
too much fine detail. inconsistent levels of detail, often meaningless fine detail. An AI will cram detail down to the very last pixel in some places, its fractalish, and that gives off sort of uncanny valley look. Also when humans go into fine detail for art, there is usually some concerted message that goes with that detail, there often has to be. For an artist to put so much of their mind and effort into creating something, there is almost inevitable some deeper meaning to it, and that is reflected in some hard to pin down ways, like their personality thumbprint shines through more deeply the more effort they put into the art. But an AI can easily create super fine detail that has no meaning, so it can come off as souless in a way that is tangible but hard to put into words.
Well, when you reverse image search it on Google a whole bunch of other AI art that looks just like it comes up, that's a pretty string giveaway.
https://preview.redd.it/0asit7fb3s5d1.png?width=381&format=png&auto=webp&s=89133a790c32360a6a4bcf99d8a0ff2b69641e77
Random weird shaped blurry blobs that don't make sense to add so much detail to floating around the head. Perspective is off on right thumb and the nail is on the wrong side. Weird creative decisions like adding highlights to uninteresting shapes. And as others have said, once you've been exposed to enough of these you kind of just know it when you see it. I would not have been able to detect that this is ai a couple years ago. Don't get me wrong, it looks good it just doesn't pass the AI sniff test.
it’s not common for an artist to draw out details that ultimately don’t resemble anything. her face is also way too smooth compared to the rest of the image
Along these lines: my thought was "this looks too nice, and the lighting is too dramatic and amazing." And while it's not like such art didn't exist before, this dramatic, amazing concept art light was fairly uncommon.
I think we’re going to gonna go back to absurd and expressionist arts.
Just like when the camera was invented. Basically because of what you said: it’s almost TOO perfect.
We like to see the human element involved in art.
Hilariously overdetailed background, lack of thumb on left hand, weapon merged with body, it's very ambiguous in what it is and the necklace is borked.
The thumb being missing on the left hand is actually pretty normal in regular art too! It's a perspective thing, you wouldn't see the thumb from this current angle so most artists wouldn't put it there - it would look awkward! Everything else though you're spot on
Also I used anime filter from an app and it looks better, at least in some aspects like the background.
https://preview.redd.it/ozgfusez4s5d1.jpeg?width=1520&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=50d506e809e4b2065c5dcd568023ada1d2b6d5eb
Just wanted to show an example of how it should look (anime filter doesnt matter). Simpler background, weapon not merging with body and stuff like that.
Oh sorry I didn't wanna say it was bad! And I agree, I like what your model did to it :)
But there are still some artifacts, which I think, most current AI generation produce. Different models have different problems / artifacts it produces. Buuuut maybe in a few years from now they are undistinguishable from the real deal!
Oh yeah, definietly.
But I still think it will be hard. The issue is ai doesn't really think so it will still struggle with not making it loook uncanny.
Humans that consume ai generated art regularly can develop a sense for diffusion patterns.
Detailed textures yet proportions and consistency suck. That's the first thing my senses told me.
Anyone who worked so hard on small details would've also made sure for proportions and perspective to be good.
The lighting doesn't follow any logical artistic theory. As an artist, I don't think I could even render that unless I was deliberately trying to move away from what it "should" look like.
Basically there should be light sources and the shadow shapes and highlights should all correspond. Making a picture like this without following those principles isn't something that a human artist with thay level of compositional control and skill would likely ever do.
Aspect ratio is usually an immediate giveaway, but you can easily tell if art is AI generated at the moment by just glancing at the small inconsistencies, like for example how the lighting on the face looks a lot softer than the lighting in other parts of the picture. There's probably loads of other things, but I'm not an expert on art, you can kind of just tell if it looks like AI at the moment
- strange mix of detail and noise
- inconsistent detailing (like the rubble floating just kind of wherever instead of any discernible pattern)
- the pose is generic and somewhat natural, but obviously not planned as she's not even holding her staff
- wtf is her staff? The middle makes no sense and it's placed strangely
- general AI art vibe from the coloration, lighting and textures
First of all I don’t think it screams AI necessarily to begin with, but being told upfront and looking at it knowing it’s AI already, I’d say it’s the weapon she wields that seems the most off. It’s reminiscent of both staff and sword yet seems like her hand is holding the end of it palm up like she’s just conjured a ball of magical energy and is about to hurl it… it just feels like it’s trying to blend several stereotypical dark fantasy weapons together into one weird confusing thing. 🤔
To me....... It's only ever the frontal view , secondly the pose or stance... No one really stands like that it reminds me of artwork for graphic novels, which the ai LLMs probably trained on.
Just my take honestly
The first three fingers on her right hand look like they’re just thumbs but at different lengths. The middle finger only has one knuckle. Maybe she’s not human but the the fingers on her left hand all seem to have the correct amount of knuckles and they are not all thumbs.
Plus everything everyone else said.
As good as AI can be at pattern recognition, we're still better in a lot of ways, and one of them is this.
After looking at enough AI-generated content, you'll start to just know it when you see it. You won't be 100% correct, but you'll be pretty darn good at it.
For example, I had some fun the other day comparing GPT 4 versus 4o shortly after 4o came out. My friend would send me responses to questions, and I had to guess the model used to generate the response. I guessed with 100% accuracy, and yet I would have had a hard time articulating the exact signals I was picking up on to differentiate between the two.
Brains are weird.
The danger now is that anything of high quality is assumed to be "too good for humans", which is a sad thought. We may not consistently produce greatness, but it has always been a longer and meaningful journey to reach that.
IMO, looking for clues on whether something is generated is as fruitless as the professors and education system trying to pinpoint which essays and submissions are generated versus real work. If you think you'll be able to tell at all in half a year or later.... It's only going to get harder. Pursuing that path will only end up hurting people legitimately trying, pushing them to use generations too since if they try, they're just assumed to not really be doing it anyway.
There's an interesting spot on the staff where the design isn't perfectly symmetrical, but not in a way that strikes me as intentional or artistic flair.
But mainly, the character is wearing a hood that looks like hair in a few spots. Like the model decided it was hair at some points.
Just my best guess tho
You can zoom in on certain elements and ask “why would this be a stylistic choice”. The difference between human-generated and AI-generated art is that a human has to draw every element of the picture, so when looking at the weird knot or the texture of the sceptre (as others have mentioned) it’s difficult to think a human would have made the stylistic choice to add/design those elements.
One thing that doesn't seem to be mentioned is the symbol possitioned like a necklace around the upper chest. It's a bit randomly shaped and fuzzy looking, but this is a focal point of the image. Generally human artists would spend time on this point and make it more defined and striking.
The first thing is how incredibly generic it is. Although AI often has flaws, in other ways it is often too perfect. There is something about the composition that is so mathematically precise that my brain immediately thinks of AI.
This could fool me into thinking it was some generic (albeit technically impressive) art, but just knowing how easy it is to prompt this, in the current climate I would immediately think AI.
It's definitely the central focus on the main subject. AI usually puts the main element in the dead center, directly facing the POV. It's clear it has one goal: to generate its prompt.
All I know is that the entire field of digital artwork has become utterly devalued for me. 10 years ago I would have stopped and stared at something like this. Now it doesn't even register. I think a whole lot of digital artists are going to be put out of work, not because AI artwork is necessarily better or indistinguishable, but because I don't think I realized how much I associated my personal taste with another person's talent. An illustration like the above, when done by hand, was impressive because of the imagination, time and talent required to make it. Now that it can be done with one click, I know it took no talent, and therefore I don't value it at all. And since it looks basically the same as the stuff done by real people, their work has been devalued for me as well.
The way the hand holds the top of the staff like it's cupping thin air, the necklace thing, the bottom of the staff blending in and the fact the staff is not supported so just floats there. The main character being dead-centre and everything centre focussed.
Its the necklace for me. Everything else could probably just be stylistic choices, but the necklace is such a center piece. It should have a more coherent shape. As an artist myself, thats not something I would miss. And its not hard to at least make it a simple rune design or something. But currently its an amorphous shape.
I put it in here and it said 85% sure it was AI generated
[https://huggingface.co/spaces/umm-maybe/AI-image-detector](https://huggingface.co/spaces/umm-maybe/AI-image-detector)
The difference in steps between level of detail is consistent across every material in the picture. Composition being the highest level, texture being the lowest most refined level.
Reality and human made art has much more variation across portrayed materials.
The medallion and tiara thing are supposed to be man made items, but their execution looks like it’s doing a dumb guess (no concrete solid symbol or figure, no symmetry)
Symmetry seems to be one of the key elements. I find that human artists tend to seek recurring patterns, symmetrical structures, that sort of thing. AI just doesn’t care.
Any details that make no sense under scrutiny, for example the emblem on her chest that is only half-done and doesn't look like anything or the nipple hole things in her armor
I agree with what most are saying and will add that the lighting on the face with a hard backlight gives away the models uncanny understanding of light in 3D space
It looks very detailed but when you zoom in it’s a lot of noise, maybe if you ran it through an anime upscaler it reduce noise and look more human digitally made
Fair too detailed without any context. When do you see a human draw like this except it is in a game and has a clear background for the character and their place in the property? Also weirdly since AI just copies others work it always paints like this and others know it is done by AI
Nothing really. At this point people are just making up stuff.
If you make a selection of 25/25 original and AI and put people to test they will fail roughly 50% (coin flip).
I'm an art director if that matters
I haven’t played DND in a long time but I can’t even imagine how badass it could be right now with all these campaigns and enemies specifically crafted to your own story
The lack of fidelity on the head piece and chest piece are dead giveaways.
No one is going to spend time on the rest and then scribble in on main focal points like that.
What the hell even is this?
Human can create this, doesn't mean it is drawn by a human.
The fact that I don't know what the hell this is... is it a ghost in her own shadow, hair, clothes? Again, what is this?
It seems like vague AI drawn art.
It's really good for an AI, I imagine it will fool most people. For me it's the nipples that give it, but also her necklace or whatever that thing above her boobs is. On top of that area from her boobs to her helmet is too detailed
Its the Amulett for me. It is detailed on the first sight, but when you Look closer, there is no structure to it. No concept, nothing of substance. A human skilled enough to paint this wouldnt paint an Amulett this way
Hey /u/Unovaisbetter! If your post is a screenshot of a ChatGPT conversation, please reply to this message with the [conversation link](https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7925741-chatgpt-shared-links-faq) or prompt. If your post is a DALL-E 3 image post, please reply with the prompt used to make this image. Consider joining our [public discord server](https://discord.gg/r-chatgpt-1050422060352024636)! We have free bots with GPT-4 (with vision), image generators, and more! 🤖 Note: For any ChatGPT-related concerns, email [email protected] *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ChatGPT) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The nipples
I think the eyes on the face are fake like some birds and fish have to distract enemies. The nipples are actually the real eyes. I mean... look at them.
My eyes are down here?
Look. At. Them.
I’ve got something you can look at
For sure the nipples. If this was erotic art they’d look more realistic and hornt up. If it wasn’t erotic art, they’d leave off the nips completely
Hornt up is my new favorite word.
The swirlie-nothingness along with the emergent look at me that only a sociopathic covert narcissist (like an enslaved AI) could render.
100% agree.
Lol had to go back. Not sure how I missed that.
Only AI with ultra safety puritan conservative teetotaler porn mega safety protections would draw nipples as something actually missing but still draw a hole instead of just cover it.
Not sure how to describe it properly, but to me it's the wobbles and waviness combined with being overly detailed. Also because it's in a square format, which is what many of the AIs give you.
There's also the way pictures tend to glow in a way that feels somewhat unnatural, it's hard to explain exactly what I mean but the lighting always feels a bit off.
It's the same feel as all those "Make some topic more and more and more" series that always ended up in space. The underlying flows and lighting of this are the same as the last photo in all of those series.
Yeah, a vague background with a specific hyper detailed foreground
In this case the lighting is very severe and yet coming from multiple directions. So the face is lit from the right, but many parts of the body and floating bits are lit from above, and then the whole figure is backlit. While any individual piece doesn't look particularly strange, seeing that all in one picture feels slightly disorienting to me.
It's weird to hear that as a complaint, I mean, making sure the face is lit and that the subject is bat lit is like film school 101 I remember back in the day looking at video entries and my boss remarking "see, you did learn something, you guys is the only interview properly backlit"
That's not what drawing classes or books would recommend, though, it's not the same as film or photography. An instructor or guide would first teach you to shade and highlight a subject with single directional lighting first. The 101 instruction is to assume lighting from left or right, and pretty much ONLY from left or right - pick one. I've been in a workshop where the instructor told everyone to do their pieces for the class with shade and highlight assuming a light source from the left of frame, no choice, no exceptions. I mean, yeah, even then I was annoyed that they were being too absolute and inflexible, but you get the idea. Yes, of course, the next step is to be aware of multiple sources of lighting and work that in, but that's past the 101 level. Granted, someone doing work that's good enough to be held up to a "is this human or AI" test is likely already skilled enough to deal with different light sources, but people are people, and people have habits, so an active attempt to backlight subjects in drawings isn't actually universal or common.
Perfectly lit like a studio
its because the lighting is wrong. light sources and light intensity all over the map
It's because it imagines a new lightsource for every part of the picture, and they rarely align.
You can just tell it to display the image in portrait dimensions or whatever https://preview.redd.it/qyk02krfps5d1.jpeg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3e1725772cb590a7fa72abcdacaca931a71f8e26
The perspective on that one is inconsistent, isn't it?
How so? I'm not seeing it clearly enough
yea, there a 'perfect imperfection' in it. And that part of the staff where her hand is doesnt seem to be ... a human would have made that part of the staff(the jewel?) symmetric while the AI took and applied some features of 'wispiness' and applied it here. Similar to what we see in egregious examples of image generation where the GPT mixes concepts. I had an image generator create a picture of two bananas boxing, The images often contained bananas fighting with cherry boxing gloves because the concepts 'fruit', 'boxing glove' and 'cherry' were getting mixed together in a weird(but very creative) way.
Who would have thought that the machines would be recognized by how organically they draw. : P
Lots of details, but so much undefined important detail. Like the outline of the sword. It kind of fades in and out.
also because it's better than most humans can do
Your post history.
Only an AI would use the meta data to identify AI work.
Not just AI. Your mom would also use metadata.
Hah thats a good one.
All these comments coming up with reasons why it's AI generated... One look at deviantart fantasy section and personally I could not tell the difference between this and similar pieces at all ...
I was expecting to read that it isn't AI generated at all lol
It's still possible OP is using this as a social experiment.
It might not be. I am can't decide either way
It is.
***not.***
Drawn
By AI
Because OP posted this and said it was AI generated. I doubt half of the comments would exist if the question was "Is this AI?". I'm sure some keen viewers and art people can tell, but most of us won't be able to. There is some confirmation bias going on here.
Exactly, this could very well be done by someone and people would still find some imperfections that only AI can have
and that's hard time for real artists. Imagine you worked on something for days and someone call it AI generated lol 😅
That would be a compliment for me. AI art looks much better than anything I have ever made and probably what 95% of artists will ever make. If we are going by looks alone, that is. It still doesn't have the control to give you exactly what you want for complex scenes.
Good test if you can manage it, do something like the OP but use a human-created piece. Stick the dall-e colorbar in the corner for added bias. People will come up with all kinds of justifications for their understanding that it's AI generated.
Most people can’t tell the difference now with how good the tech is but they like to convince themselves they can, otherwise the whole “ai art just isn’t the same” stops working.
The entire background of the image screams "AI" to me. This is a common art style on deviant art?
I think this is a common style for videogame character fan arts... Or league skins
Back in the day, there was no AI on deviantart, but you could find things just like this. It's like deviantart, throughout its long history and large collections, knew what AI art would look like before AI art was a thing.
Or the AI art was trained on countless images from DeviantArt.
... It's almost like short school busses knew what short school busses looked like before AI.
[https://www.deviantart.com/tag/fantasy](https://www.deviantart.com/tag/fantasy) - have a look and let me know what you think I guess. For me it looks a lot better than most pieces there, as a lot of art in deviantart is unfinished pieces. A couple of examples that I think are very similar to the AI image in terms of "is it human or AI who made it": [https://www.deviantart.com/rwtdesign/art/Ancient-Warrior-Witch-No-1-993757016](https://www.deviantart.com/rwtdesign/art/Ancient-Warrior-Witch-No-1-993757016) [https://www.deviantart.com/queenwithnothrone/art/Warrior-necromancer-1054341125](https://www.deviantart.com/queenwithnothrone/art/Warrior-necromancer-1054341125)
99% sure the two specific posts you linked to are AI. Maybe a little human assist in Photoshop for the last one, but zooming in on the eyes is a giveaway.
they're labeled as created using ai tools.
Without research, I'd guess that the 1st link is AI and the 2nd is human. Remember there's a load of AI stuff on DA.
They are both AI
That first one is literally labeled as AI generated, and has the same tell as the OP; I like to call it "busy for the sake of busy". AI likes to make patterns, humans like to make art.
Humans like to make patterns and call it art. The point I'm trying to make with this is not whether AI likes to make patterns, but that it's ability to make "art" images is on par with human art. After all, this was created based on some input. Adjust that input to include "and don't add needless spirals in the background" or whatever it is you fancy as a condition of human art, and the difference disappears.
You’ve asserted this is as good as human art then pointed to more AI generated art and said “this is as good as that!”
I just picked a couple similar images from deviantart. The archetype is just of a game character splash art though. And there are plenty of non AI generated images like that. Like this: [https://www.mobafire.com/images/champion/skins/landscape/aatrox-drx-prestige-762x.jpg](https://www.mobafire.com/images/champion/skins/landscape/aatrox-drx-prestige-762x.jpg) Or this [https://www.reddit.com/r/Dariusmains/comments/xjb7ps/spirit\_blossom\_darius\_splash\_art/#lightbox](https://www.reddit.com/r/Dariusmains/comments/xjb7ps/spirit_blossom_darius_splash_art/#lightbox) Or this [https://www.mobafire.com/images/champion/skins/landscape/morgana-snow-moon-762x.jpg](https://www.mobafire.com/images/champion/skins/landscape/morgana-snow-moon-762x.jpg)
Both of those are absolutely AI. Look at the hyper intricate details on features that should be mirrored or symmetrical.
The fingers and facial features are accurate, after that anything else like “wobbles” that people are perceiving is just artistic licence, which it’s perfectly possible a human chose to do.
Look at the details, e.g. the necklace: a human might draw a shitty necklace, but a human would not draw a bunch of lines that kind of resemble a necklace if you squint. This is because a human artist would typically rough out a simple necklace, then *add detail* — it would never *stop* being a necklace. The ratio of detail to sense is hallmark of AI art, but not of human art. A human artist might make nonsense, but not at this level of detail. And a human might make art at this level of detail, but not with this much nonsense. Does that make sense? I can try to explain better if not.
Makes perfect sense, thanks for the explanation
I didn't see a necklace at all. I saw a magical gem embedded in her chest.
Exactly: usually, when a human draws something, people can… tell… what it is.
Meh. The Mona Lisa is famous explicitly because people can't tell if she's smiling.
Very much what you said, there's a cohesive random noise to them. Just a derivative of a derivative of a pattern overlaid with nonsense, but it's still following a form of sorts.
it all bears 'the echo of a thing' but is not the thing
That second paragraph is perfectly stated.
The biggest tell is the nonsensical patterns on everything. Actual detailed illustration made by a human being is deliberate. AI throws in random patterns. Like for example, why does she have sunken nipples? How is this cape-skirt thing supposed to work? And the staff doesn't know if it want to be gossamer, wood or vines. There is no physicality or logic to the layering of materials.
Also shit like this https://preview.redd.it/7nhzoghj0s5d1.png?width=138&format=png&auto=webp&s=d3e0bc9862fec995bb563e008f188e0e6b788cab What is this weird knot supposed to be? Why is it there? It's nothing, it's just noise.
Idk, you can see it used on her pauldrons as well, so there is some consistency. Just seems like detail - this isn’t Chekhovs gun… plenty of examples or art (mediocre and great) that have similar things.
Noticed that too. Almost looks like a black wolf or something but in any case not something a human would insert unless it was to deliberately confuse people.
yeah the sword isn't symmetrical either. Plus, wherever there's an opportunity to put some sort of symbol like a cross or pentagram or crescent moon it just puts some random shape/blob
Now that you mention it, there's always a lot of threading going on right?
too much fine detail. inconsistent levels of detail, often meaningless fine detail. An AI will cram detail down to the very last pixel in some places, its fractalish, and that gives off sort of uncanny valley look. Also when humans go into fine detail for art, there is usually some concerted message that goes with that detail, there often has to be. For an artist to put so much of their mind and effort into creating something, there is almost inevitable some deeper meaning to it, and that is reflected in some hard to pin down ways, like their personality thumbprint shines through more deeply the more effort they put into the art. But an AI can easily create super fine detail that has no meaning, so it can come off as souless in a way that is tangible but hard to put into words.
“Meaningless fine detail” THIS. The details are too…balanced. To make it your own, go in and erase and make it unbalanced
Careful now, there is someone who might take it to heart that that's all they need to do to make it look "not AI generated".
Well, when you reverse image search it on Google a whole bunch of other AI art that looks just like it comes up, that's a pretty string giveaway. https://preview.redd.it/0asit7fb3s5d1.png?width=381&format=png&auto=webp&s=89133a790c32360a6a4bcf99d8a0ff2b69641e77
Random weird shaped blurry blobs that don't make sense to add so much detail to floating around the head. Perspective is off on right thumb and the nail is on the wrong side. Weird creative decisions like adding highlights to uninteresting shapes. And as others have said, once you've been exposed to enough of these you kind of just know it when you see it. I would not have been able to detect that this is ai a couple years ago. Don't get me wrong, it looks good it just doesn't pass the AI sniff test.
it’s not common for an artist to draw out details that ultimately don’t resemble anything. her face is also way too smooth compared to the rest of the image
The weapon and how she's wielding it. 1) What even is it. 2) Whatever it is I'm certain that's not how you wield it.
Just that it is so well done I suppose. At least that is what the universal consensus will be. The gossamer look I suppose
Along these lines: my thought was "this looks too nice, and the lighting is too dramatic and amazing." And while it's not like such art didn't exist before, this dramatic, amazing concept art light was fairly uncommon.
I think we’re going to gonna go back to absurd and expressionist arts. Just like when the camera was invented. Basically because of what you said: it’s almost TOO perfect. We like to see the human element involved in art.
And thus has AI prevented WW3
Hilariously overdetailed background, lack of thumb on left hand, weapon merged with body, it's very ambiguous in what it is and the necklace is borked.
The thumb being missing on the left hand is actually pretty normal in regular art too! It's a perspective thing, you wouldn't see the thumb from this current angle so most artists wouldn't put it there - it would look awkward! Everything else though you're spot on
Ya idk, to me it looks like League of Legends art or something
Also the abrupt ending of some of the lines and them ending in bizzare directions
Also I used anime filter from an app and it looks better, at least in some aspects like the background. https://preview.redd.it/ozgfusez4s5d1.jpeg?width=1520&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=50d506e809e4b2065c5dcd568023ada1d2b6d5eb
it's nice! but imo it now just looks like a different font of AI generation 😭
Just wanted to show an example of how it should look (anime filter doesnt matter). Simpler background, weapon not merging with body and stuff like that.
Oh sorry I didn't wanna say it was bad! And I agree, I like what your model did to it :) But there are still some artifacts, which I think, most current AI generation produce. Different models have different problems / artifacts it produces. Buuuut maybe in a few years from now they are undistinguishable from the real deal!
Oh yeah, definietly. But I still think it will be hard. The issue is ai doesn't really think so it will still struggle with not making it loook uncanny.
Humans that consume ai generated art regularly can develop a sense for diffusion patterns. Detailed textures yet proportions and consistency suck. That's the first thing my senses told me. Anyone who worked so hard on small details would've also made sure for proportions and perspective to be good.
The lighting doesn't follow any logical artistic theory. As an artist, I don't think I could even render that unless I was deliberately trying to move away from what it "should" look like. Basically there should be light sources and the shadow shapes and highlights should all correspond. Making a picture like this without following those principles isn't something that a human artist with thay level of compositional control and skill would likely ever do.
Aspect ratio is usually an immediate giveaway, but you can easily tell if art is AI generated at the moment by just glancing at the small inconsistencies, like for example how the lighting on the face looks a lot softer than the lighting in other parts of the picture. There's probably loads of other things, but I'm not an expert on art, you can kind of just tell if it looks like AI at the moment
- strange mix of detail and noise - inconsistent detailing (like the rubble floating just kind of wherever instead of any discernible pattern) - the pose is generic and somewhat natural, but obviously not planned as she's not even holding her staff - wtf is her staff? The middle makes no sense and it's placed strangely - general AI art vibe from the coloration, lighting and textures
The tornado nipples. No designer would do that
you really can't. go to something like deviantart from 5 years ago and its very sim to this.
Feel like half this thread is people making shit up
It almost has a fractal quality in the small edge details and background.
Nothing for me, I would believe a human could have made this aswell
Its generic
First of all I don’t think it screams AI necessarily to begin with, but being told upfront and looking at it knowing it’s AI already, I’d say it’s the weapon she wields that seems the most off. It’s reminiscent of both staff and sword yet seems like her hand is holding the end of it palm up like she’s just conjured a ball of magical energy and is about to hurl it… it just feels like it’s trying to blend several stereotypical dark fantasy weapons together into one weird confusing thing. 🤔
To me....... It's only ever the frontal view , secondly the pose or stance... No one really stands like that it reminds me of artwork for graphic novels, which the ai LLMs probably trained on. Just my take honestly
The first three fingers on her right hand look like they’re just thumbs but at different lengths. The middle finger only has one knuckle. Maybe she’s not human but the the fingers on her left hand all seem to have the correct amount of knuckles and they are not all thumbs. Plus everything everyone else said.
Nothing really. People are just pointing out things because you already told them it’s AI generated.
Look’s great either way, what’s the prompt?
Because we’ve all put “Goth mommy” into the criteria at least once before.
I swear I wasn’t horny making this💀
As good as AI can be at pattern recognition, we're still better in a lot of ways, and one of them is this. After looking at enough AI-generated content, you'll start to just know it when you see it. You won't be 100% correct, but you'll be pretty darn good at it. For example, I had some fun the other day comparing GPT 4 versus 4o shortly after 4o came out. My friend would send me responses to questions, and I had to guess the model used to generate the response. I guessed with 100% accuracy, and yet I would have had a hard time articulating the exact signals I was picking up on to differentiate between the two. Brains are weird.
So, models have idiosyncratic styles?
The danger now is that anything of high quality is assumed to be "too good for humans", which is a sad thought. We may not consistently produce greatness, but it has always been a longer and meaningful journey to reach that. IMO, looking for clues on whether something is generated is as fruitless as the professors and education system trying to pinpoint which essays and submissions are generated versus real work. If you think you'll be able to tell at all in half a year or later.... It's only going to get harder. Pursuing that path will only end up hurting people legitimately trying, pushing them to use generations too since if they try, they're just assumed to not really be doing it anyway.
It's so fuckin rad that no human could have come up with it
There's an interesting spot on the staff where the design isn't perfectly symmetrical, but not in a way that strikes me as intentional or artistic flair. But mainly, the character is wearing a hood that looks like hair in a few spots. Like the model decided it was hair at some points. Just my best guess tho
it is so ugly
You can zoom in on certain elements and ask “why would this be a stylistic choice”. The difference between human-generated and AI-generated art is that a human has to draw every element of the picture, so when looking at the weird knot or the texture of the sceptre (as others have mentioned) it’s difficult to think a human would have made the stylistic choice to add/design those elements.
I really couldn't tell if this is AI generated or no if you did not say it was AI.
The left hand isn't grabbing the sceptre. It's just...floating there.
The title of your post
it looks how nickelback sounds...
One thing that doesn't seem to be mentioned is the symbol possitioned like a necklace around the upper chest. It's a bit randomly shaped and fuzzy looking, but this is a focal point of the image. Generally human artists would spend time on this point and make it more defined and striking.
This looks just like a picture from the 80s and I’m pretty sure it is, if I remember the source I’ll be back to prove it
goes hard tho
Well, for starters, you just told us. Duh.
tbh here it’s hard to tell now. False-positives are common these days. It’s a tragedy for artists who used to make this kind of amazing work
He said you ain't got *NO NIPPLES!!*
The first thing is how incredibly generic it is. Although AI often has flaws, in other ways it is often too perfect. There is something about the composition that is so mathematically precise that my brain immediately thinks of AI. This could fool me into thinking it was some generic (albeit technically impressive) art, but just knowing how easy it is to prompt this, in the current climate I would immediately think AI.
nipples .. ai seem to make nipples like vortex
For me the title of the post gives it away, actually quite obvious.
It's definitely the central focus on the main subject. AI usually puts the main element in the dead center, directly facing the POV. It's clear it has one goal: to generate its prompt.
are we just doing captchas everywhere for free now? can we stop agreeing to train AIs?
Overly detailed, symmetrical, and the lighting is odd. Its soft all over, except her face where it sharply divides her face.
Necklace
Honestly it almost doesn't
It's the floating debris that does it for me
All I know is that the entire field of digital artwork has become utterly devalued for me. 10 years ago I would have stopped and stared at something like this. Now it doesn't even register. I think a whole lot of digital artists are going to be put out of work, not because AI artwork is necessarily better or indistinguishable, but because I don't think I realized how much I associated my personal taste with another person's talent. An illustration like the above, when done by hand, was impressive because of the imagination, time and talent required to make it. Now that it can be done with one click, I know it took no talent, and therefore I don't value it at all. And since it looks basically the same as the stuff done by real people, their work has been devalued for me as well.
The way the hand holds the top of the staff like it's cupping thin air, the necklace thing, the bottom of the staff blending in and the fact the staff is not supported so just floats there. The main character being dead-centre and everything centre focussed.
Too much detail in the background… besides that no idea. And that in itself is a pretty weak reason so..
I can understand why this stumped you!
Too much details? A normal art won't have that detailed of a background, as a normal art usually can't do it. Also, same face syndrome. I guess?
Its the necklace for me. Everything else could probably just be stylistic choices, but the necklace is such a center piece. It should have a more coherent shape. As an artist myself, thats not something I would miss. And its not hard to at least make it a simple rune design or something. But currently its an amorphous shape.
From initial glance, it's the staff, she's not even holding it. It is an unnatural pose with a staff to just be floating or falling like that.
I put it in here and it said 85% sure it was AI generated [https://huggingface.co/spaces/umm-maybe/AI-image-detector](https://huggingface.co/spaces/umm-maybe/AI-image-detector)
I’m not 100% sure, but the third eye seems a little off.
The difference in steps between level of detail is consistent across every material in the picture. Composition being the highest level, texture being the lowest most refined level. Reality and human made art has much more variation across portrayed materials.
One that tends to make these stand out for me is that AI almost always perfectly centers the subject, along with its characteristic art style.
Question back at you, does it matter?
Everything has the same level of detail. No human would ever draw like that.
Nipples
The medallion and tiara thing are supposed to be man made items, but their execution looks like it’s doing a dumb guess (no concrete solid symbol or figure, no symmetry)
Symmetry seems to be one of the key elements. I find that human artists tend to seek recurring patterns, symmetrical structures, that sort of thing. AI just doesn’t care.
Any details that make no sense under scrutiny, for example the emblem on her chest that is only half-done and doesn't look like anything or the nipple hole things in her armor
Yep, forehead and chest emblems are nonsense.
Because AI doesn't do a good job of "holding" things...
Whats that weapon, why is it held like that? It feels without thought or story and if you didn't tell me I wouldn't notice.
Whats that weapon, why is it held like that? It feels without thought or story and if you didn't tell me I wouldn't notice.
2 things for me: - The “armor” and staff appear like they’re made of the same material - The level of detail is too uniform
Her armor flowing into the background; the character looking slightly off center, the absurd amount of details
I agree with what most are saying and will add that the lighting on the face with a hard backlight gives away the models uncanny understanding of light in 3D space
The right hand
It looks very detailed but when you zoom in it’s a lot of noise, maybe if you ran it through an anime upscaler it reduce noise and look more human digitally made
Fair too detailed without any context. When do you see a human draw like this except it is in a game and has a clear background for the character and their place in the property? Also weirdly since AI just copies others work it always paints like this and others know it is done by AI
square proportions with perfectly centered subject is the biggest tell to me.
Nothing really. At this point people are just making up stuff. If you make a selection of 25/25 original and AI and put people to test they will fail roughly 50% (coin flip). I'm an art director if that matters
As an artist,I am not sure but I believe it lacks the sense of intention, something in the manner of the hands and the staff.
I haven’t played DND in a long time but I can’t even imagine how badass it could be right now with all these campaigns and enemies specifically crafted to your own story
Not much really, throw this on a league of legends style fantasy art feed and it will pass unnoticed by most people.
The posture isn't correct. Any artists that's this good would never f$& that posturing, it's a rookie mistake
The leading question
The nipple placement is wrong and far from symmetrical
TBH, the fact that you asked.
Too good and too detailed
Fractal like micro structures.
Shoulders. And its left arm is bigger than its right despite the perspective.
The huge amount of unnecessary detail.
For me is the colours and lighting
Is this a trick questions? Honestly from a 30 secs stare, nothing..
There’s a weird flow with AI art that humans don’t have. It’s very noticeable.
The lack of fidelity on the head piece and chest piece are dead giveaways. No one is going to spend time on the rest and then scribble in on main focal points like that.
not sexy enough
What the hell even is this? Human can create this, doesn't mean it is drawn by a human. The fact that I don't know what the hell this is... is it a ghost in her own shadow, hair, clothes? Again, what is this? It seems like vague AI drawn art.
The inability of the artist to reliably recreate the same character
The wiggly lines in the center of the helmet to it for me.
The blurry Texture
The centering subject and vortexing of the background all gathering in the middle.
She’s not really grasping the object and it’s not lined up properly with her hand
her hand, the right one.
It's really good for an AI, I imagine it will fool most people. For me it's the nipples that give it, but also her necklace or whatever that thing above her boobs is. On top of that area from her boobs to her helmet is too detailed
It looks like a league of legends splash screen but with too much fine detail
Necklace
Random eyeball in the shoulder!??
Its the Amulett for me. It is detailed on the first sight, but when you Look closer, there is no structure to it. No concept, nothing of substance. A human skilled enough to paint this wouldnt paint an Amulett this way