Can someone explain to me why I'm able to tell these images are AI even before I find huge errors (extra fingers, distortions, etc)? Like what are the aesthetic qualities that out these as creations of AI?
1 / 2
Comments
It makes some sense that AI would aim for "perfect."
Each image element is lit/toned for its own sake and then composited together without any consideration for how they interact.
AI's can't do meanings or themes. It's like a human that is technically competent but a complete hack. Guess that's why techbros like it so much
I program CNC machines. I have to 'nest' lots of shapes in a finite area, and I can tell a human nest did from an algorithmic one, because the human started with an idea of what they wanted. We 'read' everything from text to images to CNC nestings looking for that intent.
a smoothie.
There's no like... raw emotion or horniness in the art.
An absence of evidence of medium, maybe?
The same goes for AI writing, AI music, and why they're so easily identifiable.
For me it's the high saturation and gross oily texture that are a tell for common models.
I think the flatness of the lightning, maybe?
Example: the women are framed like they're walking side by side, but they're passing each other in different directions. The framing suggests otherwise, making it take an extra beat to process.
I do have to stop to think about this to notice.
Real art is meant to illicit some sort of emotional response. These are just... things scattered across a canvas.
because even AI in a grungy style or watercolor or other less perfect art styles is still recognizable
For the "illustration" it's that uncanny sense you get that it originally had photorealistic textures but was "dumbed down" to resemble an illustration.
It's too much of something in every image. It typically isn't subtle, has an oversaturated quality to it.. and feels somewhat empty (though that's subjective to the viewer).
It drew the image, but it didn't draw why it drew the image.
something about it smells, visually
Also, a good work of art will lead the eye around the work for n interesting ways. It’s too much to go into here, but if you study art composition you will find some answers.
At a more subtle level …
Think about when a non-artist cheats on an art assignment by tracing something they found on the internet. Perfect anatomy with sad wiggly bic pen lines. That's the same energy as AI "art"
My eye is drawn to the middle of the giant fish, and the coat on the left woman's back because they're the visually busiest parts of the image. There's no intentionality to it.
Compare and contrast with these very Christian paintings, which AI could never do if it tried
but I fear I have inadvertently led us astray from Gillian's original question.
that's the thing i think when i see "ai" "art" — it feels dead.
"The artist put an huge amount of detail and work into something they didn't feel anything about".
It's really noticeable in music, there are a handful of genres that suffer this even without AI.
A striking example to me is asking an AI model for watercolor paintings. They are so wrong.
The difference, of course, is that at least most CG was made by actual human beings with talent.
Also you might be picking up errors subconsciously before you notice them
It's immediately obvious there's light issues in the second image for example
AI art never rattles me in that same way, even the horror based stuff.
Maybe in part because the 1945 movie is all in black and white until they show the portrait and then it's suddenly, unexpectedly in full color.
https://youtu.be/_A_xz2NLf_Y?si=vXXVMLuoSJ0ZQXQv
Also the backgrounds almost always seem off.
AI has like negative soul.
"why would someone make this" is another thing
it seems vapid/devoid of a message. just "picture"
Also, the shocked expression of the shark right at the edge of the school of fish's simulated large open mouth, legitimately made me laugh.
People who say they are fooled by AI? I either don’t believe them or think something less than kind.
There's no relationship between foreground and background. Everything in front looks "stickered on" to a separate but color matching background.
Airbrushing pretty much throughout too.
Then there's the smoothness. They're always too smooth with not enough texture.
I'm saying even Kinkade is better than this
Hence the backlighting/glow, proportions and saturation of so much of GenAI outputs.
I think the technical term is incompetence
i can look at a painting and tell in an instant if it's by a serious working artist or an amateur or one of those painting factories, even when they're all equally "simple." same goes for fake designer bags. it takes a bit for my conscious brain to catch up to why
good description of his work
for all his flaws, malcolm gladwell is an incredible writer.
Basically, optimizing the contrast within an image without any consideration for the contrast across the image.
This is all in keeping with the supreme court’s definition of pornography, we know it when we see it.
It’s the visual equivalent of using a sledgehammer to hang a picture hook.
Why Does All AI Art Look Like That? https://medium.com/@keithkisser/why-does-all-ai-art-look-like-that-f74e2a9e1c87
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3l5Cxv-boPc
Every artist knows to do this. AI has no idea how.
Also, it looks both incredibly detailed and somehow lazily thrown together at the same time.
The overall composition of AI pieces is almost always incredibly bland to boot.
Artists typically will detail accurately a few key spots, such as the top left corner of an object, while leaving the rest less detailed.
Crucially, if you ask for any specific style it becomes much less obvious, and in some limited cases impossible to tell. See also: the toupee fallacy.
Anyone can feel this lack of soul in the art.
Everything ends up looking like it's made out of satin or polished matter plastic
It looks like crap because it's like 1000 plates of food mixed together