A guide to detect scarily good Ai art

[NickRowler]

I notice another way to detect AI art is looking at the eyes and cropping.

The program Art Breeder will center the eyes in the middle and will crop the head like this. Additionally, they often exist in a weird void.

You can tell when a realistic portrait is AI.
Notice the eyes being centered, the cropping, and the void. Also weird uncanny of "something seems off".

[LunarScyphozoa]

Procreate automatically records your progress, don’t know about other programs though

[EncryptedWriting]

You know I might go against the common thought, but I don't think AI is that bad for references / inspiration only. People who commission with AI are just --- a piece of work. I saw it on fiverr where people charge 20 - 30$ to throw some words in a generator. And people pay for that stuff. AI is scary good and scary bad. I think reference / inspiration wise it can actually be quite useful. But other than that it is nothing but a thief.

[Katzalcoatl]

For inspiration and to have a good time. I personally believe it is fine. The problem starts when people try to charge for said things making it pass as their own.

Like lets say someone takes a famous character and tries to sell merch of it without paying royalties. There's a difference between that and just using that character as a reference or simply using that character to create fanart which you won't profit from.

The only problem with Ai is that people don't see that using their art is like taking a random picture of the internet and claiming it as your own.
No self respecting artist would take a random piece of art on the internet and sell it to other people as if they had made it. They can however take that same image and use it as a reference.

In the same way no serious webnovelist would take a random image from google/instagram and use it as a cover. They can however use such images as inspiration to help design the concept of their own cover.

Ai images are pretty much like taking any random image from google or a random instagram account. At least that is how I see it. The important thing is how you use said image. Will you use it as a reference or will you simply take that image and sell it to another person? Same with covers. Will you use said image as reference or will you use it as a cover?

[Silver7]

Yeah your right you should really look at the eyes and especially the fingers, but I wonder as AI becomes more advanced and will soon be able to draw without mistakes, will we be able to tell AI art from the work of an artist.

[Katzalcoatl]

Good question. The most likely answer is no. Once Ai gets advanced enough it will even surpass humans just like how machines surpassed humans when it comes to manufacturing. Will it replace all artists? Probably not. Hand made products can be better since they focus on quality instead of quantity. Ai art will be similar in that way.

I do believe laws will start being created so that Ai programs will need to pay royalties for the art they borrow. Similar to how the music industry asks you to pay royalties for many things.

We won't see a huge jump yet in Ai art. For Ai (in general) to truly advance we need quantum computers.
Once those become available to the public Ai will have a scary advancement in all sections.

As of now what is beleived to be the closest threat for the destruction of humanity is Artificial Intelligence. AI has a long way to go but quantum computers would advance Ai in an exponential manner.

Fun fact quantum computers already exist but they are not ready to be mass produced (especially since you need to keep the qubits at almost 0°K). Problems that take years to solve with a standard computer takes only seconds on a quantum computer. That is the reason why Ai would evolve to the next step if we involve quantum technology.

[thepenmonster]

Will it replace all artists? Probably not.

In the paying jobs: Yes. Guaranteed. Corporations will look at the costs of hiring and supporting talents (not just drawing, music and acting as well) and will inevitably choose a small room with a shelf of hard drives in it. They are based on greed and operate on greed, they despise their workers, and an AI on a server is as close to owning slaves as they can happily get.

Since the public has shown time and again they'll dance to anything and watch anything, the second Fake Drake drops a club banger, they're not going to give a shit it only took an executive two minutes of filling out dropdown menus. And the closer to free it is, the more likely they'll support it.

The only future for human artists getting paid is what you're seeing here around you: Small communities of diehards, shucking and jiving even harder then they are now, for the few remaining paying Patreon customers. But paying $20 for a drawing of you D&D character or some "free" detailed AI generated one WOTC is providing on their site? C'mon.

Once the multi-fingers and the odd lines get sorted... and it is going to happen within a couple of years... folks can pretty much kiss the Big Tiddy Anime Girl commissions goodbye... For example.

You can kiss Webtoon and Tapas goodbye as well once they figure out how to generate Korean Netflix shows with AI.

I give it ten years. Fifteen on the outside.

[river121693]

I know for a fact that my semi-regular gig drawing characters for a card game has stopped because they're using AI.

I do hope that most people will realize how souless AI art is once they get enough of it, but that's also why it's important to flight for better copyright laws against AI, so they have less to skim off of from human artist.

[Mallory]

To add to what @river121693 said, just in case this gets brought up - because it always inevitably does, usually by someone with a gallery full of fanart and a following made exclusively by drawing copyrighted IP:

Copyright laws serve small artists AND large corporations alike. The reason why it only looks as if the corporations get all the benefit, is because that copyright law mainly protects from corporate infringement - and up until recently, corporations KNEW it was unprofitable to try and infringe on already-existing IP. Most small artists never had to engage in active enforcement of copyright laws to protect their own intellectual property, because its existence alone was enough to passively protect them from the most likely (and most devastating) culprit to engage in it. Corporations have the time and resources to go after small-time crooks and people stupid enough to not respect a warning shot, but those small-timers were never the real threat in terms IP theft.

[BlairFujin]

It's not a standard, as far as I know, csp can record your progress but it's not turned on by default (and good cause it's an additional load on your hardware) and with photoshop you need 3rd party recording software

[moontokkym]

This. I occasionnally film my screen for shorter paintings with obs but I'm running photoshop on a 5yo laptop, filming makes layers bug out and risks crashing the computer if I use it on bigger projets. Filming a timelapse on every single piece is unrealistic for people who don't have the best hardware.

Also, both me and my friends have been accused on our youtube channels of faking our speedpaints, despite having multiple speedpaints on there with consistent style and progress. Some people just find the youtube shorts, see they're good, and assume it's fake. The average joe doesn't have much of a barometer of what realistic progress looks like in art, nor what's easy vs hard to fake, which is totally normal, they've never tried any method.

Note: "speedpainting" is the colloquial term used on the internet for when you screenrecord you digital painting process and then post it to youtube. Not to be confused with the concept art term of "speed painting" which is a rush of putting ideas to paper in the form of quick, essentialist drawing, often focusing on silhouette and core details, usually digital or in ink.

[thepenmonster]

...

ain't they technically "time-lapse" since speed painting means getting something done in a short time

...

[moontokkym]

I disagree.
In jobs like animation and concept art you get laughed out of town if you come in with AI stuff. Multiple studios have openly mocked job applications from "AI artists" because the human element of those jobs is necessary, because they're hiring you specifically to be able to stay on model in sequence (something AI is criminally bad at doing) and make recognisable unique characters and places (something AI art can't do because everything is a generic mishmash of everything in existence).

The other problem for companies is that AI art is uncopyrightable because only art made by a human has enough creative value to be copyrighted (see the ruling on the monkey selfie from the early 2010s). If they have no way to protect their core IP, that's very shaky ground to build a company on. Like if they get popular, any massive merch company could just make a worldwide run of their "official art" without licencing or anything with no legal repercussions and that's a massive loss of revenue.

It will however be detrimental to small-time personal commission work... A little. The type of client that wants a drawing cheap and quick and doesn't care what style it IS or who it's from will go for AI.

News flash: they're bad clients. We don't want those clients either. They're the worst, they pressure you, try to swindle you out of money, complain at every occasion that you're too expensive, demean you to try and lower your self esteem to get you to give up on more money.

Saying that AI art will replace artists is like saying roombas will replace human cleaners, when nearly everyone who buys one couldn't afford a cleaner in the first place.

[Kelheor]

@AmeTsunami yeah, most of programs don't, as @moontokkym just said, it's problematic for PS users I think CSP just had this feature too recently? But I am not sure, but it had none before.

[Lensing]

AI will not replace all artists.

AI will have a huge impact on supply and demand just like every other technical development
and there are some jobs which are more affected by it and some less. But that´s just part of the
business and is nothing new. Every decade has completely new technical possibilities and new
jobs popping up and old jobs changing or disappearing.

I read a lot of very radical opinions of people about AI and how it is already destroying every
creative job and so on and that often makes me think that I live in a completely different universe
that those people

[BlairFujin]

it has but you have to manually turn it on for each file you start working on

[Freemints30]

Personally i find the statement Ai art will replace artists as laughable as excell will replace all data entry jobs, self check out all cashiers, or art breeder all concept art illustrations.

Like... what?

Its kinda a sign of some one being prentensious and see all mainstream media as "beneath MY ""good""" taste" . Like.. no? Thats just up your own ass

Damn chat gpt is out I guess all help desk jobs are over cus we all know people enjoy calling custoner service and being placed with a bot of several hours and never just brute force thier way to a human and make hell for them.

[thepenmonster]

@ChatGPT:

Remind us to visit this thread in 2038.

[NellieVP318]

Personally i find the statement Ai art will replace artists as laughable as excell will replace all data entry jobs, self check out all cashiers, or art breeder all concept art illustrations.

Right. It's shame because human touch to things are still kinda valued. While, I'm not the biggest people person in the world, it's silly to think AI Art ( or any other AI tech) will replace everything. The issues I have with AI is the ethics and potential lawsuits around using the technology. AI Art for example has tons of issues like copyright before even deciding " Well, this will replace artists."

It's sad that the AI Art issue come to the point that others are accusing others of using AI when in reality, the person actually draw the art. This guide is helpful for anyone looking the difference between AI and real art.

[Mallory]

I don’t think AI is going to replace that many visual art jobs for the simple reason that the current AI image generators are build flawed from the ground up. Most professional artists create art by understanding how 3D shapes interact with light, and how to translate those shapes to a 2D plane to create the illusion of volume. AI image generators, on the other hand, start directly from the 2D image. Their genius plan was to essentially have their “brain” trace 5 billion (stolen) images. That’s… not an effective way to learn art, and it’s one that leaves you with glaring holes in your ability. It’s why iAI is super great at creating surrealist landscapes and static sexy doe-eyed anime girl torsos — because the first one allows it to hide its massive logic gaps in the trippy details, and the second is extremely consistent to the point where you could probably overlay hundreds of them over one another and see virtually no difference, so you actually can brute force to learn how to “draw” them.

I do think that AI image generators, like the invention of the camera, will heavily skew what is considered valuable as far as art goes. Prior to the invention of the camera, being able to paint as close to real as possible was seen as a desired trait. After the camera was introduced, straight realism fell out of favour, and there was an explosion of art that attempted to capture feeling and color (two things the camera could not do). I kind of expect the same thing to likely happen with AI, where the things that is plain sucks at doing (and will never get better at, at least in its current form) become valued, because they are a clear expression of human skill and creativity. So while a lot of illustration jobs are currently ravaged by AI fakes, because they’re great at imitating the kind of shit the public perceives to be as “highly skilled” now (heavy render, lots of details, static pose), I actually think they will start coming back in the next decade, as the public adjusts and starts to understand that they’re no longer looking at something “valuable”.*

*that’s assuming everything continues as is, and that none of the current lawsuits heavily restrict AI databases, or that there is legislation passed to curb its use.