awful-ai-images

[awful-ai-images]

:(((((

didn't find this image anywhere else on the internet with reverse image search. there's some minor AI artefacting, like cables not connecting and having nothing to attach to and blurring with the jewellery. but it's pretty hard to tell apart from how unlikely this scenario is.

it's cool! the idea that this magpie got into some new age witches jewellery chest. but unfortunately not real.

[awful-ai-images]

the thing about "i could do that" is that what people mean is that they can copy the finished product because the work of coming up with something and making it has already been done for them. every little creative decision has already been made and put into creating something, so "doing the same thing" is only doing the work of physically making something. but art doesn't just appear out of thin air. every little decision someone makes is part of the creative process. if you "can just do that" you would be doing it instead of just saying it. because the most essential part of making a piece of art is actually making it. you have to come up with it, decide to make it, and make it, for it to even exist. you can look at someone's works and think that on a technical level you can Do The Same Thing but that's not really true. because the work of unique creative choices for a particular piece you're looking at has already been done. some pieces are hard to make because they're very complex on a technical level, but every single piece that's created requires the essential work of coming up with it, making choices that are unique to you as an artist, and actually making the piece

[awful-ai-images]

yeah the original is on top because the bottom one is most likely AI.

it says SHIT NEED and SHIT DONIT NEED on the windows, and that line of lights is... questionable

Store in Berkeley, Ca.

The original is the one on top.

[awful-ai-images]

you can most easily tell because the balustrade filigree is an incoherent mess. All other tips apply:

complex subject in a low level resolution render

no artist signature

reverse image search yields no results younger than AI or on any artists personal website.

I also have anxiety. you know what helps lower my anxiety? Not participating in trends that uncritically popularize grand theft art.

[awful-ai-images]

the live laugh love / welcome sign in the top right corner says m̵͖͕̣͙̙̼̳͍͋͋̏̈̇ö̶̗̼̫̟̣́̇͌̀́̑͑̂̆̾̎̓̽͠a̷̢̩̭̠̣̱͓̪͚̣̐̈͒͜n̸̡̥͍̳̝͎̠̺̙̈͂̅͜ơ̸̲̽̊̽̔̆̒̆̔ͅw̴̡̨̪͔̺̝̖̰̝͎̿̾͛̋̏̈͒́̌͆̈́̿́͘ instead. also the spoons look like a many leaved bouquet. idk man I'm tired this morning and this one's pretty hard to tell :(

[awful-ai-images]

this is your periodic reminder that for all the artifacts and errors and "tells" one could possibly list, the only reliable way to actually determine if an image is ai generated is to investigate the source. it is becoming increasingly common for "fake classical paintings" to circulate around curative aesthetic blogs, and everyone should be using this as an opportunity to not only exercise their investigative skills but also appreciate art more in general. you're all checking out the artists you reblog, right? 🫣

so what are some signs to look for? let's use this very good example.

what a lovely late-impressionist piece blended with evocative leyendecker-esque themes! why haven't you ever heard of this artist before? surely tumblr would be all over an artist like this. who is justin brown?

your two options from here are to do a search for the name, or a reverse image search. i prefer reverse image searching, particularly when it comes to a common name like "justin brown". so what does that net?

Immediately, without looking at any text, something is wrong: it barely exists. an actual historical piece would turn up numerous results from websites individually discussing the piece, but no such discussions are taking place. Looking at the text, though, does show the source-- and at least in this case, the creator was honest about their medium.

But let's also look at the "exact matches", in case a source doesn't make itself apparent in the initial sidebar results like this.

This section will often tell you post dates of images, and here it can be seen that the very first iteration of the image was posted 15 days ago. It did not exist online prior to that.

Seeing how long an unsourced image has been floating around is a skill applicable to more than just generative images! See a cool image of an artifact or other intriguing item with a vivid caption? Reverse search it! If all the results are paired with that caption and only go back a few months, you might just have viral facebook spam.

Sometimes generative creators are dishonest about their medium and do not tag it like in the example, so that's when establishing "jpeg provenance" becomes important. While it can be a little trickier to determine if someone is using generative images and not admitting to it if they aren't trying to pass it off as a classic, something to consider is the age of their account and the frequency with which they post. Here are some account red flags:

-Did they only start posting art after 2022, or if they did before, did their style/skill level WILDLY change? Not gradual improvement-- I'm talking amateur graphite portraits straight into complex digital renders. Everyone starts somewhere, newness is not a red flag alone; it's newness combined with existing in a vacuum away from any community.

-Do they post fully-finished paintings several times a week? -Do many of these paintings seem iterative of a similar theme or subject matter ("three well-dressed young men face each other under shade and dappled sunlight")?

-Does their style change in inconsistent ways? An artist that can swap between painting like Drew Struzan and Hokusai should be pretty well known, right? Why is no one hyping this guy?!

-Do they have social media besides the source instagram? If so, what are they posting about? Are there any WIPs? Doodles? Interactions with other artists? Gallery dates? 3am self-doubt posts? Or is it all self-promo? Crypto? Seemingly nothing art-related at all for someone pushing out 3 weekly paintings?

Basically, if it's important to you to omit this stuff when you curate, please don't just smash reblog if the source doesn't seem to be the OP themselves. Seeking out sources was important even before this became an issue, now it is more than ever.

peace n love

[awful-ai-images]

ugh. if AI expects me to believe that this is all one, extremely large, real house the least it could do is make the coastlines or facades make sense. or have a mountain show up more than once. I also personally love the antigrav light fixture / picture frame with curtains installation in picture no.10.

OP (tho "original" is a bit of a stretch given... everything) off tumblr tagged both ai and mid image generator midjourney.

I'll rate this 4/10. the post gets points for the images being very pleasing to look at and there really must be a serenity to having the absurd wealth you'd need to build something even remotely similar on actual lake lucerne. I'm deducting ALL THE POINTS for pretending at legitimacy by naming a real location and giving "credit".

The Serenity House, Lake Lucerne, Switzerland,

Courtesy: Fatemeh Abedi

[awful-ai-images]

I'm screaming wtf is this.

I mean. it's AI. here's how to tell:

Is the functioning non-euclidian patio furniture with us in the room right now?

Spiderweb tree branches that connect from tree to tree. Vaguely lovecraftian I guess but unfortunately that's not intentional on this cosy aesthetic autumn post. so.

random huge foreground leaf attached to a tree that's firmly in the middle ground

roof squiggles

THERE'S MORE BUT I WOKE UP AT 5AM AND REBLOGGED THIS IN A FUGUE STATE.

[awful-ai-images]

btw I only do this to/about images that organically come up on my dashboard timeline - I don't go actively looking for them because I value my sanity. this means posts will be rare!

if you have something you'd like me to look at please don't hesitate to tag me.

[awful-ai-images]

this is AI. here's how to tell:

no artist credited and no watermark (either there is no artist = AI, or the art was stolen, which also means it shouldn't be shared like this but whatever)

reverse image search shows no original artist / first poster outside of Tumblr

resolution is really low for something so detailed

this looks good because of composition, colour, and detail. the knights and their armour don't actually make sense though. top: look at the handle of that sword, and the 'hand' grasping it, look at the foliage and how the ivy tendrils blend into the armour decoration, how the leaves are just non-ivy-shaped blobs sometimes. bottom: pay attention to the outstretched arm, and notice how it ends in ??? instead of a glove. how there's a hip plate on the right but it's all smooth like a shark on the left, how there's only one leg, and what are those belts even doing?

This is AI, AI is awful, therefore by the transitive property these AI images are awful. thank you for your time.

[awful-ai-images]

[awful-ai-images]

time for an inaugural thesis post or whatever, because this is the first AI image that crossed my dash since deciding to make this blog.

This picture is AI. The subject matter is really cute and I didn't want it to be AI! But it is, so here we are.

How to tell this image is AI-generated:

no artist credit should always make you suspicious - did they just not credit an artist? that art is stolen. is there no artist? AI.

the rendering could be the artist's style but there are artefacts that give the AI away:

left: real artists would not render the pommel of a sword bulbously potato shaped with squiggles in it. middle: this bridge / road / thing disappears into the foreground, there is no door in the tower so nowhere for it to go. right: AI loves to do plant-ish nonsense squiggles attached to nothing to give images visual symmetry. there's more, like the folds and 'pattern' in the cloak but these jumped out at me.

and a reverse image search yielded no results.

In conclusion: AI AI AI AI AI AI