Yeah. I can post a picture that I know was created years ago and peeps will convince themselves it’s AI. What a horrible invention.
More society destroying tech…
It’s worse with text. Don’t post anything remotely structured — not even if the context warrants it.
- You’ll confuse your audience
- They will not take your point on board and instead get sidetracked into arguing whether it is slop or not
- Certainly don’t style your text or you’re toast
In summary, don’t even summarise.
If you add emoji you’re already dead
💀
🥀
And don’t dare to use “it is not X, it is Y” structures.
I don’t use AI to write comments, I’m that bad at communicating.
Honestly, good. You don’t need to tell the reader what it isn’t. Waste of our time.
I scarcely saw “space emdash space” until LLMs were popularized. As an avid emdash user myself—and I’ve been doing it (perhaps improperly) for the last 25 years—the spaces are unnecessary and look bad.
Ah, I see you are a Chicago kind of person—I’m with you on that.
FELLOW HUMAN! I LIKE HOW YOU – ON PURPOSE – USED THE STYLE, STRUCTURE AND RHYTHM THESE SO CALLED AIS USE. NO REAL HUMAN WOULD WRITE LIKE THAT, RIGHT? I‘LL GO ON DOING PERFECTLY HUMAN ACTIVITIES, LIKE TALKING WITH OTHER HUMANS PETTING SMALL FURRY NON-HUMANS AND EATING.
SALUTATIONS, FELLOW HUMAN. PLEASE PROVIDE ACH ROUTING NUMBER AND ACCOUNT CODE FOR QUICK AND EASY HOT SEX ACCESS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION, FELLOW HUMAN AND GOOD FUCKING
YOUR SYSTEM HAS RESTARTED DUE TO AN ERROR
ERR 0Fx000DF276 INVALID MEMORY ACCESS
THIS ERROR HAS BEEN AUTOMATICALLY SUBMITTED TO THE MUSK, THE ZUCK AND THE JEFF, WHO WILL SUBMIT IT FOR CONSIDERATION OF GENOCIDAL ACTION BY THE BENJAMIN
deleted by creator
I love using styling, bullets, first-letter capitalizing titles, and being as organized as I can be. I want to think of the reader and how I can make it easier for them, and now all the things that make it easier for them are reasons they have not to trust me.
This sucks.
That’s a new one. We were taught that was the correct way when I was in school.
No thanks to the goddamn moneygrubbing techbros, art now is nearly screwed. Like I’ve been lurking over there in spezland and seeing some Blender artists being scrutinized whether their renders are genuine or not, and they have to show the same scene but in wireframe; and likewise in YT some people have to put up “no AI” disclaimers for previously unknown music such as underground rap mixtapes.
There’s a study on this phenomenon, regarding text: https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.07271
Basically, humans are mostly unable to tell apart human and AI text. They’re on average about as good as rolling dice. And they’ll say something is AI for the wrong reasons/cues.
Humans can tell if something sucks, and if it sucks they’ll call it AI. That’s not a reliable way to detect AI, though.
I don’t think that’s the entire story. I heard about the study from some German YouTuber. They spent several days writing the script for a video until the text was perfect (from their perspective). And that made their audience think they turned to AI assistance. So… Seems it both makes people think there’s AI at work: Flaws in it, or being too flawless.
Idk. And from skimming the study, I gather you can train an AI to write exactly with the right amount of contractions etc, so we’re F-ed anyway.
I take something being overly bland, repetitive or smooth in a weird way as indicators as well. After that I’ll look at ChatGPT’s distinctive idiosyncrasies. I think I’m not too bad at it, but sometimes it’s really difficult. Even more so with some styles of images. Like pop art. I wouldn’t know if something was made by AI or an artist. I mean by the image itself. I can probably tell if there’s some layers of meaning in it, or if it’s just some random thing depicted. (Once I’m educated enough about the context.)
I guess “sucks” is relative, but for a normal person a lot of stuff that’s “perfect” actually sucks. It’s overly verbose, with lots of unnecessary adjectives and descriptors and punctuation that bloats the word count. It’s technically good, but masturbatory. The “Look at how smart I am!” school of writing. There are people who write like this from their training, and they will be mistaken for AI.
I guess YouTube creators need to hit the right level of verbosity and detail anyway. They’ll have to grab their audience’s attention every video or people will inevitably click on the next video and somebody else is going to get the advertiser revenue.
I get it, though. Sometimes I’ll write text and writing technical text is always a chore. I’ll write something down but there’s 5 exceptions to every rule, several side-effects and related things to explain, caveats and edge-cases. I can’t completely lose track while originally trying to explain one concept. But oftentimes I can also not oversimplify it until it’s wrong. Also bad if chapter 3 starts explaining everything in chapter 1 was a lie. 😆 Idk. I’ll try to balance it out. Get it into some kind of order. But after revision XY it always sounds like a lawyer wrote it. Guess it’s a bit of a different story with fiction. At least that doesn’t need to be watertight with facts in the same way.
Maaaybe the problem is the dipshit mob that’s whipped up in a frenzy for internet points so they can post the 2026 equivalent of “first!” or “shopped!”
An indie game i really like got attacked by trolls spreading lies about the art being AI, even when the game developers responded with evidence that their art wasn’t AI generated.
I love this artist’s work and I am so sad that they’re facing this kind of fuckery.
Damn. I had a brief dip into the art career in like 2020/2021 and I’m glad I didn’t commit to it. It must really suck to be an artist nowadays. Not only is AI stealing a lot of customers, but dipshit AI “artists” also invade every space AND you can’t even post good art without it being considered suspicious anymore
I used to want to get into digital art. All this bullshit has me glad I stuck to painting, drawing by hand, and creating physical objects through other crafts. Crochet is one thing that machines don’t do at all yet - there are machines that can knit, but there’s still no machine capable of mass-making crocheted things.
Removed by mod
Sounds more like trolling from people who aren’t connected to the art community in the first place. Dave is well known in the krita community for his tutorials and comics, but he has always been staunchly against AI.
So it makes sense trolls would respond this way to demoralize him. His style doesn’t even have the rigidity and homogenization that is common to AI image generation. He just paints with very clean rendering and has some surreal themes.
I thought his stuff was generated at first as well. He makes the same mistakes the AI makes.
It’s really easy to get views and users right now by getting on the AI hate bandwagon. Some are using AI to churn out anti-AI content because there is a small profit in it. To be clear, not him but others.
What are the “usual mistakes” Ai makes? Is there a list out there somewhere? His work looks very human in the sense that there is a process present; You can tell there is line art over the painted coloring; His mistakes seem very human and the level of detail seems deliberate. Are you sure you are seeing this right? or are you just causing ruckus here?
So her pupils are smushed together, there’s a weird color near her collar necklace along her arm in the second panel, like if it was going to be skin but was changed to be part of the sleeve last minute. The Bird has a silver piece between it’s eye but it kind of turns into a badly drawn eye in the second panel, comes back on the third but it’s off and then turns into a misplaced thicker red strip on the forth.
These are the exact types of errors that an AI would make or used to at least. Cross eyed look and parts that seem to sit in between two things like if it wasn’t certain if it should do one or the other.
I get he makes everything himself, but coupled with the style, it did really look generated the first time I saw it.
I’ve found that focusing on really small details like that is kind of useless , especially in mediums like comics where it’s common to be working on a deadline; If you are start applying that logic to the frames of animation done on a budget you are going to conclude that every animation is AI, because when an artist is working fast and loose they tend to leave artifacts like those behind. On Revoy’s case; His style is much too consistent and his palettes tend to be very muted compared to most AI comics out there. I don’t read his comics much but it is very clear to me when he is doing a new “arc” usually because he keeps the color palette of his comic arcs very consistent. I think he color keys his arcs or something.
I’m not one to go around flagging people as AI, or harassing artists; But I found that the biggest tell for people relying on AI Is a lack of aesthetic direction; and a lack of unique “manerisms” or “short-hands”. Mannerisms was a term used for Italian painters that has very persistent stylization patterns, People like “el greco” that had this tendency for elongated figures and sharp facial structures. Most artists have mannerisms; Even when trying to copy someone else’s style and the more advanced an artist is, the more their mannerisms show. It’s like hand writing.
Short hand is a term you will see a lot in animation. They are like quick personal recipes to imply complex structure with ease. A certain way to draw a hand, or a certain way to convey the eyes in some expressions. The more advanced an artist is; You start to find their short-hands again and again because they have become part of their drawing process.
So the issue With AI is that, when looking at a bulk of work; You can’t find these things; Even when loras are heavily referencing other artists. Ai image models do this really weird thing where they average a bunch of mannerisms and short hands that are becoming signature to diffusion models themselves. Something about the way they seem to convey certain expressions again and again; A certain AI surprised and rage face, a certain "cute AI smile that always comes up in “adorable characters” It’s almost like the model picks up in a series of mannerisms itself and it is very hard to go around them. I’ve seen people that use LORAs or specialized training to circumvent this and in the end some pieces look like the bias of the original model and some others look like the bias of the LORA.
So basically look at the bulk of work from an artist; Even when they change mediums or style there is always this human uniformity to them; These certain limitations in their chosen aesthetics that are hard to pass by.
I don’t Really follow Revoy’s work because It’s a bit too cutesy for my personal taste, but I can identify one of his comics on the middle of a doom scroll just by his mannerisms. AI image generations tend to have this thing where they bleed to each other, It’s either hard to sort them out from the base midjourney/stable difussion style; Or they borrow so much from specialized training that you see the artist of origin. Then again; I’ve been an art fan for years. So i might be particularly sensitive to this.
In the end, trolls that want to legitimize AI will attempt to blur the lines between synthetic generation and human artists. They will attempt to steal the styles from the most successful artists and then accuse them of being in their bandwagon. It is a very scummy tactic. The people that rely on AI need either to be legitimized as “artists” or to bring down everyone into the mud with them; So i would treat people who accuse others of AI usage especially as suspicious; Check their post history; Look for their galleries, See how connected they are to the artist community. If they are a new rando that follows no one, has never commissioned or done work themselves and this person is doing the rounds raising controversy, You might have found a troll account!
We are at a point where many can’t anymore tell the difference between AI and a real thing. That’s not good at all. Of course there’s also trolls and other idiots who thinks that everything they can’t understand is made by AI.
What If the slurry of accusations are themselves ai generated?
Dude literally made a miniseries bashing the usage of AI, got called for being AI gen artist. There’s even comment here that have the same exact respond as the one featured by the article. It’s honestly a sad decades ahead for artist that can draw so well, and i blame the billionaires and tech bros for destroying the trust people used to have.
What would they say about Patrick Woodroffe (*1940 +2014)?
https://uk.pinterest.com/eyeshakers/patrick-woodroffe/
Or Salvador Dali (1904 -1989)?
Maybe they also think that Hironimous Bosch (1450 -1516) used AI
Terrible that people on surreal artwork always think that it is made by AI
None of those look AI generated tho?
Not more as the images from the artist from this thread.
The worst isn’t that users confused real art with AI, but if they think that AI images are real. In the first case they are devaluing the artist, in the second it can have devasting results for the whole population by manipulation and misinformations.
Not more as the images from the artist from this thread.
There’s a distinctive style associated with AI when it comes to comics. It’s mildly close to his style and the artists also tends to make basic perspective error you would find AI making.
People tend to be quick on the draw when calling out AI generated content but his comics do come across as looking like it in general. Not his fault or nothing, but no one is doing the same with the other artists you mentioned is all.
This is heartbraking.
Jfc, this whole situation is giving me a migraine.
Posting a timelapse of him creating the art is a great way to prove it’s human created. I think this kind of social proof is going to pay dividends for future artists.
