this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2025
1137 points (98.1% liked)
Fuck AI
4024 readers
362 users here now
"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"
A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I get that it might be "obvious" in this case, but how do they actually prove it?
There are lots of artists that get called AI because theiir style is the kind that AI uses. So how do they make sure they dont kick one of those people out.
There are many tells for AI art.
My favourites are:
Look for a long thing that is briefly interrupted by something covering it. A good one is, say, the button line of a shirt that has a crossing shoulder belt or the like. Another is a long branch that goes behind another object like a person. Yet another is a walking stick that goes behind a cloak or sword or something. Almost invariably the line does not match on each side of the interrupting object. Often it doesn't even continue at all. So with the buttons, you'll see the line of buttons, the belt ... and then just fabric. Or the buttons have jumped to the left by half a torso. Or some other such artifact.
Talking of buttons, look for buttons that don't do anything. Like a line of buttons on what looks like a sweatshirt or the like: i.e. no gap that needs buttoning. Or buttons that look like they're buttoning the shirt into the jacket. Or buttons that parallel the main, legit button line temporarily for no reason. (And no, I don't mean double-breasted jackets!) Or buttons that change styles for no reason. Slopmongers have a very hard time making buttons consistent.
Text. 'Nuff said. Even the newer models still fuck this up, usually either by having gibberish that only resembles writing if you flash over it quickly with your eyes, or by having text with terrible spelling, weird artifacts that has the text growing into or out of other things, or text that sounds like it was robotically generated.
Appendages. It's amazing to me that after all this time and money was spent, you still can't get consistent numbers of fingers, thumbs, toes, or even primary limbs. We all know the finger thing, but how may times have you noticed the phantom extra hand or two?
Eyes. Eyes are usually well drawn, actually, but they tend to look everywhere and anywhere but where it might make sense.
All of these flaws (and many, many more) are a result of the slopmaker not having any kind of model of what it's making. Lines stop or shift for no reason because it doesn't know that the line on one side of an obstacle is the same as the line on the other. Eyes don't look at sensible things because it has no idea what the picture is of and thus no idea where eyes would naturally be directed. In general look for things that require a coherent mental model to do right and you'll spot the AI in no time flat.
All these can be touched up if the maker is actually trying to put any effort into it.
But if they're just using diffusion as a stencil or editor, and they disclose the process... That's fine, really. That's more akin to extensively using photoshop.
Not long before we see a lot of art that is created manually to look like AI slop, where they intentionally do that stuff.
That won't last long as it gets dumped on the heap of stuff people don't want to look at.
Just like speed running, artists will now have to video tape their process if done digitally. I think Photoshop documents as well as other formats can track version history.
Artists have been doing exactly that for decades. I used to run a larger art community around 2016-2018 and providing several in-progress sketches or a video was a minimum requirement for being featured on the homepage. It made sure that people didn't just literally download someone else's work and put their signature on it.
I fail to see the difficulty, if the style isn't obvious enough, the organisers can just ask them to draw/sketch something on the spot or check their previous work on social media (bonus points if they have VODs drawing while streaming).
I dibt think artist shoukd have to prove that though. Abd while im sure its pretty uncommon this would stop an artist sending someone else to a con to sell their works if they cant make it themselves.
Or would be fairly easy to spoof, maybe the guy selling AI can actually draw well enough to put a rough sketch down, or can pull someone elses vod as proof.
This point has nothing to do with identifying AI ~~sellers~~ scammers. Real artists already have to notify and confirm with the organisers if they'll be attending or if someone else will be (due to them having different passes and access), this changes nothing.
If the person can draw well enough for that, then I have this stupid faith that they would rather pursue that high of drawing by their own means than to rely on selling shit. If they play someone else's VOD... I find that hard to achieve, since most either show a webcam or an avatar of some sort, which can be identified and then check the socials which can lead to them saying if they would be attending or not. If they show a cropped video/image... well that just would make it worse for them.
Like... yeah, if the organisers are idiots or plain don't care about the event, then I can see these kind of things happening, otherwise it's such a huge stretch that I fail to see the problem.
They don't have to. But if they don't prove that they made it themselves, they're going to face a serious loss in reputation and sales in the face of a public that's getting tired of AI slop.
This is /c/fuck_ai, not /c/pretend_ai_is_only_partly_a_scam .
There is no baby in the bathwater. And the bathwater is sewage.
There's no baby. Slop belongs in the trash.