#how to spot ai

[erika-xero]

A small guide to commissioning artists: how to avoid getting scammed by people who use image generators

Because “Ai-art” is not art and everyone can use image generators for free.

Disclaimer! This post will include generated images which were originally uploaded on DeviantArt and Twitter by people who generated them. Some of these images are of erotic genre but censored out. I beg you, do not bully these people. This post wasn’t written to call anyone out, it was written to help human artists and their potential commissioners. While some of the “Ai-artists” out there may be real scammers, others are not, and I strongly believe that no one should be bullied, doxxed, stalked and no one deserve any threaths over some silly ai-generated pics. And - as always! - scroll down for the short summary.

Commissioning an artist in 2023 may be scary, especially if you are not experienced in working with artists and have a hard time to distinguish artworks from images generated by neural networks. But even now, with the tech evolving and with neural networks generating pics with multiple characters and fan art, there are still quite a few ways to avoid scammers.

The creator you are going to commission must have an established gallery

This doesn’t mean that you should not commission someone who is new to platform, someone who started drawing in 2022 or later or someone who didn’t upload their work online prior. Image generators actually forced some of the artists to remove their work from social networks. In addition, image generators can generate thousands of images within hours, which means that the scammers may have quite a lot of works uploaded. What I mean is that real artists grow. Their skills gets better over time – even if they are already established artists with huge experience. Their artistic approach constantly changes and evolve. It means that if there are hundreds of images in the artist’s gallery but their skill is always the same level and their artistic approach doesn’t change over time – this definitely might be a red flag. As an artist with a tendency to nuke my galleries on certain platforms (such as DeviantArt, VK and ArtStation), if I get asked to provide my commissioners with examples of my early artworks I will do it with no hesitation. 

You need to look through the artist’s gallery and analize their work

Searching for some decent examples on DeviantArt I stumbled upon a gallery which is four weeks old but already has 660+ deviations all of which look the same way in the matter of skill and artistic approach. While stylization may vary from image to image (some of the artworks look like typical anime-styled CG artworks from visual novels and others have semirealistic proportions), the coloring, the “brush” imitation, the textures on the backgrounds are absolutely the same on every image I analized.

There are a lot of images depictinioning conventionally attractive white or sometimes asian girls in this gallery, some of which seem familiar or resemble the characters from various media. Yes, image generators can now generate fan art. But what they can not generate is diversity. There are of course living artists who tend to draw only conventionally attractive white or asian people too, but now when the image generators gain popularity this lack of diversity automatically raise my suspicions. Drawing a crooked nose or dark skin is not hard and living artists who use references rarely fail at it. It’s image generators who fails this task constantly.

Here is an image titled as a commission. The person who uploaded it also have some content under the paywall and I do not see their images being tagged as Ai-generated too.

Remember the golder rule: spotting an Ai-generated image is the same as spotting the evil faerie in a dark folklore tale. Look them in the eyes. Count  their teeth. Look at their hands and count their fingers. Check if they have a shadow and if that shadow is of human form.The devil is in the details.

While this image may appear like a hand-painted artwork of the conventionally attractive girl at the first sight, however it has quite a few clues that may help you to realize that this artist is a scammer and his entire gallery is just a selection of most-decent looking images they managed to generate with neural network. This elven girl is insanely tall, and the shore behind her back, the stones, the grass and the trees are insanely small compared to her. The piece of jewellry is attached to her nips and it’s design makes no sense. What is the gold chain under her breast, which doesn’t seem to be attached to anything? Where does this piece of cloth hang from? Why does her head cast a triangular shadow on her arm?

Many details are easy to be spotted when an image is in high resolution. I do not recommend artists to post their works in high resolution online to avoid feeding the Ai-monster and also to avoid people using your works to produce pirated merch if they draw fan art. Yet in my opinion posting close-ups might become essential - because people who call themselves ai-artists are usually hiding the artifacts under filters and upload their image resized. So yes: avoid commissioning artists, who never post high resolution faces or overuse filters and blur. Because analizing the characters’ faces is now essential.

You may look at this picture and think: how is this possible for a neural network to create such a detailed image and not fail at it (if you also ignore the fact that the girl on the horse doesn’t have legs). Luckily, the person who uploaded it uploaded it in high resolution, so we can zoom in and... yeah.

The artifacts on these evil faeiries’ faces (especially eyes) and their hands speak for themselves.

Image generators have a tendency to either give characters extra fingers, phalanx or nails or hide the hands completely, if the person writing a prompt decide to to so. I do not know whether and how fast will the algorythm learn to generate normal human hands, but for now you should pay attention to these details to spot a generated image.

Like this randomly nakey fellow with two palms on a single wrist and with some extra fingers on their elbow...

...Or this Asuka Langley fan “art” I had to censor out, with her fingers twisted and crooked.

If you are up to commission an artwork and are in search of an artist who will actually do the job you absolutely must pay attention to small details on their works: the clothing, the jewellry, the tattoos, the anatomy.

While Ai-generated images may appear photorealistic at first sight, the neural network usually misses small details, creates artifacts and makes mistakes if there are too many similar objects or repetative patterns. For example, the infamous MidJourney Party Selfies depicting girls with roughly fifly teeth, extra collarbones and green watercolor spots instead of tattooes (and don’t forget to check the ginger lady’s hand). The hair dissolwing in fabric folds? Image generator. The clothing designs which makes no sence? Image generator. Jewellry dissolwing into character’s hair? Image generator. Moreover the image generators also make mistakes while generating interiors and architecture, since the algorythm is not aware of perspective and space and once again fails either at perspective and object size or with repetative objects and patterns. 

Like this image here: the bed, the window, the picture on the wall. The perspective on this image makes absolutely no sense: two walls and the bed all exist in different dimentions, while the character is once again of enormous height.

If you try to analize the background on this one, I swear, you can go insane. Look at the window and then look on the corner above it. 

There is also another red flag which makes it easy to spot a scammer: dozens of iterations of the same image, which usually happens with people who can’t choose the best image out of the bunch generated with the single prompt.

There are, of course, artists who do series of works, and sometimes these works may have similar ideas and themes, but they hardly ever look this similar to each other: they may differ in angles, poses, character designs and even the artistic approach (lineart, brushes, rendering and etc). The posting time is also important: drawing an actual artwork requires time and effort - for example, I need at least two weeks to finish an artwork with two or three characters and detailed background. So a bunch of ten similar images that are uploaded at the same time it is definitely a red flag. The ai-generated images have a lot of problems with anatomy, details, perspective and other basics human artists have to learn long before they become professionals. All while having glossy semi-realistic render which can only be achieved with years of practice. I’m not saying that there are no living human artists, who may make mistakes (everyone makes mistakes now and then, even the professionals who works in this industry for DECADES) or who choose not to give much thoughts to backgrounds while focusing on characters and rendering (it is okay too), but the combinations of various red flags listed above is something you definitely have to take in account while deciding whether or not you are going to commission an artwork from this creator.

Another example (this person openly admits that they use the images generators for funsies and I did not find him mentioning paywall anywhere). The image generator even imitated the watermark.

Red flags you may spot while working with the chosen artist

Image generators are tricky: they can generate multiple iterations of the same image, imitate WIPs and many more.

First of all, the artist should provide you with WIPs on every stage of work, not when the work is already done. We artists, do it for a reason. We need your feedback constantly, even if you grant us artistic freedom to chose the idea, the character pose, the medium and technique. There are always changes to be made, and we need to make them at proper stage: for example, change the pose or angle of your character while working on a sketch is thousand times easier than to do so while rendering the image. However, the minor changes are usually possible on the later stages (some of artists may require you to pay a small fee of a few bucks, others may not). While the living artists can easily change small details such as the character’s eye color (or other small design changes) not touching the rest of the artwork, image generators simply can not do so not rerendering the whole image. If an artist does not provide you with WIPs or only provide you with them when the work is done, if an artist refuses to make any changes  -  these may be interpreted as red flags. If an artist agrees to make any change, even the drastic ones, at a late stage, when the piece is almost finished - it is a red flag too. Ask for a small change every single time you need one. I know that there are artists out there who prefer to only provide their client with the finished image once it is done, but now when image generators gain populatiry his may be misinterpreted as if you are a scammer.

Here is a good example of image generators generating WIPs for an existing image: it might actually look scary both for many artists and many commissioners.

I know that some of the artists are panicking that the only way to prove that you really did the artwork is a timelapse recording but this method is not for everyone. Not everyone has a setup which allow them to record a timelapse for an every single commission (my laptop will simply explode if I try). Ask your artists which software/setup do they use, ask them whether or not they can provide you with a timelapse video, ask them which brushes do they use. I know that not everyone like sharing info on their pipeline but at this point it is essential to provide your clients with information on the information about your pipeline, tools and software. For example, if your artist works in Procreate (which is available in Ipad) they have all the timelapses recorded automatically. But please, mind that not everyone have such a privilege.

As a commissioner you can ask an artist for screenshots of their workspace with all the interface visible. If they refuse providing you with that or have a hard time answering the questions about the software they use it might be a red flag. I would also suggest you not to force your artist to draw everything on stream, especially if these streams are public, because there are already cases when people took screenshots of the work in progress, used the image to image generator to apply the shiny rendering to it and accused the original artists of plagiarism. It is a risk for artists and it is okay to refuse such a request. You can also ask an artist for .PSD file of the commission, but the artist have a right to refuse sharing it online for copyright-related reasons. The original .PSD file is a best proof of authorship in court for residents of many countries. Artists can still provide you with the resized .psd file with some of the layers merged or with the background/character png with transparent background without putting themselves at risk. Of course there are artists who draw on the single layer - but without a timelapse recorded this may indeed seem suspicious that the artist does not have a .psd file with layers at all. Always ask your artist to provide you with high resolution image when the commission is finished and fully paid for. There are artists who works on smaller canvases, but working on the canvas smaller than 1000px wide might be interpreted as a red flag, since it is easy to hide artifacts on a resized image. I myself prefer working on larger canvases, from 6000 pixels wide to 10000 pixels wide (300 DPI) because I had an experience with printing my images out to sell them at conventions. While I do not sell commissioned works as prints I still give my commissioners a right to print the finished images out for non-commercial purposes. Thus, I always make sure that it is possible to make a wall print of a decent size out of the finished product. Avoid working with platforms which do not support refunds. It must either be a payment system which support sending invoices or an established platform known and used among the art community (patreon, buymeacofee, boosty, Paypal and etc.). Most artists do not do refunds for finished works — which is absolutely a right thing to do - but sometimes an error might occure. I know people who accidentally paid for their commissions twice and the artists still had to do a refund. Yes, you must respect the artists Terms of Service, but ithas nothing to do with unrelyable platforms used to scam people.

To sum it up

Search for an artists with established galleries,which has a believable amount of works and the visible artistic progress/evolution;

Analyze the artist's gallery, carefully inspecting their work for anything that might be interpreted as a red flag. Excessive fingers, crooked hands, broken perspective, clothing designs and jewellry that makes no sense, extra collarbones, lack of diversity, excessive teeth, artifacts in the eye area, interior and architecture elements which makes no sense — all while the images being glossy, fully rendered as if the artist have decades of experience;

Avoid people with too many iterations of the same image in their profile;

Avoid people with too many images being uploaded at the same time (it is okay to upload a bunch of prevoulosly done artworks when you start running your account, but uploading hundrends of images every week for a long period of time is really suspicious);

Ask for constant WIPs. Give feedback at a proper time. See the reaction;

Ask for a small change when the image is almost finished: it is impossible for the image generator to do so without fully rerendering the image, at least for now;

Ask your artist which software and assets do they use;

Ask (if it is possible) for a timelapse recording — either if the commissioned work or at least of one of their previous works (if they had an opportunity to record it before);

Ask your artist for in program screenshots with visible interface and history (if possible);

Ask your artist to show you the layers of the artwork — at least character/background only layers (mind that the background might be less detailed/wonky at the places which usually are hide but the character's figure). Ask for a resized .psd with some of the layers merged or a gif animation of each layer being added on top — this is what I usually do;

Ask for high resolution file of the commissioned image once you paid for it and it is finished. If the artist doesn’t have it and claim to work on the canvas smaller than 1000 px wide and/or claim that they intentionally delete the original file somehow - this may raise suspicions. Of course a person can delete the file accidentally or have their hard drive crushed, but if you have already spotted some red flags while working with this artist it might be a sign of a person trying to scam you too;

Many of the stuff listed above might be interpreted as a red flag , but I strongly advice you not to judge anyone by one or two points from this post. For example, a person can draw on one layer and mess up the perspective on a drawing entirely! However, if you've played a bingo and suddenly won — you have most likely encountered a person who try to fool and scam you;

Avoid working with suspicious payment methods. If you never heard about  a platform before — google it and see whether or not other established artists use it. If not - it might be a scam;

And remember! People may use the images generators for various reasons: for fun, to create references of their characters to later commission reall artists artworks with said character (for example, the art breeder is a useful tool to create arealistic image of the character, even though I find it slightly limiting). Yes, image generators are unethical and trained on copyrighted data, but a person using it may not be aware of this problem. Not every single person who call themselves an “Ai-artist” has malicious plans to scam people or to gain wealth using their funny little tool. Sometimes they do it for fun and do not pretend that it is anything more that a game. Thank you for reading this far and good luck with your commissions!

Have a picture of an absolutely normal and realistic woman, generated by the neural network!

[jezzzebel]

My favorite witchcraft youtuber got caught using AI for his video scripts, and is still using it. So i am here to tell you ...

How to spot a video script written by ChatGPT and other AI text generators:

The number 1 sign on how to spot an AI generated video script is the use of phrases such as "key concept" "is the key to" "in conclusion" etc! If the script includes a lot of those, it's most likely AI. But if you are still not sure, here are more signs!

The next sign is that the end of the script goes like "_____ continues to *verb* to this day, and _____'s influence goes beyond *this* and *that*. " This is a huge one.

The last sign is the text being divided in three almost equal paragraphs, where one seems to be like an introduction to the topic, the second one is talking more about the topic, and the last one goes like:

"understanding this is the key to understanding *topic* , *topic* continues to intrigue people to this day despite everything! "

They all have the same pattern...

[amethystsoda]

saw these in the nature tag and my brain immediately flagged them as ai--however they're fairly convincing from a quick glance.

What tipped me off first was the hyperreality and blurry background.

What confirmed it to me--where's the 4th leg? and why does the shadow show another leg, but the image doesn't?? (even if it's covered by the cat, there should be signs of it)

Anyway, always analyze the images you're seeing and don't just take things at face value if they're unsourced

[mask131]

I was just watching this video (which is really funny), and it made me realize that... I am SO glad we had the "uncanny valley horror" develop itself on the Internet recently. I am so glad we go the Magnus Archives' Stranger and the Mandela Catalogue and all that, because THEY HAVE BEEN TRAINING US FOR THE AI INVASION! We have been trained to spot the abnormalities and secret little details of these artificial monsters trying to trick us.

[mariopokemonuniverse]

It’s now impossible to search for little-known Pokémon references on Google without AI bullshit results.

In particular, I’m searching for references that @4lex-4nder and I can use for our comics.

So I wrote this to help anyone who hasn’t kept up completely with Pokémon to spot AI-generated articles. In many cases, the details are things that only the most loyal fans would know.

1. Pawniard only had 1 substantial anime appearance and 3 brief cameos after that so far.

2. Clay is a GROUND TYPE Gym Leader who never used Pawniard. Its types are Dark and Steel, and the only Ground type attack move it can learn is Dig.

3. The character Damon never used Pawniard either.

4. A first stage Steel type Pokémon like Pawniard has no chance against a Fire type legendary one like Reshiram.

5. Pawniard has definitely not caught on in popularity, with few anime and manga appearances, and little merchandise.

6. Pawniard are highly social and generally found together, sometimes even by the hundreds. This has long been emphasized in the games, in addition to them being commanded by their evolutions Bisharp and Kingambit (hence “pawn” in the name).

[mythicalgardener]

I don't mean to be harsh but do people not know the difference between ai and photographs? I follow a lot of plant related tags, being a plant parent myself, and I constantly see ai generated home decor. The lighting has that air brush texture and high saturation, like soft shading styles I see in digital artist I follow except applied to a photo. Everything is overly smooth and plastic looking like cgi; none of the surfaces have texture. I have yet to see any ai image get plants right. It just goes through plant texture 1-6 and slaps it on there. They'll even switch up leaf shape on the same plant. I'm not saying I'm perfect at telling the difference, but some of the ones I'm seeing have at least hundreds, sometimes thousands of notes.

[dreadfulsanity]

There's this TT account that makes those videos on how to spot AI and she had a great way of putting it:

Count the Fingers

Read the Letters

Count how many Things

Ask yourself How

Ask yourself Why

A.I. photos are flooding social media and contributing to an Internet where we can't believe what we see. Spotting A.I. 📷s is an important media literacy skill.

None of us have time to research every image we see. We just need people to notice BEFORE THEY LIKE OR SHARE that an image might be fake. If unsure, check it or don't share.

I've started drawing some comics explaining the basic of AI spot-checking and media literacy in the age of disinformation. Follow along here or on my Twitter.

[madamegixxysticks]

How to spot AI generated stuff!

I thought I'd jump into the boat and give some advice on how to spot these phony pictures so you don't get scammed, ridiculed, and whatever!

#1: The lighting and uncanny smoothing

Have you noticed the oddly dream-like lighting that is common place with most AI art? Often with strong shadows or lighting?

That lighting could help point it out that it's a phony. And if the image seems too smooth and flawless to be real, it probably is indeed AI. Look at any patterns and textures, which AI is known to struggle with.

#2: Strange anatomy

AI appears to have the habit of BOTCHING hands and anatomy, so one thing you should look at first if possible is the hands and eyes, if they seem to have a bizarre extra finger, or they seem to melt into a blob or into the eyes... DEAD GIVEAWAY.

Even if the main subject seems perfect, always inspect the background, I believe AI usually doesn't care if anybody would look at the background.

This doesn't just apply to things that are supposed to be alive like people, this also goes for structures and furniture too! Sometimes AI will put things where it would make zero sense, or put something IN said things that make zero sense. Like say, you find a cool looking photo of a chick going to the runway, if you take a look at the cameramen and notice most if not all of their cameras arn't even looking the right way or look weird.... FAKE!

#3: TEXT. Right on the bat, AI seems to be COMPLETELY ILLITERATE.

If there's any text or signage in the image that literally does not make any sense, and seems more like an alien language not from ANYWHERE on Earth....

Yup, it's an AI image! AI "words" have the thankfully horrendous habit of fusing together, and/or looking more like scribbles than actual letters or words.

#4: The image titles I seen some folks on the internet not even bothering to change the title or name of their AI image. So if it looks like something along the lines of "this-that-12-11-2024" or a string of gibberish.... AI!

These are just the main flaws I can spot.

[turtleblogatlast]

Unironically think that each of the bros (+April) don’t actually get how impressive their feats really are so they just do what they do and on the off chance someone comments on those feats they all react like:

[silverflyte]

Architecture, ornate decorations and branching of trees too, AI can’t understand perspective or organic fractal patterning.

Recognizing AI Generated Images, Danmei Edition

Heyo, @unforth here! I run some danmei art blogs (@mdzsartreblogs, @tgcfartreblogs, @svsssartreblogs, @zhenhunartreblogs, @erhaartreblogs, @dmbjartreblogs, @tykartreblogs, and @cnovelartreblogs) which means I see a LOT of danmei art, and I go through the main fandom tags more-or-less every day.

Today, for the first time, I spotted someone posting AI-generated images (I refuse to call them AI "art" - and to be clear, that's correct of me, because at least in the US it literally LEGALLY isn't art) without any label indicating they were AI generated. I am not necessarily against the existence of AI-generated images (though really...considering all the legal issues and the risks of misuse, I'm basically against them); I think they potentially have uses in certain contexts (such as for making references) and I also think that regardless of our opinions, we're stuck with them, but they're also clearly not art and I don't reblog them to the art side blogs.

The images I spotted today had multiple "tells," but they were still accumulating notes, and I thought it might be a good moment to step back and point out some of the more obvious tells because my sense is that a LOT of people are against AI-generated images being treated as art, and that these people wouldn't want to support an AI-generator user who tried to foist off their work as actual artwork, but that people don't actually necessarily know how to IDENTIFY those works and therefore can inadvertently reblog works that they'd never support if they were correctly identified. (Similar to how the person who reposts and says "credit to the artist" is an asshole but they're not the same as someone who reposts without any credit at all and goes out of their way to make it look like they ARE the artist when they're not).

Toward that end, I've downloaded all the images I spotted on this person's account and I'm going to use them to highlight the things that led me to think they were AI art - they posted a total of 5 images to a few major danmei tags the last couple days, and several other images not to specific fandoms (I examined 8 images total). The first couple I was suspicious, but it wasn't til this morning that I spotted one so obvious that it couldn't be anything BUT AI art. I am NOT going to name the person who did this. The purpose of this post is purely educational. I have no interest whatsoever in bullying one rando. Please don't try to identify them; who they are is genuinely irrelevant, what matters is learning how to recognize AI art in general and not spreading it around, just like the goal of education about reposting is to help make sure that people who repost don't get notes on their theft, to help people recognize the signs so that the incentive to be dishonest about this stuff is removed.

But first: Why is treating AI-generated images as art bad?

I'm no expert and this won't be exhaustive, but I do think it's important to first discuss why this matters.

On the surface, it's PERHAPS harmless for someone to post AI-generated images provided that the image is clearly labeled as AI-generated. I say "perhaps" because in the end, as far as I'm aware, there isn't a single AI-generation engine that's built on legally-sourced artwork. Every AI (again, to the best of my knowledge) has been trained using copyrighted images usually without the permission of the artists. Indeed, this is the source of multiple current lawsuits. (and another)

But putting that aside (as if it can be put aside that AI image generators are literally unethically built), it's still problematic to support the images being treated as art. Artists spend thousands of hours learning their craft, honing it, sharing their creations, building their audiences. This is what they sell when they offer commissions, prints, etc. This can never be replicated by a computer, and to treat an AI-generated image as in any way equivalent is honestly rude, inappropriate, disgusting imo. This isn't "harmless"; supporting AI image creation engines is damaging to real people and their actual livelihoods. Like, the images might be beautiful, but they're not art. I'm honestly dreading someone managing to convince fandom that their AI-generated works are actual art, and then cashing in on commissions, prints, etc., because people can't be fussed to learn the difference. We really can't let this happen, guys. Fanartists are one of the most vibrant, important, prominent groups in all our fandoms, and we have to support them and do our part to protect them.

As if those two points aren't enough, there's already growing evidence that AI-generated works are being used to further propagandists. There are false images circulating of violence at protests, deep-fakes of various kinds that are helping the worst elements of society to push their horrid agendas. As long as that's a facet of AI-generated works, they'll always be dangerous.

I could go on, but really this isn't the main point of my post and I don't want to get bogged down. Other people have said more eloquently than I why AI-generated images are bad. Read those. (I tried to find a good one to link but sadly failed; if anyone knows a good post, feel free to send it and I'll add the link to the post).

Basically: I think a legally trained AI-image generator that had built-in clear watermarks could be a fun toy for people who want reference images or just to play with making pseudo-art. But...that's not what we have, and what we do have is built on theft and supports dystopia so, uh. Yeah fuck AI-generated images.

How to recognize AI-Generated Images Made in an Eastern Danmei Art Style

NOTE: I LEARNED ALL THE BASIC ON SPOTTING AI-GENERATED IMAGES FROM THIS POST. I'll own I still kinda had the wool over my eyes until I read that post - I knew AI stuff was out there but I hadn't really looked closely enough to have my eyes open for specific signs. Reading that entire post taught me a lot, and what I learned is the foundation of this post.

This post shouldn't be treated as a universal guide. I'm specifically looking at the tells on the kind of art that people in danmei fandoms often see coming from Weibo and other Chinese, Japanese, and Korean platforms, works made by real artists. For example, the work of Foxking (狐狸大王a), kokirapsd, and Changyang (who is an official artist for MDZS, TGCF, and other danmei works). This work shares a smooth use of color, an aim toward a certain flavor of realism, an ethereal quality to the lighting, and many other features. (Disclaimer: I am not an artist. Putting things in arty terms is really not my forte. Sorry.)

So, that's what these AI-generated images are emulating. And on the surface, they look good! Like...

...that's uncontestably a pretty picture (the white box is covering the "artist's" watermark.) And on a glance, it doesn't necessarily scream "AI generated"! But the devil is in the details, and the details are what this post is about. And that picture? Is definitely AI generated.

This post is based on 8 works I grabbed from a single person's account, all posted as their own work and watermarked as such. Some of the things that are giveaways only really show when looking at multiple pieces. I'm gonna start with those, and then I'll highlight some of the specifics I spotted that caused me to go from "suspicious" to "oh yeah no these are definitely not art."

Sign 1: all the images are the exact same size. I mean, to the pixel: 512 x 682 pixels (or 682 x 512, depending on landscape or portrait orientation). This makes zero sense. Why would an artist trim all their pieces to that size? It's not the ideal Tumblr display size (that's 500 x 750 pixels). If you check any actual artist's page and look at the full-size of several of their images, they'll all be different sizes as they trimmed, refined, and otherwise targeted around their original canvas size to get the results they wanted.

Sign 2: pixelated. At the shrunken size displayed on, say, a mobile Tumblr feed, the image looks fine, but even just opening the full size upload, the whole thing is pixelated. Now, this is probably the least useful sign; a lot of artists reduce the resolution/dpi/etc. on their uploaded works so that people don't steal them. But, taken in conjunction with everything else, it's definitely a sign.

Those are the two most obvious overall things - the things I didn't notice until I looked at all the uploads. The specifics are really what tells, though. Which leads to...

Sign 3: the overall work appears to have a very high degree of polish, as if it were made by an artist who really really knows what they're doing, but on inspection - sometimes even on really, REALLY cursory inspect - the details make zero sense and reflect the kinds of mistakes that a real artist would never make.

So, here's the image that I saw that "gave it away" to me, and caused me to re-examine the images that had first struck me as off but that I hadn't been able to immediately put my finger on the problem. I've circled some of the spots that are flagrant.

Do you see yet? Yes? Awesome, you're getting it. No? Okay, let's go point by point, with close ups.

Sign 4: HANDS. Hands are currently AI's biggest weakness, though they've been getting better quickly and honestly that's terrifying. But whatever AI generated this picture clearly doesn't get hands yet, because that hand is truly an eldritch horror. Look at this thing:

It has two palms. It has seven fingers. It's basically two hands overlaid over each other, except one of those hands only has four fingers and the other has three. Seeing this hand was how I went from "umm...maybe they're fake? Maybe they're not???" to "oh god why is ANYONE reblogging this when it's this obvious?" WATCH THE HANDS. (Go back up to that first one posted and look at the hand, you'll see. Or just look right below at this crop.) Here's some other hands:

Sign 5: Hair and shadows. Once I started inspecting these images, the shadows of the hair on the face was one of the things that was most consistently fucked up across all the uploaded pictures. Take a look:

There's shadows of tendrils on the forehead, but there's no corresponding hair that could possibly have made those shadows. Likewise there's a whole bunch of shadows on the cheeks. Where are those coming from? There's no possible source in the rest of the image. Here's some other hair with unrelated wonky shadows:

Sign 6: Decorative motifs that are really just meaningless squiggles. Like, artists, especially those who make fanart, put actual thought into what the small motifs are on their works. Like, in TGCF, an artist will often use a butterfly motif or a flower petal motif to reflect things about the characters. An AI, though, can only approximate a pattern and it can't imbue those with meanings. So you end up with this:

What is that? It's nothing, that's what. It's a bunch of squiggles. Here's some other meaningless squiggle motifs (and a more zoomed-in version of the one just above):

Sign 7: closely related to meaningless squiggle motifs is motifs that DO look like something, but aren't followed through in any way that makes sense. For example, an outer garment where the motifs on the left and the right shoulder/chest are completely different, or a piece of cloth that's supposed to be all one piece but that that has different patterns on different sections of it. Both of these happen in the example piece, see?

The first images on the top left is the left and right shoulder side by side. The right side has a scalloped edge; the left doesn't. Likewise, in the right top picture, you can see the two under-robe lapels; one has a gold decoration and the other doesn't. And then the third/bottom image shows three sections of the veil. One (on the left) has that kind of blue arcy decoration, which doesn't follow the folds of the cloth very well and looks weird and appears at one point to be OVER the hair instead of behind it. The second, on top of the bottom images, shows a similar motif, except now it's gold, and it looks more like a hair decoration than like part of the veil. The third is also part of the same veil but it has no decorations at all. Nothing about this makes any sense whatsoever. Why would any artist intentionally do it that way? Or, more specifically, why would any artist who has this apparent level of technical skill ever make a mistake like this?

They wouldn't.

Some more nonsensical patterns, bad mirrors, etc. (I often put left/right shoulders side by side so that it'd be clearer, sorry if it's weird):

Sign 8: bizarre architecture, weird furniture, etc. Most of the images I'm examining for this post have only partial backgrounds, so it's hard to really focus on this, but it's something that the post I linked (this one) talks about a lot. So, like, an artist will put actual thought into how their construction works, but an AI won't because an AI can't. There's no background in my main example image, but take a look at this from another of my images:

On a glance it's beautiful. On a few seconds actually staring it's just fucking bizarre. The part of the ceiling on the right appears to be domed maybe? But then there's a hard angle, then another. The windows on the right have lots of panes, but then the one on the middle-left is just a single panel, and the ones on the far left have a complete different pane model. Meanwhile, also on the left side at the middle, there's that dark gray...something...with an arch that mimics the background arches except it goes no where, connects to nothing, and has no apparent relationship to anything else going on architecturally. And, while the ceiling curves, the back wall is straight AND shows more arches in the background even though the ceiling looks to end. And yes, some of this is possible architecture, but taken as a whole, it's just gibberish. Why would anyone who paints THAT WELL paint a building to look like THAT? They wouldn't. It's nonsense. It's the art equivalent of word salad. When we look at a sentence and it's like "dog makes a rhythmical salad to betray on the frame time plot" it almost resembles something that might mean something but it's clearly nonsense. This background is that sentence, as art.

Sign 9: all kinds of little things that make zero sense. In the example image, I circled where a section of the hair goes BELOW the inner robe. That's not impossible but it just makes zero sense. As with many of these, it's the kind of thing that taken alone, I'd probably just think "well, that was A Choice," but combined with all the other weird things it stands out as another sign that something here is really, really off. Here's a collection of similar "wtf?" moments I spotted across the images I looked at (I'm worried I'm gonna hit the Tumblr image cap, hence throwing these all in one, lol.)

You have to remember that an actual artist will do things for a reason. And we, as viewers, are so used to viewing art with that in mind that we often fill in reasons even when there aren't. Like, in the image just about this, I said, "what the heck are these flowers growing on?" And honestly, I COULD come up with explanations. But that doesn't mean it actually makes sense, and there's no REASON for it whatsoever. The theoretical same flowers are, in a different shot, growing unsupported! So...what gives??? The answer is nothing gives. Because these pieces are nothing. The AI has no reason, it's just tossing in random aesthetic pieces together in a mishmash, and the person who generated them is just re-generating and refining until they get something that looks "close enough" to what they wanted. It never was supposed to make sense, so of course it doesn't.

In conclusion...

After years of effort, artists have gotten across to most of fandom that reposts are bad, and helped us learn strategies for helping us recognize reposts, and given us an idea of what to do when we find one.

Fandom is just at the beginning of this process as it applies to AI-generated images. There's a LOT of education that has to be done - about why AI-generated images are bad (the unethical training using copyrighted images without permission is, imo, critical to understanding this), and about how to spot them, and then finally about what to do when you DO find them.

With reposts, we know "tell original artist, DCMA takedowns, etc." That's not the same with these AI-images. There's no original owner. There's no owner at all - in the US, at least, they literally cannot be copyrighted. Which is why I'm not even worrying about "credit" on this post - there's nothing stolen, cause there's nothing made. So what should you do?

Nothing. The answer is, just as the creator has essentially done nothing, you should also do nothing. Don't engage. Don't reblog. Don't commission the creator or buy their art prints. If they do it persistently and it bothers you, block them. If you see one you really like, and decide to reblog it, fine, go for it, but mark it clearly - put in the ACTUAL COMMENTS (not just in the tags!) that it's AI art, and that you thought it was pretty anyway. But honestly, it'd be better to not engage, especially since as this grows it's inevitable that some actual artists are going to start getting accused of posting AI-generated images by over-zealous people. Everyone who gets a shadow wrong isn't posting AI-generated images. A lot of these details are insanely difficult to get correct, and lots of even very skilled, accomplished artists, if you go over their work with a magnifying glass you're going to find at least some of these things, some weirdnesses that make no sense, some shadows that are off, some fingers that are just ugh (really, getting hands wrong is so relatable. hands are the fucking worst). It's not about "this is bad art/not art because the hand is wrong," it's specifically about the ways that it's wrong, the way a computer randomly throws pieces together versus how actual people make actual mistakes. It's all of the little signs taken as a whole to say "no one who could produce a piece that, on the surface, looks this nice, could possibly make THIS MANY small 'mistakes.'"

The absolute best thing you can do if you see AI-generated images being treated as real art is just nothing. Support actual artists you love, and don't spread the fakes.

Thanks for your time, everyone. Good luck avoiding AI-generated pieces in the future, please signal boost this, and feel free to get in touch if you think I can help you with anything related to this.

[galedekkarios]

"how could anyone ship bloodweave they make no sense at all" did you think about their stories, their motives, their ailments, their shared hobbies, the subtle progression of their relationship throughout the acts, and how very similar they can be despite being different. i know that you didn't but if you had then perhaps you would understand why some people might ship them, especially since a) you can successfully romance them in an origin run thus making it possible, b) astarion already tries flirting with gale unprompted in act 1, and c) you can romance astarion with a good-aligned pc and romance gale with an evil-aligned pc. so, like. what's not clicking

[unnamed-proxy]

Test Seb to see how I draw him before doodle dumping :}

Stupid thang

[duchesscelestia]

this week's video discussing how to spot AI art (and why you shouldn't accuse artists of using it without proof) is now live!!

[tombware]

and in regards to spotting AI art, its unfortunately usually more common in certain artstyles (smooth semirrealistic rendered anime drawings for example, or the style i just reblogged) so once you have an eye for that it becomes a bit easier to not just question every drawing, but look for fuzziness and inconsistencies (unclear shapes) when you zoom on details, thats usually the easiest way to tell.

heres an example from last picture.

[algrenion]

lyrics to my latest most life dominating obsession:

little pee-wee polka dotted pig 🐖 🐷 polka dotted! (polka spotted ☝🏽) tiny little pig 🐷 it's smaller than a fig-let! 🗣️🔥 pee-wee polka dotted pig 🐖 🐷 he'll hold your toothpicks (❗️) he likes to hold your toothpicks put him on the counter ☝🏽🔥 the spotted tiny dotted, sweet little toothpick pig! 🐖🗣️🔥🔥🔥

[cowardstiel]

is there anybody compiling a list of accounts passing off AI generated images as original photos/art?

it feels like my ability to spot AI images is struggling to keep up with the advancements in the technology :(