This proves my point enough. People can't tell how AI art looks at all. If it has errors, it has to be AI because humans always draw correct proportions and perfect hands (they don't). If it's too perfect, it should be AI because humans don't draw like they trace over 3D models or choose unorthodox palette combinations (they do). I have news for you: AI art is based on human drawings, that's how humans draw.
Competently made (I'm talking technique, not anatomy) AI pictures can be indistinguishable from human art. The vast majority of AI pictures here aren't competently made. We get hundreds of hand-drawn images with botched hands, offbeat shading and unusual palettes posted every day that no one bats an eye at, to claim it's impossible to tell human and machine errors apart is just wilful ignorance on your part.
AI is not "how humans draw" because humans use visualization instead of weighted probabilities and don't make their art by iteratively denoising a pixel canvas, and as such the creation process and its pain points are vastly different, even if both learn from the same sources.
Here's a good example: A human artist above the age of 8 months old, regardless of skill level, will not struggle to grasp the concept of object permanence. Whatever created this image clearly did. Look at the moon in the background. This person having been an artist since before AI only makes it sadder to see the dishonesty.
Here's a good example: A human artist above the age of 8 months old, regardless of skill level, will not struggle to grasp the concept of object permanence. Whatever created this image clearly did. Look at the moon in the background.
I'm looking at the moon, and it looks like a shiny circular thing. What am I looking for?
I'm looking at the moon, and it looks like a shiny circular thing. What am I looking for?
It's not circular, that's the thing - the lineart breaks continuity under the character. The visible parts of the lineart suggest a measured, symmetrical shape, but it stops working as soon as another element gets in the way because the AI only thinks in patterns and doesn't understand objects continue to exist even when they're not visible.
I say ignorance is believing AI is dishonest when all this time people pay for others drawing copyrighted characters or imitating styles from other artists without them gaining a single cent from the bootleg. Sketch doesn't include the moon, it was AI-generated. Big deal, "real artists" use photographs and renderers for backgrounds when they are lazy. Maybe we should witch hunt them too for being photograph assisted.
We already know the expertise here about how AI art looks. It reachs a point they analize things too much to the point they see mistakes a human too (or the real things) would have made. AI is a tool. It was obvious it was not allowed here because everyone used it like Word Art, just like low effort drawings were not allowed either. Let's see if, in the near future, you'll call dishonest to your old favorited artists when they use generative fill tools on Photoshop too.
Holy mother of false equivalencies, how many can you even fit in a single post. I called him dishonest because he is lying to his fanbase and clients and selling obvious AI-artefacted commissions (see also post #7267970) as hand-drawn. That's the textbook definition of the term without us needing to resort into any of the mental gymnastics you just did. Also you'd have to be extremely naive to take a crude, massively inconsistent screenshot of 25 empty layers as "proof" of anything when it comes from an account that routinely posts shit like this. Unless you're going to argue for that being hand-drawn too, in which case that's no longer naivety, that's just denial.
A single random user getting downvoted to hell and back then instantly debunked by everyone else in the comments, great example of the average level of expertise.
AI is a tool
Yes, and I am sure the community would be more than happy to accept it as such in a perfect world where every human on Earth used their tools responsibly, unfortunately we do not live in such a world and need to apply a bit more nuance than that at times.