I want all the money I put in to be refunded in nonsequential bills, and give it to me in one of those fancy metal briefcases please.
You must log in or # to comment.
Alright I’m just gonna start blocking anyone that posts AI slop. I implore others to join me in letting these goobers post silently to the void.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Art isn’t a job that needs increased “productivity”.
Removed by mod
Yes there is demand for art, but art is produced by people.
AI is only able to do what it can by mimicking the art of others. By plagiarizing that work, it prevents artists from getting paid to create art and discourages people from creating and sharing art on the internet in the first place. You may not care about them, or value creativity, but image generation relies on creative people putting new artwork on the net.
What are your bots going to create when they have nothing to feed on but themselves?
That’s the fun upside to the internet becoming filled and killed with AI slop: AI companies are literally poisoning their own models. (Data poisoning that is)
Predictive models of any kind produce error, and when you train on predicted data you compound that error.
Unless AI scrapers can differentiate AI generated “art” from human generated art (which would mean that AI art never truly becomes indistinguishable-from or as-good-as human art, something techbros and idiots would be upset about), generative AI will eat its own tail in an oddly literal sense.
The more the web fills with slop, the more AI will train on it, and the worse and worse the models will get at generating good looking images, leading the images they produce (and the ones they inevitably train on) to decrease in quality, hastening the cycle of their own degradation.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
There isn’t, though. Every time AI gets posted the response is always like this.
People love being able to create stuff without making an effort, but NOBODY likes having soulless low-effort crap flooding their feeds unbidden.
Removed by mod
I work on machines all day grumpy pants. They’re literally my job.
I’m not against AI, I’m against AI art. What we see here isn’t a productivity increase because it isn’t productive. Stay mad though, they say it’s good for your health.
Removed by mod
We gotta increase the productivity of meme generation, obviously.
Also the productivity of eating, socializing, and fucking. Those items really make my life a drag, can we get chatgpt on that.
I’d like to remind you the luddites were the people who knew how to use the automatic looms. They were the primary people working with the machines, mostly, they didn’t lose their jobs.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
I feel like an old man I can’t fucking tell when things are AI generated anymore.
I just don’t care about it. So what if it’s generated by stable diffusion of not.
Same. I saw this on FB, thought it was funny, didn’t think much more than that. I had no idea 😭
I’ve even been fooled by a few AI videos by now…
Who is the artist that drew this?
Screams AI to me lol
deleted by creator
Don’t rely on that. What was that old management manipulation tactic? Put a duck in everything you present, so management can say “that’s fine, just lose the duck” so they feel like they’ve left their mark and won’t be as likely to recommend changes that would add to your workload.
If you depend on that, you’re going to fall for a lot of things that don’t have such obvious tells.There’s a lot going on here that indicates AI, not the least being that for something that’s stylized to be a pencil illustration, the linework and colors are way too consistent. Also note:
- The truncated eyes in panels 1 and 3
- The paper generating spontaneously in the second panel
- The inconsistency in the grass patches in panel 3
As I previously mentioned, there’s no reason to think there isn’t a jump in time between panel 1 and 2. She hears something on the TV, only to later realize while working that there’s no reason for her to continue if she’s already been written off as worthless. Both the inconsistencies in her eyes and in the grass could easily be compression artifacts (zoom in on her hair to see very blocky compression artifacts as the algorithm fails to capture detail). There’s also the fact that errors could easily just be human, as artists do make all those types of mistakes.
The biggest thing that makes me think this is human made is the cropping on the left side, like someone cropped out the artist’s signature. If this is AI, the person who made it put a lot of trouble into some goofy 4d chess mind games
I mean, it is very clearly AI. If you need another thing, the hair covers the ears at different levels in each panel. Real artists don’t do that, because why the fuck would they bother drawing the ears different three times in one comic, AI doesn’t know any better.
Not the other person but I honestly can’t decide if this is Ai and I think your hair idea is a bit lacking.
In each panel she is in a different pose (posture) so naturally her hair is in a different position and maybe looks at different levels around the ears.
You have a lot of confidence for someone who doesn’t know what they’re talking about. You haven’t brought up overall image tones or anything “clearly”
deleted by creator
That’s a good way to catch it.
I figured through the lack of an artist signature, but it’s not like that is required.Also the weird-ass “aura” around the character in the last panel. Afaik AIs don’t really do layers so when they draw things that are supposed to be on top of a background they tend to avoid drawing anything around it
I’ve seen a lot of handwritten text and this is certainly within the range of handwriting styles, including the (in)consistencies.
I’m not willing to judge either way from the look alone but AFAIK this was drawn (or generated) by Neurodivergentgeekgirl on Facebook. I don’t have a Facebook account so I can’t check what her creation history or attitude to AI is, which could give it away.
To me, the giveaway is the weird facial evolution. Why would she listen to it with an angry face and then get happy? An actual person would give the first frame a surprised expression
She might just not get the implications until the second panel
As an autistic person in an autistic family, no, we were fucking passed. It wasn’t a surprise it was a wtf does a god damn brain worm know about autism.
It’s not even sepia colored… It’s… evolving.
Weird how many here calls this Ai with no real proof.
The only current evidence I see that this might be Ai generated is blur lines around the character in the second and third panel, but the consistency of such a stylized drawing remaining the same is so strong it’s either really well done Ai that included photoshopping or human art with photoshopping.
A lot of you saying it’s AI clearly don’t work with it or have any understanding of it, because getting this level of consistency across 3 panels is very difficult. We’re talking about doing extra training involved around this specific character just to make sure you can get this type of consistency with 3 separate poses (my experience with it so far is in photo editing along with other digital editing tools).
I feel like recently I’ve noticed a lot of people witch hunting real artists who make a small mistake or have a unique art style (like that of the webcomic There Are No Demons), and the default of calling anything generated by AI, even something that was actually well done, “slop” shows less of an actual analysis of the piece but blind band wagoning
It’s absolutely AI. The inconsistent arm length, the distorted/melty flowers in the third panel, the bottom of the TV stand, some other kinda melty/bendy lines here and there. The only thing to discuss really is whether or not pure AI art that isn’t sloppy like this comic should be allowed or not because of the ethical implications of AI.
Inconsistent arm length is only proof that someone might have issues with reference sizing, not AI. Webcomic Pixie and Brutus had it so bad the artist made it into a hilarious joke and then stated they’d finally make a size reference chart to keep it consistent in the future. Freaking animated series Steven Universe, a professional production, constantly had issues with not just limb lengths but size consistency as well. Size consistency is the worst reasoning of them all if anything.
The flowers in the background could just be that the artist has issues with distance perspective / drawing. A lot of artists who don’t do backgrounds have that issue.
And like I already mentioned, the best evidence so far would be the blur lines surrounding the character, which would be evidence of AI in that they added the character into these backgrounds, but not only could that also be just a standard blur tool (because the artist isn’t good at backgrounds), but it would be weird that someone using Ai to make this would go through all the work of training a custom LORA or model on this character specifically, but wouldn’t reduce the size of blurring in the parameters when inpainting. It’s possible, sure, but usually someone who already went to the lengths of learning how to train a model or such to achieve such consistent results would also quickly look up how to set the inpainting parameters to not show such a massive blur line.
But the other thing to note that this might not be AI is the aspect ratio. Presumably this would have been done as separate panels on AI, and then you’d crop if needed and make a fake comic panels. If so, why would you crop the edges of the comic / leave them incomplete? Usually that’s specifically where an artist of this type of comic panel would sign their work too, if they chose too. Cropping out signatures is something commonly done by people reposting work done by real artists, and has been an issue for years as well.
Now, all this is too say that it’s not definite that this is made by a human. The point is that there’s no strong evidence that it’s AI. The clothes are consistent, the shoes and fingers are as well. That there’s 5 fingers is actually suspicious, but it’s definitely something an amateur artist would choose to do.
To me, the most likely case is this is a mix of AI and real drawn work / lots of manual editing work (for example, the mouth in panel 2 and 3 look the same, indicating it may have been copy and pasted by hand rather than generated). But my second guess it’s purely drawn work with a lot of manual editing. What I can say is this is very unlikely to be 100% AI.
No human would draw those flowers, that is clearly AI
inconsistent arm length
Because it is impossible for humans to get anatomy wrong, or just not care. Right panel is a compromise: Gesture wants negative space to the right (gal is running), panel width is limited, don’t want to cut off hand, so make arms different length it’s a comic FFS.
the distorted/melty flowers in the third panel
Because everything humans paint is hyperrealistic and infinite detail. Impressionist technique doesn’t exist.
the bottom of the TV stand
…what? Best guess I have is that you think that it’s geometrically wrong but it just doesn’t have a door, drawers, or such. Which btw would break the composition.
kinda melty/bendy lines here and there
Smudge tool don’t exist.
Can you not see the image I posted in the comment? Anyways, the flowers are not merely blurred or smudged. The way the petals are drawn is not how a human would draw them. Looks at the lines on the petals. Don’t think that I mistake imperfection for AI generation.
Can you not see the image I posted in the comment?
Yes and I can’t make heads or tails of what you want to say with it.
The way the petals are drawn is not how a human would draw them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgDYlmRwXF8
What I’m hearing from you is vague gesturing, “don’t think I’m confused about that kind of stuff” and “trust me, bro”.
“Not how humans would draw them” doesn’t cut it. Explain how it differs. Zooming in on those flowers “hah they don’t look like flowers” does not prove anything, of course they’re not perfect: They’re in the background. Too much detail would make them pop out, that’s why you draw the impression of detail, not actual detail. The artist in the video is a master at that.
this specific style has been proliferating the past few weeks. there’s some new model that’s really good at just two-tone comics. it’s immediately obvious when doing a side-by-side.
Reverse image searching this reveals this comic was first posted on facebook four months ago, and a mix of similar AI and human drawn comics, so yeah I would say that checks out.
This is better evidence, but still would be difficult to keep such consistency with the character. That would be quite the advancement itself.
If you pay attention to her shirt, you can see diagonal folding lines on the clothes because presumably one of her shoulder is higher than the other. The artist made it consistent across three panels and it’s clearly a human’s intention.
You son of a bitch, I’m in.
Is that Elons excuse?
TFW you file an extension ever year and do it the week of even though it doesn’t change the like 12 numbers and 6 strings to complete it
deleted by creator
