Real Art vs AI Art - Can Pro Artists Spot the Difference?

[@milanartstudios]

Thanks all for your comments letting us know we made a mistake! There was a mix-up and we want to clarify that the waterfall painting is actually a real painting, "Liquid Glacier" by the talented Gwenn Seemel.

[@aartadventure]

I think failing your own test reveals how quickly AI art has progressed. Many people insist they can tell the difference, but they are fooling themselves. In a lot of cases, the AI art is just too good to tell from a human made piece.

[@marcsfat]

@@aartadventure While it did happen, the reason was because that art was in a video about ai (so it had an ai tag on google), not because it looked like ai. If anything, it shows the opposite because every single person in the video was confident that it was real (as well as many commenters). Though I do think AI generated images will progress to a point that it IS difficult to tell.

[@veronica_._._._]

Bad Al art compared to talentless human artist's choices, its all bad but Al doesn't understand impact on spectator and so, has no theory of mind. the 3 poster? artist's art was also meh! so commercial but not aesthetic judgement. Judgement? not even common sense judgement lol a street lamp - on the rocky seashore, and behind, lava flow ..

[@businesszeus6864]

@@milanartstudios that took you long enough…

[@cloudsofsunset7323]

that makes sense

[@ChristianSulger]

I was 8 for 8. When you've looked at ai generated images for a while, you'll start noticing certain characteristics. But the technology is progressing so fast that it will be probably indistinguishable in no time. What sets apart a real life artist is the unique point of view. Ai can only recycle and mash up, not truly create.

[@rockymoody-jn2yf]

@@ChristianSulger until it can

[@Aurora_Animates]

@@rockymoody-jn2yf art is about the soul , the computer does not have a soul , that’s what “art” is , id call AI “art “ Ai images

[@717379]

​@@ChristianSulger "Recycling and mashing up" is the way all artists create. 🤷

[@houndgirl7365]

@@717379 except no yes artists bring in refs, but to say it's just copy and paste is also wrong. An artist can get Inspiration, but the finished result could look nothing like what the inspiration was taken from; its a different view and has that added perspective that no one can recreate. People can try, but it's impossible to copy a person because they aren't that person. A person's view of the world cannot be replicated, and its gross people are trying to steal styles by scraping, which is art theft.

[@rockymoody-jn2yf]

@@Aurora_Animates 👍❤️

[@businesszeus6864]

4:30 yall messed up, this is a real painting. it was in a video about AI, next to AI images, but it’s 100% a real painting

[@SoggycereaI]

Damn see I knew this had to be real!!!!

[@chattyhyena3607]

I knew the placement of the paint and shapes were too intentional to be AI, where's the video?

[@ariannasv22]

I was gonna say the markings looked very much human made

[@doumkatekz]

Got a link? Well in that case I got 100%. That's the only one I said real on that they said AI.

[@harlomints7727]

yeah the only thing that felt ai to me was the the top two trees somehow made the terrain behind them split in half ?? but the rest felt so human

[@michiwa99]

The painting that "fooled" everyone is actually a real painting, "Liquid Glacier (Multnomah Falls, Oregon)" by Gwenn Seemel. Seems to have been mixed up.

[@fluffysheepfallingasleep609]

Yay! That means i got 8/8!

[@RichardTran]

Oh, thank you. I was shook.

[@loftwyng131]

I’m honestly pretty disappointed they made a mistake like this :( its pretty disrespectful to the actual artist! Especially since they haven’t acknowledged their mistake despite so many comments mentioning it :(

[@Blu3ssy]

@@michiwa99 thank you!! I recognized the location and style that a lot of artists have in the gorge area, so was very confused when they said AI

[@unclvinny]

it's strange that they cropped it, too. I guessed AI, but it was I think the only "AI" item I was impressed by.

[@sres4]

I got them all right, the thing with AI is that once you look at the finer details you start to see the mistakes, things melting into each other, things that logically wouldn’t make sense, struggling with reflections on water, and ai having no idea what object permanence is. It makes it glaringly obvious to spot, at least for me. edit: Correction, one of them was marked as ai when it wasnt so i got one wrong

[@rugdealer1729]

@@sres4 the only reason I got the dotty waterfall one right is I noticed the tress overlapped with the top of the waterfall, I thought it was real upon first glance

[@DreamtaleEnjoyer]

I'm just wondering why artist "eh" put green in the sky T^T it looks so out of place...

[@marcsfat]

@@rugdealer1729 I looked it up, the waterfall is in fact the original piece: Liquid Glacier by Gwenn Seemel, not AI.

[@judilynn9569]

Yes! All of that. The non-artist doesn’t notice these things and they want to fight me when I tell them it’s AI. lol

[@Littlevampiregirl100]

in some parts you can also see static noise, something ai is accidentally trained to replicate you can see it especially at 1:39. it looks like highlights, but the placement makes no sense. its static noise around the tree branches, and also floating in the sky, near the cloud opening. the trees also look strangely low quality. cant imagine any artist would try to replicate a low quality feel in a landscape painting. i also realize some of the branch lengths make no sense lol. look at the tree in the middle, how some of its top branches are somehow as long as its lower branches, yet still thin as a newly growing branch. the ai tries to follow natural rules but then randomly break them. two of the higher up branches started out as individuals and then grew together into one single branch. the details just get stranger and stranger

[@HankHillspimphand]

the issue with ai.....is that alot of people dont know enough or care enough. but soon as you learn about it you can spot the tricks really fast. its just so odd, like uncanny valley. i would say 90% of AI doesn't fool me. then the really good ones usually need touching up or spending hours reprompting or bruteforcing enough until you get what you want. the past year hasnt improved that much like in 2023 so im hoping we are hitting the limits. im just sick of "artists" faking using ai

[@jenv.7995]

“Uncanny valley” is exactly what it is. The AI images always contained something that you could maybe recognize as an abstraction, but most of the time is just a blob of senseless color. It’s things that don’t add up bye real life standards. Like those images that were around a few years ago of “pictures where you can’t recognize any object in them”. Same stuff in here

[@DreamtaleEnjoyer]

Yeah, it's important to realize that these videos include the strangest art and the most realistic ai mashups. When I spot ai mashups in the wild, it takes maybe two glances to realize a person wouldn't make those choices. Especially in the art styles I tend to see more-the simple ones, with characters and flat colors and clear lines.

[@loftikuss]

as artist i absolutely disagree. first of all artists make mistakes and sometimes theyir style matches the "ai mistakes" category so they get accused of having generated their own art nowadays which just proves that you can NOT see what is ai and what not. I am sick of people reposting other peoples artworks without having their permission claiming it as theirs or not clarifying who is the person and gather clout. that is 5000 million times worse than ai. And artists who use ai to improve their art like yuumei? they have all rights to do. there is even ai stuff imbued in some modern art programs and no one complains lmao. every so called artist or person hating on ai but not hating on reposting without credits AND artists (MOST art academy/students/traditional painter do) who copy from references that are often other peoples works (like photos so it is clearly art theft) are just hypocrites. nothing more.

[@rematerialize9]

@@loftikuss 100 %

[@noonlolz_x]

@@loftikuss Imho, I disagree with you. Almost every artist I've seen who hates ai (including me), their reasoning is always because A. People who use ai are trying to replace real artists/voice actors/animators/singers/etc. B. Companies and governments aren't doing much to protect us artists, rather a lot of them are promoting and using ai themselves. C. This is the biggest reason, ai steals artists work. Whether it be their artwork, their animation, their own voice, etc. And about the "people always complain about ai stealing art and not real people stealing art and claiming it as their own thing", idk what side of the internet your from but again, ALMOST EVERY SINGLE ARTIST I have seen who hates ai (including myself), ALSO hates it when people steal or trace other people's artwork and claim it as their own self-made work. So I really don't get where you're coming from when saying that "the artists who hate ai never complain when someone steals others work and claim it as their own" because I've seen hundreds of artists alike hating it just as much as they hate on ai. Another thing that you said that I heavily disagree on is that ai is okay to use for learning. It is not and I'll tell you why. Ai first and for most steals other people's work so I don't think I need to explain much abt that. (which is also why I don't think it's a good idea even doing the "fixing ai art" videos because you're just promoting ai more but let's not get into that rabbit hole) The other thing is that at this point of time, ai makes a lot of mistakes in its "art". Like for example, giving an anime girl who is sitting in a shopping cart 6 fingers, or having the anime girl's hair mix with her own body, or having her foot go through the shopping cart. Ykwim? So because of these mistakes, by learning from ai you might accidentally make those mistakes without realizing, yk? If you really want to learn something it's better to learn from real human references and art rather than ai. If you disagree with anything I've said so far, please, continue this discussion as civilly as possible :)

[@KeithSwanger]

Round 5 is "Liquid Glacier" by Gwenn Seemel, a real painting.

[@hololohmmmsm8517]

I KNEW IT !! It is such a beautiful painting with such smart design choices that I don't think Ai can come up on it s own

[@andreaswehrmann365]

Apparently that's the AI imitation of the real painting.

[@xiola]

Yeah, the one here appears to be a crop but otherwise identical. I guess I only got one wrong and that was the one I was waffling on the most

[@marcsfat]

@@andreaswehrmann365 It's not, it is the real painting. But it was in a video she made about AI, where it was next to the fakes. I had to look it up too, because it was the only one I "missed" and I was so sure that it was real. Turns out I was correct

[@andreaswehrmann365]

@@marcsfat okay, I see

[@tennoio1392]

I like how "ai" makes people question the nature of art. A painting is not just a pretty picture, it's choices someone made on the canvas to present for others his values in life. Ai doesn't have values, it can only mix what is already done.

[@subject8332]

Gatekeepers should always choose their gates carefully, in this case not to keep commission and industry artists out.

[@tennoio1392]

Best artist worked on commissions, there's no contradiction. The concept of gatekeeping is irrelevant to the topic~

[@subject8332]

@@tennoio1392 Please explain how precisely following the instructions of your client or art director in an iterative feedback loop for a product potentially worked on by thousands of people "presents one's values" in life. It much more represents the values used for the main character's costume in the previous episode. I don't think you understand your own argument. Also, gatekeepers never admit to their mission.

[@tennoio1392]

If in the end you have a work of art (painting, illustration) - someone made the choices that present values. In your example it's just a collaboration, a compramise. Where the one who paints - a hand and the one who tells what to do - a head. But even there, art director can't controll every stroke, so artist makes a lot of choices of his own. The gates you're talking about is reality. I distinguish two separate things where you see only one, apparently.

[@subject8332]

@@tennoio1392 Ah, I see, so room painters are artist, right?

[@anniecourtney3905]

7 out of 8. Im an Art teacher. Students will try to fool us, but most won't!

[@sunla]

@@anniecourtney3905 You crack down in students that use AI, right? Thank you for this. I've heard of some art teachers not caring, and upsetting students that actually put in the work because accepting it undermines the effort and skills of the people who try, and it also undermines the teacher's teaching / the entire point of the class. So yeah, the teachers that set the record straight are awesome people that restore my faith in humanity a little 💖

[@polarboy5862]

Well the thing with being fooled is you don't know when you are.

[@netoeythedestroyer8468]

@@sunla students using ai are just shooting themselves in the foot. its not like the piece of paper you get at the end is worth anything in this industry, its your skills. skills they're refusing to improve

[@rematerialize9]

Art teachers are failed artists.

[@LaeyBaam]

4:30 is a real painting. Maybe that was your only "mistake", because it was my only "mistake" too.

[@marissathornberry3323]

The Eiffel Tower had a bite taken out of it! 😂

[@VioletFeatherWind]

@@marissathornberry3323 That's what I was almost thinking! 😅

[@joannaplichta9677]

I think it was meant to be postapocalyptic. :D

[@Engelhafen]

So true to life lol

[@Briseis__]

It’s something that could have been done on purpose... But what ticks the most about the tower is how straight it was. Didn’t seem natural at all

[@thecryptofishist9565]

And it was on top of. a hill. In the middle of a forest.

[@JellyWaltzov]

I would like to know who were the (human) artists featured. If you're using their work please credit.

[@loftwyng131]

This!!!

[@businesszeus6864]

also the painting at 4:30 is a real painting… they cant even do their research right 😂

[@JellyWaltzov]

@@businesszeus6864 source please

[@II-jz1zo]

Round 1: I found this painting uploaded to freepik by @Harryarts Round 3: “Echoes of Summer” by Komal Wadhwa Round 5: This is a real painting called “Liquid Glacier (Multnomah Falls, Oregon)” by Gwenn Seemel Round 7: “Crystalline Maples” by Erin Hanson

[@komalwadhwa3910]

Thank you! The real human beach sunset painting with reflections on water they showed is painted by me. This is disappointing that they chose to do that without any credits.

[@soarpurpose]

I don't like the term "AI art" as I believe art needs an artist. It's AI generated images, to mimic art.

[@wenwilloughby8197]

PLEASE credit the artists whose work you use, particularly as you yourselves are artists and art educators. :/ You're meant to be setting an example of how people should treat art, not just of what they can get away with, (we already have enough examples of that). And PLEASE don't label real art done by actual humans as AI. That's just wildly insulting to the artist! :( The 'AI' waterfall is a real painting titled "Liquid Glacier" by the artist Gwenn Seemel. At least add some sort of disclaimer to correct your blunder. You should also apologize to the artist.

[@II-jz1zo]

Artists for the real paintings: Round 1: I found this painting uploaded to freepik by @Harryarts Round 3: “Echoes of Summer” by Komal Wadhwa Round 5: This is a real painting called “Liquid Glacier (Multnomah Falls, Oregon)” by Gwenn Seemel Round 7: “Crystalline Maples” by Erin Hanson

[@UnderratedEats-lw6bn]

Ok thank goodness that waterfall painting is legit, it has incredible composition and a deep understanding of value The bad vibes of this video are off the charts for sure tho, considering there’s no explicit critique of LLMs and all the creative theft associated with it for image generation. Makes me extremely suspect of the organizers and funding of the channel

[@roguebarbarian9133]

Maybe they fixed it after your comment, but the artists are credited in the description.

[@syumaibun]

I think you should do clarification for round 5 since it's very disrespectful to call someone's work as AI, not to mention that you discredit the artist. It's a painting by Gwenn Seemel and it's even in their website

[@lucieciepka1031]

The lighthouse had me cracking 😂😂😂 IT drew two on top of each other, on top of that it drew a yellow boui and a smaller lighthouse in the water under and another one on the cliffs 😂😂😂 I hope you’re happy, pick your favourite.

[@catibreil3535]

The one that fooled you fooled me too because it was done in Gwenn Seemel's style !!! I hesitated... this kind of content is really super cool thank you all it was fun !!!! 😃💛🙌🏼

[@milanartstudios]

So glad you enjoyed it!! :)

[@marcsfat]

@@milanartstudios I did a bit of research because that was the only one I "missed", but that painting is in fact an original by Gwenn Seemel. It is not AI, but it was in a video where she was comparing her art to AI images prompted off her art. In the video, it is shown directly next to the fakes (so I think that is why the mistake was made). She even shows a "making of" process. Either way, I'm glad the video showed it, because it introduced me to her art, which is incredible.

[@strangenewt]

@@marcsfat I do seem to be able to find the painting connected to her online, but not the video that you mention.

[@marcsfat]

@strangenewt It was on her personal website/ blog. I'd link it, but KZbin doesn't like that. The title of the post is "Why human art will always be more interesting to us than ai images"

[@goldegreen]

@@marcsfat Found it! Wow it is actually real, I was worried I was losing my AI-spotting touch.

[@lasagnafrenchtoasthoneybutter]

I think it's interesting that the guy said the first one was badly painted. Maybe from a technical standpoint. It seemed pretty good to me, with well-defined shapes, and nice details and colors. Maybe he was talking about the red hue at the top of the mountains but that doesn’t take anything away from the piece for me. I feel like, even though something can be made with poor technique, it doesn’t take away from the art itself. Like how painters pretty early on didn't have centuries of knowledge to draw on so their proportions or colors seemed weird but their work was still beautiful.

[@PaulKapow]

@@lasagnafrenchtoasthoneybutter hm. The difference for me is that experienced artists know when to break rules. Happy mistakes can be nice tho. I understand that neither of these take away from a person engaging with the art and having an aesthetic experience.

[@good1day726]

@@PaulKapow what is with the condescension (art in general not particular to the comment). The viewers are allowed their “little aesthetic experiences” aw thx. is the idea to have nice looking paintings or nice brush strokes? Could ‘better brush strokes’ also create a better version of this. Not sure this type of discounting would work in music realm.

[@geoffstockton]

Y’all acting like you’ve never seen a mustard bottle lighthouse.

[@UliTroyo]

I can't believe you guys got Pam Beesly for this, I love her work! She did a painting of the office my dad worked at; it's still hanging in our house.

[@purplewine7362]

why's she steal the painting on her last day when her boss paid for it?

[@dejakester]

Mostly that ai can't fool me ...yet. The uncanny valley is still there. The big yellow blob may have been abstract but it was still "wrong." The clouds in the one image did not match the style of the rest and did have a cut and paste look. The blue scene was to much the sameness as well-cool idea-but still "wrong." As for the final image - it was too "flat" for lack of a better word. Human art, even bad human art is still human looking. We do things that make sense to us, and ai cannot capture that yet.

[@chaken6187]

Recommend to credit the artists of the original ones, cause i want to learn some of the expressions of the artists.

[@Nusqui]

I feel like Ai looks like what you remember of a dream, it lacks detail and the more you look at it the less it looks like the thing it represented.

[@SiqueScarface]

The Lighthouse has not only the watter bottle instead of a lighthouse, it has several lighthouses all over the place. It's a collage of lighthouses, and they don't really make sense.

[@randomcat7246]

Gwen Seemel painted #5. She’s trying to make a copyright claim against this, rightfully so, because this is insanely disrespectful

[@finnabawm9097]

And I am here impressed by the work put into the transition. Seriously, who is your editor? Wow

[@SuperNerd57]

With real art, even art that is not done well, there’s an intentionality in every choice right down to the composition. You can usually tell a person’s process by how the paint is layered, for instance in the two palette-knife style paintings, you can tell the real artist laid down the colors for the sunrise as a base and then painted the branches on top of it. However, the AI generated image has strange blending over the tree as though copy-pasting paint from another area in between the branches. That’s why there is an uncanny strangeness to AI art, because it’s sort of like a collage with a filter over top of it to make a piece look cohesive. But, it doesn’t have a “reason” for where it decided to lay down certain colors or textures; it just found snippets that were more or less the right color and shape and pasted them on there. With other, less painterly art styles, AI art is not as obvious, except that real artists are human and make mistakes, and those mistakes give character to an otherwise “perfect” piece. AI art is usually too perfect, with everything evenly blended and smooth and… well… like it was mathematically applied by a machine. The reality is, AI’s method for generating art is not the same as the human process, and you can see the signs of it throughout. If you could teach AI to follow a human process of creating and it could understand why it should make certain choices, like laying down color in a certain order, or placing objects in a specific configuration, you would be hard-pressed to find a difference, but AI as it is now is not capable of that, and I don’t think it should strive to be. Humans are creative. It’s like, the one thing that is universally true no matter what you believe or like to do. Why would you want to take the fun of being creative out of life by giving that part to machines?

[@ChillaxeMake]

Yeah, generative AI was not designed for paintings. It was designed to mimic photographs, with paintings as a side-thing.

[@mal2ksc]

The way the AI works is that you hand it a block of static and say "this is a cat, obscured by static. Please help us separate the cat from the static." And the AI amplifies what it sees as cat (and the setting where it thinks a cat might be found), and attenuates what it sees as noise. Then it's fed its own output with a little new static added (so it doesn't get stuck, mostly) and told to do it again, and again, and again. Each of those is a sampling step. At some point, how long depending on how the model is built and trained, the iterations essentially look alike. Convergence has been achieved.

[@ChillaxeMake]

@@mal2ksc Thanks, great explanation!

[@413XUIFC]

Keep pretending you are useful

[@Sedokun]

After the mistake on 4:30 (the real painting by Gwenn Seemel) I have concerns about skills of the authors of this video. Yet, I'm happy to see all contestants picked the correct answer.

[@Jonaelize]

I spottet all AI images, just thought one real painting (the ocean) was also AI. Any AI image with trees in it is really easy to spot since the branches are all over the place.

[@TheDibule]

This kind of test is entertainment for YT. Not a real test. In a real test you wouldn’t know the answers until the end, so you can’t use psychological “patterns” to guess the answer. Like you could show 20 images, all AI generated, and you would see that people assume that roughly half are going to be handmade, and wrongly guess 50% of the time. Or the reverse, show only handmade stuff, and people will wrongly assume that a lot of it was made with AI because it’s now technically possible. So let’s not kid ourselves, if enough attention was put into it, most of the time we can’t tell if it’s AI or not. But there’s always a human behind it. So the question is this: does it matter? do we need to know how it was made to feel something? is the context more important than the actual pixels you see? All open questions I feel…

[@joechip4822]

In fact there is only ONE question that almost everybody overlooks still: I you visited some arbitrary but well known art gallery without any knowledge or thinking about 'AI', and you would stroll through the rooms and halls and look at dozens of images hanging on the walls - would you suddenly say: 'this one has not been created by a real human artist by hand or digitally!' I tend to say: NO! Conclusion: whether 'real art' and 'AI art' can and will be distinguished, has much more to do with the context and the expectations of the visitor, than with what one actually sees in front of one's eyes

[@joannaplichta9677]

I didn't get all of them right but towards the end I started to be more correct. I started to notice that the real ones are more planned for example as far as distribution of colors goes while AI are more random - especially visible with the last two ones, where every drop of color made sense in the first one and some of them were pretty random in the second one (the colours filtered by trees onto the path for example made no sense). I noticed something similar when I was "inviting" AI to make botanical art - the individual elements were perfect but the whole drawing together did not reflect the habit of the real plant.

[@desotodavill7740]

I only got nuber 7 wrong. And i don't think"human badly painted" is a sarcastic but a pretty mean answer tbh

[@merlefi6162]

I knew the waterfall one was actually a real painting! I thought it was quite creative and stylized. There's something about AI generated images that make them look sort of "mechanical" instead of being painted organically by a real person.

[@thaiflavorbubblemilkteadrink]

Oh wow I'm glad to have checked the comments; I was a bit shocked that the waterfall piece was AI when it looked so human-drawn - thanks for the update!

[@sophiedanon7491]

Number 5 is a real painting so I got 8/8 correct. AI can't fool someone who know a bit about art. I can't really explain how I spot it. It's a feeling. Art is a feeling, a vibeµ...

[@drawer74]

The thing that gave away the fact that the last one was ai for me was that the thin lines were pixelated if you zoom in which only happens with digital paintings. The thin lines in photos of traditional paintings are usually blurred, and maybe a bit grainy but not pixelated

[@mal2ksc]

I thought it looked like a bad photograph of a real painting.

[@norway-nyan]

I would love to see another version of this but for the AI images ask some of the folks who made the top ranked images on Midjourney. I got 8/8 but felt all of these were too easy TBH.

[@reinerwilhelms-tricarico344]

Two things may happen: 1. With every upload of actual artist showing the progress of their painting on KZbin the algorithms get more data to learn about the process how a painting is created. 2. Some artist will try to emulate AI generated art, and even some of that will become more training data. That’s the bad news. The good news is (at least I hope so) that original art becomes more valuable.

[@Hambs23]

A bit of a different point of view since my background is more related to digital games. While regular AI (just plain old "if and else"s artificial inteligences) has been used to give more life to the fictional worlds in games, it has always been very limited and only served as added detail, not as the main selling point. These new advances in AI means that in an ever near future we could have truly AI driven interactible environments, which sounds interesting at first, until you actually play the ones that are already popping up now and then and realize how the lack of focus and human intention takes away most of the joy, immersion and reason to actually want to interact with any given title. The ones pushing for the use of AI the most are big billion dolar game companies and the usual shovelware (term to describe low effort and low budget cashgrab games). And while it's a big issue, tho still not the biggest, in the market today, it's one of the reasons we have also seen a big boon for indie developers. Games the creators did out of passion and put time and effort in are getting more and more recognition while effort-first companies are seeing a large decline in public opinion, with their releases being described as soul-less, uninteresting and not worth putting time and money into. I've seen successful uses of these more sophisticated, data-trained AIs for live streaming, music restoration (see 'Now and Then' by The Beatles) and some quick one-off interactions with characters in games, but all of these requires most of the experience to have human input. The bulk of the experience still needs human intention, with AI serving as toppings. That's all to say that yes, I believe the overuse of data-driven AIs is, and will give more value to real artists. And more importantly, small, previously unnoticed creators get a brighter spotlight simply for being there, which pushes for different, newer styles and ideas getting more recognition, and in turn, natural innovation in the field. Still can't deny that the bigger flood of shovelware is deeply annoying mahaha

[@edelleaa]

i got all right! (including correctly labeling #5 as real).i think at this stage of ai its very easy to spot, ironically it has its own style where not only do things often dont make sense but its just always kind of blurry and smudgy. you can very often immediately just at a glance without even looking at the details tell its ai but the more you look the more obvious it gets

[@adzdrawss]

7/8 for me! that one with the waterfall stumped most of us i feel. pretty noticeable all around though. there’s details you need to look for. i think the most obvious are the muddiness of farther objects and some colors and knowing if the image makes sense.

[@gaymiens]

the waterfall is actually real painting! they mislabelled it in this video. "liquid glacier" by gwen seemel (acrylic, coloured pencil, and marker on paper). part of her "covid across america" series

[@Stratelier]

4:25 - So did you specifically prompt the AI for Multnomah Falls or did that just happen by chance?

[@gaymiens]

it's a real painting, they messed up. liquid glacier (multnomah falls, oregon) by gwen seemel

[@wezul]

"Badly painted" - ouch! I like that first painting. I myself am not talented enough with painting to know good from bad. I just know *my* paintings are bad.

[@ArtJourneyUK]

AI art has no soul.

[@RichardBarnett-hs1qy]

The soul is in the artists who write the prompts.

[@SillyGeoo]

@RichardBarnett-hs1qy ain't an artist if all you do is write a prompt! Don't call em artists

[@ugIytoess]

@@RichardBarnett-hs1qy prompters*

[@kevinpopescu9741]

@@RichardBarnett-hs1qy Well the "soul" sure as hell isn't in your trash ass opinion that's for sure hahaha

[@patrick8268]

Ai art is not art

[@lilyayora]

4:39 Is absolutely not Ai generated, unless the Ai somehow straight up copied one entire image for its output, which is highly unlikely. Ai has very shitty edge fidelity and this image has crisp, intentional edges, natural bleed in the flat colors, texture in the thicker dotwork and the paper texture is consistent throughout.

[@Zehaha2]

8/8 I feel like this was quite easy. AI all had that ever so slight uncanny "sharpness/fidelity" texture finish or "trypophobia/cancer" repetition vibe and the others did not. I'm a tech artist in a mobile game, so I'm maybe a bit more used to seeing AI art

[@bergamotemcdonald7672]

Crazy how this comment section is full of pedantic people explaining how Ai art is easy to spot for them and they got every answer correct while the 5 is actually a real painting.

[@Annagator-ze8oo]

Ok I was gonna say that the only one I got wrong was the one that all of you did but the comments are saying that that was actually a real painting so I DID get them all correct!

[@Hoodat_Whatzit]

I missed the waterfall one as well. I think it helps if you have some background. My dad is an artist and I grew up watching him, going to museums, and learning about art and artists.

[@liselotteline8596]

Someone wrote in the comments that it's a real painting called “Liquid Glacier” by Gwenn Seemel.

[@littlemadster]

trees seem to be a good giveaway in AI art. they will often start and stop in illogical places and be connected to one another. in the last example (6:45) you can see branches from the closest tree on the left connect and become the branches on the tree to its right.

[@jfleming4439]

I really enjoyed this. You guys are funny. I also liked the animated collages - super creative and fun to look at

[@tinacluff2793]

I don't care for AI that much, like one of them said it's alot of copy and paste.

[@chylomcm]

I got all of them right! AI likes to make a lot of weird looking cells that blends into each other which makes no sense. Also the line quality is usually janky and weird, like, if a human can make a painting of that quality, they wouldn't have left it like that. It's usually the inconsistency of quality that gives it away.

[@dakforest5344]

How long ago was this recorded? These are images from older AI Models.

[@mal2ksc]

Also the last one was really low resolution, meaning at first I thought it was a photo of a real painting, but taken with a potato. Following that line of thought, I figured "the painter wouldn't post that... so either that's a bootleg or downsampled image, or it's AI". Given that they hopefully don't use bootlegged images in this test, I had to assume it was AI.

[@smugdodofart27]

When I started studying paintings (I don’t paint) I notice how purposeful brush strokes, branches and the light are. Ai kinda wants one corporate theme throughout but art has that intent to create something beautiful

[@_montague_]

4:41 is the only one i didnt get. It looks amazing.

[@elisabeta101]

it is real actually. this youtube channel got it wrong. it's liquid glacier by gwenn seemel

[@MichelleBrown_Artist]

I'm shocked that AI mimicked Erin Hanson's art. I love her art. 😊

[@ArtJourneyUK]

That's because the AI has been trained on her artworks and now can replace her by someone just saying "create me an artwork in the style of..."

[@bernielogan8644]

I have always loved her work and I recognized it immediately. The following picture seemed to be AI imitating her work but it didn't came close.

[@OutsiderLabs]

@@ArtJourneyUK Stealing her work isn't replacing her, just stealing

[@friendoftheghost184]

The main thing I look for is symmetrical-ness, and asking myself "Do I recognize that shape?" In the lighthouse one, you don't know a single damn thing you're looking at, but in the waterfall bride one, the bridge has nice, even, symmetrical lines, and you can recognize the pine trees at the top

[@Michahk]

5:59 I really liked this painting, I wanted to know who made it

[@oceanloves333]

As a photographer I can easily spot AI photo's, art is a bit more difficult, I had 5/8 I do find it scary as most people are fooled all the time

[@DreamtaleEnjoyer]

I wouldn't say "most." The people most at risk for being fooled are those with poor eyesight, like older people (thus why ai is pretty rampant on Facebook) but clearer eyes can usually spot it. Remember the images in this video were hand chosen to be confusing. Usually it's a *lot* more clear. Have hope friend, ai will soon go the road of "nfts"

[@mal2ksc]

@@DreamtaleEnjoyer I actually thought that the images chosen were pretty poor examples if they're trying to hide the characteristic "tells" of AI. I think a whole lot of the problem is that artists posting their work know what to look for and won't publish until any such problems are solved. The people making AI images often _don't_ recognize the tells and publish anyhow. If you want to fool _everyone_ with an AI image, you have to generate a ton of them and cherry pick the best. It might take 20, it might take 200, it might take 2000.

[@genisay]

Ads don't seem to want me to watch your video. I just keep getting more of them.

[@simplyme135]

Small, elite part of art lovers , will still buy a real art from the real artists, if they can afford. But, a lot of them if not most, will continue to buy art from Home Goods or start buying from AI artist ( at some extend, the same)....What we, artists, can alternatively offer to the Home Goods audience?... great technique? Fancy art school diploma? or...selling for a very low price our " masterpieces" ( the most practical way, in my opinion, followed by the most painters). That's why I am transitioning to sculptures: hard to reproduce with AI.

[@snowite01]

3 D Printing?

[@mal2ksc]

You may be late to the party there. Hero Forge has been selling 3D printed miniatures, with or without paint, for years now. Once it's been done once, it can be replicated. Being a physical object doesn't change that unless you somehow make sure it never gets laser scanned or put in a silicone mold.

[@imperfectimp]

The Eiffel tower painting tripped me up. I seriously thought AI couldn't make something that weird. And the last one I first said AI, then started overthinking and changed my answer. Need to trust my instinct more.

[@raynee3393]

The real art is 3 human beings analisng art tecniques, laughting and having good time together.

[@QuantumKayos]

Round 5 is the only one that I got wrong and apparently is actually incorrect in the video, so then I think I got it right. Theres nothing I can see that makes it Ai in it

[@w98]

AI looks nice at a glance but once you pay attention and analyze the details, you begin to see how odd AI images are.

[@tracy-eire]

Can we do another show with these folks? We need another round! And I spotted Erin Hanson flawlessly, I might add!

[@UnbeLISAble]

8/8. I’m glad they did this. I’d like to see more variety of styles including portraits. Those can actually throw people off. This was kind of easy mode tbh but still a great experiment.

[@ErikBongers]

About the waterfall, which apparently is a real painting after all, the dots made me label it as AI. This painting was the one I was most hesitant about.

[@elliep6261]

4:40 I learnt in the comments that this is a real painting but before then I felt disappointment that it was supposedly AI. Even if the image is visually pleasing, the moment I find out it's AI generated I lose all respect for it because it's a collage at best, but even real collages require human effort. I really hope in the future that copyright laws at least demand credit to the images that were put into the machine, so you can easily retrace back to the real deal.

[@moonegalactica]

I was 8 for 8. I’ve gotten really good at this because I’ve gotten opportunities taken away from me as a digital artist

[@laislyra5512]

I'm an average artist, 7 out of 8. Got the dots one wrong too. But one thing intrigued me - the picture seems cropped. Had I taken into account that that was the whole image, I might've guessed right.

[@Luvhlymiraa]

The dots one is actually a real image! They made a mistake.

[@halfsnailss]

I feel that the AI model used for this video is a bit outdated…. Nowadays AI art is much less obvious than the ones they saw. This seems more like beginning of 2024 level stuff.

[@lisengel2498]

Well it was fun to Watch but for me the real interesting question would be something like: what makes a Work of Art attractive for you? What do you value? What are you attracted to? The experience of Art are interesting because it is a Way of sharing experiences in a multidimensional way … experiencing, perceiving, seeing, feeling, touching ( if allowed), moving, imagining, dreaming reflecting, wondering , sharing and much more 😀🎵♥️🎶

[@Dekross]

Taking into account that number 5 is real, I see many people in the comments getting 8/8 (I also had 8/8) which is great and gives me hope

[@Trevan2412]

I really wanted to play along but I felt like I was fighting less against the AI and more against the image quality in KZbin compression... Showing the images in fullscreen would've gone a long way too

[@mal2ksc]

The video is in 2160P (aka "4K"), I also struggled to see the necessary detail at 1080P but switching to 2160P helped a great deal. You will, of course, need a 4K display.

[@jeffjefferson2853]

The last one had two trees that shared branches, it was super obvious

[@darshandabrase3265]

I've been doing Physical painting, digital painting and AI Image generation. And I gave all the correct answers. Except for the Liquid Glacier (Multnomah Falls, Oregon) painting, which was tricky! But ultimately, I can say that there are many milestones that AI needs to cross before blending into real artworks.

[@fulicious2991]

Wow! I really got fooled hard by round 5, though I could tell all the others apart from eachother.

[@gaymiens]

you weren't fooled. round 5 is human. liquid glacier by gwen seemel.

[@thegardensound1123]

The gentleman on the left is a rough man. Imagine if the first drawing was yours. Art does not have to be taught. It is a free interpretation. So look at your garden, Mr. Art Teacher.

[@tonyennis1787]

One dude taped a banana to a wall and called it art. The Turing Test for art could be pretty challenging as long as the number of fingers drawn on hands isn't a factor.

[@unavaatu]

Biggest giveaway that something is just AI generated is that when you look close enough, it's just random noise. It can trick you from far away, but when you look a bit closer, maybe its necklaces, or mountains, or a river, but there's no ACTUAL logic or intention going on behind the shapes. It looks more jumbled and a line will start and the minute it's occluded, it phases out of existence, because the computer cannot just remember that its there. Another giveaway is the lines, when they converge in an almost bubble-like formation, almost like a spider-web, it shows clearly the computer is trying to simulate complete-ness in the lines, but instead makes them seem weird and tied together. Sadly some people's styles also do that, so use that with a grain of salt.

[@leahlambertphotography]

I love the comment “as a human being there is something real that you bring to the table.” … I feel that AI has provided a greater opportunity for artists to show just how amazing they are. Authenticity is real. AI is a tool and should not be mistaken for artistic integrity 🙂

[@mellowhny]

I don't get how you can not see it! the smal lines always connect in weird ways (like trees) or the repetitive textures that look copy pasted and no, AI CAN be very abstract...

[@2265Hello]

@@mellowhny only becomes hard to tell in specific cases where there is a short time limit. And more so with ppl who barely look at art or gen images. Once you look at enough of both you can start reliably picking out which image was generated or human made.

[@terihutto414]

I had fun playing along!

[@MelodiePJ]

My guesses: 1st one, AI 2nd one, AI 3rd one, Real 4th one, AI 5th one, AI 6th one, AI 7th one, Real 8th one, AI YES! 7/8

[@jadeitor_png]

Been drawing all my life and doing it professionally for over 15 years. I can spot at the moment what is AI or not quite easily, you can sense it lacks of, call it "soul" or whatever.

[@burethugo5787]

SUPER VIDEO ! Got almost all corect ! Sharing to you some little tips to spot an AI painting : 1st painting : REAL ! you can see the different use of brush or mediums, AI tend to have a uniformized style (here there's some water color + some kind of oil painitng) 2d painting : it's AI : Weird artistic choice in the composition (there's a massive cloud in the center but and some sunlight in the very edge of the painting, not typical to put light in the very corner of a paining since we want to draw attention to more central parts of a painting) 3rd painting : it REAL ! hard to explain why, but the placement of the sun and the brushes looks super realistic 4th painting : AI ! Very easily spot : look in the details - the architecture doesn't make any sense. From distance it looks like a normal buidling but if you look closely you can see this is not at all something realistic. AI still struggle to make realistic architecture in an artistic way. 5th Painting : Looks real to me, but apparently it's not, idk why that one is really crazy i don't see the AI. 6th painting : Same for 4th painting, the "architecture" doesn't make any sense ! is this an eiffel tower in the middle of a field ? :D 7th painting REAL / 8th painting AI : both have the same vibe, the real one has some very humanized white "gaps" between the leaves of the tree, the second one is AI as it shows way too much defined "gaps" or "holes" between each leaf of the tree. Et voilà :D

[@seli.popcornpfoten]

5:15 actually what gave it away for me are the trees. Everything is super rough but then you can see these tiny tree leaf details around the edges which doesn't make any sense withing this style.

[@MPFConservation]

You messed up, and now that you KNOW Liquid Glacier is not AI, you should REVISE or add a note to your video and send Gwenn Seemel an apology. Saying it in the comments doesn't cut it. AND DO YOUR HOMEWORK. Why should anyone follow you if you don't support real artists?

[@lauramaschal1794]

Right? The video is poorly done, poorly researched and poorly remedied. Seems like they have zero credibility and yet, the video is still here. I'm not sure why they aren't completely embarrassed by their error? Ego I guess. Oof. Shame on them.

[@silpheedTandy]

can someone help me see what was badly painted about the first painting?

[@duccky3331s]

There is nothing bad besides being somewhat simple compared to the later paintings. Just different tastes I suppose.

[@valenz1234]

the only one that stopped me up was the waterfall one, and that's the one I got wrong. My instinct looking at it was AI, but looking closer at the textures I thought it could be possible to have a style like this. I think zooming out helps with the piece because it looks more AI from afar.

[@gaymiens]

it's actually a real painting. liquid glacier by gwen seemel. they mislabelled it as AI in this video (probably because it's attached to a blog post she made comparing it to AI recreations as a critique of AI art)

[@valenz1234]

@@gaymiens wow, really? Thank you for that! In that case I got them all right, I feel more confident now haha Usually when you look closer at AI art things start to fall apart with weird textures, that's why when I looked closer it made me think it was real, so I'm glad to find out it really was!

[@defaulted9485]

I got 6/8. I can notice deformity or random connection between spatially separate object. But when its stylized, I'm scared to heck whether I'm about to accuse an artstyle as machine or not, even when it's deformed or having that pattern seizures overfitting.

[@kay-412]

Why do they think digital artists are not good at art 😭

[@mal2ksc]

Same reasons guitarists don't think Skrillex is good at music. Different (although overlapping to a degree) skill sets, it's hard to appreciate both unless you have both.

[@KekodaBunbun]

According to comments, #5 is real with AI tweaks? If so, I’m also 8/8. I didn’t even look at mistakes, abstracts, anything like that. I just looked at the textures of the paint. AI is super flat and really blended/blurred together. The real art had depth to the different colored paints overlapping and the texture of the canvas. AI art sucks! ✨

[@dollikiz]

I overlapped the original #5 art piece with the one featured in this video and I don’t see any relevant differences. I hope they will comment on their mistake!

[@hozic9929]

As someone who has mostly no artistic knowledge, this seemed fairly easy

[@MelliaBoomBot]

6/8. But I really liked that waterfall one ❤ soz humans

[@miriamrobarts]

Same score, and I liked the waterfall painting, too. That was one that fooled me.

[@loftwyng131]

@@MelliaBoomBot you probably liked it because its actually real!! The piece is called “liquid glacier (multnomah falls, oregon)” by Gwenn Seemel :)

[@user-on6uf6om7s]

I feel like there aren't enough AI images that are more amateur painter looking. You can create those sorts of images but it seems like all of the AI image chosen had a ton of detail which makes it easier to tell if some part is off versus a lot of the human stuff was more basic and abstract.

[@ottokopp770]

I reckon AI people would be much better at identifying the ai images. Once you know the artifacts ai adds to images, this is quite trivial. Things like weird color bleeding in noisy areas like small background trees (resolution issues in general. I human artist would know to indicate were the detail gets too small), overall nonsensical composition (bridge from a treetop over a waterfall, or whatever was going on with the halfway stone Eiffel tower thing) and stuff merging into each other like the trees in the last one.

[@Creativeone63]

Apparently you haven't been to Multnomah Falls, OR, where there is a bridge that crosses in front of the waterfall midway up, behind trees in the foreground. Artist Gwenn Seemed has developed her style over the years, using many layers of acrylics, and multiple kinds of mark making, and one such result is her painting Liquid Glacier--original, not done by AI. Perhaps not so "Quite trivial" as you brag...

[@wolflithay6380]

Dang i got most except i over thought the sunset one coz i saw 2 sun reflections LOL! and got the waterall one wrong coz i was like oh yea dots are fun and ive seen artists do that before, but then i looked at the top part and realized the trees kinda looked weird 😂

[@ryartdesign2874]

Unless the art is hand-crafted in traditional media, such as pencil, ink or paint, people suspect online art as being AI generated, The framing shop and gallery that I work at has seen a huge decline in digital prints due to this. Nobody wants suspected AI art

[@AmandaMG6]

John seems to be such a sweet man. Great job all ❤

[@Experternas]

i guessed correct for everyone except the waterfall one.. there's a very similar waterfall in japan with a bridge just like that so I thought it was real for sure.