Simply Because it Annoys Me

Reblogging AI posts that are unlabelled as AI with a disclaimer that they are indeed, AI.

[ai-or-not-ai]

Things to know:

I do not think AI art is inherently evil and terrible. I believe that if the art is clearly labelled and that if the generators are collecting their data and operating their services ethically that it is a perfectly fine tool to use. Unfortunately, as far as I know, that is not currently the case.

the true problem with certain uses of AI is capitalism

In that vein, I hate when AI art gets shown around completely unlabelled. If you claim AI art is its own art form it is imperative to label it as such at least in your tags to prevent confusion between digital or traditional artwork that was created manually.

So many of these AI images are stolen from the accounts that originally posted them. I’m not sure whether I personally consider that theft or if it is even legally theft, but in the process of reposting the picture they leave out important details like the fact it was AI generated in the first place.

These are all my personal opinions. This blog is not intended to be a place for me to open myself up to a bunch of discourse. I may reblog posts about AI but I will not engage with you if you are rude and incensed. That will get you blocked.

I myself am predominantly a digital artist (and sometimes a traditional artist when the mood strikes me) as well as a student of art history. This is my point of view as someone with knowledge in both historical artistic movements and the creation of art itself.

If you do not want to come across AI art I suggest blacklisting related tags. They will not always be labelled but many are.

Some tools that are called ‘AI’ have been around for years or serve extremely useful functions that do actually reduce the amount of tedious tasks a human would have had to perform previously. Such as generative fill tools in photoshop when used to edit a flaw from a photo, etc. AI has become a tech buzzword applied to any and every technology (usually for the sake of getting investors excited about it). This blog is mainly focused generative AI. Mainly images, but also sometimes LLMs (large language models) like ChatGPT or video/sound generation. I am not talking about the kinds of AI used by game devs to help NPCs function without coding every single one yourself or how in the Spiderverse movies they coded an ‘AI’ tool to help the 2D lines follow the 3D forms. There are many different kinds of tools called ‘AI’ and it has become a functionally useless term in some instances, as there are many varied forms it takes and often the classic idea of artificial intelligence from sci-fi (being a computer that thinks for itself) is not the actual implication.

If you are worried about energy usage involved in AI generation, please direct those criticisms to the organizations operating the models. They are the ones who are most responsible for that and the ones who can actually make a material change (and some indeed have been trying to).

The best thing you can do to ‘fight’ the negatives of AI is supporting independent artists.

We are all human beings who make mistakes (including me! please, I want you to always use your own critical thinking skills!) Give each other grace.

Post labelling

I will do my best to find the original source, including the original poster and what generator was used if I am able.

I will tag the posts with ‘ai image’, their respective generator (if applicable) and ‘synthography’ a term for computer generated art intended to set it apart from other art forms

I may speculate on images used to synthesize the final artwork if something comes across as particularly obvious to me.

Post submission

Send me posts you suspect are AI generated but unlabelled as such

Send me posts that you know are AI generated but reposted and unlabelled

Do not harass the original poster. If they are a reposter, block and report them. If they are an AI enthusiast and you don’t like AI, block them. If they turn out to be an artist posting their actual art for the love of god I hope you didn’t personally accuse them of generating their art and if you did go apologize immediately and profusely.

Tags to blacklist to avoid AI

Generative Art

AI Generated

AI Art

Midjourney

Dalle 3

Synthography

If I reblog from you….

Sorry

I probably follow you on my main blog

It is not a negative reflection on you if you could not identify an AI generated image yourself. I personally do not just rely on my eyes for these and try my best to find the image source to verify ai generation when possible.

Some AI generated concepts look cool I don’t blame you for reblogging them. I personally just wish people were more obvious about what is AI so that the average person can make better informed decisions about whether or not they want to share it. This is just so you can make that choice.

[badpunktakes]

And dat's what punk is really all about

[apoca-lipsis]

Real photos of the event, since the original Twitter post seems been written by a bot using an AI image.

This pictures were taken by Enrico Scuro during the italian punk festival Bologna Rock in 1979.

Skiantos were considered an art, comedy and performative band and they leave the stage that night famously screaming: "You do not understand a fucking thing: this is avant-garde, you piece-of-shit audience."

What they did was conceptual and protest art, the denial of putting a show against the expectative of it. Punk was born in part as a rejection of the grandiosity of progressive rock: no 20-minute solos, no stages with pyrotechnics, no distance between the band and the listener.

But there's an irony that Skiantos pushed to the limit: as soon as punk became a spectacle, it also began to betray its own code. Counterculture and performance art.

[sam-keeper]

really compelling article about the number of "obvious ai tells" that are also… how a lot of people educated in english writing in colonized nations are taught to write. i.e. highly formal english rhetoric.

I'm Kenyan. I Don't Write Like ChatGPT. ChatGPT Writes Like Me.

I'm calm. I'm calm. I promise.

[curlicuecal]

I *feel* like it's broadly known, but maybe this is just because I'm a teacher, but "ai writing detectors" discriminate disproportionately against ESL writers (that is, they falsely identify legitimate human writing that is ESL as AI writing at a higher rate)

And that means YOU, random ai witchhunter on your internet crusader horse, are quite likely to also accidentally discriminate .

Don't accuse strangers of AI writing based on vibes.

Sit with and process the fact that a lot of times you can't tell and you don't get to know for sure. It's frustrating and scary. You'll be a better person if you learn to manage those emotions.

[canadiandogteeth-deactivated202]

robsroom ~ One Day He Combusted

[ai-or-not-ai]

AI generated by Luca Ponsato

[punksandcannonballers]

you are not immune to reblogging ai and thinking it’s not ai. you are not the master ai sleuth you think you are

[punksandcannonballers]

I have seen multiple ppl on my dash who frequently share anti-ai posts recently reblog things that I either know from previous experience are ai or set off a flag in my brain and I spend extra time trying to determine and come away pretty convinced it’s ai. I’m not trying to vaguepost but more say like, gang, it’s time to admit not all ai is so obvious and we’re not all super geniuses born with the Human Spark that can tell what’s real and what’s fake

[take-a-dip-in-the-deadpool]

It's very rare when I say lol that something actually makes me laugh out loud you know… But this Fucking video actually had me cackling

[nuclearfeels]

HE STRAIGHT UP TRIED TO SACRIFICE THE GREMLIN CHILD TO THE PIT

[yoink-a-doink]

Well, it's a Chihuahua

[stories-i-guess]

But the puppy has a sweater

thereby removing the evilness

and then because of that

meaning they’re an innocent little puppyyyyy

[yoink-a-doink]

Chihuahua's sweater do not remove the satanic hatred they are born with

[stories-i-guess]

But pink ones do

[snappingturt3ls]

I hate to be that guy but...

Its an ai video

[stories-i-guess]

Aw mother fuck shit

[snappingturt3ls]

Sorry!

[nyaa]

[ももえ＠〜12/27虎ノ門@mme_daigaku]

[nyaa]

the irony of insisting something is AI, while being too lazy to click a link and look through the artist’s portfolio and see her work being featured in galleries/shows at various angles is mind rending

[handageddon]

Yeah I've noticed a lot of random baseless "this is ai" comments that only happen to appear under a woman's artwork.

[crowsclothes]

Two clicks lead to her Instagram where she has dozens of multimedia pieces using yarn

This one was a video that showed the canvases separately and then they're moved together on that bar that they're hanging from

She also has multiple other multimedia pieces using yarn in different styles and using things like phone cords and computer chips.

I highly recommend people check out her Instagram because she's amazing and only has 16k followers.

[shithowdy]

this is your periodic reminder that for all the artifacts and errors and "tells" one could possibly list, the only reliable way to actually determine if an image is ai generated is to investigate the source. it is becoming increasingly common for "fake classical paintings" to circulate around curative aesthetic blogs, and everyone should be using this as an opportunity to not only exercise their investigative skills but also appreciate art more in general. you're all checking out the artists you reblog, right? 🫣

so what are some signs to look for? let's use this very good example.

what a lovely late-impressionist piece blended with evocative leyendecker-esque themes! why haven't you ever heard of this artist before? surely tumblr would be all over an artist like this. who is justin brown?

your two options from here are to do a search for the name, or a reverse image search. i prefer reverse image searching, particularly when it comes to a common name like "justin brown". so what does that net?

Immediately, without looking at any text, something is wrong: it barely exists. an actual historical piece would turn up numerous results from websites individually discussing the piece, but no such discussions are taking place. Looking at the text, though, does show the source-- and at least in this case, the creator was honest about their medium.

But let's also look at the "exact matches", in case a source doesn't make itself apparent in the initial sidebar results like this.

This section will often tell you post dates of images, and here it can be seen that the very first iteration of the image was posted 15 days ago. It did not exist online prior to that.

Seeing how long an unsourced image has been floating around is a skill applicable to more than just generative images! See a cool image of an artifact or other intriguing item with a vivid caption? Reverse search it! If all the results are paired with that caption and only go back a few months, you might just have viral facebook spam.

Sometimes generative creators are dishonest about their medium and do not tag it like in the example, so that's when establishing "jpeg provenance" becomes important. While it can be a little trickier to determine if someone is using generative images and not admitting to it if they aren't trying to pass it off as a classic, something to consider is the age of their account and the frequency with which they post. Here are some account red flags:

-Did they only start posting art after 2022, or if they did before, did their style/skill level WILDLY change? Not gradual improvement-- I'm talking amateur graphite portraits straight into complex digital renders. Everyone starts somewhere, newness is not a red flag alone; it's newness combined with existing in a vacuum away from any community.

-Do they post fully-finished paintings several times a week? -Do many of these paintings seem iterative of a similar theme or subject matter ("three well-dressed young men face each other under shade and dappled sunlight")?

-Does their style change in inconsistent ways? An artist that can swap between painting like Drew Struzan and Hokusai should be pretty well known, right? Why is no one hyping this guy?!

-Do they have social media besides the source instagram? If so, what are they posting about? Are there any WIPs? Doodles? Interactions with other artists? Gallery dates? 3am self-doubt posts? Or is it all self-promo? Crypto? Seemingly nothing art-related at all for someone pushing out 3 weekly paintings?

Basically, if it's important to you to omit this stuff when you curate, please don't just smash reblog if the source doesn't seem to be the OP themselves. Seeking out sources was important even before this became an issue, now it is more than ever.

peace n love

[shithowdy]

this is your periodic reminder that for all the artifacts and errors and "tells" one could possibly list, the only reliable way to actually determine if an image is ai generated is to investigate the source. it is becoming increasingly common for "fake classical paintings" to circulate around curative aesthetic blogs, and everyone should be using this as an opportunity to not only exercise their investigative skills but also appreciate art more in general. you're all checking out the artists you reblog, right? 🫣

so what are some signs to look for? let's use this very good example.

what a lovely late-impressionist piece blended with evocative leyendecker-esque themes! why haven't you ever heard of this artist before? surely tumblr would be all over an artist like this. who is justin brown?

your two options from here are to do a search for the name, or a reverse image search. i prefer reverse image searching, particularly when it comes to a common name like "justin brown". so what does that net?

Immediately, without looking at any text, something is wrong: it barely exists. an actual historical piece would turn up numerous results from websites individually discussing the piece, but no such discussions are taking place. Looking at the text, though, does show the source-- and at least in this case, the creator was honest about their medium.

But let's also look at the "exact matches", in case a source doesn't make itself apparent in the initial sidebar results like this.

This section will often tell you post dates of images, and here it can be seen that the very first iteration of the image was posted 15 days ago. It did not exist online prior to that.

Seeing how long an unsourced image has been floating around is a skill applicable to more than just generative images! See a cool image of an artifact or other intriguing item with a vivid caption? Reverse search it! If all the results are paired with that caption and only go back a few months, you might just have viral facebook spam.

Sometimes generative creators are dishonest about their medium and do not tag it like in the example, so that's when establishing "jpeg provenance" becomes important. While it can be a little trickier to determine if someone is using generative images and not admitting to it if they aren't trying to pass it off as a classic, something to consider is the age of their account and the frequency with which they post. Here are some account red flags:

-Did they only start posting art after 2022, or if they did before, did their style/skill level WILDLY change? Not gradual improvement-- I'm talking amateur graphite portraits straight into complex digital renders. Everyone starts somewhere, newness is not a red flag alone; it's newness combined with existing in a vacuum away from any community.

-Do they post fully-finished paintings several times a week? -Do many of these paintings seem iterative of a similar theme or subject matter ("three well-dressed young men face each other under shade and dappled sunlight")?

-Does their style change in inconsistent ways? An artist that can swap between painting like Drew Struzan and Hokusai should be pretty well known, right? Why is no one hyping this guy?!

-Do they have social media besides the source instagram? If so, what are they posting about? Are there any WIPs? Doodles? Interactions with other artists? Gallery dates? 3am self-doubt posts? Or is it all self-promo? Crypto? Seemingly nothing art-related at all for someone pushing out 3 weekly paintings?

Basically, if it's important to you to omit this stuff when you curate, please don't just smash reblog if the source doesn't seem to be the OP themselves. Seeking out sources was important even before this became an issue, now it is more than ever.

peace n love

[ai-art-thieves]

It's Time To Investigate SevenArt.ai

sevenart.ai is a website that uses ai to generate images.

Except, that's not all it can do.

It can also overlay ai filters onto images to create the illusion that the algorithm created these images.

And its primary image source is Tumblr.

It scrapes through the site for recent images that are at least 10 days old and has some notes attached to it, as well as copying the tags to make the unsuspecting user think that the post was from a genuine user.

No image is safe. Art, photography, screenshots, you name it.

Initially I thought that these are bots that just repost images from their site as well as bastardizations of pictures across tumblr, until a user by the name of @nataliedecorsair discovered that these "bots" can also block users and restrict replies.

Not only that, but these bots do not procreate and multiply like most bots do. Or at least, they have.

The following are the list of bots that have been found on this very site. Brace yourself. It's gonna be a long one:

@giannaaziz1998blog

@kennedyvietor1978blog

@nikb0mh6bl

@z4uu8shm37

@xguniedhmn

@katherinrubino1958blog

@3neonnightlifenostalgiablog

@cyberneticcreations58blog

@neomasteinbrink1971blog

@etharetherford1958blog

@punxajfqz1

@camicranfill1967blog

@1stellarluminousechoblog

@whwsd1wrof

@bnlvi0rsmj

@steampunkstarshipsafari90blog

@surrealistictechtales17blog

@2steampunksavvysiren37blog

@krispycrowntree

@voucwjryey

@luciaaleem1961blog

@qcmpdwv9ts

@2mplexltw6

@sz1uwxthzi

@laurenesmock1972blog

@rosalinetritsch1992blog

@chereesteinkirchner1950blog

@malindamadaras1996blog

@1cyberneticdreamscapehubblog

@neomasteinbrink1971blog

@neonfuturecityblog

@olindagunner1986blog

@neonnomadnirvanablog

@digitalcyborgquestblog

@freespiritfusionblog

@piacarriveau1990blog

@3technoartisticvisionsblog

@wanderlustwineblissblog

@oyqjfwb9nz

@maryannamarkus1983blog

@lashelldowhower2000blog

@ovibigrqrw

@3neonnightlifenostalgiablog

@ywldujyr6b

@giannaaziz1998blog

@yudacquel1961blog

@neotechcreationsblog

@wildernesswonderquest87blog

@cybertroncosmicflow93blog

@emeldaplessner1996blog

@neuralnetworkgallery78blog

@dunstanrohrich1957blog

@juanitazunino1965blog

@natoshaereaux1970blog

@aienhancedaestheticsblog

@techtrendytreks48blog

@cgvlrktikf

@digitaldimensiondioramablog

@pixelpaintedpanorama91blog

@futuristiccowboyshark

@digitaldreamscapevisionsblog

@janishoppin1950blog

The oldest ones have been created in March, started scraping in June/July, and later additions to the family have been created in July.

So, I have come to the conclusion that these accounts might be run by a combination of bot and human. Cyborg, if you will.

But it still doesn't answer my main question:

Who is running the whole operation?

The site itself gave us zero answers to work with.

No copyright, no link to the engine where the site is being used on, except for the sign in thingy (which I did.)

I gave the site a fake email and a shitty password.

Turns out it doesn't function like most sites that ask for an email and password.

Didn't check the burner email, the password isn't fully dotted and available for the whole world to see, and, and this is the important thing...

My browser didn't detect that this was an email and password thingy.

And there was no log off feature.

This could mean two things.

Either we have a site that doesn't have a functioning email and password database, or that we have a bunch of gullible people throwing their email and password in for people to potentially steal.

I can't confirm or deny these facts, because, again, the site has little to work with.

The code? Generic as all hell.

Tried searching for more information about this site, like the server it's on, or who owned the site, or something. ANYTHING.

Multiple sites pulled me in different directions. One site said it originates in Iceland. Others say its in California or Canada.

Luckily, the server it used was the same. Its powered by Cloudflare.

Unfortunately, I have no idea what to do with any of this information.

If you have any further information about this site, let me know.

Until there is a clear answer, we need to keep doing what we are doing.

Spread the word and report about these cretins.

If they want attention, then they are gonna get the worst attention.

[z4uu8shm37]

[ai-art-thieves]

Original Artist is @feefal

[feefal]

My maternal mammalian beast with projectile fetuses!! What have they done to you :'( (original below)

[bebs-art-gallery]

The Green Knight. Artists: Emile Corsi & Welder Wings

Special post: art that reminded me of Victor von Doom because today is the birthday of Julian McMahon, aka Doctor Doom himself

Dear Julian, happy birthday. I love you so much. You will always by my Victor and most importantly, my source of comfort and inspiration ♡ Words can never come close to describe how much you mean to me. I love you always.

[ai-or-not-ai]

Friendly reminder that “Emile Corsi” is not a real artist but a gimmick to create a fake 19th century artist using AI generated images.

Welder Wings, however, is a wonderful collage artist.

[ot3]

there's a popular twitter artist right now who is getting called out for ai on a drawing, because people are circulating screenshots from two years ago when they were excited about the possibilities that AI offered for going back to making their comic again which had slowed to a crawl because of their RSI. only the thing is the drawing they're getting accused of using AI for has no ai use in it at all, and they've needed to publicly publish their patreon exclusive process video to prove this to an internet mob because of the influx of hate they're getting! good job protecting artists, guys!

[ot3]

are you people not ashamed of yourselves yet!

[ot3]

#my least favorite thing is when people are like#''it's so sad that the existence of AI compels us to do these unfortunate dogpiles 😔 i wish we didn't have do this 😔''#just don't then! you don't have to!

NO LITERALLY.... like these people are living in a world where people getting unearned art clout without being publicly shamed for it is worse than starting random harassment campaigns against strangers just trying to make a living because. they're all fucking lunatics. and i know when the dust settles on AI image generation, which it will, none of them are even for a second going to reflect on the level of cruelty and scrutiny they directed at artists while supposedly 'protecting' them

[landsccape]

[ai-or-not-ai]

Confident these are AI generated though I would give it (a teeny tiny amount of) credit for throwing some texture in the center of the petals.

Let’s zoom in and talk about whats going on that makes me say this:

This post is tagged as photography but these flowers look way to illustrative to be photographed. However, this rendering style is not consistent throughout the images either, so I wouldn’t skip to it being illustrated instead but that it was generated with illustrated flowers included in the data somewhere (and also because most people who spend time painting an image don’t want you to mistake it for a photograph for too long).

what are the purple-y textures. is it lavendar? lilacs?? bluebells? It’s not hard to get the distinct shape of those flowers in photography this is just like randomly applied texture.

the right includes the crunchiest jpeg version of (mayyybe) queen annes lace I’ve ever seen.

These look pretty from far away but dont hold up under close scrutiny.

[beesmygod]

ed zitron, a tech beat reporter, wrote an article about a recent paper that came out from goldman-sachs calling AI, in nicer terms, a grift. it is a really interesting article; hearing criticism from people who are not ignorant of the tech and have no reason to mince words is refreshing. it also brings up points and asks the right questions:

if AI is going to be a trillion dollar investment, what trillion dollar problem is it solving?

what does it mean when people say that AI will "get better"? what does that look like and how would it even be achieved? the article makes a point to debunk talking points about how all tech is misunderstood at first by pointing out that the tech it gets compared to the most, the internet and smartphones, were both created over the course of decades with roadmaps and clear goals. AI does not have this.

the american power grid straight up cannot handle the load required to run AI because it has not been meaningfully developed in decades. how are they going to overcome this hurdle (they aren't)?

people who are losing their jobs to this tech aren't being "replaced". they're just getting a taste of how little their managers care about their craft and how little they think of their consumer base. ai is not capable of replacing humans and there's no indication they ever will because...

all of these models use the same training data so now they're all giving the same wrong answers in the same voice. without massive and i mean EXPONENTIALLY MASSIVE troves of data to work with, they are pretty much as a standstill for any innovation they're imagining in their heads

[angstbotfic]

[9pixeldreamzoneblog]

[8pxl]

nah fuck ai and its derivative bullshit. this was clearly generated using dmytro's pixel art and you should be ashamed posting it online

[cansu-m]

[ai-or-not-ai]

These are AI generated.

on the left we see an example of what tends to happen when ai images are generated off of original images that had a watermark. It seems like these out of focus dewdrops are trying to form letters (and I can see someone hiding their watermark along an out of focus stem).

on the right I wanted to emphasize how even though the sharpness of the foreground flowers implies they are highly in focus, when you zoom in the shapes all blend together and become indecipherable in a way that would not occur in an in-focus photo.

Next time you see a photoset of flowers that are pastel and dreamy and absolutely COVERED in dew drops, I’d encourage you to take a closer look.