Obviously AI-generated Images

Attempting to educate how to spot "AI"-generated imagery, and why it's awful for human creativity and culture • Sometimes 18+ because losers apparently don't have standards for their porn • Feel free to submit posts for inspection via DM, Asks, Submissions, or by tagging @aislop in a reblog or comments section • Infrequently updated, because the person who runs this blog has higher priorities (so please be patient)

[aislop]

[Quick note up top: This is not at all personal criticism toward anyone I reblog posts from. I just saw them on your tumblog from my main account, and saved to my drafts here. (Unless any of these generative-AI images belong to you or are your "creations", then: yes, this is absolutely to mock you, clown-shoes.)]

Mission Statement

Stop lowering your standards for what makes art and photography human and worthwhile.

Generative-"AI" is the latest fad for grifters and losers with no taste, inline with NFTs and cryptocurrency, et al. In a probably fruitless effort to combat the tide of that AI slop, this blog will be posting and reblogging any generative-AI images it comes across or is submitted by its followers, and do our best to educate you how to spot the telltale hallmarks of AI-generated images better, so that you can deservedly critique and shun them. There will also be the occasional badly Photoshopped/doctored imagery, because there is too much of that floating around as well.

Largely on this tumblog you will find the glut of what seems to convince the gullible on first pass (and some of what should not): improbable architectural and interior decor "photos" and, yes, images of "beautiful" people (most often women, unfortunately). Some of which is NSFW, and will be tagged for hiding them if you need to. (Which also means this blog is sometimes 18+! Sorry, kids.)

In the bluntest terms:

For the love of god, I'm begging you all to learn how to spot the obvious signs, including incongruent human anatomy and impossible architecture. Stop reblogging shots of interior decor without zooming in to look at details. Stop being pathetic and masturbating to "photos" of non-existent humanoids while ignoring their off kilter features.

(FAQ and Glossary to come!)

[depsidase]

[hometoursandotherstuff]

Server cable management.

[aislop]

An oldie genAI slop image from a few years ago. Nothing needs to be highlighted, because if you zoom in on any of it, none of it makes sense. Pieces of equipment melted together, cables that merge and break the same way genAI doesn't know how hair works, etc.

[fineartsandbeauty]

[aislop]

Asymmetrical, partially melted frames on the sunglasses, with mismatched reflections. Wonkie nostrils. Smearing eyebrows. Singular, jagged front tooth.

As always, hair doesn't work like this.

These necklaces don't make sense and are melting into each other. Nipples don't usually look like this, unless they've been reconstructed by a hackneyed plastic surgeon.

And finally, another classic hallmark of genAI slop: the lizard skin texture, because it can never do consistent, fine patterns or texturing, like woven fabric.

(I'm so sorry, @fineartsandbeauty; you have "Fuck AI Content" prominently at the top of your account, so I assume this one just slipped your radar.)

[entershibari]

the amount of people on here that can't tell the AI porn is AI is CRAZY.

"generated on pornhub" ITS AI

[artmialma]

Nho Eskape

[aislop]

Yes this is genAI slop, from a mile away. The "linework" and vaguely hazy coloring have the look we've all come to know well.

An artist worth their salt, illustrating in the style this generated image is going for, isn't going to fuck up fingernails and toenails this badly.

But above all else, come on y'all:

Count-Rugen-ass hand.

[aislop]

A quick update note:

This blog hasn't been updated in awhile because life and more important obligations continue to get in the way, but also, holy cow: the backlog of submitted and tagged posts are staggeringly just… so much bad and obvious genAI slop porn, y'all. I'll get to what I can, but I'm really trying to strike a balance on this blog for how much is AI porn and how much is other AI slop content (the landscapes and architecture and "paintings", etc). I don't want it to become one focus, and I also just don't want to inadvertently set off the shitty system automation that might get this blog flagged or deactivated arbitrarily because it thinks this somehow became a porn blog!

Anyway—the TL;DR of it all is: Please be patient. Posts will happen when they happen, because submissions have to be sorted through, and the breakdowns and analysis take time, especially when they sometimes require further research.

[la-dame-aux-pieds-nus]

[aislop]

This one's not necessarily genAI, but it's embarrassingly obvious that at least from the middle of her legs downward are fake, most likely some odd 3D model. I don't even have to crop to highlight anything, because you can see they're just mirrored from one another. The lighting on them makes absolutely no sense on her right leg (left of the camera point-of-view).

The account this is reblogged from has a bizarre, almost autistic-level gimmick of cheaply slapping a grayscale filter over color photos with no skill of proper color grading or regard to original artistic intent, but they do seem to helpfully provide links to the original color photos they modify, which make the odd details of this woman's plastic-y 3D model feet all the more glaringly obvious in a way the grayscale partially mutes the details:

Not only do the feet have a floating quality to them, as if not actually making any contact with the truck bed, but the shadow falloff should be far more pronounced on the skin, and the shadow being cast by her left leg seems to just vanish entirely as it draws up from the foot, which it should not be doing, if we compare the long shadow cast by her torso further back staying consistent.

Anyway, apart from her face potentially being filtered, either by AI or overly heavy photo editing, this has been such a strange one to critique.

I realize the primary goal of this blog is to point out how to spot AI, but my assessment skills and observations are built on the back of years of recognizing and critiquing bad photo retouching too, and this definitely falls more into that category. I'm here to help teach how to spot those things as much as I am teaching to spot AI slop. This is just arguably hilariously bad, mostly human-made slop, and I would love so much to know why someone felt the need to replace her feet/legs.

[deceasedcardinal]

[cosmonautroger]

Egon Schiele, Seated Woman With Bent Knees, 1917

[aislop]

As most in the comments have pointed out, this is indeed genAI slop in a style similar to Schiele's.

Here's the actual Seated Woman with Bent Knees (1917) by Egon Schiele:

[the-salon]

[aislop]

Hilariously obvious AI slop.

[northdakota-nice]

[aislop]

Mutated toes and a missing leg in the shadow. So hot.

[yourlocalnautilus]

the fact that generative A.I. has created a completely new fundamental doubt in reality (checking to see if an artwork we see is manmade or not) and doubt in the instinct of enjoying art is unforgivable. its sickeningly tragic, and i mean it. NOTHING is worth this price and i hope that everyone will one day realize this.

[owa-tagoo-siam]

[aislop]

Not only is the photo AI slop, but the entire screenshot is AI generated as well. No Facebook users are going to coordinate their profile photos that consistently, to all look like the character selection screen on a PS3 game.

[landsccape]

[aislop]

Yes, AI slop. Ostensibly these are photos taken moments apart, but the pattern on the cat, every leaf, and the asphalt and puddle, are all totally different in each image. It's possible the first image was the original photo, but the second most certainly is genAI with how deformed the outstretched paws are.

[archxangels]

“ℑ 𝔞𝔪 𝔫𝔬𝔱 𝔞𝔣𝔯𝔞𝔦𝔡”

𝔧𝔬𝔞𝔫 𝔡’𝔞𝔯𝔠

[aislop]

This is an interesting case, because yes, it's obviously AI slop, not only from the messy chainmail and uneven plating of the pauldron on her shoulder, but also the wonkiness of the sword and the fact she's not even really holding it.

The thing that's interesting is, it's likely that it was trained on this image:

Which is itself also AI slop! Again, obvious from certain details, like the sword being a little melty and uneven, and her forefingers merging into one another, etc.

So where did any of this actually come from? What was that image trained on? A good candidate is possibly Joan of Arc at the Coronation of Charles VII (1854) by Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres [1780–1867]:

Although there are also some striking similarities to Joan of Arc (c. ~1895–1899) by Harold H. Piffard [1867–1939], largely in the color palette and balance of light and shadow:

But we also find details such as similar pauldrons in Jeanne d'Arc (1901, 1903) by Albert Lynch [1860–1950]:

So what seems to be happening here is someone asked a slop-bot to give them a classical painting of Joan of Arc, and it pulled from all the art it had on her, as well as general classical poses and paintings!

[roccio2]

[mondo-grosso]

@aislop

[aislop]

100% AI slop. We can clock it before even zooming in, from that specific amber interior light glow that so often shows up in GenAI "architecture" exterior images.

The next most obvious tell (apart from every brick on the façade melting for some reason), is big examples of What Language is That?:

Next we have shitty wrought-iron lattice that would embarrass any metalworker, and windows that don't line up, are missing consistent framing for the glass panes, and wouldn't actually function.

And as a final highlight, the image is replete examples of Plants Don't Grow Like That, especially obvious in the planter box and background tree structures and foliage: