The scenery ones are near impossible to tell because you have no context. The pencil art one is impressive though.

I did bad.

But I expected to do bad. AI generation has become too good.

You tell yourself you can identify them, because sometimes you notice weird artifacts and spot the AI quickly. But we’re really only noticing the bad ones. We’ll never even know the good ones were AI most of the time, so we can’t balance how good we think we are at spotting them against how often we were actually wrong.

I was missing a "don't know"/"can't determine" option.

For photographs specifically and some types of paintings/artificial stuff, there are things you can look for. But for other things, I feel like, or at least to my knowledge, you can't.

Like the pencil drawing. There's not enough things it could be doing wrong. It's a sketch. With simplistic but "error-excusing"/diffuse/transformable content.

13/20, I work in AI. The paintings were the hardest for me, because the art style obfuscates some of the AI artefacts that can be tells.

14 / 20 here. I dunno why there are so many people, particularly on Reddit, who absolutely hate AI art. Yeah some of it can look janky, uncanny valley, or such but a lot of it looks really damn cool.

And not all of us have talents to create visual art of our own so text creation is much more accessible for us to explore our imaginations. Or lack the money to commission pieces from human artists.

10/20.

You can only fool me half the time! Joke's on you, robots!

8/20. I am pretty good on photorealistic images, but the random drawings... honestly a lot of the ones by people I tagged as AI generated because i thought they kinda sucked.

Got 7/20, the second photo really did surprise me!

I got 17 out of 20. I pegged the bezerk drawing as generated because the bottom part of the armor lacked symmetry and didn't make any sense. I got the other three line drawings incorrect.

I have spent WAAAAY to much of my freetime generating images and apparently have picked up an eye for the weird types of artifacts that these generators produce. The hardest one to articulate is that generated images have a very specific type of noise. Images create a very nice grainy type noise while digital images get more of the blocky jpeg artifacts and banding. Generated images get this weird hybrid of the two that isn't consistent across the whole image.

FML. 8 out of 20. I suck at this.

14/20 isn't bad I guess.

10/20, this was indeed harder, especially the ones that were similar styles but not consistently AI or human-generated. I think images of paintings was kind of cheating, though...

13/20, but there was a lot of guessing in there. I would have believed any of them going either way.

Nice try robots! I’m not helping you learn how to fool us humans.

9/20 rip

Regardless of score bragging, it requires some technical knowledge and pixel peeping to really be able to tell, and even then I can't guarantee you can. I would imagine your average Joe wouldn't even know any better.

Got 10/20. The second photo really threw me for a loop. All the texture on the skin and and hair led me to believe human; I noticed the weird patch on the shoulder and the unnatural shine on the ear but excused it as technical flaws or something, chose human in the end. I really thought that corporate logo style drawing of the avocado was human, like it wasn't even a question for me and yet the fact that it was AI really surprised me.

The avocado had real text. Is Dall-E 3 capable of creating legible text?

Idk about anyone else but its a bit long. Up to q10 i took it seriously and actually looked for ai gen artifacts (and got all of them up to 10 correct) and then I just sorta winged it and guessed and got like 50% of them right. OP if you are going to use this data anywhere I would first recommend getting all of your sources together as some of those did not have a good source, but also maybe watch out for people doing what I did and getting tired of the task and just wanting to see how well i did on the part i tried. I got like 15/20

For anyone wanting to get good at seeing the tells, focus on discontinuities across edges: the number or intensity of wrinkles across the edge of eyeglasses, the positioning of a railing behind a subject (especially if there is a corner hidden from view, you can imagine where it is, the image gen cannot). Another tell is looking for a noisy mess where you expect noisy but organized: cross-hatching trips it up especially in boundary cases where two hatches meet, when two trees or other organic looking things meet together, or other lines that have a very specific way of resolving when meeting. Finally look for real life objects that are slightly out of proportion, these things are trained on drawn images, and photos, and everything else and thus cross those influences a lot more than a human artist might. The eyes on the lego figures gave it away though that one also exhibits the discontinuity across edges with the woman's scarf.

15/20 damn this was a lot harder than I expected. I've found that analyzing the pictures for small details that make no sense or lack context on why they are there helps greatly. But damn these things have better better fast

14/20, huh. i seem to have learned a lot from all of the ai generated pics on rule34.

[Survey] Can you tell which Surveys are AI generated??

Surprised I got 16/20

I got 9/20 lmao.

11/20 but many times I wasn't sure, and most times I thought that this pic doesn't belong into such a survey, because it is too simple.

The survey question is more meaningful when it's about photorealistic images. Simple advertising graphics are meaningless either way.

I'm happy with 12/20

At least I can say that I'm better than average

I didn't do great. Dalli-3 is really good and I couldn't spot anything obvious in most of the pictures.

I did well with the photograph ones, bad with the drawings, as I suspected.

A couple were surprising but others seemed obvious in hindsight. Some of these AI models have a really specific vibe that is easy to spot. It can be removed sometimes but if the prompts don't prevent it, the images tend to have this glow and pop that many real images don't have. They're perfectly detailed if that makes sense.

Got 14/20, which I feel pretty good about, but you do this survey every year and it's gonna keep going lower. I bet even a year ago, most people would be above 75% accuracy.

11/20, the LEGO one got me good

16/20. I would imagine I err’d on the side of assuming art was AI made rather than human made. AI generated photos are too ‘smooth’ looking.