People did notice it wasnt AI. It was good.
this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2025
1059 points (99.0% liked)
People Twitter
8514 readers
1598 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician. Archive.is the best way.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It's clearly not AI because it doesn't have weird uncanny and wonky shit. Also the text on the monitor is readable even though it's blurry
Ai image generators can pretty reliably do text now
Not at that scale, they can do larger text fine but at a certain size it just breaks down
However, it is cool that she recreated that AI look to trick them.
It's way less recognizable as an AI "art" style to me tbh. Maybe the studio ghibli one? But I haven't really seen art from that one and it even sounds like a stretch
it does look like that AI version of Ghibli. not like Ghibli directly
load more comments
(1 replies)
AI “artists” and “creators” are the absolute fucking worst. Right up there with “influencers”. They neither either artists, nor creators. The AI is doing all the work while all that their skill-less asses had to do is type up a sentence in a command prompt. Sooooo creative!
A ten year old child can do that with no foreknowledge whatsoever.
The world would be much better off without their input.
I'm not even against the idea¹ of using it for some shitty clip art on your corporate presentation or whatever, but it has decoupled 'images' from 'art' and 'meaning'. They are not artists, they are not making art.
¹the practice, however, being ecologically devastating makes it less desirable.
I'm partial to this only because AI makes my head spin. In theory, it sounds fine to include generated images in your presentation, and I'd be ok with that if it weren't for your caveat about the environment.
Idk if anyone else has noticed or felt the same, but whenever I look at a few AI images per minute, my headspace and eyesight feel uncomfortable. The missing intentionality, the lack of clarity in some details, the mishmash of real-world proportions with fantasy doesn't sit right with my brain, and it makes me want to look away. It feels like mental exhaustion trying to make sense out of nonsense more often than not.
E: Here are some examples of what I'm talking about:
https://thismakesthat.com/bakery-display-ideas/
https://thismakesthat.com/cookie-display-ideas/
All of those images show items out of proportion and elements like piles of raw flour meant to enhance the aesthetics, but that totally miss the point of a professional display and ultimately betray the purpose of the article. Just look at those cookies on the wall with hangers. Who would even do that in real life without using inedible materials? It feels gross.
Its extremely uncanny and kinda stupid.
But as long as i dont focus or get interested in details, it doesnt hurt physically.
A corporate can afford artist so they should hire artists, the situation is different for private people who may not have money to hire an artist or the skill to do themselves for their need
load more comments
(1 replies)
I have used AI to 'create' art and music for entirely personal purposes. I shared some too with friends but that's the extent of it. I would never call myself an artist or musician. People who do are delusional at best.
A ten year old child can do that with no foreknowledge whatsoever.
Yes, that's the idea.
Anyone can now transmit ideas through your eyeballs, and that's awesome.
They could also put in effort, and use the tool to finish a sketch they drew, or combine a render and a photograph, or simply rearrange and overwrite generated parts until it looks like what they imagined. How much labor can go into a text that communicates an idea, and still not be art?
At what point does a definition exclude Koyaanisqatsi?
My point is that it’s not art. That it is being called and considered such, is NOT awesome. It cheapens the craft that many spend their lives to perfect. And it dehumanizes the process.
Make all the slop you want. Just don’t call it art, and don’t call yourself an artist.
Exactly. I'm not usually one to appeal to etymology for the "true meaning" of a word (the etymological fallacy is a thing), but in this case I think it's relevant to bring up. Art is from the Latin ars which means skill, craft and handiwork, among other things. To me, art isn't just a something that's nice to look at or even something that causes an emotional reaction of some sort. A natural landscape can be beautiful, but it's not art. To make something art, the human touch is exactly what's needed. Time, passion, effort and skill go into art. People talk about how generative AI lets anyone make art... but everyone can already make art.
It's certainly true that not everyone has the means to afford all the artistic tools they would like, but people have been making art for tens, if not hundreds of thousands of years with what they had access to. And I don't mean crude stick men, but sophisticated art which shows an understanding of animal anatomy and artistic techniques for producing effects of motion in a still image. If you actually want to make art and are willing to put in the effort, you can make great things with very little. Especially for people who pay for generative AI, there is really no excuse if you're using it to make "art". The image might look good, but it doesn't have any value if it's just another AI generated image among millions of others. Whatever restraints are "stopping" people from making their own art, I don't see how entering a prompt and letting a machine construct an image comes anywhere close to fulfilling someone's creative passion.
If I paint a landscape by hand, and generate one flower, does it stop being art?
The craft of Koyaanisqatsi was editing. People have recreated it using stock footage, as a complicated joke, and frankly the message still works. The whole original movie is an arrangement of uncoordinated b-roll. There are no actors. There is no dialog. Any individual part is almost meaningless, but the gestalt is an award-winning cultural touchstone.
My MIL paid some AI “creator” company to write a song for her husbands birthday.
Cost her $200 for a 90 second song…
Unbelievable. She could have done it herself. A child can do it.
load more comments
(19 replies)
this is like a 2 year old meme at this point. Please don't strip out the date when you take a screenshot of social media.
"strip out" implies it was there at all in the first place. I don't know how you include an absolute date in a screenshot when no absolute date is actually displayed. I guess maybe hover over the relative time and hope that whatever OS or screenshot utility being used doesn't cause a tooltip to disappear
load more comments
(6 replies)
When was your comment made? I didn't strip out any information.
3 hours ago of course.
Which means you replied to a comment 10 hours before it was posted.
load more comments
(1 replies)
How dare you cheat and submit human-generated content to an honest AI competition? Entrants spent literally minutes crafting and refining prompts.
spoiler
/S
That is such a cute picture
I hope people keep doing this. It's a few times now lol. Fuck Ai.
So, was it the first time you found out that you were AI? Or did you suspect beforehand?
Of course a hand drawn image by someone who can draw well is better - the artist practiced for years and took hours to draw this. On the other hand whoever took second place used a few minutes and had no training to produce something that was probably quite nice, too.
It's this 'everybody can produce art in seconds' that is both good and bad. On the one hand I like how I can get a image of whatever I want for pennies, on the other hand I can understand how artist fear devaluation of their art.
Unpopular opinion here, but I feel like AI "art" will make my art the handmade furniture of art. AI art will forever be seen as cheap and my stuff, even if crappy, will be appreciated because a real person made it.
Lots of revenue streams to be lost along the way though. Mostly corporate and marketing ones, I reckon.
You'll be one of the first they come after.
The basilisk has detected an anomaly.
I fucking love cats so much!!!!
Is this the reverse Turing test? It can be used to gauge if hominid hype followers can "really" think...
load more comments
(6 replies)
Wow is it almost to the point humans can make art that looks real?
Alfredo Inshtine over here.
view more: next ›