4 ms·
But they didn't do this at all. They picked the most human-like AI images (usually high quality), and the most AI-like human images (usually mid). The anime pi
by npinsker 2y ago
But they didn't do this at all. They picked the most human-like AI images (usually high quality), and the most AI-like human images (usually mid).
The anime pictures are particularly poor and look much worse than commercial standard work (e.g. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FwWPeNhXoAQZGW8?format=jpg&name=large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FwWPeNhXoAQZGW8?format=jpg&name=...) -- but of course those would be too easy to classify, wouldn't they? I wouldn't fault anyone for thinking the provided examples are AI.
- viraptor 2y ago> They picked the most (…) the most AI-like human images Why do you think so? I didn't see that explicitly claimed in the post (or did I miss it?)
- npinsker 2y agoIt's my opinion, but... him saying he "[took] prestigious works that had survived the test of time" isn't so believable, when he starts off with something from /r/ImaginaryWarhammer and immediately follows it up with a piece from "an unknown Italian Renaissance painter". Part of it is he's handicapped by having to avoid famous pieces -- but you can still easily find work that outshines these examples. For digital fantasy, art for card games like Magic: the Gathering. For anime, the art for gachapon games is wonderful. For landscapes, he chose a relatively weak Hudson River School painting, and many have more striking composition and lighting that seem very hard to mistake for AI (e.g. https://collectionapi.metmuseum.org/api/collection/v1/iiif/10786/33136/main-image https://collectionapi.metmuseum.org/api/collection/v1/iiif/1...).