You must log in or register to comment.

tanrgith t1_j2a6elh wrote

16/21 for me

Would be a lot easier if the images weren't miniscule


PRESTOALOE t1_j2aqpxo wrote

I clicked the very first set of images to enlarge them, and got the question wrong as a result.


360inMotion t1_j2bbnah wrote

Same, lol. I reloaded the page and started over at that point.


everdayday t1_j2asm7h wrote

19/21! The more I thought about it, the harder it was. So I just glanced, and there was an immediate uncanny valley effect about the AI art.


OrangeBuster t1_j2an24m wrote

21/21 but I zoomed the page to 175%


Introsium t1_j2b2q5c wrote

The only one I missed was Van Gogh but honestly I’m willing to take that.


OrangeBuster t1_j2b4x4y wrote

Which one was that?


Introsium t1_j2b52qk wrote

The sunflowers. The one on the right seemed even more surreal than the one on the left.


OrangeBuster t1_j2b5vvj wrote

Sorry. I'm dumb, I was switching threads and thought you replied to a different comment


J05huaJack t1_j2b93zh wrote

I got 16 too, AI really struggles with the basic lines of a human body so anytime an arm was wobbly or anything that made it super easy.


Solest044 t1_j2bcv3a wrote

16/21 here as well. It says something that we need to zoom in lots of times to have a good chance at telling the difference but, with counterfeits of actual artists work, they do this exact same thing so... Not that unusual.


veliza_raptor t1_j2a6pzl wrote

20/21. Some of them were definitely harder than others, but the only one that stumped me was the Japanese scroll.


bushpotatoe t1_j2afwwt wrote

Dead giveaway for me was the deer in the bottom right of the true image. AI art just couldn't do that.


WrongJohnSilver t1_j2as7pw wrote

Yeah, it was the deer. Also, the writing on the AI scroll just didn't make sense. More story, more human.


DatTomahawk t1_j2b5n6a wrote

The writing is what tipped me off. I don’t know how to read Japanese, but those characters looked more or less like random scribbles.


Smash_Factor t1_j2awjgf wrote

Yes, that and the background of the AI image. That house is just wrong and the lines aren't correct in the surrounding area for something painted by a human.


Cubey42 t1_j2ajuly wrote

19 out of 21, mainly just looked for the thing that AI does where it kinda forgets what a lines purpose was and would repurpose it for something else. for me it was the sunflower vase. for the scroll the building at the top made 0 sense so I didn't even look at the rest of the picture


diyebb2 t1_j2aw82r wrote

the scroll was one of the easier ones, the writing was smudged and irregular


SpikeyBiscuit t1_j2aps8k wrote

I got the same score because I saw the text on the AI one and immediately said "AI can't do text" lmao


imeuru t1_j2athr3 wrote

I've had some interesting text pop up on ai images, my two favorites are Oop! next to a cartoon ghost, and a Taco Beell sign.

It tries real hard anyway.


Ogpeeps t1_j2b1et2 wrote

The characters gave that one away.


jobhand t1_j2bfirc wrote

I was suspicious of the top one but the text is what sealed it for me.


Surur t1_j2a4xfy wrote

Got 16/21. I was doing so well, but the last few tripped me up. Interesting test - once AI can do hands and faces properly, the detection rate will be a whole lot lower.


cutoffs89 t1_j2ae5ig wrote

Yea, the Flower Vase by Brueghel threw me for a loop there.

Got 18 correct.


[deleted] t1_j2ab1cw wrote



Smash_Factor t1_j2awsnd wrote

That's the only one I missed as well. I thought it was an old, black and white taken by a reporter. I should have known better because the one on the left is too perfect.


Lordbug2000 t1_j2a6qfu wrote

14/21 I’ve found that the ones that are very stylized or abstract are a lot harder to spot, whereas the ones of at least semi-realistic humans are usually easier to flag as AI.


PartyPorpoise t1_j2aocjl wrote

I got the stylized ones but they definitely took a little more thought.


Lordbug2000 t1_j2egk4b wrote

If I took the time to really analyze them I might’ve been able to get one or two more, but I wouldn’t even know what to look for


PartyPorpoise t1_j2ekt0x wrote

Yeah, the stylized ones take more of an understanding of art to pick out. Even you don’t necessarily know the technical aspects of art it can still be doable.


AbbyWasThere t1_j2agwwr wrote

19/21. I kept noticing that the AI pieces aren't really telling any kind of story or conveying an emotion, just a bunch of randomly placed elements of something that could.


hel112570 t1_j2aqj55 wrote

Yeah the artifacts are the tell. Twisted fingers and non-sense trees...the lines on the that were probably piers or land that don't make any sense and go to nowhere..random dot in the sky.


mallorn_hugger t1_j2b7c9l wrote

EXACTLY. They are soul-less. Some of these were absolutely no contest, like the fake Hopper and the AI portrait vs the purple woman portrait. A few were harder. The colored cubes got me and I got kind of lazy and decided to go on instinct and sadlymissed the Degas that way, but most of these were easy.


A-lana-89 t1_j2bdeur wrote

That was definitely a giveaway for me too. Even if the technical glitches get smoothed out in a few years, there's a flatness or a lack of depth... It's not art the way humans create it


arothmanmusic t1_j2aq4pc wrote


I suspect I probably would've caught one or two more of them if I had been looking on my computer instead of on my phone. Of course, these are images that came straight out of the software without any in painting or retouching. I suspect all of the telltale signs would've been covered by somebody with more skill.


imzelda t1_j2aapg5 wrote

AI art has this weird soulless lack of feeling permeating through it. It really creeps me out, not in an AI is dANgErOuS and will destroy us kind of way. It’s more like looking at someone who is smiling but dead. It can’t hurt you, but it haunts you.


audionerd1 t1_j2ar5tg wrote

It's in the uncanny valley phase right now. Give it another year.


BowZAHBaron t1_j2aoibp wrote

I think AI art with the intervention a true human artist is going to be magnificent


gelimaurk OP t1_j2aeu8b wrote

The spooky part is imagining how much better AI will be in just a few more years, and not just with art.


SpikeyBiscuit t1_j2aq2g8 wrote

I nearly aced the test only because I spent so much time generating images that I know what to look for. Once the AI advances to where it doesn't leave signature elements, it'll be at the same level as humans


logan2043099 t1_j2afo6o wrote

Really cool of them to make the images tiny so you have a hard time spotting the frequent mistakes AI art makes.


bravehamster t1_j2a8ucw wrote

20/21. The volcano one was the only one that was a toss-up for me. The others all had obvious tell-tell marks of the current state of AI art if you've spent enough time playing with it.


mallorn_hugger t1_j2b7pwd wrote

I have spent 0 time playing with AI art or paying attention to it at all. Most of these lacked soul and story and were very easy to pick out as AI.


DiddyMao20XX t1_j2arit7 wrote

When in doubt look at the hands.

Missed out mostly on the attempts to imitate abstract art.


syizm t1_j2ae74j wrote

0 out of 21.

Gonna go berate myself six inches from the mirror now.


dinomiah t1_j2aoaym wrote

For real? Because a result like that would almost suggest you have internalized the opposite of the markers of AI art. The odds of blindly guessing and getting them all wrong are slightly lower than 1 in 2 million.


giasumaru t1_j2aj9gj wrote


The fog was a good giveaway for the photographs.


I don't get their "It's not telling a story so that's the one that's AI" angle on some of them nor the "Portrait is too perfect" angle (But dude, have you hear of digital painting?)"


lauralamb42 t1_j2ben0s wrote

I would be interested in a test like this that was comparing digital artists.


sparkling-spirit t1_j2ak6c9 wrote

yay I got 21/21! The one that I was almost fooled by was the Japanese scroll until I looked closer at the calligraphy. Definitely some tough ones.

I definitely think if they do this next year we're not going to be able to tell a difference.


TheZimmerian t1_j2b1pla wrote


Some of them, like the one with the cubes or the flowers, are simple enough that an AI can replicate them relatively reliably. There isn't much technique or composition to works like that, at which point it's more guesswork than knowing which one is made by a computer. However, everything that exceeds the simplicity of a bunch of geometric figures or a flower bouquet like the surrealist archway or van Gogh's Sunflowers looks just awful if an AI tries to imitate it.

Then again, these things look awful and pointless to the general consumer too, so I guess with how hyped AI is among the techbros constantly defending it under posts like this one, art will become even more elitist than it already is and the simpleton consumers will be fed by a tireless AI prompt algorithm like they're unworthy of the love and care a real human puts into designs and artworks.

How anyone could want that escapes me. Then again, much of what's happening in the world these days escapes me.


rexpimpwagen t1_j2bdl8f wrote

The image quality is so low this is pointless on mobile.


LalinOwl t1_j2a9ayv wrote

19/21 while sleep depeived. Maybe it's because I'm an artist


Shadow293 t1_j2adcs9 wrote

Got 18 out of 21. The paintings are what got me. Other than that, it’s still relatively easy to tell if an AI created it. They seem to struggle a bit with human faces, fingers/hands always look weird, ears look weird, etc.


doyouevenIift t1_j2b3ivk wrote

I also got 18/21 but it was the flower paintings that got me


SpiderFamm t1_j2afzef wrote

19 out of 21 for me, I know artist joke about not Knowing how to draw hands but we can still do it, AI just can't get them right, for now atleast


Stupid_Guitar t1_j2b2l98 wrote

Aye, I think our ability to understand our own anatomy is our advantage. For now, AI just doesn't seem capable of "getting it", only superficial mimicry.


bushpotatoe t1_j2afzew wrote

20/21. I missed the sunflower comparison.

In every other comparison there was a dead giveaway that they were AI art. Kids fingers, shape of the sun in the last image, nonsensical bouquet in the second flower comparison, the perfectly detailed deer in the Japanese scroll. There's always some aspect of AI art that looks off.


arothmanmusic t1_j2aqp6t wrote

The sunflower one is easier if you know what the original painting looks like. :) In a couple of these cases I was familiar with the painting the AI was being compared to, so that made it easier…


drillgorg t1_j2asqj4 wrote

Haha yeah that one was a gimme for me. I actually spent some time a while ago trying to get Midjourney to reproduce the style seen in Van Gogh's sunflowers and couldn't get it to work.


twiglike t1_j2aj5o2 wrote

Easy quiz 21/21 . Just pick the one that looks like dogshit


mankodaisukidesu t1_j2b51st wrote

Also 21/21. Once you’ve seen enough AI images you can easily notice the small details that give it away such as unnatural looking tree branches, deformed features, and strange looking lighting and shadows


twiglike t1_j2b7rby wrote

Yeah it can’t figure out boundaries very well


srefermat t1_j2ar7c3 wrote

Not true. The AI sunflowers looked much better than Van Gogh’s


Danat_shepard t1_j2azqxw wrote

There was no composition in that one. Flowers, paint, brushes - all of it is so close, yet somehow it misses it.


Citadelvania t1_j2akriy wrote

17/21 and all the ones I missed were like "well this one looks better so maybe they're trying to trick me" and they weren't.


karimamin t1_j2asdcz wrote

Not too hard. The AI photos for some reason have too many random mixes of blurry and sharp lines


jellyn7 t1_j2asgb2 wrote

I also only got 13. I failed at the very first one because I kept staring at the staircase.


Smash_Factor t1_j2aw9wb wrote

20/21 for me.

I got the JFK one wrong. Learned my lesson and got the rest correct.


BasilDeGrec t1_j2axhbp wrote

19/21.. key giveaway was that the AI art was usually low resolution


catlogic42 t1_j2axvx0 wrote

18/21. was an early user of AI art, it struggles with hands and putting people together to tell a story. Now I wonder about the ethics of AI art using other artists work as it's input.


Lashdemonca t1_j2azqbx wrote

5/21. Now I was surprised at first. But then I remember that Im autisic and I dont notice the uncanny valley. So hey!


Stupid_Guitar t1_j2b1l1d wrote


Missed the Degas and Bruegal pics. Also, chose the wrong JFK pic.


GomerStuckInIowa t1_j2b29n4 wrote

The point is misdirected here. Not that AI art is bad or good. A robot can fix good soup vs your mom fixing good soup. But which do you want? Also AI art is not unique. Your mom's soup is unique. This bowl of chicken noodle might taste like somewhat others, but it is still unique to her. The AI art is unique to nothing. It is reproducible to infinity. One might call it soul instead of uniqueness. Or love or even that life is infused into the soup or the art. In the article, take the picture of Kennedy for example. AI art is nice and that is the end of the story. In fact, there is NO story. But the artist might have a story. "I painted this the afternoon when he found out that his son has just learned how to pitch softball underhanded, properly. He was so full of pride that day." No AI can infuse a painting or any artwork with emotion. All it can do is lay down lines, shapes and colors. Maybe we can add our interpretations to it later, but that it all. If you want miscellaneous colors and shapes, AI will be fine, if you want art, turn to a human for that.


Surur t1_j2b3moh wrote

Many mothers pass off canned soup as home made lol.

The story of an AI art is the story of the prompter - why did they want to make that particular image.

Sure, they do not have full control of the result, but if they did not approve they could always discard it and make another.


GomerStuckInIowa t1_j2b92zk wrote

Maybe your mom so you assume most?


Surur t1_j2bb8pw wrote

I said many, not your mom.


GomerStuckInIowa t1_j2bbx88 wrote

I try to make a point and you troll. Go ahead.


Surur t1_j2behid wrote

Nearly one-quarter of respondents (24%) confessed to a soup-related “white lie” – they admit to passing off canned soup to dinner party guests as homemade! Millennials led the pack with nearly half (48%) saying they’ve engaged in this shady behavior, while far fewer Gen-Xers (22%) and Baby Boomers (5%) admit to the same. Furthermore, more than twice as many men (36%) than women (14%) say they’ve passed off canned soup as homemade.


KamikazeArchon t1_j2b7pm2 wrote

>A robot can fix good soup vs your mom fixing good soup. But which do you want?

Definitely the robot soup. I've had a lot of "made with love" meals that were frankly worse than what I can get out of a can or a frozen box. "Made with love" doesn't actually cover for a steak cooked till it's gray and dead, or a cake that's dry and tasteless.

If you have a mom that can make great soup, congratulations. You are lucky and you should enjoy that. A lot of people don't have that. They might not even have a mom. For them, the robot soup is better than the bad soup or no soup that they would get otherwise.

Most people consume most visual media for the "colors and shapes", not for the artist's story or emotion. The vast majority of the time, we don't even know the artist's story or emotion.

Campbell's and Boyardee didn't replace Gordon Ramsay and never will. But they did allow millions of people to have acceptable, low-cost food, which they would otherwise not have had access to.


GomerStuckInIowa t1_j2c9hk8 wrote

You really don’t understand metaphors or art. I’m a retired chef and my wife is a professional artist that owns a gallery that represents 22 other artists. We’ve sold hundreds of pieces of art. You somehow ended up talking about people not having a mom?


r2k-in-the-vortex t1_j2b2y73 wrote

Marginally better than random guess and they aren't even the trickiest samples. The Kennedy image I was like, this is a trick question right? Nope, it wasn't. Well.. that's the point of AI image generation, it's supposed to be hard to tell the difference.


jweaver0312 t1_j2b4q87 wrote

When I just did it now, I just scored 15 out of 21 correctly identified


ArachnomancerCarice t1_j2b4yid wrote

21/21. I was a bit shocked. I suppose part of it is some of the images are things I recognize as original art pieces, or there is something off about the anatomy of the subjects.


NEYO8uw11qgD0J t1_j2b549f wrote


AI art doesn't make choices like a human does. (Yet.) That's what makes it obvious.


Snaz5 t1_j2b5x51 wrote

What this makes me most realize is ai cant do composition. Most of the real pieces, bar some of the still lives are supposed to BE something and LOOK a way, the ai pictures are just images of a thing in a style, they don’t have that intentionality to them


Melcat248 t1_j2b79og wrote

I got a 21/21! 18 was the hardest for me. The thing with AI art is that there is something abt them that kinda gives it away, I dont really know what, it just seems kinda wispy in a way? If that makes sense?


pinkfootthegoose t1_j2b7oo6 wrote

got 16 of 21 though one I got wrong I thought they were trying to fool me with an intentional fake.


BobFellatio t1_j2b8zja wrote

20/21. The black and white landscape photography got me, they both looked very real, so it was a 50/50. But, in fairness I have been nerding out on midjourney quite a lot the past months.


mrobot_ t1_j2b9d6f wrote

Can someone explain to me what "AI art" really is or how it works? Can "any" AI just create "any" imagine, or are they very specific e.g. a specific AI to create fake photos?

And how do these AIs do it? Do they just have a lot of snippets of pictures or pixels or what?

Because surely no AI really creates these pieces of art completely from scratch and out of their "imaginations"..


Shiningc t1_j2c3pl8 wrote

It just trains the program to look for similarities, and then make the program mash the images together.

For example, you show the program an image of an Apple and label it “Apple”. The program doesn’t “know” that it’s an apple, it just looks for patterns that looks like that image. If you make the program go through thousands of images, then it might have thousands of ways of drawing an apple.

In the same way, you might make the program “learn” a “bear eating”. So if you input “a bear eating an apple”, then you might output an image where it might look like a bear is about to eat an apple.

Obviously, humans are much more flexible than that. All it has to do is learn what an apple and a bear is, and it can draw an infinite pattern of art with those two items. Or it can be a completely new style of art. Fact is, we don’t “learn” how to draw stick figures for example, yet we do. We don’t just imitate reality like the AI does.

We THINK that we’re drawing people when we’re drawing stick figures. They’re our imperfect yet approximate figures of humans. We’re not copying, we’re estimating. That’s what it means by drawing from scratch.


Wakiwi t1_j2bb39r wrote

18 correct. But this response was so stupid in #11!

“Both of these images show two people in close proximity, but only one of them tells a story: the photograph of a man and a woman in love and showing physical affection. The AI image, meanwhile, doesn’t tell us anything about the relationship of the two people.”

Annoying. We are evaluating art not relationships. A human could just as easily draw, paint or photograph a boring scene.


ET-bunny t1_j2bdn90 wrote

21/21 (on mobile) But I spent a few years in an art atelier and I'm also familiar with digital art and photography. I also scan fine art for a living.

The blue in the Degas ballerina painting was a dead giveaway.

The JFK portrait was easy if you're familiar with how film photography looks -- the grain just has a certain look to it.

The background in the sumi scroll made no sense.

Photos made me think a bit longer, but the composition (and hands, of course) gave away the AI images. The volcano photo, for instance -- the human captured one has more depth in both the scene and subject (caldera in the foreground, mountain in the distance with more layers of atmosphere). Boring flat composition with no real focal point or visual narrative gave away the bot images.


jobhand t1_j2bfopj wrote

18/21 I might have spotted certain things if I weren't on my phone. But I'm good with that score.


ClosedMindOpenMouth t1_j2abjw4 wrote

No, I cannot. How I suspect art is AI is the frequency of any particular poster. AI produces art way faster than any human artist can.


kraemahz t1_j2agjk7 wrote

A lot of them are much easier if you just look for the one that did hands well. That's the human one.


Unbearlievable t1_j2alajw wrote

19/21 although it might be because I've messed with the generators and I've seen a fair amount of the specific AI style artifacts.


HeyItsPanda69 t1_j2alrm6 wrote

19/21 right. But the crazy thing is? Last year this would have been MUCH MUCH easier. Next year, I wouldn't be surprised if I couldn't get more than half based only on luck and probability


WhiteMageTifa t1_j2ayrxo wrote

13 out of 21. honestly it just scary how GOOD AI is. and is getting. I never in 100 years would of guess Ai could and would be able to do such a thing.

As a artist though I feel like we aren't out of a job YET. while what the Ai does is impressive it still a Ai it isn't gonna capture stuff like how some lighting and shapes of stuff gonna be.

still don't like how they steal people art though.


Shiningc t1_j2af2cf wrote

I don't know why we even call them "AI art" when it's really just "rehashing of human-made art".


ET-bunny t1_j2be8nv wrote

I think it's more accurate to call "AI art" just "image generation" because that's what it is.

AI image generators are not artists.