Maybe it was a human director leading a pack of ostriches doing the game. You never know.

Yeah that's definitely AI. At least there's no doubt now.

100% AI slop. These people must think we were born yesterday.

Yeah, I really don't want to falsely accuse anyone but... the human 3d-artist forgot to model one of the horns? That redraw has a very, let's say, familiar style as well.

i... these are literally all ai. like why would the render be missing a horn?

The theory on The Other Site is what I also agree with: They took #1, fed it into an AI 3D modeler to get #4, fed that image into a 2D style AI model to get #2, and then went back to #4 and used AI in-painting and lazy Photoshop to remove some elements to get #3.

This is pathetic. They could have just ai generated fake sketches but they didn't even have the brain power to think of that.

How is this not AI?! The redraw absolutely smacks of that style, not to mention the cannon arm is obviously meant to imitate a milk can which the redraw mangles. The rockets are supposed to be udders but the two we can see most clearly don't match in construction and the other two seems to sprout off of another one. These errors carry over to the full render. The udders are a pixelated mangle of perspective in the original, but this point is absolutely missed.

Above the leg is also a weird split. You can see in the original this is a weird artifact of pixel shading, but it's been rendered into an actual split in the material in the redraw and renders. This is a valid design choice I guess, but to me it's an indication of how the AI misinterpreted intent and someone reviewing it didn't catch or care about it.

Sure... I'm all for giving people the benefit of the doubt, to some degree.

Unfortunately however, we do now exist in a zero trust world where you can't always naively believe what you see to be authentic and legitimate... If I was going to commission or hire an artist to do some paid work today, I would need to at least see some kind of "proof of work".

Because of the ethical implications of generative AI, people have every reason and right to be suspicious and critical of work that looks like it could be generated by AI. People who use AI understand this too, but sadly many of them choose the path of fraudulence and lying instead of reflecting on themselves.

When people make something like this, which to me is so obviously AI slop, and then is bold enough to try to deny it, it just adds insult to injury, frankly. "You can fool some people sometime, but you can't fool all the people all the time." These dudes want to pee on our legs and tell us it's raining...

Everyone draws the line somewhere.

Fans.

What I think the average person who may not have an eye for art or an attention to details might not understand is, a lot of AI art that comes across as convincing to the untrained eye is still, at the very least, living deep in the uncanny valley.

Much in the same way that an AI voice or video can look somewhat convincing but a little bit off, the same thing is true for AI artwork. People who are artists or who have at least learned to see the nuance in art can often see the weirdness in generative AI "art", even if it is sometimes hard to explain exactly why it feels off (maybe it's the subtlety of the lighting, the shape design, the line quality, etc.).

Can you make AI art that is convincing enough to fool an untrained eye? Easily.

Can you make AI art that is convincing enough to feel a trained eye? Sure, but it's going to be a lot harder.

In the case of these guys, they really aren't fooling almost anyone with their obvious slop. Frankly, it doesn't take a well-tuned eye for artistry to see that their artwork looks like every generic AI slop art output that we've been barraged with over the last year and change.

That would explain why an AI model would look like a human made it, not why a human would make something that looks exactly like a bad AI model.

I fully admit that there are AI-generated images that could fool me. But that's beside the point when like in this case, the images are in a very typical AI-style. It doesn't look like they've put any effort into generating something that could fool people, but just went with what one of the more common models shat out. And those are still fairly obvious to detect IMO. Besides that, their process pictures really don't make a lot of logical sense. I also find it quite unlikely that a human artist would miss a visual gag like the cow using a milk churn and just replace it with a generic blaster.

I'm not going to claim to be good at detecting AI generated content, but for visual content there's clear vibes that AI generated content give that I can never specifically point out, but when I spot them there's usually at least one other person calling out the slop. Yes 3-4 years ago diffusion models would make errors like mangling hands and mushy details, but while newer models get images technically correct, they leave clear vibes that are easy to spot

Guy, everyone thinks they're a Human AI Detector, especially if they have an account on Twitter, Reddit, BlueSky, etc. Which often results in baseless accusations against human made content being called AI generated, which is hilarious to me honestly.

The process image makes it clear that they are lying. Step 3 is step 4 with bits crudely painted out. You can see it easily on the shoulder and chest. They are making up intermediary steps after the fact, which would be unnecessary if there were intermediary steps.

Why should they use some kind of filter to achieve the same fuzzy, plasticy look that bad AI art tends to have? It's not like that magically appears when you make 3D art.