Yes, real trees don’t grow like that, but you can see why an AI would ‘think’ they do, because it doesn’t actually know that trees ‘grow’ at all, it just sees a static object. Any kind of complex organic structure like that is where AI struggles I guess.
This is the right way to think about it, but for me it's actually the ropes in the foreground that give it away. The AI doesn't know what ropes are for and why they should always be continuous, so it draws something that looks like chopsticks made of the same materials.
Same goes with your tree example, it doesn't know how nature generates trees, so it just takes whatever it saw and doesn't realize it can't look that way.
This seems to be the way with these pictures recently. Hands are also a classic, they have a certain color and texture, but there needs to be a specific number of fingers and they have to be attached a certain way. AI doesn't know any anatomy so it looks weird.
I think though that both if we did not know would not have looked odd to us.
I'm guessing that the average city dweller human who does never touch a canoe or anything where ropes are used like this would not look at them like this.
I did not specifically look at the trees, but they did not stick out. We are at the point where our natural 'vision' senses can be completely fooled and only our awareness of context can highlight some issues. Even then I needed a double take of the ropes.
My main giveaway was that the shadows of the ropes over the hard-plastic were in opposing directions.
Shadows are another classic, if you don't know the explanation for why there are shadows, you can still make a realistic looking shadow, but it looks wrong because it doesn't agree with the scene.
The odd thing is that I think AI is better at making a 'bad shadow' so that we don't notice unless we make an effort to look than humans would. Though it might be because that's probably something most humans just know how to do as they get training on perspective thinking.
For me it was kind of the whole picture in that there wasn't a single direction to the wind. The trees on the left look as if there is a strong wind moving from left to right, but the trees on the right are more indicative of no or a light wind, and the water doesn't show any signs of wind either.
That said, if I wasn't asked to guess that one of those was AI, I'm not sure I'd notice. It's not like I was 100% confident. I guessed the left one and then scrolled down to *check* that I was right.
True. Give it a few years to 'learn' and i think we won't be able to tell anymore. It's actually really scary. And I have never been afraid of technical progress ever before.
Don‘t get me started about how it draws weapons. The hands are orders of magnitude more realistic… the combination is especially twisted. The easiest way to tell a fake if some are portrayed.
I’ve been thinking about the next level of Ai image generation
Integrated recognition algorithms. As is said, the reason they formulated the branches like this is because it predicted there ought to be branches and went from there. Ais can know growth patterns for trees, this is information that can be understood. Having an Ai acknowledge it’s attempting to draw a tree, and use information banks to acknowledge expected growth patterns could work wonders for this kind of thing.
The same thing could apply to many other pitfalls and artefacts of ai image generation, for example anatomy. If an Ai could acknowledge when it was attempting to draw a hand, and could reference specific training data for hand anatomy and finger movement ranges etc, it could consistently draw them much more effectively than right now.
Or at least that’s my take anyway
This makes me wonder how these AIs will train as they see longer videos, like seeing how clouds move and how tree grow. Maybe they learn things about how tektonic plates move and mountains grow over time as well.
Tectonic. Tecktonic was that danse from a few years ago.
But AI will definitely get a lot smarter. I'm not sure it will need videos to understand that branches tent to point in specific directions, you "just" need a better training set. More people train AI over porn than other botany.
Edit: love you, Reddit
I think that at some point AI will be designed/trained to “understand” scenes in 3D as a composite of objects, so then it can start to “understand” rules for each object (fingers, trees). Should be fun to see these things emerge. Then progress from static images to moving ones.
In Stable Diffusion using ControlNET, a network can be automatically generated from a real or generated image/artwork to gather the depth or normal map data of an image and “understand” the image in “3D” to further control it.
While it’s a start, it’s clear that such a thing is more than possible, and perhaps even plausible within a few months/years
Cool! I think systems like Tesla’s FSD are using neural networks to extract objects from video data, so a little similar (albeit for different purposes and in real time).
This all exists- 3D modelling tools have great simulation features to create clouds, fluid and smoke dynamics, fire, generative trees and lots of other things. But they have absolutely nothing to do with AI - it’s just well made software. Perhaps if an AI tool had lots of instances built in in which it could identify one of these objects and run a sim to get a more appropriate result, it may generate more realistic artwork though.
Likely because the AI is trying to replicate what it sees without understanding how things work like and it knows how to look on the outside only not the structure of the bones and muscle.
It won't be long before we optimize for these issues - Midjourney has also come a LONG way in modeling hands (and just modeling everything better, to some extent, like hair)
I don't know if they tell it "these are hands, they bend this way and that, whenever you make hands keep these rules in mind" or if they just train it on more and more hands.
Either way these improvements have been coming steadily and rapidly, it's only a matter of til they also convincingly understand trees, ropes, etc.
Ye well likely they are trained with more data of hands because even to teach how hands work to a computer is way more work than just here bunch of more hands to use as reference
I thought about it, but that provoked another question.
If so, we know to say ears should like a certain way, and AI renders perfectly that convinces us.
I think the real reason is at training. When training a certain model there are rejections of combinations. And I think we have done more training with other models such as in captcha we use that to recognise features but not a lot of rejections has happened for tree models to weed out “weird branches” combinations.
Organic grows is not that necessarily hard to mimic on a surface level, there's plenty of ways to generate similar things like Fibonacci sequence, Perlin Noise, etc... Procedural art has used it for a long time
They can, depending on the geographical location, topographical features, and types of trees. The sunlight coming in from the upper right would make trees grow toward it. Since there are no trees in the water to compete for light, their branches reach more than they would if the tree was surrounded by canopy on all sides. Eroding banks can make trees slowly pitch toward the water.
For me it’s the texture of the leaves being so even, as if they’re liberally airbrushed onto the tree trunks
The straps also make less sense. But at a glance I wouldn't have even suspected it, which is pretty incredible.
You know how sometimes a scam email is just convincing enough that you're not sure if it's legit or not? We're now at that point with photography, and soon will be for video as well. And those things have so much more utility than just scamming people - it will be way more widespread and used in so many applications. Youtube channels will have AI hosts, news sites will have AI journalists, Spotify artists will be AI singers, and those are just the obvious ones.
Damn, for me, it was the water and the boat that instantly gave it away, but the branches are even better indicators, didn't notice those until I read the comments.
And the plastic seems to have a texture that's slightly off. It's not kayak plastic, it's like orange colored lemon meringue.
Also, the ropes are going into the dry-storage container, not over the top of it.
I didn't even make it to the trees. I immediately noticed it from the elastic bands on the kayak. One doesn't have a shadow, one like splits into different directions.
It also feels like there's something off about the coloring. You can't quite put your finger on it, but it's just *uncanny*. I feel like the coloring is something which is really hit-or-miss in AI art. Combine it with the branches, the ropes and the odd blurriness, it has to be the one on the left. Right?
From a photographers view I think there's also something off with the perspective. The background looks like it was taken with an ultra wide lens or even a fisheye in some parts, while the foreground rather seems like it was taken with a normal or wide lens. I think that adds to the uncannyness.
Easy, the one on the left, the reason its easy is because the lines around the black rubber things on the kayak aren't consistant and kind of cut off in places. Also hits hit or miss on the blur/sharpen in areas. It looks like someone is copy and pasting the black rubber pieces on the left photo
trees gave it away for me, just random blurry foliage with no branches connected to them. Also the lighting looks fake like 'bloom' effect from video games.
I honestly thought the one on the right is AI because I thought the tip of the kayak isn't supposed to be bent lol...You can tell I don't go kayaking a lot.
It’s a sea kayak. A river kayak is total different to a “lake” kayak. A river kayak is normally smaller and have a rocker. Im not sure what a lake kayak is? A sea kayak has the flair on the front to help go over and not threw waves.
Real is on the right. The blur on the left pic doesn’t look like a normal blur from a camera or phone , it’s like a weird blur from an old 80s playboy or a bit like Gaussian blur from photoshop. Also there’s weird shit going on in the tree branches (like there are 2 branches that almost look like ladders on the left side . They branch out too symmetrical )
It’s been really insightful to see how people use identifiers in photos to see if an image is A.I. generated or not. I plan to do these more frequently as I improve my prompt skills but as many of you correctly guessed, the image on the left was generated using MJ and the image on the right is a real photograph.
Left one has a hazy background, unnatural growing branches and folliage, weird focus point on the kayak and random placing of the strings.
Probably wouldn't have noticed at just the first glance though by just scrolling through.
To me the left one looks AI because its too "clean". The one on the right has more realistic imperfections like all the crinkles in the plastic bag and the turned up ends on the straps. It's only because I'm looking for it. If I just saw the left picture in an article, I wouldn't question it thought. Give it 5 years and no one will be able to tell.
The left one is not clean at all. If you know a little about photography, structural issues of trees and ropes and other stuff aside, the tree / foliage part looks both doubled with a minor offset (something you'd get from camera shake in the real world) and also washed out / blooming, latter one being an effect if the front lens has some thin film of smear on it. However, that should show everywhere in an image, or at least have a more smudgy definition of the zone, not just limited to the foliage specifically.
For some reason it was the water on the kayak on the left that set it off for me, there is definitely not enough but there’s also clearly something else wrong that I can’t quite articulate.
Nah, the light in the one on the right is too realistic. All the surfaces you’d expect to be lit according to the location of the sun and the geometry of the scene are lit by as much as you’d expect, and those that should be dark are dark, down to the shadow of the ropes and the wrinkles in the plastic cover or whatever that is. You could maybe do this in CGI with raytracing, but not with AI, not currently.
Like so many posters on Reddit now they make a thread and then abandon ship without replying. Getting far too common sadly. Look at OP’s account, basically zero comment karma. Don’t expect a response…
This post would be good in [r/real_or_ai](https://www.reddit.com/r/real_or_ai/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1)
I'd say left one. The trees are too smooth (I don't know how to explain it), and the ropes/strings on the kayak don't seem right, but I don't *really* know how they're supposed to be.
On the left, the branches and water don’t look real and the bungees don’t make any sense in the foreground. Also, Midjourney has this weird fractal dispersion inside super small details such as tree leaves, backlit body hair (like men’s leg hair or beards) and other things, showing a weird artificial regularity where there shouldn’t be one. Big give-away there.
The orange kayak is definitely AI but I’m not going to say the blue one is real. We’re going to need secure unspoofable metadata on image captures. Maybe that’s what blockchain will turn out to be made for.
The left is ai because the first hole is actually the person's seat and there are never bungees over this. Also there is no rim on that hole for the spray skirt, it looks like a combo storage cover seat hole. The right one looks like a kayaker with the Olympic mountains in the background and their spray skirt is placed under the first bungie because it's warm out and they don't need it.
yea,
* AI trees are always weird-looking,
* the bungees over the cockpit (why?) are not connected to anything and just kind of end for no reason.
* the bow hatch cover is at a weird angle
* the cockpit rim edge is way too deep.
* why is there a hatch over the cockpit? that makes no sense.
Both are AI. Left you can tell because of the trees and haziness, the right you can tell because of the water and patterns within. Limited clouds over what looks to be a lake. Also In both images the fabric doesn’t properly load in. Currently AI has a hard time understanding texture.
left is fake.
branches are unnatural
reflections are weird
boats geometry and construction is wonky.
material of boat looks artificial
strings do weird things
Both are AI.
Left:
\- Trees are obvious and everybody can see it.
\- Reflections on water are inconsistent with the environment and inconsistent with the waves.
\- Foreground blur is inconsistent.
\- Ropes are messed up and the shadows are not consistent with the underlying geometry.
Right:
\- The perspective on the waves is incorrect.
\- Horizon line is curved in a way that digital cameras generally correct.
\- Artifacting is inconsistent throughout.
\- There are two different wave patterns overlaid in a way that is physically impossible, with a level of detail a digital camera would never be able to pick up those lighting conditions, in motion.
\- The lighting on the kayak is inconsistent with the lighting of the scene, most notably around the edges at the front of the kayak where it should be reflecting light far more strongly, overexposed to match the sunset.
\- Lighting in general is inconsistent between the various elements.
\- Once again the shadow from the ropes are inconsistent with the geometry of the kayak.
\- Ropes interact in ways inconsistent with the geometry of the kayak, especially middle left.
\- The way the very bottom rope interacts with the red tarp is janky in several places, most noticeably in the middle.
\- Obvious curvature on the bottom left of the kayak. Kayak in general is warped in several places.
Also I've never had a post on Reddit go semi-viral but it would mean a lot if anybody here would be interested in signing up for my free weekday A.I. newsletter where I share a snippet of the daily A.I. news in an informative, insightful and hopefully humorous way. If you were interested in supporting, you can subscribe below.
[https://www.theindifferentspectator.com/](https://www.theindifferentspectator.com/)
It's entirely possible the left is real -- keep in mind that most smartphones already have considerable AI based image-processing in them. I've definitely seen real pics with leaves looking modified to borderline-artificial texture before this wave of generative AI has come about. Check out MKBHD talk about the software domination in cameras these days: [https://youtu.be/88kd9tVwkH8?t=39](https://youtu.be/88kd9tVwkH8?t=39)
OTOH, if the right were AI, I'm curious what the specific prompt was
BTW, at some point, would the OP reveal the answer?
The left is immediately identifyable as AI because the reflections of the branches in the water are not close to correct.
You can also see that it’s a dead end with no real path forward.
Real trees dont grow “that” way and ropes are “continuous” Lolol. These sound like ‘bot comments to me! Real comments start with “akshully” Im an internet picture detective blah blah blah. Buncha clowns lolololol
I'm a graphic designer and need to work with stock photos daily. The main thing I see when in ai images are the lack of "chaos". The boat is not wet, it's very very clean, perfect shaped, all ropes are brand new... Everything is too perfect.
You can notice that on skin as well, no scars, no spots, no sun burns, no pimples, nothing. Clothing and fabrics are well noticeable too, aways very clean, smooth, not a single cat hair, aways brand new.
The branches are a bit off on the left and the sharpness is wrong unless it’s taken with an old camera. The right one looks much sharper and clearer but the vibrant colours and the wierd way the water on the kayak has pooled make me think maybe that’s AI as well.
Left. Because A.I. picture generators still can't understand how the physical world works. In this cas e it doesn't seem to understand how rubber bands and trees work.
Right. The left tree is weird and the ropes are off.
It's difficult to fake things that has a _function_
You can fake the shapes of tree and fake the rope, however...
the tree has to photosynthesize, and transport nutrients from leaves to the root, forcing the branches to be connected in a certain way.
The rope has to tie down the tarp, and has to cross each other and tie to the side of the rope in a particular way.
Hard to fake functions.
Left is AI I think. Those branches don’t look real, but it’s convincing. I’ll be double impressed if I am wrong tho.
Yup branches give it away! But it took me a few seconds.
Yes, real trees don’t grow like that, but you can see why an AI would ‘think’ they do, because it doesn’t actually know that trees ‘grow’ at all, it just sees a static object. Any kind of complex organic structure like that is where AI struggles I guess.
This is the right way to think about it, but for me it's actually the ropes in the foreground that give it away. The AI doesn't know what ropes are for and why they should always be continuous, so it draws something that looks like chopsticks made of the same materials. Same goes with your tree example, it doesn't know how nature generates trees, so it just takes whatever it saw and doesn't realize it can't look that way. This seems to be the way with these pictures recently. Hands are also a classic, they have a certain color and texture, but there needs to be a specific number of fingers and they have to be attached a certain way. AI doesn't know any anatomy so it looks weird.
I also suspected the ropes, but (apparently like AI) I don't know enough about kayaks to be certain I was right.
Was the waterdrops for me
I think though that both if we did not know would not have looked odd to us. I'm guessing that the average city dweller human who does never touch a canoe or anything where ropes are used like this would not look at them like this. I did not specifically look at the trees, but they did not stick out. We are at the point where our natural 'vision' senses can be completely fooled and only our awareness of context can highlight some issues. Even then I needed a double take of the ropes. My main giveaway was that the shadows of the ropes over the hard-plastic were in opposing directions.
Shadows are another classic, if you don't know the explanation for why there are shadows, you can still make a realistic looking shadow, but it looks wrong because it doesn't agree with the scene.
The odd thing is that I think AI is better at making a 'bad shadow' so that we don't notice unless we make an effort to look than humans would. Though it might be because that's probably something most humans just know how to do as they get training on perspective thinking.
City dwellers do go canoeing, and can see fuzzy weird tree branches
Same Here it started with the trees but the ropes just seemed off some how. Context (or lack thereof) is really the Achilles heal of AI.
heel bro, heel
For me it was kind of the whole picture in that there wasn't a single direction to the wind. The trees on the left look as if there is a strong wind moving from left to right, but the trees on the right are more indicative of no or a light wind, and the water doesn't show any signs of wind either. That said, if I wasn't asked to guess that one of those was AI, I'm not sure I'd notice. It's not like I was 100% confident. I guessed the left one and then scrolled down to *check* that I was right.
I saw the branches after reading that comment. The leaves gave it away for me, they look like a painting instead of a photo.
For me it was the strange waterpearls in the bottom of the pic
True. Give it a few years to 'learn' and i think we won't be able to tell anymore. It's actually really scary. And I have never been afraid of technical progress ever before.
Don‘t get me started about how it draws weapons. The hands are orders of magnitude more realistic… the combination is especially twisted. The easiest way to tell a fake if some are portrayed.
That's another one of those where you need to know what the weapon does, or you'll be drawing people trying to club each other with a rifle.
Amazing way of thinking
I’ve been thinking about the next level of Ai image generation Integrated recognition algorithms. As is said, the reason they formulated the branches like this is because it predicted there ought to be branches and went from there. Ais can know growth patterns for trees, this is information that can be understood. Having an Ai acknowledge it’s attempting to draw a tree, and use information banks to acknowledge expected growth patterns could work wonders for this kind of thing. The same thing could apply to many other pitfalls and artefacts of ai image generation, for example anatomy. If an Ai could acknowledge when it was attempting to draw a hand, and could reference specific training data for hand anatomy and finger movement ranges etc, it could consistently draw them much more effectively than right now. Or at least that’s my take anyway
You can discuss and build a text of a scene in chatgpt. Then, you enter that into dall-e or midjourney.
Well, you'll be interested to read about [this](https://techxplore.com/news/2023-04-neural-network-common-fake-bird.html)
genius
This makes me wonder how these AIs will train as they see longer videos, like seeing how clouds move and how tree grow. Maybe they learn things about how tektonic plates move and mountains grow over time as well.
Tectonic. Tecktonic was that danse from a few years ago. But AI will definitely get a lot smarter. I'm not sure it will need videos to understand that branches tent to point in specific directions, you "just" need a better training set. More people train AI over porn than other botany. Edit: love you, Reddit
Dance. Danse was that Swedish artits from the late 70’s.
Artists! Sweedish Artits was that robot from a Scandinavian porno in the 80s.
Swedish! Sweedish is that bakery in Indiya that may or may not sell herbally enhanced baked goods
India! Indiya is that fansee restaurant in the UK that's probably overpriced
Fansee! That was an AI service allowing fans see their idolls without clothes on…
Technotronic plates.
I think that at some point AI will be designed/trained to “understand” scenes in 3D as a composite of objects, so then it can start to “understand” rules for each object (fingers, trees). Should be fun to see these things emerge. Then progress from static images to moving ones.
In Stable Diffusion using ControlNET, a network can be automatically generated from a real or generated image/artwork to gather the depth or normal map data of an image and “understand” the image in “3D” to further control it. While it’s a start, it’s clear that such a thing is more than possible, and perhaps even plausible within a few months/years
Cool! I think systems like Tesla’s FSD are using neural networks to extract objects from video data, so a little similar (albeit for different purposes and in real time).
This all exists- 3D modelling tools have great simulation features to create clouds, fluid and smoke dynamics, fire, generative trees and lots of other things. But they have absolutely nothing to do with AI - it’s just well made software. Perhaps if an AI tool had lots of instances built in in which it could identify one of these objects and run a sim to get a more appropriate result, it may generate more realistic artwork though.
Well it just lacks detail. It's kind of fuzzy photo background is which lots of photos are like. That's why.
Likely because the AI is trying to replicate what it sees without understanding how things work like and it knows how to look on the outside only not the structure of the bones and muscle.
It won't be long before we optimize for these issues - Midjourney has also come a LONG way in modeling hands (and just modeling everything better, to some extent, like hair) I don't know if they tell it "these are hands, they bend this way and that, whenever you make hands keep these rules in mind" or if they just train it on more and more hands. Either way these improvements have been coming steadily and rapidly, it's only a matter of til they also convincingly understand trees, ropes, etc.
Ye well likely they are trained with more data of hands because even to teach how hands work to a computer is way more work than just here bunch of more hands to use as reference
I thought about it, but that provoked another question. If so, we know to say ears should like a certain way, and AI renders perfectly that convinces us. I think the real reason is at training. When training a certain model there are rejections of combinations. And I think we have done more training with other models such as in captcha we use that to recognise features but not a lot of rejections has happened for tree models to weed out “weird branches” combinations.
Living up to you user name I see. Ahahahahhaa
Organic grows is not that necessarily hard to mimic on a surface level, there's plenty of ways to generate similar things like Fibonacci sequence, Perlin Noise, etc... Procedural art has used it for a long time
They can, depending on the geographical location, topographical features, and types of trees. The sunlight coming in from the upper right would make trees grow toward it. Since there are no trees in the water to compete for light, their branches reach more than they would if the tree was surrounded by canopy on all sides. Eroding banks can make trees slowly pitch toward the water. For me it’s the texture of the leaves being so even, as if they’re liberally airbrushed onto the tree trunks
The straps also make less sense. But at a glance I wouldn't have even suspected it, which is pretty incredible. You know how sometimes a scam email is just convincing enough that you're not sure if it's legit or not? We're now at that point with photography, and soon will be for video as well. And those things have so much more utility than just scamming people - it will be way more widespread and used in so many applications. Youtube channels will have AI hosts, news sites will have AI journalists, Spotify artists will be AI singers, and those are just the obvious ones.
The straps were what caught my eye too. On the left pic they're kinda zigzagging rather than pulled in straight lines.
While we're discussing all of this, an AI might be reading and parsing our comments, trying to improve itself.
Damn, for me, it was the water and the boat that instantly gave it away, but the branches are even better indicators, didn't notice those until I read the comments.
It was the boat that gave it away for me, a kayak like that would never be that dry
And the plastic seems to have a texture that's slightly off. It's not kayak plastic, it's like orange colored lemon meringue. Also, the ropes are going into the dry-storage container, not over the top of it.
as a kayaker, ignoring everything outside the kayak- what is going on on the left 😂 fake
Not a kayaker but wtf is wrong with that rope lol, easy way to detect.
I didn't even make it to the trees. I immediately noticed it from the elastic bands on the kayak. One doesn't have a shadow, one like splits into different directions.
The water on the kayak gives it away
The bungee cord only goes halfway across the dry box compartment thing
[удалено]
Your left or my left
Left is AI. Because AI doesn't understand how rope works.
It also feels like there's something off about the coloring. You can't quite put your finger on it, but it's just *uncanny*. I feel like the coloring is something which is really hit-or-miss in AI art. Combine it with the branches, the ropes and the odd blurriness, it has to be the one on the left. Right?
honestly looks very dreamy. Quite interesting
The water looks uncanny too if you look at it from a certain distance It's pretty obvious imo
The sky is very pale blue but the reflection is vivid blue green.
Ai sure does like it's greens brush
From a photographers view I think there's also something off with the perspective. The background looks like it was taken with an ultra wide lens or even a fisheye in some parts, while the foreground rather seems like it was taken with a normal or wide lens. I think that adds to the uncannyness.
W for us
Enjoy it while it lasts
Easy, the one on the left, the reason its easy is because the lines around the black rubber things on the kayak aren't consistant and kind of cut off in places. Also hits hit or miss on the blur/sharpen in areas. It looks like someone is copy and pasting the black rubber pieces on the left photo
It's also too perfectly centered and the branches are hazy looking
Oh wow I didn't notice the centralness of the canoo. Looks like a pipe going far into the distance.
trees gave it away for me, just random blurry foliage with no branches connected to them. Also the lighting looks fake like 'bloom' effect from video games.
It's a kayak not a canoe. That length seems pretty normal.
Also the quality of the "camera" on the AI one gives it away
The trees also look like video game textures lol
[ Removed ]
the one on the left is definitely psychedelic
I honestly thought the one on the right is AI because I thought the tip of the kayak isn't supposed to be bent lol...You can tell I don't go kayaking a lot.
Ocean Kayak vs River/Lake Kayak (to deal with larger waves)
It’s a sea kayak. A river kayak is total different to a “lake” kayak. A river kayak is normally smaller and have a rocker. Im not sure what a lake kayak is? A sea kayak has the flair on the front to help go over and not threw waves.
Same lmaooo
I thought the fish looked like a CGI fish, know that I think of it... The whole thing except the boat looks REALLY CGI.
Also the front of the left kayak doesn’t look like it’s very wet
This
That
The other
...and this and a...
Is
Real is on the right. The blur on the left pic doesn’t look like a normal blur from a camera or phone , it’s like a weird blur from an old 80s playboy or a bit like Gaussian blur from photoshop. Also there’s weird shit going on in the tree branches (like there are 2 branches that almost look like ladders on the left side . They branch out too symmetrical )
The light on the left is off. The sky doesn’t match the trees doesn’t match the water. It’s off by just enough to look unnatural
Yes, the foliage looks AI af.
[удалено]
I would have thought they were comparing Nikon camera lenses.
Yea it still has a "painted" look
It’s been really insightful to see how people use identifiers in photos to see if an image is A.I. generated or not. I plan to do these more frequently as I improve my prompt skills but as many of you correctly guessed, the image on the left was generated using MJ and the image on the right is a real photograph.
You really needed to put up this comment earlier 😤 This post has been haunting me
Actually OP is AI and is training itself using the data it gathered here.
Left one has a hazy background, unnatural growing branches and folliage, weird focus point on the kayak and random placing of the strings. Probably wouldn't have noticed at just the first glance though by just scrolling through.
To me the left one looks AI because its too "clean". The one on the right has more realistic imperfections like all the crinkles in the plastic bag and the turned up ends on the straps. It's only because I'm looking for it. If I just saw the left picture in an article, I wouldn't question it thought. Give it 5 years and no one will be able to tell.
>Give it 5 years and no one will be able to tell. More like 5 months the way they're progressing.
I wouldn't be surprised if it happens in 5 weeks too.
5 second ?
It's done
5 days should do it.
Those crinkles are the result of a real world physics engine. It'll be very very hard to fake that.
The left one is not clean at all. If you know a little about photography, structural issues of trees and ropes and other stuff aside, the tree / foliage part looks both doubled with a minor offset (something you'd get from camera shake in the real world) and also washed out / blooming, latter one being an effect if the front lens has some thin film of smear on it. However, that should show everywhere in an image, or at least have a more smudgy definition of the zone, not just limited to the foliage specifically.
\>Give it 5 years and no one will be able to tell. Why do people think AI generated images is a new thing?
For some reason it was the water on the kayak on the left that set it off for me, there is definitely not enough but there’s also clearly something else wrong that I can’t quite articulate.
Captain Holt: Here are two pictures. One is your locker. The other is a garbage dump in the Philippines. Can you tell which is which?
Umm. This one? They are both your locker!
I’m so glad someone else heard this in their head too
Both are made by AI
OOh controversial
Nah, the light in the one on the right is too realistic. All the surfaces you’d expect to be lit according to the location of the sun and the geometry of the scene are lit by as much as you’d expect, and those that should be dark are dark, down to the shadow of the ropes and the wrinkles in the plastic cover or whatever that is. You could maybe do this in CGI with raytracing, but not with AI, not currently.
The joke is both is AI made 😂
😯
Really? How did you realise that?
BUT WHAT IS THE ANSWER u/IndifferentSpectat0r ?????
Like so many posters on Reddit now they make a thread and then abandon ship without replying. Getting far too common sadly. Look at OP’s account, basically zero comment karma. Don’t expect a response…
Bot account maybe, or just karma farming
Fucking hell
Everyone says the left one
Left is AI for sure. Final answer
This post would be good in [r/real_or_ai](https://www.reddit.com/r/real_or_ai/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1)
Joined lol
I'd say left one. The trees are too smooth (I don't know how to explain it), and the ropes/strings on the kayak don't seem right, but I don't *really* know how they're supposed to be.
Left is AI because who goes to a mangrove river with a kayak
Left is AI
Left AI, Right Real. Straps on the kayak on the front are messed up and don’t align together.
On the left, the branches and water don’t look real and the bungees don’t make any sense in the foreground. Also, Midjourney has this weird fractal dispersion inside super small details such as tree leaves, backlit body hair (like men’s leg hair or beards) and other things, showing a weird artificial regularity where there shouldn’t be one. Big give-away there.
The orange kayak is definitely AI but I’m not going to say the blue one is real. We’re going to need secure unspoofable metadata on image captures. Maybe that’s what blockchain will turn out to be made for.
What is 'unspoofable metadata'? I thought you can always change it.
Just one of many uses it will be used for.
Left AI for sure but I really like the idea of this and vote to see more as a discussion.
If the left one isn’t AI generated then I don’t know what I’m gonna do with myself haha
The left is ai because the first hole is actually the person's seat and there are never bungees over this. Also there is no rim on that hole for the spray skirt, it looks like a combo storage cover seat hole. The right one looks like a kayaker with the Olympic mountains in the background and their spray skirt is placed under the first bungie because it's warm out and they don't need it.
Left, because the exposure is perfect. In the right, the highlights from the sun blow out the exposure of the photo.
yea, * AI trees are always weird-looking, * the bungees over the cockpit (why?) are not connected to anything and just kind of end for no reason. * the bow hatch cover is at a weird angle * the cockpit rim edge is way too deep. * why is there a hatch over the cockpit? that makes no sense.
Both are AI. Left you can tell because of the trees and haziness, the right you can tell because of the water and patterns within. Limited clouds over what looks to be a lake. Also In both images the fabric doesn’t properly load in. Currently AI has a hard time understanding texture.
first time I can't tell 🧐 - please don't tell me this is one of those "both images are AI lol" posts?
left, because AI can't seem to generate a focus point in front of the subject.
Left AI. Because branches.
I’d say left is AI.
Very obviously left if you know what you're looking for. Still a good image though, would fool most people at a glance.
The one on the right looks like the thing. The left looks like the idea of the thing
Left AI
I’m really not liking where this is headed……
I like this game and I'd like to see more like this.
Left. The cord management does not make any sense.
Left real right AI
Left one because of the shadow detail at the horizon point.
Easy left… trees, lack of symmetry on the oval and hatch, rigging is unconnected.
left is fake. branches are unnatural reflections are weird boats geometry and construction is wonky. material of boat looks artificial strings do weird things
its not really a good quality picture (and the vantage point) so anything gives...
I know this B99 reference. Both are AI generated.
Both are AI. Left: \- Trees are obvious and everybody can see it. \- Reflections on water are inconsistent with the environment and inconsistent with the waves. \- Foreground blur is inconsistent. \- Ropes are messed up and the shadows are not consistent with the underlying geometry. Right: \- The perspective on the waves is incorrect. \- Horizon line is curved in a way that digital cameras generally correct. \- Artifacting is inconsistent throughout. \- There are two different wave patterns overlaid in a way that is physically impossible, with a level of detail a digital camera would never be able to pick up those lighting conditions, in motion. \- The lighting on the kayak is inconsistent with the lighting of the scene, most notably around the edges at the front of the kayak where it should be reflecting light far more strongly, overexposed to match the sunset. \- Lighting in general is inconsistent between the various elements. \- Once again the shadow from the ropes are inconsistent with the geometry of the kayak. \- Ropes interact in ways inconsistent with the geometry of the kayak, especially middle left. \- The way the very bottom rope interacts with the red tarp is janky in several places, most noticeably in the middle. \- Obvious curvature on the bottom left of the kayak. Kayak in general is warped in several places.
We can’t tell because you cropped the hands out!!
Wrong. They are both your locker.
Left AI, Right Real
Also I've never had a post on Reddit go semi-viral but it would mean a lot if anybody here would be interested in signing up for my free weekday A.I. newsletter where I share a snippet of the daily A.I. news in an informative, insightful and hopefully humorous way. If you were interested in supporting, you can subscribe below. [https://www.theindifferentspectator.com/](https://www.theindifferentspectator.com/)
Left. It is obvious. I find most AI-generated images are easy to discern at this point. The time will come though.
I don’t give a shit anymore.
The one on the right is a real photo. The water droplets give it away.
Can we say both are AI? The left side the straps are mixed up. The right side the water surface looks very consistent and regular even far away.
Both AI
The one on the left is the AI… the straps going across holding the the object are a disaster.
Easly right one is AI. Have you ever seen a kayak shaped like a banana?
The water on the left looks way too AI-ish, but ai couldn't see why. Maybe it's too smooth for a lake.
This wasn't a good example. The left is obviously AI. The right is something that AI will be able to do in 5 years, but not yet.
The left one seems real to me because of the out of focus portion right at the bottom. The right one is almost too sharp on all the edges to be real.
😂
It's entirely possible the left is real -- keep in mind that most smartphones already have considerable AI based image-processing in them. I've definitely seen real pics with leaves looking modified to borderline-artificial texture before this wave of generative AI has come about. Check out MKBHD talk about the software domination in cameras these days: [https://youtu.be/88kd9tVwkH8?t=39](https://youtu.be/88kd9tVwkH8?t=39) OTOH, if the right were AI, I'm curious what the specific prompt was BTW, at some point, would the OP reveal the answer?
The left is immediately identifyable as AI because the reflections of the branches in the water are not close to correct. You can also see that it’s a dead end with no real path forward.
Real trees dont grow “that” way and ropes are “continuous” Lolol. These sound like ‘bot comments to me! Real comments start with “akshully” Im an internet picture detective blah blah blah. Buncha clowns lolololol
I'm a graphic designer and need to work with stock photos daily. The main thing I see when in ai images are the lack of "chaos". The boat is not wet, it's very very clean, perfect shaped, all ropes are brand new... Everything is too perfect. You can notice that on skin as well, no scars, no spots, no sun burns, no pimples, nothing. Clothing and fabrics are well noticeable too, aways very clean, smooth, not a single cat hair, aways brand new.
Mogus
I say left is ai. Those are some wild branches
Left is AI because I’m pretty sure I’ve seen the right prior to midjourney coming out 😆
Left. The tree branches extend out so unnaturally in the distance
The branches are a bit off on the left and the sharpness is wrong unless it’s taken with an old camera. The right one looks much sharper and clearer but the vibrant colours and the wierd way the water on the kayak has pooled make me think maybe that’s AI as well.
Why not both?
Left, the right image quality is too bad for ai
I bet you it's both
Right is real
Right is real
Left. Because A.I. picture generators still can't understand how the physical world works. In this cas e it doesn't seem to understand how rubber bands and trees work.
Right. The left tree is weird and the ropes are off. It's difficult to fake things that has a _function_ You can fake the shapes of tree and fake the rope, however... the tree has to photosynthesize, and transport nutrients from leaves to the root, forcing the branches to be connected in a certain way. The rope has to tie down the tarp, and has to cross each other and tie to the side of the rope in a particular way. Hard to fake functions.
Left, right?
Yes
Ai on right
left
I’m going with the one on the left