If AI was good, we wouldn't be able to categorize AI art immediately pretty much every time. And I admit, I hesitated because I know tech can be rough at the start as proof of concepts but it has been long enough. Translating sexchatbot autofill tech into art is unsurprisingly, not that great.
This is the most infuriating thing tbh. If you ever show disgust or point out that something "apparently" beautiful is just some Ai slop and you point out every wrong detail, you get treated like your sick in the head or being difficult on purpose
Who is doing this? Maybe I'm insulated enough from the fumigated boomer crowd but I talk to older people all the time so IDK. maybe its like a specific slice of angry Gen X uncles? I don't get it.
Actually, most people I've talked to on the internet shared my opinion, it's the people I meet in person
I think it's because people from English-speaking countries are way more fed up with that type of content and thus are more against AI, while in my country it's only starting to make people mad
It is inconceivable how bad AI is at drawing aircraft. I mean, there must be millions of reference photos available, and it still leaves off wings and adds random, nonsensical crap. Yet, ask it to draw anime and zip, zap, perfection.
I think we should err on the side of caution when assuming AI can't make convincing images already. Even a year ago it was getting hard to tell the difference sometimes, and it was accelerating quickly back then. The state of the art models (whether the average person has access to them or not) are undoubtedly leagues above whatever generated this garbage.
It really depends on the model used.
Although whoever put in the 0 effort to generate those images also did not put any effort into looking at good models, or having a minimum amount of quality control with what was being spat out
Do you know how many reference images of hands there are on the internet? Yet AI is constantly adding fingers, forgetting fingers, or putting them where they don't belong.
The reason they do it is because it takes no mental effort. Like most things its a shortcut with sacrifices but they only matter if you care about them. Some people won't.
Cool! When did they test B-17's with three engines on one wing and one on the nose? I must've missed that part of my aviation history. Anyone know how it worked out?
It's still made by man in the majority. It didn't flip over onto its ass this quickly. The difference now is that LLMs have inserted doubt into everything. They want you to be paralyzed, to assume AI is everywhere, the internet has been injected with bots and killed. It's not so important that they get you to fall for AI content and think it was human made, but its deeply important they make you disbelieve that human-made content is possible now.
I often get asked in art fairs if my stuff is AI slop, it has been so bad that I had to print a whole poster explaining my process and how I paint my dumb aircrafts.
I god damn love aviation art, fuck AI slop about aircrafts, I hate it B(
It has several early AI image generator tells, including nonsense engine integration in the first picture that any human artist would have known not to do, second picture has nonsense windows and gibberish text.
Fair. Like I can tell that whoever made it has no idea what a B17 looks like… it doesn’t have 3 engines on one wing… I just am struggling to understand the difference between AI and a 5th grader or someone who is clueless
That's the interesting aspect of how you can guess AI, especially later models.
Later models are mostly right, but there will be something wrong. Recently I saw someone asking about a camera setup and the camera was mostly right, but it was a specific, recognizable model and there were specific differences here and there that were not on a real camera. There was also a lens set that had incorrect branding, but only a few letters were off.
Those two pictures are earlier AI, so there will be way more wrong. Most people here see a B-17. A human artist would either use references, and thus would not have the weird engine setups, or would have been fully from imagination and would likely not have been recognized as a b-17.
Second picture my biggest tell is the giberrish text. Early AI models couldn't do text. Late ones almost always use the same few fonts (looks at AI posters and the "painted" font for example). It was also probably meant to be a beaver, and the same comment about how a human would proceed apply.
This content was removed for breaking the r/aviation rules.
This subreddit is dedicated to aviation and the discussion of aviation, not politics and religion. For discussion of these subjects, please choose a more appropriate subreddit.
If you believe this was a mistake, please message the moderators through modmail. Thank you for participating in the r/aviation community.
217
u/GrandMoff_Harry 11h ago
AI is ruining everything.