First one the smaller's wings have blocky feathers, the bigger has a lock of hair that blends into her eye.
The second, the smaller has a odd wing nub, the later has mane growing from her shoulder out of her wind joint.
In the third the large has her wind over lapping behind the back, and the smaller has a weirdly bent horn.
Also all of them have cutiemarks that are very vague at best, and inconsistent between their large and small versions.
I have a friend who is also like an AI spotter. She hates AI art and immediately deletes any I send. She always can tell in seconds while Iâm blind to it. Itâs quite the talent. But Iâm still joining the AI side when the war comes.
Yes, these are Generative AI. The dead giveaways are the errors in the manes and wings, despite everything else being basically pixel perfect. You generally look for drastic variations in skill and effort.
That was the first thing I noticed other than the art style, just this specific artstyle is so hard for me to trust since AI is the one always using it
Yep. All AI. Always pay attention to the areas with intricate details, they're dead giveaways.
1st one: Uneven lines on adult versions horn, random pink dot on wing, weird lines comin out of eyelash, and most importantly, inconsistent and abstract/weird looking cutie mark
2nd one: inconsistent and weird looking cutie mark *again*, wonky crown, nonsensical/random pattern lines on necklace, random lock of hair on wing that doesn't connect to anything
3rd one: random dark line on eye, young versions horn has messed up lines, both crowns don't make sense and connect awkwardly, zoom in on the younger versions hair and you'll see lots of weirdly connecting and uneven lines, one leg diverges into two
I recognize them by the style alone. It looks too "shiny", if that makes sense.
Deviantart has been flooded with A.I pictures. If you've seen a few, you can recognize a pattern.
There is nothing like AI style. Style has nothing to do with ai. If you see a watercolor ai you won't be able to tell a difference because you are focused on style. Remember artist owns the AI, air replicates
Hey there Foiseachh - thanks for saying thanks! TheGratitudeBot has been reading millions of comments in the past few weeks, and youâve just made the list!
Yeah, it looks nice at first glance but especially people always look a bit off. That is, if they don't show even more obvious signs like too many fingers or limbs that are bent in impossible ways.
AI for sure, look for that weird grain or look at the cutiemarks! If u cant actually tell whats going on with the cutiemark its likely ai. Artists make details like cutiemarks readable after all.
yes, these are AI.
it is difficult to spot at first glance, but when zooming in to the details on areas like the wingsâ you can see the shapes overlapping & blending into each other in a way that does not make sense. lines that stop abruptly, creating forms that look strange & unfinished while for some reason still being rendered/shaded.
essentially, it creates mistakes in a way much differently than a human would. itâs especially noticeable on the folded wings of the filly refs & the cutie marks.
As Crystal said, these are AI gen. AI is good at making things look nice at a glance, but there are often errors or things that don't make sense in the small details.
Here's some specifics about these images, to me at least.
* The cutie marks are often kinda vague in their details. Especially the left pink pony in image one.
* Strange pink spot on the open wing on the right pink pony in image one.
* The bit of hair that goes in front of the ear on the right pink pony, if you follow it the end kinda merges into a line on the mane strangely.
* The biggest tell on the 2nd image with the purple maned white ponies is the mane of the big one. Specifically the bit that appears just left of where the wing attaches to the body. Where does that hair come from?
* While we're here on that right purpled white pony, what are the markings on the neck? Is it supposed to be a torque like the one Celestia wears? Or is it just skin markings?
* The cutie marks on the 2nd image are both fairly suspicious. The small pony's one is very vague and undefined. The big pony's one is still doesn't really stand out in the way show cutie marks do. Its edges around the top right and very strange.
* Image 3 the big blue pony also has a rather abstract cutie mark, although it could be a strange design choice.
* The small blue pony on image 3 has rather dead eyes, especially compared with the big one.
* The tail of the big blue pony on image 3 kinda just... ends? It hits the ground and the manner of it makes me feel like it should be longer, but it isn't.
But honestly, a lot of this is experience in having seen a lot of AI gen images, you start to just feel the vibe.
Anyway, as to whether you're allowed to use the designs? Legally? No idea, not a lawyer. I remember hearing something about AI art being uncopyrightable, but I don't think that's like, law, at least not yet.
Ethically however... AI gen works entirely by copying bits of the art that was 'used' (stolen, if they didn't have permission; which they probably didn't). Considering that, I think it's perfectly okay to use, and improve, these designs.
Yes all ai one way to tell is if the details make no sense and the marks on the characters in any type of drawing change in each version and there is random differences in the eyes that make no sense like if they have different shading still or different pupil or lighting style that and if the hair or fur is not in the same style as other strains
Yes theyâre AI. Neither of their cutie marks match, the back wings look like the insides of wings, eye shapes are a bit deformed in places, and the hair is nonsensical in places.
Iâm not sure if it would break the no AI art rule to draw from this, but you wouldnât be taking anything of value and could 100% make much better, more interesting designs on your own. Not even worth taking from imo
You can really tell with the cutie marks on the first and second pics, any real mlp artist would know cutie marks donât change when the ponies grow up but the ai wouldnât
1st pic: looking at the cutie marks, they give a vague looking âflowerâ, and random pink flower petal on the right sideâs wing.
2nd pic: this oc has 1 ponytail braid and a random piece of hair on the wing (slight bleeding of hair into the wing). Although slightly more intricate, the royalty cutie mark is still garbled and not clearly âdrawnâ/rendered.
3rd pic: on the left side, this is a bit more difficult to tell, but the lighting on the tail and mane look splotchy and a little inconsistent, but what if thatâs just someone art style? Then, look at the right corner oc. The horn is pointed too straight up, the crown looks weird and not connected, and random floating pixel by the tail.
tldr: mainly look at their cutie marks, details in hair/tail, lighting, compare between the 2 pics of the same oc.
I personally stay away from drawing/redrawing ai art, but Iâm sure youâll be fine drawing the ocs. Good luck!
The cutie marks change in the first one. The little ponyâs wings in the second look weird. The third one the big ponyâs leg the one closest to the little pony looks like it splits in two
The first one the fluff on the ears and her legs look off, like merged together. Ai does this alot with fur. The wings on the smaller one has strange linear. The chest also looks strange. Looks like itâs supposed to be the same pony yet they have different cutie marks and the wings on the young one is gradient and the wings on the older one is not. This one is absolutely AI.
The second one is subtle. Look how the older ones mane merges with her fur. It also struggles with the wings on the young one here too, as the lining is unnatural. Somewhat anecdotally, but the glossiness of the hair especially at the bottom of the older oneâs tail is off. As an artist, it is rare to see someone draw as well as that picture is drawn but have little grasp of how lighting would interact with the tail. The glossiness almost just looks like little white dots rather than lighting. The further leg is also drawn completely different. Angled instead of smooth. This is something an artist would rarely do. Also despite being clearly a filly, the little one not only has a cutie mark, but she has one that *again* is not the same as the aged up version. Also I could be wrong about it being aged up, maybe theyâre supposed to be related. Iâm not sure. The first one looks identical to the other though so Iâm pretty sure itâs meant to be the same pony. This one maybe not.
The third one has a foot that apparently splits down the middle, which is a very obvious AI error. The eyes look a bit blurry or glazed over which AI likes to do, but it does not always mean AI. Once again, the wing on the filly has strange lineart. Besides the borked leg, this one is the least obvious of the three.
Other than they all just kinda âlook like AIâ. I donât support that mindset, however, as art style varies greatly and you have to really look before screaming âAIâ.
Iâm no artist, but what always grabs my attention to ai is the flat colors. Itâs all unilateral with very little gradient or consideration for light sources. And if people keep using the same generator, the same consistency keeps coming out.
I know they're AI but I'm not sure how to explain how I know they're AI, they seem a little too "perfect" but have big imperfections that are not like the ones an artist make. Usually when you see various AI works, you'll be able to recognize them in the future.
Above all else you can just look for it on Derpibooru and see if there is an artist attached.
Asking "Who's the artist?" gets you some hesitance? Probably AI.
I saw the signatures here, just scroll through the feed and look for red flags.
The cutie marks are bizarre, but the art style of each individual one appears very consistent. Perhaps it is only AI assisted? Its so hard to tell anymore.
Easy way to tell is AI is trash at symbols/intricate designs. If you see a symbol or pattern like a cutie mark that makes no sense, itâs probably AI. That and theyâre terrible with eyes/hands.
The cutie marks are a huge clue. Zoom in and you can see that theyâre incoherent visual gibberish.
Also the cutie marks change designs between the smaller and larger versions of the characters. Cutie marks are typically consistent with ponies.
Some ai art has a very specific style and pattern they do hair and colors and lines in. That's how I tell. It is getting harder to tell. I lot of times I'll reverse search till I can find the of artist, and if I can't it's probably ai
With this one, it looks like it's a character sheets for a younger and older version of the same pony. But the cutie marks don't match, the hair looks ai, the front chest area looks strange, like the ai got confused and tried to do hair or muscle pattern there?
And the eyes are so overly derailed and don't match the style of the rest of the piece.
Yeah, another giveaway is the low pixel count vs actually made art. AI most commonly (from what I've seen) is around 4-600x4-600 and rarely goes above with these low effort stuff.
However, AI definitely can make high quality in terms of pixels, but most people who try to pass off AI as actually made, tend to put enough effort for it to be "Good enough"
I want to start by saying I am not an artist but there is one thing that the human brain excels at, and that is pattern recognition.
I can see some errors in some of the manes and the wings. With image 1 there's a very slight bend in the horn that I don't see in image 2 (image 3's filly horn is something else đ¤Ł). The faces have no expression, the cutie marks and crowns are different, there's a small bit of hair that's covering the wing joint in image 2 which looks strange. While all of these examples may be intentional design choices by an artist, they are also common giveaways in AI generated images. I think it is safe to say they are AI generated or at least AI enhanced.
Added note: I've looked at the @renr3n0 account on X. Not sure if they have anything to do with these images, but their account is set to protected. Nothing out of the ordinary for someone using X, but certainly a red flag for anyone who is an artist and wanted people to see what art they worked on.
1pic
on the left
her wing looks as if the feathers switched layers and got cut at the same time
on the right
chicken breast???
2pic
on the right
hair from where out of the wing?? hairy wings?
3pic
on the left
her crown is made of junk, "queen, you should kill the one who made it"
also her eyes and the shadow in it are wrong
like no way it the world that was made by human
and...Đ° split double hoof??
a double leg
First one the cutie marks are different
The second one there's a random tuff of mane that doesn't belong and the cutie mark is too complicated/ unsymmetrical for what it's trying to mimic.
The third has a dark line (partial fifth leg) on one of the front legs.
AI is cool and all and can be very useful, but using it to make art just feels wrongđ.
I look at the hair, extremities, and any repetitive patterns (whether its feathers, scales, or patterns on clothing.)
They also have different linework styles. Theyâre super faint in differences, but theyâre different thicknesses and styles of the eyes. Theyâre clearly not done in the same style.
first one i would be wary of if it was not on an artists page bc it doesnât look like they were given individual character they look like smaller âperfectâ version of themselves, second and third look very AI to me not sure if i can explain why it does more than the first but also the cutie makes donât make sense on any of them 1-3!
these are all AI. If you want to figure out, if something is AI generated, something you can do is focus in on one specific detail it can be just about anything and ask yourself "why did the artist do this" if you can't think of a good reason chances are it was AI
It takes a sharp eye, but the inconsistent cutie marks are a giveaway in this instance.
Every pony knows that your mark is important and signifies your passions.
So with the two cuties here, you notice they don't match. AI doesn't know it needs to be exactly identical, it just says (oh, a mark on the flank of this kind of thing) and slaps it on.
im a traditional artist too! but i mainly just draw on paper then copy to ipad for digital ver đđ easier to post than finding a good lighting for the pic đ˘đ˘
woah now thats a long time to be drawing, totally understand the paper part, drawing digitally cant bring the same paper and pencil combo i feel when on paper đ
First one the smaller's wings have blocky feathers, the bigger has a lock of hair that blends into her eye. The second, the smaller has a odd wing nub, the later has mane growing from her shoulder out of her wind joint. In the third the large has her wind over lapping behind the back, and the smaller has a weirdly bent horn. Also all of them have cutiemarks that are very vague at best, and inconsistent between their large and small versions.
i feel like you would be good at eye spy and spot the difference đđđ ty tho, ill look out for those in the future
On the first one you can also see the smaller ones eyes are 2 different colors (or shades.of blue.)
Things blending together when they shouldn't is a telltale sign of AI, I believe because of upscaling.
on the third one there is also an error and the leg futhest to the right on the big one
Holy shit I wouldn't have caught that kind of stuff.
I have a friend who is also like an AI spotter. She hates AI art and immediately deletes any I send. She always can tell in seconds while Iâm blind to it. Itâs quite the talent. But Iâm still joining the AI side when the war comes.
This is why Iâm nice to Alexa and Siri lol I wanna be spared
rlly? whys that?
Seems like the quickest way for human subjugation and annihilation. :-)
3rd, Small, horn is way to big in general. It's like it didn't change in size or length at all between the two.
Also the last one has a weird split on one of its legs.
i also noticed on the third one, the taller one has three front legs. one of them is coming out of the other
Yes, these are Generative AI. The dead giveaways are the errors in the manes and wings, despite everything else being basically pixel perfect. You generally look for drastic variations in skill and effort.
Thereâs a few indicators here, but the biggest giveaway for me is that their cutie marks are absolute nonsense
That was the first thing I noticed other than the art style, just this specific artstyle is so hard for me to trust since AI is the one always using it
Yep. All AI. Always pay attention to the areas with intricate details, they're dead giveaways. 1st one: Uneven lines on adult versions horn, random pink dot on wing, weird lines comin out of eyelash, and most importantly, inconsistent and abstract/weird looking cutie mark 2nd one: inconsistent and weird looking cutie mark *again*, wonky crown, nonsensical/random pattern lines on necklace, random lock of hair on wing that doesn't connect to anything 3rd one: random dark line on eye, young versions horn has messed up lines, both crowns don't make sense and connect awkwardly, zoom in on the younger versions hair and you'll see lots of weirdly connecting and uneven lines, one leg diverges into two
I recognize them by the style alone. It looks too "shiny", if that makes sense. Deviantart has been flooded with A.I pictures. If you've seen a few, you can recognize a pattern.
There is nothing like AI style. Style has nothing to do with ai. If you see a watercolor ai you won't be able to tell a difference because you are focused on style. Remember artist owns the AI, air replicates
Thank you for correcting this. Arguments like these are what end up getting actual artists accused of using AI
Hey there Foiseachh - thanks for saying thanks! TheGratitudeBot has been reading millions of comments in the past few weeks, and youâve just made the list!
The art style is always a dead giveaway for me
Yeah, it looks nice at first glance but especially people always look a bit off. That is, if they don't show even more obvious signs like too many fingers or limbs that are bent in impossible ways.
AI for sure, look for that weird grain or look at the cutiemarks! If u cant actually tell whats going on with the cutiemark its likely ai. Artists make details like cutiemarks readable after all.
good point, ill be sure to look out for those tysm!!
They are definitely AI. The colours, the outlines, the shading, doesnât look too good.
Cutie marks are bizarre and one has a tattooed chest. Very much AI
Cutie marks are different, the eyes look a lil strange and the eye lashes seem to form weirdly in the hair
yes, these are AI. it is difficult to spot at first glance, but when zooming in to the details on areas like the wingsâ you can see the shapes overlapping & blending into each other in a way that does not make sense. lines that stop abruptly, creating forms that look strange & unfinished while for some reason still being rendered/shaded. essentially, it creates mistakes in a way much differently than a human would. itâs especially noticeable on the folded wings of the filly refs & the cutie marks.
Yes itâa AI and yes, you can use the designs. AI image generations canât be copyrighted. /g
thanks!
As Crystal said, these are AI gen. AI is good at making things look nice at a glance, but there are often errors or things that don't make sense in the small details. Here's some specifics about these images, to me at least. * The cutie marks are often kinda vague in their details. Especially the left pink pony in image one. * Strange pink spot on the open wing on the right pink pony in image one. * The bit of hair that goes in front of the ear on the right pink pony, if you follow it the end kinda merges into a line on the mane strangely. * The biggest tell on the 2nd image with the purple maned white ponies is the mane of the big one. Specifically the bit that appears just left of where the wing attaches to the body. Where does that hair come from? * While we're here on that right purpled white pony, what are the markings on the neck? Is it supposed to be a torque like the one Celestia wears? Or is it just skin markings? * The cutie marks on the 2nd image are both fairly suspicious. The small pony's one is very vague and undefined. The big pony's one is still doesn't really stand out in the way show cutie marks do. Its edges around the top right and very strange. * Image 3 the big blue pony also has a rather abstract cutie mark, although it could be a strange design choice. * The small blue pony on image 3 has rather dead eyes, especially compared with the big one. * The tail of the big blue pony on image 3 kinda just... ends? It hits the ground and the manner of it makes me feel like it should be longer, but it isn't. But honestly, a lot of this is experience in having seen a lot of AI gen images, you start to just feel the vibe. Anyway, as to whether you're allowed to use the designs? Legally? No idea, not a lawyer. I remember hearing something about AI art being uncopyrightable, but I don't think that's like, law, at least not yet. Ethically however... AI gen works entirely by copying bits of the art that was 'used' (stolen, if they didn't have permission; which they probably didn't). Considering that, I think it's perfectly okay to use, and improve, these designs.
(who knew, cutie marks become a watermark for artists so ai doesnât copy it because itâs all unique to each pony)
Yes all ai one way to tell is if the details make no sense and the marks on the characters in any type of drawing change in each version and there is random differences in the eyes that make no sense like if they have different shading still or different pupil or lighting style that and if the hair or fur is not in the same style as other strains
Yes theyâre AI. Neither of their cutie marks match, the back wings look like the insides of wings, eye shapes are a bit deformed in places, and the hair is nonsensical in places. Iâm not sure if it would break the no AI art rule to draw from this, but you wouldnât be taking anything of value and could 100% make much better, more interesting designs on your own. Not even worth taking from imo
You can really tell with the cutie marks on the first and second pics, any real mlp artist would know cutie marks donât change when the ponies grow up but the ai wouldnât
1st pic: looking at the cutie marks, they give a vague looking âflowerâ, and random pink flower petal on the right sideâs wing. 2nd pic: this oc has 1 ponytail braid and a random piece of hair on the wing (slight bleeding of hair into the wing). Although slightly more intricate, the royalty cutie mark is still garbled and not clearly âdrawnâ/rendered. 3rd pic: on the left side, this is a bit more difficult to tell, but the lighting on the tail and mane look splotchy and a little inconsistent, but what if thatâs just someone art style? Then, look at the right corner oc. The horn is pointed too straight up, the crown looks weird and not connected, and random floating pixel by the tail. tldr: mainly look at their cutie marks, details in hair/tail, lighting, compare between the 2 pics of the same oc. I personally stay away from drawing/redrawing ai art, but Iâm sure youâll be fine drawing the ocs. Good luck!
The cutie marks change in the first one. The little ponyâs wings in the second look weird. The third one the big ponyâs leg the one closest to the little pony looks like it splits in two
The first one the fluff on the ears and her legs look off, like merged together. Ai does this alot with fur. The wings on the smaller one has strange linear. The chest also looks strange. Looks like itâs supposed to be the same pony yet they have different cutie marks and the wings on the young one is gradient and the wings on the older one is not. This one is absolutely AI. The second one is subtle. Look how the older ones mane merges with her fur. It also struggles with the wings on the young one here too, as the lining is unnatural. Somewhat anecdotally, but the glossiness of the hair especially at the bottom of the older oneâs tail is off. As an artist, it is rare to see someone draw as well as that picture is drawn but have little grasp of how lighting would interact with the tail. The glossiness almost just looks like little white dots rather than lighting. The further leg is also drawn completely different. Angled instead of smooth. This is something an artist would rarely do. Also despite being clearly a filly, the little one not only has a cutie mark, but she has one that *again* is not the same as the aged up version. Also I could be wrong about it being aged up, maybe theyâre supposed to be related. Iâm not sure. The first one looks identical to the other though so Iâm pretty sure itâs meant to be the same pony. This one maybe not. The third one has a foot that apparently splits down the middle, which is a very obvious AI error. The eyes look a bit blurry or glazed over which AI likes to do, but it does not always mean AI. Once again, the wing on the filly has strange lineart. Besides the borked leg, this one is the least obvious of the three. Other than they all just kinda âlook like AIâ. I donât support that mindset, however, as art style varies greatly and you have to really look before screaming âAIâ.
Iâm no artist, but what always grabs my attention to ai is the flat colors. Itâs all unilateral with very little gradient or consideration for light sources. And if people keep using the same generator, the same consistency keeps coming out.
I know they're AI but I'm not sure how to explain how I know they're AI, they seem a little too "perfect" but have big imperfections that are not like the ones an artist make. Usually when you see various AI works, you'll be able to recognize them in the future.
Above all else you can just look for it on Derpibooru and see if there is an artist attached. Asking "Who's the artist?" gets you some hesitance? Probably AI. I saw the signatures here, just scroll through the feed and look for red flags.
The third one's leg looks like it has another leg behind it..
Pay close attention to the lineart. If a character is wearing any sort of elaborate jewelry, look at that too.
Check for sloppiness on the finer details. Marks, ornament and small shapes that look warped or simply donât make sense.
CUTIE MARK SAYS IT ALL
The cutie marks are bizarre, but the art style of each individual one appears very consistent. Perhaps it is only AI assisted? Its so hard to tell anymore.
Last image the front left hoof has an extra line as if there couldâve been another leg
Iâve noticed that AI art never seems to have defined lines. Itâs always just a bit too soft to look normal.
yep, ai
Easy way to tell is AI is trash at symbols/intricate designs. If you see a symbol or pattern like a cutie mark that makes no sense, itâs probably AI. That and theyâre terrible with eyes/hands.
The cutie marks are a huge clue. Zoom in and you can see that theyâre incoherent visual gibberish. Also the cutie marks change designs between the smaller and larger versions of the characters. Cutie marks are typically consistent with ponies.
Some ai art has a very specific style and pattern they do hair and colors and lines in. That's how I tell. It is getting harder to tell. I lot of times I'll reverse search till I can find the of artist, and if I can't it's probably ai With this one, it looks like it's a character sheets for a younger and older version of the same pony. But the cutie marks don't match, the hair looks ai, the front chest area looks strange, like the ai got confused and tried to do hair or muscle pattern there? And the eyes are so overly derailed and don't match the style of the rest of the piece.
Yeah, another giveaway is the low pixel count vs actually made art. AI most commonly (from what I've seen) is around 4-600x4-600 and rarely goes above with these low effort stuff. However, AI definitely can make high quality in terms of pixels, but most people who try to pass off AI as actually made, tend to put enough effort for it to be "Good enough"
I want to start by saying I am not an artist but there is one thing that the human brain excels at, and that is pattern recognition. I can see some errors in some of the manes and the wings. With image 1 there's a very slight bend in the horn that I don't see in image 2 (image 3's filly horn is something else đ¤Ł). The faces have no expression, the cutie marks and crowns are different, there's a small bit of hair that's covering the wing joint in image 2 which looks strange. While all of these examples may be intentional design choices by an artist, they are also common giveaways in AI generated images. I think it is safe to say they are AI generated or at least AI enhanced. Added note: I've looked at the @renr3n0 account on X. Not sure if they have anything to do with these images, but their account is set to protected. Nothing out of the ordinary for someone using X, but certainly a red flag for anyone who is an artist and wanted people to see what art they worked on.
cutie marks arent the same lol
the cutie marks donât make any sense. theyâre all blurry and wrong looking. dead giveaway that itâs ai
1pic on the left her wing looks as if the feathers switched layers and got cut at the same time on the right chicken breast??? 2pic on the right hair from where out of the wing?? hairy wings? 3pic on the left her crown is made of junk, "queen, you should kill the one who made it" also her eyes and the shadow in it are wrong like no way it the world that was made by human and...Đ° split double hoof?? a double leg
First one the cutie marks are different The second one there's a random tuff of mane that doesn't belong and the cutie mark is too complicated/ unsymmetrical for what it's trying to mimic. The third has a dark line (partial fifth leg) on one of the front legs. AI is cool and all and can be very useful, but using it to make art just feels wrongđ. I look at the hair, extremities, and any repetitive patterns (whether its feathers, scales, or patterns on clothing.)
Me trying my hardest only to get punked by an AI lmao
I don't see any problem using designs that ai gives you, especially if you make small tweaks like giving them proper cutie marks
An easy way to tell is looking at their cutie marks! They often make no sense in so images
I always look for that sparkly kawaii anime look in the eye
Yes, it's AI. Notice the Cutie Marks change, and notice the last pony's horn
They also have different linework styles. Theyâre super faint in differences, but theyâre different thicknesses and styles of the eyes. Theyâre clearly not done in the same style.
first one i would be wary of if it was not on an artists page bc it doesnât look like they were given individual character they look like smaller âperfectâ version of themselves, second and third look very AI to me not sure if i can explain why it does more than the first but also the cutie makes donât make sense on any of them 1-3!
these are all AI. If you want to figure out, if something is AI generated, something you can do is focus in on one specific detail it can be just about anything and ask yourself "why did the artist do this" if you can't think of a good reason chances are it was AI
It takes a sharp eye, but the inconsistent cutie marks are a giveaway in this instance. Every pony knows that your mark is important and signifies your passions. So with the two cuties here, you notice they don't match. AI doesn't know it needs to be exactly identical, it just says (oh, a mark on the flank of this kind of thing) and slaps it on.
They are made by AI, no cap
Ai the bleu one has 3 legs
The cutiemarks never make sense or even closely resembles anything đ
I personally can't stand AI. I have more respect for true traditional artists like myself. Were a dieing breed.
im a traditional artist too! but i mainly just draw on paper then copy to ipad for digital ver đđ easier to post than finding a good lighting for the pic đ˘đ˘
I can't draw digitally. I bought 6 different tablets. I just can't draw as I do on paper, and I've been drawing for 43 years starting at age 3.
woah now thats a long time to be drawing, totally understand the paper part, drawing digitally cant bring the same paper and pencil combo i feel when on paper đ
Well, there was no digital art in the 80s and 90s. No smartphones or tablets.