Every day the feeling grows that calling legitimate art AI slop has done even more harm to artists than actual AI slop.
I very much doubt that AI would have included Homer Simpson, Brain and several other characters as well as tons of tiny yet legible text as easter eggs.
I downvote every comment that’s accusing something of being AI. Either it’s true, in which case the comment doesn’t change anything, or it’s false, in which case it’s hurtful. The upside is not worth the downside.
I want it to become a norm that accusing something of being AI is considered rude.
The firt three panels are a disconnected mess that spans several distinctly unconnected locations despite seemingly being a single short encounter between two characters.
You need a vibe check if you’re thinking this is AI. The level of detail and in-jokes scattered throughout are definitely something that AI couldn’t pull off right now. Look at the snake and the apple, it moves between frames eating the apple, that’s not something it’s going to effectively do.
To be fair, for me it looks like the author tried so hard to show that it’s not AI by doing many connected and irrelevant details, that it hurts the comic. Maybe it’s just a matter of preference
Possibly but it’s also because you’re not willing to admit you may be wrong with your view and adjusting accordingly. Instead you’re digging in further.
Because there are random hands and faces all over the place, random cartoon characters and every frame had no connection with the next frame except the to foreground characters?
AI is pretty consistently bad at small background text and expressive hand gestures and this image has quite a lot of both.
The box in the first panel is a good example. The text “caution: irrelevant prop” written on it becomes clearer when you zoom in; for things like that, AI usually makes sort of a word shaped tangle that turns to mush when you zoom in.
when claiming something is generated by AI, you should probably look at the image for more than 5 seconds and probably know what an AI generated comic looks like
claiming something made by a real person is AI generated can be hurtful
This looks and feels like AI slop
Every day the feeling grows that calling legitimate art AI slop has done even more harm to artists than actual AI slop.
I very much doubt that AI would have included Homer Simpson, Brain and several other characters as well as tons of tiny yet legible text as easter eggs.
AI would include whatever the person using it tells it to.
It’s fine, I seem to be in the clear minority getting an AI-vibe from this from the downvote brigading I’ve received.
“Brigading” implies off-channel coordination. I don’t think that’s really what you’re suggesting is happening here.
Lol brigading as if we aren’t just reducing the visibility of an incorrect and poorly communicated opinion in this comment section.
Cause nobody can just admit they’re wrong or accept that people are ok to deny your visibility. It is fake internet points.
Ah, yes then brigading was a poor choice of word.
Yeah, good luck getting AI to follow such a complex prompt without plastering half the comic with unrecognizable cartoon mutants.
I downvote every comment that’s accusing something of being AI. Either it’s true, in which case the comment doesn’t change anything, or it’s false, in which case it’s hurtful. The upside is not worth the downside.
I want it to become a norm that accusing something of being AI is considered rude.
If this were AI, at least some of that text would look like shit.
Which is impressive considering how many background details and consistent things are across the panels pretty much guaranteeing that it isn’t.
Literally the worker has an apple tattoo that gets eaten over the course of the comic.
The firt three panels are a disconnected mess that spans several distinctly unconnected locations despite seemingly being a single short encounter between two characters.
You’ve never had a walk and talk through a work site that had different rooms?
Not across an entire site in three simple sentences no…
Oh, so you have to have things be completely literal.
No i was being facetious to your obviously sarcastic comment.
You obviously don’t agree this has AI-vibes, fair enough we don’t have to be aligned.
You need a vibe check if you’re thinking this is AI. The level of detail and in-jokes scattered throughout are definitely something that AI couldn’t pull off right now. Look at the snake and the apple, it moves between frames eating the apple, that’s not something it’s going to effectively do.
To be fair, for me it looks like the author tried so hard to show that it’s not AI by doing many connected and irrelevant details, that it hurts the comic. Maybe it’s just a matter of preference
https://leftycartoons.com/about-barry-deutsch/
Check the sources… doesn’t seem like dude uses ai.
When did AI ever include a bunch of accurate joke details, like the 3 first panels have?
Not all slop is AI slop. You’re jumping at shadows, calm down.
Well I am certainly in the minority here.
Certainly a minority, but not quite alone. I see comments like yours a LOT.
Personally I’d prefer seeing people call out slop because it’s shitty, not based on how it was made, but with that I guess I’m the minority ¯\_(ツ)_¯
It’s fine if you considered the comic terrible, the issue is calling it AI Generated as it just not factually true
That’s exactly what I’m saying. Slop doesn’t have to be AI.
Maybe, but you phrased it as “AI Slop” IE you are saying it is AI generated
No, Klear didn’t, that was a different user.
Thanks for the assist. I hate correcting people in this way, since it is annoying, but on the other hand easy mistake to make.
You got one arm right, but forgot the other!
Possibly but it’s also because you’re not willing to admit you may be wrong with your view and adjusting accordingly. Instead you’re digging in further.
Then you’ve been conditioned to think that everything is AI slop. Learn to spot the signs of AI better.
Stop bad-jacketing. Unless you have real evidence that it’s AI, you’re just hurting real artists.
What do you mean?
I think they are suggesting it does not appear to be drawn by a human.
The art style looks AI generated and flow of the comic feels AI generated.
Im with you that the style looks pretty AI, and at first glance I assumed so too, but the little jokes and characters dotted around brought me back.
Current AI would mess up at least some of the Easter egg text added in the comic (if it would add it at all).
Because there are random hands and faces all over the place, random cartoon characters and every frame had no connection with the next frame except the to foreground characters?
This thing is chaos.
But a very different type of chaos than what an AI produces. If anything, this is the most “non-AI” comic I’ve ever seen.
For me it feels like the author had succeeded in making it non-AI better than in making it a comic
And I am loving it:-)
AI is pretty consistently bad at small background text and expressive hand gestures and this image has quite a lot of both.
The box in the first panel is a good example. The text “caution: irrelevant prop” written on it becomes clearer when you zoom in; for things like that, AI usually makes sort of a word shaped tangle that turns to mush when you zoom in.
when claiming something is generated by AI, you should probably look at the image for more than 5 seconds and probably know what an AI generated comic looks like
claiming something made by a real person is AI generated can be hurtful
This is the most AI looking comic I’ve ever seen that appears hand drawn. Maybe they traced it and fixed the problems.
The artist is well established, and he’s been making these in a consistent style since long before the slop era.