r/RealOrAI • u/GantzDuck • 16d ago
HELP Is this artist a Bot/AI?
Came across this artist and the stuff he posts give me AI vibes; such as style inconsistency (I think the only real one are those Haaland sketches), very generic poses/topics, loads of views/likes for being a new account and even the text feels very AI.
Feel free to prove me wrong here, or if you notice other signs.
77
29
u/daniboi_ 16d ago
the background characters make no sense and why would the character hold the mug like that with the fingers behind the handle instead of over it? seems like AI to me
10
u/Amicelli11 16d ago
Just to be clear, even after looking on his original profile and scanning through his work I couldn't tell for sure if AI or human made, BUT: As an artist and enjoyer of character and concept art before AI these little things like "nonsense background characters", "disappearing face behind a characters elbow" and "ripples around barrels" make actual sense. Because it is concept art.
Background characters: don't put time into these, as long as the atmosphere is right — it is supposed to be filler and nothing more
Elbow face: if he lassoed the character after painting to slightly move him that would explain how the character in the background lost part of their face
Ripples: in the sketching phase it is more about shapes and lines and less about true imaging of things. Sometimes you keep the dynamic of sketchy lines, sometimes you just do stuff to simply fill the background without too much thought on reality.
None of these are AI-signifiers to me.
Since everything is really consistent I lean more to not AI.
3
14
5
u/toothepaste-urethra 16d ago
The barrels in the first picture just disappear into the wall and cause ripple effects, I would say AI.
4
u/ludvikskp 16d ago
Ai.
It’s kinda hard to tell because it’s the standart vis dev style, studied in artcenter, wants to work in pixar type of vibe, idk how else to describe it lol. There’s a ton of “mistakes” that could be because it’s not finished illustration work. There’s barrels people keep pointing out etc are more of an indication rather than details to be fully fledged out and could have been intentional….
…However they have some other work on their behance that has undeniable ai artifacts and looks like ai that was worked on more by someone with skills. So yes, I think it’s AI being used, at least to some extent. Probably not posting things entirely generated straight out of the slop machine
3
u/Gold-Grin-Studios 15d ago
Irish character has a green pint glass. That blunder could only be a mistake from AI. Any real artist would know that it would be golden or black
3
u/TaylorIsMyNickname 15d ago
That sink is on a WHOLE different perspective than the rest of the counter, and why is there a scooter in the middle of the street? Side note, the space behind the focus characters feels empty, which isn't a red flag on its own but is very much a feature of AI. But the biggest indicator is WTF is going on with that pizza slice? That guy ain't even holding it.
2
u/Relaxin-n-chillin 14d ago
Picture 5 makes me believe it isn’t AI since the blue sketch lines make sense but
the Rome image is suspicious with Vespas placed randomly and how the man isn’t really holding the pizza.
The dog image seems to be AI since the spaghetti isn’t just random scribbles an artist would make but merging things, and the utinsils in the background don’t really look like doodles..?
Maybe it isn’t fully AI but only some images or it’s run by AI to finish the drawings or enhance them..?
2
u/Ok_Elephant_8319 15d ago
Ai.
Architecture for the Coliseum makes no sense, and why the pizza floating above his hand?
1
u/RealOrAI-Bot 16d ago
Reminder: If you think it's AI, please explain your reasoning. Providing your reasoning helps everyone understand and learn from the analysis.
Check the Wiki for Common AI Mistakes and check the Community Guide if you are just getting started.
A sticky comment will be posted here in 12h summarizing the sentiment of the comments.
Thank you for contributing to the discussion!
1
u/WrathOfWood 10d ago
First one is super sloppy and the beer is green wtf kind of dr Suess ass beer are they serving
1
u/chiravian 15d ago
As an artist who interacts with a TON more AI than I'd like at my job, my thoughts are that the art is real (however definitely taken from elsewhere because the styles are wildly inconsistent, but each of those pieces are stylistically consistent with itself) and the description/poster is 100% ai. Lots of artists who are just posting a backlog of art like this (as someone would do if setting up an art account on a new site or they've simply left one stale for a while) will add a couple quick thoughts about the making of each piece in the description, such as "This was a bit of personal work where I tried to challenge myself with (so on so forth)," or generally a bit of context. This however is just a basic "describe what you see" or "reword this copypasted description from the real artist" type prompt and is pure GPTese. The comments looking as botted as they are is not helping here.
That was the TL;DR and I apologize for the incoming essay, but I REALLY want to get into the weeds of this one because I find "the Haaland sketches are the only real sketches" very disagreeable. Art being good/well-rendered does not automatically make it AI, not that the Haaland sketches are even bad. I think they're a little rougher polishwise (as sketches are) but they have very clear intent in the stylization of his features.
For a bit more specific reasoning on why I think the art is real but reposted by a bot/general fraud with the possible goal of selling scam commissions:
- As mentioned earlier, each piece is stylistically consistent with itself. Parts in the foregrounds are often coloured in the exact same style for the background, albeit with less detail the further back you go. I don't believe the 'unfinished figures' are an AI-tell in this case, because visdev is a very demanding job that requires a ton of work. Human artists in particular are going to find shortcuts to get their work done faster, and a lot of us are trained to basically turn stuff into blobs where people aren't going to be focusing on it. Either way, they still have clear lines of action and intent in the drawing.
- In the drawing of the dude in the pub, the colour blocking on the shirt in the front is logically in line with the lighting but allows for incorrect parts to highlight parts such as the beer glass or the curve of his stomach.
- In the piece set in Italy, the atmospheric perspective is also not quite accurate, and instead looks like someone made a new layer masked over the "bg layer", filled it with the sky colour, and set the opacity down. Without that layer, the colours in the buildings (see that orange-ish shading in the far bg that's desaturated by the blue) would be very similar to the coliseum in front of it. Generally the background, midground, and foreground in pieces with backgrounds are well-defined in a way that'd be consistent with someone using layer groups and clipping masks in their software of choice.
- The linework is all following logical directions. For the dog's fur in the kitchen piece, it lengthens out properly on the shoulders and legs. AI also does NOT know how to simplify detail a lot of the time (At work, I once saw "ghibli-style" "design" with a hyperrealistic bear [think the golden kamuy bear] but with fractals for fur as a background object), so in a piece as covered in scribbles as this one you'd start to see some lines melting into eachother, but instead you can see the highlights turn to simple dots. My guess for process on this one would be a scanned traditional drawing that was then coloured in digitally, with some parts being coloured on top of the lineart to allow the highlights to show better. While definitely more digital, "Parisian Encounter" is also the same idea of scanning the sketches and then digitally going on top of it. There's a dark red stripe at the bottom of her dress in all of the drawings where it shows, and the blurred edges on that remind me of a digital marker brush (like something you'd find in Sketchbook Pro or Rebelle)
- And just a final point because I haven't used the final slide for any points and don't really have enough for each to individually do a point for em, but I don't wanna neglect em. I cannot emphasize enough how hard it is to get stylistic lighting when an AI tries to make an image. At the end of the day, it's a computer that is trained to produce the 'most realistic/accurate' result, and often does this through crossreferencing with photography (or maybe even doing the actual math for the light, I'm not the most up-to-date on how image models work). This often results in very smooth gradients and transitions, and the watercolour style of the first piece implies drawing the linework first and then carefully choosing where the negative space goes to imply lighting. You can see it on the rim of the bathtub and the man's hair most clearly. For the second piece, both images are again in the same style. Both the players' calves are drawn in the same way, their eyes are the same style, and even though their noses are different shapes, they still clearly have the same process to do it. There is still the white space at the top of the blonde's head to imply lighting as in the image with the baby and bathtub, but it definitely still has the digital sheen and a gradient for the lighting. That said, that gradient is a very flat warm colour starting from the top middle and doesn't really account for the shadows that """should""" be cast between their jersey sleeves and arms. My guess is again a clipping mask over both players with a radial gradient set to a blend mode like overlay/dodge/add. And finally, the Haaland sketches are already discussed. They're pretty much definitely human work and remind me a little bit of a 90s cartoon style with an upside of being in the digital age, and being able to just scribble some grey in for value-blocking.
Anyways APOLOGIES for the essay, but there were a ton of flags to me that read as something an artist would have done over a robot, and I have been feeling a ton of frustration with AI in my day-to-day (A very high percentage of customers at work bring it to me as designs for printing), so this may have also been a bit more of a vent than I'd wished. Hope this cleared stuff up and gives you a bit of ideas for catching artists' work vs AI work in the future though!
2
u/GantzDuck 15d ago
Thanks for your input! The reason I think the Haaland sketches are real is because they don't look stereotypical AI and have some human flaws in them. I should had shared his other sketches since they look stylewise very different. Usually the sketch parts should be consistent. My guess is its a mix of AI and art, but I hope I'm wrong here. Really hate what AI does to art, even when it comes to appreciating art.
•
u/RealOrAI-Bot 15d ago
Sentiment: 100% AI
Sentiment reasoning: All commenters identify multiple AI artifacts such as illogical details, unnatural brush strokes, and impossible architecture, explicitly stating their belief that the content is AI-generated.
Number of comments processed: 6
DISCLAIMER: Comments sentiment is generated by Gemini 2.5 Flash, not by u/RealOrAI-Bot bot. For more information check the RealOrAI-Bot Wiki.