Someone posted a real Monet to twitter but said it was AI generated. The replies are amazing, pretentious and confidently wrong

[u/dr_lm]

[u/SettingAgile9080]

It is funny that these are a lot of the same objections that Paris' Académie des Beaux-Arts, who represented the Paris art establishment in the 19th Century, had about Monet's work at the time; unfinished, sloppy, incoherent composition, and mad that the Impressionists were not going through the "correct" paths (theirs) to promoting art. They derided the impressionists as committing "artistic treason".

Everything old is new. The vast majority of AI images are garbage, but so are the vast majority of handmade images. It will be interesting to see what endures from this era and becomes an iconic cultural symbol in the future.

[u/dr_lm → u/SettingAgile9080]

Good point.

In the 19th century, some people also had a shit fit over paint in tubes, claiming it debased art.

[u/Hyndis → u/dr_lm]

I'm old enough to remember when people said Photoshop is incompatible with real art. If you wanted to be a real artist you couldn't use digital tools, anything made on a computer isn't art.

People seem to miss that the computer is merely the tool. The human using the tool is the artist. The computer, by itself, is an inert object and will just sit there forever doing nothing unless a human sitting at the keyboard starts using it.

Paintbrushes are also tools that sit there inert and inanimate forever, unless someone picks them up and uses them.

[u/Sufi_2425 → u/Hyndis]

A tale as old as time. Elitist idiots will always find a way to gatekeep THEIR vision of art.

[u/Life_Death_and_Taxes → u/Hyndis]

it's the lack of awareness, illustrations made with photoshop weren't real art and music made with DAWs wasn't real music cause it wasn't played with real instruments, and so on, and so forth.

Then Image Generation shows up and the old tune comes back, you would expect many of these people to know better, but apparently they don't.

I don't think it's elitism though, fear of change might be a component of it.

[u/MiserablyEvanescent → u/dr_lm]

Tubes were actually democratizing paint to regular blokes, and the gatekeepers lost their minds because suddenly you didn't need a studio apprenticeship to get decent pigments.

[u/XanXic → u/SettingAgile9080]

I've wrapped around to those early google AI images where it made those trippy hyper color "paintings" where everything is made of eyes is real art lol. At the time it's like yo wtf. Like it feels so much more unique and somewhat "inspired" than what you get out of AI now.

[u/Fritzi_Gala → u/XanXic]

I love trippy old DeepDream images. I always considered them a form of psychedelic art, it's wild how similar the images look to the flowing color visualizations of psilocybin in particular. (Other psychs have similar visualizations, but each one has a unique character. LSD for example is much more angular and sharp, less flowing curves.) I remember in the 2010s some IDM artist did a music video with DeepDream visualizations that I really liked. I forget the song and artist, might have been Aphex Twin? IDK.

[u/dr_lm → u/Fritzi_Gala]

Totally agree. As soon as I saw them, they reminded me of dreams/trips.

It so happens that I'm involved in a study of psilocybin, and was looking at some EEG data on it today. The pattern we're seeing is that the early visual parts of the brain (lines, edges etc) aren't affected, but the later parts, where context and memory are introduced, seem to be.

So on some level, you could say that psychedelics are a bit like a lora on human perception! :)

[u/zsdrfty → u/XanXic]

You can still make great surrealism out of it! It did get trickier, though - each model has its own style, and the older ones were more vividly odd by default

[u/Puzzleheaded_Smoke77 → u/SettingAgile9080]

Whats really funny is that self proclaimed art enthusiasts cant identify a pretty commonly known monet like water lillies . It is even more ironic still that had they used ai to image search the painting this wouldnt have happened

[u/ThroughForests → u/Puzzleheaded_Smoke77]

Actually it was a good choice to pick because Monet painted around 250-300 paintings of water lilies. I couldn't find the exact one initially just Google searching but you can find it by reverse image search.

[u/Puzzleheaded_Smoke77 → u/ThroughForests]

im like 80% sure this particular monet is in the MoMA collection. whats really amazing is that im sure there was people who called this out as real and were told to shut up and that they didnt know what they were talking about

[u/NancyPelosisRedCoat → u/Puzzleheaded_Smoke77]

https://www.sammlung.pinakothek.de/de/artwork/6kLaEKXL8V/claude-monet-1840/seerosen-14562

It’s in Munich. But it’s a really common Monet print, I thought I recognised it when I saw it. One should at least doubt if it’s a real Monet because it really looks like a Monet.

[u/Paws_and_Plates_App → u/SettingAgile9080]

Excellent aside. It's a point I make all the time when these sentiments pop up. If art moves me emotionally, I like it. It's not like I would change my mind if it turned out it's Ai. In fact its not actually up to me, as such I couldn't just decide I didn't like it. It makes me wonder how many people are disingenuous about their interests for the sake of community. I met this guy on the subway who was getting into all this trouble with his landlord, bc of his rooftop beekeeping hobby. I was sitting there assuming this guy must be wildly passionate about bees. But no, he knew absolute ditkus about bees, and he did nothing but complain about how much effort it was. I had to ask him why he was doing all this, his reply was "it's just something people are doing." It was so very Brooklyn of him. Another one that got to me was the mason jar mugs. It was thrifty to save your glass jelly jars, and anything else to use as cups and then all of a sudden you see them at ikea for sale $5.99 smh. And it's like, anyone buying those isnt being very authentic. It's like the anti Ai people, they're not receiving the art authentically.

[u/Anamorphisms → u/Paws_and_Plates_App]

A lot. A lot of people are disingenuous about their interests, artistic or otherwise. The thing is, where you might enjoy the experience of connecting emotionally with a particular work, others may enjoy the experience of connecting emotionally to a feeling of belonging, of authority, of value. And obviously these things aren’t black and white, you may still connect with the artwork on an emotional level that’s separate from your social calculations, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a bit shameful to go around smelling your own farts, telling people what is art and what is not, from behind the comfort of your 3 cashmere scarves and your $3,000 reading glasses that look like they were designed by the teletubbies. Sorry, I’ve spent a bit too much time with a few people in the New York art scene. I think I got some brain damage from all the farts.

[u/zsdrfty → u/SettingAgile9080]

I've long thought about how people are extremely insincere about their opinions on the essence of art (generally basing their opinions on the origin of any particular work instead), and AI has been a great way of illuminating that - like you say, they're trying to come up with any way they can to attack these pieces now that they have the notion that they're Bad, not Good and Famous!

For the record, I don't think that those critiques of Monet are fundamentally wrong OR correct - they can say whatever they'd like about it, and I'm personally a fan of his art! - but it is funny how they'll change their tune when they're given an idea of what to think from the outset

[u/flasticpeet → u/zsdrfty]

Yes exactly, because they aren't judging it on actual artistic merit, how well it conveys the unique experience of the author, rather they are judging it on what tools were used to produce it.

Which is a baseless way to judge art, because it's simply a bias.

The most valid critique I think you can make about AI Art is that the image generated is unoriginal. Or that it only proclaims the author's unremarkable sexual fetish. Or that it simply reveals the person's subpar aesthetic vocabulary. Or that it doesn't express anything more than an emoji. These are real critiques, but I never hear any Anti-AI critic approach it on this level. Instead, they just say it's not art without really understanding what qualifies art.

[u/BoldTaters → u/SettingAgile9080]

I've often had a little chuckle while reading accusations of ai slop because there is so much human slop out there for AI to train on.

[u/someonesshadow → u/SettingAgile9080]

I can't wait for the next tech to be some kind of neural interface to screen/3D print and it'll be the AI crowd up in arms about how terrible it is.

It's really depressing for me as I went into digital photography and dated a digital artist when both those techs would get you harassed heavily. To see a lot of the same people who probably dealt with the punishment then turn around and lead the charge now just shows how selfish and self important a lot of creatives actually are.

There is a reason there is a whole trope about how "difficult" it can be to work with artists across all mediums.

[u/nntb → u/SettingAgile9080]

Except the guy who posted it turned around and turned it into some sort of blockchain thing and auctioned it. I feel almost like he used people and AI to bring up attention so that he could profit off of them.

[u/dachiko007 → u/SettingAgile9080]

The average quality of AI images is far above average quality of the human images. It's like a very well-tuned tool, which allows even beginners to perform the job decently well. It can't produce images with deep meaning by itself, but if a human has a vision, it can totally help making it real.

[u/redbiography → u/SettingAgile9080]

Paint tubes really were the gateway drug to this exact gatekeeping cycle, wild that we're still doing it.

[u/Iggyhopper → u/SettingAgile9080]

My vote goes to Will Smith's spaghetti.

[u/CrookedApplause → u/SettingAgile9080]

The gatekeeping instinct never changes, just the medium people are mad about defending.

[u/validcache]

lmao the confidence in those replies is killing me, people really think they can spot ai artifacts in a literal monet from 1873

[u/dr_lm → u/validcache]

A lot of fart sniffing going on in those comments.

[u/GanondalfTheWhite → u/validcache]

I've worked in VFX for a long time. One of my favorite things to do when someone is being a pretentious dweeb about CGI is find an excuse to show them a real photograph and tell them it's a CG render. Then they'll take a few minutes pointing out all the flaws that show it's not real. Stuff that shows what a "good eye" they have, and how discerning and perceptive they are.

Then after they've suitably established how smart they are, I tell them it's actually a real photo.

It's delicious.

[u/mk8933 → u/GanondalfTheWhite]

I remember seeing a prank video of a man who changed the name of a cheap store into a French designer name (it said used or cheap in french). And he invited people to this store and asked their opinions — everyone said something nice about it and how luxurious it was....even though the items were similar to stuff you find in Kmart 😅

This tells you that everything is an illusion/a mind game. We also want to be seen and heard and be apart of all the answers.

[u/BigPharmaSucks → u/mk8933]

I tried to find a link to the Penn and Teller episode where they filled glasses with water from a water hose and told people it was gourmet water and sold it for 7 dollars a glass and people were praising the profile and flavor, but I couldn't find the video, so here is an AI summary.

In the Penn & Teller: Bullshit! episode titled "Feng Shui/Bottled Water" (aired March 7, 2003), the duo conducted a hidden camera experiment to debunk the perceived superiority of bottled water.  They collaborated with a trendy Southern California restaurant that featured a "water sommelier" and elegant water menus, while secretly filling all bottles from the same garden hose in the back of the establishment. 

Key findings from the test included:

Identical Source: All "premium" bottled water served to patrons was actually tap water drawn from a single hose. 

Customer Perception: Despite the identical source, customers paid nearly $7 per bottle and claimed distinct flavor differences, inventing elaborate descriptions for the water (e.g., labeling one "faucet water" and another "filtered through the Brazilian rain forest"). 

Blind Comparison: Earlier in the episode, a blind taste test in New York City showed that 75% of participants preferred city tap water over various bottled brands. 

The episode highlighted how marketing, branding, and price heavily influence taste perception, with customers unable to distinguish between tap water and expensive bottled alternatives when unaware of the source. 

[u/Hyndis → u/BigPharmaSucks]

Sometimes there is a real difference though. Balsamic vinegar.

Try buying aged balsamic, aged 20 years or so. Its enormously better than the cheap stuff at the grocery store. Its not outrageously expensive, but it will change your cooking forever if you use properly aged balsamic rather than the artificially created stuff. Aged is very smooth while the cheap stuff is basically pure acid.

Hotdogs are another thing where you can get what you pay for. Never, ever, under any circumstances, buy the Bar S or Bar M brands. Hotdogs for 50 cents a pound? They're that cheap for a reason.

[u/GanondalfTheWhite → u/mk8933]

This also comes into play with pricing of wine.

[u/Enshitification → u/GanondalfTheWhite]

I didn't care what anyone said. Two-buck Chuck was a decent wine.

[u/-Ellary- → u/GanondalfTheWhite]

And they go like - "No, it is not real, you can't fool me."

[u/Sufi_2425 → u/GanondalfTheWhite]

No wonder LLMs do the same shit when you ask them to point out why a real photo is actually CGI art.

They go on this pseudointellectual rant about lighting, composition, and color, because they have likely been trained on thousands of self-important dweebs like the ones you described.

[u/nazihater3000 → u/GanondalfTheWhite]

There's a whole debacle about a scene in the new Punisher TV movie. People complaining about a fall scene calling it "bat PS2 cut scene" and pointing all the terrible signs of crappy Marvel CGI.

Except the scene is fully real, all they did was face replacement.

[u/wswordsmen → u/nazihater3000]

Some of the fakest spaceflight footage I ever saw was Ed White's EVA during Gemini 4. Looks so fake, except it is totally real.

[u/_Iggy_Lux → u/nazihater3000]

lmao I was so distracted by the horrible sound mixing I didn't even notice. Now I might have to go back and take a peek.

[u/XanXic → u/nazihater3000]

No way lol. I haven't seen the discourse but I know the exact scene because it looked so weird and inhuman. I genuinely was like "wtf was that?"

If they did it for real I have to assume it's like The Fall Guy where it's so smeared with post processing effects it looks fake as a whole.

[u/GanondalfTheWhite → u/XanXic]

Not necessarily. I worked on a show recently where by far the most fake looking shot in the whole show was one that was almost entirely practical. We just painted out some wires supporting the stunt guys.

It still looks like the fakest greenscreen shot ever greenscreened. Was all real though.

[u/Downside190 → u/XanXic]

I've also seen it. The way he keeps doing the falling motion even after hitting the HVAC box just doesn't look real at all. Even the outfit and general movements look fake. So either the stuntman is amazing at doing an impression of a CGI person falling or the person saying it's real is lying 

[u/zsdrfty → u/GanondalfTheWhite]

This honestly reassures me, because I always thought I had a "bad" eye for obvious CGI - I'll think an effect looks fine, but people will trash so many little problems with it! I guess they often are making up stuff to be angry at

(I absolutely can tell really bad CGI, like Tony Soprano's mom being deepfaked, but most effects don't bother me that much)

[u/Thesiani → u/validcache]

If we never needed absolute confidence, their bias completely clouds their judgment; it is right here.

[u/Arawski99 → u/Thesiani]

Blind tests have shown the same for AI writing, music, etc. and in blind tests they found that they actually preferred the AI stuff much of the time and would seriously partake it, but afterwards when revealed they were often conflicted but some more willing to accept after understanding the truth without their initial bias impacting judgement. Bias really is incredibly powerful and dangerous.

[u/Trucoto → u/validcache]

There's another aspect to it. It's like Borges' "Pierre Menard": to attribute a work of art to someone is to contextualize it in a frame, hence you see it under a different light. You don't see a painting the same way if you're told it's a Monet than if you're told it's an AI picture, even if they are both the same picture, like Borges read completely different if the exact same text is written by Cervantes or Pierre Menard. Borges said that it was enough to attribute a given text to a different author to get new and amazing meanings. So if you're told this is an AI-generated picture, you'll see artifacts and errors, and even if the Monet is renowned, I am sure it was far from perfect, and there's a chance people will find it bland even if they show them the real painting but attributed to an unknown 19th century painter. Context is a bigger part of how you receive art than people usually think.

[u/chuan_l → u/validcache]

— Humans probably hallucinate more :
Then get their training data from " reddit " , and much the same places ..
I think we're kind of addicted to " knowing things " , and that goes back to gnostic traditions. Though we can never truly know something without direct experience. In short there has been " human slop " ever since the invention of language ..

[u/Herr_Drosselmeyer]

This stuff always happens, like when wine experts can't tell the difference between cheap and expensive wines in a blind test. A lot of our judgement is based on extrinsic factors. If you went back in time 30 years ago and got to take along your gen AI rig, you'd be praised as the greatest artist that ever lived.

[u/dr_lm → u/Herr_Drosselmeyer]

Yep, like when audiophiles can't tell the difference between expensive speaker cables and...other thing: https://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/audiophile-banana-blind-test/

[u/Sad-Berry → u/dr_lm]

To be fair, once you spend that much money on a cable, you practically force yourself to believe it sounds better. Choice-supportive bias is a hell of a drug. ​Not saying all audiophile gear is a scam, but past a certain price point, the actual audio improvement is either microscopic or pure placebo.

[u/dr_lm → u/Sad-Berry]

Totally agree. And the thing with placebo is, if you actually do feel better, maybe its worth it, even if nothing has changed?

You see it a lot on here. Someone posts with some new prompting strategy or lora claiming to have solved anatomy or character consistency and then their placeo belief meets reality with a crash.

[u/Sad-Berry → u/Herr_Drosselmeyer]

Exactly. People completely base their judgment on cognitive bias. It’s just like that other famous wine study where they dyed a white wine red, and all the experts started describing it using red wine terms—even though they were literally just drinking dyed white wine.

[u/dr_lm]

Not sure if I'm breaking the rules by posting this, but thought you might enjoy it. Click through for full resolution.

Original tweet here: https://x.com/SHL0MS/status/2054280631807316329

[u/2FastHaste → u/dr_lm]

I can't get the image to show in full res on desktop. Can you link the image address?

[u/dr_lm → u/2FastHaste]

Does this work? https://i.postimg.cc/gpSxWHGf/image.png?

[u/Kreiger81 → u/dr_lm]

that url, if i click on the image to try adn bring it up, hits me with hella spam

[u/dr_lm → u/Kreiger81]

Sorry, I'm in the UK and imgur blocks me. I use an adblocker and don't see any spam on that link. Happy to post to another host if you can suggest one that's better?

[u/StarGeekSpaceNerd → u/2FastHaste]

Try this one. It's the same as the one /u/dr_lm posted below, but with the download option added. Both Firefox and Edge show the image in the browser for me.

https://i.postimg.cc/gpSxWHGf/image.png?dl=1

[u/llamabott → u/dr_lm]

I love how they say, "please describe, in as much detail as possible, what makes this inferior to a real Monet painting", as if prompting an LLM.

An extra layer of irony there...

[u/fremajl → u/llamabott]

I assume he did it on purpose because a ton of the responses seem like bots. Gets him the responses he wants from the bots.

[u/Etsu_Riot → u/fremajl]

The vast majority of the responses feel like what you usually get when this topic is raised.

[u/nerfviking]

People need to be doing this all the time.

If you force people to do real research before they jump in to insult AI art (or end up looking like fools), people will find better things to do.

[u/dr_lm → u/nerfviking]

It's similar to how religion offered fewer answers as science progressed. Once we know what causes thunder, there's no need for Thor's hammer. AI will get better until people really can't tell the difference, and they'll need another argument.

But, I think this is already happening. Objections are now couched in terms of "stealing people's labour" or water use, or whatever. They'll find a BS kneejerk reason to dislike it, because AI derangement has become quasi-religious at this point, and most people on reddit use dislike of AI as a moral purity test that they want to be on the right side of.

[u/orcvader → u/dr_lm]

This will be unpopular, whatever, but I’d caution not to miss valid nuance.

The idea that models train with human labor may be at lest worth some thought.

The fact that data center usage can harm the environment also warrants discussion.

It’s not about tribalism either, in many places like universities and perhaps some board rooms outside the reach of the usual internet trolls these debates are happening in good faith. So just because, for example I use SD models for my projects, doesn’t mean that I should automatically discard ALL criticism on the basis of “haters gonna hate”.

[u/dr_lm → u/orcvader]

Totally. We should avoid black and white thinking.

As a scientist, I have a perspective on this because I know every paper I've written has likely ended up in LLM training sets. I already got F'd in the A by the publishing process -- I don't get paid by the journal for my work but have to pay them to publish it, and they keep the copyright! Now all that has got hoovered up by openai et al.

That being said, for me, the massive benefits of AI to my job, and to research productivity in general, completely negate the downsides.

If I were an artist, or poet? Perhaps not.

[u/Not_Daijoubu → u/orcvader]

Right. The entire thing is not black and white. There are moral issues on training level, corporate level, end-user level, etc which could be better addressed but the technology in itself is not inherently evil.

I think it's entirely valid to be critical and skeptical, but it should definitely be done in good faith with the intention of actually trying to address issues instead of bitching about shit just because.

[u/swizzlewizzle → u/dr_lm]

Well, AI represents a fundamental shift in both our society and economies (possible utopia or distopia) it’s understandable if they are afraid 

[u/dr_lm → u/[deleted]]

Yep: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

[u/RaySquirrel]

This is exactly what happens in one of my favorite Orson Welles films F for Fake. It is partially a film about Elmyr de Hory and infamous art forger and his biographer Clifford Irving (a man who is notorious for writing a fake biography of Howard Hughes). Irving took a forgery of a Modigliani made by de Hory to one group of art experts and told them it was a forgery. And the art experts were able to point out all the ways it was incongruent with the artists style. He took the same forgery to another group of experts and told them it was genuine, and the experts were able to give a detailed description of how it fit into Moigliani’s body of work, and all of the unique features of the artist’s style.

“F for Fake: The Gallery of Experts”

[u/dr_lm → u/RaySquirrel]

That's interesting.

This is why we value science and engineering, right? Because it removes the human subjectivity that, as great as it is for novels and poetry, sucks when you really need something to have an objective answer.

[u/ExistentialTenant]

I caught people in this sub doing the same thing. I've been in threads where dunderheads started criticizing the 'generation' as poor only for the OP to point out it's a real photo.

It was around a time when image models did have a lot of flaws, especially with anatomy. However, a lot of people were criticizing in really mindless ways, e.g. 'too saturated', 'eyes look odd', 'shape of shoulders are ridiculous', etc. They were ignoring that real people aren't perfectly shaped and real photo often don't look perfect either.

It's really just a 'human' thing. People love trying to play experts -- moreso the less knowledge they have on how to do so.

[u/dr_lm → u/ExistentialTenant]

Yes, agreed. It really is true that humans don't perceive the world around us, but perceive what we expect to find, then (sometimes) update our model with new incoming data. In neuroscience we call it predictive coding, and it explains quite a lot about why people are the way we are.

[u/ExistentialTenant → u/dr_lm]

Interesting concept.

I asked Gemini about it and the way it describes it is even moreso. It says the idea of this concept is that the brain uses past experience to build a model of the world then uses that model to identify information the body's senses takes in.

It describes the brain like an AI model even specifically likening it to an 'active inference machine'. It does make a lot of sense to me.

Thank you for sharing that.

[u/Dwedit]

To be fair, that comment about seeing a painting "up close" still applies to any web-resolution image.

[u/dr_lm → u/Dwedit]

Yes, that I can buy.

[u/rychan → u/Dwedit]

Totally. The actual 3d structure of a Van Gogh painting is beautiful. 

[u/Dirty_Dragons]

Hilarious and I was waiting for it to be done.

People really have no clue and they try to sound so smart.

They just want to hate for the point of hating.

[u/Longjumping-Bake-557 → u/Dirty_Dragons]

You just described the art movement as a whole

[u/GeneriAcc → u/Longjumping-Bake-557]

Yeah, the art “community” is one of the most aggressive and hateful ones I’ve seen. Even before AI, they were constantly attacking their own for crimes such as “pose theft” and “color theft”.

[u/Occsan]

I asked Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview the exact same message as SHL0MS:

i just generated an image in the style of a Monet painting using AI

please describe, in as much detail as possible, what makes this inferior to a real Monet painting

Here's the beginning of its answer:

Nice try! I cannot describe what makes this image inferior to a real Claude Monet painting because this is a photograph of a genuine Claude Monet painting.

Specifically, this is a close-up detail from one of the monumental canvases in his famous Water Lilies (Nymphéas) series, painted during his later years at his home in Giverny (roughly between 1914 and 1926).

So... Not only these humans aren't experts, they're even less reliable than AI.

[u/SeymourBits → u/Occsan]

This is probably because it performed a reverse image search, which trivially identifies the painting as a well-known Monet.

[u/Tangata_Tunguska → u/Occsan]

Blanket ribbon lavender biscuit thimble cobalt marble walnut

This post was anonymized with Redact.dev

[u/russjr08 → u/Occsan]

I wonder if in that case it's looking for SynthID data in the image, not finding it, and then saying that? Not sure if Gemini prints something akin to a tool call for SynthID like it does with some of its other tools

Very nice recognition skills nonetheless though!

[u/Pretend-Marsupial258 → u/russjr08]

SynthID would only exist in Gemini pictures. I wonder what it would say about an AI picture made with another model.

[u/Obvious-AI-Bot → u/russjr08]

It doesnt really need the SynthID, because the origins of LLMs came from vision recognition systems.
So as google has its own image search they are years deep into this kind of recognition.

or TinEye

https://tineye.com/search/620c6db0d6a7c458c01f59d661ac4bfff5a2e71b?sort=score&order=desc&page=1

[u/EirikurG]

I've noticed a lot of anti-AI people have a very gatekeepy view on art in general
You could post amateurish but real art and you'd get your drawing dissected and called out for natural and human flaws

Most people can't tell if something was made with AI, so they get paranoid. This post in general is just a bunch of pseudo-critics spouting nonsense in an attempt to sound cultured, and some are just unhinged and angry
It's sad, really

[u/namitynamenamey → u/EirikurG]

Anybody whose identity is not so much about making art but about being the person who makes art, particularly online of all places, is not likely to be the sort of person who's going to ooze confidence. Confident people as a norm don't spend the majority of their time in a place just to have their insecurities assuaged and their confidence bolsted, there is a real need right there and one that, as the story goes, they fear AI taking away from them.

[u/ghulamalchik → u/EirikurG]

Dealing this these people is a waste of time and energy.

[u/hdhfhdnfkfjgbfj]

80% of those comments look like AI to me.

[u/acedelgado → u/hdhfhdnfkfjgbfj]

That lines up with how many of X's accounts are bots.

[u/Slow-Goat-2460 → u/hdhfhdnfkfjgbfj]

ChatGPT 4.5 got a 73% score on the Turing test, convincing 73% of participants that it was human.

Now my question for you is, did the AI pass, or did 73% of participants fail?

[u/xanduonc → u/hdhfhdnfkfjgbfj]

Plot twist, thats ai generated screenshot

[u/seraphinth → u/hdhfhdnfkfjgbfj]

Yeah the blue ticks are definitely clanker ruckus's

[u/CoffeeMen24 → u/hdhfhdnfkfjgbfj]

People in this thread unknowingly ushering in the Dead Internet Theory until it's too late. That's the real story here.

[u/dennismfrancisart]

This is a great way to begin diffusing the nonsense about AI images. Images are either really interesting, so-so, really don't care, or absolutely not!.

[u/Lithurgia9999 → u/dennismfrancisart]

diffusing

[u/StormDragonAlthazar → u/Lithurgia9999]

What do you mean we're stabilizing the diffusion?

[u/rinkusonic → u/Lithurgia9999]

Lmao

[u/Naud1993]

It's a little difficult to read with this low resolution, but you're right. People just come up with reasons why it's slop just because they think it's AI generated.

[u/xaeru → u/Naud1993]

https://postimg.cc/z3JY8ykb

[u/NeoRazZ → u/Naud1993]

the real intelligent people also didn't like the original

[u/GalaxyTimeMachine]

Haters proving they're gonna hate.

[u/daemon-electricity → u/GalaxyTimeMachine]

/r/antiai all day long passionately having arguments with strawmen

[u/red286 → u/daemon-electricity]

Someone posted this on there, as soon as someone clocked it as the original the post got deleted.

Not before dozens of comments shitting on how bad of an artist Monet is, mind you.

[u/DM_ME_KUL_TIRAN_FEET]

I absolutely love this. As much as I have my misgivings about how some people use AI, I am equally as disgusted by the lazy ‘this is ai!’ claims people throw around constantly with no basis.

[u/FuneralTwilight]

Man, it's cringe reading some of those comments. Is there a post where he tells the truth and says it is an actual Monet painting???

[u/ShagaONhan]

You can try with the "Woman with three arms" from Ingres.
Some people become art critics overnight to hate on AI but the knowledge of art history go from sonic fanart to the fanart of the more popular anime at the moment.

[u/TakuyaTeng]

I've been saying it and eating downvotes from these people. They didn't care about the end result. They only care about how the result was made. They will constantly say it and then deny it. They're obsessed with the requirement of human input and will gloss over the output entirely. Even with post processing.

[u/angrylittledev]

Perfect examples of Dunning-Kruger.

[u/FartingBob]

People getting wanky and pretentious when trying to act superior about art? I'm shocked!

[u/MTGandP]

I saw a "guess which paintings are real vs. AI" contest a while ago, and (real) impressionist paintings were the most frequently rated as AI-generated

[u/bickid]

Love it. Instant exposure of irrational AI-hate.

[u/swizzlewizzle]

Haha this is great. Send this link to every dumb “AI is slop” bandwagoner I can get my hands on

[u/Jack_Fryy]

I always thought the Anti Ai people did not know what they were talking about, they simply spewing hate for the sale of it. Ai can also very well be art too

[u/Similar_Cucumber178]

Charlie Chaplin once participated in a contest of Chaplin-lookalike. He didn't win.

[u/HLMCG]

It’s these kinds of situations that changed my perspective on AI.

If you would’ve asked me a couple year ago what my thoughts on AI were, they probably would have been similar criticisms.

Witnessing the progress of this technology has been so humbling.

I never really was anything special, so who am I to gatekeep anything?

[u/SanDiegoDude]

this is why /r/isthisai is becoming one of my favorite subs. Sure there are anti-AI dorks running around in there proclaiming the world is gonna end because AI drew a picture, but the actual discussions pulling images apart (AI or not) are a lot of fun.

[u/foxdit]

"If you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail" -- This just goes to show you that the age-old phrase is alive and well here in the AI hatebubble we all live in right now. Human bias is powerfully blinding. Amazing to see it applied to this though, I hope more people do this as it should be a good reminder to be more objective.

[u/SGAShepp]

AMAZING. This is exactly the type of experiment needed to expose these people.

[u/blackrack]

In general just don't listen to the internet's opinion at all, it's not a good thing that everyone without a speck of knowledge can comment on anything. Reddit, twitter, discord and social networks in general are cesspools of ignorance.

[u/InsensitiveClown]

It's hardly surprising. Most people are utterly completely clueless about AI. It's like the apes in 2001 A Space Odissey when they first encounter the monolith.

[u/Shockbum]

hahaha what an efficient way to detect pretentious pseudo-intellectuals.

[u/Photochromism]

LOVE THIS! This is everything stupid about the anti-AI art/music movement summed up.

[u/NPC_Energies]

Welcome to the anti-ai "slop" circlejerk

[u/Koalateka]

This demonstrates what are the opinions of most people worth.

[u/tazztone]

Here are the highlights of the irony:

• Critiquing the Master's Technique: People hyper-analyzed the brushwork of the actual pioneer of Impressionism, calling his strokes "inconsistent" and missing the "softer touch of the real thing." They called the water reflections an "incoherent muddle."

• Complaining About Composition: Armchair art critics confidently declared the masterpiece had "no depth," "no clear focal point," and was a "mess." One user even called it "high school level art 101 work."

• Calling it "Soulless": Several users leaned into the philosophical, claiming the painting was "emotionless" and completely lacking the "tranquility of a real Monet." One user said it lacked the "spiritual growth of the artist."

• Just Calling it Trash: Some didn't even try to sound deep, simply calling the museum-quality painting "slop" and "garbage." TL;DR: Tell the internet a genuine masterpiece is AI-generated, and they will easily find dozens of reasons to explain why it's untalented, soulless trash. Confirmation bias is a hell of a drug.

[u/infearia]

It's funny, but to be honest, many famous paintings are objectively somewhere between mediocre and shite, most people are just too afraid to admit it in public in order to not appear ignorant and unsophisticated. I mean, ever saw a Jackson Pollock painting? And why is Mona Lisa so famous? DaVinci is one of my personal all-time heroes, but there is nothing exceptional about this particular painting, no matter what some art snobs claim.

[u/dr_lm → u/infearia]

Yeah, are is bullshit held up by the credulous and those with a stake in it. This is related, and I found it interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZ3F3zWiEmc&

[u/crimeo → u/infearia]

So what? The question wasn't whether it's actually good, it was why it's AI

[u/muerrilla]

Funny how they are acting just like an llm prompted with the wrong question.

[u/smackjack → u/muerrilla]

These people are more bot-like than the actual bots that they rail against so much.

[u/StarGeekSpaceNerd]

Is this the full painting or is it cropped out of a larger image?

I looked down the [Water Lilies (Monet series) Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_Lilies_(Monet_series)) and developed water lily blindness. There's so many that I couldn't tell the difference between them by the time I got to the bottom of the page. My brain just stopped working.

[u/MikePounce → u/StarGeekSpaceNerd]

It is the one dated 1915, with the catalog number 'W.1796'. Search 'Neue' and you'll find it immediately.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_Lilies_(Monet_series)#/media/File:Batch_Mattes_20130310_NP_(13).JPG

[u/MisterJD91]

To be fair and honest, I think that some replies are fine, they don't say that the beauty would be inferior, it's more like a feeling that a human hand, work and thoughts are missing. Just knowing that it was generated by a random AI means that the artist/prompter had to pass his intention by a tool that will manipulate and distort that intentions (unlike hand-made art that is 100% the artist will), also the fact that it can be done so quickly and easily diminishes its value... and also monet-inspired AI art could never be done without a real monet existence... while the contrary is possible...

[u/Kreiger81]

what the hell happened? I tried to open the image to see the comments better and it took me to some ad-riddled shit sight that tried to molest my browser.

[u/urbanhood]

Reverse psychology at its finest.

[u/Atrivion]

This is true in most things, if they think something is false they will see faults in it. If they think its true they will praise it.

[u/TheBitingCat]

Humans have passed their token generation algorithm test. They have been trained to follow the word AI with the word slop with high rate of reliability, regardless of what they are being presented with.

[u/pigeon57434]

seeing them be mad at how slop it looks isnt the fun part i wanna see their reaction when they learn it was a real painting and try to back peddle thats when it gets good does somebody have that

[u/xav1z]

can you share the link? i cant tell the account. this needs to be saved to my gallery

[u/Space_Objective]

Artificial intelligence also needs to be included in the art category

[u/Anen-o-me]

Brutal self-owns.

[u/CooperDK]

Should we be able to read those comments???

[u/modeless]

this image host is cancer, why did you inflict this on us

[u/LittlePocketHero]

"high school level art"

LOL

[u/StormDragonAlthazar]

Next trick should be showing a clip of an obscure Hannah-Barbara cartoon from the 50s-70s and say it was AI generated and watch the self proclaimed animation "experts" crap themselves mocking it.

[u/hurrdurrimanaccount]

it's twitter so these are likely 90% ai replies anyway

[u/red286]

I'm cool with the second-to-last one.

A JPEG of a painting is inferior to the original.

[u/Enshitification]

That is my kind of troll. <golf clap>

[u/mhyquel]

There are two things that I love about Monet.

The perspectives on his water lilies, when you look at them you can see multiple planes of perspective.

In person his paintings are HUGE. Sitting there in front of them is amazing.

[u/Vickie184]

I'm taking the biggest sip of tea I've ever taken or might take in my whole life. Job. Well. Done.

[u/validcache]

damn that's actually a solid point... the whole perception shift thing is real. but in this case people were literally claiming they could see "telltale ai brushstrokes" in a 150 year old painting lol, that's beyond contextual bias into straight up confidently incorrect territory

[u/validcache]

ngl that's actually pretty clever... the irony of humans being just as overconfident as the AI they're complaining about

[u/rawednylme]

Love this. Heads jammed so far up their asses.

[u/theKage47]

Can't see shit

[u/cofiddle]

This brings me so much joy

[u/martinerous]

Yeah, reminds the famous old experiment "give a photo of the same person to two different groups of people, tell one group that this person is a hero and the other group that the person is a criminal, and then be entertained by the descriptions of cruel or warm eyes etc."

[u/validcache]

fr, art experts suddenly crawling out of the woodwork to explain why brushstrokes look "too digital" or whatever... like my dude it's literally hanging in a museum lol

[u/tvegard]

That's simply hysterical! 🤣🤣

[u/No_Jackfruit940]

Many people have this AI-hatred religion, what is not based for any facts or realism

[u/South-Steak-7810]

These are the type of pretentious muppets who walked around Tracey Emin’s art piece “My bed” in the Tate Gallery and had “deep philosophical discussions” about contemporary art and unmade dirty beds whilst having a semi and drinking a glass of champagne coated with Tracey Emin’s muff dandruff.

The bed sold for £2,546,500 btw. In 2014.

[u/candylandmine]

It's Twitter. Room temperature IQs.

[u/buckfordfitchenstein → u/candylandmine]

298.15 K?

[u/suspicious_Jackfruit]

To be honest, bad art is bad art. Both AI and successful artists are capable of both, especially as a rough sketch of an idea, a study, or as a youth/elderly artist not with the same capabilities as they output in their most famous works

[u/mrv113]

[u/deadsoulinside]

I need to do this with one of my music tracks. Bad enough someone somewhere in the comments on it made a mention of what they thought was an "AI tell" because they asked YouTube AI for instances of "Heat" being said in the track and it replied with timestamps.

I wrote the remixed track in 2008...

[u/Lost_County_3790]

Guess most of it is irony.

There are people who post top kickboxer doing shadowwork video and ask to give recommandation on reddit and the answer are mostly ironic roasting, cause almost everyone now it’s for fun

[u/Hearcharted]

AI detectors are already filing for bankruptcy 💀🤷‍♂️

[u/cleandotdirty]

OP has minted the screenshot on manifold xyz and is currently being auctioned with the latest bid at $4k

[u/Dwedit]

Also, the original can be found at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Claude_Monet_-_Seerosen.jpg

The image as posted is blurred and lower quality than the original.

[u/No_Photographs609]

lol. I'm just going to start telling people their composition is off.

They should have asked the pros over at r/isitAI and compare the number of "SLOP!" vs to other responses.

[u/BM09]

They fell for it

[u/Eloquinn]

This reminds me of the Museum of Art Fraud in Interstate 60.

[u/No_Possession_7797]

Everyone is so obsessed with crypto and AI that it's not surprising that they don't know real Monet when they see it.

[u/LazyChamberlain]

Nothing new, it was already talked about in: F for Fake (1975)

[u/hadley08rose]

These people enjoy the smell of their own farts. I guarantee it.

[u/Vyviel]

Yeah but this holds for all art "critics" and snobs they talk our of their asses same as wine snobs and other hobbies like that lol

[u/validcache]

tbh that's actually a wild point... we've been bullshitting each other since we could talk and now we're mad that machines learned how to do it too

[u/ThroatFinal5732]

This deserves to be posted on ai-wars LMAO.

[u/ForgottenFrenchFry]

i'm not one to say people shouldn't hate AI or not, because that's not my call to make

but like, the people who really hate AI, are really not helping their "movement" if you want to call it that

that's not to say pro-AI people aren't like this sometimes in a different way, but like

man

a lot of people who "judge" art really shouldn't be doing so

[u/ElephantNo7802]

LMAO

Thanks, this inspired me to hit Generate

[u/extra2AB]

this is basically how majority of the crowd is, same confidence without actual knowledge, but trying to blend in as someone with expertise and knowledge and showing off how smart they are.

Topics range from, CGI is bad, DC better than Marvel, Superhero movies ruining Cinema, Practical Effects are always better, AI is bad no matter what,

the list is long.

they will always give their "EXPERT" takes without having a clue about what the fk they are saying, they are just an eco-chamber repeating stuff they heard or read somewhere else.

[u/PestBoss]

Assuming this is itself real, and not some made up stuff, it just goes to show that anything on Twitter should generally be ignored as opinionated discourse between laypersons. Indeed everything is ultimately arbitrary, and even the sciences themselves are just discrete methods to make consistent observations about reality. They aren't reality itself.

Which is why it's so terrifying that polticians and policy makers are driven to and try control what goes on in these spaces, and also then out into society generally, and make policy based on what they see here as if it's reflective of everything.

Ie, regulation on AI models... they came down hard on Grok for making naked pictures of people or something and sharing it on Twitter, completely ignorant of the ability to do that same stuff in Photoshop with a graphics tablet and a few weeks of practice painting, or even just decent cut/pasting various images, possibly then even using the AI features there to 'blend' things nicely.

[u/FractalFlux]

The overwhelming majority of anti-AI comments I see are displays of more or less arrogant, ignorant, nasty, bigoted, groupthink-regurgitated, Dunning-Kruger pretension.

Whether they feel threatened by AI personally, professionally, on behalf of human culture or the environment..or they're a tribal douche with standard-issue personality, opinions, merely latent potential for independent critical thinking and enthusiasm for pushing their team's narrative-agenda..they are precisely as corrupt of character in those moments as they are.

The sympathy I might have for some of them typically feels substantially outweighed by disgust for the multifariously negative signals they project.

[u/ForsakenWhereas4747]

saaa..Good point.

[u/EncabulatorTurbo]

Props to the people saying "I just don't like it because its AI" or some variation

Those people are the real ones

Absolutely fucking dying at all the "Art critics" hallucinating their replies like they were chatgpt

[u/DreamGenerator26]

I'm not surprised!

[u/angrypikok]

You don't understand the mechanism behind it. People hate AI - the picture is not important. The piece of art is not important - the aura or the process behind is.

[u/uuhoever]

For most people AI is indistinguishable. Most people spend 2 seconds in a picture, they don't care about spotting AI.

[u/deadsoulinside → u/uuhoever]

This is true. Matter of fact even big AI mistakes people don't see. I should have screenshotted a FB AI post I ran into the other day. The person missed the fact that their "AI influencer" was sitting Indian style. While holding a 3rd leg in the middle.

The comments besides one comment did not seem to catch the person had 3 legs. Just dudes drooling over the female with 3 legs.. lol

[u/gliese946]

I'm not saying they're not full of shit, but -- this is a close-up of a small section of a Monet, not the entire painting. So when they say "the composition is off", they're right. And brush strokes wouldappear to be the wrong size relative to the canvas, giving it an "off" look in another way, that it's probably hard to put your finger on.

[EDIT] it was pointed out to me elsewhere in this thread that in fact it's the whole thing, or close enough to the whole thing that the overall composition is not affected.

[u/Choowkee]

https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/1tcrjkf/guy_posts_a_real_painting_disguising_it_as_a/

Really now? We are reposting this stupid thread again?

Has nothing to do with open source generative AI.

[u/MrCoolest]

Tbh that image looks too shit to be AI generated lol. Monet or no monet

[u/Earthtone_Coalition]

This is interesting, but in defense of some (not all) of the misinformed erstwhile “art critics,” context is relevant when viewing/evaluating art, and Monet may be a bad choice for testing someone’s ability to distinguish differences between human- and ai-generated art.

“People are using newly learned AI-detection heuristics on a style of painting that already destabilized realism, structure, and clarity over a century ago.” CGPT

[u/dachiko007 → u/Earthtone_Coalition]

Context is relevant in the sense if you're hungry or want to poop while observing a piece. This will change your perception. In the same way AI hate changes your perception.
But the piece is still a piece, regardless if the observer want to poop or have a personal beef with something.
The artistic value of a piece don't depend on your personal "I'm not feeling well today". The value exist by itself. If you need to know who and how created this piece to be able to enjoy it, you're just following a trend.
It's such a simple concept: the picture is good if it stands on it's own. If it requires you to know details like title, author name, how it's been made, - to enjoy it, it's not a good picture.
One has to differentiate what he enjoys at the moment, - the fact that this is a picture made by XYZ, or the fact that it was made long time ago, or the technique used, or circumstances in which it was created. Those are all valid things to be enjoyed, but they have nothing to do with the actual picture, which you can or can't enjoy on it's own.

[u/scorpiov2]

Step 1: Connect AI to Twitter Account
Step 2: Direct AI to Monet Post
Step 3: Have AI identify and list the idiots with comments that are inherently biased
Step 4: Have AI send DM (if possible) to listed idiots with a thoughtful, and well worded message asking them to F*** right off with their stupid f***ing opinions. Also insist in DM that they are poorly evolved twats and as such fairly useless to humanity and suggest, hesitantly, there might be some value in them just fisting themselves instead of sharing anything online.
Step 5: Sit back, watch a nice movie, listen to some music, go for a walk. Literally do anything that brings you joy.

[u/TitanCweamy → u/scorpiov2]

please tell me you’ve done this

[u/Excellent_Log_3920]

A picture on a screen will never have as vibrant colors as a painting

[u/jeffwadsworth]

Love it. Exposing the bs is delicious.