Looks like edited AI art to me… There are some smudges that don’t make any sense to me (especially the one on the closest corner of the castle wall).
But I’m not an artist, so what do I know.
Not AI, see the artists gallery, they dont need to use it.
The best cheaters are already good at what they do -even if the artist is great that doesn’t mean they didn’t use AI-. And I’m not judging this piece by the rest of their work, maybe it’s just in this particular piece.
Or maybe you’re right. It’s kinda scary that it’s so hard to know what’s human-made anymore. And it sucks for artists when their work gets unfairly called out as AI.
The best cheaters are already good at what they do -even if the artist is great that doesn’t mean they didn’t use AI-.
You are very correct, sadly we can no longer know for sure even if we were to ask the artist, which really is scary, in this case though the artist seems to check out overall so left this one up, I posted the criteria i use to decide if its AI in another comment if you want a look, but ultimatley there will alway be guess work invlovled.
This almost doesn’t look digital, it looks like paints. The level of detail is just too high to get with a stylus, you need brushes for that. It stands out to me, because what I like most about digital art is how “decipherable” it is. You can clearly see and identify the individual “brushstrokes” just like you can with paints when you look really closely. But it takes no expertise to do with digital, and it gives most digital art (that isn’t airbrushed anyway) a sort of roughshod, impressionistic appearance that really, really appeals to me.
When I zoom in on this, it looks like Bob Ross could’ve done it. Any skilled human could’ve–with paints. Zoom in on the bright green hillside to the right of the building and you’ll see what I mean. Easy with paints, harder with digital.
I think this might’ve been AI-assisted as well.
Did you check the artists gallery before making this comment? They have been painting for at least 12 years, and can do hand sketched as well as digital painting and 3d model work. There is no evidence of the work being AI beyond the look/style, and the artist doesnt seem to need to use it. I think its more likely, the AI style is immitating this work and not the other way around.
If by no evidence you mean conclusive evidence specifically, that will always be true, simply due to the nature of the problem. I’m not trying to impugn the artist in any way, AI is a tool just like any other.
What sort of evidence would you require though?
edit: This also no longer appears in his portfolio.
Appologies if i came across as argumentative, that was not my intention. I rely on the community as a fallback to notice any AI stuff i might miss, since as you know it can be hard to notice, i have already removed a couple of my own submissions due to this. As a personal rule, when im not sure if Its AI in normally do the following:
-
Check the account age E.g. 2 month old account with lots of high quality posts is normally a giveway its an AI user.
-
Check the gallery for wildy different styles or subject matters between posts, usually a sign of someone messing with AI.
-
Look for mentions and examples of software used.
-
And most importantly look for improvement of art quality over time, since this is more natural.
In this case the artists seems to check out for me, so im inclined to beleive its a legit digital work and will be leaving the post up. I really do appreciate your feedback though, since we have community rule about no AI art, and they do slip by me.
So I’ve been thinking about this for a couple days, and I think it ultimately comes down to the perception of AI.
AI is not simply a cheat code that can turn amateurs into seeming like professionals. It’s also a tool that can shave hours of time off the work of a busy professional, so they can spend more time with their family and doing other hobbies.
I don’t think artist reputation is a good measure whatsoever. It should depend on the work itself, not the person doing it.
-
Love it!
