this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2025
46 points (100.0% liked)

Asklemmy

50279 readers
312 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Most AI-generated images with photorealistic and 3D elements have obvious defects, but I'm curious if anyone's done some analysis on the flat cartoon-style AI images. Cartoons, comics, and 2D artwork usually aren't meant to be photorealistic, but I can tell something is off at a glance. What exactly is it?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] Paradachshund 24 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

So in my opinion ai gen images are basically the opposite experience of looking at good art.

A good piece of art has loads of details and nuances that came from the artist's taste and vision. The longer you look at it the more there is to appreciate. You keep finding new details you missed as you study it.

Ai gens are the opposite. They look fine and competent at a cursory glance, but the longer you look the less meaning you find, and the more defects you discover. Personally I believe this is why they feel so wrong to look at for any length of time.