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

Asklemmy

50279 readers
647 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€“] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 6 points 5 days ago

Generative LLM and so on is just pattern recognition and generation. It may do this several levels deep, but it doesn't break free of this fundamental limitation.

You are noticing that it is just doing patterns and noticing them yourself. Lines flow a bit oddly. Real objects have recognizable textures but are missing parts of the coherent whole. Comic panels that would be copy + paste for an artist are actually "redrawn" by the generative algorithms and that feels odd. Context changes oddly - e.g. the backgrounds.

It's mostly just parlor tricks. Entertaining but rarely actually that useful.