Hacker News Reader

You can't really draw many conclusions from this test, since the AI art has already been filtered by Scott to be ones that Scott himself found confusing. So What do any of the numbers at the end of this really mean? "Am I better than Scott at discerning AI art from human" is about the only thing this test says.

If you didn't filter the AI art first, people would do much better.

View on HN

I had the same thought, but a counterargument is that the human art has also been filtered to be real artist stuff rather than what a random person would draw.

It's still impressive that pleasant AI art is possible.

The point isn't to compare random AI art with random human art. The overarching sentiment lately has been that AI art feels bad and has this "Fake" quality to it.

This survey is refuting that argument. AI art can be used in media just like human art and people can't really tell (or care if they can't tell the difference).

> This survey is refuting that argument. AI art can be used in media just like human art and people can't really tell (or care if they can't tell the difference).

Sure, as long as the AI art - and the human art it might be presented with - is presented without context and in low resolution.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com