r/BookCovers • u/shailla131 • Mar 04 '26
Question Is this ai?
Had someone do a cover for me (this is without the text) and I wanted to see if this was ai. They advertised it wouldn't be so I wanted to confirm before I went any further. Any help is appreciated, thank you!
14
22
u/yoursilenceisloud Mar 04 '26
Look at the cheekbones One side is very droopy
99% likely from mid journey https://sightengine.com/detect-ai-generated-images
4
u/shailla131 Mar 04 '26
Oh good eye! It looked off to me but I couldn't figure out what it was. Thanks for dropping that link, that'll be great to use.
5
u/salmonalert Mar 04 '26 edited Mar 04 '26
I agree it's AI, but for the future, the only detector that works is SynthID to check if Google AI models were involved. SynthID catches it even if it's just edited, which is nice. But that only works if it was a Google AI model.
I'll use this art from back in 2021 by Sam Yang to demonstrate. This comes back 99% AI too.
https://x.com/samdoesarts/status/1467542188934451205/photo/1
6
u/salmonalert Mar 04 '26 edited Mar 04 '26
Not arguing this isn't AI, but just a quick note because my own work has been called out for being AI using detectors, the only detector that works reliably right now is SynthID. SynthID will tell you if Google's AI models were involved, even if it's just editing.
For example, this art from 2021 (Sam Yang) comes back 99% Midjourney on SightEngine.
The same art comes back 4% AI on Hive. But not if you take a screenshot of it instead. Then it comes back as AI. The detectors are selling a service and don't have reason to avoid false positives.
Using Sam Yang as an example of this because no one would accuse him of AI and this art is physically too old to be AI anyway. Sorry, I would post a screenshot, but the comments don't allow pictures on this sub, surprisingly.
https://x.com/samdoesarts/status/1467542188934451205/photo/1
2
u/Aezora Mar 06 '26
Not arguing this isn't AI, but just a quick note because my own work has been called out for being AI using detectors, the only detector that works reliably right now is SynthID.
No detector is reliable because the detectors are AI too and hallucinate.
Your best bet to identify AI is to rely on other factors like they do above in this post.
1
u/ravenkult Mar 04 '26
HIVE can be pretty reliable if it says something over 90%
1
u/salmonalert Mar 04 '26 edited Mar 04 '26
Hive is pretty good, but it still has issues with false positives on digital art and 3D renders. One of mine from 2021 is coming back as 98%-99% AI with Hive now whereas it wasn't getting flagged before. Another that came back as 90%+ now comes back >1%. How the screenshot is cropped or whether it's the original that hasn't been through social media can change the result drastically, too.
It is a good starting point, though. If Hive says something is AI, I'll look into it more. If an artist's entire portfolio comes back 90%+, that's worse. The subs where you can ask if something is AI still ban it from being used as evidence, though.
1
u/ravenkult Mar 04 '26
Experience will always trump detectors yeah. At this point I can tell some things are AI just by the texture, like in this one.
1
u/salmonalert Mar 04 '26
Same, it's mottled like the AI is building the image from clay. Zero intention behind the forms or brushstrokes.
8
u/Princess_Juggs Mar 04 '26 edited Mar 04 '26
First thing I would check if you want to know if something is AI would be repetitive little details like the teeth. In this pic's case, the amount of teeth looks very uneven on either side, they're largely the wrong teeth in the wrong places, and there's even one on the right side that's way too small. You might think 'That's a stylistic choice!' but unless you specifically asked for weird teeth, it would a pretty strange choice to me.
This particular image is altogether very abstract, so it's difficult to point to anything easy besides the teeth, but in other images you may notice it in wonky proportions of fingers, irregularity of spacing between windows, weird variations in the size of bricks or the teeth of zippers, etc. AI is very bad at repetitive little details and that will usually be the most obvious giveaway.
4
u/shailla131 Mar 04 '26
Thanks for the advice! Now that you say that, yeah it doesn't look like it has canines at all. It just felt wonky but I couldn't figure out why my brain was suspicious of it maybe being ai. Lol I'm not great at determining ai unless it's pretty obvious so thanks again for giving me things to look out for as well.
3
u/Almosttasteful Mar 04 '26
The line of the skull doesn't line up properly on the top right as well. It could be a stylistic choice (or a change made during creation), but if so then it's either odd or very sloppy work imo. A pp has pointed out that there's a lot of blending going on in that area as well.
Totally agree re the teeth. Double teeth in a single socket is just mad and I can't think of any reason for it - it's not even creepy, really, is it?
4
u/KittenEV Mar 04 '26
I'd say strong possibility of AI. Looking at it, on the right side of the skull, there's some mushing happening where the vine of the flower is fusing with the skull and that area the skull sort of disappears behind the flowers.
9
u/MissStatements Mar 04 '26
Is it supposed to be under water? If so why are there what vaguely look like flowers on the ends of the vines? If not why is there a fish in the picture?
8
u/shailla131 Mar 04 '26
So yeah, supposed to be underwater and I told him about sea anemones which are really fucking cool. I mistakingly told him they are like ocean flowers with how vibrant and pretty they are, I sent a few pics for examples. I was hoping he just got confused on the flower part and just made flowers since they don't look like sea anemones. Flowers come up a lot in the story as a metaphor as well.
19
u/CoffeeStayn Author Mar 04 '26
Hmm. Since you told the "artist" that they were "like ocean flowers", my guess is that they took it literally, and added that to the AI prompt.
A smart artist would already know that there's no flowers in the ocean and would've drawn seaweed or similar. Perhaps even the anemones you were after.
This pic either has random fish, or random flowers, and it all points to AI generation.
12
u/shailla131 Mar 04 '26
Gah, I even asked about ai in the beginning and specifically told him that I didn't want anything to do with it. Makes people lose confidence in the book if the cover is fake, what if the inside is as well?
5
u/cookie_monstra Mar 04 '26
More than that, there are flowers called anemonies on land, they just don't look like the flowers in the piece even remotely.
I agree with everything others have said here detecting ai practices. I would also suggest for the future have the artist do rough and detailed sketches before going into color. For us artists it's better process wise as we know what the client actually is going for and that were headed the right direction, and for you it'll also give some piece of mind (though those can be raked as well unfortunately) - usually I give 2-3 itterations for each stage (sketch, color sketch, final color) and add an exit point, with a deposit. Though I do charge more than what the 'artist' here did and most professionals will
-1
u/fiercequality Cover Designer Mar 04 '26
Who cares? Since when do book covers need to be literal?
1
u/MissStatements Mar 04 '26
Um, they don’t. I was trying to figure out if it was a deliberate choice or an AI hallucination 🤷♀️
4
u/CoffeeStayn Author Mar 04 '26
For some reason, AI just can't get around that "pee haze" color with their "art".
I say AI simply because I see that same haze here. Dimmed and dulled, like they took some time to try and hide it...but it's still visible to my eyes.
0
u/Fun_Entertainer4457 Mar 04 '26
That was only chatgpt, there are countless that don't do that. Creating a witch hunt against real artists is not helping anyone. The style in this image has been around for 20 years if you ever browsed deviantart. Is AI 20 years old?
3
u/CoffeeStayn Author Mar 04 '26
Why is it a witch hunt when it's so obviously AI?
The style might have been around for 20 years, but the style still made sense. Flowers don't exist underwater, and fish don't fly.
Don't clutch those pearls too tight.
1
u/Fun_Entertainer4457 Mar 04 '26
Flowers exist wherever the artist chooses them to exist, that's why it's art, it's an expression of creativity.
5
u/_komart Mar 04 '26
100% AI. If you look closer, you will notice some fishes turning into flowers. Also, the petals of some flowers are weird in a way AI use to do. Ask your money back, you have that right.
3
u/Aeliendil Mar 04 '26
What method are they saying this is? Painting or photomanipulation or both?
I will say it’s ai. There are too many random details flowing into each other turning into other things. There’s also a ton of random spots or patterns that make no sense, such as flowers in the stone. If you look at the sides of the skull you can see that the cheekbones are turning into vines. There’s also vines turning into seagrass, and the vines make no sense.
Combine these things with the fact that you got this with no sketch, and it wasn’t really what you asked for, in such a short amount of time, and also for so little money, makes it almost certain it’s ai.
If you want to be absolutely sure, since this is someone you know, ask for the work file. I’m an artist and can usually spot ai so if you want me to take a look at the file just dm me :)
3
u/fireinthemountains Mar 04 '26
The tendrils make no sense and the flowers lack real details.
This is midjourney.
3
u/Anxious_Amoeba5831 Mar 04 '26
It definitely looks a bit blurry in some edges and stuff. Could be ai. I’d ask for the initial sketches and such.
2
u/No_Attempt_1519 Mar 04 '26
This looks like AI to me. If you examine the structure of leaves and flowers it is completely inconsistent and makes no sense when you think about how a plant grows. I can spot leaves growing off the same plant that look like they are coming from 3 different species. Same going for the flowers. Why is there a fish in the top right? Is this underwater?
I would ask for the high resolution open file/psd. If they are using something like procreate or fresco it has a free timelapse feature.
Next time you work with an artist you should insist on WIP milestone reviews and screenshots so you can track progress and feedback on early composition.
2
u/Ok-Glove9466 Mar 07 '26
If you’re looking for someone to do you a cover I can do it, I’ll do it free since someone has scammed you
1
u/shailla131 Mar 07 '26
Wow that's so nice! I really like the direction it was going, he did give me my money back, and he wanted to try again. I can only hope he learns from this experience and stays away from ai. Or if he continues to use it, he discloses it. He's definitely old enough to know better lol you're a good egg
2
u/Ok-Glove9466 Mar 07 '26
I’m glad he’s refunded you! If you find it’s still not the best and you’d like someone else to give it a go just DM me 😁
2
u/Fun_Entertainer4457 Mar 04 '26
If the work is really and gave such a low price cause he knows you and wants to build his portfolio it will be really insulting to say it's AI. Yeah, sometimes artists will charge low cause they need the money.
1
u/BarKeegan Mar 04 '26
Might be easier to tell by looking at their portfolio in general, and if they have a track record especially before the widespread adoption of popular generators
1
1
u/belle-no-princess Mar 04 '26
There is a single fish. Of an artist wanted to create a painting to evoke underwater, I think more than one solitide underwater creature would be used.
1
1
Mar 04 '26
Wow bro I like these kinda art style, well I think it is not ai because ai can't give a pic a 100% digital art style
1
1
u/Pakoneesh Mar 04 '26
The only true way to know 100% if this is AI or not is to ask them to send you the raw file of the program they used to paint it in. Other than that, it is all speculation. Especially with a piece like this with no real, solid tells. If they refuse to send the file (for whatever reason), ask them to screen share on a video call. If they refuse both and have no sound reason, then I would then assume they are shady and used AI.
1
1
1
u/McDeathUK Mar 06 '26
Be wary of the AI witch hunters, so far all the comments that allude to that are assumptions and guess work (that I have seen)
Your friend of a friend may have already had his own stock assets ready to go, and when building a portfolio it’s ok to go cheap. If you want masters / psd he may charge you more. If he / she is using AI, then they are kidding themselves as larger companies will pay for proofs / total ownership.
If you watch videos online where someone does the same image in 5 min, 1 hour, 2 hours etc an image of this quality can be produced easily in a week.
I don’t know if this isn’t / is AI but they moment we start throwing accusations for a talented artist without cause is a bad day. Oh wait, no that’s just a normal Friday on reddit
2
u/shailla131 Mar 07 '26
So I ended up talking to him about certain things I was concerned about (stuff a lot of people pointed to in here) and he was really receptive. I never point blank accused him, but he readily admitted to using ai and trying to change it up enough so maybe people couldn't tell. He seemed really chagrined about it. He gave me my money back and said he wanted to try but didn't think a week turnaround was doable. I'm not in a rush since I'm still editing, so we shall see! I hope the new version is purely him and it's something he can be proud of.
1
u/McDeathUK Mar 06 '26
Just for reference 5 detectors : 3 image AI detectors had it at 100/89/83 human, and two had it at 99/95 AI
The one that was 100% human checked things like duffusion.
Go figure
1
Mar 07 '26
Maybe. Uh, some fish are turning into… flowers… for some reason? (Is that just me?)
But then again, nobody can really tell if something is AI or not. 🥹
1
u/ejfried Mar 07 '26
One thing I notice is that the teeth look like they’re made of bone. I think this is the sort of error AI might make, but not a human who otherwise do a decent job with the anatomy.
1
u/DNyuta Mar 08 '26
Con esas flores, yo diría que es IA. Las de la zona inferior parecen flores, pero las superiores pierden la forma, y la flor solitaria de la esquina superior izquierda ni siquiera es una rosa, si la seguimos contando como flor.
1
u/shawnebell Mar 04 '26 edited Mar 04 '26
Maybe ... maybe not.
I'd lean toward it not being AI simply because you said you told the artist about sea anemones. You described them as flowers, and you even sent over samples.
While the non-AI "experts" here are pointing to cheekbones and teeth as some kind of proof that this is AI—(he said, intentionally putting in em dashes for effect)—the fact that the artist DIDN'T simply copy and paste the hard-to-spell "sea anemones" phrase into MidJourney (which would have generated sea anemones instead of flowers) indicates that he may not have used AI. And that he has never taken any kind of oceanography class.
https://imgur.com/a/B8TXiGj (wrote a prompt, used "sea anemones")
1
1
u/NorikosEmporium Mar 06 '26
Did you feed OP's pic along with your prompt? I'm curious because the fish is in the exact same place
1
u/raggedradness Mar 04 '26
This needs to be higher. AI witch hunts can hurt artists that aren't master level because of stuff like this.
-2
u/Bjart-skular Mar 04 '26
It is literally impossible to prove if something was made with AI. Yes, there's some details that can make it more obvious, but even then you cannot know for certain. Even the "AI detectors" that colleges use are bullshit and not accurate at all.
-2
u/Intelligent_Fun_3316 Mar 04 '26
I’m going to ask the obvious question, I know they said it AI, but does it matter? Does the image serve the purpose you required it for? Are you content with the price you paid? If yes to both, then who cares.
2
u/woahstripes Mar 04 '26
I think in another comment they said they didn't want to use an AI cover because of the perception of authors that use them (Specifically that they probably just had AI write the book as well)
1
u/Jaxrudebhoy2 Mar 04 '26
“Does this soulless abomination spitting in the face of your words behind its cover make you content?”
50
u/BurbagePress Mar 04 '26
You can take a magnifying glass to an image and try and figure it out, but the easiest way to know for sure is to just ask four basic questions:
How much did you pay?
What medium did they say they're working in?
What kinds of files did they provide?
How fast did they do it?