On February 18, 2024, @teddy0012 posted the two selfies below in a comment under one of the images in the Big Cocks theme album here:

• https://www.adonismale.com/gallery/image/3271369-bigdck-4jpeg/?tab=comments#comment-252559

@AK29 responded:

• OMG! @teddy0012 Are those real! 

@teddy0012 replied:

• As far as I can tell, yes, @AK29  I'm guessing we'd need the eagle eye of @JackFTwist to tell us if they have been modified or if they are AI generated.

My comments are shown in the following post.  After another follow-up question, this discussion threatened to disrupt the flow of comments about the original image, so it seemed to be a better idea to continue this complex discussion in a separate forum, like a blog post dedicated to the topic of hints for detecting AI-generated images.

(This was my reply to @teddy0012's original question.)

LOL, @teddy0012, you put too much faith in me and my aging eyesight!  But no, these two images almost definitely aren't AI-generated.  The two strongest clues are:

• The hands look completely natural.  For some reason, the AI system engineers haven't yet figured out how to reproduce human hands or feet accurately.  The worst cases may have missing fingers or toes, or too many of them.  Or the hands may just look unnaturally mangled, the fingers may have unusual lengths (the little finger is sometimes nearly as long as the middle finger!), or the finger joints may be in the wrong place or simply look unnatural (just compare them to your own hands or any legitimate image).  Another telltale sign is that the fingernails and fingertips look unnaturally pointed, like dangerous weapons.  Producers of AI images have learned to get around these problems simply by not showing the fake figures' hands!  But as AI gradually improves, the engineers will eventually solve this problem.
  • In the AI image below, note the weird appearance of the hands.  Also, his left upper leg appears longer than the right one, and the spandex has an unnatural-looking crease between his quadriceps and hamstring muscles.
• Inexplicably, AI can't yet accurately reproduce simple text.  So the dead giveaways that image #2 is real are the clear "Spotify" text and the "FCB" in the crest above that.  In general, look at any logo or text in an image, like the brand name on the waistband of briefs, or even a sign in the background.  If the lettering looks jumbled and indistinct, then the image is suspect.
  • Both of those lads are amazingly well-hung, though, aren't they?  The second one's cock reaches almost to his knees, and he's presumably not even fully erect.  Why are so many of these hung guys the skinny ones?

Besides those two hints that an image is AI-generated, I'd also add that, IMO, models in AI images typically have unnaturally smooth, plastic-looking complexions with few, if any, skin blemishes.  They remind me of sexualized Ken Dolls.  But sometimes this can be a matter of the viewer's perception, so it's not a reliable criterion.  Some viewers might find it useful, while others won't.

It's hard to tell whether either one of these images has been morphed to make their cocks look bigger.  Neither one has any of the telltale signs of such manipulation:  discolored skin around an area where a body part (a face or cock) has been Photoshopped onto the original image, or a general blurriness to a morphed image.  Both of these images are crisp and clear.

Having said all that, two caveats are worth noting:

• Actual real images can also be enhanced by AI technology -- basically, extensive Photoshopping that would otherwise take hours can be accomplished in only a few seconds after entering the relevant instructions, like "enlarge the bulge in his groin."
• The latest top-of-the-line iPhones have this some of this technology built into their camera apps, although possibly not the ability to enhance the size of a bulge.😉  Combining different features from several different shots of a subject can be done with a few touches of the relevant buttons on the phone.  So those seemingly perfect smiles and poses in a family photo on this year's Christmas card or letter may actually be an AI-produced combination of the best features of several different photos taken within a few seconds of each other.

The number of AI fakes on AM hasn't become an epidemic yet, but it's growing fast.  Have fun deciding whether an image is real, AI-generated, or AI-enhanced!

How many flaws can you spot in the AI-generated image below?  Hint:  Start with the "thumb" on his left hand.

I found another AI generated image on AM.

I think there are more AI images mixed in than most people realize. I just looked at a gallery and saw at least 3:

On 6/1/2024 at 6:38 PM, OscarM said:

I think there are more AI images mixed in than most people realize. I just looked at a gallery and saw at least 3:

@OscarM:  I agree completely, and you've spotted some excellent examples.  Hardly a day goes by that I don't spot at least several posts of AI images.  To the credit of the creator of your third one, at least their watermark is upfront about it, with "AI" explicitly stated in the creator's Twitter / X handle and website or blog name.

Thank you for your insights and knowledge... AI is going viral it seems... It's showing up more and more in television advertisements... an example is the latest "Persil" laundry commercial (the woman in the red sweater)... I miss the cute guy in the white dinner jacket... say what you will about any of it... you can create fantasy and save money not paying models and actors (and in my case singers) but AI has not achieved the heart and soul and emotion of "Real" (or what is considered real in porn and the entertainment industry)... just my rant... I've lost about a dozen job opportunities to AI in the last 8 months.

123

On 2/19/2024 at 2:07 PM, JackFTwist said:

The number of AI fakes on AM hasn't become an epidemic yet, but it's growing fast.

Famous last words.  It seems accurate to say that the epidemic has been underway for several months, now.

Well, here's something I've not seen before - looks like an eye inside this guy's nipple:

Edited to show pic instead of linking to it, and added a closeup:

Ran across this one today, which I think could fool people. Most of the things we typically look for are handled pretty well. For me the giveaway would be the paleness of the hands compared to other skin  tones, and lighting on the penis. Bu had I not encountered it specifically in an AI album? I'd have to really be looking at it pretty carefully. The steps have a weird plastic look to me. 

On 9/9/2024 at 12:56 AM, Ludwick said:

Well, here's something I've not seen before - looks like an eye inside this guy's nipple:

Edited to show pic instead of linking to it, and added a closeup:

@Ludwick: Yes, nipples seem to be a continuing problem for AI.  They're often too small to examine in detail, but when they're large enough to see clearly, they almost always look strange, IMO.  Human nipples aren't always "perfect," either, which shows up clearly in professional photos of known models.  One or both of the models' nipples in some of those photos resemble some of the flaws seen in AI nipples, so I usually don't consider potential nipple imperfections to be definitive.  But the example above is such a bizarre feature that it doesn't leave much doubt!  In addition, his left thumb and right little finger look unnatural.

The image below is from a satire piece in today's Washington Post titled "The Rigger," by Garry Trudeau, the "Doonesbury" cartoonist.  The "model's" hands quickly drew my attention because of their prominence in the image:  almost perfectly centered and thrust out in front of the model, toward the viewer.  Only after I'd chuckled at the horribly mangled hands did I notice the notation at the bottom-right of the image, clearly stating that it's AI-generated (by Trudeau).

I noticed the face first, because I had to scroll down further to see the mangled hands. 😄 AI seems to be doing better with hair, but this one still has the too smooth face.

There are sooo many of them here and all over the web

What do we think of this one? (someone has requested an ID and uncropped version)

It doesn't really scream AI to me immediately, but that shirt - the wrinkling seems a bit off, and I wonder if it's a case of AI trying to do camouflage? Also, the cropping seems suspicious.

On 9/29/2024 at 12:20 AM, Ludwick said:

What do we think of this one? (someone has requested an ID and uncropped version)

It doesn't really scream AI to me immediately, but that shirt - the wrinkling seems a bit off, and I wonder if it's a case of AI trying to do camouflage? Also, the cropping seems suspicious.

I should note this was indeed identified as AI (from Grind Out Guys if memory serves - the cropping removed their logo.)

Here's one that made me laugh - obvious even to me despite my buggered vision (I can see really well out of the cataract-free eye, but that means I can't wear my glasses at all now, which in turn means the other eye can't see much of anything.) 

15 hours ago, Ludwick said:

Here's one that made me laugh - obvious even to me despite my buggered vision (I can see really well out of the cataract-free eye, but that means I can't wear my glasses at all now, which in turn means the other eye can't see much of anything.) 

 

@Ludwick:  Thanks for posting this one!  It made me laugh, too.  Even the waistband of his shorts is screwed up.

On 9/29/2024 at 12:20 AM, Ludwick said:

What do we think of this one? (someone has requested an ID and uncropped version)

It doesn't really scream AI to me immediately, but that shirt - the wrinkling seems a bit off, and I wonder if it's a case of AI trying to do camouflage? Also, the cropping seems suspicious.

On 10/10/2024 at 12:36 AM, Ludwick said:

I should note this was indeed identified as AI (from Grind Out Guys if memory serves - the cropping removed their logo.)

The fingers on the right hand are a dead giveaway:  the missing thumb and the unnaturally short forefinger compared to the middle finger.

Here's the uncropped version.  It was the first photo hit in a Google Images reverse-image search for the cropped image.  The cropped image cut off more of this stud's beautiful cock than necessary.  The light hair on his left forearm, crotch, and thighs is probably the most realistic I've ever seen in an AI image, and the person(s) who created the image even added three blemishes to his right thigh, vs. the flawless complexions typical of AI.  

It's puzzling why AI has been able to create such a realistic-looking penis for quite some time, yet the software engineers still haven't managed to master human hands.  Kind of makes you wonder about the interests and priorities of some of the programmers.🤔

On 11/13/2024 at 3:50 PM, JackFTwist said:

The fingers on the right hand are a dead giveaway:  the missing thumb and the unnaturally short forefinger compared to the middle finger.

Here's the uncropped version.  It was the first photo hit in a Google Images reverse-image search for the cropped image.  The cropped image cut off more of this stud's beautiful cock than necessary.  The light hair on his left forearm, crotch, and thighs is probably the most realistic I've ever seen in an AI image, and the person(s) who created the image even added three blemishes to his right thigh, vs. the flawless complexions typical of AI.  

It's puzzling why AI has been able to create such realistic-looking penises for quite some time, yet the software engineers still haven't managed to master human hands.  Kind of makes you wonder about the interests and priorities of some of the programmers.🤔

When I looked at it again just now, my brain saw it as pinky finger, fourth finger, and middle finger. But that wouldn't be what you'd see for the right hand in that position, and the fingers would still be the wrong lengths, so you're absolutely right. I take it as a reminder of how our brains can be fooled if we aren't looking critically at evaluating every detail. 

This video was possted on a video blog here on Adonis Male.  There is no doubt about it being AI generated. The detail, the senupusness of the men, and the entire piece do convey an erotic fantasy.

1 hour ago, David9311 said:

This video was possted on a video blog here on Adonis Male.  There is no doubt about it being AI generated. The detail, the senupusness of the men, and the entire piece do convey an erotic fantasy.

 

 

I love that video, and I think it's one of the most effectively erotic applications of AI imagery yet!

Is there a sentiment that we should avoid posting AI images on AM if we can?  I've been posting quite a few in my Galleries, knowingly.  Although I'm certainly not in love with AI in general, I think visual AI imagery has one legitimate application, as an **occasional** spice to erotic art, so long as the purpose is not to deceive.  

As on occasional poster on DeviantArt, and having gaped at literally thousands (and thousands) of AI images there, I think I can almost always tell the difference now between AI and the real thing.  (Jack details the two basic give-aways in his third post at the top of this thread, namely, the bad hands and feet, and the preposterous "lettering.")  I like, and post, the odd AI erotic image, but I'm never trying to deceive with it.  So every AI image I know of in my Galleries is tagged either "art by so and so [name of artist, if I know it]" or "art by unknown artist."  Those are my tips that it's AI.

6 minutes ago, KeithLucas said:

Is there a sentiment that we should avoid posting AI images on AM if we can?

@KeithLucas:  No, as far as I know, there's no such sentiment or policy.  But many of us would prefer if those who post AI images followed your example, as you described it above:

8 minutes ago, KeithLucas said:

every AI image I know of in my Galleries is tagged either "art by so and so [name of artist, if I know it]" or "art by unknown artist."

Unfortunately, many members, maybe most, who post AI images don't realize that they're AI, IMO, especially some of the most realistic-looking images, where the flaws aren't readily evident and require detailed examination.

52 minutes ago, KeithLucas said:

Is there a sentiment that we should avoid posting AI images on AM if we can?  I've been posting quite a few in my Galleries, knowingly.  Although I'm certainly not in love with AI in general, I think visual AI imagery has one legitimate application, as an **occasional** spice to erotic art, so long as the purpose is not to deceive.  

As on occasional poster on DeviantArt, and having gaped at literally thousands (and thousands) of AI images there, I think I can almost always tell the difference now between AI and the real thing.  (Jack details the two basic give-aways in his third post at the top of this thread, namely, the bad hands and feet, and the preposterous "lettering.")  I like, and post, the odd AI erotic image, but I'm never trying to deceive with it.  So every AI image I know of in my Galleries is tagged either "art by so and so [name of artist, if I know it]" or "art by unknown artist."  Those are my tips that it's AI.

It's my sentiment (or rather, my very firm opinion) that all art should be labeled according to the medium (or media) used, if known. If you know that something is AI, label it as AI. Don't resort to calling it "digital art", either.  A work made using a graphics program - actual digital art created using a drawing pad, or drawn using a mouse or trackball - is not remotely the same thing as AI. The fact that a computer is involved is where any resemblance between the two ends. 

And yes, I am a pedantic digital creator.