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

Asklemmy

50324 readers
436 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€“] m532@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 week ago

I think its that comics/cartoons don't really have a "world model" for the machine to build. Like, with photos, the lighting and physics and stuff all follow some rules and one could build a 3d model from a photo. But with comics/cartoons, everything is exaggerated, 3d models don't exist, lighting is vibes-based, every character is only drawn from certain angles. Let's say the machine determines it needs to draw the cartoon character in a 45 degree angle, but all the training data only had 0 and 60 degree angles. So it would try to base it on the 3d model it should have, but trying to make a 3d model of a cartoon character just results in contradictions. So it probably displays the contradictory result, which is then of course completely wrong.