Scott Alexander created a Turing Test for AI generated artwork. Begin quote:

Here are fifty pictures. Some of them (not necessarily exactly half) were made by humans; the rest are AI-generated. Please guess which are which. Please don’t download them onto your computer, zoom in, or use tools besides the naked eye. Some hints:

  • I’ve tried to balance type of picture / theme , so it won’t be as easy as “everything that looks like digital art is AI”.
  • I’ve tried to crop some pictures of both types into unusual shapes, so it won’t be as easy as “everything that’s in DALL-E’s default aspect ratio is AI”.

At the end, it will ask you which picture you’re most confident is human, which picture you’re most confident is AI, and which picture was your favorite – so try to keep track of that throughout the exercise.

All the human pictures are by specific artists who deserve credit (and all the AI pictures are by specific prompters/AI art hobbyists who also deserve credit) but I obviously can’t do that here. I’ll include full attributions on the results post later.

I got 88% correct (44/50). Here’s my attempt (or rather my imperfect memory of my attempt), and my justification for the answers I gave.

Human. Stuff like the cherubs holding her skirts (one blindfolded, one a cyborg) read like the kind of deliberative creative choice that AI never makes. The birds and feathers and hair (typical pain points for AI) are all sharp and coherent.
Human. I haven’t seen an AI-generated image like this before. Tree branches overlap believably (instead of disappearing/multiplying/changing when they occlude each other, as in AI images).
Human. Has an AI feel, but the hair strands look correct, and the frills hang believably across her shoulders. Image is loaded with intricate, distinct-yet-similar details (waves/foam/fabric/clouds/birds) that never blend into mush.
AI. Blobby oven-mitt hands. Deformed foot. Nobody in the 18th/19th century would allow their daughter to be painted wearing such a scandalous dress.
Human. Coherent and symmetrical to the smallest detail. Note the dividers on the window.
Hard call. I went with AI because of the way the blackness of the woman’s hair abruptly changes intensity when the curving line bisects it. A random, unmotivated choice that a human wouldn’t make, but a machine might.
AI. Right hand has two thumbs.
Human. Haven’t seen any AI images like this before. The sleeping disciples are sprawled in complex but believable ways.
Human. I went back and forth, but decided the red crosshatching pattern was too coherent to be AI.
AI. I recognize the model that created this: Dall-E 3, which has a grainy, harsh, oversaturated look. Other clues are the nonsensical steps to nowhere, the symmetry errors, and the kitsch colors of the gate, which detract from the sense of ancient grandeur. Nobody would spend so much time on the details of the stonework, only to make it look like it was built out of Lego blocks.
A hard one. I guessed AI because of the way the windows/chimneys of the houses appear to be slanted. No reason a human artist would do that. (I didn’t see the nonsensical “signature” in the bottom length corner; if I had, I would have guessed Human.)
Guessed AI, got it wrong. Very hard.
Not hard. At least 10 separate details would make me guess “AI” at 90% confidence. The hairstrands are a melty incoherent mess. The hands have froglike webbing on them. Her skirt is excessively detailed and its metallic designs lack symmetry. Her earring floats in space. It contains confused stylistic choices. The girl’s face is a simplified anime design: does that agree with the ultra-detailed skirt and the near-photorealistic water? Also, where is the light source coming from?
AI. Not sure what made me think a human hadn’t made it. Maybe the lack of doors: how do you get in and out?
Human. Many specific choices, plus the text on the temple.
heavy AI slop feel. Many occlusion errors. Deformed hands. Probably Dall-E 3 again.
I actually can’t remember how I guessed here but it’s pretty clearly AI. The face’s left eye is deformed in a random, unmotivated way. Occlusion errors. Filled with ugly, harsh artifacts. Seems like it was trying to write letters in the middle of the image and gave up.
Human. Mild slop aesthetic (pretty girl + shiny plastic skin + random sparkles/nonsense) plus heterochromia should point to AI, but the hairstrands are too coherent.
Human. Don’t know why I gave this answer. Was probably a guess.
AI. What’s the middle black rectangle in the house? It can’t be a door, because it doesn’t reach the ground. If it’s a window, why doesn’t it match the other two?
lol, get this cancer off my screen.
what makes this look human? I don’t know. Maybe it’s the stark, understated tree? AI would probably put dramatic explosion-esque leaves or flowers on it to match the sky.
A good example of the Midjourney slop aesthetic. It superficially invokes liturgic religious iconography, yet Mary wears a full face of Instathot makeup and has detailed veins on her hands. Very weird, inhuman choices. What’s the little nub of flesh poking between her right thumb and index finger?
Midjourney slop. Occlusion errors on the hairstrands. It tried to give her an earring but didn’t finish the job, leaving a strange malformed icicle hanging off her ear.
Human. This was a bit of a cheat because I’d seen the image before: it’s a render by Michael Stuart and was my desktop background for a while. If I hadn’t seen it, I would still have said “human” based on the complex, coherent rigging and ratlines.
AI. Mangled hands. Man wears two or three belts at once, and the holes don’t make sense. His loincloth tore in a weird way, giving him a Lara Croft-esque thigh holster strap. An interesting example of stylistic blend: it’s going for a Caravaggio-esque painting, but mistakenly puts all sorts of painterly details into the setting itself: notice how the man’s left hand appears to be holding a pen or a brush, and how the windowsill is a gilded painting frame.
AI. Looks like a Midjourney image from 2 years ago.
Blindly guessed “Human” and got lucky.
Human. The windows look coherent.
AI. Got it wrong. I thought “what are the odds that two such similar looking pictures back to back would both be by humans.
AI. The cafe has seemingly hundreds of chairs and tables, some of which are overlapping or inside one another. Why are plants growing inside the window frames?
Guessed AI because of the numerous mistakes in the reflections. It wasn’t. Come on, man.
So sloppy that Oliver Twist is holding up a bowl and asking for more.
Human. I was rushing, and becoming careless. Seems obvious it’s AI in hindsight, when you see how messy the fruit is.
Human. The musculature of the man’s torso is consistent with how human bodies were portrayed by late-medieval artists (not all of them could pilfer corpses), but inconsistent with AI, which is mode-collapsed into anatomical accuracy (see the painting of the Blessed Virgin Mother above).
Human. It’s unlike AI attempts I’ve seen at this style. The signature looks real.
Looks like a 4 year old GAN image.
I think this is by Dall-E 3. It loves excessive pillars.
Human, but I don’t know what makes it human. I haven’t seen AI images like it.
If AI slop was a videogame, this picture would be the final boss.
Messy, but packed with deliberate human choices and intent. Characters interact with each other in complex ways. Branches and trees look correct.
Human. I’d seen this before.
AI. A very old image.
Guessed human. Whoops. It was AI.
AI. Reflection errors in the water. The tree roots on the left look wrong.
More slop. Surface of the landing craft is just random shit (and its feet are asymmetrical). Right astronaut has a weird proboscis sprouting from his helmet.
Human. Complex interactions between positive and negative space. The cutouts are chaotic yet have a congruent internal logic. I’ve never seen an AI image like it. Some of the cutouts have torn white edges—a human error.
Human. Difficult to say. I think AI images generally either have a clear subject or a clear focal point.
AI. Another hard one. What swayed me was the second door on the left-side building. It seems to exist off the edge of the land.
We have such slop to show you. Cute big-eyed robot + staring directly at viewer + meaningless graffiti sprays + meaningless planets and circles to take up space = Midjourney.

Concluding Thoughts

You’re in a desert walking along in the sand when all of a sudden you look down, and you see a tortoise, it’s crawling toward you. You reach down, you flip the tortoise over on its back. The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs, trying to turn itself over, but it can’t, not without your help. But you’re not helping. Why is that?

No Comments »

This guitar teacher talks about an amusing, perhaps alarming, trend he’s seen among his students.

In the 90s, they’d be hardcore fans of a particular band. They’d want to learn Metallica’s Master of Puppets in its entirety, or some obscure song buried at the back of an album. They’d display fierce loyalty to a chosen artist or style.

This era of music is summed up by Zebra Man in Jeff Krulik and John Heyn’s infamous gonzo documentary Heavy Metal Parking Lot. “Heavy metal rules! All that punk shit sucks! It belongs on fucking Mars, man!”

Things changed in the Napster/Limewire era (early 2000s). Digital filesharing meant the album slowly started to die. Kids would rock up to him with home-burned CDs and tapes of random songs collaged from various places. This was exciting, as far as it went. Kids were taking control of their music. Albums are ultimately a marketing construct from the 1950s dictated by manufacturing constraints. There’s no God-given reason why music has to be doled out in 40-60 minute blobs, all by the same artist, and with an immutable track order. Other worlds are possible. There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in your philosophy, Horatio.

But the new generation of listeners had far less loyalty to individual bands/artists. They did not know the “deep tracks”. If they wanted to learn an Offspring song, it would always be one of the same 3-4 songs.

Today, it has shifted again. His students are like “yo, I want to learn $SONG”, he’s like “so you like $SONG_ARTIST?” and he gets a blank stare. They live in a world where endless music drifts algorithmically in front of them, like indistinguishable ocean waves. Sometimes they like it, but this doesn’t provoke any interest in who made the music, where it came from, what its context is, and so forth. Why even learn those things? More and equally good music is coming along soon. There’s no reason to be a fan of anyone. Once the artist vanishes from Spotify playlists, they can safely forget about them.

(Superfans obviously still exist, but now seem to be motivated more by weird parasocial obsessions than actual artistic output. What would the average kpop “sasaeng” desire more—an unreleased song by Jungkook, or a piece of Jungkook’s shirt?)

It makes you wonder….what does it actually mean to be a fan of someone?

I view fandom as a search algorithm. A way of managing the limitless choices of entertainment.

If I want to read a book there are millions of them, but reading random books is a poor use of my time: most are bad/uninteresting/unsuitable for me. I can dramatically increase my odds of finding a good book by reading an author I’ve enjoyed in the past.

This creates an illusion that the author is important. Actually, “author” is just a highly optimal branch on a search tree for book discovery. If my favorite author started writing bad books, I’d eventually stop reading him. The books are what matters.

Which leads to the question: what happens when search algorithms can connect you with good books better than the tried-and-true method of “read books by your favorite author”? Do you still need to have a favorite author? What happens in that world? Does the fan still exist?

Here’s a related thing I recently read: Kat Tenbarge’s Sorry, Bella Poarch, this IS ‘Build a B*tch’

Overnight, a Tiktoker became the third biggest star on the platform because she nodded her head to an electronic beat for a few seconds.

This is literally a fame lottery. There is no reasonable way that talent, perseverance, or “star power” can manifest in a video that’s a few seconds long and where you don’t even talk. (The Tiktok algorithm, by the way, is believed to have a reasonable amount of random noise, to stop people hacking it.) We expect stars to have a degree of personal charisma. Stars produced this way, as Tenbarge notes, tend to be punishingly average and unsuited for fame.

All of it — and this is coming from someone who collects influencer merchandise — is incredibly boring and one-dimensional. This is not by any means an invitation to bash Charli, who I feel great sympathy for given her age and precarious position in multiple overlapping industries. She’s at the epicenter of a new generation’s group of power brokers, with her every move impacting the salaries of grown adults, including her parents and older sister. And I mean this in this kindest way possible — she’s not qualified for any of it. Charli, who I have never personally spoken to, comes off as incredibly sweet, caring, and normal. She reminds me of every high school-aged white girl at my hideously expensive dance studio in suburban Cincinnati. She can definitely perform well, as well as any “Dance Moms-”era teenage competitive dancer from Connecticut. But if you read an interview with Charli and her older sister Dixie, the mediocrity is palpable. They don’t really have anything interesting to say about, well, anything — and if they do, their publicists won’t let them. I’ve seen a handful of their YouTube videos, listened to clips from their podcasts, and scrolled through dozens of Instagram posts, TikTok videos, and tweets. There’s nothing wrong with either of them, they’re just oppressively average. And by the way, so are all their friends in the Hype House and Sway House and whatever new teeny-bopper house went on the market this week.

Bella has attempted to turn her fame into a recording career, with familiar results to anyone familiar with past cases like Kreayshawn or Tila Tequila.

To me, this feels like an area where the past world is meshing incongruously with the new, algorithmic one.

The industry is trying to position Bella Poarch for a lasting career, where her fans continue to buy the songs she puts out for a long time because she’s talented and special. But if her audience cared enough to do that, they probably wouldn’t have found her on Tiktok to begin with. Bella Poarch is the product of a system where the old rules no longer quite apply. She is a nobody who was plucked out of obscurity, through no great merit of her own. She’s not some rising, hot property who will sustain a long career.

And it’s all so meaningless! In 1964, 73 million people watched the Beatles on The Ed Sullivan Show, and it reshaped the face of music. Today, Tiktoks get billions of views and leave no mark on popular culture at all. It’s just noise that gets drowned out by the next day’s noise.

(Hero image: Laura Makabresku | The silent light of God’s Mercy)

No Comments »

Brave the Carpathian wilds of Hungarian animated cinema, and sooner or later you’ll encounter a film called Cat City. Thanks to a fantastic reissue by Deaf Crocodile, there’s no reason it can’t be “sooner”.

Directed by Béla Ternovszky and released in 1986 as Macskafogó (“Cat Catcher”), it’s different to the other Pannónia Film Stúdió movies gaining popularity in the west. Marcell Jankovics’ Fehérlófia was a rapturous hewn-from-the-flesh-of-gods primordial Urheimat myth; György Kovásznai’s Habfürdö was a radical Warhol-meets-Schiele-meets-Soviet-Central-planning romcom. Cat City finds a different way to surprise: by being familiar.

The movie tips its hand early, when a Star Wars text-crawl tells us “In 80 AMM (After Mickey Mouse) the mice of Planet X were threatened by…” What follows is a broad spoof of James Bond and Dirty Harry, where retired “Intermouse” agent Nick Grabovski must recover plans for a device that will save mousekind from a race of evil felines.

Cat City is essentially a western chase cartoon jacked up on espionage steroids—The Mouse With A Golden Gun. Octopussycat. Tom and Jerry Never Dies—with its spy movie hijinks subtly twisted by the fact that they’re about animals. Nick doesn’t have “Bond gadgets”. He uses rodently attributes to get out of trouble (he gnaws through things with his teeth, and picks locks with his tail). The main cat villain has a prosthetic metal hand, like Dr No. The other main villain (?!) is Ernst Blofeld’s white cat. It’s not subtle.

James Bond is conceptually inseparable from Cold War paranoia, so Cat City feels provocative simply by existing. Eastern European baddies with fake accents are the villains in something like every Bond film ever made. Was there public demand for a “we have Sean Connery at home” Magyar imitation? Apparently so. The film was very successful.

But I’m curious as to how familiar, exactly, the average Hungarian would have been with the things Cat City parodies. Here’s a contemporary review (in Hungarian, but Google translates it readably) by Filmvilág‘s Gabriella Székely, who comments that much of the film is cribbed from media that nobody in Hungary can watch. On the other hand, Budapest had at least one cinema in the 1980s that played western movies. On Quora, Viktor T Toth reminisces…

A friend of mine and I saw Monty Python and the Holy Grail here. We were not familiar with Monty Python at the time, so we were completely unprepared. To this day, I don’t know how I managed to avoid wetting myself, I was laughing so uncontrollably at times. Other movies of the era that I remember include Alien (very popular in Hungary, despite the awkward title, apparently borrowed from the French, which literally translates back as “The Eighth Passenger is Death”)…

Hungary, under János Kádár, was the Eastern Bloc’s most liberal state, and an unofficial state attitude of “gulyáskommunizmus” (“goulash communism”) extended a certain permissiveness to the arts. In 1968, deputy Prime Minister György Aczél issued a statement “accepting any […] artistic expression of genuine value, even if it was produced by Western bourgeois culture.” Cases of censorship still occurred, but there were certainly tougher places in the Soviet Union to watch (and make) a James Bond parody.

It wasn’t always this way. The lot where Pannonia Films once existed is fifteen minutes away from the House of Terror, a museum dedicated to the victims of the Államvédelmi Hatóság, Hungary’s secret police. Many of the killed and tortured were actors, writers, and filmmakers. Hungary’s animation industry was nationalized around 1950 as Magyar Szinkronfilmgyártó Vállalat (the proto-Pannónia). Most of its early output tended to be didactic, safe, and moralistic fare aimed at children, but by the 60s and 70s, a spirit of restless experimentation was emerging, all but encouraged by the state.

Hungary occupies a geographically ambiguous part of Europe—Central Europe by some maps, Eastern Europe by others—and under Kádár it had politics to match, with loyalties cleft between the decrepit Soviet giant to the east and the rising sources of capital in the west. When the USSR collapsed, Hungary was the first domino to fall. The Berlin Wall symbolically marked the end of the Iron Curtain, but the beginning arguably came in April 1989, when Hungary dismantled its border fence to Austria.

Was 1980s Hungary a Goldilocks zone for the arts? Isolated enough to have a national style; yet open enough that foreign ideas like James Bond could trickle through? Rich enough to support a film industry; yet poor enough that it avoided the fate of 1980s Hollywood—economically minmaxed by capital into a depressing prolefeed machine? Oppressive enough to stimulate art; yet free enough that this art was allowed a voice? The idea is striking, but likely reductive.

Likewise, it’s tempting to read (and probably misread) broad Cold War concerns into Cat City. Are the cats meant to symbolize anything in particular? At times they behave like a crime syndicate, robbing mice of their possessions. At other times they’re a KGB-esque spy network, surveilling the mice. Yet they’re also a hostile state power, seeking the genocide of the mouse race. They’re like a vague (and sometimes contradictory) conglomerate of Nazis, Soviets, and mafia. Any political allusions are likely nebulous, and buried beneath ersatz James Bond and goofy jokes. The villainous Mr Teufel’s first name is a Germanic “Fritz”: you can that as a political statement, but a more likely reference is Bakshi’s Fritz the Cat.

That said, there is a striking shot where Mr Teufel is wiping his brow with a handerchief, he throws it over his head, and it lands over one eye, looking like Hitler’s combover.

This is an “adult animation”, but only in the sense that Paul McCartney “rocks hard”. There’s some light PG-rated sexual references. Characters have names like Pissy, Pukie, and Lusta Dick. A few gags have a mordant, subversive edge. The basic scenarios—such as a bank robbery, a heist on a supertanker, and an all-out urban battle—are adapted from adult movies (or at least movies watched by adults) like Dirty Harry, The Spy Who Loved Me, and Death Wish 3 (maybe not the 3rd, which came out pretty close to Cat City’s release.) Otherwise, the movie is pretty kid-friendly. Hungarian animated films tended to muddy the lines between adult and children’s cinema—Feherlofia blended dick jokes with fairytale storytelling—and this is of a piece with that. Children can surely relate to the plight of these small creatures as they try to avoid being eaten by vampire bats. That is the world they live in.

At the center of the movie are “The Four Gangsters”: a quartet of rats who are good at self-promotion but little else. Teufel hires them to kill Grabowsky, a task they fail dismally (and hilariously) at. They get a huge amount of character development, but even though ultimately could be cut with no impact on the plot, they improve leaven the mix with some Keystone Kops-esque absurdity. The Four Gangsters feel like a reference to something that a Hungarian audience would be more familiar with than I am.

As far as comedy goes…well, James Bond has been pretty much spoofed to death for me. Having the villain say “Welcome…Mr Grabowsky” doesn’t even register as a parody. It’s like doing a fake Arnold Schwarzenegger voice—you make that kind of joke when you’re a person who doesn’t really watch many movies.

The trouble with satire is that you now have two ways of failing. Either the thing you’re spoofing will become old and forgotten (leaving the movie shadowboxing at nothing), or the parody will itself fail. In some ways, western audiences are as culturally distinct from Connery-era Bond as we are from gulyáskommunizmus-era Budapest. And while the classic James Bond movies are influential and cast a long shadow, Bond seldom crosses my radar at all, except for random culture war stuff about how to reconstruct him so he’s Relevant(tm) for Today’s Audience(tm) (you know what I mean—arguments about whether Bond should be a black woman who believes #ConsentIsSexy and so on.) The character increasingly seems cut off from the now: more like a work of cultural taxidermy than a living, breathing property.

I’m reminded of Elvis’s 1968 hit “A Little Less Conversation”, which was remixed by Junkie XL in 2003, and then hit number one in nine countries. Some took it as a sign of The King’s enduring cultural legacy. Yet Elvis was so buried in the mix, so out-of-place in the modern production and big-beat trappings, that it had the opposite effect for me. He felt irrelevant. It was as if we, as a civilization, were saying “yes, Elvis is important. But let’s be real, nobody actually wants to hear him, unless we dress him up in modern drag.”

I’ve wandered a bit from the point, but the question of how much you enjoy Cat City’s largely rests on how much you enjoy other, fairly old movies. In 2024, I’m now convinced that the Bond parody stuff is the least interesting side of Cat City. It’s far less sharp than even something like Austin Powers, and its barbs are further blunted by time and culture. Mostly, I’m surprised by how distant James Bond himself feels. Too far to even take potshots at anymore. If you’d asked a person in 1970 whether James Bond would last longer in culture than Sherlock Holmes, I don’t think many moviegoers would have put money on Doyle’s detective.

Cat City definitely nails the racial and gender politics of a classic Bond film. The vampire bats are cartoonish Mexican stereotypes who wear sombreros and play mariachi music. There’s a Japanese cat who attempts to trap Grabowski while the “Chinaman riff” plays. There’s a sexy mouse geisha, who is effortlessly seduced by Grabowski at the end, despite having no chemistry established. It’s all played for fun; a slightly naff recreation of Hollywood stereotypes.

So what do I think of Cat City?

Well, it has a lot of charm. It’s also a bit baggy, feeling every minute of its 1:33:00 runtime. A number of gags just don’t work because they’re dragged out, and lack rhythm and timing. The scenes of Teufel terrorizing and maiming his put-upon assistant, Mr Safranek, should have been funny, but they just go on and on, and become uncomfortable.

The story also needed a haircut. It has numerous plot digressions that don’t really go anywhere and are dropped by the end—Safranek’s daughter has a pet mouse, and their relationship is played up for its taboo potential, but this ultimately gets forgotten about. Animated films are normally very “tight”—one of the blessings of a 3-year production cycle is that it gives you ample time to work out what film you’re actually making—so it’s odd to see one second guess itself and go down blind paths.

The adventures are suitably Bond-esque, with setpieces involving mountain roads, submarines, high-tech cars, etc. Grabowsky is so competent and capable (and his opponents so moronic) that he never feels in much danger. Incredibly, the Four Gangsters rank among his tougher adversaries!

The animation is good, but static. Shots are locked-down and stiff. Characters exist on flat planes of action, like comic book panels. There’s little of the camera movement or layered multiplane action of a Disney movie.

But its flaws make it interesting, in a rough-hewn, shaggy way. It’s reactive, in a sense, and can’t be watched on its own like Feherlofia can. There’s a still a lot of creative juice inside it. I kept pausing to admire certain shots, such as how Mr Teufel’s smoke floats across the room and weaves a noose around his put-upon subordinate Safranek’s head. It certainly has the Pannonia energy. It’s not altogether successful, but it is memorable: a weird island of convention inside the bubbling goulash of Magyar animation.

No Comments »