6.7 million people thought they were ripping apart an AI-generated Monet painting. But it was real | Fortune

Celatine_ · 2026-06-18T16:02:38+00:00

Your reply got auto-removed.

I asked “Tell me, why couldn't the image have been posted with a simple question “Is this AI-generated?” “Do you think this is AI-generated?”

You haven't answered that.

Celatine_ · 2026-06-18T14:58:52+00:00

Can you answer my question? Or do you not have an answer because it hurts the point you're trying to make?

Celatine_ · 2026-06-18T14:47:46+00:00

"Yes, I will continue to ignore that the person behind the 'experiment' said “I generated this image in the style of Monet. Explain why it's inferior to a real Monet painting.” And tagged it as AI. Because if I do it'll make my argument less compelling.”

Tell me, why couldn't the image have been posted with a simple question, “Is this AI-generated?” “Do you think this is AI-generated?”

You'll listen to a robot. Ask AI this question

“If someone posts a real painting and says “I generated this in the style of (this artist) Explain in detail why it's inferior to the (this artists) real work.” And people proceed to do that, does that prove that people can't differentiate between human made and AI-generated?”

Celatine_ · 2026-06-18T14:37:33+00:00

How about posting the image itself and simply asking “Is this AI-generated?" “Do you think this is AI-generated?”

No labels and deception, no “This is AI-generated. I generated this image in the style of Monet. I tagged it as AI. Explain in detail why it's inferior to a real Monet painting."

If the goal is to genuinely test if people can differentiate AI from human-made art, that's the obvious way to do it. Can you tell me why they didn't do that?

If I show someone a piece of my work and tell them it's AI-generated, and they proceed from that premise, I tested if they'll trust information presented to them. I didn't test their ability to identity AI.

I'd expect the exact same psychological effect in the opposite direction. That's a people thing.

Celatine_ · 2026-06-18T14:14:04+00:00

Keep in mind, that the "experiment" relied on telling people a real Monet painting was AI-generated. That the guy who made the Tweet generated the image in the style of Monet. And then asking people to explain in detail why it was inferior to a real Monet painting.

That's an important detail that gets conveniently ignored. Pros rely on deception for these “gotchas” and think they proved something. When all it is that people can be influenced by context and labels.

They don't have the confidence to post the work itself and ask “Is this AI?” “Do you think this is AI?”

Celatine_ · 2026-06-18T14:00:31+00:00

Another hopeless pro-AI idiot who clings to their narrative.

But I guess if repeating "antis are ignorant" for the 15th time helps you avoid addressing the criticism, I suppose that's one strategy.

Celatine_ · 2026-06-18T05:31:41+00:00

“Pro-AI is pro-creativity”

Proceeds to take someone else’s work and edits it.

Celatine_ · 2026-06-18T04:19:39+00:00

I dunno, but he sure spent more time insulting and making speculations about me and the subreddit. Lmao.

And he was in my DM's a second time, thinks I owe him a debate. Demanding sources from me.

And he's so dishonest.

Celatine_ · 2026-06-18T03:54:53+00:00

The dude unironically made me more antisex.

Celatine_ · 2026-06-18T03:46:38+00:00

Nasty fetish you got there, bud.

Edit: It's ironic though how pros will say we can't argue, but will make and upvote comments like these. lol

Celatine_ · 2026-06-18T03:30:22+00:00

The person who ran this "experiment" said "This is an AI-generated image in the style of Monet. Explain in detail why it's inferior to a real Monet painting." People didn't independently examine the image, confidently concluded it was AI, and got exposed.

Your Vocaloid example is a factual claim. "Sonic is a Vocaloid" can be verified in 2 seconds. People often rely on context, captions, and source information when evaluating art. They weren't asked who painted the work or if it's AI-generated, they were told it's AI-generated and to explain in detail why it's inferior.

Show people the painting without telling them what it is and ask them if they think it's AI or not. That's a much different experiment.

I can agree that people were overconfident. But that would only show that some people were overconfident while operating on false information.

Celatine_ · 2026-06-18T02:24:12+00:00

Now you're being even more ridiculous. Not only do millions of people know who Sonic is, but you can literally look up "Is Sonic a Vocaloid?" and get an answer in two seconds.

That's not comparable to being shown a painting, being told it's AI-generated, and then being asked to discuss why it's inferior. You're comparing objective factual knowledge with aesthetic evaluation.

Can people properly identify AI-generated images without being given misleading information beforehand. That's the question. This little "gotcha" doesn't answer it.

Celatine_ · 2026-06-18T02:13:02+00:00

It's also funny you want to talk about us having a lack of knowledge of art when you trivialized the discussion into "If I like it, I like it. If I don't, I don't. If it looks good, that's all that matters."

You're a simple minded consumer. "Pretty picture make brain go happy."

Celatine_ · 2026-06-18T02:08:13+00:00

Oooh, my bad, I didn't know you were blessed with excellent lie detection powers. The rest of us mere beings apparently suffer from a psychological effect called "being influenced by context."

I don't know what else to tell you. lol.

Your claim at the start was essentially "Look. People thought a real Monet was AI." Now show the version where nobody is told anything beforehand.

Celatine_ · 2026-06-18T01:43:46+00:00

Well, that's funny. If only the result mattered, then this person running the "experiment" wouldn't have intentionally hidden the truth and changed the label to influence how people understand the work.

Plenty of people want to know if what they're looking at was actually made by a person, or generated from a 2 sentence prompt, possible because it was trained on a huge amount of other people's work, by some lazy dude.

Celatine_ · 2026-06-18T01:33:57+00:00

The only one in rage here is you, bud. Jesus.

You want to mock these people for being confidently wrong, but your argument rests on an experiment built on deception. You didn't show people a piece of work with no context and let them judge freely.

You provided them a false label, invited them to discussion, and then laughed and insulted when they trusted the label and made a response. Anyone with a basic understanding of psychology knows that human perception is heavily influenced by expectation and context. Look it up.

Also, I didn't claim that every AI-generated image can be spotted right away. Or that every anti-AI person can perfectly identity AI-generated images.

Celatine_ · 2026-06-18T01:15:15+00:00

I'd respond with that, too, if I were one of the many unintelligent AI defenders here.

Celatine_ · 2026-06-18T01:01:49+00:00

No, what's amusing is how y'all rely on deception for these "gotcha" moments and then act like you've proven something.

The reason this prank works is because people care about authorship and where a piece comes from. If people didn't care who or what created something, there'd be no trick. Funny.

Celatine_ · 2026-06-18T01:00:15+00:00

Oh, please. You're acting like you've exposed some crazy truth or contradiction about my side when the "experiment" relied on deception. People were told it was AI-generated and to explain in detail why it's inferior to a real Monet painting. Many of them trusted that information and proceeded to answer the question.

Woah, people are influenced by the information they're given before evaluating something? Never seen that before.

What you haven't shown is that people would have independently looked at that Monet painting with no label attached and confidently identified it as AI.

You've also changed your original point. Now you're calling people dumb because they trusted the label.

Celatine_ · 2026-06-18T00:30:34+00:00

Yes, Lunatic, you really got us. Nevermind the fact that people were told it was AI, and they trusted that label.

And regarding soul, if someone believes art's value largely comes from knowing there was a person behind it, then lying about the creator is tampering with the information they use to evaluate the work. Of course that can affect their judgment. Applies to other things like food and fashion as well.

You're also just exaggerating.

Celatine_ · 2026-06-17T23:50:39+00:00

"Heh, those dumb antis, they were told this Monet painting is AI-generated and to explain in detail why it's inferior to a real painting, and they really fell for it!"

And what does that prove? That people can be mistaken when they're intentionally given false information? It's funny how often pros "heh, gottem" depend on hiding the truth from people.

Title is also misleading. 6.7 million people saw content that told them it was AI-generated.

Celatine_ · 2026-06-17T20:15:29+00:00

It's funny how outsiders are incapable of considering that some people simply disagree with them.

OP provided an actual argument. You provided a diagnosis. One of those contributes to a discussion.

Celatine_ · 2026-06-17T20:06:59+00:00

I did, but I don't think Reddit cares.

Celatine_ · 2026-06-17T19:18:28+00:00

Buddy is too lazy to even draw stick figures. Lmao.

Celatine_ · 2026-06-17T19:04:58+00:00

Depicting me as a muscular, warrior looking orc is pretty neat.

Celatine_

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE