On the Separation of Human and AI-Generated Images in CLIP Embedding Space
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
We identify a previously unreported phenomenon in CLIP representations: human and AI-generated paintings spontaneously separate along the dominant principal directions of their joint embedding distribution, without any supervised objective designed to distinguish the two classes. Rather than exploiting this phenomenon for detection, our objective is to interpret it: we seek to identify the visual information underlying the separation and to trace it back from the embedding space to the image domain. We pursue this objective through a progressive investigation combining interpretable image representations with gradient-based inversion, used systematically as an experimental probe of the relationships identified in feature space. Robustness experiments and increasingly expressive statistical descriptors progressively rule out several intuitive explanations based on global image properties and simple local statistics, and point instead to distributed multiscale image structure. Multiscale scattering provides the most informative interpretable representation considered, but offers only a partial account of the phenomenon. Direct inversion provides a complementary and striking observation: substantial displacements along the dominant CLIP directions can be induced by image perturbations that remain nearly imperceptible to human observers, showing that the directions involved in the separation are highly sensitive to image variations with very low perceptual salience for humans. Taken together, these results reveal a significant difference between the visual evidence reflected in CLIP representations and that readily accessible to human perception, raising broader questions about the relationship between artificial and human vision and, ultimately, between artificial and human aesthetic judgment.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 31 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Aug 2026.
Builds on
16 of 31 references.
References · 16
- 2014Explaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examplescited by 7,364
- 2013Intriguing properties of neural networkscited by 5,155
- 2019CNN-generated images are surprisingly easy to spot... for nowcited by 847
- 2014Understanding Deep Image Representations by Inverting Themcited by 403
- 2015Understanding Neural Networks Through Deep Visualizationcited by 334
- 2023Interpreting CLIP's Image Representation via Text-Based Decompositioncited by 196
- 2023Raising the Bar of AI-generated Image Detection with CLIPcited by 164
- 2022CLIP-Dissect: Automatic Description of Neuron Representations in Deep Vision Networkscited by 147
- 2019Fourier Spectrum Discrepancies in Deep Network Generated Imagescited by 139
- 2021Are GAN generated images easy to detect? A critical analysis of the state-of-the-artcited by 139
- 2024Interpreting CLIP with Sparse Linear Concept Embeddings (SpLiCE)cited by 119
- 2022The ArtBench Dataset: Benchmarking Generative Models with Artworkscited by 64
4 more
- 2025A Critical Assessment of Modern Generative Models' Ability to Replicate Artistic Stylescited by 6
- 2024Detecting AI-Generated Images via CLIPcited by 5
- 2024Improving Interpretability and Robustness for the Detection of AI-Generated Imagescited by 5
- 2025Artificial Intelligence and Misinformation in Art: Can Vision Language Models Judge the Hand or the Machine Behind the Canvas?cited by 2
Built on by
Not cited yet.