I’ve been generating images with AI lately, but I keep ending up with weird, creepy, or unsettling results that people call ‘cursed.’ I really want to figure out why this keeps happening and how I can get better results. Does anyone know how to fix this or have tips to make AI art look more normal?
Honestly, cursed AI images are almost a rite of passage at this point. The AI is only as smart as the data it’s trained on, and sometimes that data’s a hot mess. If your prompts are a bit vague or super weird combo requests (“give me a dog-burger with eyes plz”), the AI sorta just shrugs and spits out nightmare fuel. Even if you’re being careful, many AI models just haven’t mastered hands, faces, or even basic anatomy, so stuff gets wonky fast. Try making your prompts really clear (“a realistic photo of a golden retriever smiling outdoors in daylight”), and avoid lots of conflicting instructions. Also, experiment with using negative prompts like “no extra arms, no glitches, no deformed features.” Play around with different models too: some are better for realistic stuff, others just churn out meme material. Lastly, sometimes “cursed” is inevitable—maybe you’re just lucky and found the digital ghost in the machine. If you want AI to make art, be ready for a little horror on the side.
Let me level with you: ‘cursed’ AI images are basically the digital version of sock monsters—nobody really wants them, but they just keep showin’ up when you least expect. Yeah, like @byteguru said, janky training data is a culprit, but I wouldn’t say it’s always about prompt clarity or conflicting instructions. Sometimes you can be hyper specific (‘please, just a normal cat sitting on a windowsill, that’s all I ask’) and boom, suddenly the cat has three eyes and an extra tail sticking out of its face.
Honestly, a lot of these image generators have these ‘latent spaces’ that are just, uh, wild. If you nudge 'em wrong, even slightly, they drop you straight into Creepytown. It’s a combo of A) limited training data, B) models struggling with stuff like eyes, hands, and symmetry, and C) a shocking lack of common sense. Like, the AI doesn’t know what looks human—it knows what looks statistically most like what it got fed, no matter how weird.
One thing that seems almost never mentioned: the actual resolution you pick, and the number of steps used. Go too low, especially with certain models, and the image is a pixelated nightmare; too high, and artifacts multiply. Some models, like SD 1.5, LOVE to turn everything into uncanny valley gremlin stuff if you push the steps too low or forget to use guidance scale. Messing around with those values can change everything, sometimes for the better, sometimes for even MORE nightmare fuel.
Less discussed too—run your prompt through multiple times and cherry-pick. 9/10 generated images are just… bad. The 10th is tolerably okay. Think of it as digital panning for gold, except the gold is ‘not horrifying.’ And hey, try NOT using negative prompts every single time—sometimes they confuse the generator more. Counterintuitive, but sometimes the result is actually worse with a laundry list of ‘no spiders, no extra limbs, no horror movie teeth.’ Simpler can work better.
Or, you know, embrace the chaos. Save the weirdest results. Maybe the world just needs more cursed content.
Why so many ‘cursed’ AI images? Some of the points raised before are spot-on, especially about latent spaces being weird and model quirks. But let’s cut through some noise: it’s not always about hands, faces, or odd prompts—it’s also about how the AI interprets concepts it doesn’t quite get. For example, abstract ideas or “artsy” effects tend to derail image generation, since the model tries to merge conflicting visual cues it’s never seen together, boom—eldritch horrors.
Here’s a twist: Sometimes it doesn’t even matter how good your training data or prompt is—the algorithms themselves (looking at DDIM vs. PLMS, for those into samplers) can lean toward weirdness if the seed is unlucky, or if you use modifiers the model half-understands. That’s why you might get weird symmetry or blob-people even with straightforward instructions.
A trick I’ve found that neither @boswandelaar nor @byteguru mentioned: post-processing your AI creations. Toss your cursed images into photo editing apps—simple touch-ups sometimes save a near-miss from the uncanny valley. Tools like inpainting, face restoration, or just cropping out the worst can salvage a lot. And if you’re after cleaner results out of the gate, try models specifically trained for realism or portraits, not generalized art-gen. Don’t sleep on upgrading the sampler settings and mixing in guidance from human-drawn references, either.
Cons: Even with all this, every model—yes, even product title—spits out a gremlin now and then. High customizability means more variables to mess up. Post-processing adds time (and probably frustration).
Pros: When you get it “right,” the results get much closer to usable. Experimenting with model options and post-processing expands your creative toolbox, so you’re less likely to be stuck with the same wacky output that keeps showing up.
@boswandelaar’s advice is solid about prompt clarity, but over-sanitizing your input sometimes makes the generator’s output bland or boring (avoid this if you want some spark left). @byteguru is right that sometimes negative prompts backfire, but it’s worth noting some models handle negatives better than others, especially premium ones.
If you’re hitting a wall, try batch-generating and running a quick pass for human review. AI is quirky, but with enough tweaks (and some manual TLC), you can beat the curse—or at least tame it.