AI-generated art check thread

Placeholder1996 said:

If this topic becomes builder+, maybe split off a new unrestricted topic solely for double-checking art people want to post to make sure it doesn’t break site rules.

Honestly, splitting topics sounds like a great idea actually. One for the original purpose of this topic and the other for actually discussing if established artists have started using AI or not.

Either way, we definitely need to properly curb the witch hunters. Making the latter topic Builder+ ain't a bad idea, but worst case scenario it can become a containment thread similar to the Danbooru Gold one for disgruntled members.

thesilvercavalier said:

I think they're probably exaggerating the amount of actual hand work that goes into their "art", given the output frequency and amount of shit they have that's clearly generated from the same prompt with the character swapped out. But if claiming as much is enough to qualify as "ai-assisted", then whatever.

Note that I said "at the minimum". Frequency alone isn't a hard indicator of anything. Most of their stuff is already flagged and deleted.

eromelon said:

artist #436652

This guy said a lot about how they created their works based on AI-generated works so I guess at least some of them should be AI-assisted but not AI-generated.

https://x.com/honkibooty/status/1963027770205974983
https://x.com/honkibooty/status/1943002676280606767
https://x.com/honkibooty/status/1942789224102506647
https://x.com/honkibooty/status/1822740119377351157

So, @Knowledge_Seeker what's your opinion on honkibooty? I am asking you because I saw you were the one who added the AI-generated tag to post #8983749 but I didn't find any ai-artifacts and I want to know whether I’ve missed anything.

If there is no proof to show they upload only AI-generated content on their SNS accounts, I think it should be safe to delete the ''AI-generated creator. Do not upload.'' description from their wiki.

Knowledge_Seeker said:

(Tempted to propose making this topic Builder+, but that's an extreme step, and unfair to the members who actually are trying to be useful and not just witch hunt random artists.)

Random AI claims are much more damaging to artists than letting a few sketchy potentially AI images through.

I hate AI trying to pass itself off as human as much as the next person, but someone bringing up points akin to "I personally don't like it and think it looks weird" is just going to end up with more harm to a real human. As member level user who frequents this thread and tries to bring evidence I don't think splitting into two threads is a terrible idea

czernin said:

Random AI claims are much more damaging to artists than letting a few sketchy potentially AI images through.

I hate AI trying to pass itself off as human as much as the next person, but someone bringing up points akin to "I personally don't like it and think it looks weird" is just going to end up with more harm to a real human. As member level user who frequents this thread and tries to bring evidence I don't think splitting into two threads is a terrible idea

dont lost your time here, the aprovers are completely inept and do not take into account the history of previous works of the artists; they are so easy to be fooled that it is enough for an AI scammer to delete the most obvious things from their accounts and add some filters to publish here.

Furthermore... you can ban this account if you want, I have another one with a longer track record. I'll start uploading my own AI art here and you won't even notice. After all, this page clearly isn't free of AI.

ok, thanks for your positive contributions (by deleting your account)

Ailook said:

dont lost your time here, the aprovers are completely inept and do not take into account the history of previous works of the artists; they are so easy to be fooled that it is enough for an AI scammer to delete the most obvious things from their accounts and add some filters to publish here.

Furthermore... you can ban this account if you want, I have another one with a longer track record. I'll start uploading my own AI art here and you won't even notice. After all, this page clearly isn't free of AI.

I was going to write a negative feedback, but not sure if it's worth it now with the account deleted.

Placeholder1996 said:

I was going to write a negative feedback, but not sure if it's worth it now with the account deleted.

Maybe as a record of how much a nuisance they were? Ah well, just glad that round was rather short. Good riddance if you ask me.

eromelon said:

artist #436652

This guy said a lot about how they created their works based on AI-generated works so I guess at least some of them should be AI-assisted but not AI-generated.

https://x.com/honkibooty/status/1963027770205974983
https://x.com/honkibooty/status/1943002676280606767
https://x.com/honkibooty/status/1942789224102506647
https://x.com/honkibooty/status/1822740119377351157

Disagree. Their earlier works were so full of artifacts and typical AI mistakes that deleting them as AI-generated was the right call imo. Even in the tweets you referenced they are contradicting themselves, first saying they use AI as a base and redraw in their own style and then go on saying they only ever used AI as reference.

To me it just looks like a prompter who is mad people aren't calling them an artist for producing slop (though looking at their Patreon numbers they still make a pretty penny with it anyways).

123kid said:

Disagree. Their earlier works were so full of artifacts and typical AI mistakes that deleting them as AI-generated was the right call imo. Even in the tweets you referenced they are contradicting themselves, first saying they use AI as a base and redraw in their own style and then go on saying they only ever used AI as reference.

To me it just looks like a prompter who is mad people aren't calling them an artist for producing slop (though looking at their Patreon numbers they still make a pretty penny with it anyways).

You do understand that when you use the word "earlier works" it means their NOT earlier works are NOT so full of artifacts and typical AI mistakes, which means they are not only uploading AI-generated content, which means

WRS said:
each post you're accusing of being generated needs something to back up the claim

, right?

WRS said:
"Previous" work is a flimsy argument at best without correlating it to their current work and if there has been no change; and each post is judged on its own. Generalisations like this are ignorant at best and malicious at worst, which wouldn't be the first time for this topic.

shexyo's artworks get more artifacts and typical AI mistakes than their earlier works but you were still trying to protect their AI-assisted artworks on this site (forum #369289). honkibooty's artworks get less artifacts and typical AI mistakes than their earlier works but you want all of them tagged as AI-generated and deleted. That's kind of confusing but feel free to give me a lesson and tell me the difference between their artworks.

eromelon said:

You do understand that when you use the word "earlier works" it means their NOT earlier works are NOT so full of artifacts and typical AI mistakes, which means they are not only uploading AI-generated content, which means

, right?

My point is that I don't believe their work ever had any real human input just because they say it does.

shexyo's artworks get more artifacts and typical AI mistakes than their earlier works but you were still trying to protect their AI-assisted artworks on this site (forum #369289). honkibooty's artworks get less artifacts and typical AI mistakes than their earlier works but you want all of them tagged as AI-generated and deleted. That's kind of confusing but feel free to give me a lesson and tell me the difference between their artworks.

At that point Shexyo's art was widely accepted as AI-assisted on this website and I wasn't defending Shexyo's art, I was against people using AI accusations to flag artists out of personal spite while accepting other artists who use the same amount of AI in their works. And unlike honkibooty he had a long history of art before AI came into play, as much of an asshole that person apparently is.

123kid said:

My point is that I don't believe their work ever had any real human input just because they say it does.

At that point Shexyo's art was widely accepted as AI-assisted on this website and I wasn't defending Shexyo's art, I was against people using AI accusations to flag artists out of personal spite while accepting other artists who use the same amount of AI in their works. And unlike honkibooty he had a long history of art before AI came into play, as much of an asshole that person apparently is.

You're right. I am convinced. Have a good day.

post #10303903 one more from ai-assisted artist, looks fine imo

functi said:

post #10303903 one more from ai-assisted artist, looks fine imo

There’s nothing visually suspicious at least.

post #9879814 got flagged again.

At this point it‘s just harassment.

123kid said:

post #9879814 got flagged again.

At this point it‘s just harassment.

I left a comment on the post; hopefully in the future a would-be flagger will see it and think twice before pulling the trigger.

Good day.

I want to know whether or not asset #37257966 is AI-generated. Please and thank you!

post #10304779
I came across this while browsing comments. Flag, no tag. Personally it seems more sketchy to me than AI. It’s also by an established artist who has no posts tagged with ai-generated, so probably a bad flag.

Placeholder1996 said:

post #10304779
I came across this while browsing comments. Flag, no tag. Personally it seems more sketchy to me than AI. It’s also by an established artist who has no posts tagged with ai-generated, so probably a bad flag.

Doesn’t look AI to me.

artist #585467

I checked the Twitter account, and got suspicious.