Posted under General
The first time I saw post #10873737, I got AI vibes from it. Then I looked around the artist's account, and found this clearly labeled with "Created using AI tools". While the subsequent posts lacked this label, I still got suspicious with this artist.
Edit: Oh, and also style changes between posts (here and here).
Guys, is this one AI assisted? https://www.pixiv.net/artworks/129331281
post #10886759 and the rest of the images from this artist. It looks like the characters were generated and then pasted into the image, there's white outlines around the characters and some jaggies/aliasing in the hair as if they were resized. Perhaps more obvious here in the last panel of post #10202929 where Grass' hair overlaps with Spe-chan's.
No tag, artist has no other AI posts. Bad faith flag?
benzene7 said in forum #420811:
post #10886759 and the rest of the images from this artist. It looks like the characters were generated and then pasted into the image, there's white outlines around the characters and some jaggies/aliasing in the hair as if they were resized. Perhaps more obvious here in the last panel of post #10202929 where Grass' hair overlaps with Spe-chan's.
The artist does seem to copy and paste a lot, but that isn't really a sign of AI. The hair ornaments of the flagged images does look like AI though.
https://x.com/muffin_nouo/ (muffin_nouo)
I want to upload their art but for some reason, I have suspicion of the possibility of being AI despite them once uploading a sketch work-in-progress. Are my suspicions true or false?
alexr05 said in forum #421066:
https://x.com/muffin_nouo/ (muffin_nouo)
I want to upload their art but for some reason, I have suspicion of the possibility of being AI despite them once uploading a sketch work-in-progress. Are my suspicions true or false?
I'm not seeing any AI-artifacts even on details tricky for AI like stockings and lace, the overall style reads human to me. The sketch looks like an actual sketch and is consistent with the skill level of the finished pieces as well. Seems safe to upload.
Need a second opinion on yakiniku-oyaji https://x.com/3iFNuGEejzfYWXy/media
Their art has the typical AI style and they seem to churn one out nearly every day. They occasionally post timelapses, but those could have been faked.
Currently has 59 posts with two deleted AI tagged posts:
post #8451735
post #8222604
post #9005626 was previously tagged AI before an admin removed it.
They can definitely draw because post #7835214 looks amateurish but otherwise not AI at all, so is it possible they switched to using AI?
post #10202929
Untagged. Whats the verdict?
The account looks sus. There are several posts from the Pixiv source tagged with AI, but not this one. What do you think?
VR-Man said in forum #421406:
The account looks sus. There are several posts from the Pixiv source tagged with AI, but not this one. What do you think?
It's probably AI; I spotted multiple AI artifacts.
ion288 said in forum #421331:
post #10202929
Untagged. Whats the verdict?
all of their stuff looks AI-generated
post #10202929, cesario's hair ornament is off
post #10840001, forever young's hat is completely melted here
post #10768269, grass wonder's hand in the 3rd panel, and the chibis at the bottom
VR-Man said in forum #421406:
The account looks sus. There are several posts from the Pixiv source tagged with AI, but not this one. What do you think?
it looks AI-generated, their clothes look really bad when you zoom in. The checkerboard patterns on Buena Vista's clothes are melting for example.
luntoer said in forum #421253:
Need a second opinion on yakiniku-oyaji https://x.com/3iFNuGEejzfYWXy/media
Their art has the typical AI style and they seem to churn one out nearly every day. They occasionally post timelapses, but those could have been faked.
I agree they don't look human but come the fuck on who flagged them, "suspicious filesize", really? What the hell is that even supposed to mean.
ANON_TOKYO said in forum #421491:
I agree they don't look human but come the fuck on who flagged them, "suspicious filesize", really? What the hell is that even supposed to mean.
The only guess I have is both dimensions are divisible by 8, but 1448x2048 was a common size even before AI, so not very suspicious on its own.
ANON_TOKYO said in forum #421491:
I agree they don't look human but come the fuck on who flagged them, "suspicious filesize", really? What the hell is that even supposed to mean.
I flagged them myself a couple days after posting here when I figured gut instinct is probably right.
I'm referring to the size of every image being 1448x2048. Per the wiki, this is in line with AI generated images being in a resolution divisible by 8, and frankly doesn't seem like a resolution that would be naturally used by any artist.
Placeholder1996 said in forum #421496:
but 1448x2048 was a common size even before AI, so not very suspicious on its own.
Wasn't aware of this, thanks for pointing it out.
luntoer said in forum #421497:
I flagged them myself a couple days after posting here when I figured gut instinct is probably right.
I'm referring to the size of every image being 1448x2048. Per the wiki, this is in line with AI generated images being in a resolution divisible by 8, and frankly doesn't seem like a resolution that would be naturally used by any artist.
You need to mention what makes it suspicious in the flag reason, just saying it is tells approvers nothing. The wiki also mentions that AI models cannot generate resolutions not divisible by 8, not that divisibility by 8 is any sort of evidence for anything (and even if the resolution matches the examples given in the wiki there's still cases where the artist knowingly or unknowingly uses an AI image as a reference, which might cause the resolution to match).
Also just check width:1448 height:2048. 2048x is a dimension limit of Twitter mobile, and it's a power of two, both of which contribute to it being extremely common.
