AI-generated art check thread

Posted under General

WRS

The last time this account got flagged I wrote a message in the disapproval asking for proof, though it might've not been seen since messages don't show right away. None was given. It doesn't look as obvious to me, I don't see any artifacts with my "naked eye" and the flagger never provides any information on where to look so I understand what made them flag the posts.

Reply
ANON TOKYO

eromelon said in forum #422101:

Their style fits typical AI-generated works and the rate in which they post their works on Pixiv seems unnaturally high.

Neither of these are relevant for determining AI. Plenty of artists just happen to have AI-y styles, and plenty artists posts a lot. Actual issues with the images are required, vibes don't cut it.

Reply
eromelon

ANON_TOKYO said in forum #422116:

My brother in christ you literally quoted the part where I (apparently insufficiently) clarified that this argument shouldn't be used in different context unless appropriate. You thinking an artist "draws too fast" is not that.

And then here we go again:

I won't tell you what context is appropriate, but I would use it whenever I want it to be appropriate.

But that's fine. I would say forum #421578 is not appropriate, and then:

luntoer said in forum #421578:

Are the first two reasons insufficient? Or was I unclear in what I meant, namely that their style fits typical AI-generated works and the rate in which they post their works on Twitter seems unnaturally high.

I see the resolution is not suspicious now but that was more of an "adding to the list of points of concern". I wasn't sure how specific I had to be in the flag reason vs how much would be implicit.

@luntoer Yes, the first two reasons are insufficient. Back it up. Point out what makes them AI.

Reply
LightSolas

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.

Can we go back to this one for a minute? Why is the assumption here that the timelapses are faked? While I am aware that that is technically a thing that is possible, they look quite plausible to me, and when the only accusation is "vibes" and "posts too much", with no AI artifacts being pointed out, I think timelapses are a strong piece of evidence that shouldn't just be discarded.
Other evidence against the artist being an AI-generator is that they have clearly non-generated art early in their twitter media tab, are clearly reusing backgrounds at times, in those backgrounds (such as in https://x.com/3iFNuGEejzfYWXy/status/2031465406922371335) they are reusing assets like those perfectly identical stars, so those at least are probably not generated, and that image also has perfectly flat colors including on the character, with none of the noise AI-generated images usually have.
There is also stuff like a more rough image they drew when they claimed to be sick and had less time (https://x.com/3iFNuGEejzfYWXy/status/1871301113204625607) which looks very much not generated to me while still similar to their current overall style/skill level.
Considering all that speaks for them, I think there should at least be actual AI artifacts pointed out somewhere on their art before we write them off.

Reply
luntoer

I did see their comments explaining their process, including both their coloring and how they're able to produce works so fast. On the surface, I figure if they are legit, they simply have a very methodical way of drawing. But I know how far people are willing to lie about this kind of stuff and experience has taught me to want to doubt in such cases.

Reviewing it again now, I'm inclined to believe that they are/were an artist, one that has enough skill to recreate/fake timelapses, but have chosen to use AI in the past year or two. They did say the backgrounds are borrowed assets so that wouldn't be evidence one way or the other. The characters themselves I feel are either AI-generated or assisted.

At first, I didn't notice any direct evidence, only circumstantial evidence like the art style and volume that has already been mentioned, as well as the weird Twitter handle, and the fact that they're posting Vocaloid characters in a lot of random costumes. Vocaloid artists tend to draw established costumes, such as their official ones or from song MVs, etc. While it's not exactly uncommon to draw original costumes, the rate at which they do it seems highly suspicious.

Then I looked again and saw even the ones with official costumes have suspicious details:

https://x.com/3iFNuGEejzfYWXy/status/1991465579010748439
The tie clip looks generated. Very odd considering it was done right in a previous illustration: https://x.com/3iFNuGEejzfYWXy/status/1963337692525334562

https://x.com/3iFNuGEejzfYWXy/status/1995225402890129609
The band on her headphones are the wrong color and she's wearing socks which aren't part of her design. These are details that Vocaloid artists tend to be anal about, they either do it right or are very deliberately remixing/arranging it. This doesn't feel like the latter, and more like AI generation getting details wrong.

https://x.com/3iFNuGEejzfYWXy/status/1874109996650410436
This one looks like the shirt/tie/jacket is fused.

Many of the works that do have official designs feel remixed, as if they're not quite sure how they work. So to sum again, I think this is someone who used to be an artist (enough to fake/recreate timelapses) but has switched to AI-generation in the past year or two (or are at least tracing them) to mass upload works. Perhaps they're avoiding official designs and song designs and doing random costumes because they know the AI generation will mess those up and give them away.

Updated by luntoer

Reply
UmbraVivens

hello, i'd like to talk about the artist moonieuwur, i've had suspicions of them using AI to an extent, mainly due to the fact that all of their current drawings on twitter are 2048x2048p, a trait of some gen-AI imagery is using the "geometric progression" as the output resolution. Now on closer inspection, their most recent drawing of Nozomi from Blue Archive, on top of being mirrored for some reason resulting in her metallic attachment (sorry i don't know what it is) on her belt being in the wrong side, said attachment is supposed to hang from a belt loop, but it seems to be simply "fused" to her belt itself, and barely resembles the appearance of the actual attachment seen in her official art
https://x.com/moonieuwur/status/2032615448441925796

in this Hoshino drawing, on the lower left corner, look closely at the skirt pattern, very much broken and inconsistent
https://x.com/moonieuwur/status/2031513035727319350

in this Momoi-Midori drawing, Momoi's eye highlight dots don't match Midori's, and the outline colors of their hair ribbons are inconsistent and smudgy in some spots
https://x.com/moonieuwur/status/2024997498532889024

Reply
99b4i56fo

I checked them and some others, and they definitely don't look like AI. They have the blurry round brush that looks AI, but everything both in color and lineart is very consistent and clear. The skirt pattern looks inconsistent, but it would not if uncropped, as I think nearly all of the drawings are square crops of the original resized to 2048x2048 for posting.

Reply
1 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 237