AI-generated art check thread

Posted under General

artms

ion288 said in forum #443776:

post #11447483
I can not read that Google docs essay. Is there any evidence that this post is AI?

It's traced from an AI image, but some of the stuff in the link is random bullshit (drawing hands and eyes with different sizes or bad fingers is an example of it being ai when there's much stronger examples lol). Looks like the artist has some skill but will use AI on other drawings.

Also might be unrelated but their website seems to be vibecoded too just based on a quick glance at it

Reply
casio-shige

ilyivsky said in forum #439200:

Actually, the biggest thing is that they've switch accounts entirely. Their old Pixiv is still up, but this new one migrated randomly. It feels like someone is latching on to this artist tag.
Then there's the art: post #10419067. The latex leotard has a very overly-shiny look whereas the rest of the image doesn't pay attention at all to plastic sheen. Then there's her mouth looking a little off.

Back to this artist. More posts have been flagged and this one stands out as particularly bad. post #10578045.
Maybe the artist got hacked or had a crisis. Either way, I think they're an AI-prompter now.

Reply
Carmilla555

post #11509026.

Someone flagged this as AI-generated, only because someone added AI on the Pixiv post (the tag has been removed there). The flagger didn't bother to add the AI-generated tag here. If it is AI, I don't see it. Note that the child post was not flagged.

Edit: The AI tag is still being persistently added on the Pixiv post, and only in that post. None of the other pictures of the artist are being labelled as such.

Updated by Carmilla555

Reply
wavedash

NO_AI_ON_DANBOORU said in forum #443848:

kingamadeus0
I think the artist uses AI (ai-assisted):

See post #10094396 and post #9930597, just 4 months, the style changed so much.
Also, since sep 2025, the style is so weird.

I think this particular comparison exaggerates how much their style changed because a lot of it is just color palette. Their newer art has darker blacks and more contrast in the shadows. It could be traced, but that's not something you'd necessarily see in the art style.

They have WIPs on their Twitter for some of their newer art.

I guess it COULD be traced, but I don't see any strong evidence. It's a little weird that the WIP doesn't have a triangle drawn for the middle hair streak, and it's a little weird that some of the strings on her shirt are fused in the lineart but got separated in the end, but that's pretty weak as far as evidence goes.

Reply
worldendertenshi

Carmilla555 said in forum #443853:

post #11509026.

Someone flagged this as AI-generated, only because someone added AI on the Pixiv post (the tag has been removed there). The flagger didn't bother to add the AI-generated tag here. If it is AI, I don't see it. Note that the child post was not flagged.

Edit: The AI tag is still being persistently added on the Pixiv post, and only in that post. None of the other pictures of the artist are being labelled as such.

The hair looks really off and melty. I'd say it's likely AI
Reply
wavedash

worldendertenshi said in forum #443997:

The hair looks really off and melty. I'd say it's likely AI

post #11411448 also has some similar hair problems, bangs melting into eyebrows, and the air bubbles are kind of suspicious as well. I'm guessing AI with manual additions. The style that the ears are drawn is also significantly different from the hair around her face.

Reply
Carmilla555

Carmilla555 said in forum #443853:

post #11509026.

Someone flagged this as AI-generated, only because someone added AI on the Pixiv post (the tag has been removed there). The flagger didn't bother to add the AI-generated tag here. If it is AI, I don't see it. Note that the child post was not flagged.

Edit: The AI tag is still being persistently added on the Pixiv post, and only in that post. None of the other pictures of the artist are being labelled as such.

Here is an early draft from the artist's old account, if it helps. Could it still be AI?

https://x.com/mu6559522/status/2049723128600003063
Reply
Placeholder1996

FivePastNever said in forum #444020:

hatohatoh recent posts got flagged with the ai-generated tag and the wiki got updated with the ai-prompter disclaimer. I believe all posts from this artist should be checked along with the claim.

The eyes are the most suspicious thing about their art

  • post #11437990: The white area at the right of their eyes is in different places in each eye
  • post #11303980: Differently sized pupils in each eye
  • post #11140537: The white area at the left edge of their eyes varies in size
  • post #9293714: Incongruous pupil shape and size
  • post #8936955: Melty lines in the eyes, eyelashes, and eyebrows. Her hands look melty too. I'd say this is the most suspicious post among the ones I looked at.
  • post #8938057: Same as post #8936955, but less noticeable.

Some of these are pretty weak evidence, but taken together, I think there is at least some level of AI input here. I'm unsure if there's human input in the later posts; I think post #8936955 is fully generated.

Reply
aster1a

ion288 said in forum #444084:

post #9017019 was immediately reflagged but no one dares put a tag on it. 😩

I brought this artist up in forum #441156, but the only reply I got is this.

NO_AI_ON_DANBOORU said in forum #441298:

It was initially suspected to be AI-generated, but the artist provided proof.

Maybe using AI to assist.

The only thing I’ve seen provided is this.

Deitysexual said in forum #353740:

post #9255075

https://mega.nz/file/KRExRDjJ#C8-v-DchdKUBrHlrIaxjMAtHd_fRBzn8Y_XAbK55fYM

I dunno where to put the confirmations, I'll upload them here

But the file has been inaccessible since before I brought this up. The rest is pretty much different users having an edit war of adding and removing the AI-generated tag on several posts.

Reply
1 246 247 248 249 250 251