kenfox_s said in forum #451516:
Just this enough asset #48904227
Also, two right legs.
I'm not understanding what the screenshot is supposed to prove, it's not uncommon for human artists to fuck up arms that are behind something like that.
Posted under General
kenfox_s said in forum #451516:
Just this enough asset #48904227
Also, two right legs.
I'm not understanding what the screenshot is supposed to prove, it's not uncommon for human artists to fuck up arms that are behind something like that.
Confetto said in forum #451526:
I'm not understanding what the screenshot is supposed to prove, it's not uncommon for human artists to fuck up arms that are behind something like that.
Well, maybe it is an artist's mistake — who knows.
Then we have another problem: if that's supposed to be the arm line, part of that line disappears asset #48905587
If, on the other hand, the ear is covering it, then we now have two asymmetrical ears.
I also don't understand what that bulge under the arm is supposed to be. The pectoral muscle? It should be taut in that position.
Also, in post #9908689, the little finger on the right hand is facing us. Nope, you're not going to convince me that's the thumb.
These could just be human mistakes as well. I'll leave it to others to decide. I'm only pointing out the mistakes I spotted.
I really think it's just bad anatomy. Which is flaggable for a completely different reason. You have no idea how hard these things can be to get right until you try it yourself. I've botched hands more times than I could count, and I'd probably not get that bent arm right either.
None of this is anything outside the realm of human error to me. I'm not seeing the sort of nonsense AI usually pulls here.
Confetto said in forum #451526:
I'm not understanding what the screenshot is supposed to prove, it's not uncommon for human artists to fuck up arms that are behind something like that.
It's normal for human artists to mess up anatomy, object permanence much less so, that is obviously an object permanence issue and not only example of it in their recent works in this style, which I do think are all mostly fully AI-generated.
There's a pretty clear cut transition too, post #7809995, post #7241925 and others like it have very human brushwork (they also look badly traced from something, likely already AI, but anyway it's not an unedited AI gen). The same brushwork later appears in post #9366662 on top of an obviously AI-generated base image - look at the thick lineart vs the malformed, asymmetrical nipples, whatever's going on under her pussy, and a second navel behind the drawn-on one. Later posts seem to switch over entirely to this artefacted "AI" rendering and none of the human brushwork.
see also post #11590849 (hair bells, gold trim disappearing under right sidelock), post #9163139 (flower knots, side slit area), post #8422503 (clasps, three-toed left foot that makes no sense as a simplification or artistic choice next to the other foot). Additionally, unlike their old works, most posts like this with white background are actually full of random color blocks and noise.
Diet_Soda said in forum #451618:
It's normal for human artists to mess up anatomy, object permanence much less so, that is obviously an object permanence issue and not only example of it in their recent works in this style, which I do think are all mostly fully AI-generated.
There's a pretty clear cut transition too, post #7809995, post #7241925 and others like it have very human brushwork (they also look badly traced from something, likely already AI, but anyway it's not an unedited AI gen). The same brushwork later appears in post #9366662 on top of an obviously AI-generated base image - look at the thick lineart vs the malformed, asymmetrical nipples, whatever's going on under her pussy, and a second navel behind the drawn-on one. Later posts seem to switch over entirely to this artefacted "AI" rendering and none of the human brushwork.
see also post #11590849 (hair bells, gold trim disappearing under right sidelock), post #9163139 (flower knots, side slit area), post #8422503 (clasps, three-toed left foot that makes no sense as a simplification or artistic choice next to the other foot). Additionally, unlike their old works, most posts like this with white background are actually full of random color blocks and noise.
See this is more compelling. My issue is when people bring up weak evidence in here that doesn't actually correlate to AI, which seems to be pretty common, rather than being convinced this particular artist isn't using AI.
If there's AI artifacts, I want to see people point them out, I don't want to see people fixating on someone drawing an arm wrong. I have seen many artists, especially less experienced ones, mess up connecting the arm when it goes behind something.
Like, post #9366662 is blatant. There's no need for someone to zoom in on a funky arm when there's blatant artifacts that can be pointed out instead.
Knowledge_Seeker said in forum #451591:
You have no idea how hard these things can be to get right until you try it yourself.
Of course I don’t know — I’ve never drawn in my life, and hands are definitely hard to draw.
asset #48916646
Confetto said in forum #451619:
Sure, I take it back — it's just a funky arm. Go ahead and approve it, since the flag is apparently wrong.
post #9908678
I'll leave it here.
Confetto said in forum #451619:
See this is more compelling. My issue is when people bring up weak evidence in here that doesn't actually correlate to AI, which seems to be pretty common, rather than being convinced this particular artist isn't using AI.
If there's AI artifacts, I want to see people point them out, I don't want to see people fixating on someone drawing an arm wrong. I have seen many artists, especially less experienced ones, mess up connecting the arm when it goes behind something.
Like, post #9366662 is blatant. There's no need for someone to zoom in on a funky arm when there's blatant artifacts that can be pointed out instead.
This. What Diet Soda pointed out is actual AI nonsense, and the stuff I want pointed out during these discussions. When we fixate on broken arms or bad toes, it kinda loses the point as anyone can fuck up an arm or toes, but no one is going to draw certain details to look melty or be that inconsistent.
Anyway, flag away.
kenfox_s said in forum #451690:
Of course I don’t know — I’ve never drawn in my life, and hands are definitely hard to draw.
asset #48916646Sure, I take it back — it's just a funky arm. Go ahead and approve it, since the flag is apparently wrong.
post #9908678I'll leave it here.
Did you not actually read what I said...?
eromelon said in forum #451706:
At the same time,
is a good enough agreement, huh.
Yeah, because that one's obvious.
Confetto said in forum #451711:
Yeah, because that one's obvious.
And then I will say
NO_AI_ON_DANBOORU said in forum #451478:
I think the artist is ai prompter.
post #8397881, see right eyebrow
post #8553295, see sandals
post #9908678 and children, check her clothes.
Yes, because it is obvious.
eromelon said in forum #451712:
And then I will say
Yes, because it is obvious.
I don't know who you're arguing with. None of my replies were meant to be statements on whether I think this artist is using AI, they were statements about things I keep seeing in this thread that aren't good arguments.
Confetto said in forum #451619:
My issue is when people bring up weak evidence in here that doesn't actually correlate to AI, which seems to be pretty common, rather than being convinced this particular artist isn't using AI.
Confetto said in forum #451714:
I don't know who you're arguing with. None of my replies were meant to be statements on whether I think this artist is using AI, they were statements about things I keep seeing in this thread that aren't good arguments.
Weak evidence is bad, but no evidence is good, just because it is obvious to you.
I am not arguing with anyone. If that's what you want to see here, you get what you want. It's obvious to me, and then I say yes. That's it.
post #11657843 (explicit)
Image uploaded with no artist or source. Someone off-site called it out as AI, although the only suspicious detail I can find are Diana's wands around her waist.
BaiserLaVerite said in forum #451717:
post #11657843 (explicit)
Image uploaded with no artist or source. Someone off-site called it out as AI, although the only suspicious detail I can find are Diana's wands around her waist.
Looks like AI to me. Wands definitely look bad, her belt/waist looks bizarre (belt wrapping around multiple times is not canonical, weird opening on her lower back of her shirt), their skirts kind of melt together, clothing creases generally look bad, Diana's eyebrow intersects with her hair in a weird way, and her hair also kind of fuses with her right arm.
wavedash said in forum #451735:
Looks like AI to me. Wands definitely look bad, her belt/waist looks bizarre (belt wrapping around multiple times is not canonical, weird opening on her lower back of her shirt), their skirts kind of melt together, clothing creases generally look bad, Diana's eyebrow intersects with her hair in a weird way, and her hair also kind of fuses with her right arm.
Looking at it closer on fullsize, Diana's right eye seems deformed.
BaiserLaVerite said in forum #451738:
Looking at it closer on fullsize, Diana's right eye seems deformed.
And diana's right foot.
Confetto said in forum #451714:
I don't know who you're arguing with. None of my replies were meant to be statements on whether I think this artist is using AI, they were statements about things I keep seeing in this thread that aren't good arguments.
If going by past behavior, this user seems to have a very odd grudge against me, going by a couple past pings in this thread demanding "proof" for something so long ago I forgot the exact circumstances of, and making this sort of snide remark that I believe I am the intended target of in this instance, and has done several times in the past when I'm sharing my thoughts here.
A grudge I elected to ignore because 1. It's childish as fuck, 2. People like this thrive on you giving them attention, "don't feed the trolls" and all that, and 3. I'm a grown ass adult with a job who doesn't have the time or energy to engage with people who can't fucking read and would make no attempt to come to an agreement with me even if I did give 'em the time of day.
However, I am voicing this now mainly because this user has already gotten a negative feedback for this exact behavior against @WRS in this very topic and clearly is doing the same thing to me and dragging others down with 'em, polluting valuable discussions with their stupid mudslinging.
So I post this moreso as a warning to said user, who is no doubt reading this and probably fuming, I know your type: cease this childish behavior now, or I will give you another negative feedback for your poor behavior. And that will no doubt be followed by a ban, too. You are too old for this petty crap, grow up.
BaiserLaVerite said in forum #451717:
post #11657843 (explicit)
Image uploaded with no artist or source. Someone off-site called it out as AI, although the only suspicious detail I can find are Diana's wands around her waist.
Yes, AI-generated
eromelon said in forum #451763:
Again, if
is the "valuable discussions" you want, that will be what you get. That's it.
@eromelon I'm not dealing with your esoteric replies like this. This topic is already annoying to read. If you start another pointless argument with another user on this topic again for any reason or post another snide remark I'm going to ban you for 3 months. This topic is meant to be a resource for helping spot AI-generated content. If you want to disagree with someone then write a proper post explaining why, not all this argument-bait bullshit you've been up to for however long it's been.