AI-generated art check thread

Posted under General

arcoviain

エセムビ said:

ekoren

post #9077470
post #9077464

This artist is likely an AI prompter. Digging through Twitter shows that they did some art three years ago, before returning in 2024 with a big jump in the artstyle and mentioned using AI in that same post before not disclosing it since.

I'd tend to agree, there are noticable quirks that tend to come from AI. I see some incongruities around the hair bows of the first post, and both posts have some weird squiggles and other errors on the lower edge of the eye and at the end of strands of hair. There does seem to be some extremely marginal human work as the patch is most likely edited on given its clarity.

Reply
arcoviain

baconmeh2 said:

https://danbooru.donmai.us/post_versions?search%5Bupdater_id%5D=1332526 What's to say the rest aren't AI? I'm not able to find any direct statements from the author that indicate it's AI at all though.

I've also been increasingly suspicious of bronzeerectile, though I was similarly concerned about jumping to conclusions as they didn't mention anything of the sort on their Twitter or Pixiv, but as ANON TOKYO points out, there's reason to avoid outright saying it, especially since they're apparently planning to launch a Patreon, and there may be consequences to not tagging it on Pixiv (I don't know how harsh they actually are, though).

With regards to the signs of AI, I've gotten the vibe from a lot of them, but that's not enough to be conclusive, however I have been accumulating incongruities I've noticed in the images. post #9022590 has a very strange pizza, highly unlikely to be human drawn; the tomatoes(?)/pepperoni(?) all have uniquely strange patterns on them which similarly seem inhuman; the ring finger of her visible hand is strangely pointy and doesn't have a finger nail, just part of a line that could have denoted one; and the weakest evidence, which I would otherwise excuse as artistic license, the opening in the bell is significantly off center.
post #9069384 also has signs, albeit far subtler. This could otherwise be a nitpick, but the seam in the stockings across the toes seems to terminate prematurely on the left (closest) pinky toe, and the shading on the middle toe of that same foot extends much higher than expected, and than the surrounding toes' shadows. The most artifact-y parts to my eye are in the mechanical details, with some gradients where I'd expect hard edged color division, a Mobius-strip style reverse on the chamfer ring around the yellow circle on the sword, and several weird squiggles of detail I associate with AI, such as the one right near the base of the hilt, triangular bumps on the right (furthest) bunny ear, and some odd line continuations on the right sensor unit(?) where lines continue where they shouldn't, and a couple are missing where line art is expected. The way the bunny ears connect to the headband and their pivots are asymmetric and different from all previous imagery and drawings of Krolik I've seen.
For post #9047454 Qiongjiu has one more eye highlight in her left eye (our right) than her right eye, the QBZ-191 she's holding has a few wonky lines that lead nowhere, and some colors that bleed past the lines unnaturally.

In my personal opinion it's probably safe to conclude all of them are AI from this sample size so far even though the signs may get harder to notice in the others. It seems likely that outside of the background, signature, and character name text, all the character art is AI generated with maybe some human tweaks though I haven't seen any signs of that either.

Reply
Knowledge Seeker

abel1502 said:

post #9080966

I'm quite certain the image is AI-generated (square resolution divisible by 8, and the style is something very commonly seen in AI works). I don't know if there's any way to report it, though (do I just add the ai-generated tag?), so posting here instead.

Let's see here:

  • No real source
  • Warning signs you already pointed out
  • Uploader's only other uploader is AI
  • Cursed imagery AI is prone to

Clear cut case of AI in my humble opinion. You did the right thing reporting here, though in this case I think you could've just tagged it and been fine. Though with less blatant cases (as commonly discussed here), you'd definitely wanna report here.

Historyanon said:

Is post #9080942 AI? Suspicious provenance and scaling say possibly, but I haven't yet found a smoking gun to say definitively.

Nonsense hair bun and whatever's going on with her rightmost skirt pleat stick out to me. Doesn't help this is a common style for AI to mimic, and that AI images tend to be pretty hard to source if initially located on third party sites like Pinterest (because chances are said site is the source).

Reply
eromelon

AYYYYYYMD said:

https://danbooru.donmai.us/posts?tags=sy4&z=1

I've noticed that some of their art has been tagged as ai-assisted. Is this just vandalism, or have they actually stated that they've started using AI now?

I believe they've started using AI.

In post #8412884, there are "bridges" connecting two different bunches of hair, which is a common problem in AI-generated works. https://imgur.com/a/3AaR26l

And the way of coloring and shading the body in this picture changes a lot. You can also see the great difference between plants in the background and those from their artworks in the past. post #5936791

But, technically, I think the picture was still drawn by their hands, because the details of this picture is not blurry. For example, the texture of the bikini in post #8598270 is still clear when you zoom in and check the details. I guess they simply copied some compositions and art styles from AI-generated works.

Reply
AYYYYYYMD

eromelon said:

I believe they've started using AI.

In post #8412884, there are "bridges" connecting two different bunches of hair, which is a common problem in AI-generated works. https://imgur.com/a/3AaR26l

And the way of coloring and shading the body in this picture changes a lot. You can also see the great difference between plants in the background and those from their artworks in the past. post #5936791

But, technically, I think the picture was still drawn by their hands, because the details of this picture is not blurry. For example, the texture of the bikini in post #8598270 is still clear when you zoom in and check the details. I guess they simply copied some compositions and art styles from AI-generated works.

I guess they could have started tracing AI, which would still warrant the tag, but most of this can just be chalked up to their artstyle changing. As you said the art is still very clearly drawn by hand, and their output is still glacially slow.

Reply
eromelon

tigiistfett said:

https://x.com/FFP_100/status/1827277435626283030
Is this AI? There's somewhat of a jump in quality to his prior drawings and the artist talked about trying to use AI before.

I believe this is AI-assisted/AI-generated.

The wisp of hair above her hair intakes is really unnatural. And it is even mixed with the rabbit ears. https://imgur.com/a/iVM55m1

The color of her nail polish is also ambigious.

There should be the other string of the panties on the other side of her groin, but there isn't.

Updated by eromelon

Reply
1 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 237