I already know its going to ruin my upload ratio despite working hard to make more slots and was careful with my uploads so is tagging "AI-assisted" just not good enough? I am looking at the pictures in question ( post #10488360 ) they looks consistent, no abomination, no burn out. Consistent patterns, non-uniform freckles, even some lines without aliasing which good luck generating
Posting AI-assisted does raise the bar so to speak. Some approvers won't approve, others might demand it being better than what they normally approve.
Anyway, post #10466556 is flagged but not tagged. Hands looks normal to me and artist has no other AI posts.
I don't know. Artist seems suspicious (they only made a few posts, zero activity after august, patreon is deleted yet still listed), but the thing is I noticed a few weird details. First of all, there's a strange bump right above the ass (left buttock). Secondly, asymmetrical design of yellow jewelry balls and a wavy+blurred shadow below the umbrella. Maybe it's AI-assistance, but it's hard to see the first one as a random error.
ion288 said: Anyway, post #10466556 is flagged but not tagged. Hands looks normal to me and artist has no other AI posts.
I doubt it's AI. I don't see any other suspicious areas, and humans can easily draw hands that look like that. Their twitter account also doesn't seem like the stereotypical AI account (see comment #2557408 for what I'm talking about), and they're not posting art very frequently.
nekokawa_isugi most posts are 832x1216, first post on pixiv in 2024/9. some of it is already tagged as ai-assisted but i think it may be ALL ai-assisted if not fully ai-generated
post #7420530 and post #9861389 and post #8970695 have completely different styles of cheek blush shading. if they were drawing over i think that would be consistent
nekokawa_isugi most posts are 832x1216, first post on pixiv in 2024/9. some of it is already tagged as ai-assisted but i think it may be ALL ai-assisted if not fully ai-generated
post #7420530 and post #9861389 and post #8970695 have completely different styles of cheek blush shading. if they were drawing over i think that would be consistent
Based on forum #394086, I would concur ai-assisted is probable. I'm not willing to say they're fully generated at the moment.
post #10505083 The fingers, the hair, it's all an AI mess. This was uploaded and tagged as AI-assisted (with no source, which is also suspect) and the uploader since removed the AI-assisted tag, and someone else removed a third-party edit tag. This is definitely not human-drawn from what I can tell.
Not to mention, compare this to every single post by the artist this is tagged as, it looks nothing like it, and the artist never posted this anywhere, so the uploader mistagged it as Helvetica Standard as well.
post #10505083 The fingers, the hair, it's all an AI mess. This was uploaded and tagged as AI-assisted (with no source, which is also suspect) and the uploader since removed the AI-assisted tag, and someone else removed a third-party edit tag. This is definitely not human-drawn from what I can tell.
Not to mention, compare this to every single post by the artist this is tagged as, it looks nothing like it, and the artist never posted this anywhere, so the uploader mistagged it as Helvetica Standard as well.
Yeah, the fingers and eyes are suspicious, plus there's a strand of hair that just appears and disappears (asset #40234861); I don't think a human would draw it like that. Edit; wasn't there a third party ai tag created recently? I don't want to besmirch the artist's name by tagging this with only ai-generated.
Yeah, the fingers and eyes are suspicious, plus there's a strand of hair that just appears and disappears (asset #40234861); I don't think a human would draw it like that. Edit; wasn't there a third party ai tag created recently? I don't want to besmirch the artist's name by tagging this with only ai-generated.
The uploader also uploaded post #9800464, which seems to be the original. The base artwork itself looks like an official work from this fanbox page, but that pregnant variant definitely looks like an ai-generated edit when compared to the (probably. Maybe?) official nude version posted above.
The uploader also uploaded post #9800464, which seems to be the original. The base artwork itself looks like an official work from this fanbox page, but that pregnant variant definitely looks like an ai-generated edit when compared to the (probably. Maybe?) official nude version posted above.
From what I can tell, in the original work from the link you posted she's wearing an open jacket; I'm wondering if post #9800464 is also a third-party edit since she's fully nude and it's a non-web source. That may or may not be the case since I can't see any variants behind the paywall
I tagged and disapproved one of these as AI-generated; for me it's the overall appearance, then looking at their Pixiv where the very first image has some weird artifact-looking texture mess near the ear and the fingers on pixiv #136804420. I'm led to believe there's some assist at best and generation at worst going on here. Anyone want to help double check?
Instead of just saying "it's obvious", you need to actually point out what's so obvious about it.
Generic-looking art style of character (inc folds on bunny suit and how it reflects light), double lower trim of suit, strange fracture of fishnets on ass-part, inconsistency between different parts of background (good-looking tree overall (but with some strange watery blur spots) and grass looks like ctrl-c ctrl-v preset without shades and also curtains (or whatever it is) on second floor of building for examples), could continue, but struggle to formulate such specific things in english
asset #40295019, artist #595170 I was going to post this, but I noticed Tenko's eye is the wrong color, both dimensions are divisible by eight, and the eyes seem a little off in addition to the aforementioned color. I don't think they're using AI, but I'm not certain either and I'm feeling a little gun-shy after some recent accidental AI posts. If somebody could double-check, it would be appreciated.
asset #40295019, artist #595170 I was going to post this, but I noticed Tenko's eye is the wrong color, both dimensions are divisible by eight, and the eyes seem a little off in addition to the aforementioned color. I don't think they're using AI, but I'm not certain either and I'm feeling a little gun-shy after some recent accidental AI posts. If somebody could double-check, it would be appreciated.
The random disconnected strand on the right hair ring is strange. In general the hair is pretty melty. I think this is AI.
I tagged and disapproved one of these as AI-generated; for me it's the overall appearance, then looking at their Pixiv where the very first image has some weird artifact-looking texture mess near the ear and the fingers on pixiv #136804420. I'm led to believe there's some assist at best and generation at worst going on here. Anyone want to help double check?
I'm not sure, to be honest. There are two strands of hair that loop together left of her raised hand, and the lace on her sleeve just disappears when the arm bends up; those aren't conclusive though (especially the sleeve), and it's certainly cleaner than other AI works I've seen. I would guess it's assisted, but that's just a guess.
