AI-generated art check thread

Posted under General

bipface said in forum #415127:

just want to point out these flagged reiwa_no_sherlock posts, despite being PNG files, have a strange type of noise throughout which almost looks like jpeg_artifacts but not quite; also the background is full of noise, not solid white.

it's possible this was caused by bad post-processing/scaling,
but i think it's more likely to be caused by a badly-trained AI model.
i've spent a lot of time staring at compression artefacts over the years and i don't think i've ever seen anything quite like this in legitimate artwork.

I also looked at the noise and it looks weird. The pattern at the edges of the image is different. Overall it is a wavy, repeating pattern. Not typical for filters or compression. It is also affected by how close the characters (hair, feet, hands) are from it. post #10604257 even shows a diamond like shape (watermark) at bottom right hidden in the noise. The noise also increases close to intersections (like splitting hair strands). This would be typical for a glow effect, but a glow effect would not create the repeating noise pattern. A repeating, wavy noise pattern is typical for diffusion models, which start with random noise, which is shaped until an image emerges.

Confetto said in forum #415137:

No, it's not long enough and the shape doesn't line up at all.

That all being said it does look like this artist sells on Yahoo! Japan so it might be assisted at the most? I think some people have said in this thread that people do sell AI work on Yahoo, though, so IDK.

Worth noting that post #10453519 actually was flagged as AI.

On the other hand you can clearly see the wrinkles of the paper in post #10451122. Not only is it slightly darker in this areas, but also a bit unsharp. This is very typical for a flatbed scan if the lid does not apply enough pressure. I have not seen an ai-scam-artist to go to such length, to make it's work appear realistic. Other images have this effect too, but not as pronounced.

Confetto said in forum #414828:

mannmaruu

post #10237229 Four fingers on one hand

post #10524271 Same

post #10452095 Strange hair

post #10237204 Four fingers again

post #10237188 Same + weird hair

I'm confident this artist is 100% AI (except for the first post which appears to be a different person). Go to their pixiv page and look at the wall of thumbnails. Every single image is the exact same generic AI style, and it's only when you open up the image that you can see the watercolour effects. To actually create that level of perfect shading using watercolours would be incredibly difficult, you'd have to be literally a world-class artist. And this account appeared out of nowhere a couple months ago and posts a painting a day? C'mon.

CoreMack said in forum #415157:

I'm confident this artist is 100% AI (except for the first post which appears to be a different person). Go to their pixiv page and look at the wall of thumbnails. Every single image is the exact same generic AI style, and it's only when you open up the image that you can see the watercolour effects. To actually create that level of perfect shading using watercolours would be incredibly difficult, you'd have to be literally a world-class artist. And this account appeared out of nowhere a couple months ago and posts a painting a day? C'mon.

I'm confident that this pictures are not AI. The coloring is not perfect. Just look at the shinbone of post #10452095. Zoom in far enough. That are typical, real water color artifacts. The wrinkles on the paper also match the amount of water/coloring to be used. I doubt that we have AI tools (yet) that can fake this details.

Confetto said in forum #414828:

mannmaruu

post #10237229 Four fingers on one hand

post #10524271 Same

post #10452095 Strange hair

post #10237204 Four fingers again

post #10237188 Same + weird hair

I don't think anyone else has brought it up yet but there's been a lot of posts so sorry if someone already has but could this be an actual watercolor reproduction of an AI gen? I know that it's theoretically possible and I've seen people get called out for tracing digital artwork onto traditional mediums long before AI. That would explain both the realism of the watercolor-ness and the AI style.

wispydreamer said in forum #415188:

I don't think anyone else has brought it up yet but there's been a lot of posts so sorry if someone already has but could this be an actual watercolor reproduction of an AI gen? I know that it's theoretically possible and I've seen people get called out for tracing digital artwork onto traditional mediums long before AI. That would explain both the realism of the watercolor-ness and the AI style.

That would be possible in all facets. Starting from not using ai, to getting inspiration from ai prompts, up to repainting or tracing fully rendered ai images. The difficult part is to have any proof for that. It's like hunting down plagiarism if the author could have reworded every sentence.

All I can verify at the moment: The images seem to be real scanned watercolor drawings, without any typical ai image artifacts.

nyatbn said in forum #415191:

That would be possible in all facets. Starting from not using ai, to getting inspiration from ai prompts, up to repainting or tracing fully rendered ai images. The difficult part is to have any proof for that. It's like hunting down plagiarism if the author could have reworded every sentence.

All I can verify at the moment: The images seem to be real scanned watercolor drawings, without any typical ai image artifacts.

Yeah, I definitely think AI was used but even if we were to definitively prove it, I still think it slides in as ai-assisted. A lot of the lace and ruffles are very consistent, for example, which would probably look much worse if it was just a base ai image with a watercolor filter slapped on top.

ion288 said in forum #415285:

post #10633461

I have no intention to reapprove this but it would be good if it could be tagged or refuted.

I'm not certain either way, but I do agree with the approver message that it looks upscaled. Specifically, it's twice of 1158x768, awfully close to one of the common AI dimensions. While it isn't proof, it does make me a little wary.

takeez3

Previously talked about in forum #318018 in 2024. The tweets linked in that post are deleted. LightSolas added a wiki to the artist entry saying they are an AI prompter, and according to them in a Discord message, they added it a year before the artist starting posting pixel art. So the tweets were likely fully AI-generated non-pixel art.

The artist's posts that are on Danbooru are all pixel art, so I've removed the wiki entry because it is out of date, but this doesn't rule out their art as being AI-generated. I don't see signs of AI artifacts in any of the images, only a vibe that they could be AI, so I'd apprciate if someone else can check.

ishimaru94 said in forum #415459:

Sorry if this is not relevant to the thread but I just wanna ask:
Why is there ai-generated status:active?
I thought all ai-generated posts are not allowed to upload but seeing there're 118 posts that are still active.

Most typical reason is because they haven't been flagged yet. Users below approver level have a limited number of flags, so if an artist with many posts is determined to be posting AI art, it can take a bit for everything to be flagged (for example, makigirisu). There may also be tags added by users which haven't been verified as being accurate.

Placeholder1996 said in forum #415462:

Most typical reason is because they haven't been flagged yet. Users below approver level have a limited number of flags, so if an artist with many posts is determined to be posting AI art, it can take a bit for everything to be flagged (for example, makigirisu). There may also be tags added by users which haven't been verified as being accurate.

Understood. Thanks for clarifying.

Not 100% sure, but i think the images of katrinabluuuuu are all retouched ai images. I looked at the noise of multiple images and they showed a common pattern: The entire image (except for the clean/cutout backgrounds) has noticeable, consistent noise. But some retouched parts show nearly no noise at all.

I would understand if this could happen when retouching a single image. But every image i looked at contains similar parts with low noise and clearly visible brush strokes. I can not find brush strokes anywhere else.

For example post #10265163 after applying laplace edge detection (enhances edges/noise):