Posted under General
feline_lump said:
Very little difference between this and confirmed hand-drawn posts like post #5221149. The damaged clothes around the legs have coherent sketch lines that AI would not be able to create properly, and the background remains coherent despite branches intersecting it.
Also to add in this comment: the artist leaves for every drawing they create the linearts/drafts on their accounts. The artist uses by no means any AI. Anything they made is all hand-drawn.
post #6701641 looks weird. Look at this lady's right hand -- unless that's another object besides the pen she's holding, she just ripped off her own thumb and is dangling it with her remaining fingers. Weird.
Edit: On closer examination, that thing has a fingernail. It was definitely meant to be a thumb.
Edit: On even closer examination, that might have just been her pointer finger. It's hard to tell where her pointer finger ends and her thumb begins.
Updated by Narrator-1
post #6700009 recently got flagged as being Ai-generated. I personally do not think that is the case (as the artist does have a recognizable style just scrolling through their Twitter and seems to be a geniunely experienced artist), but is there anything I'm missing here?
Edit: Also post #6701778
post #6702410 and post #6702411 were tagged with ai-assisted (for "automatic colouring" to be precise), but the end results look too AI-ish for me. What do you guys think?
VR-Man said:
post #6702410 and post #6702411 were tagged with ai-assisted (for "automatic colouring" to be precise), but the end results look too AI-ish for me. What do you guys think?
The hairclip in post #6702410 and the hair in general in post #6702411 does make me believe they're straight up AI yeah.
岩戸鈴芽 said:
The hairclip in post #6702410 and the hair in general in post #6702411 does make me believe they're straight up AI yeah.
Fully agreed. Also in post post #6702410 its not even the hairclip alone, her ear, her hair (especially by her hand, I have honestly no clue what is even happening there behind), and her left arm by her the torn clothes. I'm farily certain and confident that those are AI-generated.
Maiden_in_Orange said:
post #6700009 recently got flagged as being Ai-generated. I personally do not think that is the case (as the artist does have a recognizable style just scrolling through their Twitter and seems to be a geniunely experienced artist), but is there anything I'm missing here?
Edit: Also post #6701778
AI produces objects that vaguely resemble actual things when they fall in your peripheral vision, but break down to messy lines and wrongs details that can't be explained by artistic choice. Looking through their Twitter, there are all kinds of giveaways. Flower pedals merge or grow out of random places. Bones that connect to nothing appear between other bones. Mechanical parts so deformed and undefined that they can't get away with "sci-fi fantasy" explanation. Asymmetrical parts that should not have been. Etc.
Unfortunately, this artist's work is all AI plus a little post processing, with the only exceptions I've found being
https://twitter.com/24Kenva/status/1679725272881414146,
https://twitter.com/24Kenva/status/1661967219029340160,
https://twitter.com/24Kenva/status/1600347424471797760,
https://twitter.com/24Kenva/status/1619594843315146753,
and some other works that look similar to these, posted around July.
These seem to involve substantial human effort, with complex shapes that are well-defined and with accurate projection, to the point that I don't think we can tell if AI was involved or not. You can compare these to the AI works by the same artist to see where the differences in details are.
Their Linktree shows they may have produced these AI pictures as NFTs. https://linktr.ee/24kenva
Updated by 8253803
@feline_lump thanks for the feedback, on a second look I definitely agree that any connection to AI is far too tenuous. Glad I asked for a second opinion, cheers
Player_Diff said:
Fully agreed. Also in post post #6702410 its not even the hairclip alone, her ear, her hair (especially by her hand, I have honestly no clue what is even happening there behind), and her left arm by her the torn clothes. I'm farily certain and confident that those are AI-generated.
Something I noted is that in post #6702410, you can see line-art artifacts. So this was originally line-art presumably drawn by a human. Notice the hair on the right side of the face that the AI has failed to colour in correctly. Some of the thin strands of hair were obviously added in after the AI had coloured the image, like the ones that terminate near the cleavage; they are too thin for the AI to have created, and they lack the characteristic black shading pattern present in the rest of the image. You can also see some of the original line-art around the eyebrows. This is consistent with image-to-image generation, since a de-noising value needs to be defined for the whole image at once, but the AI will not alter the image uniformly, sometimes leaving small regions of the original image essentially intact.
You can notice sort of the same thing going on in post #6702411, where the AI has duplicated the nose and eyebrows, but left the original lines somewhat intact. This one seems to have been more "processed" by the AI than the other one. That lines up with the higher resolution on the second image, since it takes a long time to run these image-to-image transformations, especially at high resolutions. So in this image the original lineart is mostly gone at this point.
I think that this might as well be AI art, though. The original sketch was obviously a messy draft, nothing more, as you can see from the rather ugly leftover lines in post #6702410. The image that came out the other side is basically just an AI generated image that was placed into a particular pose using the sketch instead of word prompts. The eyes are muddy, there are way too many drips, the clothes and anatomy are nonsense. It can't decide whether the white stuff should be on the subject or the camera lens. So I believe that it definitely does deserve the Ai-generated tag. I just wanted to note that it does look like the artist was at least being truthful, and this is, in the loosest possible sense, a "automatic colouring" of something made by an actual human.
8253803 said:
AI produces objects that vaguely resemble actual things when they fall in your peripheral vision, but break down to messy lines and wrongs details that can't be explained by artistic choice. Looking through their Twitter, there are all kinds of giveaways. Flower pedals merge or grow out of random places. Bones that connect to nothing appear between other bones. Mechanical parts so deformed and undefined that they can't get away with "sci-fi fantasy" explanation. Asymmetrical parts that should not have been. Etc.
Unfortunately, this artist's work is all AI plus a little post processing, with the only exceptions I've found being
https://twitter.com/24Kenva/status/1679725272881414146,
https://twitter.com/24Kenva/status/1619594843315146753,
https://twitter.com/24Kenva/status/1661967219029340160,
https://twitter.com/24Kenva/status/1600347424471797760,
and https://twitter.com/24Kenva/status/1619594843315146753.
These seem to involve substantial human effort, with complex shapes that are well-defined and with accurate projection, to the point that I don't think we can tell if AI was involved or not. You can compare these to the AI works by the same artist to see where the differences in details are.Their Linktree shows they may have produced these AI pictures as NFTs. https://linktr.ee/24kenva
Yeah, I've been coming to the realization that is the case now that the shock of them getting IDed that has worn off. Upon closer inspection, I've noticed the weird flowers (like, what's with that reddish flower in the corner of post #6701778?) and other wonky details indicating they are AI. Ugh, I feel like such an idiot for falling for this, it seems so obvious in hindsight...
Thanks for clarifying. Next time I want to upload pretty flowers (or at least pretty floral themed art), I'll definitely be checking them with artists that haven't been uploaded before.
Worth noting that AI usage is fully socially acceptable among western NFT artists, so you should definitely exercise extra caution when uploading from accounts that are heavily involved in that space. That plus the fast upload rate (something like 10 posts in a week) were the most immediate red flags for me.
feline_lump said:
Worth noting that AI usage is fully socially acceptable among western NFT artists, so you should definitely exercise extra caution when uploading from accounts that are heavily involved in that space. That plus the fast upload rate (something like 10 posts in a week) were the most immediate red flags for me.
Go fucking figure. The fact that what prompted me to upload them was seeing a friend retweet them didn't help, so I failed to realize this "artist" was involved with the damn things until it was too late. I didn't even see the fast upload rate, the most obvious sign to my limited ability to tell the difference, ugh...I'm so mad at myself now. I'll just take this as a lesson in fact checking my sources then. So that this doesn't happen again in the future.
I want to check and some opinions on this artist please:
https://www.pixiv.net/en/users/20863556
I already posted one of their works (post #6715271).
Looking at more of their gallery I can see they have done some AI generated work. That raises the question if all of their works are AI but some are not tagged as such like that Momoka image I posted.
I'm going to hold off posting anything more from their gallery until I get more opinions on the matter.
Updated by Monki
Traced AI art? Ai-assisted? If what the artist said was true, they want to learn how to look like an AI and draw melty hair?
This is less a general check (as this "artist"'s latest is clearly marked as AI), and more a question.
https://www.pixiv.net/en/users/85703140
Something I noticed while skimming this artist's gallery is that the first few are not marked as AI, whereas all the ones after that Splatoon sketch are. What happened there? Did the "artist" like...only start marking them as such after a certain point? There is a notable (if slightly subtler) shift in artstyle between the unmarked posts and the marked ones too. What is going on here?
Maiden_in_Orange said:
This is less a general check (as this "artist"'s latest is clearly marked as AI), and more a question.
https://www.pixiv.net/en/users/85703140
Something I noticed while skimming this artist's gallery is that the first few are not marked as AI, whereas all the ones after that Splatoon sketch are. What happened there? Did the "artist" like...only start marking them as such after a certain point? There is a notable (if slightly subtler) shift in artstyle between the unmarked posts and the marked ones too. What is going on here?
These three are stolen:
pixiv #110536178 = post #3816053
pixiv #110431769 = post #5437957
pixiv #110335122 = post #6126926
Nameless_Contributor said:
These three are stolen:
pixiv #110536178 = post #3816053
pixiv #110431769 = post #5437957
pixiv #110335122 = post #6126926
Oh, so that's why. They're a fucking art thief! That definitely explains a lot! However, those three are just the ones in Danbooru. What about pixiv #110402025 and pixiv #110288260? I ask because SauceNAO gave me the former result when punched in, so if these three posts are stolen and we're talking about an art thief who's recently taken to using AI...where did those two come from? Can we even retrieve them from who actually drew them (assuming they aren't unmarked AI that is)? Or, considering I just tried to use the "similar images" function to check for duplicates and got nothing on either (as well as on the stolen post #6126926 just to make sure I'm not jumping to conclusions), am I just not seeing the actual posts on here for those?
Maiden_in_Orange said:
What about pixiv #110402025 and pixiv #110288260?
Didn't find a source for those but I think they are AI. Nezuko's hair ribbon and finger merge with her hair, Shinobu has overall weird hair, a weird ribbon on the back of her Kimono and weird butterflies.
Nameless_Contributor said:
Didn't find a source for those but I think they are AI. Nezuko's hair ribbon and finger merge with her hair, Shinobu has overall weird hair, a weird ribbon on the back of her Kimono and weird butterflies.
Go figure they were AI. Thanks for your help! I wasn't really sure what was going on with those!
Hello,
Please excuse me if I‘m using the forum wrongly.
I just created an account to post a speculation and English isn’t my native language. I think that the following drawing might be AI-generated:
The 2 characters seem to have 5-6 arms/hands for their pose which does not make sense, and there are some other aligning issues with drawing lines.
I don’t know if the art is AI-assisted or fully artificial.
Thank you.
