Danbooru

AI-generated art check thread

Posted under General

Benit149

post #5759160

The metadata is not showing AI-related information, and the artist appears to use the same art style frequently seen in AI-generated art. I wasn't positive though, so I uploaded for approval to be on the safe side.

Speaking of which, is there a tag or pool denoting when an image looks AI-generated, but is actually not? I could ask in topic #12251, but I feel it's more relevant here due to the trouble of differentiating an artist's actual style to the style a computer spits out. Naturally, this would apply only to illustrations created after October 4, 2022, when the technology was released.

Reply
feline lump

Benit149 said:

post #5759160

The metadata is not showing AI-related information, and the artist appears to use the same art style frequently seen in AI-generated art. I wasn't positive though, so I uploaded for approval to be on the safe side.

The artist has been using a similar style for at least two years, and I don't see any obvious tells in the image.

Reply
kittey

VR-Man said:

post #5761063

I posted from this artist in the past, and turned out it was ai-assisted, so I thought that this one could be checked too.

If that was AI-assisted, I’m not sure if the artist made it better. Those hands don’t look like AI hands; they look like they were drawn by an artist who’s not good with hands. Coloring/shading is also kinda meh. I’d say the older works from this artist actually look better.

Reply
Veraducks

VR-Man said:

post #5761063

I posted from this artist in the past, and turned out it was ai-assisted, so I thought that this one could be checked too.

It looks also assisted. The resolution and media asset page make sense for an edited version and it has clear editing on the hands, skirt, and eyes. AI can't do hands interacting with cloth and the artist suddenly started doing that iris style with the advent of AI.

Reply
Diet Soda

Also: post #5752191, post #5751164
Telltale hands and resolution, upscaling artefacts, hair blending into clothing, inexplicable details around the neck area, completely different style from the person's pre-October works, new art frequency suddenly jacked up to 1 every several hours, etc etc, it's a no brainer.

Now here's the rub, the artist does not admit to using AI in any capacity, claiming instead to have "started imitating popular artists' styles" and taking credit as if for a fully hand drawn image. They might or might not have edited it themselves somewhere, we'll never know. What now? Give them the benefit of the doubt, assume they did their part by sprinkling a bunch of light particles onto the machine's output and let the post off with an ai-assisted, or just bin it? It's one thing when the artist is being transparent, no matter their creation's human-to-AI involvement ratio, but in cases of obvious dishonesty I'd be strongly in favor of erring on the side of caution.

Reply
Rathurue

Diet_Soda said:

Also: post #5752191, post #5751164
Telltale hands and resolution, upscaling artefacts, hair blending into clothing, inexplicable details around the neck area, completely different style from the person's pre-October works, new art frequency suddenly jacked up to 1 every several hours, etc etc, it's a no brainer.

Now here's the rub, the artist does not admit to using AI in any capacity, claiming instead to have "started imitating popular artists' styles" and taking credit as if for a fully hand drawn image. They might or might not have edited it themselves somewhere, we'll never know. What now? Give them the benefit of the doubt, assume they did their part by sprinkling a bunch of light particles onto the machine's output and let the post off with an ai-assisted, or just bin it? It's one thing when the artist is being transparent, no matter their creation's human-to-AI involvement ratio, but in cases of obvious dishonesty I'd be strongly in favor of erring on the side of caution.

#5752191 counts as AI-assisted, I think. The fingers still looks wonky. #5751164 does not have any telltale signs of both AI-generated or AI-assisted art, but both uploads are low-res and pixelated even in the original image, likely to hide the traces of the 'blurred lineart' that usually produced by AI programs.

Reply
Diet Soda

Rathurue said:
#5751164 does not have any telltale signs of both AI-generated or AI-assisted art

- the area where the left hand should be is trying to be a shadow, hair strand and finger all at once
- 64 resolution
- characteristically deformed and blurred right hand
- hair strands merging with the collarbone, both clavicles are split in half by the hair, the outer parts re-emerging much higher than they have any right to be
- nonsensical block of shading between the breasts
- hair strand above her left eye abruptly disappears under (merges with?) it, while the right side seems to behave normally, inconsistent machine jank
- several cookie-cutter NovelAI elements such as the hair intakes and double-stringed bikini bottom
- several brush strokes stick out as clearly higher resolution than the artefacted hellscape they're drawn on, indicating an attempt was made to give the creation a personal touch AFTER pixelating it (why would you do this?)

I'm sure you could find more fun details if you looked hard enough; for my part I'm too tired of that picture to keep staring at it for a second longer lol. All of the above is typical of NovelAI outputs, and made all the more glaring by a complete lack of resemblance to any of the artist's earlier works.

Reply
kittey

不失者 said:

post #5763751

Yes.

  • common AI resolution x2
  • broken arm/non-existant hand
  • faded/inconsistent details on stomach
  • stray jewelry detail left of her neck
  • hair strand merges into pointy(?) ear
  • long lock of hair ends at arm’s edge
  • inconsistent lines where the see-through material crosses the arms

The flagger also mentioned eyes and irises, but maybe I haven’t seen enough AI art yet to notice what’s wrong with them.

Reply
1 2 3 4 5 6 83