gzb said:
post #7441073 really slipped through my AI radar. Should the wiki of the creator of this be edited to notify people that it's AI stuff?
See topic #25985, probably the better place to discuss this. (see also topic #26550)
Posted under General
gzb said:
post #7441073 really slipped through my AI radar. Should the wiki of the creator of this be edited to notify people that it's AI stuff?
See topic #25985, probably the better place to discuss this. (see also topic #26550)
Super_Affection said:
See topic #25985, probably the better place to discuss this. (see also topic #26550)
Thanks. I left a reply in the newer thread hoping to revive it.
Is this AI art? If it is, then I suppose I'll look at any twitter account with "Digital Creator" tag with extra suspicion from now on.
Is it assisted or generated, would you say?
Knowledge_Seeker said:
Is it assisted or generated, would you say?
There is clearly stuff redrawn but it's so lazily done that it looks like a child scribbled on it.
https://files.catbox.moe/4s1ybv.jpg
Most of the alright looking parts are just AI, I would tag it as generated.
This artist
Art style-wise, it looks like a traced AI and/or cleaned up AI.
Seeing the pixiv page, compare these two images that are only 9 days apart:
1
2
Not saying that 2nd image is fully AI, but the quality change within a very short period is something.
You can also compare their posts on danbooru and their older artworks from only two years ago.
AI tag, yet this one was approved twice. Any reason for that? I don't see any difference between this one and the other artworks from this artist that got deleted for AI.
Updated
123kid said:
AI tag, yet this one was approved twice. Any reason for that? I don't see any difference between this one and the other artworks from artist that got deleted for AI.
The skin tones look horrible and the face just looks, like, kinda whack in the usual AI sense imo.
Am I the only one who think this looked odd that it at least had some AI assistance? More recent works at Pixiv (not uploaded here) were tagged "AI-generated".
VR-Man said:
Am I the only one who think this looked odd that it at least had some AI assistance? More recent works at Pixiv (not uploaded here) were tagged "AI-generated".
It's possible it was traced from an AI gen, but the actual brushwork looks very human and consistent with artist's earlier work.
Can you tag this pixiv account that contributes a lot of ai content with ai related tags? I have wasted my upload slot on him.
post #7443817 and post #7443563 accused of being AI but not tagged so.
ion288 said:
post #7443817 and post #7443563 accused of being AI but not tagged so.
Both, but especially the first one, look kinda wonky in the AI sense, and also reminiscent of the artist's other ai-assisted work (post #6052871), while at the same time not looking like their normal works at all (post #5169076).
Would works like this be flagged as AI Gen if posted here? Or would it be AI-Assist though its kinda the reverse of its Def.
https://twitter.com/SBragg91/status/1779570109146611960/photo/1
Shading caught my eye, but on closer inspection the horizon and the foreshortening are weird too.
岩戸鈴芽 said:
Shading caught my eye, but on closer inspection the horizon and the foreshortening are weird too.
It’s too sharp and detailed to be straight-up ai-generated. For some reason, it’s giving me strong traced AI vibes, but nothing definitive is sticking out. Foreshortening, hands and feet look like human shortcomings to me. Not seeing anything odd with the horizon at the moment. I’ll give it a pass.
post #7467495 and child got tagged with ai-generated, I'm not seeing why @RhythmicApogee
Diet_Soda said:
post #7467495 and child got tagged with ai-generated, I'm not seeing why @RhythmicApogee
Sorry about that. Something about her face, the strange crystal choice, and a bit of the hair hanging from the left arm just looked really off to me. The hair part especially looks disconnected, but upon closer inspection, it just lacks a visible outline so it just blends into the background.
