What is AI-assisted? Maybe it should be banned?

Posted under General

What is AI-assisted? The defenition here says that this "tag is for pictures that were initially ai-generated but then painted over or retouched by an artist". Do you believe upscaling and adding some lines here and there deserve being called "ai-assisted"? Even if AI did 99.9% of the work?

If you do so little, AI does not assist you - it's you assist AI.


The issue is that it's such a wide gradient and often purposefully obscured that we can't outright ban it.

While I agree that we should be a bit more harsh on images that clearly use "assisted" as a shield, banning images that use it exclusively for a background (post #5693987) or are redrawn to style (post #5652841) would be silly.

Talulah said:

I don't necessarily have an issue with AI-generated backgrounds (since they'd almost definitely just be white_background simple_background otherwise), but I do think calling images where it's 99% AI with some poorly-done touch-ups AI-"assisted" is a bit of a misnomer.

Enough artists use edited photo as a background, so... Idk.

nonamethanks said:

I assume you're talking about post #6070757, post #6018523, post #6014962, post #5920811, post #6081802, post #6074582 or any of the other images you flagged for AI that have been reapproved.

How would you prove the percentage done by AI? How can you tell apart what the artist drew and what was created by the algorithm?

I'm talking about defenition of "retouched by an "artist"" and that it's useless. Everyone can generate a picture, add some lines, ??? and profit. https://danbooru.donmai.us/posts?tags=kagami_art&z=1 - is a good example for that.

The post #6081802 guy has artifacts on braid, clothes, ear, etc. I can not prove percentage, neither you. The whole "approve" system does not work anymore in AI issues, it's just a feeling of some approvers, some of them see that it's Ai, some of them - don't. The whole issue is ridiculous, you should ban all of them or start posting fully ai-generated "arts" without cringy upscaling and adding lines.

Btw, I assume that information about flags is hidden for some reason so you're acting quite unprofessionally here.


I didn't mean to call you out, I thought it was obvious from forum #233893. Sorry about that.

In any case, we can't have this discussion without examples. post #6081802 does not look fully ai-generated to me. It looks more like the artist applied one of those weird Instagram filters on the picture after he was done editing it from an ai-generated base. Look at the brushstrokes on the top right of the knee for example - I find it really hard to believe that's AI, unless there's models that can generate those too now. And the texture on the pants is exactly the same as that from instagram filters and other online image modifiers that add film grain to make an image look nicer, it's not a telltale sign of AI.

Stuff like post #6074582 is absolutely not fully-ai, there's too many little accurate details and it's consistent with the artist's past works from years ago.

As a side note, we didn't ban ai-generated on moral grounds, but to avoid getting flooded by that kind of content, and with understanding that in a few years (or less) it will be impossible to even tell anymore. In cases like these where it's not obvious that something is ai-generated, the burden of proof is on you, not on the artist.

for post #6070757 , one of the comment is pointing out a lot of stuff that indicates a majority of the image is untouched AI, it made me take a closer look at the image and i've noticed that the entire hoodie is what it looks like when AI tries to emulate visible brush strokes, only the outlines of the hoodie and that red thingy on it seem to possibly have been painted over, everything about the background indicates it is AI with no paintover except for whatever the wooden furniture on the right is, we dont know what her left hand is supposed to be holding.
weird clipping in the hair, most notably where it joins the hoodie, and the hairclips that look much more hand drawn than what's around it,
same for the right hand which looks entirely drawn, very visibly so, compared to it's surroundings, and even more compared to the general rendering of the image.
the lacey decorations on the bra also look AI and nothing like something from an artist's process
and finally there's a weird little nonsensical line of separation of shade on her left inner thigh that is

adding all that has been pointed out in the comments of the post, it really does convince me that at least for this specific image, very little was manually done, and vast majority of what we see was purely AI. 10% of manual painting/drawing at best

nonamethanks said:

Look at the brushstrokes on the top right of the knee for example - I find it really hard to believe that's AI

XD, I consider it as an artifact of the light which is AI-gen. Right side of the knee - the light creates value

nonamethanks said:

in a few years (or less) it will be impossible to even tell anymore.

By that time there'll be an AI calculating the percentage of AI and I hope this site will have one inbuilt on uploading page.

CurePikachu said:

Not to mention we had this kind of convo before: topic #22188

My bad, didn't know about it. Someone in "ai-check" thread recommended me to create a new thread about it