Assuming there is AI here, where is the line between "Ai generated" and "Ai assisted"? I don't want to be a "devil's advocate", I just haven't seen the bite marks before and the art looks weird for Ai art.
To be fair, there are three adequately drawn hands here - as we know, the AI is not capable of adequate quality of such details as normal fingers of the hand, or, let's say, pendant - it distorts the image as a whole - there are many examples of such illustrations on the Internet. I won't deny that I may be a little more reliant on Photoshop and its built-in capabilities, but the presence of built-in filters and art brushes in a graphic editor does not imply that the art is created by artificial intelligence. In any case, I wish you a good day and am happy to respond to any wishes or criticism.
Thank you for your response. Yes, I understand and accept that - it is these comments and the community's response that make it clear that one should rely on oneself, not the capabilities of the machine. Regarding the tags - ai generated implies almost zero effort on the part of the author, at least that's what the pixiv itself claims: https://www.pixiv.help/hc/en-us/articles/13276278766489 Or should I put my illustrations that I spent hours on in the same niche? There isn't a single illustration that I would completely trust to a machine...
"Not that it seems to matter much, since you're raking in all the likes and upvotes by the thousands regardless. I guess this is the reality we live in now ¯\_(ツ)_/¯"
Are you making me out to be an egocentric who misleads ordinary people for virtual points that have no application in practice? Moreover, it reeks of an elitist tone, as if those around you have bad taste and should be ashamed of themselves, how dare they to upvote what they want to upvote! Indeed, today's reality is staggering.
To a certain extent, yes, with some "quality check": post-processing in Photoshop, some elements were drawn by hand; also removed artifacts, dead pixels; made correction for brightness and contrast et cetera. This format seems to be acceptable here, if I'm not mistaken. I'm still trying to find the best way to interact with AI.
My personal $0.02: While this artist does get a few penalty points for not tagging, or not mentioning AI anywhere unless they are explicitly asked, I don't see any fault with the image itself. The foot looks normal and I would just tag it ai-assisted and move on.
Assuming there is AI here, where is the line between "Ai generated" and "Ai assisted"? I don't want to be a "devil's advocate", I just haven't seen the bite marks before and the art looks weird for Ai art.
Can't really tell at this point. I rather avoid AI assisted too.
I approved this originally, and just looking at the image I don't see anything that suggests AI. But after looking at the artist's history on twitter/pixiv/reddit, this definitely is too AI to be here.
There's a sliding scale of what "AI-assisted" can mean. There are a few competent artists who use a bit of AI at some point to assist their process or improve their art. And there a lot of "artists" taking a wholly AI-generated image, touching it up slightly, and calling it their own. The former is appropriate for Danbooru, and the latter is not.
For this artist, the reddit comment quoted above is very telling: "To a certain extent, yes, with some "quality check": post-processing in Photoshop, some elements were drawn by hand; also removed artifacts, dead pixels; made correction for brightness and contrast et cetera." This shouldn't be approved and the rest of their art should probably all be removed.
I approved this originally, and just looking at the image I don't see anything that suggests AI. But after looking at the artist's history on twitter/pixiv/reddit, this definitely is too AI to be here.
There's a sliding scale of what "AI-assisted" can mean. There are a few competent artists who use a bit of AI at some point to assist their process or improve their art. And there a lot of "artists" taking a wholly AI-generated image, touching it up slightly, and calling it their own. The former is appropriate for Danbooru, and the latter is not.
For this artist, the reddit comment quoted above is very telling: "To a certain extent, yes, with some "quality check": post-processing in Photoshop, some elements were drawn by hand; also removed artifacts, dead pixels; made correction for brightness and contrast et cetera." This shouldn't be approved and the rest of their art should probably all be removed.
So now we flag image and remove it, not based on the image itself, in each INDIVIDUAL case, but based on one or two comments from the artist; removing all his art, again based on what? If he hadn't written anything, it turns out he wouldn't even have anything to accuse him of, lol.
Based on what? On the ample amount of evidence that we have that this 'artist' is a human assisted by a.i. rather than an actual artist who is A.I. assisted? Seems like you're just being defensive about this since you like this pic and uploaded most of this guy's previous work here, rather than actually looking at this logically?
'Artist' starts posting on pixiv right as the a.i. craze starts, literally first post is commented with: "AI assisted (StableDiffusion) & Photobash and paint over it, I hope you will like it." plus a bunch of other cases where he kind of sort of admits to it. Then you see this sharp jump in quality when he stops mostly painting over images and just starts posting straight stable diffusion outputs with some minor editing (a bunch of which return as basically 100% stable diffusion on hivemoderation.) Literally nothing about this screams ''natural artist who is developing his art skills.'' and if you apply some basic brain power and logic you can easily conclude that this guy doesn't draw anything himself. If you don't draw the line somewhere, then you can just as well open the floodgates for a.i. on danbooru in its entirety because every charlatan who can't actually draw but just touches up a.i. prompts is apparently allowed...
This should really just be an open and shut case from the start, because its amply obvious to anyone with half a brain that this guy isn't a legit artist, but I guess when the neuron gets activated and people really like what the a.i. makes, its suddenly okay and defensible...
That's exactly what I'm talking about - instead of having some kind of system by which to rate these kinds of art, of which there will be more and more, we now rate biographies and comments on reddit. Yes, sure, he's worse than Hitler and should be sent to Shadow Realm, but what about the site rules? Someone can explain to me why this particular illustration should go, but this one or that one should stay?
I really can't see how this is full AI. There's a lot of small details that AI is not yet good at generating, and I don't see any obvious AI artifacts. The thumb on the left is the only suggestion to me that the basis was AI. Even for the feet I would've sooner assumed it was traced, rather than AI. In cases like this reddit post it's obvious because of the distinct NAI coloring, but that's not found here.
This is what I was afraid of when we banned AI art. The current models have become so good at generating images, that most people aren't able to tell the difference between ai-assisted and fully drawn posts anymore (as seen in all the random claims in topic #22285), so the loudest individuals just assume everything is AI unless proved otherwise, and even if your picture is mostly legit you have to provide a psd or people will make up wrong details (like comment #2306313) to justify the argument that it's full AI-gen.
How much does the artist have to redraw for a picture to become acceptable? It seems from this comment thread that some of you won't accept anything but a fully 100% hand-drawn image. Adobe recently revealed their own model, so in a few months when it's integrated into Photoshop it's going to be completely impossible to figure out what's AI-assisted and what's not. What's going to happen then? Are we going to forbid the uploading of new artists?
AI-assisted art is not banned. The ban only applies to AI-generated art, and we didn't ban it out of some hypocritical moral argument. We specifically banned it to avoid getting flooded by a high volume of same-looking heavily artifacted images, because anyone with a model on their laptop can just create tons of almost-identical pics to no end nowadays (which is what you usually see on AIBooru's frontpage when someone is dumping their generations all at once).
The distinction between AI-assisted vs AI-generated, like most other things in the field of moderating danbooru, is left to the discretion of each individual approver, because nobody can come up with a objective criteria for it. If you think you know better, you're welcome to provide to the forums an objective threshold by which we should decide whether something is assisted on generated, and the community will decide whether to adopt it. Until you do that, all of your claims can (and will) be dismissed as gut feeling too.
The logical path this can go down is to just play it by ear. Approvers are going to have to wing it, while those who accuse the image of being AI generated, or not altered "enough" will have to provide evidence to back their claim, through a PM to not clutter the forum or comments section.
A ban on anything AI related will soon be impossible. You can't stop the signal, and it's improving by the day. Best adapt to it.
I guess I was under the mistaken impression that people didn't just appreciate art here, but also had some appreciation for the skill set that produced the piece. Evidently that was wrong, hardly anyone actually seems to care how the sausage is made. Clearly an utterly 'brainlet take' of me.
Try actually drawing and then tell me how much you enjoy drawing the same city backgrounds or against the railing poses for the thousandth time when you just want to get into the meat of it. Do you by chance color each pixel of every image individually?
AI is a tool, just like the bucket autofill or custom brushes, and how you use depends on what you want to achieve. The smart artists will use it to quickly get the boring tasks over with, and draw what they actually want to draw. For example, there's so many artists just using filtered photos or 3d scenes even in mainstream mangas for their background. AI is the next evolution of that.
Being against it in principle is like being against electricity. It's here to stay, and it's going to become so pervasive that in a year's time you'll look like a candle maker complaining about lightbulbs.
This kind of stuff is only going to become more and more common in the coming months and years, as the technology is refined and made ready. It's cheaper and faster than even the current standard of outsourcing to underpaid chinese shops, and it avoids entirely the risk of delaying a whole production because of labor shortages (like what happened to the Nier Automata anime, to name one of the many seasonals delayed due to China's recent covid waves).
A ban on anything AI related will soon be impossible. You can't stop the signal, and it's improving by the day. Best adapt to it.
Naw, don't give up. If this attitude was adapted in the beginning, then Danbooru would have been killed.
Human Artists still exist, and the professionals never had fears of posting their WIPs, color previews, wireframe renders etc.
Let this remain the major platform on the internet that honors the tried and true method of making art for thousands of years.
If people want to see low effort anime art that's shat out by a robot every hour, then load up Deviantart's front page and watch the horror of melting eyes and deformed hands. That's what you'll get if Danbooru removes its standards...
