AI-generated art check thread

Posted under General

WRS

Since it seems like we're back to flagging Shexyo for full AI and in turn flagging a bunch of other artists who post AI-assisted work as AI-generated instead who have already been said to be okay and within the rules, my own contribution would be that although for Unfairr up to post #8906882 is tagged as AI-assisted as the earliest example they themselves have highlighted, most of their work from the past 1-2 years is the same, so I guess you're going to be checking and flagging mostly everything past post #6648968 (unfairr id:>=6648968) as a rough approximation.

I'm not familiar with the other artists so can't pitch in much for them. In either case, I'm not going to participate in any argument about it, because it's a tired debate amongst clowns here who think even a small mistake is instant AI. Members have spoken so who am I to forum up about it. Any time you're told to fight in the forums about something you think it's wrong, generally it's a cloak-and-dagger way of saying "go humiliate yourself on the forum about a very obviously wrong opinion".

Reply
eromelon

WRS said:

Since it seems like we're back to flagging Shexyo for full AI and in turn flagging a bunch of other artists who post AI-assisted work as AI-generated instead who have already been said to be okay and within the rules, my own contribution would be that although for Unfairr up to post #8906882 is tagged as AI-assisted as the earliest example they themselves have highlighted, most of their work from the past 1-2 years is the same, so I guess you're going to be checking and flagging mostly everything past post #6648968 (unfairr id:>=6648968) as a rough approximation.

I'm not familiar with the other artists so can't pitch in much for them. In either case, I'm not going to participate in any argument about it, because it's a tired debate amongst clowns here who think even a small mistake is instant AI. Members have spoken so who am I to forum up about it. Any time you're told to fight in the forums about something you think it's wrong, generally it's a cloak-and-dagger way of saying "go humiliate yourself on the forum about a very obviously wrong opinion".

You don't need to humiliate yourself because you can just walk in, say "I am not gonna tell you why but this is/isn't AI-generated", leave, and never look back, just like this. In this way, you can keep yourself away from being treated like "clowns who think even a small mistake is instant AI" because no small mistake is pointed out.

Still, you did make a good point. Those clowns spent too much time on small mistakes of those images, as if their time isn't as valuable as somebody else's. If they are smart enough, they should use AI to generate some images in 10 seconds, post them here, and say "Hey artists lovers come and tell me how you would convince yourself this is not AI-generated."

-------------------------------

Just joking. I was simply trying to tell you what is the actual way in which you are humiliating yourself.

Reply
WRS

Congratulations on discovering a two-month old post to use for a point that I don't understand in the slightest and happens to cherry pick a very specific statement out of a larger point that I was making about going to the forums to settle differences in general, but sure I guess? I wouldn't feel humiliated over something like that, I would readily admit that is poorly articulated and a case example of the exact thing I say is dumb and should not be done when trying to call out AI. I'm talking about very different larger-scale "battles", not pointing out obvious AI or in less obvious cases where exactly the issues are, which I hoped would have been more obvious from my whole reply, but I should have known that only a fragment of it would be picked on for a gotcha. My fault for expecting a well-spirited reply.

Reply
eromelon

WRS said:

Congratulations on discovering a two-month old post to use for a point that I don't understand in the slightest and happens to cherry pick a very specific statement out of a larger point that I was making about going to the forums to settle differences in general, but sure I guess? I wouldn't feel humiliated over something like that, I would readily admit that is poorly articulated and a case example of the exact thing I say is dumb and should not be done when trying to call out AI. I'm talking about very different larger-scale "battles", not pointing out obvious AI or in less obvious cases where exactly the issues are, which I hoped would have been more obvious from my whole reply, but I should have known that only a fragment of it would be picked on for a gotcha. My fault for expecting a well-spirited reply.

Of course that's your fault because you have been told this thread is to discuss about whether a work is AI-generated/AI-assisted or not but you are still trying to show your wisdom about AI and humanity here while doing anything that's not wise at all at the same time.

By the way, congratulations are not necessary because surely you would have done it. It is just as easy as to find extra_digits pictures for "artists" that seem to be using AI——they just never care what they post.

Reply
WRS

I don't think we're looking at the same reply if that's what you're extrapolating from my replies, which... that happens when you focus on a part of it instead of the whole thing or the spirit of the reply because you want a gotcha. I did not once mention such anything about "AI wisdom" or whatever you're on about, I purely said that if we're going for the flagging angle then there's a larger amount of posts for one artist that should likely be considered than just the ones in contention; and that I am uninterested in fighting any battles about whether these posts should be considered appropriate for active status or not, and on a larger scale than that, not just related to AI, that if someone tells you "go fight about it on the forums" it's really just saying "go post your wrong opinion on the forum to be laughed at", so if you're ever told that, it's pointless to actually commit to a forum battle and you should just accept the other side's opinion and leave it at that. You're making my point something it's not.

Reply
eromelon

WRS said:

I don't think we're looking at the same reply if that's what you're extrapolating from my replies, which... that happens when you focus on a part of it instead of the whole thing or the spirit of the reply because you want a gotcha. I did not once mention such anything about "AI wisdom" or whatever you're on about, I purely said that if we're going for the flagging angle then there's a larger amount of posts for one artist that should likely be considered than just the ones in contention; and that I am uninterested in fighting any battles about whether these posts should be considered appropriate for active status or not, and on a larger scale than that, not just related to AI, that if someone tells you "go fight about it on the forums" it's really just saying "go post your wrong opinion on the forum to be laughed at", so if you're ever told that, it's pointless to actually commit to a forum battle and you should just accept the other side's opinion and leave it at that. You're making my point something it's not.

I can't imagine how many times people would make the same mistake again and again. If you say people who "think even a small mistake is instant AI" are "clowns", that means you need more than small mistakes to tell an AI-generated work. You think you know what an AI-generated work should be. You think you know what "clowns" were doing. That's your "wisdom" about AI and humanity. And you are showing it by complaining about "clowns". Everything would be great if you didn't casually say a work is AI-generated based on your feelings just like what "clowns" would do.

Of course, it is not the main point you wanted to make. You’re just using it as a premise, hoping others will naturally accept it.

Reply
WRS

eromelon said:

[..]

Lol. Anyway, forum #371013. No point in drawing this out since you're still keen on focusing on this one thing I said, using one single instance of something I said in the past, which I already said was nonsense of me to have done while talking specifically about pointing out AI, and then completely shafting everything else since it'd be more convenient for you to ignore it.

Reply
Arcana55

A month ago the artist austsue had his wiki edited to say he use AI.

He has 118 uploaded posts, only four of which have been deleted. And none of them, even the deleted ones, are tagged ai-generated. I don't see anything about them to suggest they are ai-generated, either. If anything, most AI works have better shading. Also most of his works have a simple background or a zoom layer. The former is uncommon in AI works and the latter is nonexistent: searching ai-generated status:any zoom_layer returns a null set. The only thing which might be a little suspicious is all of his works being deleted from Pixiv.

If someone has evidence to support the allegation, they should come forward.

Reply
Placeholder1996

Arcana55 said:

[...]

Maybe he meant he used it as a starter? I looked through some of his works; they all show signs of significant human involvement. The hair is nicely detailed and the strands don't melt into each other like they commonly do in AI works. The lace trim on post #8831093 is also finely detailed; definitely not machine-created. None of their posts were deleted for AI from what I can tell; they simply went unapproved when posted. Last point: one of the first places I look for AI in Blue Archive works are the halos; none of the halos are screwed up like they typically are when made by machine (though I think he uses stock images for those since the resolutions are often lower). Edit: However, I just saw post #8672194 which seems more suspicious; there's some of the typical ill-defined lines you see in AI works.

Updated by Placeholder1996

Reply
generalhorse

post #9612527

There's some strange parts of this one. For one, the frills of the sailor collar on the left shoulder aren't consistent, and stop in the middle part of the shoulder.

The nail polish on her fingers is applied rather strangely too, like a gradient brush that just blends in with the rest of the skin on her fingers and toes? It's also visible on her thumb, index and middle fingers of her right hand, despite those being her finger pads from this perspective.

The part that caught my eye the most though was the bow on her right ankle - there's a blonde/gold streak that almost looks like hair overtop of it. Usually her ankle bow has a gold paper boat symbol in the center of it - maybe AI didn't know what this was or how to draw it?

Reply
1 157 158 159 160 161 162