Posted under General
岩戸鈴芽 said:
post #7331812
post #7315871
post #7299906
post #7285362Personally unsure.
knowing shexyo, it's could be NovelAI with some of nyantcha's style + paint over/traced AI
but I don't really see artifact anywhere other than weird eyes in some image so no proof either way
Artist yuna_rebun recently had several of her images flagged as 100% ai-generated for mostly baseless reasons: for example, just saying "AI" or "maybe AI" and when giving more details saying "has the usual artifacts" and even in some cases citing the artist's own choice of asymmetrical hair, which she has used with her OC for years (see post #6899541), as reason for the flag. There is someone who added a note saying "three finger hand" on an image (see post #6305278) where the hand has two clearly visible knuckles for the "missing fingers."
Based on the images posted by yuna_rebun from before the AI-era, her more modern art still follows the same style as before. The only major changes are in the coloring, shading, and backgrounds (3 years ago post #4459049, 2 years ago post #5429411, 1 year ago post #6010555, 1 month ago post #7263433). These changes could very well be due to the implementation of AI tools in software like photoshop. However, the artist also mentions doing corporate illustrations in her bio, and so the changes in her coloring and shading may be a result of adjustments she was required to make in her style for clients. And considering some of her art really does have an "AI-feel" to them, it's possible clients are pushing her to use AI tools.
Not that it's a guarantee of authenticity, but it's worth mentioning some of the flagged and deleted posts are cover illustrations of doujins published with melonbooks.
Overall, I'm not convinced that all of the art labled as ai-generated is even ai-assisted. The mistakes I can see in her most recent art is indistinguishable to me from her older art.
However, can a fresh pair of eyes double check this artist and her deleted art which was labled as ai-generated? Can someone verify whether or not it's ai-assisted at all?
岩戸鈴芽 said:
Flagger here, it should be pretty obvious there's AI involved, but I am unsure to what extent. I probably should've immediately posted them here for discussion though.
Please be aware that you should be 100% sure that art is "fully AI-generated art with no human input aside from prompting" before tagging art as ai-generated and flagging it for deletion. And if you're at all unsure, please check with someone here first.
cyrilkhan said:
However, can a fresh pair of eyes double check this artist and her deleted art which was labled as ai-generated? Can someone verify whether or not it's ai-assisted at all?
The disapproval messages already mention plenty of issues ranging from minor to glaring. Artists having an AI-y style by pure accident definitely happens, but that's usually limited to the shading. Sure, it could be an extremely unlucky case, but how can we know?
Please be aware that you should be 100% sure that art is "fully AI-generated art with no human input aside from prompting" before tagging art as ai-generated and flagging it for deletion. And if you're at all unsure, please check with someone here first.
Since the degree of AI allowed is basically "as much as the approvers can tolerate", flagging can be used as a tool to get it looked at. I dislike adding the assisted/generated immediately since it'll definitely influence the people looking at it, so it's a bit of a damned if you do damned if you don't situation. In the end the posts were flagged, and approvers decided they were too AI-y to pass.
To speak for the one I personally flagged (post #6960995), look at the straps of her shirt, the black parts are very confused on whether they're trying to be a bra underneath (left side) or a black trim (right).
Diet_Soda said:
To speak for the one I personally flagged (post #6960995), look at the straps of her shirt, the black parts are very confused on whether they're trying to be a bra underneath (left side) or a black trim (right).
That's the kind of stuff you shouldn't be basing your flags on. It's an insane reach to say that's enough proof that something is fully ai-generated.
岩戸鈴芽 said:
Since the degree of AI allowed is basically "as much as the approvers can tolerate", flagging can be used as a tool to get it looked at. I dislike adding the assisted/generated immediately since it'll definitely influence the people looking at it, so it's a bit of a damned if you do damned if you don't situation. In the end the posts were flagged, and approvers decided they were too AI-y to pass.
I have been explicitly told by moderators in the past not to use the flagging system as a way of verifying if art is AI. The modqueue is not a personal playground. And approvers are not going to always take the time to verify if art flagged as "AI" is actually AI. Some approvers will disapprove simply on the basis that someone said it's AI, even if they would have otherwise approved it. This is going to be more so the case when you apply the tag ai-generated, which directly implies the image is "fully AI-generated art with no human input aside from prompting" and against the rules, instead of ai-assisted which is permitted.
In order for art to be flagged in the first place, it had to at one point pass the modqueue. This means at least one approver didn't think it looked too AI-y. If you are unsure if something is AI, don't you think you should trust the first pass of the modqueue and take a bit more time to carefully verify? This thread exists for that very reason.
123kid said:
Feels like personal flags against me tbh. Earlier an old Shexyo post got flagged for AI but since we got the discussion already (assisted but not generated) I approved it. Now mostly my uploads got flagged.
Also on the fence on these pieces.
The history of this artist and their 'techniques' make it very difficult to attribute the extend of AI tool usage in their works.
It doesn't help that their style is based off another artist whose has been used as training material for AI models.
For images like these, probably better to figure out via comments or this forum thread first before pulling out the flags.
VR-Man said:
The more recent arts from this artist are tagged "assisted" and "generated" at the same time.
Their twitter profile does list: Illust/spine2d/TA/Web3/AI. Also their last post on pixiv upped Oct. 10, 2023 is tagged AI generated, while their second to last upped Jan. 5, 2023 isn't. So at minimum one of those two AI tags is likely correct on their recent art.
artist known for AI
post #7352484
Maybe I'm just too paranoid, but I request a check for post #7356311 and other pics by this artist.
Wolf_of_Gubbio said:
artist known for AI
post #7352484
Looking through the what I can find on the artist, it looks like they have a history of blocking people who accuse them of AI. It looks like the main complaint against them is that they touch up generated art, which implies their work is ai-assisted, including past artworks of theirs which were labled ai-generated. That said, there are people people saying the artist used to do real art and switched to using ai (source). I think this artist should be carefully watched, because most likely it is ai-assisted if the twitter source is to be trusted. It's likely this twitter post can be trusted, because post #7027929 is highly likely to be ai-assisted from the artist's own video showing the touch-up process (source).
As for post #7352484, I don't see any obvious signs of AI. The artist either touched up all the most obvious artifacts, or they returned to hand-drawing art. I hope the latter and suspect the former.
VR-Man said:
Maybe I'm just too paranoid, but I request a check for post #7356311 and other pics by this artist.
IMO there are too many details present that AI struggles with. In that image: the ascot tie, buttons, crosses, hat emblem, and belt cords (especially the ones that pass over the hard line between dress and cape) are too well done to be all made by the same AI prompt. Not to mention the mechanical arm has a lot of details that are begging for artifacts that I don't see.
The other art by this artist also look okay to me. The closest thing I see to an "obvious AI artifact" is the symbol below the breasts in post #7356326 which looks weird, but that could simply be because that symbol might be awkward to draw by hand the way the character is angled. Also, I have no idea what prompt would get you that design.
post #7361331
Flagged but not tagged.
ion288 said:
post #7361331
Flagged but not tagged.
Not flagged. Just a disapproval note. I'm not sure if it warrants a tag, tbh. Other than the artist having a history of being deleted on this site and a couple twitter comments, I can't find definitive proof they use AI with all their images. Though, they disable comments on pixiv, which is a red flag.
Since it already came up in a comment and is likely to come up again:
post #7370222
post #7370223
post #7000563
I personally don't think punc_p uses AI based on their artstyle from 3+ years ago (e.g. post #4536377), but if anyone has evidence otherwise, feel free to share.
cyrilkhan said:
Not flagged. Just a disapproval note. I'm not sure if it warrants a tag, tbh. Other than the artist having a history of being deleted on this site and a couple twitter comments, I can't find definitive proof they use AI with all their images. Though, they disable comments on pixiv, which is a red flag.
from their Pixiv, I think it's pretty clear
https://www.pixiv.net/en/artworks/113513691 - fingers
https://www.pixiv.net/en/artworks/113662785 - Yuffie's fingers
their Pixiv requests also gone after their client found out they were using AI
https://twitter.com/GabrielVizari/status/1761217241264042349
Does this look like AI?
santander said:
Does not look AI to me.
