Donmai

AI-generated art check thread

Posted under General

Pokeball99

Lyren said:

I tagged it about half an hour after I posted it, since by looking through other posts of the artist it looked very AI-like in a lot of posts. Here are two best examples I could find for now:

pixiv #104659307 - eyebrows, detached finger
pixiv #104744774 - broken teeth, eyebrows, overall smudgy

plus their very first post is from December of last year, with a "high quality" looking picture....with the original file as 620x413

Reply
Mayhem-Chan

Lyren said:

I tagged it about half an hour after I posted it, since by looking through other posts of the artist it looked very AI-like in a lot of posts. Here are two best examples I could find for now:

pixiv #104659307 - eyebrows, detached finger
pixiv #104744774 - broken teeth, eyebrows, overall smudgy

I think the most sus thing here is the frequency of posts by this "artist". the examples you've given actually look the least AI-generated to me, but the rest of the posts actually do. Look at the dates, the average frequency of posting is slightly above 1 fully rendered image per day, which is what convinced me here

Reply
mortalkombachan

Nacha said:

post #6168053
Has the same Ai vibes as the Tatsumaki one post #6149856 before. Ai-Assisted?

So, can someone tell if post #6149856 and post #6168053 are AI or not?
The flagger provided points that make it suspicious and leading me to believe that it is AI-assisted at best, as the artist themselves has an style that matches the art (including the various art uploaded before the outburst of AI-generated art). Are the noted errors a legit artist screwup or typical AI errors? And if it is the case they're AI, could it be that there are more art by this artist thare were made (partially or completely) by AI?

Reply
ricroll

mortalkombachan said:

So, can someone tell if post #6149856 and post #6168053 are AI or not?
The flagger provided points that make it suspicious and leading me to believe that it is AI-assisted at best, as the artist themselves has an style that matches the art (including the various art uploaded before the outburst of AI-generated art). Are the noted errors a legit artist screwup or typical AI errors? And if it is the case they're AI, could it be that there are more art by this artist thare were made (partially or completely) by AI?

It seems like the flagger is getting a bit ridiculous with no concrete proof.

Reply
blindVigil

mortalkombachan said:

So, can someone tell if post #6149856 and post #6168053 are AI or not?
The flagger provided points that make it suspicious and leading me to believe that it is AI-assisted at best, as the artist themselves has an style that matches the art (including the various art uploaded before the outburst of AI-generated art). Are the noted errors a legit artist screwup or typical AI errors? And if it is the case they're AI, could it be that there are more art by this artist thare were made (partially or completely) by AI?

Can't say for post #6149856, but for post #6168053 yes, those are absolutely AI errors. A human of any skill level, no matter how much they struggle with hands, would know better than to draw a hand in such a way that it looks like it's fusing with another object in the picture, while AI does it all the time. It might be the most common mistake AI still makes. I wouldn't be surprised if the speech bubbles were placed specifically to hide things like that without having to fix them. Smudging is also a common sign of poorly done clean-up. The hair ornament is also pretty suspicious. Why make an effort to kinda sorta draw it with detail in one half of the picture, but in the other half, where the flower is bigger and more prominent, just completely phone it in like a bad 4Kids edit? The right flower honestly looks copypasted onto the image.

It's assisted at the bare minimum, and the errors are pretty obvious and lazy.

Reply
Zupi

@mortalkombachan
I flagged the Konan post, but I'm not responsible for the Tatsumaki one. I don't mean ill will towards you or your upload. I'm sorry and it's not your fault either.
Despite the wording on my flag I was already 100% sure the post was lazy ai work like @blindVigil said, otherwise I wouldn't have flagged it.

What's worse is that it's much worse than you think. Search "Konan Naruto" on google images. Link for reference. It looks like the artist literally downloaded the first picture and ran it through img2img with some prompt and called it a day. The flower looks just as bad as it does in the picture and he's good enough to do a better job than that, considering how you can see the quality disparity between the character and the accessory. Not to mention how good and detailed it looks afterwards.

You can tell something is ai from the things I pointed in my flag. Hair consistency is the easiest giveaway, followed by weirdness on clothes (the garterbelt looks painted on her legs), but you can also tell by the shading. By the way I did bother to check his previous art. He slowly kept improving but then his art style seems to have changed. Not to mention that that kind of aesthetic is common and samey in whatever model he's using to generate the pictures.

ricroll said:

It seems like the flagger is getting a bit ridiculous with no concrete proof.

No words, man. I guess it's truly game over for real art.

Reply
mortalkombachan

Zupi said:

@mortalkombachan
I flagged the Konan post, but I'm not responsible for the Tatsumaki one. I don't mean ill will towards you or your upload. I'm sorry and it's not your fault either.
Despite the wording on my flag I was already 100% sure the post was lazy ai work like @blindVigil said, otherwise I wouldn't have flagged it.

What's worse is that it's much worse than you think. Search "Konan Naruto" on google images. Link for reference. It looks like the artist literally downloaded the first picture and ran it through img2img with some prompt and called it a day. The flower looks just as bad as it does in the picture and he's good enough to do a better job than that, considering how you can see the quality disparity between the character and the accessory. Not to mention how good and detailed it looks afterwards.

You can tell something is ai from the things I pointed in my flag. Hair consistency is the easiest giveaway, followed by weirdness on clothes (the garterbelt looks painted on her legs), but you can also tell by the shading. By the way I did bother to check his previous art. He slowly kept improving but then his art style seems to have changed. Not to mention that that kind of aesthetic is common and samey in whatever model he's using to generate the pictures.

I understand perfectly and I agree with your points, despite being my upload. That hand merging with pillow is the most glaring. I'll think twice if ever come across this artist's posts as they might be using AI to lazily make their arts while they correct the most obvious AI mistakes to make it seem it is legit art. That is my opinion.

Reply
HairGlow

Massonia said:

post #6168239

is this really AI-gen? I'm more inclined to assisted

Definitely AI. Both hands are inconsistent drawn with no cohesion. Same goes with the Rose headband since artists are more inclined to draw details like this more carefully. Also the ass looks too conventionally drawn as well

Reply
user 827019

quccman said:

post #6171362

This is clearly AI
Look at the left hand fingers
The right hand fingers seem to have been redrawn on top
Look closely at the bra straps, they don't make sense, clearly AI generated
The rose on her hair also clearly AI generated

Yes this is AI. Artist quality of art has "spiked" up during the time of AI art being popularized. I'd even suggest post #6134690, post #6071930, post #6064513, post #6037637 are as well AI. If not, AI-assisted at the least.

Reply
1 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 118