TenaciousTurtleDucks said:
post #6286997
Parts of the hair and the underwear look odd to me
Seems like this and post #6275036 are ai-assisted.
Posted under General
TenaciousTurtleDucks said:
post #6286997
Parts of the hair and the underwear look odd to me
Seems like this and post #6275036 are ai-assisted.
As a long time cosplayer, post #6287020 looks like a Cosplay Photo run through a filter to appear anime-esque to me. First time I've seen something like this on danbooru where not just a plain cosplay photo, but what appears to be an attempt to make it look painted/illustrated. I'm of the opinion that this is not a place for cosplay photos. Plenty of sites dedicated to that. Even if technically a photo filter is AI assist so to speak.
Unless I am completely wrong here.
Tsumanne said:
As a long time cosplayer, post #6287020 looks like a Cosplay Photo run through a filter to appear anime-esque to me. First time I've seen something like this on danbooru where not just a plain cosplay photo, but what appears to be an attempt to make it look painted/illustrated. I'm of the opinion that this is not a place for cosplay photos. Plenty of sites dedicated to that. Even if technically a photo filter is AI assist so to speak.
Unless I am completely wrong here.
Probably not the thread for this, but indeed the upload rules consider cosplay photos "borderline", not an absolute ban. Since the uploader is a "contributor", meaning a trusted uploader of Danbooru, they probably have their reasons. Still, you may flag it "off-topic" so it goes into the moderation queue.
kittey said:
Regardless of what the artist’s previous works look like, I’m basing this on the fact that the areas I mentioned look badly edited in. If the artist had drawn the whole image, they wouldn’t look out of place like that. The hands immediately look off, but they’re also much sharper than the rest of the image and so are the cuffs. The blue part of the jacket looks pretty sloppy and if you lower the image’s gamma, you’ll see pretty strong color bleed around the edges, which is a tell-tale sign of editing shenanigans going on. For good measure, there are also some AI peculiarities around, such as some incomplete sweatdrops (low contrast trail with missing actual drop at the end) and asymmetry between left and right eyelashes.
That makes sense. Thank you.
TenaciousTurtleDucks said:
post #6286997
Parts of the hair and the underwear look odd to me
8253803 said:
Seems like this and post #6275036 are ai-assisted.
"Breasts size, armpit and legs joint position are completely difference because of inpainting"
he doesn't even try
8253803 said:
I see no reason to think this is AI. Artist is a long-time professional with consistent style. Tags removed.
Unfortunately, lots and lots of former "long-time professionals" are just lazy AI-users, like this one, pretty sad.
And I don't understand why it counts like "assisted" if it has pretty few of artist's style and looks like default AI-gend.
Updated
post #6283115
post #6281610
post #6245269
post #6245259
Initially uploaded the bottom two without having found the source, got eventually approved but tagged as Ai-assisted (Artist seems to have used Ai as a basis, but painted over it?). I figured since it was merely AI-assisted it was fine to upload one or two more since the quality looked alright to me, now all four are pending again.. So what is the current status on AI-assisted artwork? I would like some clarity to make sure my future uploads comply with out standards.
Also, at what point do pictures like these cross the line from AI-assisted to AI-generated?
Tsumanne said:
As a long time cosplayer, post #6287020 looks like a Cosplay Photo run through a filter to appear anime-esque to me. First time I've seen something like this on danbooru where not just a plain cosplay photo, but what appears to be an attempt to make it look painted/illustrated. I'm of the opinion that this is not a place for cosplay photos. Plenty of sites dedicated to that. Even if technically a photo filter is AI assist so to speak.
Unless I am completely wrong here.
looks to me like they just put a filter over it. looks nothing like AI.
Ola said:
post #6283115
post #6281610
post #6245269
post #6245259Initially uploaded the bottom two without having found the source, got eventually approved but tagged as Ai-assisted (Artist seems to have used Ai as a basis, but painted over it?). I figured since it was merely AI-assisted it was fine to upload one or two more since the quality looked alright to me, now all four are pending again.. So what is the current status on AI-assisted artwork?
What makes you think that it was painted over? These two art styles are completely inside the realm of what AI can do. Have you actually looked at them at full size? They’re all extremely blurry and extremely noisy. No artist would draw like that. Artists usually don’t use noise (unless they’re going for a very specific effect) because it looks bad. But noise is very good at distracting from imperfections and tricking the human brain into thinking there are more details than there actually are. I’m quite sure that the blurriness is the result of upscaling the lowres AI art and the noise was added to conceal the blurriness and lack of details. Rule of thumb: the more noise was added, the more the artist has to hide. I’m actually suspecting that this is 100% AI + upscale + noise.
Btw, if you adjust the levels of post #6283115, you can see the background patterns that are typical for AI trying to fill the background with something generated instead of filling it with a solid color like a human would do. See here.
Also, at what point do pictures like these cross the line from AI-assisted to AI-generated?
Opinions on that vary wildly. Generally, it depends on whether or not the AI did the “hard” work and/or the amount of AI involvement vs the amount of human involvement.
By my standards, this would be AI-assisted:
By my standards, this would be AI-generated:
In the beginning, when AI couldn’t draw hands, fixing hands would be considered AI-assisted because drawing good hands isn’t easy. Nowadays, AI can do a good job with hands too.
Some other approvers have other standards, though. Fixed a finger and nothing else? AI-assisted. Sloppily painted over a stray strand of hair? AI-assisted. Applied the same set of Photoshop filters to several images? AI-assisted. After all, the human did something, so it’s not fully AI-generated. While I’m obviously trying to exaggerate here, sometimes I feel like this isn’t actually an exaggeration and it’s actually not too far from the truth in some cases.
I would like some clarity to make sure my future uploads comply with out standards.
Detecting AI art can be pretty hard, but at least when it’s blurry and noisy, stay away from it. That also means: view the image at full size before considering to upload it.
Updated
Hereinafter said:
Eyes, nipples, fluid, ribbon, etc. look all screwy. Aspect ratio and resolution is also bang on default settings for some AI generators. I'm certain it's fully AI with no clean-up, you wouldn't leave so many basic elements malformed.
kittey said:
What makes you think that it was painted over? These two art styles are completely inside the realm of what AI can do. Have you actually looked at them at full size? They’re all extremely blurry and extremely noisy. No artist would draw like that. Artists usually don’t use noise (unless they’re going for a very specific effect) because it looks bad. But noise is very good at distracting from imperfections and tricking the human brain into thinking there are more details than there actually are. I’m quite sure that the blurriness is the result of upscaling the lowres AI art and the noise was added to conceal the blurriness and lack of details. Rule of thumb: the more noise was added, the more the artist has to hide. I’m actually suspecting that this is 100% AI + upscale + noise.
Btw, if you adjust the levels of post #6283115, you can see the background patterns that are typical for AI trying to fill the background with something generated instead of filling it with a solid color like a human would do. See here.
Opinions on that vary wildly. Generally, it depends on whether or not the AI did the “hard” work and/or the amount of AI involvement vs the amount of human involvement.
By my standards, this would be AI-assisted:
- Artist draws character, uses AI background.
- Artist draws scenic image and adds small AI-generated character to liven up the scene.
- AI-generated image but artist paints over everything (and does a reasonably good job).
By my standards, this would be AI-generated:
- AI-generated image with a bunch of Photoshop filters on top.
- AI-generated image and artist fixes a small part.
- AI-generated image and the artist fixes several parts but does a bad job (probably because they can’t actually draw).
In the beginning, when AI couldn’t draw hands, fixing hands would be considered AI-assisted because drawing good hands isn’t easy. Nowadays, AI can do a good job with hands too.
Some other approvers have other standards, though. Fixed a finger and nothing else? AI-assisted. Sloppily painted over a stray strand of hair? AI-assisted. Applied the same set of Photoshop filters to several images? AI-assisted. After all, the human did something, so it’s not fully AI-generated. While I’m obviously trying to exaggerate here, sometimes I feel like this isn’t actually an exaggeration and it’s actually not too far from the truth in some cases.
Detecting AI art can be pretty hard, but at least when it’s blurry and noisy, stay away from it. That also means: view the image at full size before considering to upload it.
Thanks for the very comprehensive answer, you bring up quite a few points I'll be more mindful of in the future.
I don't understand why Danbooru won't accept AI generated images. Sure, many of them are garbage, but there is also gold. Creating images with AI help is gonna be meta in the future, so how do we decide wich images are allowed? if i fix my AI generated images manually, for example, should it be banned? What amount of human manual labor should be considered before a image is no longer "AI generated"? What about Inpaint tools, are them considered manual or AI? The "ban everything" approach is far too simple and contra-productive.
edit: sorry for my bad english
AIPet said:
…
you know ai-assisted is a tag, right? scroll up a bit to where kittey literally explained it. forum #241342
BobTheBuilder_v1 said:
you know ai-assisted is a tag, right? scroll up a bit to where kittey literally explained it. forum #241342
Yeah i saw that, but i don't think that the presented definition is enough (as i said, what amount of human intervention is enough? that is completely subjective and not clear in my opinion). Besides that, i am not sure that the "good/bad job" should be taken into consideration when deciding if something is AI-assisted or not. Also, i realized that this thread is not the right place to discuss this, my bad.
Thank you for the reply though.
AIPet said:
how do we decide wich images are allowed?
Notwithstanding the ethic/copyright debate around AI, Danbooru has been using a human approval system since long before AI art was a thing. The idea is every submission is going to enter a moderation queue to be reviewed by approvers, who are asked to only approve images they subjectively like. May sound surprising but that has been how Danbooru works.
So you may think the human work required by ai-assisted is subjective, but the truth is Danbooru has always been a subjectively curated gallery. This system may not sound like a good idea, and I thought so when I first discovered that one of my uploads was deleted due to "13 [approvers] did not like the post enough to approve it". But historical discussions about it in this forum would show that it is the "least bad" system Danbooru has ever tried.
AIPet said:
I don't understand why Danbooru won't accept AI generated images. Sure, many of them are garbage, but there is also gold. Creating images with AI help is gonna be meta in the future, so how do we decide wich images are allowed? if i fix my AI generated images manually, for example, should it be banned? What amount of human manual labor should be considered before a image is no longer "AI generated"? What about Inpaint tools, are them considered manual or AI? The "ban everything" approach is far too simple and contra-productive.
edit: sorry for my bad english
As you said, there's too much garbage. Relaxing the rules would turn Danbooru into the next Deviantart.
Updated
I know this artist offers PSD as paid reward, and I don't have a strong suspicion, but it still reminds me about AI's style.
Updated
There was no AI tag on pixiv, and I only noticed the weird hand after uploading.
