AI-generated art check thread

nonamethanks said:

Please point at the exact details you're talking about when making this kind of claims, ESPECIALLY if you're going to add ai-generated to dozens of posts. I personally can't see anything obvious about those posts.

I don't know how you can look at post #6401187 and say it's ai-generated. You can literally see the color brushstrokes in 4k. Just look at the armpits.
Look at the eyes in post #6362493, you can count the amount of times the artist clicked on the eyes in order to color them. How is that ai-generated??

• post #6362493 : the left side of the bang stopping itself right on the eyelashes, the hair warping around the hands, the bunny ear headband, the hair ornamant (take the usual look of this character's hair ornament), the one strand of sidelock stopping right at the neck as if it somehow goes behind it, the rendering of the leotard around the waist.
• post #6429665 : the hair ornament, the bangs disappearing behind the eyelid fold on one side while it does it behind the eyelashes on the other, the animal ear fluff, the nonsensical hair strands on the sides including, but not limited to the one strand on the right side that separates then fuses back into the sidelock in a weird way
• post #6513304 : hair around the shoulder, again the eyes vs bangs shenanigans except with the bonus of the eyelashes that themselves stop on the bangs strands outline, the lower part of the hair with nonsensical strands again
• post #6489144 : The hair. I don't need to say more for this one
• post #6401187 : the right side hair strand that covers the ear comes out of nothing, the high bangs parting looking sus within the overall hair look, on the left-side the outline of the breast being confused between outlining the breast and its puffy areola and outlining the base of the thumb as if it comes in front of the breast even though nothing like it happens on the right-side, the sides of the waist and the elbows with them looking very sus as well especially the right-side

i could go on but i'm guessing i don't need to and it's better i don't, so people actually read this comment through.

I get that there is style consistency, but come on.

It really looks to me like the artist is painting directly over AI-generated output, hence the visible brushstrokes and lack of warping (while more substantial mistakes remain unfixed). That would be AI-assisted rather than AI-generated.

feline_lump said:

It really looks to me like the artist is painting directly over AI-generated output, hence the visible brushstrokes and lack of warping (while more substantial mistakes remain unfixed). That would be AI-assisted rather than AI-generated.

I'd argue "more substantial mistakes remain unfixed" disqualifies the posts from being ai-assisted.

8253803 said:

I'd argue "more substantial mistakes remain unfixed" disqualifies the posts from being ai-assisted.

The definition of AI-assisted is:

This tag is for pictures that were initially ai-generated but then painted over or retouched by an artist.

That's exactly what these posts are. The fact that they traced over work with blatant errors is a quality issue, but it does not retroactively make the image not painted over.

feline_lump said:

The definition of AI-assisted is:

That's exactly what these posts are. The fact that they traced over work with blatant errors is a quality issue, but it does not retroactively make the image not painted over.

Note that AI image generation is a very transient topic and our approach to it evolves quite rapidly. Wikis lag behind, compared to the discussions about the blurry line between ai-assisted and ai-generated that have taken place in this post and elsewhere. The edit history of this Wiki suggests that it has not been amended actively. I'm in the impression that at least we in this thread have come to expect a certain level of human effort before the post can be called ai-assisted.

However, in images listed by Mayhem-Chan, and in these examples below, I suspect the artist's input in the creation process amounts to adding small accessories and giving the image a painterly filter, due to some errors that stand out strongly:

post #6535716: The silver stuff under her left ear is supposed to be the headphone of Eyjafjalla the Hvit Aska (refer to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4V-62rncW3M), yet its position does not make sense relative to her ear and horn. A strand of hair starts from nowhere near her neck. Her ponytail's strands terminate and sharply restart in an inexplicable way at the color transition.

post #6380243: Her neck should not connect to her torso like that. Her lower left leg, supposedly pointing away from the viewer, is abnormally thick. Her forehead mark is wrong and should have been a very easy fix.

nonamethanks is still right though, we should have listed the reasons. And I agree to giving the less determinable cases ai-assisted tags.

post #6546391: I don't see any dead giveaways and the artist has plenty of history drawing their art, but I just have a little bit of a suspicious feeling about it and would like some more eyes on it. I think the most specific suspicious thing I can point out is the fading upper bikini bottom strap on her left (right side of the picture) that doesn't follow her skin -- AI also likes to draw that style of bikini bottom IIRC.

Super_Affection said:

post #6546391: I don't see any dead giveaways and the artist has plenty of history drawing their art, but I just have a little bit of a suspicious feeling about it and would like some more eyes on it. I think the most specific suspicious thing I can point out is the fading upper bikini bottom strap on her left (right side of the picture) that doesn't follow her skin -- AI also likes to draw that style of bikini bottom IIRC.

I think that's not enough to raise concern. Maybe this is one of the more "rkgk" paintings as Japanese artists would call it. You can probably wait for their next work and see.

8253803 said:

Note that AI image generation is a very transient topic and our approach to it evolves quite rapidly. Wikis lag behind, compared to the discussions about the blurry line between ai-assisted and ai-generated that have taken place in this post and elsewhere. The edit history of this Wiki suggests that it has not been amended actively. I'm in the impression that at least we in this thread have come to expect a certain level of human effort before the post can be called ai-assisted.

However, in images listed by Mayhem-Chan, and in these examples below, I suspect the artist's input in the creation process amounts to adding small accessories and giving the image a painterly filter, due to some errors that stand out strongly:

post #6535716: The silver stuff under her left ear is supposed to be the headphone of Eyjafjalla the Hvit Aska (refer to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4V-62rncW3M), yet its position does not make sense relative to her ear and horn. A strand of hair starts from nowhere near her neck. Her ponytail's strands terminate and sharply restart in an inexplicable way at the color transition.

post #6380243: Her neck should not connect to her torso like that. Her lower left leg, supposedly pointing away from the viewer, is abnormally thick. Her forehead mark is wrong and should have been a very easy fix.

nonamethanks is still right though, we should have listed the reasons. And I agree to giving the less determinable cases ai-assisted tags.

I brought out the textbook definition because vector trace-esque posts are very much unambiguous examples of what AI-assisted was made for, and banning them would have broader implications for traces in general. All of the mistakes that have been pointed out are typical of artists that overwhelmingly trace art and do not have the lineart skill to proactively fix (or possibly even recognize) errors in the underlying artwork. Judging whether an image was traced or filtered involves looking at the quality of the linework and coloring itself, rather than the overall structure of the image, and this aspect is more crisp and humanlike than any filter I'm aware of.

(This isn't a defense of the quality of these pics, by the way, and I think it would be reasonable if someone were to flag them for uncorrected AI artifacts. I'd just like to steer clear of conflating image quality with human involvement.)

Super_Affection said:

post #6546391: I don't see any dead giveaways and the artist has plenty of history drawing their art, but I just have a little bit of a suspicious feeling about it and would like some more eyes on it. I think the most specific suspicious thing I can point out is the fading upper bikini bottom strap on her left (right side of the picture) that doesn't follow her skin -- AI also likes to draw that style of bikini bottom IIRC.

The bikini strap is pretty badly aliased in this picture, but not necessarily in a way that's suggestive of AI. I'd particularly expect the intersection of eyelashes and bangs to be a huge clusterfuck in an AI-generated image, but this picture properly traces the position of each individual strand.

feline_lump said:

I brought out the textbook definition because vector trace-esque posts are very much unambiguous examples of what AI-assisted was made for, and banning them would have broader implications for traces in general.

Fair. Can low-effort ai-assisted posts be flagged according to the ban of AI?

8253803 said:

Fair. Can low-effort ai-assisted posts be flagged according to the ban of AI?

Given what you seem to think of as being "low-effort ai-assisted" you should probably steer clear of flagging anything.

8253803 said:

Note that AI image generation is a very transient topic and our approach to it evolves quite rapidly. Wikis lag behind, compared to the discussions about the blurry line between ai-assisted and ai-generated that have taken place in this post and elsewhere. The edit history of this Wiki suggests that it has not been amended actively. I'm in the impression that at least we in this thread have come to expect a certain level of human effort before the post can be called ai-assisted.

The wiki doesn't get updated much because it's up to the admins to dictate site policy, not us. If you think there's an issue you'll have to take it up with them, but they've already expressed repeatedly that they don't think AI-assisted images are inherently an issue.

Mayhem-Chan said:

i genuinely think it's fair to go with ai-generated on anything where typical AI shenanigans are glaring and unfixed, if those things are still there then the artist's involvement in the piece, if there is any, is too superficial to warrant ai-assisted

With all due respect, you have no authority on the subject and should not be trying to change our policy.

I'd prefer to stay out of this argument, but if a post has glaring AI artifacts that haven't been fixed, wouldn't it be flaggable on the grounds of bad quality regardless of how you choose to classify it?

Super_Affection said:

I'd prefer to stay out of this argument, but if a post has glaring AI artifacts that haven't been fixed, wouldn't it be flaggable on the grounds of bad quality regardless of how you choose to classify it?

There's no argument here.
Yes, although it is likely going to be deleted as unapproved in the first place. E.g. post #6359257, post #6071930

Talulah said:

With all due respect, you have no authority on the subject and should not be trying to change our policy.

With all due respect, it has nothing to do with me pretending to have authority on the subject, I don't think it's "trying to change policy" to express that an AI generated image that has a half-assed 10 human brush strokes sprinkled in it isn't the same as a hand-drawn character with a blurred AI background for example; otherwise we might as well count an upscale and a couple filters on an ai-generated image as ai-assisted too. Is that policy?

post #6383619

Personally don't have a strong enough reason to think it is ai-assisted, but asking here just in case.

post #6556087
Flag without a tag again.

ion288 said:

post #6556087
Flag without a tag again.

Looks like there could be some touch-ups here (like the clothes writing), but a lot of raw AI output has been left untouched, which starts to become evident when you view the original res. Problematic areas include the first girl's eyes and ears, the second girl's bag and boots, the third girl's eyes, and the fourth girl's backpack.

The artist's other post (post #6556082) also appears artifacted around the eyelids, brooch, and hand.

post #6561603 feels ai-assisted

hdk5 said:

post #6561603 feels ai-assisted

No doubt AI is heavily involved in this one, zooming in, multiple spots of hair melt (sidelock below her right ear for example, on our left), eyes are somewhat weird, there are weirdnesses and inconsistencies in lineart all around, the frills also (especially those on the skirt), and even the rendering on the sleeves looks like the typical simulation of brush strokes from ai

hdk5 said:

post #6561603 feels ai-assisted

Mayhem-Chan said:

No doubt AI is heavily involved in this one, zooming in, multiple spots of hair melt (sidelock below her right ear for example, on our left), eyes are somewhat weird, there are weirdnesses and inconsistencies in lineart all around, the frills also (especially those on the skirt), and even the rendering on the sleeves looks like the typical simulation of brush strokes from ai

Also, contour of the butt doesn't line up behind the shins.

8253803 said:

Also, contour of the butt doesn't line up behind the shins.

pretty baffling i completely missed this