Tagged AI-generated. Has a suspicious art style at a first glance, not to mention few artworks on their Pixiv, but I need a second opinion before pressing the flag button.
Posted under General
Tagged AI-generated. Has a suspicious art style at a first glance, not to mention few artworks on their Pixiv, but I need a second opinion before pressing the flag button.
FivePastNever said:
post #8641091 got flagged without a tag
Anyone able to confirm this flag?
Yeah, this artist remove him 'bad generated' works to hide using ai.
https://www.zerochan.net/ao~ There's a lot of old works.
Knowledge_Seeker said:
Tagged AI-generated. Has a suspicious art style at a first glance, not to mention few artworks on their Pixiv, but I need a second opinion before pressing the flag button.
Yeah, this artist remove him 'bad generated' works to hide using ai.
https://www.zerochan.net/ao~ There's a lot of old works.
Tagged but approved
MegaFlare said:
Tagged but approved
Well this post exist https://x.com/kiyabetsuart/status/1885627653845127415 so I don't think that post is ai generated
imhypnotized said:
Well this post exist https://x.com/kiyabetsuart/status/1885627653845127415 so I don't think that post is ai generated
A simple lineart like that is trivial to generate if you can get it to output full images, so unfortunately this is meaningless.
post #8824761
Has an AI look to it, no source or artist tagged.
post #8826124
Flagged but not tagged.
These seem like shit flags, there's no actual explanation as to how they're AI-generated, no detailed rejection messages backing it up, and scrolling through the thread the only mention I found related to this account was that they purged old AI generations. That doesn't mean their new works are generated; they could have switched to human art or are in the process with AI-assisted and wanted a new lease on their account away from blatant slop. I think this needs a second check on if they're really fully AI generating.
Having doubts.
WRS said:
These seem like shit flags, there's no actual explanation as to how they're AI-generated, no detailed rejection messages backing it up, and scrolling through the thread the only mention I found related to this account was that they purged old AI generations. That doesn't mean their new works are generated; they could have switched to human art or are in the process with AI-assisted and wanted a new lease on their account away from blatant slop. I think this needs a second check on if they're really fully AI generating.
Still being flagged for the same reasonless accusation but today the rest have all been flagged by two different people, so I'm just going to appeal them all and force them to be checked again time after the flag unless someone actually responds or gives a detailed rejection reason proving so. I don't like this notion of accusing an artist for continuing to AI generate simply because they deleted things off their profile. They could've easily switched to human or assisted art. One of them literally has a revision at the source, it's absurd to think everything posted is 100% generated with zero human involvement.
Also the posts are being edit warred to keep the tag even though there's still no reasonable explanation from anyone. I'm starting to just not be assed at this point. This is annoying and silly. If you want to keep the tag then how about actually explaining how it's AI-generated? The flag is bad and so is warring the tag onto the post without any nuance.
Updated
Okay, let me make myself clear. I did not flag these works because someone said the "artist" was covering their tracks. I expect them to do that, half the time. What made me press the nuke button was when I noticed all but one of the artist's gallery, including post #8811959, was in fact tagged as AI Art (https://www.zerochan.net/4363636). Also, compare post #8809061 to post #8718680. They are not rendered similarly, in a way I personally have a hard time believing this artist to be capable of naturally.
Now, admittedly, this is one I was on the fence over. "Suspicious art style" is not inherently a red flag, after all, knowing how AI works. That's why I brought it in initially as opposed to immediately flagging them. But you will find that I, too, do not appreciate your lack of evidence. So unless you have any actual evidence in that they are not AI beyond mere intuition, then I will stand by my initial assessment and politely ask for them to be reflagged.
Updated
That's not how any of this works at all. Since when do we use purely how an image is tagged on a third party site to determine if an image is AI-generated or not? Any post can have tags added to them but that never means they're right and should be believed at face value. You never know if someone tagged all of them as AI simply because previous uploads also had the same.
The burden of proof isn't on me because I'm not the one accusing them of AI generation, you are, so you should actually be able to point out some of the issues in the flag if you really believe that. Just going off of the most vague, unreliable information should not be grounds for a flag. This is such a bad argument to make and falsely treating this as an equivalence and two way street when in reality it's not.
Artists don't deserve to get randomly flagged because a builder on this site thinks they're AI-generated. There's no grounds for reflagging these images unless they're actually proven to be against our uploading rules. Come up with a better excuse. We don't need to hound artists for timelapses and WIPs just to make sure they don't get accused as though this is Twitter. If you're going to flag for AI, then do the bare minimum to point out the issues.
Honestly, I'm not even irritated by the idea of being wrong on this one. I'm irritated by the fact no one has done anything to actually prove me wrong. So if I'm wrong, just give me any reason beyond what I've observed. Simply telling me I am wrong and to "do better" (when I actually did bring up a detail I noticed besides the Zerochan thing, must I remind you) does not exactly inspire me to change my mind, you know. If you're going to make a big deal over this, you really oughta have some evidence, at least, to back yourself up. That's literally all I'm asking for here.
Knowledge_Seeker said:
Also, compare post #8809061 to post #8718680. They are not rendered similarly, in a way I personally have a hard time believing this artist to be capable of naturally.
A hunch is no grounds for a witch hunt. And also, both of those posts are revisions, so unless you think AI can generate revisions, it is at most ai-assisted.