Posted under General
Marlor said:
96.8% on hive - yeah yeah, I know it might not be accurate yet but it's definitely how AI will be detected in the future and not because of human eyes
"Don't use AI detectors" isn't said because they're off by a few percent, it's said because they are incredibly prone to false positives. Even if it says 100%, the output is not to be trusted at all.
post #7890222
So, is this, in fact, AI-assisted, as OP claims? I checked the source post, and there is no claim that this was redrawn by a human. It looks fully AI-generated to me, but I can't flag it because the post is still waiting for approval. Also, it's a self upload, so it's unlikely to be productive to change the tag to AI-generated, as the original poster seems quit combative, based on their twitter comments. Of course, the AI-assisted tag is only supposed to apply where there is substantial redrawing, which the OP doesn't seem to even be claiming to have done here. None of the brush strokes look human; further there's a few obvious AI artifacts that haven't been fixed, such as the drop of sweat/pussyjuice on the left asscheek "melting" into the lineart; the lineart's thickness and colour varies from line to line; and the lighting is highly non-physical (where is the light coming from?), The asscheeks lighter than the surrounding skin, and have highlights on them; they have what look like tan-lines, but these "tan lines" disappear at the groin, so this is a lighting error, and one that a human would be unlikely to keep through the redrawing process. As such, I don't think this qualifies as AI-assisted.
Based on their history of posts here on dan, they appear to believe that
I spend a lot of time editing the generated material.
is enough to have their uploads pass the AI-assisted check. But, again, any AI-gen work will need to be carefully cherry-picked, up-scaled, in-painted, etc. before it will look at all decent, but none of that actually involves a human putting pen to tablet. It's just post-processing with a myriad of other AI tools, which will still create an end product that looks distinctly "AI"; and, to my eye, anyways, that seems to have been all the "editing" they have done to their works. For me, my standard is always, can I see human brush strokes, and has the human removed obvious artifacts or errors crated by the AI. if the answer to both of those is yes, I'm inclined to say that the work should count as AI-assisted, whereas if the answer to one or both is no, I tend to feel that the work should count as AI-generated. What are others opinions on this? Do you tend to feel that substantial redrawing is required, before a post will qualify as AI-assisted?
all posts from artist kiona_(redz5824) check
post #7252680
Ye olde "flag but not tag"
This artist looks pretty assisted to me though, but it should be discussed first.
Fyol said:
all posts from artist kiona_(redz5824) check
I'm leaning towards fully generated, the lineart is just completely fucked in those posts.
post #5913566 and earlier look fine, but latest post look like AI.
岩戸鈴芽 said:
post #5913566 and earlier look fine, but latest post look like AI.
Rather low resolution and marred by heavy noise/grain, but I couldn’t spot any actual AI artifacts within a minute. Seems fine to me.
post #7907936
Out of focus at weird places and Shiroko Terror looks like she's missing part of her side. With previous art from same artist I thought it's just weird style, but this one looks either as too heavily AI assisted or fully AI generated.
I wasn't aware of the whole thing with the artist until I posted it and I looked around and didn't see clear signs, but figured I'd get a check, though I'm not expecting the post to survive
https://danbooru.donmai.us/posts/7894777
This one's being debated.
Additionally,
https://danbooru.donmai.us/posts/7400630
https://danbooru.donmai.us/posts/6703228
https://danbooru.donmai.us/posts/7608149
https://danbooru.donmai.us/posts/7522365
https://danbooru.donmai.us/posts/7430925
https://danbooru.donmai.us/posts/7430906
These six were all slapped with AI tags seemingly without any discussion. I don't really agree with anyone being able to just drive by posts like that and potentially hurt their approval chances without at least an explanation. Did these ever get talked about?
blindVigil said:
These six were all slapped with AI tags seemingly without any discussion. I don't really agree with anyone being able to just drive by posts like that and potentially hurt their approval chances without at least an explanation. Did these ever get talked about?
I thought this artist was obvious enough to not warrant discussion, but if you want details:
Not sure of the exact point where the artist started overrelying on AI but the ones in the same style as above should all be tagged ai-assisted.
DennouNeko said:
post #7907936
Out of focus at weird places and Shiroko Terror looks like she's missing part of her side. With previous art from same artist I thought it's just weird style, but this one looks either as too heavily AI assisted or fully AI generated.
It's amateur art that might've been traced from something but the brushwork is thoroughly human, ironically the wonky anatomy and faces are what screams "not AI" here.
prickly-chan_(ycactussprout). Inconsistent art styles and high variance in quality. AI over human drawn line art? The hair will be rendered well then the rest of the character looks meh.
hazuein. I've previously mentioned this artist, still sus.
Updated
runninghomeharuka said:
prickly-chan_(ycactussprout). Inconsistent art styles and high variance in quality. AI over human drawn line art? The hair will be rendered well then the rest of the character looks meh.
Yeah, blatant tracing/paintover, most likely from AI but could also be official art or other artists. Across every piece the human strokes (lineart) are flat and stiff as if the artist were either using vector lines to draw or just had no idea what pen pressure and weights are, which is impossible to reconcile with the actually well-rendered areas like the hair and clothes. Closer inspection also reveals some wacky stuff like the potential remnants of references they were tracing over and forgot to set the opacity of back to 0% before exporting.
hazuein. I've previously mentioned this artist, still sus.
IMO this is one of those cases where anyone can tell AI is involved in some way from the style and context, but it's consistent and lacks artefacts, so there's not much you can do about it.
post #6348131
post #6340771
shuta
These were tagged ai-generated. Somehow, I doubt that they are. Does anyone know if they are?
runninghomeharuka said:
post #6348131
post #6340771
shutaThese were tagged ai-generated. Somehow, I doubt that they are. Does anyone know if they are?
It's the kind of style that AI has an incredibly easy time generating because it's so messy, so that's worth keeping in mind. It doesn't look that out of place compared to their (admittedly ancient) works though, but it's also one of the styles I'm not to good at recognizing AI in, so I wouldn't know for certain.
runninghomeharuka said:
post #6348131
post #6340771
shutaThese were tagged ai-generated. Somehow, I doubt that they are. Does anyone know if they are?
“Know” probably not, but they’re full of artifacts that I’ve seen not only in AI-generators, but especially AI-upscalers. This is quite an interesting case because the original likely generated art uses an art style that AI-upscalers handle terribly. My guess is that both are AI-generated + AI-upscaled and then had a few highly textured brush strokes slapped on. The highly textured areas are especially jarring in post #6340771.
https://danbooru.donmai.us/posts/7927154?q=tokidoki_bosotto_roshia-go_de_dereru_tonari_no_alya-san+sex+ bruh the "artist" is so bad now...
