95% shit of this guy are just AI-generated with certain fixing + effect Kinda pathetic that no one can tell
I agree that all the recent stuff from this artist gives AI vibes... characters are rarely wearing cannon outfits... identifying character details are sometimes missing... all images are of popular characters with readily available pre-trained LoRAs... So, yeah, with all that in mind, it seems like there's a very strong chance that it's all AI with minimal human intervention- ie, apply a Gaussian noise filter at 6% opacity, maybe add some text. lol. But in my experience reporting AI gen images, reports that aren't well-substantiated by a detailed description of visible AI artifacts in the image in question are often unsuccessful. And, yeah, people can't tell AI pieces and human pieces apart at a glance-- that's kind of the whole point of the way that the AI has been trained. I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to be able to identify AI works at a glance. We're in a sticky situation with AI. It's good enough now that it can pass as human under many circumstances. previously reliable tells like hands and melty lines have become much more subtle. There's no easy answer here. I look at this image and say yeah, it gives me AI vibes, it has the look and feel of a work that the machine can produce; but, I also have spent quite a bit of time (and money, in the form of a GPU) playing with the models, seeing what they can and can't produce, what they struggle with, where they break, firsthand. and, I can't give you a 100%, or even a 90%, guarantee that this image is indeed AI gen. I've been fooled before in both ways. In this particular image, the resolution is too low to zoom in really far and start looking for "human" artifacts-- brush patterns in the shading and line work, colour spillover from fill tools, ect. So it becomes very difficult to say something with a high level of certainty. Considering the other works from the artist, and when they started posting works that look like this, yeah, we can say with a fairly high level of certainty that this artist who "just happened" to start producing works that look like AI images around two years ago, and then also started producing much better looking images a bit under 1 year ago (when the XL models released) is probably not being honest about how these images are being produced. Still, even though it seems quite obvious from our perspective, good luck getting any action taken, either against the artist or against any one work.
"ai-assisted" has basically been accepted here unfortunately
It depends on the amount of assistance. If the only difference between the AI base and the final product is slight retouching, then it still counts as AI-generated. Only works that show a significant application of the artist's own skill can be tagged with AI-assisted.
It depends on the amount of assistance. If the only difference between the AI base and the final product is slight retouching, then it still counts as AI-generated. Only works that show a significant application of the artist's own skill can be tagged with AI-assisted.
there's no way to failproof way to determine the amount of retouching, and the creators can and will lie about the ratio I'd bet big money that a large amount of works in the ai-assissted tag are just that, slightly retouched
I agree that all the recent stuff from this artist gives AI vibes... characters are rarely wearing cannon outfits... identifying character details are sometimes missing... all images are of popular characters with readily available pre-trained LoRAs... So, yeah, with all that in mind, it seems like there's a very strong chance that it's all AI with minimal human intervention- ie, apply a Gaussian noise filter at 6% opacity, maybe add some text. lol. But in my experience reporting AI gen images, reports that aren't well-substantiated by a detailed description of visible AI artifacts in the image in question are often unsuccessful. And, yeah, people can't tell AI pieces and human pieces apart at a glance-- that's kind of the whole point of the way that the AI has been trained. I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to be able to identify AI works at a glance. We're in a sticky situation with AI. It's good enough now that it can pass as human under many circumstances. previously reliable tells like hands and melty lines have become much more subtle. There's no easy answer here. I look at this image and say yeah, it gives me AI vibes, it has the look and feel of a work that the machine can produce; but, I also have spent quite a bit of time (and money, in the form of a GPU) playing with the models, seeing what they can and can't produce, what they struggle with, where they break, firsthand. and, I can't give you a 100%, or even a 90%, guarantee that this image is indeed AI gen. I've been fooled before in both ways. In this particular image, the resolution is too low to zoom in really far and start looking for "human" artifacts-- brush patterns in the shading and line work, colour spillover from fill tools, ect. So it becomes very difficult to say something with a high level of certainty. Considering the other works from the artist, and when they started posting works that look like this, yeah, we can say with a fairly high level of certainty that this artist who "just happened" to start producing works that look like AI images around two years ago, and then also started producing much better looking images a bit under 1 year ago (when the XL models released) is probably not being honest about how these images are being produced. Still, even though it seems quite obvious from our perspective, good luck getting any action taken, either against the artist or against any one work.
Thanks for the detailed and objective supplement. I believe that those who originally drew and have used AI tools can actually distinguish AI images quite easily. But... you see, the downvotes on my comment shows that no one actually give any shit, which I find pathetic. These AI-generated images that have been slightly modified are becoming more prevalent on Twitter.
Thanks for the detailed and objective supplement. I believe that those who originally drew and have used AI tools can actually distinguish AI images quite easily. But... you see, the downvotes on my comment shows that no one actually give any shit, which I find pathetic. These AI-generated images that have been slightly modified are becoming more prevalent on Twitter.
The downvotes are because you phrased it in the most obnoxious way possible; also if you bother to look koahri has making-of videos of actually drawing pictures that are this same style. Soft lighting and adding some blur effect does not make something AI generated.
Leave a comment