Posted under General
Freshblink said:
Should we consider all their illustrations then?
I randomly opened a bunch of their artworks. This is far from an exhaustive list but so far, I have found unambiguously melty lines in these posts. There were other posts I looked at where it wasn't as immediately obvious; I didn't include them in the list.
BKaz20 said:
There are two artists whose works I uploaded to my assets a while back, only to find out later that AI was involved. I've always been hesitant to post them, since I'm unsure if they're AI-generated or simply AI-assisted.
The first of these is Ganyo226. They're actually completely upfront about their use of AI; what I'm unsure about is to what extent AI is involved in their work. Their bio and post descriptions are seemingly machine-translated (rather poorly, I might add), which makes it hard to figure out what they're trying to say.
Their bio on Pixiv says "works draw almost by myself have sign, AIイラスト works haven't!" I'm assuming this means that any post with their signature was made by them, and anything without a signature was made by AI, but the broken English makes it very unclear. Still, I think my interpretation is correct, as it does seem to line up with what they post. Pretty much every post of theirs which lacks a signature is labelled as AI-generated, and vice-versa.
But then there's this post, which just makes things even more confusing. It has a signature, and is not labelled as AI, but the description implies that AI was involved in some capacity. Here's what it says:
"oh I'm late
her birthday is yesterday
actually this scean is done by AI assistantちゃん
and I think I have a long time never draw her so ...
I redraw tamaki and it spend a long time
yesterday I just finish the line part and color blocks
I can't put the first draft so think it must be late..
well the background I still use the AI part, the ambience really good!!
character maybe a little bit not as detail as the background, it still a good experience!"Once again, the broken English makes it hard to figure out what they're trying to say. I genuinely cannot tell if they're saying that the work as a whole is AI-assisted, or if it simply has an AI-generated background. I'm leaning towards the latter, as it does seem similar enough in style to their non-AI works, but I'd prefer to get a second opinion before committing to uploading it.
The second of these is Yunbu M. They're also upfront about their use of AI, but I'm once again unsure about the extent to which they use it. Assuming Google Translate is accurate, their Pixiv bio says that they used to do hand-drawn work, but had to stop due to an arm injury, and now use AI. That makes it sound like everything they post is fully AI-generated, but it also says on their profile that they use Photoshop, and their Twitter bio says the use "AI + hand-painted finish" (also assuming Google Translate is accurate). Their Patreon bio also has a section that translates to this:
"Regarding the use of AI, the illustrations and manga on this page are
- Story and panel layout are done manually.
- AI is used to generate the base character and then effects are added.
- The AI model used has been confirmed to be commercially available and only licensed materials are used for training."
Is that enough for their work to qualify as AI-assisted? Part of the reason I'm so confused by this is that there doesn't seem to be a clear-cut rule for what level of AI assistance is "okay" on Danbooru. The wiki says it needs to have been "made with sufficient human involvement," but that's kind of vague. This grey area is the reason I typically avoid AI-assisted content when looking for potential uploads; the only reason I'm even considering these two is because they're already in my assets, but maybe they're better left unposted.
Sorry to bump this, but I noticed that I never got a respone to this. I'm still unsure whether these are AI-generated or AI-assisted, so if someone would be willing to help me with this, I'd be grateful.
Check the artist:
blotter_art
Upon closer inspection this is likely AI generated with obvious artifacts (see the patterns). I checked the artist's Pixiv, and I noticed that both pixiv #139960810 and pixiv #139978181 are tagged as AI generated. They also posted a lot of stuff like these as of late in their Pixiv, so lightning 22 is likely to be an AI prompter. Their other posts should be checked as well.
Updated by エセムビ
エセムビ said:
Upon closer inspection this is likely AI generated with obvious artifacts (see the patterns). I checked the artist's Pixiv, and I noticed that both pixiv #139960810 and pixiv #139978181 are tagged as AI generated. They also posted a lot of stuff like these as of late in their Pixiv, so lightning 22 is likely to be an AI prompter. Their other posts should be checked as well.
Looking at translated commentaries under some are we sure lightning 22 is an artist/prompter, not a commissioner?
Although... looking at their pixiv flood of pictures, they are both a prompter and a commissioner.
Edit: removed lightning 22 as artist from post #9815975 and its' child. They name one "椰子" as the artist in commentary. post #5430901 is noted as second party source, although a commissioner is named.
Updated by Alabel
I don't see it.
ion288 said:
I don't see it.
This post has come up in conversation before: forum #401195.
BKaz20 said:
There are two artists whose works I uploaded to my assets a while back, only to find out later that AI was involved. I've always been hesitant to post them, since I'm unsure if they're AI-generated or simply AI-assisted.
The first of these is Ganyo226. They're actually completely upfront about their use of AI; what I'm unsure about is to what extent AI is involved in their work. Their bio and post descriptions are seemingly machine-translated (rather poorly, I might add), which makes it hard to figure out what they're trying to say.
Their bio on Pixiv says "works draw almost by myself have sign, AIイラスト works haven't!" I'm assuming this means that any post with their signature was made by them, and anything without a signature was made by AI, but the broken English makes it very unclear. Still, I think my interpretation is correct, as it does seem to line up with what they post. Pretty much every post of theirs which lacks a signature is labelled as AI-generated, and vice-versa.
But then there's this post, which just makes things even more confusing. It has a signature, and is not labelled as AI, but the description implies that AI was involved in some capacity. Here's what it says:
"oh I'm late
her birthday is yesterday
actually this scean is done by AI assistantちゃん
and I think I have a long time never draw her so ...
I redraw tamaki and it spend a long time
yesterday I just finish the line part and color blocks
I can't put the first draft so think it must be late..
well the background I still use the AI part, the ambience really good!!
character maybe a little bit not as detail as the background, it still a good experience!"Once again, the broken English makes it hard to figure out what they're trying to say. I genuinely cannot tell if they're saying that the work as a whole is AI-assisted, or if it simply has an AI-generated background. I'm leaning towards the latter, as it does seem similar enough in style to their non-AI works, but I'd prefer to get a second opinion before committing to uploading it.
The second of these is Yunbu M. They're also upfront about their use of AI, but I'm once again unsure about the extent to which they use it. Assuming Google Translate is accurate, their Pixiv bio says that they used to do hand-drawn work, but had to stop due to an arm injury, and now use AI. That makes it sound like everything they post is fully AI-generated, but it also says on their profile that they use Photoshop, and their Twitter bio says the use "AI + hand-painted finish" (also assuming Google Translate is accurate). Their Patreon bio also has a section that translates to this:
"Regarding the use of AI, the illustrations and manga on this page are
- Story and panel layout are done manually.
- AI is used to generate the base character and then effects are added.
- The AI model used has been confirmed to be commercially available and only licensed materials are used for training."
Is that enough for their work to qualify as AI-assisted? Part of the reason I'm so confused by this is that there doesn't seem to be a clear-cut rule for what level of AI assistance is "okay" on Danbooru. The wiki says it needs to have been "made with sufficient human involvement," but that's kind of vague. This grey area is the reason I typically avoid AI-assisted content when looking for potential uploads; the only reason I'm even considering these two is because they're already in my assets, but maybe they're better left unposted.
@BKaz20
Ganyo226
Their active works seem fine; there might be some melty lines, but they're very subtle, to the point where I can't tell if they're a result of generation or not. pixiv #129888860: I think your supposition about this piece is correct; I don't see any issues with the character and it's similar in style to their art from before AI was around, but the flowers to the right are nonsense. I think the girl and the cat are human drawn, and the rest is an ai-generated background. It should be fine to post, a fully drawn character is probably "sufficient human involvement". Edit; I think it's true that their signed works are human drawn or at least assisted. pixiv #131357951 is signed and I can't see any issues with it.
Yunbu M
I'm much more suspicious of this artist. I've spotted ai artifacts in every artwork I've looked at, including the active post here on Danbooru. I wouldn't post their art.
Updated by Placeholder1996
Images look a lot like iwano kenta or loliconder. Daily posts on Twitter that all are very basic 1024x1024 resolution images and similar to each other. Major style shift occurred and all images posted as JPEG (simplest way to scrub metadata) on their Pixiv when they returned to posting from October 2023 to July 2025.
Edit: Looking into their Fanbox posts, which contains alts, I'm extremely confident to say these are AI. They are prompted inpaint edits and not at all hand drawn. Everything is also upscaled very poorly with little quality control if any.
Only post #10448701 and post #10444135 would be their hand drawn art.
Updated by deepbooru
deepbooru said in forum #414239:
Images look a lot like iwano kenta or loliconder. Daily posts on Twitter that all are very basic 1024x1024 resolution images and similar to each other. Major style shift occurred and all images posted as JPEG (simplest way to scrub metadata) on their Pixiv when they returned to posting from October 2023 to July 2025.
Edit: Looking into their Fanbox posts, which contains alts, I'm extremely confident to say these are AI. They are prompted inpaint edits and not at all hand drawn. Everything is also upscaled very poorly with little quality control if any.
Only post #10448701 and post #10444135 would be their hand drawn art.
Flagged the remaining Twitter posts. As for the other beside the two mentioned, I'm not sure I can do that without getting aforementioned proof out here. (also I -really- don't want to look at some of them)
When I first found him I figured it's AI-assisted but cleaned up enough to pass muster. I don't see any signs of being purely AI in something like post #10392350, but maybe I just don't know what to look for.
Hereinafter said in forum #414256:
When I first found him I figured it's AI-assisted but cleaned up enough to pass muster. I don't see any signs of being purely AI in something like post #10392350, but maybe I just don't know what to look for.
Far as I can tell there are some oddities, a bit in the eye with color bleeding, shading making no sense, no idea what's going on with her left hand and the bend of the knee. Finally the bit about hair melting into the neck from the flag.
LuxuryRay said in forum #414346:
They have artworks tagged with AI on Pixiv but looks like they were added by users through the Edit work tags (+ symbol).
Not sure, so I'm asking just in case.
There are some definite signs of AI generation in their art. There are nonsense lines in the buttons on post #10500312 and children. More egregiously, the dicky from the same post is full of AI artifacts. The dicky is supposed to be a diamond pattern; see her official art and post #9947711 for examples. The first pixiv post I looked at has a nonsensical bat pattern full of artifacts. However, their work is missing artifacts in some of the more common trouble spots like the eyes and bangs. There might be some human involvement, but I'm not sure if it's enough to qualify for ai-assitance.
pixiv #140175395
pixiv #140139202Any thoughts? They uploaded 12 in two days.
Never mind. I think I found my answer.
Established artist, no obvious artifacts for a post that age. Should I just reapprove?
ion288 said in forum #414366:
Established artist, no obvious artifacts for a post that age. Should I just reapprove?
There's no way that's AI, especially for art that old as you said.
Is jachrysant ai-assisted or ai-generated? They state openly on their pixiv bio that they user Artbreeder, an AI art generator, along with GIMP and Krita.
