This is AI. A quick cursory look at this guy's Twitter account clearly reveals this, plus the fact some tweets like this have AI art hashtags, and 'AI' is in the artist's bio.
I nearly upped this myself when I first saw it because it looked really similar to another artist. I'm thinking this guy used img2img on that artist.
This is AI. A quick cursory look at this guy's Twitter account clearly reveals this, plus the fact some tweets like this have AI art hashtags, and 'AI' is in the artist's bio.
I nearly upped this myself when I first saw it because it looked really similar to another artist. I'm thinking this guy used img2img on that artist.
Ah, I honestly didn't knew that. Kinda wish that this site lets you delete your own post, just so shit like this can be avoided.
This is AI. A quick cursory look at this guy's Twitter account clearly reveals this, plus the fact some tweets like this have AI art hashtags, and 'AI' is in the artist's bio.
I nearly upped this myself when I first saw it because it looked really similar to another artist. I'm thinking this guy used img2img on that artist.
You really don't need all that evidence to identify this as AI. The multiple sets of eyebrows and the mess all over her bangs and eyes is already telling enough.
You really don't need all that evidence to identify this as AI. The multiple sets of eyebrows and the mess all over her bangs and eyes is already telling enough.
You don't need to respond like that to people just giving additional information. You could've done with just saying "there's also the eyebrows and bangs" and left it at that.
You don't need to respond like that to people just giving additional information. You could've done with just saying "there's also the eyebrows and bangs" and left it at that.
They weren't "giving additional information" they were explaining that they recognized it as AI only after looking at the "artist's" account. All I did was point out how unnecessary it is to go through the effort of looking for evidence when the image is covered in easily identifiable AI artifacts.
I didn't even say anything rude? What's your problem?
All I did was point out how unnecessary it is to go through the effort of looking for evidence when the image is covered in easily identifiable AI artifacts.
It is necessary because a lot of people here point out "flaws" in images that turns out aren't actually AI. I provided conclusive proof instead of "hmm this part looks AI to me".
Your comment was a textbook "duh can't you all see this" tone.
See above + you doing this in a lot of comment sections.
That's not how I meant it, but sorry I offended you enough with a comment not directed at you to pick a fight with me over nothing. Please forgive me, manners police, for being anything less than obnoxiously polite in every interaction I have with other people online.
I really don't care if you have a problem with the way I talk. It's not breaking any rules, and I'm not going to stop doing nothing wrong because it bothers you.
They weren't "giving additional information" they were explaining that they recognized it as AI only after looking at the "artist's" account. All I did was point out how unnecessary it is to go through the effort of looking for evidence when the image is covered in easily identifiable AI artifacts.
I didn't even say anything rude? What's your problem?
Many non-AI posts are being flagged simply because someone pointed out a few negative aspects. It's important to check the artist's account to verify their work. If it turns out the artist is not using AI and some of their posts are deleted and tagged as AI-generated, future uploaders might avoid archiving their works here.
You really don't need all that evidence to identify this as AI. The multiple sets of eyebrows and the mess all over her bangs and eyes is already telling enough.
Look if I didn't hesitate uploading this, I would have. What made me hesitate was simply how much it copies the anime's/kerorira's art direction. Copying is certainly something an AI can understand but even this isn't a consistent reason to hesitate, people make style parodys all the time.
Many smaller flaws an AI can make were simply major artistic issues that were vetted in the queue years ago. Humans can make any number of mistakes an AI can, barring a few like the lineart not following the lighting, and even then, photobashing is a thing artists sometimes do. At this point, understanding the pattern of mistakes or liberties individual artists do across several artworks is probably a better way of knowing. If you're only looking at a single image that has been picked from a hundred generated at the same time, each with their own random, inhuman flaws, that can never be checked because they are immediately deleted, you will be debating all day about whether artists or a specific artist would "sometimes make random mistakes".
