Follow
An artist on twitter is being accused of allegedy generating an image with AI and trying to sell it as it's own.
🏆🏆 winner of the Holy Gab War and Holy Poast War
@hideki
That artist has already been accused in the past for tracing.
Which ironically means that this is the most original and legit this artist has been.
That artist has already been accused in the past for tracing.
Which ironically means that this is the most original and legit this artist has been.
To critique the critic: Amateurish lighting oversights aren't proof that the artist isn't human. I concur that this is an AI generated image, but I think lighting oversights aren't proof of AI generated images *on their own.* The error has to be a mistake that a human would not have made - I can understand an artist not knowing yet that they wanted hair to be there, and having done their lighting before putting the hair on. Amateur but human mistake.
A few notes that the critic missed:
First, the shadow on the arm. The human error would have been to have the upper arm be fully illuminated. (Correct is actually that it should be entirely in shadow, but that's far from obvious)
Second, the misshapen lips. This is a normal AI mistake. Humans would have made this symmetric at least. Even with no other errors, I'd say this is a dead giveaway.
Third, the irises are significantly different sizes. The only way a human would make this error is if they drew each eye independently of each other, which I find to be deeply unlikely.
Fourth, the left breast is misshapen in a way characteristic of these particular models.
It's possible to go over the background - there's lots wrong with it - and going over it makes the post extremely long.
image.png
image.png
image.png
image.png
A few notes that the critic missed:
First, the shadow on the arm. The human error would have been to have the upper arm be fully illuminated. (Correct is actually that it should be entirely in shadow, but that's far from obvious)
Second, the misshapen lips. This is a normal AI mistake. Humans would have made this symmetric at least. Even with no other errors, I'd say this is a dead giveaway.
Third, the irises are significantly different sizes. The only way a human would make this error is if they drew each eye independently of each other, which I find to be deeply unlikely.
Fourth, the left breast is misshapen in a way characteristic of these particular models.
It's possible to go over the background - there's lots wrong with it - and going over it makes the post extremely long.
image.png
image.png
image.png
image.png
@ceo_of_monoeye_dating there's even a double shadow in the neck lel
That's not a detail I'd noticed, and it's not a detail that I would've noticed when asking if the image is produced by an AI.
Very good eye!
Very good eye!
@ceo_of_monoeye_dating @hideki >Amateurish lighting oversights aren't proof that the artist isn't human.
True, though couldn't you make an argument that a picture with master quality lighting for 90% of the illustration but an obvious 10% being, at best, a very novice oversight is evidence that something very fishy is going on?
A commissioner especially wouldn't accept such a trash mistake for $250+.
The malformed left hand, even not in focus unlike human-made art like below, is what gives it away for me. AI still can't into hands.
True, though couldn't you make an argument that a picture with master quality lighting for 90% of the illustration but an obvious 10% being, at best, a very novice oversight is evidence that something very fishy is going on?
A commissioner especially wouldn't accept such a trash mistake for $250+.
The malformed left hand, even not in focus unlike human-made art like below, is what gives it away for me. AI still can't into hands.
@hideki
This is a good example of how there are no shortcuts to getting good at art.
This is a good example of how there are no shortcuts to getting good at art.
These are details of the "UNCENSORED" patreon reward, there's barely an effort to at least finish airbrushing the lingerie off