Danbooru

AI-generated art check thread

Posted under General

Lividy

post #7283049
post #7388274

I just came across this ai-artist who is currently topping the platform's image charts. To start off, I'm not pro-AI, but I find the way AI-assisted works are evaluated is sometimes overzealous and, too often, unjustly dismissed.

@nonamethanks has clearly stated that the policy banning entirely AI-generated content had the sole purpose of preserving the quality of the art gallery by avoiding an inundation with low-effort, generic images. This is completely legitimate, and I think we all agree on that. However, this does not amount to a categorical rejection of all AI intervention in the creative process. Indeed, the distinction between "AI-generated" and "AI-assisted" content has been underscored, acknowledging that the latter, when of quality and not presenting immediately apparent flaws, deserves its place on the platform.

I observe with some concern that works clearly labeled as "AI-assisted," and which enjoy significant appreciation from the community (as evidenced by the numerous upvotes for these images), are flagged and deleted for reasons that seem, in many ways, aimed at punishing the use of AI rather than evaluating the work on its intrinsic quality. For example, here, criticisms such as "deformed nipples, hands, and eyebrows" seem disproportionate, especially when put into perspective with the far more blatant errors found in non-AI-assisted works. I'm addressing those who flag images like these: seriously, stop this circus for a moment, images like these should clearly be approved, as long as they've been correctly tagged. And I've taken this image as an example, but there are many others.

From my perspective, it gives the feeling that there's a form of anti-AI bias from certain approvers, which goes against the spirit of the rules and the community. As nonamethanks wisely reminded us, we should focus on the quality and appreciation of art, rather than on the method of its creation.

Therefore, I invite the approvers to reflect on their evaluation and moderation practices with the principles set out by the administration.

Reply
John Fantasy XIV

The anatomy of the first post you linked looks terrible: her thighs are detached, have disjointed proportions, and the guy's anatomy looks like barely a footnote. Not to mention the actual AI technicalities noted in the flag. It's hard to take this statement seriously when you cite post #7283049 as an example of "of quality and not presenting immediately apparent flaws".

Lividy said:

…and which enjoy significant appreciation from the community (as evidenced by the numerous upvotes for these images).

Irrelevant to the approval process…

For example, here, criticisms such as "deformed nipples, hands, and eyebrows" seem disproportionate, especially when put into perspective with the far more blatant errors found in non-AI-assisted works. I'm addressing those who flag images like these: seriously, stop this circus for a moment, images like these should clearly be approved, as long as they've been correctly tagged. And I've taken this image as an example, but there are many others.

I won't comment on post #7388274, but in the case of post #7283049 it is, like I said, hard to take your claims and/or evaluation of quality seriously. I fear which of these "many other" examples you could provide. Also, seeing active non-ai-assisted posts should not be taken as a "well these are clearly worse so logically these less bad images should be approved" and more as a "these should be flagged too".

From my perspective, it gives the feeling that there's a form of anti-AI bias from certain approvers, which goes against the spirit of the rules and the community.

That is simply your (incorrect) interpretation of both the spirit of the community and actual practice regarding approvals. Approvers are charged with approving what they like based on accumulated trust in their taste, and many approvers either outright dislike or at the very least don't want to be anywhere associated with AI art. Danbooru is not a corporation and no approver is required to directly observe NNT's adjustment of the AI rule, nor are they expected to.

Therefore, I invite the approvers to reflect on their evaluation and moderation practices with the principles set out by the administration.

Good one.

Reply
Lividy

Ubaldo_the_Uploader said:

The anatomy of the first post you linked looks terrible: her thighs are detached, have disjointed proportions, and the guy's anatomy looks like barely a footnote. Not to mention the actual AI technicalities noted in the flag. It's hard to take this statement seriously when you cite post #7283049 as an example of "of quality and not presenting immediately apparent flaws".

Irrelevant to the approval process…

I won't comment on post #7388274, but in the case of post #7283049 it is, like I said, hard to take your claims and/or evaluation of quality seriously. I fear which of these "many other" examples you could provide. Also, seeing active non-ai-assisted posts should not be taken as a "well these are clearly worse so logically these less bad images should be approved" and more as a "these should be flagged too".

That is simply your (incorrect) interpretation of both the spirit of the community and actual practice regarding approvals. Approvers are charged with approving what they like based on accumulated trust in their taste, and many approvers either outright dislike or at the very least don't want to be anywhere associated with AI art. Danbooru is not a corporation and no approver is required to directly observe NNT's adjustment of the AI rule, nor are they expected to.

Good one.

I understand your point of view and I acknowledge that my initial message may have come across as an attack, which was not my intention. My goal was simply to express my concern about what seemed to me to be an inconsistent treatment of AI-assisted content.

However, allow me to come back to a point that strikes me. If, as an approver, you consider the anatomy of the image I used as an example to be "terrible", then I sincerely question your standards. With such strict criteria, you must approve and appreciate very few images.

Regarding the anatomy of this image, I stand by my opinion. Of course, perceptions of quality and artistic merit are subjective. But in the context of anime/manga art, which has its own stylistic conventions, the "flaws" you point out do not seem to me to be so egregious as to justify deletion. Many human artists deliberately deviate from realistic proportions for stylistic reasons, without it being a problem.

However, I acknowledge the validity of your point about not using lower quality non-AI-assisted posts as a benchmark for approving AI-assisted content. That was clumsy of me. My intention was simply to point out that similar drawings, if they had been made entirely by a human, would probably not have been flagged.

Your explanation of the decentralized and individualistic approach to content approval has helped me better understand the situation. I now realize that even if guidelines exist, there is significant leeway for approvers in how they interpret and apply these rules. This is what leads to these apparent inconsistencies in the treatment of AI-assisted content.

Ultimately, I simply wanted to express my discontent with seeing quality AI images (in MY opinion) disappear due to what seemed to me to be an inconsistent application of the recently established rules. But since you explain to me that approvers have great latitude to act according to their personal preferences, I understand that prolonging this discussion will lead nowhere.

Reply
CoreMack

@Lividy said:

...

I tend to agree with you that both those posts would be easily approvable if it weren't for the AI component.

However, you should keep in mind that 95% of the time, when an artist says they're "AI-assisted," it means that the image was fully generated via AI, then subjected to minimal re-touching to remove the obvious artefacts so that people are less likely to call them out on using AI. The vast majority of our approvers are in agreement that this type of "ai-assisted" art should not be approved, even if some ai-assisted art is sufficiently derived from human effort that it is approvable.

The problem is that it's hard to tell the difference in practice. So it's left up to this thread, and the modqueue. In post #7283049, which you mentioned, there are numerous obvious AI artefacts, so obvious that it's rather difficult to believe that that image wasn't fully AI-generated, then slightly touched up afterwards. As such, I'm most definitely not going to approve it and I think flagging it is fine. The obvious AI-reliance makes it less approvable.

"Ubaldo" is correct about it ultimately being up to individual approvers. Obviously, NNT's opinion carries weight, but the fundamental rule of approving is to approve what you personally think is good. So it's left to our subjective judgement of whether the level of AI-reliance is too high or not, and most approvers see any AI involvement and are turned off completely.

Reply
kittey

santander said:

post #7263441

Looks like some degree of ai-assisted. The character seems to have been extracted from another background, with artifacts from the magic wand tool visible, as well as lighting from a different scene, especially around the hair. Some, maybe several things seem to have been redrawn and there are some mismatching brush strokes, such as the outer eyelashes and some hair strands (three on the left and one on the right). Upper clothing has some typical AI oddities. If the blue thing is a vest, how does it stay up? If it is part of the top, why is it loose on the right side but not the left? Why do the black buttons not continue all the way to the top? Lighting has some oddities too, like the bright patch below the breasts and one below the blue clothing on the left. I’m not sold on the highlighted creases on the blue clothing near he raised hand either.

I’d say it’s a degree of ai-assisted that can be accepted.

Reply
Diet Soda

Satan-Sama said:

so these posts got tagged AI assisted, any reasoning?
post #7413573
post #7409896
Here are some artist sketched, with the last image being the base off the finished image.
https://www.pixiv.net/en/artworks/117528615

Moon is broken in half. That's an AI-assisted background already, even if you ignore the weird details on the character itself, like her hair looping into itself, subtler continuity issues on her neck and right thigh, and massive inconsistency in brushstrokes. This artist has been brought up here before (forum #270973), they used to be able to draw but now seem to be relying on AI.

The pixiv collection opening with an even less edited AI gen then showing blatant traces of fully rendered poses as "sketches" doesn't inspire much confidence either. My guess is it's AI-gen with some parts (poorly) painted over.

Reply
blindVigil

Wolf_of_Gubbio said:

this post #7416348 is probably AI or at least AI-assisted
- strange and simple hand
- strange breasts
- strange clothes
- lucia crimson weave does not have streaked hairs on ponytail

I ask for your opinion

I really can't see what's strange about anything in that image

Reply
1 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82