Changing styles from one image to the next is easy enough. If you tell your boss that you're going to need at least a couple months to get used to this new project's style before you can start work, you're definitely going to get fired.

Changing your skill level in two months is not as easy. (At least, for most people?)At least, for most people? I only experimented with drawing for a few days, but I was able to improve drastically over that period. What I first drew, looked horrible, so I kept erasing areas and fixing it. When I hit a wall and couldn't figure out what I was doing wrong, I just compared it to a number of images here. Turns out I was trying to mix in too much of real world proportions in an anime style image. Then I just kept correcting areas until I had something that looked professional.

But a change in skill level, while it might seem suspicious, is hardly an indication of AI. AI images can be horribly flawed, but that is in terms of either malformed areas or a lack of contextual coherency. Rarely would you get an image that looks like it was just drawn by an human amateur unless you specifically asked for that.

Bottom line: Being suspicious is fine, but at least identify a non-human flaw or have the images tested.

The skill level descriped it better what I meant. Some users comment about suspicious things about this image on Yande.re too.

"The placement of the swimming ring doesnt make sense. Above her arm it looks like the ring is between her boob and her upper arm. Below the arm it looks like the ring is behind her body. The placement/angle of the ring itself is odd, it also looks like its deeper in the water than the character itself, despite being very close. The hand itself feels a bit off too."

Or this:

"Agree, it is ai. Adding my clues to comment above
- background, right shore, applied multiple times gaussian blur, not likely, a single pass would be obvious choice
- splashes and bubbles have different amount of gaussian blur applied, again no reason, bubble on the right does not make sense
- waterdrops on the skin look copypasted especially one on the leg
- some clouds look copypasted
For better chances bump gray point to top or apply several black layers and apply overlay to them.
Ovarall total garbage, even if it was human made. I remember how Battlequeenyume said yandere has standards. I almost choked from laughter as you can find a lot of such pictures uploaded here everyday."

"hivemoderation says "stablediffusion 99.4%"... -but this site is known to be highly inaccurate, so how would you tested it?

BattlequeenYume said:
"hivemoderation says "stablediffusion 99.4%"... -but this site is known to be highly inaccurate, so how would you tested it?

This is the first I've heard that that site can be highly inaccurate. I mentioned my experience with it in the previous post.

But the answer is simple, especially if you're seeing multiple styles. Just test multiple images. If they all come back as AI positive despite the style difference, then it's pretty obvious they're using AI. The site isn't all that bad. Even if there might be some false positives or negatives, it appears to be generally accurate.

*Edit
Comments like you included in this last forum post are also reasonable. I did say, "at least identify a non-human flaw OR have the images tested".

In case it wasn't clear, I was never suggesting the images from that artist might not be AI. On the contrary, I suspected they were. I just wanted to make it clear that you should cite something more than just "multiple styles".

If it's hard to pick something obviously AI out of the image, you might as well test a few and see what you get.

I never used hivemoderation.
I got this information from someone else.

About the style thing:
I just put it wrong. What I really meant was the skill level of this user. To describe something in english is a bit hard for me though.

Thanks for your opinion!

I have question about sugiki works. In Danbooru it's tagged as "AI-assisted" or "AI-generated", and they are also starting deleting his works because breaks the rules. 6 months ago he claimed it to using AI for fast-process on Fantia, but now his Fantia account no longer exists (I think it reported by supporter).
I ask this because I want uploading some works from him. So I curious, it's allowed or not.

They have "Down with/Overthrow AI!" in their Twitter bio. They're in to NFTs and crypto but I don't see anything so far that would indicate they're using AI. Or claiming to use AI. Their works on Pixiv aren't tagged as AI-generated. I don't know.

Oh, hold on. Their BOOTH page (whatever that is) roughly translated states:

"We have a collection of illustration CG. Mainly past articles on FANBOX. Most of it is handwritten, but there is some AI assistance to improve the quality (this is not an AI-based work). Mosaic processing is strictly carried out."

But that seems to be saying that the works AREN'T AI-generated, doesn't it?

Edit: Ohhhhhh, I remember now. Some people use AI for touch-ups but Sugiki is saying that they themselves drew the images. Hmm. They're not being generated by a machine so I'm not sure how we'd deal with that.

As Zolxys says and ai-assisted wiki, ai-assisted basically "hard to see" and ai-generated "easy to see". On other site, someone call this as "scam level". Btw, it's okay if I uploading his works?

I say go ahead. I'm a fan of Sugiki (he even follows me on Twitter), and I refuse to believe he doesn't make his own art. It would hurt too much.

Could someone please explain why post #368582 was undeleted? I deleted it earlier for having watermarks through the whole image. In the restricted/banned images section of the upload guidelines it states "Any image with an excessively large or obnoxious watermark."

I've seen a couple of exceptions made where the watermark was really light. For those, although I'd never approve them, if another mod thinks they're acceptable I just let it go.

But this is far too prominent.

Then all the other ones with "sample" on them need to be deleted too.

otaku_emmy said:
Then all the other ones with "sample" on them need to be deleted too.

No objection here. If you want to delete them all, go ahead.

But I was just saying, the prominence of the watermark matters, just like it does for JPEG artifacts.

Example:
Post #362434: I wouldn't approve it, but if another mod does, I don't really care.
Post #368582: Far too prominent. Should be deleted.

Dang. Now I gotta try and remember all the posts with "SAMPLE" all over them now. I know there's one artist in particular who doesn't publish anything that DOESN'T have it on there.

Edit: No, I can't remember it. I don't feel like looking for it now either. If someone else finds the artist before I do please tell me or, if you're a Mod, delete them yourself. I remember the images have lots of criss-cross lines on them too, along with the "SAMPLE" text. I believe all those posts were uploaded by BattlequeenYume.

Edit 2: Okay I think I found the few I was thinking of. I feel like there's more though. So keep an eye out.

Great that I get the okay to post them and now they are getting deleted...

Just a heads up but we will likely be deleting many if not all of Sugiki's posts on Konachan in the near future and officially considering them a banned artist.

Hmmm.... Why?
Isn't you allow it before?

After noticing the removal of many of Sugiki's works from Danbooru due to the alleged use of AI, I asked Zolxys whether or not he believed them to be created by a machine. He came to the conclusion that Sugiki's works are either AI-assisted or entirely created by AI so I removed all of their posts and we should no longer upload their images.

I already explain it before, sugiki claim it that he using AI for fast-process on Fantia, but his Fantia account got banned. So the evidence is gone.
I forgot why I don't put it on wayback machine....

I didn't want to believe it was true since I was a big fan of their art but I can't bring myself to support someone who isn't actually doing their own work. Regardless of how good the results look.

I am asking the moderators to review this nid417 author's images because his pixiv account consists mostly of ai generated images.

I have analysed the images using the two sites linked below:
https://www.aiornot.com
https://hivemoderation.com/ai-generated-content-detection

post #373444 - 99,7% midjourney
post #368590 - 0% non-ai
post #366224 - 99.9% midjourney
post #364471 - 98.4% midjourney
post #363818 - 99.9% stablediffusion
post #362316 - 0,2% non-ai
post #358720 - 99.8% midjourney
post #358563 - 98.8% stablediffusion
post #358562 - 95.6% midjourney
post #357465 - 81,7% stablediffusion spoiler | aiornot detected non-ai
post #357116 - 98.5% stablediffusion
post #354069 - 99,9% midjourney
post #350921 - 2.3% non-ai |
post #341574 - 5.7% non-ai
post #333917 - 0% non-ai

Dang. Danbooru says a lot of these are AI too. I guess I'll cross reference what we have here and delete whichever ones need to be deleted.

Edit: Actually, I'm just going to delete all of these. I think.

otaku_emmy said:
Edit: Actually, I'm just going to delete all of these. I think.

Cool.

I guess we should've noticed it earlier. I had just assumed that was their style.

It's getting harder and harder to tell these days.

I didn't expect the images to be deleted immediately, I think it's better to have a discussion and come to a definite answer. For I have analysed all the author's images uploaded on Kona and there are non ai images there, at least in post #333917

And even Danbooru is wrong, although it has ai image detection on upload, but it doesn't work as it should as I uploaded an ai image and it didn't detect it. I myself am looking for a better tool to detect ai images, but haven't found a very accurate one yet.

But to avoid getting caught by ai, I recommend in pixiv to tick "AI-generated work : hide" in the settings, although it still won't save you because some authors don't put the "AI-generated" tag on illustrations.

For my part, I limit myself to downloading images directly from pixiv because too much "ai" has appeared, and if I see such an image from an author I unsubscribe from it.

I have asked Zolxys about it. We'll have to wait until he gets back to us. I can see both sides of your arguments.

Whereas Danbooru allows AI-assisted and AI-generated images, we have a zero tolerance policy for those things. Same goes for traced images or ones that are just painted over photos. So even if an image featured an AI generated background or only used AI to "polish" or finish something an artist had drawn themselves, we'd still delete that on the basis of AI being used in the process.

It should be deleted with reason "AI-assisted" since it was helped by AI (Mid journey or Stable Diffusion). If you check it, this artist rarely mentioned or tagging "AI" on 2022-2023 works.

Image before July 2022 can be restored?

With that many images testing positive for AI, it's pretty clear the artist uses AI. Maybe not on everything? It can be nearly impossible to tell on AI-assisted works. I don't see issues with most of these.

While I'm not really anti-AI, I supported the ban on AI so that we wouldn't have to deal with the evaluation of a flood of AI images in which people tend to overlook serious flaws just because they're blinded by the detailed art style.

In the wiki for ai-assisted, I did allow for mods to accept works in limited cases. It's certainly not the end of the world if a few possibly AI-assisted images stay. Nor is it unreasonable to simply ban an artist that usually uses AI.

I don't think I can be of much more help on this.

I don't really even have a problem with artists using AI to generate backgrounds for them to then paint their own art on. I believe that's what's going on in some of Nid's images. But our goal was to discourage the uploading of any AI generated images at all.

So I say we do what we did with Sugiki and just ban any further uploads from them.

I just have something against it when AI created all or most of the image. But AI indeed could help when using it for assistance. Furthermore, there will be more and more of them in the future. I think to avoid it completely is wrong.

I respectfully disagree with that. People can improve their art without having to rely solely on AI to finish it/create it for them. The same way people can cook without mealkits. It's just that some people don't want to put the work in. They want instant results, hence AI tools becoming so popular in the art world.

If you use AI to practice and learn in order to gradually improve yourself, that's totally fine. It should not, however, serve as a creative crutch. People shouldn't be out here generating images whole cloth and then acting like their real artists and taking commissions, setting up Patreons, etc.

If you can't do backgrounds, work with someone who can. Or stick to simple BGs.

I believe in people's ability to better their art with enough hard work. I know that if people are passionate enough they'll make it work. Relying on AI isn't the way, imo.