Yeah, I detected with my little eye some AI-generated posts that gave me a 97% positive with the detector, which are neither backgrounds nor are they edited enough to pass themselves off as paintovers.
Should I flag or report them and in what category would it be correct? This is so as not to waste anyone's time.

naico_boy said:
Yeah, I detected with my little eye some AI-generated posts that gave me a 97% positive with the detector, which are neither backgrounds nor are they edited enough to pass themselves off as paintovers.
Should I flag or report them and in what category would it be correct? This is so as not to waste anyone's time.

You leave a flag and say it doesn't meet uploading guidelines.

I wouldn't trust ai detectors though, they are worse than flipping a coin to check if a post is AI or not. (I.E. less than 50% accuracy). You're better off looking at the image itself for common ai features.

kyiiel said:
I wouldn't trust ai detectors though, they are worse than flipping a coin to check if a post is AI or not. (I.E. less than 50% accuracy). You're better off looking at the image itself for common ai features.

in this case, at least, the art's giving me AI vibes as well. compounded with the fact that the artist seems to lack a consistent artstyle I'd tend to aggree that this is AI.

maryland_p_sevenson said:
in this case, at least, the art's giving me AI vibes as well. compounded with the fact that the artist seems to lack a consistent artstyle I'd tend to aggree that this is AI.

Yes artist uses ai. They don’t try and hide it, they admit it, and have asked for advice on the paintover rules in the forums. It’s just up to staff to figure out how much of the image is actually human produced.

maryland_p_sevenson said:
in this case, at least, the art's giving me AI vibes as well. compounded with the fact that the artist seems to lack a consistent artstyle I'd tend to aggree that this is AI.

Yes, inconsistent art style is another way to tell if an image is AI generated.

The art/artist isn't linked in this thread (and still isn't), so I don't have any real way of knowing what was going to be flagged, which is why I expressed using caution.

manitka said:
Yes artist uses ai. They don’t try and hide it, they admit it, and have asked for advice on the paintover rules in the forums. It’s just up to staff to figure out how much of the image is actually human produced.

The best best to check from my experience is going to civitai, heading to the gallery pages of models like Yiffymix and Pony diffusion, and checking to see if the common lighting/color/subject framing motifs of the art there matches the submission post's features.

EDIT: This will get a LOT harder to do when more model creators offer more base model style control

kyiiel said:
The art/artist isn't linked in this thread (and still isn't), so I don't have any real way of knowing what was going to be flagged, which is why I expressed using caution.

Read the thread OP's comment history. Don't turn this into a callout thread.

And yes, the artist is known to post AI-assisted artwork and has asked staff about it before.
Their first post got deleted by NMNY, but every subsequent post is approved by various janitors and an admin.

naico_boy said:
Yeah, I detected with my little eye some AI-generated posts that gave me a 97% positive with the detector, which are neither backgrounds nor are they edited enough to pass themselves off as paintovers.
Should I flag or report them and in what category would it be correct? This is so as not to waste anyone's time.

Stop using "AI detectors", they are all shit.
You only flag posts if you have concrete proof that the artist uses AI to generate artworks, not based on a hunch or because "[it] gave me a 97% positive with the detector".

If you don't like AI-assisted artwork, then blacklist ai_assisted. Don't complain about it in the comments.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Read the thread OP's comment history. Don't turn this into a callout thread.

And yes, the artist is known to post AI-assisted artwork and has asked staff about it before.
Their first post got deleted by NMNY, but every subsequent post is approved by various janitors and an admin.

Stop using "AI detectors", they are all shit.
You only flag posts if you have concrete proof that the artist uses AI to generate artworks, not based on a hunch or because "[it] gave me a 97% positive with the detector".

If you don't like AI-assisted artwork, then blacklist ai_assisted. Don't complain about it in the comments.

I wouldn't call them AI assisted, rather AI-poorly-traced
and when they are noticeable they are too noticeable, the detector I use only confirms my suspicions

thegreatwolfgang said:
Read the thread OP's comment history. Don't turn this into a callout thread.

And yes, the artist is known to post AI-assisted artwork and has asked staff about it before.
Their first post got deleted by NMNY, but every subsequent post is approved by various janitors and an admin.

Stop using "AI detectors", they are all shit.
You only flag posts if you have concrete proof that the artist uses AI to generate artworks, not based on a hunch or because "[it] gave me a 97% positive with the detector".

If you don't like AI-assisted artwork, then blacklist ai_assisted. Don't complain about it in the comments.

Also, one of the posts I noticed is not properly tagged as "AI assisted" so there is no point in filtering it

I think a lot of confusion comes from what counts as human input. If I'm spending hours cleaning up errors and doing nothing else, most people (myself included) don't consider that "AI assisted" even though it is time consuming and the end result looks excellent. But at the same time, it has been made clear to me that human effort in composition of pictures is not enough - I must have a high attention to detail regardless. As a result, the majority of my older pics are not suitable for upload here, and hence why I have a DNP (so those don't get posted). The pic in question was one that I devoted a lot of time to trying to line it up with the preceding pic (and ironically, that pic is not suitable for e621) and to the fine details, generally making it as close to flawless as possible. Significant portions were redrawn by hand. No, it doesn't have dialogue bubbles and a separately made background etc, but do most pictures on e621?

Also, I'm still getting a feel for where the line is drawn. If a pic I upload is unacceptable, no hard feelings, just flag it if you think so :)

naico_boy said:
Also, one of the posts I noticed is not properly tagged as "AI assisted" so there is no point in filtering it

I do believe your "detector" is BSing you here, that other pic you commented on is most certainly not drawn by AI. The background maybe, and the lower body looks like it could've been retouched with AI for shading, but I'm not sure about either. The focus of the picture is hand-drawn.

As a general rule, AI detection algorithms are always prone to either false positives or false negatives. None are reliable; the most accurate ones can easily be worked around.

I wouldn't call them AI assisted, rather AI-poorly-traced

I usually don't trace lines at all. The majority are done by AI, while fine details are often done by hand.

protogeneration said:
The best best to check from my experience is going to civitai, heading to the gallery pages of models like Yiffymix and Pony diffusion, and checking to see if the common lighting/color/subject framing motifs of the art there matches the submission post's features.

EDIT: This will get a LOT harder to do when more model creators offer more base model style control

I agree, but with two qualifiers. Firstly, I do not believe most people can do this with good accuracy unless they have experience using AI image generators. There are certain patterns I instantly lock onto when I see them in "normal" art, and usually these are subtle.

The second qualifier is that a frighteningly large number of artists fit these patterns. It gets muddier when you consider that some use AI for posing and other reference purposes that are still generally not considered "AI assisted". But there are also just simply a lot of artists with professional drawing ability who are using AI to increase their productivity. Don't believe me? Check out 4036149, 4115640, and 4115641. And then consider how many other skilled artists are doing this too, but are smart enough not to be this overt. Oh, and all 3 of those will probably get a "not AI" result in a detection tool!

naico_boy said:
gave me a 97% positive with the detector,

Generated NSFW and used retro anime screencap on local AI generator. Also I made it not square 1024x1024 and deleted prompt info inside image, so it will be not 100% obvious that it was AI generated just by using that criteria. The result is not an AI image. Nothing redrawed by hand.
https://ibb.co/TBQC97j

protogeneration said:
The best best to check from my experience is going to civitai, heading to the gallery pages of models like Yiffymix and Pony diffusion, and checking to see if the common lighting/color/subject framing motifs of the art there matches the submission post's features.

No chance against NoobAI with such check. Officially it's not mean to generate furry, so you will be overwhelmed with human anime girls on civitai. But it can generate furry too with own style that you never meet on Yiffymix and Pony diffusion.

drawswhenhungry said:
I think a lot of confusion comes from what counts as human input. If I'm spending hours cleaning up errors and doing nothing else, most people (myself included) don't consider that "AI assisted" even though it is time consuming and the end result looks excellent. But at the same time, it has been made clear to me that human effort in composition of pictures is not enough - I must have a high attention to detail regardless. As a result, the majority of my older pics are not suitable for upload here, and hence why I have a DNP (so those don't get posted). The pic in question was one that I devoted a lot of time to trying to line it up with the preceding pic (and ironically, that pic is not suitable for e621) and to the fine details, generally making it as close to flawless as possible. Significant portions were redrawn by hand. No, it doesn't have dialogue bubbles and a separately made background etc, but do most pictures on e621?

Also, I'm still getting a feel for where the line is drawn. If a pic I upload is unacceptable, no hard feelings, just flag it if you think so :)

I do believe your "detector" is BSing you here, that other pic you commented on is most certainly not drawn by AI. The background maybe, and the lower body looks like it could've been retouched with AI for shading, but I'm not sure about either. The focus of the picture is hand-drawn.

As a general rule, AI detection algorithms are always prone to either false positives or false negatives. None are reliable; the most accurate ones can easily be worked around.

I usually don't trace lines at all. The majority are done by AI, while fine details are often done by hand.

I agree, but with two qualifiers. Firstly, I do not believe most people can do this with good accuracy unless they have experience using AI image generators. There are certain patterns I instantly lock onto when I see them in "normal" art, and usually these are subtle.

The second qualifier is that a frighteningly large number of artists fit these patterns. It gets muddier when you consider that some use AI for posing and other reference purposes that are still generally not considered "AI assisted". But there are also just simply a lot of artists with professional drawing ability who are using AI to increase their productivity. Don't believe me? Check out 4036149, 4115640, and 4115641. And then consider how many other skilled artists are doing this too, but are smart enough not to be this overt. Oh, and all 3 of those will probably get a "not AI" result in a detection tool!

Don't worry, the post I just reported has just been deleted, not only that but also the others from the same user that seemed to have the same "style", I don't know if that's the work of a moderator or the user himself removed them out of fear when I caught him, sooo I was right

Also, just saying, editing an AI generated image doesn't give you the credit you think it does for the simple fact that I can't take credit for the Mona Lisa for painting a mustache on it

Also this user is known to "paint over" AI generated content and not tag it correctly
https://e621.net/posts/5233077?q=nonoka917

paint overs are not against our rules, since you're seemingly going to use this as a callout topic now it's being locked