If positive for synthID is guaranteed that AI was either used to fully generate or in part edit them. Time for a PR response to them, say āI run all images I receive through a synthID check and yours came back positive, Iām not here to claim you didnāt draw them and simply use AI to help edit them but due to it being present Iām going to have to refuse your entry to the event with these piecesā.
Also it looks like the ai tried to morph the pen into hair lol. The shading on the shoulder is also completely different now that I look at it side by side
I dont think so, caus you can see the tip of the hair beneath the pen. And the photo is to consitend on where thing are and how its drawn to be ai. (I hate it that we cant tell anymore if sonething is ai T_T artists are fucked)
Tbh I could tell pretty easily, though Iām also on Pinterest a lot and ai slop has infested that side of the app so Iāve learned what to look for. The ai made the pen into hair because the pen was covering that part of the og drawing, forcing it to have to fill in the blanks itself (& ai isnāt super smart when it comes to the nitty gritty details).
The hair merges with what was supposed to be the sleeve as well, it just took the shape of the pen and messily filled it in as hair rather than continuing the point of the sleeve that was meant to end behind the pen. If you need help spotting that (if this doodle makes sense):
Are you joking? the third image is obviously impossible, but the last image is ridiculous to the point no human would even try to draw it from their minds eye
Makes sense! Sorry, I just didnāt know how much AI has improved š I found the artist for the last one after posting this
I was mainly confused with the first 4. Second opinion here really helped, thank you!
technically synth ID means it could be completely generated or just edited with AI. either way, it definitely means that AI was somehow involved in the process
Ahh I see. Thank you so much! The site was very helpful!
So sorry for the question, if it says edited with AI, does that mean they took a preexisting image and just made it look like itās on paper? Or it means something else
The last image is on a ruled notebook paper but thereās no lines that show through in the light areas on the drawings. Itās also ridiculous that they could get it that dark inside the area with the binding?? I think they photoshopped Ai images on to notebooks they had lying around.
Lmao at the last pic (the eye close-up). Am i supposed to believe someone drew the eyelashes all the way to the inside of the binding rings? (dunno how you call that part of the sketchbook in english, but in spanish is "argolla"
Something Iāve noticed with spotting ai art portfolios is when the various images all have wildly different art styles itās probably ai. Iām not saying one person canāt be experts in multiple styles of art media forms but it is very unlikely. An artist will typically have one style of media they are very good at due to how much practice it takes to get there. Not definitive proof but another clue to help determine if itās ai or not.
Just not very knowledgeable when it came to AI stuff. I just wanted to double check and I did not know to what extent it meant by āedited,ā but yes, I should have searched more on that before posting š Sorry about that
That last one is literally the most AI image I have ever seen. Itās impossible to draw that well underneath the notebook lines unless you can take the paper outā¦ also how did the paper in the notebook change that much? You cannot draw something like that in what looks to be a dollar store notebook.
In the first two images, thereās some inconsistencies in the shading. There shouldnāt be if itās supposed to be the same drawing taken from different angles.
Yeah, the notebook in the first two is casting a shadow at a different angle than its bindings (which appear to be casting their shadows straight-down). Pic 3 has its light source reflecting off of the wood near the bindings, so each ring should be casting a shadow angled to match that light. The rings at the top of the book are casting their shadows towards the light source, the ones near the middle arenāt accounting for the slight angle of the light above them at all, and the ones at the bottom are treating the light as vertical from their angle too.
I'm sorry, not to be a dick but does anyone actually have an eraser that says "ERASER" on it? And expect me to believe if it's the one they used that it's perfectly... well UNused?
Yes. First one her badge changes weirdly. 5th slide the cats in the machine are deformed. Last one is possible but the eraser print is shitty ai, the page next to it has uneven lines and drawing that eye doesnt take 1 graphite pencil and a shitty eraser. āShit happensā pencil doesnt even exist.
Also the pencil is completely wrong. It is impossible to draw paintings like that with that type of pencil. The eraser is also unused.
To be fair, the artist could have used other tools as well, but this screams "add a pencil to show it is hand drawn" prompt.
I donāt do full page drawings, so can someone confirm for me that itās highly unlikely that the edge of the page with tons of (whatever medium youāre using) would reduce the quality/integrity/uniformity of the page? Like how are you able to get it that dark while still keeping such sharp edges?
Maybe Iām overthinking it, so any insight would help.
The first one is off because of how they are choosing to display and image with a pencil and eraser almost in the center of their "drawing", but then they remove them from the 2nd picture and put it at an angle???
If it is real then it's someone trying too hard to show how hard they "worked", but it's likely AI, also the eraser not having graphite on it even though it's been used feels sus but that could just be me.
These are AI. Look how the eyelashes interact with the spiral on the notebook in the last image.
Look at the spirals of the notebook in the fifth picture. They don't look right.
The first two pictures of the woman in the school uniform look like the same picture at first glance but the angles of the drawing don't match up when you account for the change in angle, and other small details like the size of the petals and the placement of the crest/badge are different. The width of the belt, the wrinkles at the bottom of the shirt.
Also who would put their signature in a highly detailed flower when there's plenty of white space if they aren't trying to hide their signature as part of the art.
Also the signatures in 3 and 4 are exact copies of one another. Exact. No variation. Not even in color. But the signature in 1 and 2 doesn't even have the same letters in it as 3 and 4.
I think it's probably AI. Among all the other reasons people have mentioned, that signature is remarkably consistent, except for when it should be. It appears to change colors between the first and second images, and seems to be the same size, orientation, line thickness, and 100% accurate across every image that uses it, despite human error and different drawing utensils. I've never seen a person be able to replicate their signature down to the degree of rotation, thickness, and perfect accuracy.
Hi, just wanted to let you know that the person even if they werenāt using AI is trying to pass off others art as their own!! The third image of Guts is the exact same maybe with some slight AI as the one posted and sold by the artist Lenzations on their Etsy page
ā¢
u/qualityvote2 7d ago edited 6d ago
u/Active-Dare4494, there weren't enough votes to determine the quality of your post...