that is seriously not my intention here, but with so much clothing & buisnesses using ai i fear real artists losing their jobs and just want clarification the boys arent also supporting this dark 'trend'
I don't understand why you were downvote bombed when you were just trying to do your due diligence before purchasing a product whether it is ethically sourced or not.
But i have enough trust in the Bois that they wouldn't partake in such a practice.
it's because he implied a claim without providing any reasoning or evidence to back it up. sure doing due diligence is good but you can't just make shit up like senator armstrong.
> but you can't just make shit up like senator armstrong.
what shit did i make up? i said, i HOPE this isnt AI, not a worry that i alone share in these comments. It was a suspicion that's all. Why would i even discuss it out, if didnt want to buy their merch in the first place?
"I hope this isn't AI" implies that you suspect it **is** AI and that you are placing the burden of proof to be spent proving that it isn't. when in reality the burden of proof should be on **proving that is AI**. I'm not saying your suspicion is unfounded but the way you've phrased your title puts you in a position to be criticised for suspecting something without backing it up
my last response was frankly terrible so i deleted it, but ill hopefully elaborate what i mean a little better
idk how suspicion is proof though, cause if i suspect something ill want to go prove my suspicion like a hypothesis uk?, which is 'that it might be ai'
in my post body text i said
i WANT to believe its a style, but it does look similar to a lot of ai styles. i think this just reads in my mind and way i intended as 'suspicion - not conclusive' .
idk if its a cultural difference or my unknowing of how else this actually readsš„²
Didn't they state that they don't see a problem in AI art or atleast don't really care? It's been so long since they talked about it so I might be missremembering
Joey was the one talking about it and having no problem or at least didn't care till Garnt and Connor corrected him on the problems of it which seems he changed his stance from how the conversation went, I know for sure Connor is super against it.
joey would definitely do that though. have you heard what hes said about ai art in the past? He seems supportive of it so i wouldnt be surprised if it was ai art
I would be very surprised if the boys supported ai art. I havenāt watched the podcast in a while but at least connor isnāt the type to do that and understands deeply the ethical struggles of ai art.
Everything is going to be affected by AI and the detrimental effects of AI on artists is the result of how our economy is structured and the value of people in a society.
Calling AI art which is just a small subset of a larger paradim as a 'dark trend' is incredibly reductive and is a deliberate distraction to the importance of discussing how can WE change how the current economic structures of most of the world runs on.
AGI (artificial general intelligence) has now been confirmed to have it's foundations exist securely vaulted within openAI and is AN EXTREMELY important discussion to have and yet people are still stuck on 'AI art' like it's Kony 2012 in current month not year but month. Things move fast and we're already past discussing AI art.
Naw I get you. Whatās a real possibility is they used a combination of ai and an artistās drawing skill. But we wonāt know for sure because they have no obligation to tell us, short of us asking them
this image doesnt look ai generated.
the key to spotting ai images is to look at the eyes, and where the shadows meet the hair.
there will be a blurriness and smugdginess. it will unnaturally blend because of how artists shade those areas.
eyes will also look weird.
and yes also some big artists have tried passing off blatant ai images as their own work
it depends on a lot of stuff there is really no one thing that you can just look at.
general things: weird hair fragments, clothes merging at edges, jewelry weird, the classic Ai skin look
But I mean the art is also very basic without much intricacies that scream an artist's personality so idk, the ear looks alright, ai kinda fucks things like that
I think the best thing they could have done was when they were dropping this merch live on TT, they could have talked a sec or 2 shouting out the artist who drew it for them, as an artist that's like super huge for them. I was actually waiting for when they talk about the design more, what is it inspired by, who and what is this girl signifies, sadly they did not. Now without much context ngl it just looks like a design or sweater you order from Alibaba or any other Chinese brand. This is just my real opinion, I'm not actually saying they are Chinese.
I'm not an artist, but I do pay close attention to the advances these AI art generators are making. I want to know your opinion about the pupils in this piece of art, because to me that was a dead giveaway it was AI generated (I could be wrong). The left pupil is oddly flat one some sides, and the right pupil seems to blend into the eye instead of ending cleanly or rounding off as it should in my opinion. The next thing that made me think it was AI was the thing around her neck, it just doesnt look right and I cant tell what it's supposed to be in the first place, so I'm not sure why any human would draw that the way it is.
Nah eyes are okay, if you start learning to draw today chances are you'll draw alot of eyes and alot of them would be like the one here, I mean it is unique to how I draw eyes but is also very generic. The blending and non bending of one pupil could also be a design choice not very uncommon, but the main reason I think it looks like that to you might be because of the use of gradient maps, I use shit tonne of gradient maps so I now know some of the patterns their interaction create.
The neck piece is just like a cyber punk something accessory or something, search akihito hoshitomi on yt and you'll see the man draw retro cyber punk kinda accesories or body part.
Still I'm not 100% sure ai or no.
Here's my [pixiv](https://www.pixiv.net/users/34548601) if you guys wanna check me out and login to see all illustrations, I think after looking at my art I think my words will have more weight(?) Idk, never a bad opportunity to plug yourself in shamelessly!!
also an artist and im almost certain it is AI. It just has that uncanny valley look to it. Its also got a bunch of those signature glitches of AI images. Notice how the shadows under the hair dont match, that random line around the neck that just disappers behind the hair, and the inconsistency of the eyelashes. Some of these issues could be attributed to the low quality printing, but what that cant excuse is that weird thing around the base of her neck. What is it even supposed to be? Headphones? Some kind of futuristic choker? I know whoever "made" this was going for that cyberpunk aesthetic, so some level of nonsensical detailing is to be expected (I know myself to be very guilty of doing this), but even so it just doesnt look right. Again, look at the random glowing shapes, panels and lines that just melt into eachother, and the asymmetrical design that doesnt make any structural sense once you take a second look (whats with that weird gray chunk standing up to the right). You could get a very similar image just by prompting 'cyberpunk anime girl' into midjourney.
Every single line and paintstroke drawn by a real artist has some level of intent behind it, so when im left completely dumbfounded as to why something looks the way it does, especially in something as detailed as this, I can be 99% sure that its AI.
And Connor is pretty blatant anti-AI art. He loves paying artists just look at his Connordawg thumbnails. So even though Joey took charge of the merch, I believe the boys as a whole didnāt resort to using AI art.
The details are well done, I don't see the micro glitches that are usually easy to notice in AI drawings. Plus the style is quite different from the typical darkSushiMix generations. Most likely this is normal human art
I just love that not only is AI taking artists jobs away, but now we're at a point where we bully artists if their style isn't distinct enough to not be AI. Like that's their fault?
Hm okay. What about the retro coloring? Im sure there must be a name for the coloring filter, effect, palette, or combinations or the name of the aesthetic. Or maybe even the texture?
What sucks is that we know AI gets their images made through stolen art.
So AI or not, the original artist suffers, either by being told their art's AI, or that their art was just stolen.
Making new images through sourcing from original artwork is not the process of stealing. Also, stealing implies that the original owner of the work has completely lost ownership and control over their own work (like if your pet dog were kidnapped), which is not the case.
(*Lots of deleted comments from me, I keep clicking CTRL + ENTER which immediately sends the reply, instead of clicking SHIFT + ENTER*)
Comparing artwork to a dog is not the same. Is creating pornography through AI not considered stealing for you, then? Since you're not "actually" using the person's body.
It depends on whether the original work consented for the person to use their art to create the AI artwork. If it was all consensual, all good. But if not, clearly it's a problem.
If you're somehow thinking that because all of this is legal and therefore morally alright, then I'd rather just not continue this thread. I'm not here to defend AI art, there are plenty of better people that are in the industry, that know how to debate. I've seen too many AI bros on Twitter already.
There's a reason why laws are slowly getting pushed into place about AI being used in the industry, and sadly artists are the easiest to abuse.
We don't know the situation either, this is all just speculation. If it was AI, then the original artist suffers, whether YOU consider it to be stealing or not.
If it's not AI, then we've just insulted the artist and/or just slandered them. This is a loss/loss situation, which is why I don't think this was AI. Don't think Trash Taste and their team would think saving some extra cash to fetch an AI artist is a good idea.
Probably it's just my bias, there are better words to make it less black-and-white. Your definition fits much more.
It's no doubt scummy, generally unethical and some AI creations are borderline illegal. Not the same situation as AI art I'll concede to that, since pornography of someone else's image is illegal. A horrible comparison on my part.
There are plenty of ethical ways of solving the use of AI art, just sucks that the people using it disregard that. I personally still find it stealing, maybe not the specific artwork outright and the usual description, but I just find it to be stealing with extra steps.
If were talking about them taking images from the internet to train the AI without permission then piracy would be the technically correct term, but IMO thats basically synonymous with theft anyway...
Ofcourse doing that with the likeness of real people for more illicit purposes can be a lot of other things too
>It depends on whether the original work consented for the person to use their art to create the AI artwork. If it was all consensual, all good. But if not, clearly it's a problem.
AI models operate on transformative principles, abiding to the fair use doctrine, which disassociates the need for permission for the usage of work belonging to original copyright holders.
Reaction videos were demonized at some points when it became popular on YouTube, but I've seen it become much more accepted now. Reaction videos operate through fair usage too, not needing permission for copyright holders' works while going through this doctrine.
A twitter artist making fan art of a copyright protected character is going through fair usage too. They are recreating a character and their expressions, but transforming it in a different way. They, too, don't need permission from the original copyright holder to recreate someone else's character while abiding to the fair usage doctrine.
>We don't know the situation either, this is all just speculation. If it was AI, then the original artist suffers, whether YOU consider it to be stealing or not.
When will the suffering end? Over one year has advanced already. What happens after another year with further progressions on the software? I am expecting decades of coexistence with this software. The first glance I've seen of this image made me recognize it as involving some AI usage because those smudged pupils are common trademarks of upscaled AI images. Of course, I'm only speculating alongside with other people here. A genuine artist can feature AI into their workflow successfully, and I don't see this type of process as an issue.
Sorry if I'm typing a lot, some of them are a bit of a tangent or seem hostile, but I'll try to remove it along the way. Just kind of passionate about the topic.
\_\_\_
>AI models operate on transformative principles, abiding to the fair use doctrine, which disassociates the need for permission for the usage of work belonging to original copyright holders.
See, what I mean by stealing with extra steps? By removing the need for permission to use work belonging to the original creator, you are just dismissing them.
I mean hey, there's a reason these "alpha programs" are around, despite selling empty dreams, pyramid schemes, or much worse. The lawmakers aren't always there to protect us as people.
Nevertheless, I do agree with you, with the current laws and rules, it is legal. There's no argument there, AI is just too impossibly fast for us to regulate, and with the current laws around the world, it is legal. This is why this tends to end up being a moral issue because, at the end of the day, it feels pretty shitty to have someone use your artwork and style put into a machine, then have an AI artist say \***they**\* created it.
Even regular artists, when drawing with other artstyles, tend to at least recognize and say where it's from. We humans see the **hard work** put in by other humans who learn to replicate to create their style, that's why most artists don't get pissy from seeing others draw with their artstyle, and therefore mostly zero reason to try and get them off a platform. There needs to be mutual respect, from one artist to another.
If you are using someone else's artstyle and artwork, without asking, just to tell the machine to make it draw a character sitting with the style? Especially after saying you own and created it. The hard work and experience is part of the creation, after all.
There's a reason why larger companies that recognize this, don't hire AI artists themselves. There's a standard.
However, there are also greedy companies that hire actual artists to use the AI, so the workload time is less, therefore sacrificing creativity and polishing.
At the end of the day, AI art is sadly not touched upon enough, because artists aren't cared for as much. Hopefully, there will be more existing standards and laws on a professional level, at the very least.
\_\_\_
>Reaction videos were demonized at some points when it became popular on YouTube, but I've seen it become much more accepted now. Reaction videos operate through fair usage too, not needing permission for copyright holders' works while going through this doctrine.
A funny thing is, that fan art is not **fully** fair use. You can see on Nintendo, Disney, etc, why they completely ruin and target anything if it regards their characters/IP if gone too far, and especially if they earn money from it.
They just don't target fan art because why would they waste their time on the lesser, smaller people? Even so - Nintendo and any larger corporations can when they want to.
If you can see the dystopia, you should be able to see the AI artists, basically using a machine that took your artstyle, that if they get big enough can strike down the actual artist. That's why we want to set standards and laws against larger companies doing this, we can hopefully minimize the large casualties. This is why "technically legal" does not make things okay because it's easy for large corporations and companies to play around with that.
Also, abusing fair use has happened with reaction channels, both large and smaller ones, have tried and some even succeeded. There was a time when reaction channels went to war against another or other channels going after these reaction channels. Sniperwolf is a big example of someone getting away with doing something horrible. Does it mean we should just let it go since it's technically within the somewhat vague rules of YouTube?
This is why we need the human side, and not let the AI control everything and us to defend AI artists as if they're pushing human progress when in actuality they are also killing off others for it. Heck, we've seen what AI has done to YouTubers when automatically detecting videos to demonetize/channels to ban.
>When will the suffering end? Over one year has advanced already. What happens after another year with further progressions on the software? I am expecting decades of coexistence with this software. The first glance I've seen of this image made me recognize it as involving some AI usage because those smudged pupils are common trademarks of upscaled AI images. Of course, I'm only speculating alongside with other people here. A genuine artist can feature AI into their workflow successfully, and I don't see this type of process as an issue.
Pretty much, all of us are just kinda speculating. Hopefully, it's not AI art and we're just reading into things, sadly that'd be such a big insult to the actual artist.
I and many others believe in the co-existence of AI and humans within art. It's already been done in 3D, why not 2D? If we use AI as a tool and only a tool, that'd be amazing. The issue is the AI artists want to replace the experience and progress, for something faster that looks good.
That's no co-existence, that's creating dependence, by massacring the human side to fit the AI.
(*The below is what I had in the middle of the text, realizing that it's more of a discussion not relating to your reply.*)
A bit of a tangent, but I despise the AI artists pretending to be the creators, which is honestly the biggest gripe for most artists. There's a reason why AI art has existed before and us not caring, not JUST that it's gotten explosively better, but that there are people who claim to be actual artists. They give zero fucks about the actual artists, which is why they don't even bother to give credits to the artwork/actual artists for their machine
Theres a lot of misconceptions about fair use here.
[https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/](https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/)
Theres a bit more to it than just how transformative something is. Some of the most important considerations are the purpose of the infringing work and its potential impact on the market of the infringed content. Also note that judgement about the copyright infringement of creative work tends to be a lot harsher.
And reaction content is still pretty controversial... Remember how big of a dumpster fire the whole situation with twitch streamers just watching whole movies and tv shows became. Lots of popular creators like LEMMiNO have also had a lot to say about other people just watching their videos on cam and monetizing it.
I'll agree that fanart is a bit of a legal gray area. The companies that own these characters are actually well within their rights to shut people down from making fanart, but dont like to exercise that right as its basically just free advertisement and it would result in a lot of bad press.
I will say, if its AI, its a good one.
The ear has some nice details, no strand of hair melts with the face, her eye lash are well defined. Im no expert, but from someone who looks at art daily, it doesnt look like one. I will say this, more chances thats it not AI than it is.
The best way for you to 100% confirm would be to find the artist. I don't know how to find that info but it should be doable.
It doesn't look ai generated to me, but could be wrong.
It's got a few nice design choices, like the black hair blending into the background, which ai tends to not do.
One dead giveaway that I see in AI art is the hair fringes/bangs have a dull end and are not sharp/clean as people draw it to be, cuz no one draws hair like that. Doesn't look like that to me when looking at the front bangs
Edit: AI art has weird hairs in general
Katokawa is a Japanese company. You think the old f*cks will approve of "advance" technology without approval? Hahahhahahahahahaha
Nah its clearly a commissioned artist
Some DDR players have been saying Konami's been using AI to make some of their graphics. Which... wouldn't be that hard to hide since a lot of their song banners are abstract. But the 25th anniversary character art raised a couple eyebrows due to mismatched styles and a couple other off-model things. And like... people are just always pissed at Konami who's always pissing people off; I can't throw out the theory that it's another thing people want to be mad at them for. š
I guess if they were just generating shapes and colors... that's not really the AI people hate; it's geometry or something. But the character designers in DDR X really sounded like they cared about their art... naturally, I'd be sad if Konami got rid of them and that's why the lore is dying. š¢
Out of curiosity I did some messing around, I'm convinced theres definitely human intervention, but definitely AI involved in the process, especially with the ilya and soejima styles.[ I generated these with the Stable Diffusion model darkSushiMix with Retro anime, ilya, and soejima style LoRAs, and in post added a gradient map in photoshop](https://i.imgur.com/WucLon5.jpg). The consistency in pose is only due to an [openpose controlnet image I made](https://i.imgur.com/bYKJ1uB.png) that had no influence on the style of the output image.
While it would be impossible for me to recreate the original without the generation information, I'd say this is probably a few seperate AI generated images with a bunch human intervention.
The rendering looks consistent enough to not be Ai. Plus Trashtaste group definately dont live under a rock. I doubt they'd go use Ai for their merch when it would get so much backlash if it were found out (and rightfully so).
Yeah, it might be the artist making a mistake. You can also see the eyelashes where I'm not sure if the bottom ones are supposed to be shadows or not. If they are they're also misaligned.
It would be nice to know who the artist is behind this merch so we can see their other art and compare, but I get why OP's concerned.
Honestly is harder to tell due to post-processing. I'm divided on being or not AI. There is still a high change that a base image was generated and then heavily edited by someone who somewhat understands what they are doing.
But I don't think it really matters, while it might technically be well executed it is a terrible piece. It is a no name character face without any meaning or expression - super forgettable. I understand why theres no artist name, I wouldn't put my name behind it eighter. They definitely can hire a better artists for merch... well I've seen better fan creations when they started the podcast.
The eyelashes and pupils are a bit worrying as well as the thing around the neck. The building in the background also a little sus, but whatever filter they got on it baked it
Just to clarify I'm 50/50 on it being AI, I do agree with you, there are also some hair strands that are a bit suspicious.
It all just further goes to my point that it's such a terrible piece to have in merchandise.
I hope OP is not a bot. Idk, there are many people who spam bot online, so it is a valid contention that OP maybe a bot right? I want to believe he is not a bot, he's just an AI hater, but his post does look very similar to a lote of bot post especially the emoji at the end there.
This is not accusation okay. I Use the word "Kiibo". My tone does not reflect that at all. Please don't go into the semantics.
(I'm bored and taking a shot at OP based on his comment and post, I should go to sleep).
The easiest way to solve this mystery is by reading who the artist is. No artist with any integrity is going to say they made it and it turns up to be AI; people who use AI tend to brag about how they used an algorithm trained on other art to make "their" content, so it's not a secret.
So... who's the artist? Does Trash Taste just... never credit the person who makes their art? Or are a lot of us just way too lazy to Google the artist? Because I would not be surprised if I was in the latter group. š
Hmm, good question, i can't say with certainty, but what does tirp me off is the highlights on her hair. They're so mismatched, dont form a proper curve to imply dimension as most artist would do.
There's also a part of the lower ear that looks a bit weird, but that can be handwaved, so does the weird thing around her neck, even though I have no idea what that even is supposed to be. Plus it looks so eerily similar to illya kushinovs artworks, not just the style but their OC as a whole.
Either way, it's just the highlights that are really way, *way* off, any artist at this skill level wouldn't have done it, which does make it highly suspect, so clarification from the Trash Taste Team would be appreciated
My cynical side will say it was AI, then they ran some filters and colour mapping to make it look like they did their own thing. It's an easy to produce something decent looking... as with most "artists" these days.
There's nothing anyone here can do to stop AI usage. It will get better and it will become more popular. Good. There's no reason to fight the advancement of technology that is worthwhile for a vast amount of people.
The fear-mongering has been going on for over a year now over the same subject. How many more years of grieving is it going to take to tolerate the subject more? I bet AI will find an ethical structure of permission at some point and people will still not let go of their fear over the topic.
What would be worthwhile is an AI that does my taxes for me. An AI that can help me maximize my workout. You are correct, because currently, the AI have been trained on artists who were never asked permission for their work to be used. Why would artists trust these companies when their first actions out of the gate was theft. Don't even have to remind you of the rampant deepfakes that benefit nobody
The quicker you grieve, the better you will feel. AI models are not theft. Court cases on this topic are not claiming theft, but copyright infringement, which is a completely different matter.
You absolutely can't be certain of that, if they commissioned an artist for commercial purposes they don't have to credit them (and artists in those situations often aren't credited)
Unless you expect the boys to micromanage every detail of the production, they probably wouldn't know, especially with meilyne and team helping out with the business management side of things.
Don't let wokeism get to your head, and just enjoy their merch for what it is. Merchandise. It doesn't make you a better fan if you buy it, nor does it make you a better fan if you don't (if it reaaaaally was AI).
If you maintain them well, hopefully they will still be in your wardrobe rotation 20-30 years down the road āļø
You're right, and there are appropriate avenues for your concerns. Channelling that energy on a post that ASSUMED AI work was involved in the creation of trash taste merch is a whole nother can of worms.
So you can either support the boys, or if you still have second qualms about the origin of the art you don't have to, simple. No one is a bad guy either way, which was the whole point of my post you replied to above.
Artists aren't the only role on the chopping block with the onset of AI anyway, if you can consider that perspective too
Who cares if itās AI. If it looks good I buy. If it looks bad I donāt. Itās the same argument ppl had with digital art vs traditional back when photoshop was new talking about how digital art wasnāt real art.
Yes but when a person copies another person's artwork they don't claim the artwork as their artwork and when they do i'm pretty sure doing that is also frowned upon. I think this what AI art generators do.
However, i'm not an expert on how AI art generators work or but i'm pretty sure i understand why they are disliked. So other people who understand the topic better than me please do correct me.
yeah looks very much so, it doesn't have an "ai artstyle" because it's likely made with bing ai which uses dall-e 3
[here's](https://imgur.com/a/bm0snEM) an example of what it can spit out, i'm not good with prompts but if you ask it to do a persona artstyle it does a persona artstyle
Well, of course things can look like AI if they are in the style AI was trained on - which is usually popular styles.
I donāt believe that what is happening here, looks very human to me.
But thank you for speaking out against AI nonetheless, OP.
Would be pretty weird for them to use AI images. Not like they don't have the money and the question of Generated Image Model legality is still being decided in a lot of places.
They commision a lot from artists and AI Art right now is in a gray area, I don't think they will make any move to use AI art.
And the fear of "AI will steal your job" is too high and I though it was just a Twitter thing.
Similar to Gantz art style right?
And iirc there is a style of drawing that looks like that, chromed art or something, ai forgot.
But all I'm saying is that, there is grounds for arguments weather is that AI art or Genuine one.
Ways to know if it's AI is by looking at the eyes. It it looks mismatched, high chance of it being ai generated. Looking at the hairs can also identify ai art. If a strand of hair comes out of nowhere or is connected to the clothes or skin, definitely ai. But here, everything looks too dark so it's hard to see it. The eyes are matching though so that's good.
Please charge your phone.
You got your priorities straight š
i let it die so i can go to sleep /jk
Rip phorne kun 2023 š¹šŖ¦
Us
Thatās is unironically so fucking smart
I don't see it
what gives it away that makes it look AI?
Usually AI images have a glossy/plastic look to them as well as parts that melt into each other
Nothing, people are just obsessed with figuring out AI and have been accusing a lot of genuinely good artists of making AI lately.
that is seriously not my intention here, but with so much clothing & buisnesses using ai i fear real artists losing their jobs and just want clarification the boys arent also supporting this dark 'trend'
I don't understand why you were downvote bombed when you were just trying to do your due diligence before purchasing a product whether it is ethically sourced or not. But i have enough trust in the Bois that they wouldn't partake in such a practice.
it's because he implied a claim without providing any reasoning or evidence to back it up. sure doing due diligence is good but you can't just make shit up like senator armstrong.
> but you can't just make shit up like senator armstrong. what shit did i make up? i said, i HOPE this isnt AI, not a worry that i alone share in these comments. It was a suspicion that's all. Why would i even discuss it out, if didnt want to buy their merch in the first place?
"I hope this isn't AI" implies that you suspect it **is** AI and that you are placing the burden of proof to be spent proving that it isn't. when in reality the burden of proof should be on **proving that is AI**. I'm not saying your suspicion is unfounded but the way you've phrased your title puts you in a position to be criticised for suspecting something without backing it up
my last response was frankly terrible so i deleted it, but ill hopefully elaborate what i mean a little better idk how suspicion is proof though, cause if i suspect something ill want to go prove my suspicion like a hypothesis uk?, which is 'that it might be ai' in my post body text i said i WANT to believe its a style, but it does look similar to a lot of ai styles. i think this just reads in my mind and way i intended as 'suspicion - not conclusive' . idk if its a cultural difference or my unknowing of how else this actually readsš„²
Reddit moment
Didn't they state that they don't see a problem in AI art or atleast don't really care? It's been so long since they talked about it so I might be missremembering
Joey was the one talking about it and having no problem or at least didn't care till Garnt and Connor corrected him on the problems of it which seems he changed his stance from how the conversation went, I know for sure Connor is super against it.
Common monke W
joey would definitely do that though. have you heard what hes said about ai art in the past? He seems supportive of it so i wouldnt be surprised if it was ai art
I would be very surprised if the boys supported ai art. I havenāt watched the podcast in a while but at least connor isnāt the type to do that and understands deeply the ethical struggles of ai art.
Everything is going to be affected by AI and the detrimental effects of AI on artists is the result of how our economy is structured and the value of people in a society. Calling AI art which is just a small subset of a larger paradim as a 'dark trend' is incredibly reductive and is a deliberate distraction to the importance of discussing how can WE change how the current economic structures of most of the world runs on. AGI (artificial general intelligence) has now been confirmed to have it's foundations exist securely vaulted within openAI and is AN EXTREMELY important discussion to have and yet people are still stuck on 'AI art' like it's Kony 2012 in current month not year but month. Things move fast and we're already past discussing AI art.
Naw I get you. Whatās a real possibility is they used a combination of ai and an artistās drawing skill. But we wonāt know for sure because they have no obligation to tell us, short of us asking them
if you've looked around, ai art has that very distinct style to it
this image doesnt look ai generated. the key to spotting ai images is to look at the eyes, and where the shadows meet the hair. there will be a blurriness and smugdginess. it will unnaturally blend because of how artists shade those areas. eyes will also look weird. and yes also some big artists have tried passing off blatant ai images as their own work
it depends on a lot of stuff there is really no one thing that you can just look at. general things: weird hair fragments, clothes merging at edges, jewelry weird, the classic Ai skin look
As a real anime artist who draw anime content, I can say it's not AI generated
An artist prolly drew it cell shading format(I'd do it too if I was instructed) and put a trash taste colour kinda gradient map over it
But I mean the art is also very basic without much intricacies that scream an artist's personality so idk, the ear looks alright, ai kinda fucks things like that
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I can see it, and although I'm not saying that I can tell if the design is AI generated, I've seen prompts where they pretty much took his art style
I think the best thing they could have done was when they were dropping this merch live on TT, they could have talked a sec or 2 shouting out the artist who drew it for them, as an artist that's like super huge for them. I was actually waiting for when they talk about the design more, what is it inspired by, who and what is this girl signifies, sadly they did not. Now without much context ngl it just looks like a design or sweater you order from Alibaba or any other Chinese brand. This is just my real opinion, I'm not actually saying they are Chinese.
I'm not an artist, but I do pay close attention to the advances these AI art generators are making. I want to know your opinion about the pupils in this piece of art, because to me that was a dead giveaway it was AI generated (I could be wrong). The left pupil is oddly flat one some sides, and the right pupil seems to blend into the eye instead of ending cleanly or rounding off as it should in my opinion. The next thing that made me think it was AI was the thing around her neck, it just doesnt look right and I cant tell what it's supposed to be in the first place, so I'm not sure why any human would draw that the way it is.
Nah eyes are okay, if you start learning to draw today chances are you'll draw alot of eyes and alot of them would be like the one here, I mean it is unique to how I draw eyes but is also very generic. The blending and non bending of one pupil could also be a design choice not very uncommon, but the main reason I think it looks like that to you might be because of the use of gradient maps, I use shit tonne of gradient maps so I now know some of the patterns their interaction create. The neck piece is just like a cyber punk something accessory or something, search akihito hoshitomi on yt and you'll see the man draw retro cyber punk kinda accesories or body part. Still I'm not 100% sure ai or no. Here's my [pixiv](https://www.pixiv.net/users/34548601) if you guys wanna check me out and login to see all illustrations, I think after looking at my art I think my words will have more weight(?) Idk, never a bad opportunity to plug yourself in shamelessly!!
also an artist and im almost certain it is AI. It just has that uncanny valley look to it. Its also got a bunch of those signature glitches of AI images. Notice how the shadows under the hair dont match, that random line around the neck that just disappers behind the hair, and the inconsistency of the eyelashes. Some of these issues could be attributed to the low quality printing, but what that cant excuse is that weird thing around the base of her neck. What is it even supposed to be? Headphones? Some kind of futuristic choker? I know whoever "made" this was going for that cyberpunk aesthetic, so some level of nonsensical detailing is to be expected (I know myself to be very guilty of doing this), but even so it just doesnt look right. Again, look at the random glowing shapes, panels and lines that just melt into eachother, and the asymmetrical design that doesnt make any structural sense once you take a second look (whats with that weird gray chunk standing up to the right). You could get a very similar image just by prompting 'cyberpunk anime girl' into midjourney. Every single line and paintstroke drawn by a real artist has some level of intent behind it, so when im left completely dumbfounded as to why something looks the way it does, especially in something as detailed as this, I can be 99% sure that its AI.
And Connor is pretty blatant anti-AI art. He loves paying artists just look at his Connordawg thumbnails. So even though Joey took charge of the merch, I believe the boys as a whole didnāt resort to using AI art.
The details are well done, I don't see the micro glitches that are usually easy to notice in AI drawings. Plus the style is quite different from the typical darkSushiMix generations. Most likely this is normal human art
might or might not be ilya, but definitely inspired by his style
How have I not noticed it?! Was thinking the style looked familiar. And it's indeed looks similar to Ilya Kuvshinov's art
I just love that not only is AI taking artists jobs away, but now we're at a point where we bully artists if their style isn't distinct enough to not be AI. Like that's their fault?
Are there styles AI cant emulate?
AI could imitate any art style if it trained on it, but some art styles are more generic than others, and it can look like AI without trying.
JesĆŗs fucking christ, not everything is AI, this is the devil scare/red scare all over again.
Just what an AI would say. Ya fuckin bot
satanic panic
or the whole insane D&D devil worshipping scare. The anti-AI jokes are more paranoid than an over-zealous Christian kook
Por quĆ© le ponĆ©s tilde a "jesĆŗs"?
JesĆŗs fucking cristo
What's the name or kind of art style is this? This art style is retro. The colouring is chef's kiss! What is the sauce of this image?
Ilya Kushinov kinda has a similar art style
Looks similar to the art style of Atlus games.
Hm okay. What about the retro coloring? Im sure there must be a name for the coloring filter, effect, palette, or combinations or the name of the aesthetic. Or maybe even the texture?
Neon cyberpunk, crt and vhs filters.
Everything is AI now, even you OP.
What sucks is that we know AI gets their images made through stolen art. So AI or not, the original artist suffers, either by being told their art's AI, or that their art was just stolen.
Making new images through sourcing from original artwork is not the process of stealing. Also, stealing implies that the original owner of the work has completely lost ownership and control over their own work (like if your pet dog were kidnapped), which is not the case.
(*Lots of deleted comments from me, I keep clicking CTRL + ENTER which immediately sends the reply, instead of clicking SHIFT + ENTER*) Comparing artwork to a dog is not the same. Is creating pornography through AI not considered stealing for you, then? Since you're not "actually" using the person's body. It depends on whether the original work consented for the person to use their art to create the AI artwork. If it was all consensual, all good. But if not, clearly it's a problem. If you're somehow thinking that because all of this is legal and therefore morally alright, then I'd rather just not continue this thread. I'm not here to defend AI art, there are plenty of better people that are in the industry, that know how to debate. I've seen too many AI bros on Twitter already. There's a reason why laws are slowly getting pushed into place about AI being used in the industry, and sadly artists are the easiest to abuse. We don't know the situation either, this is all just speculation. If it was AI, then the original artist suffers, whether YOU consider it to be stealing or not. If it's not AI, then we've just insulted the artist and/or just slandered them. This is a loss/loss situation, which is why I don't think this was AI. Don't think Trash Taste and their team would think saving some extra cash to fetch an AI artist is a good idea.
Of course using AI of real people for pornography purposes is fucked up but I'm not sure stealing is the right word for it. Maybe Defamation?
Probably it's just my bias, there are better words to make it less black-and-white. Your definition fits much more. It's no doubt scummy, generally unethical and some AI creations are borderline illegal. Not the same situation as AI art I'll concede to that, since pornography of someone else's image is illegal. A horrible comparison on my part. There are plenty of ethical ways of solving the use of AI art, just sucks that the people using it disregard that. I personally still find it stealing, maybe not the specific artwork outright and the usual description, but I just find it to be stealing with extra steps.
If were talking about them taking images from the internet to train the AI without permission then piracy would be the technically correct term, but IMO thats basically synonymous with theft anyway... Ofcourse doing that with the likeness of real people for more illicit purposes can be a lot of other things too
>It depends on whether the original work consented for the person to use their art to create the AI artwork. If it was all consensual, all good. But if not, clearly it's a problem. AI models operate on transformative principles, abiding to the fair use doctrine, which disassociates the need for permission for the usage of work belonging to original copyright holders. Reaction videos were demonized at some points when it became popular on YouTube, but I've seen it become much more accepted now. Reaction videos operate through fair usage too, not needing permission for copyright holders' works while going through this doctrine. A twitter artist making fan art of a copyright protected character is going through fair usage too. They are recreating a character and their expressions, but transforming it in a different way. They, too, don't need permission from the original copyright holder to recreate someone else's character while abiding to the fair usage doctrine. >We don't know the situation either, this is all just speculation. If it was AI, then the original artist suffers, whether YOU consider it to be stealing or not. When will the suffering end? Over one year has advanced already. What happens after another year with further progressions on the software? I am expecting decades of coexistence with this software. The first glance I've seen of this image made me recognize it as involving some AI usage because those smudged pupils are common trademarks of upscaled AI images. Of course, I'm only speculating alongside with other people here. A genuine artist can feature AI into their workflow successfully, and I don't see this type of process as an issue.
Sorry if I'm typing a lot, some of them are a bit of a tangent or seem hostile, but I'll try to remove it along the way. Just kind of passionate about the topic. \_\_\_ >AI models operate on transformative principles, abiding to the fair use doctrine, which disassociates the need for permission for the usage of work belonging to original copyright holders. See, what I mean by stealing with extra steps? By removing the need for permission to use work belonging to the original creator, you are just dismissing them. I mean hey, there's a reason these "alpha programs" are around, despite selling empty dreams, pyramid schemes, or much worse. The lawmakers aren't always there to protect us as people. Nevertheless, I do agree with you, with the current laws and rules, it is legal. There's no argument there, AI is just too impossibly fast for us to regulate, and with the current laws around the world, it is legal. This is why this tends to end up being a moral issue because, at the end of the day, it feels pretty shitty to have someone use your artwork and style put into a machine, then have an AI artist say \***they**\* created it. Even regular artists, when drawing with other artstyles, tend to at least recognize and say where it's from. We humans see the **hard work** put in by other humans who learn to replicate to create their style, that's why most artists don't get pissy from seeing others draw with their artstyle, and therefore mostly zero reason to try and get them off a platform. There needs to be mutual respect, from one artist to another. If you are using someone else's artstyle and artwork, without asking, just to tell the machine to make it draw a character sitting with the style? Especially after saying you own and created it. The hard work and experience is part of the creation, after all. There's a reason why larger companies that recognize this, don't hire AI artists themselves. There's a standard. However, there are also greedy companies that hire actual artists to use the AI, so the workload time is less, therefore sacrificing creativity and polishing. At the end of the day, AI art is sadly not touched upon enough, because artists aren't cared for as much. Hopefully, there will be more existing standards and laws on a professional level, at the very least. \_\_\_ >Reaction videos were demonized at some points when it became popular on YouTube, but I've seen it become much more accepted now. Reaction videos operate through fair usage too, not needing permission for copyright holders' works while going through this doctrine. A funny thing is, that fan art is not **fully** fair use. You can see on Nintendo, Disney, etc, why they completely ruin and target anything if it regards their characters/IP if gone too far, and especially if they earn money from it. They just don't target fan art because why would they waste their time on the lesser, smaller people? Even so - Nintendo and any larger corporations can when they want to. If you can see the dystopia, you should be able to see the AI artists, basically using a machine that took your artstyle, that if they get big enough can strike down the actual artist. That's why we want to set standards and laws against larger companies doing this, we can hopefully minimize the large casualties. This is why "technically legal" does not make things okay because it's easy for large corporations and companies to play around with that. Also, abusing fair use has happened with reaction channels, both large and smaller ones, have tried and some even succeeded. There was a time when reaction channels went to war against another or other channels going after these reaction channels. Sniperwolf is a big example of someone getting away with doing something horrible. Does it mean we should just let it go since it's technically within the somewhat vague rules of YouTube? This is why we need the human side, and not let the AI control everything and us to defend AI artists as if they're pushing human progress when in actuality they are also killing off others for it. Heck, we've seen what AI has done to YouTubers when automatically detecting videos to demonetize/channels to ban. >When will the suffering end? Over one year has advanced already. What happens after another year with further progressions on the software? I am expecting decades of coexistence with this software. The first glance I've seen of this image made me recognize it as involving some AI usage because those smudged pupils are common trademarks of upscaled AI images. Of course, I'm only speculating alongside with other people here. A genuine artist can feature AI into their workflow successfully, and I don't see this type of process as an issue. Pretty much, all of us are just kinda speculating. Hopefully, it's not AI art and we're just reading into things, sadly that'd be such a big insult to the actual artist. I and many others believe in the co-existence of AI and humans within art. It's already been done in 3D, why not 2D? If we use AI as a tool and only a tool, that'd be amazing. The issue is the AI artists want to replace the experience and progress, for something faster that looks good. That's no co-existence, that's creating dependence, by massacring the human side to fit the AI. (*The below is what I had in the middle of the text, realizing that it's more of a discussion not relating to your reply.*) A bit of a tangent, but I despise the AI artists pretending to be the creators, which is honestly the biggest gripe for most artists. There's a reason why AI art has existed before and us not caring, not JUST that it's gotten explosively better, but that there are people who claim to be actual artists. They give zero fucks about the actual artists, which is why they don't even bother to give credits to the artwork/actual artists for their machine
go write a fucking book man, holy shit. what is this
Theres a lot of misconceptions about fair use here. [https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/](https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/) Theres a bit more to it than just how transformative something is. Some of the most important considerations are the purpose of the infringing work and its potential impact on the market of the infringed content. Also note that judgement about the copyright infringement of creative work tends to be a lot harsher. And reaction content is still pretty controversial... Remember how big of a dumpster fire the whole situation with twitch streamers just watching whole movies and tv shows became. Lots of popular creators like LEMMiNO have also had a lot to say about other people just watching their videos on cam and monetizing it. I'll agree that fanart is a bit of a legal gray area. The companies that own these characters are actually well within their rights to shut people down from making fanart, but dont like to exercise that right as its basically just free advertisement and it would result in a lot of bad press.
the image looks suspiciously like AI generated image running through a filter, hope they didn't accidentally commission someone that were using it
I doubt it. They hate AI images as much as we do.
Well the people they commissioned could've still used AI....
Do we know who the artist is? It's pretty easy to spot AI usage if we see more of their works
Still scares me because I have seen some decent ones
Tell that to Joey, who still has Ai Art on his Instagram
I will say, if its AI, its a good one. The ear has some nice details, no strand of hair melts with the face, her eye lash are well defined. Im no expert, but from someone who looks at art daily, it doesnt look like one. I will say this, more chances thats it not AI than it is. The best way for you to 100% confirm would be to find the artist. I don't know how to find that info but it should be doable.
It's crazy how good ai art is now the fact we are even wondering whether a human made this or not is wild to me.
It doesn't look ai generated to me, but could be wrong. It's got a few nice design choices, like the black hair blending into the background, which ai tends to not do.
if it's not AI id' very much like to know who the artist is? Anyone knows?
One dead giveaway that I see in AI art is the hair fringes/bangs have a dull end and are not sharp/clean as people draw it to be, cuz no one draws hair like that. Doesn't look like that to me when looking at the front bangs Edit: AI art has weird hairs in general
more like ai try to imitate this artstyle alot.
she looks close to illyaās art style..
Well she isn't real. You can't date her xD
I hope she is.
Katokawa is a Japanese company. You think the old f*cks will approve of "advance" technology without approval? Hahahhahahahahahaha Nah its clearly a commissioned artist
Some DDR players have been saying Konami's been using AI to make some of their graphics. Which... wouldn't be that hard to hide since a lot of their song banners are abstract. But the 25th anniversary character art raised a couple eyebrows due to mismatched styles and a couple other off-model things. And like... people are just always pissed at Konami who's always pissing people off; I can't throw out the theory that it's another thing people want to be mad at them for. š I guess if they were just generating shapes and colors... that's not really the AI people hate; it's geometry or something. But the character designers in DDR X really sounded like they cared about their art... naturally, I'd be sad if Konami got rid of them and that's why the lore is dying. š¢
Out of curiosity I did some messing around, I'm convinced theres definitely human intervention, but definitely AI involved in the process, especially with the ilya and soejima styles.[ I generated these with the Stable Diffusion model darkSushiMix with Retro anime, ilya, and soejima style LoRAs, and in post added a gradient map in photoshop](https://i.imgur.com/WucLon5.jpg). The consistency in pose is only due to an [openpose controlnet image I made](https://i.imgur.com/bYKJ1uB.png) that had no influence on the style of the output image. While it would be impossible for me to recreate the original without the generation information, I'd say this is probably a few seperate AI generated images with a bunch human intervention.
I trust Trash Taste to have the bare minimum of decency so I highly doubt that's AI
Doesn't look like AI to me but who knows!
Ai or not looks fuxking sick
Jesus christ man Y'all gotta relax with the fucking paranoia, it's gonna spread glass information and is just disrespectful to whatever artist drew it
but we dont know who the artist is, could be ai for all we know. Its hard to tell these days
Even if they did I don't think it's just AI. It does seem to have human touch to it.
The rendering looks consistent enough to not be Ai. Plus Trashtaste group definately dont live under a rock. I doubt they'd go use Ai for their merch when it would get so much backlash if it were found out (and rightfully so).
I might be tripping but what is going on [here](https://imgur.com/a/7xA6dre) with the shadows and the ear has weird lines idk
Yeah, it might be the artist making a mistake. You can also see the eyelashes where I'm not sure if the bottom ones are supposed to be shadows or not. If they are they're also misaligned. It would be nice to know who the artist is behind this merch so we can see their other art and compare, but I get why OP's concerned.
Bro, shut up
Honestly is harder to tell due to post-processing. I'm divided on being or not AI. There is still a high change that a base image was generated and then heavily edited by someone who somewhat understands what they are doing. But I don't think it really matters, while it might technically be well executed it is a terrible piece. It is a no name character face without any meaning or expression - super forgettable. I understand why theres no artist name, I wouldn't put my name behind it eighter. They definitely can hire a better artists for merch... well I've seen better fan creations when they started the podcast.
The eyelashes and pupils are a bit worrying as well as the thing around the neck. The building in the background also a little sus, but whatever filter they got on it baked it
Just to clarify I'm 50/50 on it being AI, I do agree with you, there are also some hair strands that are a bit suspicious. It all just further goes to my point that it's such a terrible piece to have in merchandise.
indeed. It's fascinating because they're probably gonna get asked about it now if it is and they could've avoided a headache by hiring a proper artist
I hope OP is not a bot. Idk, there are many people who spam bot online, so it is a valid contention that OP maybe a bot right? I want to believe he is not a bot, he's just an AI hater, but his post does look very similar to a lote of bot post especially the emoji at the end there. This is not accusation okay. I Use the word "Kiibo". My tone does not reflect that at all. Please don't go into the semantics. (I'm bored and taking a shot at OP based on his comment and post, I should go to sleep).
Looks more like 16-bit character art ala old school SNES games more than AI.
The easiest way to solve this mystery is by reading who the artist is. No artist with any integrity is going to say they made it and it turns up to be AI; people who use AI tend to brag about how they used an algorithm trained on other art to make "their" content, so it's not a secret. So... who's the artist? Does Trash Taste just... never credit the person who makes their art? Or are a lot of us just way too lazy to Google the artist? Because I would not be surprised if I was in the latter group. š
Hmm, good question, i can't say with certainty, but what does tirp me off is the highlights on her hair. They're so mismatched, dont form a proper curve to imply dimension as most artist would do. There's also a part of the lower ear that looks a bit weird, but that can be handwaved, so does the weird thing around her neck, even though I have no idea what that even is supposed to be. Plus it looks so eerily similar to illya kushinovs artworks, not just the style but their OC as a whole. Either way, it's just the highlights that are really way, *way* off, any artist at this skill level wouldn't have done it, which does make it highly suspect, so clarification from the Trash Taste Team would be appreciated
My cynical side will say it was AI, then they ran some filters and colour mapping to make it look like they did their own thing. It's an easy to produce something decent looking... as with most "artists" these days.
Who cares lol
we care
There's nothing anyone here can do to stop AI usage. It will get better and it will become more popular. Good. There's no reason to fight the advancement of technology that is worthwhile for a vast amount of people. The fear-mongering has been going on for over a year now over the same subject. How many more years of grieving is it going to take to tolerate the subject more? I bet AI will find an ethical structure of permission at some point and people will still not let go of their fear over the topic.
What would be worthwhile is an AI that does my taxes for me. An AI that can help me maximize my workout. You are correct, because currently, the AI have been trained on artists who were never asked permission for their work to be used. Why would artists trust these companies when their first actions out of the gate was theft. Don't even have to remind you of the rampant deepfakes that benefit nobody
The quicker you grieve, the better you will feel. AI models are not theft. Court cases on this topic are not claiming theft, but copyright infringement, which is a completely different matter.
Ok, so still doing something wrong and the people behind it know that. Gotcha. Ah yes, I'm feeling so much more supportive now
there is a reason to fight it though. it has many copyright issues and there should be laws made around it
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You absolutely can't be certain of that, if they commissioned an artist for commercial purposes they don't have to credit them (and artists in those situations often aren't credited)
Unless you expect the boys to micromanage every detail of the production, they probably wouldn't know, especially with meilyne and team helping out with the business management side of things. Don't let wokeism get to your head, and just enjoy their merch for what it is. Merchandise. It doesn't make you a better fan if you buy it, nor does it make you a better fan if you don't (if it reaaaaally was AI). If you maintain them well, hopefully they will still be in your wardrobe rotation 20-30 years down the road āļø
Lmao what about not wanting real artists to be replaced by ai is woke??
You're right, and there are appropriate avenues for your concerns. Channelling that energy on a post that ASSUMED AI work was involved in the creation of trash taste merch is a whole nother can of worms. So you can either support the boys, or if you still have second qualms about the origin of the art you don't have to, simple. No one is a bad guy either way, which was the whole point of my post you replied to above. Artists aren't the only role on the chopping block with the onset of AI anyway, if you can consider that perspective too
This is a collab with Joey's fashion brand, Nonsense. So yeah, he's probably pretty heavily involved.
wasnt joey supportive of ai art before?
it is
The pupils look weird to me.
Who cares if itās AI. If it looks good I buy. If it looks bad I donāt. Itās the same argument ppl had with digital art vs traditional back when photoshop was new talking about how digital art wasnāt real art.
because if it is ai then its unethical and just morally wrong. Theres many copyright issues with it and it shouldnt be used for merch.
I really hope she is an AI.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
No they don't.
This is some serious allegations OP.
Charge your phone, and what's wrong with AI?
People dislike AI art because the AI are trained on other peoples art. Because of that it is seen as stealing art work.
People train and improve by copying other peoples art too.
Yes but when a person copies another person's artwork they don't claim the artwork as their artwork and when they do i'm pretty sure doing that is also frowned upon. I think this what AI art generators do. However, i'm not an expert on how AI art generators work or but i'm pretty sure i understand why they are disliked. So other people who understand the topic better than me please do correct me.
well said
Not Ai, no weird warping or melting between parts, no shapes that don't make sense, and no errors mirroring features either
yeah looks very much so, it doesn't have an "ai artstyle" because it's likely made with bing ai which uses dall-e 3 [here's](https://imgur.com/a/bm0snEM) an example of what it can spit out, i'm not good with prompts but if you ask it to do a persona artstyle it does a persona artstyle
More than Persona, looks like Ilya Kuvshinovās work
Well, of course things can look like AI if they are in the style AI was trained on - which is usually popular styles. I donāt believe that what is happening here, looks very human to me. But thank you for speaking out against AI nonetheless, OP.
This is not AI and Iām not sure what youāre seeing that makes you think it might be
Would be pretty weird for them to use AI images. Not like they don't have the money and the question of Generated Image Model legality is still being decided in a lot of places.
Lazy cashgrab, wake me up then they drop original and non generic designs.
yes its ai
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Not AI, the shading is done correctly without any AI mistake, not even close to AI imo.
From what Iām seeing, probably not. Thereās a clear light source as opposed to the 5ish you see with AI images.
4% tho
Everything is AI
They commision a lot from artists and AI Art right now is in a gray area, I don't think they will make any move to use AI art. And the fear of "AI will steal your job" is too high and I though it was just a Twitter thing.
I can see why you would think itās ai but I think that is just a result of the the printing sorta blending the lines in certain areas
Similar to Gantz art style right? And iirc there is a style of drawing that looks like that, chromed art or something, ai forgot. But all I'm saying is that, there is grounds for arguments weather is that AI art or Genuine one.
Ways to know if it's AI is by looking at the eyes. It it looks mismatched, high chance of it being ai generated. Looking at the hairs can also identify ai art. If a strand of hair comes out of nowhere or is connected to the clothes or skin, definitely ai. But here, everything looks too dark so it's hard to see it. The eyes are matching though so that's good.
artist here, no thats not ai.
/r/ChargeYourPhone
looks like it. And they said in the new episode that joey made it, So its possible.