Topic: about an artist

I saw an artist i like has had their works deleted off here, they go by the nick 911servis. stated reason is ai generated or manipulated works but I haven't seen them mention it anywhere. have I missed something or has it been falsely flagged?

painbutnot said:
I saw an artist i like has had their works deleted off here, they go by the nick 911servis. stated reason is ai generated or manipulated works but I haven't seen them mention it anywhere. have I missed something or has it been falsely flagged?

If it's AI generated, maybe check e6ai.net to see if it's there

aww man, not 911servis too T_T. I really loved their made in abyss stuff.

same thing happened to the artist tororoudn. just discovered him a few days ago and really liked their art, but today when I went to their artist tag I notice half of the gallery got removed, and with the same reason: AI assisted/generated. went to their twitter and pixiv and I don't see any mention of them using AI.
https://e621.net/posts?tags=tororoudn+status%3Adeleted

painbutnot said:
I saw an artist i like has had their works deleted off here, they go by the nick 911servis. stated reason is ai generated or manipulated works but I haven't seen them mention it anywhere. have I missed something or has it been falsely flagged?

A. We don't just take flags at their word, & we discard frivolous & baseless AI accusation flags all the time. We delete posts for disallowed AI generation/assistance after carefully investigating the matter, not because someone said it is.
B. While we do look for strong proof of AI usage before making these calls, we are capable of making mistakes; we always allow the artist to reach out to us & contest our verdict by providing information that proves they are legitimately capable of organically creating the suspect pieces. They are always welcome to hash things out with us should they so choose.

qwkrg586 said:
same thing happened to the artist tororoudn. just discovered him a few days ago and really liked their art, but today when I went to their artist tag I notice half of the gallery got removed, and with the same reason: AI assisted/generated. went to their twitter and pixiv and I don't see any mention of them using AI.
https://e621.net/posts?tags=tororoudn+status%3Adeleted

That removal surprised me. Tororoudn has been an artist in the community for more than a decade. He is not an English speaker, so I don't think it would be kind to reach out to him and ask him to provide detailed evidence that he's not a computer, but I'm not sure e621 made the right call there.

donkdewd said:
That removal surprised me. Tororoudn has been an artist in the community for more than a decade. He is not an English speaker, so I don't think it would be kind to reach out to him and ask him to provide detailed evidence that he's not a computer, but I'm not sure e621 made the right call there.

I’m not privy on that one but artist history doesn’t always Add up to not using ai. Many good artists such as twinkle-sez, and Duase have picked it up at one point or another and owned up and stopped.

It's kinda like speedrunners; someone might have the knowledge & skills to do something legitimately, but that also means they have the knowledge & skills to take a shortcut and hide it better than someone less capable, along with an emotional ("I know I can do it, but this is easier, & besides, I've earned this") and/or financial motivation to do so.

colinthelucario said:
If it's AI generated, maybe check e6ai.net to see if it's there

not there and their art doesnt have any obvious signs of Ai generation. sad that their works are gone

Yeah, noticed their works got wiped for supposedly being AI too. Was majorly soul-crushing and demoralizing to see because their stuff was very aesthetically nice and had a very creatively inspiring style, and now I'm feeling despondant that there's the possibility that all their stuff was secretly AI-influenced in some way + bitter that practically anything can now just be mass-glassed for being AI if enough dots are pinned together regardless of any validity or circumstance, and that this can stretch pretty much anything made nowadays.
Like damn. What's the point of liking anything new and appealling or looking into the works of recent artists then if that possibility of AI association and influence is gonna permeate through everything? Why even bother with looking up, liking and sharing art you enjoy/get inspired by when there's the constantly ticking 25% chance it's actually got AI roots embedded in it? Might as well just not bother interacting with creative works at all, as obviously irrational as that sounds.
Shit fucking blows so many chunks it's unreal.

gremlinfella said:
Shit fucking blows so many chunks it's unreal.

.... things will get glassed for being ai, thats the rules. and if you think people should stop creating or interacting with art because it can be bad in some way, you got the wrong idea. Theres always been bad practices in the creative space, ai gen is just another, way bigger form it has.

This kind of super melodrama of thinking only hurts, doesnt do any good at all.

If you want clanker art, go to the clanker art site. If you want human art, go to the human art site. That seems pretty self-explanatory.

strahaspilot said:
If you want clanker art, go to the clanker art site. If you want human art, go to the human art site. That seems pretty self-explanatory.

my issue isn't that Ai art isn't allowed here (actually I love that) my issue is that I haven't seen anything obvious in the art nor have they said anything to imply they have used Ai.

The obvious issue is that anybody who's, well, obvious gets fewer commissions and fewer follows. It is in their best interest to make at least a basic effort to hide it.

There is little benefit to making AI usage obvious in your art. Tech bros who want to normalize imagegen will think you're a freak who's not doing anything to make the technology palatable to "normal" people. Some people do subscribe to AI art patreons, some people do buy AI-generated adoptables, but even then the draw is the sheer output. "Artists" uploading rawgens to DeviantArt will have literal thousands of submissions to their name, all in the hope that, eventually, at least one of them will kinda resonate with somebody.

I recently learnt a term related to this:
toupee fallacy ,as in the false conclusion that all toupees look bad, where in fact it's a selection effect: most of the toupees that are detected as actually being toupees are detected because they look bad (=="obviously a toupee").

lafcadio said:
The obvious issue is that anybody who's, well, obvious gets fewer commissions and fewer follows. It is in their best interest to make at least a basic effort to hide it.

There is little benefit to making AI usage obvious in your art. Tech bros who want to normalize imagegen will think you're a freak who's not doing anything to make the technology palatable to "normal" people. Some people do subscribe to AI art patreons, some people do buy AI-generated adoptables, but even then the draw is the sheer output. "Artists" uploading rawgens to DeviantArt will have literal thousands of submissions to their name, all in the hope that, eventually, at least one of them will kinda resonate with somebody.

genuine question because im new, but dont the sketches they post on their twitter give enough proof they dont use Ai?

painbutnot said:
genuine question because im new, but dont the sketches they post on their twitter give enough proof they dont use Ai?

Not really, no. Anybody could trace digital sketches from AI-generated artworks after the fact.
The traditional pen and paper works might be good proof. However, we want more concrete proof when it comes to digital art, such as a recorded/live art stream to show their work process.

painbutnot said:
genuine question because im new, but dont the sketches they post on their twitter give enough proof they dont use Ai?

Could also be AI-assisted in that they make the sketch and cheese the rest with AI.

thegreatwolfgang said:
such as a recorded/live art stream to show their work process.

Absolutely RIP in piss to anyone who has performance anxiety or has a habit of procrastinating/getting sidetracked while drawing

gremlinfella said:
Absolutely RIP in piss to anyone who has performance anxiety or has a habit of procrastinating/getting sidetracked while drawing

Most art programs should have built-in stroke recording or time-lapse recording capabilities, which can ignore time taken for breaks or periods of inactivity.
Thus, there shouldn't be any issues with live performance anxiety or having long breaks between drawing.

The things we are looking for in art streams or time-lapse recordings (which can be faked as well) is telltale signs of a genuine human artist.
AI-generated time-lapses could have the AI draw the entire work without making any errors/corrections while AI-assisted works could see the artist seemingly "tracing" the entire work without even making a rough sketch first.

EDIT

A previous version of this message was wrongly attributing the following quote to thegreatwolfgang

gremlinfella said:
wiped for supposedly being AI too. Was majorly soul-crushing and demoralizing to see because their stuff was very aesthetically nice and had a very creatively inspiring style, and now I'm feeling despondant that there's the possibility that all their stuff was secretly AI-influenced in some way + bitter that practically anything can now just be mass-glassed for being AI if enough dots are pinned together regardless of any validity or circumstance, and that this can stretch pretty much anything made nowadays.
Like damn. What's the point of liking anything new and appealling or looking into the works of recent artists

So if there's a doubt, then they are guilty until proven not guilty? How would an artist prove something that did not happened didn't happened? Even if they film the creation process from start to finish, what proof then didn't sneaked some form of AI into it? Like tracing?

kaleth said:
So if there's a doubt, then they are guilty until proven not guilty? How would an artist prove something that did not happened didn't happened? Even if they film the creation process from start to finish, what proof then didn't sneaked some form of AI into it? Like tracing?

It's not "guilty until proven not guilty", they are guilty when evidence is found, and they then need to prove themself innocent
The janitor team consists of multiple artists, they know what to look for

painbutnot said:
genuine question because im new, but dont the sketches they post on their twitter give enough proof they dont use Ai?

This is one of my FAQs.

EDIT

A previous version of this message was wrongly attributing the following quote to Donovan_DMC

thegreatwolfgang said:
The things we are looking for in art streams or time-lapse recordings (which can be faked as well) is telltale signs of a genuine human artist.

thegreatwolfgang said:
The traditional pen and paper works might be good proof. However, we want more concrete proof when it comes to digital art, such as a recorded/live art stream to show their work process.

I was answering to thegreatwolfgang. Asking for proof it's made 100% by an human by requiring recorded/live art stream is the closest you can come to asking for a negative proof (ei. proving that something didn't happened).

If you don't see that much, I don't know what to tell you. The just mean that any artist that forgot to generate that proof is shafted: How will they prove they haven't?

kaleth said:
I was answering to thegreatwolfgang. Asking for proof it's made 100% by an human by requiring recorded/live art stream is the closest you can come to asking for a negative proof (ei. proving that something didn't happened).

If you don't see that much, I don't know what to tell you. The just mean that any artist that forgot to generate that proof is shafted: How will they prove they haven't?

Can't say this works in every case but If I ever had to show that I can doodle my peeps,
I'd show my Paint Tool Sai file. As far as I know, You can't generate layers of color,
linework and biz like that. At least not yet, Dood =P

Though someone could start tracing, I'd think it'd be obvious for the blatant and
spotable for those who try to hide it. As for the tells, I don't want to give any
ideas but anyone who's used an art program and drawn for a while on it know what
A used one looks like, and what a staged one does, Dood!
◡‿◡)

notkastar said:
Can't say this works in every case but If I ever had to show that I can doodle my peeps,
I'd show my Paint Tool Sai file. As far as I know, You can't generate layers of color,
linework and biz like that. At least not yet, Dood =P

You absolutely can, you can even generate depth map from a 2d picture. Outline is super easy to do. You also need to take other things into consideration:
- Time: Can you be sure to be able to produce those documents next year? in 3 years? in 10 years?
- Variability: What about the traditional arts a ai-director/artist have made? e.g.: Should everything Jasonafex ever produced be deleted because he recently used AI?
- Usage: There's a carveout for backgrounds made via AI: how you deal with that, what proof you can ask they haven't use the AI for anything else?

notkastar said:
As for the tells, I don't want to give any
ideas but anyone who's used an art program and drawn for a while on it know what
A used one looks like, and what a staged one does, Dood!

Oh god... you have no idea what the AI side of things look like, do you? I can testify the knowledge of art programs among those who does more than rawgen is good and well.

kaleth said:

donovan_dmc said:
The things we are looking for in art streams or time-lapse recordings (which can be faked as well) is telltale signs of a genuine human artist.

I didn't say that

kaleth said:
I was answering to thegreatwolfgang.

I don't see how that's relevant, you're talking in a public forum

This sounds like you trying to convince us to stop trying to look for ai because it's "too hard to detect" or something along those lines, your involvement here really feels like a conflict of interest with this bit in your profile:

I'm a janitor crew member over at e621's sister site e6ai!

donovan_dmc said:

I didn't say that

I don't see how that's relevant, you're talking in a public forum.

Exactly, which mean I can answer to anyone and that my point needs to be taken in context. You can't make abstraction of that because it serves your narrative; That's just arguing in bad faith.

donovan_dmc said:

This sounds like you trying to convince us to stop trying to look for ai because it's "too hard to detect" or something along those lines, your involvement here really feels like a conflict of interest with this bit in your profile:

You can interpret it any way you want, but I invite you remove (what I perceive like) your overtly hostile lens and re-read what I said. My point is the proposed way to prove non ai-involvement in this thread are flawed:

They are either impractical (asking for lot of records), based on preconceptions or information that don't hold (showing several "steps" of the creation process, file with layers, etc.), or simply based on stereotypes (AI director incapable of using artist tools).

Never did I even came close to said to give up.

donovan_dmc said:
your involvement here really feels like a conflict of interest with this bit in your profile:

I'm not hiding that fact; case in point, it's in my profile.

That said, that looks like an ad hominem attack: discrediting the person and not the argument. I really hope we can talk without lacking respect or harassing each others

kaleth said:
I was answering to thegreatwolfgang.

Stop messing around with the "<person> said" part of your replies. It makes it confusing/misleading as to what they have actually said in this discussion.

Just "@" the person if you are directing your answer to them.

Asking for proof it's made 100% by an human by requiring recorded/live art stream is the closest you can come to asking for a negative proof (ei. proving that something didn't happened).

If you don't see that much, I don't know what to tell you. The just mean that any artist that forgot to generate that proof is shafted: How will they prove they haven't?

For an artist to have been blacklisted/nuked for allegedly creating AI-generated/assisted artwork, there has to be a multitude of evidence & instances that points to something questionable being done in the artwork creation process.
As mentioned earlier by @Aacafah, these things aren't done on a whim and there would have been an investigation into the matter before the verdict to nuke them is made.

If an artist cannot supply a recorded art stream, we would ask for other forms of evidence, such as the raw work file itself.
There should be multiple layers used in the creation of the artwork, from the background, to base sketch, to clean lineart, to the colours, and to lighting & shading.
You would almost never hear someone drawing on a single layer only, unless they are completely masochistic or confident with their artistic skills.

Of course, if they couldn't provide that as well because they have "deleted" it, they can easily produce new ones when they create their next art. That wouldn't be a problem now, would it?

kaleth said:
Should everything Jasonafex ever produced be deleted because he recently used AI?

We have absolutely nuked entire years worth of artworks before from a popular artist who admitted they were assisted with AI.

donovan_dmc said:

This sounds like you trying to convince us to stop trying to look for ai because it's "too hard to detect" or something along those lines, your involvement here really feels like a conflict of interest with this bit in your profile:

Oh dear, It looks like me and the peep, wouldn't get along on principle.
It's a bit mean myself but, Not a fan those decisions, Dood
= =)

kaleth said:
You absolutely can, you can even generate depth map from a 2d picture. Outline is super easy to do. You also need to take other things into consideration:
- Time: Can you be sure to be able to produce those documents next year? in 3 years? in 10 years?
- Variability: What about the traditional arts a ai-director/artist have made? e.g.: Should everything Jasonafex ever produced be deleted because he recently used AI?
- Usage: There's a carveout for backgrounds made via AI: how you deal with that, what proof you can ask they haven't use the AI for anything else?

kaleth said:
Oh god... you have no idea what the AI side of things look like, do you? I can testify the knowledge of art programs among those who does more than rawgen is good and well.

You don't have to be mean, Just saying there are tells that are spotable. and that there's a
possible a light at the end of the tunnel artists are finding themselves in due to AI biz.
That Light being this very conversation, Dood!

We're talking about this, Tells, the lack thereof, and all that. It shows that we want this!
A way to tell and way to spot things, a way to trust things again! To go in a bit of an opposite
direction from the doom and gloom saying AI is going to do this and that. Maybe in 2 or 3 years
Not only will AI get better, but spotting it will be too, Dood!

I mean, regulations ARE coming whether you like it or not, with how many big names are trying
to fight the rampant copyright infringement and flat-out crimes, Thanks to the stuff.
Just saying, giving us time to understand it better doesn't just mean making prettier
gaff, But also broadening our understanding of how to bring what's actually made back
to the forefront! And also ways of telling without having to spot everything manually
all the time, Dood! ╹‿╹)

kaleth said:
[...]simply based on stereotypes (AI director incapable of using artist tools).

I mean, if they can't use any artist tools to create a work from scratch than they definitely used AI, though.

so you'd end up getting a few false negatives but zero false positives. seems like a perfectly functional test to me.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Stop messing around with the "<person> said" part of your replies. It makes it confusing/misleading as to what they have actually said in this discussion.

Just "@" the person if you are directing your answer to them.

I don't get it, I used quotes exactly like you just did... You'll have to explain to me how it's misleading, since the quote was literally with my answer.

And yeah, if you feel it's too much of a dialogue, then I invite you to bring this into DM.

thegreatwolfgang said:
These things aren't done on a whim and there would have been an investigation into the matter before the verdict to nuke them is made.
[...]

Of course, if they couldn't provide that as well because they have "deleted" it, they can easily produce new ones when they create their next art. That wouldn't be a problem now, would it?

Correct me if I don't understand well, but what I understand is that you nuke all the artist's images regardless of if the individual image are AI or not? Isn't that extreme?

kaleth said:

donovan_dmc said:

I didn't say that

I don't see how that's relevant, you're talking in a public forum.

Why are you again editing what's in replies? That period was not there

kaleth said:
Exactly, which mean I can answer to anyone and that my point needs to be taken in context. You can't make abstraction of that because it serves your narrative; That's just arguing in bad faith.

What am I making an abstraction of or arguing in bad faith about? I literally quoted you word for word, nothing was taken out of context

kaleth said:
You can interpret it any way you want, but I invite you remove (what I perceive like) your overtly hostile lens and re-read what I said. My point is the proposed way to prove non ai-involvement in this thread are flawed:

They are either impractical (asking for lot of records), based on preconceptions or information that don't hold (showing several "steps" of the creation process, file with layers, etc.), or simply based on stereotypes (AI director incapable of using artist tools).

Never did I even came close to said to give up.

You're saying all of our methods of proving something isn't ai aren't actually proof or aren't reasonable, I'm not sure what other conclusion I'm supposed to draw from that

kaleth said:
I'm not hiding that fact; case in point, it's in my profile.

Sure, but that's still info that still may as well be hidden away, I saw it by complete happenstance when I misclicked on the timestamp of a forum post to get the link to extract the id
You being part of a site actively encouraging the use of ai seems very relevant when participating in a discussion about ai detection and disproving use of ai, it's a clear bias that without getting out front and mentioning it will lead to your motives being questioned, which is exactly what I'm doing

kaleth said:
I don't get it, I used quotes exactly like you just did... You'll have to explain to me how it's misleading, since the quote was literally with my answer.

And yeah, if you feel it's too much of a dialogue, then I invite you to bring this into DM.

It's fine, just don't change anything within the quotation block once you have pressed "Reply" on someone's comment.
However, if you must know:

kaleth said:
Correct me if I don't understand well, but what I understand is that you nuke all the artist's images regardless of if the individual image are AI or not? Isn't that extreme?

In most cases, yes I think? Though I might be overgeneralising things from what I have observed.
I'm not a janitor or mod though so you will have to ask them for the actual instances where artists get nuked.

From what I have seen though, most artists that do not have any established background would get the full nuke.

For established artists, who had years of work before AI, I have only seen one instance where their works got nuked up until the point they had admitted to using AI.
That is, they admitted starting to use AI on year X, so we nuked everything from year X until now.

notkastar said:
You don't have to be mean,

Nah, I'm sorry I came across rude, I didn't meant to be mean.

notkastar said:
We're talking about this, Tells, the lack thereof, and all that. It shows that we want this!
A way to tell and way to spot things, a way to trust things again!

You're right, there's a lot of tells, it's not that hard to spot when you know what to look at. You don't need recordings, the original file, proof of competence. To me, those methods are so flawed/inefficient that it won't even help the staff to detect ai/non-ai.

notkastar said:
I mean, regulations ARE coming whether you like it or not, with how many big names are trying
to fight the rampant copyright infringement and flat-out crimes, Thanks to the stuff.

And it's a good thing, I'm also of the mind that AI been rolled out in the worst way possible and that it needs to be regulated.

dba_afish said:
I mean, if they can't use any artist tools to create a work from scratch than they definitely used AI, though.
so you'd end up getting a few false negatives but zero false positives. seems like a perfectly functional test to me.

True, but consider this:
People that don't know how to use artist tools, don't know how to fix a generated image to hide it. Those are already culled. So how will your objectively measure that someone is not good enough? It will be as much as "by feeling" than judging the final art. To me there's no benefits.

donovan_dmc said:
Why are you again editing what's in replies? That period was not there

I'm confused...Quotes within quotes are never copied. Or are you really giving me flak for a period?

donovan_dmc said:
You're saying all of our methods of proving something isn't ai aren't actually proof or aren't reasonable, I'm not sure what other conclusion I'm supposed to draw from that

Are they really the methods used by the staff? I thought it was propositions. But your assessment is right; I'm indeed saying those methods are flawed. The only reliable way to judge is by having a trained eye look at it directly — Which is not that hard to train btw: any artist with a few hours of training can do it.

thegreatwolfgang said:
What I meant by misleading

Ah F. Yeah I've been sloppy

I apologize Donovan, TheGreatWolfGang

[edit]
I've fixed the references. Again, I'm sorry for that

kaleth said:
Correct me if I don't understand well, but what I understand is that you nuke all the artist's images regardless of if the individual image are AI or not? Isn't that extreme?

When many of Tororoudn's pieces were deleted three days ago, I noticed that everything posted on or after 1/1/2024 was deleted, but everything from 2023 to 2014 seems to have been retained. It would have been very weird if art that predated the widespread release of Stable Diffusion technology to the public was deleted for being AI assisted, and that did not happen here. When I noticed that, it made me more confident that the persons making these decisions have a reasonable process that takes things like that into account.

As DonkDewd noted, we don't just blindly drop a nuke on an artist's entire portfolio. It varies from case to case, but for artists who only turned to AI at a certain point & we can confidently & consistently tell a perceptible difference between works that do & don't use AI, we do prefer to only delete the works that they cannot demonstrate the capability to create without AI assistance.

The only good clanker is a dead clanker.