[deleted]

reiluss said:

Am I the only one who got the feeling that the shading was strongly AI assisted on that one? (Like not the whole piece but a big part of the shading)
Lots of things feel kinda off.

Hard to say without watching the artist work, but the shading seems consistent with other works they've done a few years ago.

That said as AI improves these sort of questions are gonna start coming up more and more.

[deleted]

Some parts were painted over but this is definitely AI-generated

Looks to me like the shading is inconsistent, the background and the leg imply light coming from the side, and the rest of her body seems to have lighting coming from above. I'm also not sure what the white circle under her big toe is supposed to be. Nor why she doesn't have toenails. Definitely sus

Also the clearly edited section of the books, right next to the right hand, the area of the desk(?) around the right thigh, the mismatched gray sections underneth the desk, the left side of the desk being significantly thicker than the right, the skirt not making any sense, the texture of the hoodie being all sorts of fucked, the hood melting into the rest, the hair randomly cutting of on the right side of the neck, what I assume was supposed to be a ribbon melting into red stripes on the bra and finally the weird gray and brown shapes on the lower right of the image.

If you're planning to argue about AI you're going to find it's impossible very soon when it's used to do parts of every image out there.

memento_mori said:

If you're planning to argue about AI you're going to find it's impossible very soon when it's used to do parts of every image out there.

All the more of a reason to call out and shame people doing it. If they want to use this unethical hive of theft to pass off as their work, that was their decision.