@sapphiringore So many great details adding personality to this piece! And the color contrasts are so pleasing to look at. You two did an amazing job on this piece... it's definitely impressive!
@CutieArietes@kurero_ I meant that I understand your frustration with such people! Even if you were in the wrong, there are better ways than harshly attacking you on a personal level as punishment. I do not support that kind of behaviour, as it can’t be justified either.
@CutieArietes@roo_kiwipotato@kurero_@ignytisn I understand, it does makes sense. Well... "hatred begets hatred", people hit back with higher force and continue the cycle. It is best to break it to make a change.
It is very human to do mistakes... but we also have power to correct and learn from them. I'm glad that you did!
@CutieArietes@roo_kiwipotato@kurero_@ignytisn It is nice that you had courage to say that, but I don't understand what people like me, that genuinely wanted to help and explain things to you did wrong.
@Akira_Yuen@CutieArietes@kurero_@ignytisn If someone is curious, I have also posted on one thread with AI-detectors, false-positives/negatives explaining the situation.
https://t.co/cvtgDL2eZY
@NickWilde149540@CutieArietes@kurero_@ignytisn I tested multiple of these websites in the past. They never work accurately. They are based on unreliable detection patterns. Here is an art by the respected artist Rapoza. It is certain it is not AI, but appearance of it causes false-negative.
@Akira_Yuen@CutieArietes@kurero_@ignytisn That person had malicious intent and is not interested in finding the truth, so there’s little point in explaining it. It's likely that the artist got annoyed, called some people names, and blocked this person, triggering an emotional response.
https://t.co/8RYG4vGbxh
@ThaumiumEclipse@kurero_@archangeldraws@ignytisn It’s incorrect perspective, you should be able to fully see four fingers from that perspective. But I won’t argue with someone who’s protecting an AI scammer who blocked me, thus doesn’t see my messages anyways.
@NickWilde149540@CutieArietes@kurero_@ignytisn Interesting! But it is only one source. According to it, Illuminarty has around 70% accuracy in tests, it means that ~30 out of 100 tests can be wrong. It is a lot. As I showed in my posts, it is not too hard to find errors. These technologies still develop.
@NickWilde149540@CutieArietes@kurero_@ignytisn The technical reason for this is that these tools are often AI models trained on datasets composed of real examples and/or AI-generated art. Since generative AI can fail in various ways, these tools may also fail depending on the content, quality and diversity of the datasets.