Ouroboros OC I’ll probably never finish this so I might as well post

Zorax admits to using Generative AI. Thank you to @nefyrith for the final nail.

สรุปประเด็นนักวาด #ZorAX 1. วันที่ 3/9/68 นว.ท่านนี้ได้มีการลงรูปงาน Hermes ในทวิตของตัวเอง 2. ในวันที่ 5/9/68 เวลา 05:05 คุณ _lululucid_ ที่เป็นนักวาดแอคใหญ่ ได้โควทงานข้างต้นไปและทวิตว่า “don’t fall for ai assisted artwork”

Thank you to the DMs and the silent support, this would not be possible without you.

I don’t want anyone to harass this person, please stick to rationale and evidence despite their defenders’ temperament. I believe in growth and that they can learn from this so long as they remain transparent and apologize to their clients.

I don’t fault people for being deceived, I made a pretty impulsive claim that seemed obvious to me and my peers. I hope the evidence is enough to help you make your own conclusions.

I can’t say it with certainty, but is that not also indicative of deceptive behavior?

Through Zorax’s fan, it was brought to my attention that they’ve also hosted art contests with prize money. I was told by this person that none of the contestants have yet to receive their prize 8 months down the line.

.This is not a quality you’d want in character designs, where the point is to design with clarity.

Their own clients are voicing their skepticism around commissions priced at 500 dollars. They have not received clear files without backgrounds, sketches, or speedpaints. I’ll make the same point about AI, details, and gold: it’s all incredibly unintentional and haphazard.

AI testers are not foolproof, however, some of Zorax’s images in isolation are picked up by the scanner. Some AI artists can still bypass this method using glazing techniques and overpainting.

6. While this isn’t conclusive evidence, the same thumbnail and overlap suggests overpainting/photobashing. They’ve heavily referenced without crediting the original artist.

5. The hand with 6 fingers is from a heavily edited speed paint they’ve offered as rebuttal, however, the cuts are suspicious. The iconography is inconsistent – another flaw of AI.

4. Stylistic differences should still translate over to fundamental understandings such as anatomy, perspective, etc. There tends to be a clear disparity in sketches vs.  “paintings.” Why is that?

-through human error, not with the wealth of technique shown everywhere else.

3. Because gold is so structured, it is difficult for generative AI to translate coherent forms. If this is supposed to be an old rotary dial, there are typically 12 slots. Here, they merge and diverge into a clock hand…and the buttons? That kind of design isn’t usually made-

And it’s not uncommon that texture is used to substitute or mimic a real painting. This can be done in real life, and it’s considerably easier through digital format. For example, a video on ‘How AI Tricked the World's Largest Painting Competition.’’ https://t.co/ynMu8RKtzm

2. Textures are easily replicated and are overpainted on top of the initial AI painting to achieve a traditional effect. Here is an AI work, smudged to look like a work in progress.

-would refute that. It’s almost impossible to make this kind of progress in a year. Substantial growth is shown through drafts and process work. If the artist is unable to procure transitory studies, the growth is even harder to believe.

Here’s some evidence provided:  1. It’s clear to me they have some form of art education and not all of their pieces are AI, but it becomes an apparent transition between 2024-2025. You can debate that this is extreme and expeditious growth, but any credible artist I know-