Fake Art Speedpaints Exposed — Full Breakdown & Transcript

[00:02] I know why. If you guys like books and you guys like art, there's a big because obviously cover art, this, that, and the third. And so many AI scammers are sticking their greasy little paws in there. And this is a story that is

[00:16] covering allegedly just that. Let's dive in. So, this all starts with this in. So, this all starts with this author, NH Sinclair. Author NH writes, "You are not ready for this. I present to you Zero Toes and Lyra's character

[00:30] to you Zero Toes and Lyra's character art by Isabella on Instagram. Yay. There's some spoilers. We can take some peeps. Ooh, cute. Well, I mean, look, I'm I'm down for some fun books. You know what I'm saying? It's all cute,

[00:43] fine, and dandy. We get them in a in a different scene. I am intrigued. But something is a little bit suspect. A little bit. And let's delve into this. So, it looks like there was a tweet that was deleted in between these two posts,

[00:55] but NH comes around on threads and writes, "False alarm. The artist who did the work sent me the full video of her process. I was able to watch it all to prove it was her work. Gen AI sucks. I don't want to question artists. I feel

[01:08] probably was like a post relating to or something." And somebody in the comments says, "Not to be that guy, but it's harder for non-arts to spot AI." If you have any

[01:21] doubts, they probably came up for a reason. An AI can make time-lapses now. And the author says, "Wait, for real? I am so confused. How does one tell?" And the commenter says, "It's a six sense kind of thing." So the author then drops

[01:34] the speed paint. Oh boy. Okay, so this is the speed painting question. I'm already a little bit intrigued by the speed paints because I'm a little bit confused as to why this is the coloring method. And again, before we get into

[01:47] disclaimer, okay? Every artist has their own art process. If you like to draw in to you, that is completely fine. chill. We're just speaking in this case

[02:00] slight suspicions around this art piece and around this artist. But we're going to take a closer look and be like, well, is this AI? Is this not AI, etc. If you do draw like this or this is your process, it does not mean that you used

[02:12] AI. Please forgive me. I'm drawing with my mouse. Okay. But what is being done noticed but essentially the person the way they were coloring they were using the selection tool selecting the dead space in their line art like this and

[02:25] then they were kind of like coloring with a large soft airbrush like that. some other whack color and then they were deselecting afterwards. This isn't typically the most common way you would see people color line work. Some people

[02:41] reason why it's typically not the most common is if you zoom all the way in, it creates like a teeny bit of like white in between your line work and where doesn't create like the cleanest line work possible. Not every single time

[02:55] find artists, they would do something closer to like this where they would have their line art on a transparent layer and color beneath that layer so line work like this and then they will color like this. So, this on its own is

[03:10] common way to color line work, but some people do do this. But as you can see, again, the reason why I'm saying it's odd specifically in this case is because they did line work, right? Like, as you can see, they have fine lines on the

[03:23] pants and then as they fill over it, they're like coloring over the lines because then what was the point of drawing the lines? And as you can see parts of the body. This is what's suspicious because you go from like

[03:38] coloring in some flat color whatever bam face is already completely rendered. We didn't see any of the face rendered at all. Why is that? If you're sending a yourself, wouldn't you send the full speed paint? You know where we see you

[03:53] face rendering? They just add in some like shading and stuff to the face. like that. Yeah, look, the body is already completely rendered. like it almost like 90% done. They just add some shadows and stuff which also I'm like a

[04:07] down the arm. You see that between the two stripes on the arm? There's a line there. I don't know. But they just go and like render the rest of the face. add some like extra highlights or whatever. They're going to skip to the

[04:20] girl in a second. Just just wait till they skip to the girl because oh my god. First up, completely rendered already. But look at the eyes. What in the avatar eyes is happening here? Because like you have a triangle for one pupil and a cat

[04:33] pupil, the the vertical one. These are not the same eyeball. You're telling me you can render a hot fantasy monster man to this level and you you can't draw the happening with that earring. And then and then look at the ey. Look at the

[04:47] lower lashes. Look at the lower the rendering quality of what is being drawn does not match the quality that you see in the layers beneath it. The lower lashes don't match the rest of the face. Nothing wrong if for a stylistic choice

[05:01] lashes. This is drawn in a very semi-realism art style. These lashes do not match that art style at all. And then look at the rings drawn around the out. She zooms out. We got to zoom out in a second. Where do the lower lashes

[05:15] go? They're now gone. I'm genuinely so confused. So another user says, "If you mean Zerto's and Lyra's character art, then yes, it's traced AI. You can understand by looking at his belt. I went to see Instagram as well. All

[05:27] photos are traced AI. Normal artists can see the AI mistakes. And the author says, "This was the sketch I accepted. We played around with it for a while. The sketch is most definitely interesting." Well, first off, bros got

[05:39] pants that melt into legs with no pant cuff. I'm not saying like, "Oh, if you're an artist, wow, you just would draw pants on him, you know? You just would not do this." Secondly, the belt is odd. I don't know what is happening

[05:53] the pants and the belt has like an uneven number of straps. It's fine if something, but there's like three straps on one side and two on the other and one strap melts into the belt and there's no buckle, which is odd. And then her

[06:08] glasses aren't like glasses either. I'm just confused. And basically, the author just confused. And basically, the author for extra context adds that it was $250. don't think I'll ever get character art done again. My heart is broken. In a

[06:21] world of AI, I just want something real. I'll just stick to writing. This was a horrible experience. So, the author then makes like a call out post about this some extra context about the speed paint. A user says, "I'll explain what's

[06:34] wrong with the video." She's not drawing on a transparent layer, but on a PDF or JPEG file, a white layer with the generated line art. She tries to fill it the line art. Then, she takes an airbrush and paints it over. The edges

[06:47] of that brush are soft and diffused, so the lines are still slightly visible. This is AI. Her art is not consistent. I saw her Instagram. And in terms of the inconsistent art, this is what is being referred to. We have art that looks like

[07:00] this and this and also this. And here we have a speed paint. This is the before. And then poof, all of a sudden it becomes really AI looking. Again, there's no in between. We don't see how they render to this point. We just see

[07:14] sketch start blocking in the colors and then poof, instantly rendered and then lashes are is what's sending me here. extra context, the author adds, "She's disappointed. I'm disappointed. I'm the

[07:27] one who lost money on this." The video in question. Take it for what it is. You be the judge, not me, not anyone else. You can't trust anyone but yourself. So, why to explain it to her because I don't know what to say. And the artist

[07:41] Isabella. These are some DMs. And Isabella says, "I'm really disappointed name like this. It's not fair to make such claims without proper proof, video showing that the artwork is handdrawn. I'm honestly at a loss as to

[07:56] made after I provided the video. If people are claiming this is AI, I would like to know which AI tool they believe is capable of generating video like the one I sent you." Such a tool doesn't exist. I think the speed paint that was

[08:09] sent was handone. It was a handmade process to allegedly fake the final result. Isabella continues, "I delivered exactly what I promised. 100% handdrawn choose to believe the opinions of others over the concrete proof I shared.

[08:25] the very artist making these claims and run them through those same AI detection often flag their work as AI as well. These detectors are notoriously unreliable and frequently misidentify highquality digital rendering as machine

[08:39] generated. I stand by my work and my transparency. I expect my professional reputation to be respected, especially when I have been completely open about guilt- tripping language is happening here? And people in the response are not

[08:52] commenter says, "Yeah, feel free to forward her the fact that no artist will fall for this. She provided you a video of her coloring an AI generated image. Just because she calls it concrete proof does not mean it's any proof at all.

[09:06] put an image in Photoshop and use some blend modes in auto selection to color it with a soft brush. There is no pressure sensitivity. There is no actual putting down flat colors and then smash cut. Everything is rendered and shaded.

[09:21] That is if you feel like messaging her at all, which I wouldn't really bother. initial sketch?" First one, she shared the clear AI sketch. She can make unseen AI photo on the time-lapse by the way. And look at the girl's eyes. She can

[09:35] how they fake time-lapses. Real artists see the truth by looking at those AI to you. I hope you'll be fine soon. And again, look at the eye. Which, by the way, these eyes are not even the one that was in the fake speed paint that

[09:49] was shown. There's black in the white of her eyes. Just just why is that there? Not to mention, there's like lines going down the character's arms. I I just again, we have some more oddities here with the final results. Oddities being

[10:01] the belt. Look at these like dots, the holes for the belts. They're just spaced really inconsistently and not evenly. And the author basically adds that they of people that if they think they've had a scam or AI experience and it's further

[10:15] other people know. And then Isabella continues to guilt trip in DMs. I've digital art and the coloring process to you, but it seems you're choosing to ignore my professional expertise in favor of people who want to find faults.

[10:29] myself if a video isn't enough for you. If you value the opinion of random commenters over the evidence provided by the artist you hired, then we've reached a dead end. I know my work is 100% handdrawn and my conscience is clear.

[10:42] The amount of gaslighting this artist is doing is wild. So, the author then adds some, I guess, more evidence that was sent, which is the source file. And the author writes, "I was told this proved it's not AI, so do we have a consensus?

[10:55] I don't art, so I couldn't begin to tell you what this is, but if it proves it, her work, and apologize with me. So, here we have a bunch of layers. First off, I want to add that layers don't prove the fact that you didn't use AI.

[11:08] a bunch of layers on its own, right? Like there's more that needs to be about is like if you look at the layers here, right? Layer 16 is a blank white layer. Layer 17, 18, 19, layer 8, and

[11:20] layer 8 copy are all the same image just duplicated four times. You can see it has the tall character and then the redhead scientist or lab assistant or lab tech. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13,

[11:36] 14, 15, 16. There's 17 18 visible layers. One layer is white and five are duplications. So out of the 18, only 12 are actual, I guess, layers with artwork on it. I'm just confused about the layers because like everything is

[11:49] These layers don't to me do not prove anything because okay the way layers work is every time you open a new layer in Photoshop which is the program that this artist is allegedly using. Every time you open a new layer it gives you a

[12:02] because I've opened a bunch of layers. You can see layer 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. I deleted layer 1 already. Every time you open a new one it goes plus one, right? So why is layer eight already the full image? You know what I mean? Some people

[12:17] one layer and then like do adjustments and stuff like that. That typically ends up being layer 157. You know, that won't be layer eight. [laughter] So then it be layer eight. [laughter] So then it looks like layer 19 is her coat. Layer

[12:31] 14 is her hair. Layer 12 is his pants. Layer 11 is his head. And then layer 18 arm. Layer 19 is like another arm, and then layer eight is like an part of like why I'm just confused about the layers because again what some artists will do

[12:47] is like you know they'll draw a part of the body. I don't freaking know like they'll they'll do like oh we'll make a new layer. So we have layer nine. All new layer layer 10. And then I don't know we add facial features. And then

[13:00] that'll be some of the shading for the I green color but you know what I mean right? They'll add some like shading to the head. I don't know some shading. We're going to make bro round. And then

[13:12] they'll they'll make like a light source, you know? I don't know. Wow, we another layer. And then they'll add some extra shading. Maybe a rim light or something like that. And then once they're done, they'll flatten everything

[13:25] together. Like maybe that's the case. So that's how they ended up with all these layers. Layers 9 10 11 12 13. But like this depends, right? Some artists will layers, but you typically will end up with hundreds of layers. There's also so

[13:39] together that I'm like, this is not proving anything to me. And the reason why I'm saying it's Photoshop is because it looks like it, maybe I'm wrong, but a Photoshop file would be. And a commenter says, "Layers don't prove

[13:51] like completely rendered chunks of the painting. There's been a few people have tried to pass up their own AI art as real because, quote, look at the layers." End quote. I'm an artist myself as well as an author. I can tell you

[14:05] there is a lot of variation when it comes to workflow, but this is not it. And another user says, "Hard to explain without being very technical, but the sense. She makes things in a way like somebody watched a quick tutorial for

[14:18] easy edits in Photoshop and then used it. Also, the video process is cut to her convenience, skipping the most important process of the rendering. She can use Photoshop in a very basic level to just use the soft brush in a multiply

[14:30] layer to add some shadows and some basic lines to edit the AI failure like her person says, "I'm sorry, but this looks to me like doing a math test when I knew idea how to get there." In the first part of the video, she is clumsily

[14:43] coloring as if she doesn't know how to make digital art. Then the video jumps detailed, and she's just doing meaningless change. Lastly, we would need to know what is in each individual layer to know if it's legit or not. But

[14:56] then Isabella had DM with some more stuff where the author basically was debunking you." And Isabella was like, "If I was a fake artist, I would have deactivated my account or changed my name now, but I'm still here because I'm

[15:09] honest, I don't care what others are saying. My job was to show you the truth, and I've cleared my side with full proof. However, it is not okay that you've damaged my reputation based on somebody else's noise. I expect you to

[15:22] either remove the false claims you've posted about me or issue an apology. I silent while my name is being dragged author basically finally says, "K, I'm the first to acknowledge when an apology

[15:35] not, and I don't think I'll ever know because the digital world is messed up, but I will apologize for jumping the gun. I thought I had concrete evidence, concrete enough for me, but I can see why it wouldn't be for others. I still

[15:48] informed decisions, but at this point in time, I made a choice to state she was using AI when it's not obvious she did or not. And I realize I could just be situation, but I don't think it's fair to accuse before we 100% know. All I can

[16:02] better in withholding information before get in my head and now there's so much noise I don't know what's real or not. This is the work I received from her. The evidence is suspected, but not 100%

[16:17] person says, "Did they really deactivate their threads and post an AI image to their story?" And this is the image in question. It's like artist reality check suddenly disappear, which is like completely valid. But in this case, I'm

[16:31] of the day, guys, we don't have a smoking gun in the sense that like we generating stuff and then painting over it. But everything they've shown so far, to me personally, has not added up to what they're advertising. They're

[16:44] advertising the ability to provide high quality, fully rendered images that look inconsistencies in everything that is shown. There are AI inconsistencies within the piece, like the two eyeballs not matching up, lines across this

[17:00] looks completely whack with pants blending straight into the feet. That's already looking a little sus. And then the artist provided a speed paint which nothing. The speed paint showed the line art already done. We don't even see the

[17:13] sketching process which is not a good start. And then secondly there is a massive jump. We see them put in a little bit of color and then poof everything is already 95% rendered. That doesn't prove anything. And then the

[17:26] artist is showing oh well look at my layers and the layers are also not layers. That's just the same thing duplicated over and over again. Also, the background that was being rendered? We don't see any proof of this. The

[17:39] funky to me because we have a table intersecting into another table back here. So, all of that to say, everything is looking a bit suspicious. And every time the artist was asked to provide proof to clarify things, the proof was

[17:52] even more suspicious and didn't clarify anything. So, that's always raising a day, again, like what the author said, it's up to you to use them or not. But I like this poor author was just getting gaslit over and over again by this

[18:06] artist to where it reached a point that the poor author is like I don't even know, they tried hiring an artist to get the work done and then and unfortunately this happened. There's an artist on

[18:18] Twitter that posted some artwork and people were suspicious about their initial post and then they dropped two speed paints and people's jaws were kind the situation. And before we get started, again, please don't send hate

[18:31] kicks off with a post by this artist, Diva. And Diva writes, "Sanji cooked some bread for Oryheim commission." And it is some One Piece artwork. Oh my god. cat in my lap right now. And he loves like getting pet and his butt slap while

[18:46] in my lap. He's just drooling all over my leg. But this is the art piece in question. And as you can see, they're holding a tray with some biscuits or some sort of bread on it. and she's looking really really excited. The art

[19:00] style is a bit unique. It's a very like painterly type style, but there are some oddities with the art piece that already look a little interesting. And a couple ones to note. The big one that's weird is that Sanji from One Piece is holding

[19:14] actually holding the tray. Because if you look at the four fingers, not the holding a tray, it would be, you know, wrapped around the bottom of the tray. But it actually isn't. It's holding literally nothing. Only the thumb is

[19:28] actually making contact with the tray, which is already really interesting because if you're capable of this level of composition, lighting, and anatomy, draw the fingers around the tray instead of holding literally nothing. People in

[19:41] the comments were suspicious about this art piece. Somebody commented, "What a marvelous AI masterpiece. Well done, Maestro." And this actually got ratioed. And the artist responds, "Okay." Another person says, "Wart. By the way, can you

[19:53] really want to learn from you to improve my art. And then the artist responds DM. Another person wrote commission in quotes and yikes. And they put it into a quotes and yikes. And they put it into a AI checker and it flagged it as 98%

[20:07] likely to be AI generated. Again, these are like really hit or miss because Sometimes it will flag legitimately human-drawn works as AI generated. So, it's pretty hard to determine this. But other people were zooming in onto the

[20:22] hand that is not holding the tray properly and somebody writes new kind of interesting because it kind of looks like the character was actually holding something else and then it kind of looked like they just like blocked it in

[20:35] using this bluish gray color to kind of color it out. So after everybody looks like AI, etc., etc., the artists came out to make their own statement. And Diva says, to all the people saying I used AI generated art, first of all, I

[20:48] don't. And some people are showing me how one says it's AI generated, but when how can two different AI say two different things? I will upload a time. The artist adds, I hope this will satisfy you all. And another person

[21:02] and Sani time-lapse though since Oryheim responds, do you think I can magically generate a time-lapse after creating it? I was not using ibis paints. So, again, there are some art programs that will

[21:15] automatically record time-lapses as you are drawing. IBIS Paint is one of them. programs that don't do this. They either don't record it at all or you have to manually enable something before you start drawing. Clip Studio Paint is one

[21:27] start drawing and if you enable it after, it doesn't record it obviously commenter says, "So, what was the software though?" And they didn't get a time lapse, let's take a look at more of this artist's artwork so we can get a

[21:40] more full image of this artist art style because everybody has a different style. So, this painterly style of anime characters is something this artist of May where they write, "Happy birthday, Monkey Duffy." And this is

[21:53] their Luffy art piece, which again contains the same anime but painterly style where the face has a very like an anime look to it, but the rest of the image is actually drawn with some pretty large brush strokes. And there's not

[22:05] much like fine detail refinement. Again, that's completely fine. It's just unique because that's something you can see here. But one thing I do want to add is that while this type of painterly style can be something that you will see

[22:18] within just an artist art style, this has also been a art style that I have seen personally with other artists that later got called out for tracing art. I system. Again, if this is your art style legitimately and you hand draw it

[22:33] saying that about you. I'm just referencing something that I've seen in that I made for my friend's birthday many, many moons ago. What I mean by an art piece that they're referencing and then they literally just color

[22:46] bit and then they color select another spot and then they color in a little bit more and they color select another spot and then they continue coloring it in. So it's like yes, they did technically maybe put every brush stroke themselves,

[23:00] officially drawn by them because it was made from color selecting and recoloring in tiny spots from an existing art piece. If that makes sense. That's what because that's literally what you do in paint by numbers. But yeah, so that is

[23:15] something that I have seen before. And again, it's fine if you have like an art brush and you don't like to refine the art style. That's totally chill, but just don't one by one select off of somebody else's artwork and you make

[23:28] zero alterations to it yourself. This is another example of artwork that they've done. This was an art piece of REM from Rezero that they also posted. And the that we get an idea of what this artist's art style is before we take a

[23:41] speed paint breaks this whole thing apart. So Divia posts this speed paints and they write started making a lovey speed paint as people asked. Also, thank you so much for everybody who supported me, especially when there's like 50 plus

[23:54] question the entire night. I was just explaining to everybody in group chat and DMs. And so this is the speed paint they posted where it's not a completed speed paint at all. They draw in a stick figure and they start blocking in the

[24:10] torso, the head, and the legs, but they cut one leg off at the knee and the other leg they cut it off at the foot. So we don't actually see the foot or the bottom of the other leg. Already there's so many issues because this speed paint

[24:22] looks nothing like the quality they're promising with the other artworks they have. Again, if this is your drawing naturally, that's completely fine. What we're debating is, did this artist legitimately draw this piece and the

[24:35] Luffy piece and the Rem piece? And if you look at these pieces, besides the weird hover hand for the tray of breads, the anatomy is very spot-on for this know, it's a more complex pose. It's a

[24:48] low camera angle, and the anatomy looks very spot-on for this fluffy piece as well. So, why do we have like a speed paint like this where the anatomy of the legs are very off? Like this leg just looks completely crunched in and then

[25:02] the lower leg is very narrow relative to the rest of the body. And judging by, angle, it probably would be larger just typically will appear larger. This is already looking really off. And then the

[25:15] happened yesterday was that I got to know people who I knew for years and got a chance rather than asking me once before, but it's all good as I got to know about it at least." So referencing like fake friends, I guess. Once again,

[25:29] back to Ibis Paint X as it's the easiest to record on, but I don't need my laptop to make art. This is easy, too. So, I'm already confused because they said they don't use Ibis Paint. Some artists swap drawing programs. I do. Sometimes if I

[25:41] Procreate. If I draw my computer, I draw in Clip Studio Paint. So maybe to go do to go back to their program. But come on, let's be honest here, okay? If you are trying to defend AI accusations, why would you drop the most half

[25:55] finishedish, halfbaked speed paint ever, right? This is not going to clear your name at all. Sure, maybe you don't have access to this speed paint for this piece specifically, but can you just redraw another art piece of the same

[26:08] piece of this quality with one or two that we can get a reference for your skill level because the skill level of this sketch in the speed paint which

[26:20] just block the body. There is no hair, there's no clothing, there are no eyes, nothing. This is not going to clear your name. And again, I always find it so funny when like alleged AI fake artists, right, try to clear their name because

[26:34] like they do the most halfbaked attempts ever in terms of speed paints, like, "Oh, this broke, that broke, whatever. Maybe there's a legitimate I feel like if you put yourself in the shoes of somebody who drew something

[26:48] legitimately and then you are falsely accused of using AI, you're going to pull out probably every bell and whistle and everything you know to prove like, didn't." Right? Here are the layers. Here's a speed paint. Here's me

[27:00] streaming the art. I'll do anything because I didn't use AI. This person didn't even try. They didn't even [laughter] post a finish speed. Sorry, I funny as hell. And people in the comments are not buying it. People are

[27:13] such great art skills as you claim, this is not how your rough sketch should look worse for yourself at this point." Another commenter says, "You clearly proportions." Another person said, "Who even draws a wireframe like this?" Lmo.

[27:27] So then the artist Divia doubles down and they write part two. Also to everybody saying why I didn't reply at night? Like bro, am I going to stay up the whole night? It was night time in my country. Like the f good morning. Which

[27:39] artist's nationality while debating this. I don't think it's fair to bring in somebody's nationality as like an accusation as to this is proof. That's just you being racist, man. Don't do that. So, they continue where they start

[27:51] drawing in details for Luffy. You are lying. You are lying. I'm just being honest here. Okay, come on. We have eyeballs. If you look at this sketch, this sketch is that level of an intermediate artist, you know? But this

[28:04] sketch would not be done by somebody who had painted this because this is a pretty dynamic pose interacting with the bun, stuff like that. The anatomy is all hand going on. The anatomy is completely off here, right? This leg is chopped.

[28:19] This leg proportionally is like the same length as like the arm, which doesn't make sense because it's a leg, so it should be longer. Not to mention, again, the art piece has characteristics of somebody who's more of a beginner, etc.

[28:31] In art, there is like shakier feathering for the line work, which is also odd because if you think about it, this is a sketch with line art. Now, by the way, I and they also didn't draw the below the knee for the other leg. So, weirdly,

[28:45] still have a really cropped version of the art, but all of their other art There's no line art in the three images that I showed you, which are the three main art pieces on their page. So, how come suddenly you're drawing with line

[28:57] also again very shaky. It's very feathery, which is something that you would see in somebody who's less confident in their line work. My cat is trying to break into my room again. And the final question is once again, why

[29:09] show a halfbaked sketch if you're trying to clear AI accusations? Why not just show a full speed paint? Because this is still liner at best, choppy sketch at worst, right? This is not a completed piece at all. This is still not going to

[29:22] clear your name if you legitimately drew those other pieces. But going by the skill level of this sketch versus the other art pieces, there is no way in person. And people in the comments are not buying it. People are saying like,

[29:34] "The way you're doing this sketch proves it. you didn't draw the earlier pieces. the way I go about them aren't great, but this there's no logic behind any of the guidelines or what is put on top. I will stand corrected, sure, but for now,

[29:47] with this kind of foundation as a sketch, which I again agree. Every you, that's what makes sense. Sometimes the sketches look nasty, but you can cook out, you know, a perfectly beautiful looking finished piece. But

[30:01] us a speed paint for a finished piece. We literally only have a speed paint of a sketch to go off of. So that is what the public is going to judge you on people. And then the artist adds in a more finished version of the sketch

[30:14] dogged on the anatomy, they fixed the leg anatomy a little bit more. They made the leg larger and they drew in the head where again now the sketch again looks weird because the head is done with such fine line work where the line weight is

[30:29] body where again it's like very odd and you don't often find artists who will draw like this man who will make the line art for only the head really thin and really fine and the rest of the body with a much thicker line art and people

[30:44] were not buying it at all. This viral quote retweet says, "Sometimes following see people who are clearly using AI not understanding how art works. So they end up embarrassing themselves completely." And those two speed paints cracked open

[30:57] "Dude, okay, something looks really off here." And they delved into more of this artist's work. This was an older piece they posted May 2nd, which also they So, for more context about this artist, they were talking on their page that

[31:12] they only started posting artwork in like May. So, all of their followers how to draw." And they're like, "I draw sometimes." So, again, this is also an artist who we have no public visible history of past artwork to see like a

[31:27] posting in like May, maybe like beginning of April or something. This is is like a silhouette of somebody walking and you can see Luffy in the bottom will revisit that. Let's go back to the REM drawing where the artist, by the

[31:43] off your page because of this post. And this user writes, "Lmo AI image." The the original piece, the flail is smashing into the wall and creating debris behind it. But here, the AI mistakes the destruction effect as part

[31:58] of the weapon itself, creating chains on both sides. So, this is the original image where, as you can see here, the flail is hitting into the wall. So, this is Rem's weapon. Rem uses this like massive massive chain with this like

[32:11] spiked ball at the end and it's hitting the ground here. And also OP added this as the original drawing. Sorry, had a video break from my cat because he was this was the original drawing posted by Re Zilos, which is the mobile game for

[32:26] ReZero that shut down in 2023. But as you can see in the full drawing, Rem has end and it's hitting the wall. And here, looking at the side by side, you can see in the AI piece, it makes it look like

[32:38] the chain or the weapon is this like very cylindrical weapon, and there's chains on both ends of it, which is wrong. And also in Rem's hair, there is a flower with two ribbons coming out of it, and there's three in the AI piece.

[32:50] Yeah. And this was the piece that Divia had claimed to draw themselves. Another is not theirs. This was a commission, and they traced the other artist. So, remember that pencil drawing that I showed you about the Luffy? Well, we

[33:04] have this one. But people commented that call out post about the Rem piece under Divia's post being like, "How do you explain this?" And Divia responds, "How is that AI? I use the reference image, bro. It's literally a publicly available

[33:16] image. People draw without reference." So, they're literally claiming that they chain and the bows and stuff are that for a second, dude. But after all of that, their speed paint actually got

[33:29] community noted where it says the artist's previous work include AI illustration where wall debris was misinterpreted as extra chains on the And the other community note says

[33:42] tools that generate simulated drawing processes from final images. And Divia adds community notes time-lapse video can be made using AI. If any of you can time-lapse video like this and post it here, I'll believe anything all of you

[33:56] actually don't think this video, this painting process is AI generated. I think they actually drew this themselves and that this genuinely is their skill level for art, which is fine, but that this clearly is not what they were

[34:12] Because as you can see with this speed head, you can tell that this is a speed paint of somebody who is not fully confident or fully experienced with the drawing program they're using.

[34:24] sketch on one layer and then erasing more scuffed versions of their earlier sketches to draw more of the other sketch on top of it. Which again, that's process, but that's not the most common thing you would see with artists.

[34:37] layer on top of it and then clean up the sketch on the new layer without having and redraw. But that's fine if that's how you want to do it, right? But posing, the line work, that does not look like any of their other artworks.

[34:51] pointing out with this artist is that they were dropping fully rendered pieces like every other day, maybe like every 3 days. Okay? And all of a sudden, it's this time-lapse. So people are like, why is it taking you so long to drop a full

[35:05] time-lapse of a fully illustrated image when you are making them so fast okay, is this person using AI or it legitimate if they're dropping fully to 10 hours like literally every day? Because either they're burning

[35:18] backlog, which this artist doesn't seem previous examples of their work. It's interesting. It's suspicious. Maybe they are your thoughts on this entire situation? because this most definitely

[35:31] to me is somebody who was AI generating some images trying to pass it off as legitimate and then got caught and tried to back it out with a speed paint that again, don't send hate to any parties involved, but I thought this was just a

[35:45] funny situation. So with that, if you like this video, I appreciate it if you like and subscribe. I just was at EDC. That was my first EDC this weekend. It was so fun. My favorite set was Subronics. I had a really, really,

[35:57] below, too. And who is your favorite artist at EDC? Which was your favorite there was like a crazy drunk guy that like somebody shoved into my friend and that, and now we were like, "Dude, what? Let me just vive in peace." I hope

[36:11] everybody has some popcorn and boba because this story is an absolute doozy commissioned an artist, was so excited to receive the work, and then slowly started putting pieces together in realizing that maybe what they paid for

[36:26] isn't actually legitimate. It's a wild ride. So, let's strap in. And again, This all kicks off on threads and it's posted by threads user char Josephine an author who is launching their debut novel. And they writes, "Hi artist. The

[36:41] worst has happened. My artist sent over a photo that I think is the finished artwork and it looks like it isn't done in the same style as the reference image of their previous works. It's horrible." I was a bit worried about this as their

[36:54] different art style and they sent me some artworks saying it was done under NDA. I can't find them anywhere online, but I worry that it's not this artist this was the first post that kind of kicked it all off. A lot of people in

[37:09] offering some assistance. People speculated that it was possibly AI where not AI. And a lot of people felt like the NDA stuff was a bit suspicious

[37:21] talking about the book art space. A lot of people felt like, hey, NDAs aren't you're working with like the top five traditional publishing companies. So that's odd. But secondly, if they sent you photos of the work covered under the

[37:37] NDA, that means they broke the NDA to send you the work. So that means they're unprofessional, and that's also weird. People were also asking how OP found the artist and they said that they found them on Reddit r/hungry artists and that

[37:50] will promo their work in terms of looking for commissions. But overall a author and also asking for a little bit more information. So a little while the disheartened writing that they messed up on their first art commission that they

[38:05] fact the work that was sent was not actually on the artist portfolio and the under NDA. And the author said it was because they were so enchanted by the money to throw away, and that they were looking for an artist above the €300

[38:20] mark. They add, "If I can't be refunded for this, I can no longer publish my please, let's have a little bit of empathy here, right? I saw a lot of "You should have known better. This is what you get for commissioning a cheap

[38:33] work." The actual price of their commission looked to be around £500. Okay, so this is not somebody who was like going to the cheapest artist for like a fully illustrated thing." A lot of people are like, "Hey, you know,

[38:47] if it sounds too good to be true, you're going to get scammed." This is an author who saved up, scrimped, and saved a lot of money, £500 to get a fully illustrated cover. That is a price range that is a lot more standard for what

[39:00] they went to the cheapest artist possible. And also, this is their first again are like, "Well, how did you ignore these red flags? You should have realized this." These are like red flags that again you would maybe recognize if

[39:13] You've commissioned a lot of artists. You know what to look out for. This is this person's first art commission. They on paper did everything right. They price range for what they're looking for. You know, they looked at their

[39:26] commissioned this artist. It's their first commission. And it just sucks that anyways, I don't want people blaming the author because I saw some people saying guys. You save so long. This is your debut novel. You're trying to get the

[39:41] of £500 allegedly. We'll continue to look at the story. It just sucks. And this is the extra context the author added. What the artist who scammed me sees. New client willing to spend £500 on a piece commissioning multiple

[39:54] interior illustration. What they don't see the two years of shivering to scrape without heating. never going out anywhere, commissioning anything, and thrifting everything I have. The night spent refreshing and crying to myself

[40:07] about how much I love the art they supposedly made, only to realize it was while later, the author had another update, basically adding that, hm, little bit, and they feel like maybe optimistically this could be something

[40:20] that something might be wrong and they received a work in progress, but they're progress, you know, could be modified a lot so the final product would actually promised, what they were advertised. And

[40:34] in the comment section showcasing their before and afters. Here we have this in progress I sent, yet the author trusted the process. But I learned from this a lot and now my sketches are much closer to the final. This is their

[40:48] before and then this is the final piece. Holy absolute jaw on the floor. Stunning, gorgeous, beautiful. This is so pretty. Plus, like, oh my god, the tension. The way that he's grabbing at her skirt. Oh my god. I love Okay, I

[41:01] what book is this for? Because I need this right now. This art has sold me. Oh my god. Wait, upon further digging, this book is Lore of the Tides, which is actually book two of the Lore of the Wilds duogy. Ooh, I did not finish book

[41:17] two. I didn't know it got spicy like this. Anyways, I'm derailed. Another artist showed their before and after, adding some extra context, and the the problem is their portfolio is all in a similar style to this work in

[41:30] socials. The reference image they sent me was in an entirely different style, online, so I trust that they're the original author of the work, and that was a style I paid higher for. in order to match that with this work in

[41:44] a lot from the line work and shading that they've done. So, the author had The artist is going to send work in progress of the reference works so that I can see how they are before the final render to prove they are the OG artist."

[41:58] optimistic. Okay, maybe they're going to give some examples so that, you know, we know, okay, this is just their process. It's a really big trusted process, but product that you like. But then the author added this update on being

[42:11] scammed by my artist. Red flags for AI has been identified. Not only is their styles, but I've been informed the two reference images have hallmarks of AI. The reference images I've been staring at and dreaming of for my book. I am

[42:25] professional and offered to share progress images to prove the art is haven't seen it. I feel like they're fabricating something, though. I don't understand why they wouldn't back down knowing they cannot deliver the final

[42:37] hey, you know, just because they have a lot of varied styles in their portfolio, And to this, I agree, right? Because like a lot of artists do work in chibi style and a very like sketchy-esque style. I would say the one

[42:53] different factor is like most of the time you can still tell that it was made have their own art style and they have a tendency to use specific types of line work or they lean towards specific colors. Like maybe they prefer pastels.

[43:05] So you would see that in their finished fully illustrated works and in their chibies. Sometimes artists have a very specific way they like to render. So they like to use a lot of cross-hatching even in their final digital renders. And

[43:17] pieces. And the author adds some extra context writing multiple signatures in styles, I mean like 50 in completely different styles. They added more since I commissioned and I was just so blinded

[43:30] one's the big one. If it looks like it's done by 50 different people, it might be done by 50 different people and be stolen. But then we get a speed paint and the speed paint is looking mad weird. So, let's delve into this. So, a

[43:44] day later, the author posted update art threads. The artist I suspected of using AI just sent me these progress videos. Please weigh in. There's still not the same style I was commissioning for, but do you see it? Watch the coloring stage.

[43:58] difference to help me being able to achieve my dream of publishing and probably has to collect evidence to submit to PayPal to make sure they can get the refund. This is the speed paint they sent. And oh my god, my jaw is on

[44:12] the floor because this is the most atrocious attempt at fake speed paint I've probably ever seen. So, first off, this quote unquote artist works in Photoshop and I myself also do use Photoshop. Yeah. And then look at the

[44:25] final render. What is happening here? It literally was like the artist was like, asking for a speed paint." Uh, the author probably doesn't know anything about art, so I'm just going to go give the crappiest speed paint no to man and

[44:38] try to pass that off because like literally anybody can look at that and in 1 second clock the fact that something looks wrong because in my personal opinion that is most definitely a fake speed paint. Look, I use

[44:51] Photoshop. Okay, in Photoshop there is the toolbar on the left hand side that shows you what tool is selected. If you're using a brush, you know, it would have right there that brush is highlighted. Why is that cropped off in

[45:03] the speed paint? The speed paint crops in everything except the toolbar, which on its own is really freaking weird because why would that be the case? Why won't you just record the entire screen? It is more effort to croc the toolbar

[45:16] you would do that is if you're doing something illegitimate, like you're using the eraser method to go and try to scam a speed paint by erasing and then the eraser selected. I covered another video where there was a fake speed paint

[45:31] where it looked almost legitimate except in the corner you could see they have the eraser selected instead of having the brush tool selected so that they were actually doing some eraser shenanigans. And like if you don't know

[45:43] literally is like you have your art piece right in quotes this little shitty ass smiley face and then you have a layer on top that's white and what you kind of like erase away at the white layer and it's like oh my god look guys

[45:57] layer and it's like oh my god look guys I'm drawing a smiley face. Yeah, except I didn't because I'm just erasing a white layer on top. I didn't draw this, take a look at the speed paint and slow it down in our editing program, we

[46:10] notice that there is a lot of stuff wrong with this speed paint. Number one, with every brush stroke this quote unquote artist makes, somehow 3, four, five, six, seven lines appear. If we look at the arm, that's one brush stroke

[46:24] one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one. Does not make sense to me at all. Because with one brush stroke, you make one line. Okay? with the exception of some fancy brushes that you can make three

[46:38] that brush would only draw three lines. It wouldn't draw three and then suddenly three again. That's just not how it works. You don't magically make extra lines appear. This is most definitely a fraud. So one that already is wrong.

[46:50] Secondly, that I forgot to point out is the fact that you cannot see the layers. intentionally hidden or intentionally cropped off. But regardless, if you're your name, to convince the author that commissioned you that you are

[47:03] legitimate, you want to show everything. You want to show the tools you're using. You want to show your layers. So, why is this cropped off? Every single time that I've seen a AI scammer submit a speed paint, they're always filmed really

[47:15] weirdly with the shittiest iPhone ever and cropped in the weirdest way. It is drawing and then crop all the stuff out of it than just submit the entire recording. That's already weird. And point number three is the brush weight.

[47:28] You see this circle right here, right? That is the size of the brush. So every stroke made with this brush should be this thick. It should have the diameter of this circle. But why is every single line that appears is like a fraction of

[47:41] the size of the circle. That just again does not make sense unless you're using does not look like it's one of those. So all of these it's already giving me massive red flags. This is absolutely a scam. But also, how are they scamming?

[47:56] actually different from what we've seen previously. Because if you guys have another artist that I've talked about that submitted a fake Photoshop speed That's what I just talked about where they make a white layer on top and they

[48:10] like they drew the artwork. But here you can see it is actually the brush tool that's selected. So, what I think is happening is that they actually have a do themselves that they probably took from AI or something. And then they

[48:24] actually made the line art layer a really really light gray so it looks we can see here. That that is what is visible. So they probably did something like this, right? And then my guess is they actually have a clipping layer over

[48:37] it and then they have their brush set to black. So it looks like they drew it but they actually did it and they're just painting over the clipping layer. But much bigger than what line is actually appearing because they're just doing

[48:49] something like this, you know? Oh my god, look. Look at me drawing the cat. Haha. Even though I am not actually. I'm literally just freaking playing coloring scammer is doing. But yeah, let's continue looking at the speed paint. You

[49:04] there's just so many lines appearing and the brush that they're using is just way thicker than the actual lines that are appearing, which just makes no sense. But the quote unquote artist does this for a while, which I also want to add,

[49:18] just looking at this, there's a lot of AI looking anomalies happening. All of corner. A big one is again, you want to ask yourself like, would a human draw look like some crunched up diamonds?

[49:32] even attempting to hide the fact that they're scamming. What's also odd is there's no corrections whatsoever. This artist, in quotes, never has to redo a brush stroke. Look at this like ornamental detailing. They somehow get

[49:46] perfectly straight lines on the first try without using the line tool in You cannot make this happen. Like everybody when it comes to drawing these types of ornamental details that has like very very geometric straight lines.

[49:59] over and over again cuz on the first try you're not going to get a perfectly straight line. But somehow this artist, the goat themselves, every brush stroke is also immediately perfect. It's just so odd. And then we get to the

[50:11] rendering. Look what the hell is happening here. So now we get to the blank page. They have the eraser, okay, selected in Photoshop set to like 90 and they start erasing to magically make the finished product appear. Did they just

[50:25] give up? They actually spent some effort scamming in the first half with that shenanigans and then they got to the render and they're like, "Ooh, I don't know, man. Let's do the eraser tech." The funniest thing to me is they're

[50:38] using a hard brush. They're not even using like a soft brush to try to make it look more believable. Look, one brush doesn't paint 10,000 different colors. How are you painting 20 different shades of green with one brush? And by the way,

[50:50] don't know what colors they're using. They start coloring and then I guess they get lazy halfway through because they just make the brush like ginormous. They use a different brush that's set to 250, which is massive, and then they

[51:03] just magically paint all the colors of the background. Somehow they managed to paint in words too with the exact same brush words up here. By the way, take a look at the name of this Photoshop file. We can't see the full name, but it says

[51:16] something ver new Photoshop. Do you think it says paint over new Photoshop where they're painting over the image? They then undo all their fake erasing and then toggle on the faint already done background. So, they're lowering

[51:29] the opacity of their fake white eraser layer to then continue erasing. Unironically, this wins the award for the shittiest fake speed paint that I've again, I feel so freaking bad for this author. This is comedic, honestly, at

[51:44] how awful this is. So, up until the point of the speed paint being posted, people were 50/50, kind of giving the unnamed artist benefit of doubt. After the speed paint came out, everybody was stepping on this artist's neck, being

[51:56] like, "Dude, this is wrong." The top comment says, "Not the full render at person says, "At least they're providing person said, "I'm sorry you got scammed and lied to as well. You should tag this

[52:09] the author says, "Unfortunately, they don't have any social accounts, just the Reddit one I commissioned with, and they're known as a scammer on our/hungry or shame on there, so there was a no ban

[52:22] saying, "Lol, the end was so insane. I'm sorry for cackling." After all of this, fact that the artist is actually doubling down. So, the author posted with this artist in quotes. So, the author basically says like, "Hey, bro,

[52:37] you're scamming me with AI." And the artist says, "I'm sorry you feel that way." That is such like a manipulative thing to say. Like, "I'm sorry you feel they continue, "But I genuinely disagree with the accusations that the video are

[52:50] progress I shared came directly from my drawing progress, and I've been You mentioned yourself earlier. he didn't doubt my ability to draw or the work. So, I feel the situation has become more about distrust around an

[53:03] unrelated NDA sample piece rather than the actual artwork I delivered for you. progress, revisions, and clarification whenever possible, and my intention was to never mislead or scam you. Like, just note what this person is saying. They

[53:17] said, "It's not my intention to mislead you, and I'm sorry you feel bad." They never said, "I did not scam you with AI." It's a very roundabout way the way The work in progress actually came directly from my drawing process. Your

[53:30] fake drawing process. Yeah, you opened it in Photoshop, but you painted over it author basically doubles down being like, your work in progresses are fake. misunderstanding, can you clarify whether you're referring to the current

[53:43] commission work or the older NDA sample piece I previously showed you? This obtuse. Come on. You know you are scamming, but you're pretending that you're not. There's actually another layer to the story because remember how

[53:55] this author had two pieces of artwork, right? The cover and they also had an interior design that they were working on. There's another layer. The author a After being scammed by an AI artist, I am now learning it's highly likely my

[54:09] interior art illustration is also a scam. I'm just trying to hear from the pretending to be to confirm. And a commenter says, "Your situation is have come to this place where art is just a minefield of BS. I have a ton of

[54:23] experience in every art medium you can think of, and I really want to help you. illustrate an entire comic, but I feel really strongly pulled to your plight. And OP says, "You are so kind, and I'm desperately hoping if the artist is a

[54:35] scam, the real artist can come forward, so I have proof to request a refund." And their art is phenomenal, so I would have my fingers crossed to recommission the true artist. And an update, the author writes, "The original artist has

[54:47] whether this is her, but PayPal has already taken down the original invoice for a suspected scam, and the artist has since changed the name. They originally sent the invoice under the artist name to now a name called Zobia Hack. I am so

[55:01] gutted and heartbroken. I don't know if the real artist would be able or willing in contact with her so she can back me up to claim this refund." And this was the communication on Reddit. A user says, you know, I love your idea, blah

[55:14] anime and semi-realistic illustrations. Here is my portfolio. And they link that artist portfolio. And this is the artist in question, Tanya Anor. And their artwork is absolutely gorgeous, stunning. And OP was so excited. You

[55:29] love being like, I love this. This is what I'm looking for. And now it might not be them. And an update, another user was able to contact the original artist. They basically said, "Hey, an author was hired by an artist who's claiming to be

[55:41] you. I want to confirm it's not you and to let you know that somebody appears to artist says it's not me and thank you for letting me know. I doubt I can somehow report this person. What is the name of the scammer? The original artist

[55:54] So, the author had provided an update basically cautioning everybody against r/hungry artists, stating that if you're going to go commission people from there double check, cross check, and that they really wanted to commission some small

[56:08] artists. Personally, I want to add the extra context. It's not like they were possible. They were purchasing pricey commissions that you would expect for seem suspicious, but that thankfully they found artists to help them do the

[56:22] their book published in October, which is what they're aiming for. And they're actually in contact as well with the interior artist, the original one, not can happen and that they can truly get the vision to life and get the

[56:36] publishing. So, they add the video they so the style was going to be different and that the commission was very professional up until they asked for proof. Essentially, the big issue was

[56:48] weeks later and the style was completely different from what they asked for and that they verified this art piece with other artists and they all verified it rough process. So, they add that they didn't blindly fall for this, but they

[57:01] just want to add, guys, empathy goes a long way in this day and age. This is a but twice. It was their first time doing you're bound to make some mistakes and maybe overlook some things. There's

[57:14] experience. This was their first time. And again, it wasn't like they were possible. It just sucked. Some people are just mean and they're like, "It's you think you're not going to get scammed, you are actually the prime

[57:26] victim to get scammed. [laughter] That's just how life works. Everybody's going that it's like that. And they added another update highlighting the fact that the work in progress video was not stolen from anybody because some people

[57:38] were also saying that, which is odd. And they added some more clarifications for you've stolen the video. I'm I'm going to be honest. Like, I've never seen that video before. And that's a really odd thing to say. The tin foil hot

[57:50] the scammer actually sent the same video to multiple people being like, "Oh, I'm legit. Haha. Look at this." So, there's another claim that, "Oh, you made this up for clout." Where the author says, "Yo, I'm not. Trust me, bro." They

[58:04] buzzing." Which is pretty funny. Quote, "You're stupid to have fallen for it." bypassed obvious red flags, but I reverse image searched the artist and reviews and they sent me a proper rough sketch and there was no reason to

[58:18] suspect them until the colored version looks nothing like what I asked for." enough to send this." End quote. Literally, my sentiment. I was baffled. empathy goes a long way. They conclude saying, "I sent this video to multiple

[58:32] artists, and they all saw nothing wrong with the video and thought it was a pen looks like and I know how hard art is to make. But somehow some people glance, especially people who are older and not familiar with the digital

[58:46] right? Like if you're not an artist, etc., you don't know what you don't know because Gen AI is trained off of actual human artwork. A lot of Gen AI looks obvious anime character with six fingers and like a melting eyeball, you're going

[59:01] down. You don't know what you don't know. So this is their first commission, etc. Like this author is a victim and the person at fault are the two freaking paints. Well, the first one did trying to scam people out of money. That's the

[59:16] true people at fault that you should be mad at. So I just feel like sometimes end of the day, I truly hope that this author is able to get the beautiful novel that they're publishing. I hope it's very successful. It sounds really

[59:30] interesting. So yeah, definitely go check them out and send them some love, man, because this absolutely sucks. Uh, being a victim of a scam in general just there. My partner's been there. He bought a Pokemon card and it was not

[59:43] what was advertised. Guy was scamming. Everybody falls for scams, man. It just sucks. I hate that there's so many scammers. And it really sucks that like there's more and more scammers now because there's another tool for them to

[59:57] use to scam people. Did they like fake a monitor to overlay on top of a OBS recording of their speed paint? Look at that. Why is it doing that jump? It's here. And one thing I really want you to take note of is look at the thickness of

[1:00:12] the monitor edge, which is again really thin, right? Can you see it shrinking? it got too dark, so you can't see the monitor anymore. Maybe, maybe, maybe." That is possible, but take a look right before it gets too dark to see the top

[1:00:24] of the the monitor. It's shrunk half the size of what it used to be in the here back to here. Is this artist tracing AI passing it off as their own work and cosplaying as multiple different artists online? Or is it just

[1:00:37] one unfortunate artist being falsely accused of using AI in their process when they themselves are innocent? Let's take a look at this situation involving this artist by the name of Kuru. This all kicks off with this post made by an

[1:00:49] account named Wolf. And again, don't send hate to any parties involved. Wolf writes, "Doing some digging around the comments, it seems Helicopter Food, aka Curotan, has multiple accounts, all with the same style, all with their own

[1:01:02] Patreons, all using the same format for generating high engagement. No clue, monetary gain, maybe." Other accounts include Lapal Pup and Frostbite Nerd. a same layout, same format, white backgrounds. They are the same person.

[1:01:16] This is one of the accounts Twitter pages going by the name Lapa Little Pup. Here is another account going by the name Yuki aka Frostbite Nerd and this is the final and main account we're talking about Kiru aka helicopter food. One

[1:01:28] thing I also want to note is like this format of pumping out meme related art because you do that doesn't mean you've used AI does not. But there was already a ring of artists that are based in Cyprus that have a really similar mo of

[1:01:42] pumping out art literally every single day in the exact same meme format. and it was like basically confirmed that these guys were using AI and it likely slash one person and they're all related in some way. So, this is something that

[1:01:56] we've already seen before. But again, like other artists also do this for fun. Just because like you participate in this type of like engagement format of art doesn't mean you yourself used AI. But Wolf points out the handwriting

[1:02:08] being really similar across the three accounts. So this is helicopter foods handwriting versus Lapa Lil Pub's handwriting. And they note that the way they cross their tees is very indicative across the three. One thing also that

[1:02:21] I'm just looking at is that they all seem to use the exact same brush, which if it is a default brush within the drawing program. Curu uses Paint Tool SAI. There just are probably some

[1:02:34] than others. It's just one interesting thing to note because this brush is like a pen angle sensitive brush. So as you put your pen down and draw the brush will be the thickest and as you end your stroke the brush is the thinnest. Right?

[1:02:50] as they pull downwards on the tail it's the thinnest down here. Now one thing that I'm also looking at the handwriting that I think is super interesting is leaning over a bit because I'm like too lazy to move my drawing tablet. But I'm

[1:03:04] is a different program that has a very similar like drawing style where it like when you let go or when you go downwards right like the tail thins out right here. They write their eyes upside down if you notice like their eyes look like

[1:03:17] this where it is thinner on the top part of the eye than it is on the bottom. I taught how to write at least from my schooling experience in the US I was taught phonetics. So you had to like trace letters right? You are taught to

[1:03:30] So if you were to write it quickly it would look like this if you were to dot your eyes like that. But they write it upside down where they pull from bottom up which is much more rare from what I have seen anyways in terms of writing

[1:03:43] anyways to see that especially between this eye here in this word and then the the bottom up writing of the eye. Wolf continues same art style, same person. Top right image was taken from helicopter aka Kuru's trace speed paint

[1:03:57] other account Frostbite Nerd. And this looks to be I guess the full image of Frostbite Nerd's drawing. The eye shape is very similar and the way they draw their eyelid as well. They draw like a line here and they have a little one

[1:04:11] coming out like this to make like a very sideways looking Y that's also featured here. They also do like this type of kind of like winged out lashes like this here and then one point this way as well. The eye shape is really similar.

[1:04:23] The face angle is also really similar with like the head being quite like nose and the mouth are all very close together. It's like an art style, right? The angle is also very similar. Playing devil's advocate here. The colors are

[1:04:36] different. This person uses like a gradient kind of like under the pupil. This person uses like a half semicircle as part of their shading. One thing to interesting is the brush thickness and the brush type itself looks also to be

[1:04:51] do the line art looks the same between top and bottom. Which again, if you use use the same art program, you might just are the likelihood that their head angle is the same? The eyes are very similar

[1:05:04] and it's like the exact same brush and the exact same thickness as well with the brush. Now, Wolf continues, "Kuru may have even stolen one of Shut Up Jen's characters, Ouija. There unfortunately exists a model of the

[1:05:16] the offending pieces are created November 2025. While the model based off of Jen's art has been around since March 2025. On the left, we have Jen's work of their character Ouija. Notice they are a

[1:05:29] left, one white ear on the right. Notably, there is a white heart that's super cute and featured on the left ear. And in Lapal Pup's artwork, you can see

[1:05:41] that that black ear plus white heart combination is featured. Not only that, Like both in terms of like the style, fluffiness, and they're both have white hair. Again, white hair. A lot of characters have white hair. It's a very

[1:05:55] common color to be used, but all of the styling alongside the very strong similarities in the ears is just very interesting. And this is the Civot AI model based off of Jen's artwork. Now, Wolf also notes that Kuru's fur affinity

[1:06:10] account was suspended since December. And all of their art except one was removed from E621 following an investigation. So, here we have the dates that is noted. The investigation starts November 1st, 2025, where they're

[1:06:24] basically going over the art style of Kiru, how Kiru had uploaded 35 images prior to the release of Stable Diffusion August 2022, and that they hadn't posted art for a while. And then they started posting art again in 2024. And then in

[1:06:38] piece suddenly had a very different coloring style and facial structure compared to their older art pieces. And then from then on, that art style shift was kept in their artwork. And it says that their art started looking more and

[1:06:52] more similar to popular AI pieces coming around around that time. And it notes that starting in 2025 January, they started posting almost every single day with some days having two or more images shared. So again, this is something

[1:07:04] that's a bit indicative of an account using AI because fully rendered pieces in such high frequencies, right? You might again say, well, you know, maybe they're posting, etc. They have been posting though since 2018. So, it does

[1:07:20] seem like if they had any backlog, it's already been posted to social media. Maybe potentially in the one-year break they took, maybe they didn't draw for a while or maybe they drew and just like saved up the art pieces. But it's just

[1:07:32] interesting that they're showing some tendencies that you will commonly see with AI art scammers. Again, one of them being immediate quick shift in art style that happens to also look very similar to popular AI models at the time to

[1:07:46] again posting in very high frequencies. So, it notes that Curo had posted two art pieces they traditionally made, but the investigation added that they themselves feel like they can't fully trust it because there were previous

[1:07:58] instances of artists who shown that they could draw traditionally but were still another thing. A lot of these AI scammers actually can draw to some because they can draw and they just chose not to, but that's why they are

[1:08:13] able to produce traditional works if asked. Then the investigation notes the appearance of another account by the name of Hellhound Ou, which posted a February to late March. I'm guessing around 2025. Then they basically wiped

[1:08:27] this was written followed two accounts, Kuru and another account called Jinx. and their fur affinity had a Patreon advertisement in the same style of investigation concludes that this Hellhound account and Kuru are the same

[1:08:41] person. Then it adds that two video recordings were submitted to E621's janitorial team and a reasonable human workflow was observed that was consistent with Kuru's newest works, but didn't prove or disprove their pieces

[1:08:53] from 2023 to 2025. It also notes that of Curo's Patreon, only 10% of their works showed work in progresses. And of that, only 10 showed line work consistent with did not. So, the investigation concludes while a subset of their newest and

[1:09:07] proof, there are several posts in this middling range that lacks this proof and contains elements not present elsewhere, including their visual content metadata and a long period of sustained art output. This is another indication as to

[1:09:20] potentially this account having used AI to assist their process. It's when they progresses. Again, every artist is artists choose not to post work in progresses. Maybe they want to like hide

[1:09:32] their process, keep it mysterious, whatever. But the AI artists, artists in progresses because they don't exist because there was generation, right? So, about the art style, Wolf also had this post highlighting the changes. So, 2019,

[1:09:47] they also stopped posting My Little Pony after a certain point. And it highlights, you know, from 2019 to 2023, there's a consistent art style, which is Guru's real art made before AI. They had a developing art style, notably in the

[1:10:01] way they drew long, pointy snouts and muzzles, which you can see it's quite long, it's quite narrow, and it's quite pointy at the nose. Here, one, two, here we have like some more examples of that facial structure. And then in their

[1:10:13] facial structure. And then in their newer art after 2024, their facial muzzle is a lot shorter, a lot boxier, wider. And again, it has that kind of like facial compression of like the face, nose, and mouth being very close

[1:10:26] shaped. And it reads, "A vast improvement in quotes in art skill and a sharp style change done in a mere four months after having a consistent art changes on a whim around when AI art peaks. Even if they were practicing

[1:10:41] every day, 12 plus hours in that time frame, it's very inhumanly probable to months." People in the comments are again 50-50. Some people are like, "Yo, improve that quickly doesn't mean other people can't." Like maybe they did

[1:10:54] legitimately improve that fast. There are possibilities in which somebody can period of time. I don't know. Maybe you started studying art real hard 12 hours know, right? It's just one of those where like even with super quick rapid

[1:11:08] improvements, which is not common, right? So this artist is already displaying a multitude of uncommon traits, super minimal amounts of work in progresses, a rapid art change where their art happens to fall in the

[1:11:21] direction of the way popular AI models look at the time and wildly wildly frequent outputs of one piece a day, sometimes multiple pieces a day. These You don't often see artists being able to do all of that. If you have one of

[1:11:35] all of the extremes. But again, if somebody improved very rapidly in their art, you typically would see essences of their old style even in their new work, seem to like it because they did it for like six years. So, you would probably

[1:11:50] assume that that would be carried into their newer works as well, but you don't see any of that. The way they draw eyes also changed rapidly. They seem to like the narrow eyes, but they all of a sudden had like a very very strong shift

[1:12:03] well for their characters. Because again, you can see in their older art, a prominent lower lashes, but the upper lashes are very non-existent. And in pieces feature a lot of like white glistening shine/h highlights that again

[1:12:19] is not present in like any of their older artworks. You don't see like a strong emphasis on highlighting or shine. It's a lot more of like more realistic skin rendering like a comic book- style I would say. So, it's just

[1:12:31] interesting. So, Kiru in response dropped a speed paint titled since many this is the speed paint in question with a lot of canvas flipping where they are drawing a character from Sonic. I think one thing to note that's also

[1:12:46] interesting is that on the bottom you can see of the time of the recording open. I believe they're canvases. I if I'm wrong, but these are dated. This is November 1st, 2025. Also, November

[1:12:58] 1st, 2025. This is their new canvas. Again, the art process is very art process, but I just find it down, right, with how they draw and then they immediately go in like drawing the

[1:13:11] chest and like there's no basically like blocking of the body whatsoever like arms, like little sticks for arms, and then we fill in the detail. Everybody people do draw like that, but they kind of already had an idea of where like

[1:13:24] where the shoulders were going to go. But everybody draws differently. But this is again what I find interesting because take a look here. They're not following their sketch. Like in their sketch, their eye comes all the way out

[1:13:36] start the line art. They drew the eye like half an inch over to the right. And lashes, they they don't really follow their sketch at all. Same thing with you can see like some elements here and like here with the zigzags and these swishes.

[1:13:49] Like it's following the sketch but not really. Once again, they're not following the sketch. Again, they're not following their sketch here. Like they sketched in a top with like a fishnet detailing like a fishnet halter top

[1:14:01] essentially with like a necklace on and then they drew like a t-shirt collar. mean, every artist has their own thought process. Maybe midway they change their mind, but I'm just confused as to like why nothing is following the sketch.

[1:14:13] here. The barbell is a bit lower than where they drew this barbell. This one is like a little bit off from where they drew that. Even this eye swish is a the sketch. Like everything on their liner looks like it's on their

[1:14:26] sketch/shifted over half a centimeter to the right. The collar, they drew the choker straight kind of actually curving downwards if you look at this detail. like again the shoulder is shifted over to the right a little bit. Like the

[1:14:38] thong strap is not in the right place again. Everything here is now shifted lower by half a centimeter. What I'm confused about, right? Because like if follow it to some degree. I'm going to assume, right? Again, some artists when

[1:14:51] just going to make like changes on the whim. Maybe you start looking at your don't really like the placement of this or that." But like it looks like they are following the sketch, but everything is moved over a little bit off of the

[1:15:03] sketch as if they're tracing something you can't see, right? Like I'm going into this trying to believe the artist. It's just odd to see that everything they're following is almost their sketch but not quite. Like again, you see the

[1:15:15] thong is is shifted over a little bit. Again, the wing is moved over a bit and sketch. They just completely changed the outfit, which is like fine. Again, everybody changes their mind. It's just interesting. They didn't follow their

[1:15:27] like where to draw the bottom of the shirt, like how to change the shape of the body pose. And people in the comments are basically saying, "Yeah, paint actually, so can we see a newer one?" And that's what I'm also really

[1:15:42] confused about because like if there is a situation where people are accusing you of tracing or whatever or like your art process, using an older speed paint is like an interesting choice. And another user, Tira, writes, "A lot of

[1:15:56] and immediately dismiss tracing claims. What you don't see is the overlay app on sketch phase, they never zoom in. And when they rotate, it's done very They went ahead and moved stuff around to make the sketching seem organic. But

[1:16:10] see when they pause for a split second to adjust the overlay on top to match done, they aren't limited by this and zoom more freely. But most importantly, and something I see with these people tracing girl art is they always somehow

[1:16:24] draw perfect bodies and boobs, but the text on the shirt is flat. It never accounts for the 3D curvature of the chest. As a certified big chest artist, I know what you are. Again, this speed paint has me so intrigued because

[1:16:36] somehow they're drawing their line art and everything matches the sketch and in the upper body it matches perfectly. If you shift their line arter over couple arrow keys to the left and then when it comes to the bottom half of the body,

[1:16:49] kind of almost as if their overlay on top of their sketch somehow got moved over a little bit in the swap between sketch and line art and that's why Like again, look at the sidebang here. The side bang matches the sketch. It's

[1:17:03] just shifted over. Like how is the entire piece moved over like this? Your match one to one. But this oddity is just strange. So in response to people not believing that speed paint, Kuro posts another one and this aroused even

[1:17:17] more suspicions because again the accusation was the fact that they traced off of an overlay. Right. Wolf adds this video, the same speed paint they falsify make a new time-lapse or live stream, but I guess it's too much effort to fake

[1:17:29] a new one. So in their video they showcase a program called pure ref. I've actually never heard of this before. So you open a AI generated image or whatever you're going to trace. Okay. And then with some setting changes like

[1:17:41] under appearance making the application transparent and then making it transparent to mouse you can trace it. And if you record your speed paint using OBS and it says don't move your layer or zoom in and out as much otherwise you'll

[1:17:54] to trace again. So here you can see them showcasing that if you zoom in too much reference anymore. You're going to have to resize it to the reference and keep drawing. And it adds in OBS if you set paint tool side to window capture you

[1:18:09] can hide the fact that you're using pure ref. If you're using like a desktop desktop. So that's what it would look like which is so interesting. Which is why my tin foil hat conspiracy theory. curious about your thoughts why there

[1:18:23] might be a situation where your line art is not matching up to your sketch, right? Because you are tracing something that we can't see, but I guess somehow in the zoom in and out, you didn't line it up exactly. So maybe the image that

[1:18:35] slightly over from your sketch. So now you're tracing the line art of the image and doesn't quite match your sketch because your sketch, you know, moved. But in response to that, Kuru adds another speed paint, writing, "I don't

[1:18:48] genuinely hard to tell what's real and what's not on social media these days. I caught up in this. I want to say thank you to those who stayed kind through all another video. So on the bottom we can see that OBS is recording and this way

[1:19:03] you know, we can't see that they have Pure Ruff or anything else open. So they start drawing ahead, drawing a bottle. Now they're lining their sketch. Again, liner actually matches their sketch now. So then they added my phone died. So we

[1:19:16] well, they recorded their screen, so it's a done deal. But people were very people in the comments were very supportive, though, being like, yeah, you know, you proved it all. Like other people are still very skeptical. We have

[1:19:30] tried streaming? Because that would be the best way to tell everyone you're not tracing." Other people write, "I don't want to get involved, but curious as to why you only sketched on the not flip version of your canvas and only flip it,

[1:19:42] are saying that things are morphing. They're adding things like there's no corrections in line art. There's no more competent and natural as they start colors because you can't trace colors.

[1:19:55] And Wolf quote retweets this writing, "This is a convenient angle you chose to shoot to hide your layers panel out of frame. So now we can't determine if you're tracing from an image within sigh hidden by chroma keying. Also, your

[1:20:07] after you're done with sketching and lining and starting to color, at which tracing anymore for the rest of the process. No time is disclosed between clock would be a nice way of keeping track of the time-lapse, but it's also

[1:20:21] fixed odd angle you chose. It's good you show your taskbar. No pure ref or other this is the first time you're using desktop capturing with OBS. As we can these used as proof would be rendered moot with chroma keying. And yes, IRL

[1:20:37] time-lapses can be faked with chroma keying. It's been done before, as in the case of Asami Arts, which by the way, Asami Arts is an artist that was exposed for tracing. And they posted a speed paint and it was revealed they chroma

[1:20:49] you could find out is because in the corner you can see the color wheel and completely missing out of the color wheel and it comes back in the second half of their art. Hello, your phone didn't magically glitch. you actively

[1:21:02] video and they write there was no color on the canvas other than black and white prior to the dead phone and whether blue/green chroma keying it would give or the character's palette green eyes and another person adds I don't

[1:21:15] difference in the video but also a red flag for me is no zooming during sketching or line art so let's once again take a look at this right again this is a very interesting camera angle to use because as you can see right all

[1:21:30] of the layers and you also cannot see the computer clock. However, we can see the computer's fans. Like, I don't know. For the love of God, can't you just whatever tripod you have your phone on, can't you just like turn your phone so

[1:21:43] we can see all of your computer screen? Also, just take a look at this cuz I'm their sketching phase and their line art phase. There's no zooming, but take a posted in November. And I'm going to like scrub through it, right? They're

[1:21:57] zooming in and out of the canvas. As you can see, the canvas is small. Oh, out, in and out. Now they start coloring. It's just odd that your art coloring. It's just odd that your art process changes so much, you know, from

[1:22:11] never hit the scroll wheel again in this speed paint somehow. Like they didn't in, by the way, when they're coloring. That's the only time they start zooming in. Never did it prior to coloring. But in their other speed paint, they did. So

[1:22:25] interesting other factor in their video. Somebody writes, "How can your screen's frame have a black outline?" And somebody says, "Many computer screens that's where the resolution ends and there's no LEDs. Mine falls victim to

[1:22:39] that, too." And somebody says, "For the screen, sure, maybe, but surrounding the referring to. These two lines right here. Let's revisit the speed paint. This is their monitor. Like the side angle of their monitor, I'm I'm guessing

[1:22:53] because look, after their phone died, what is this like wobbly line? Maybe they just have a really thick monitor, but like this is the end when their are these lines? And then, as you can see here, midway through the middle

[1:23:06] rest of it remains really dark and opaque. Like, just just watch this. And after right here. And another user adds, the monitor, so they can hide it. And you can see how closely the side of the

[1:23:18] PC moves, but not the art program somehow. You need to look really closely to see it. And in the time lapse, you can see a poorly drawn bluish white blob covering the black line somehow weirdly. I think it's all handdrawn. So here,

[1:23:31] That was what I was telling you to look at. I also noticed the recording of OBS. So there's two theories because again, right, they have OBS recording, but they showed us a phone footage of their screen. So what exactly was OBS

[1:23:44] recording? Maybe they were recording an OBS version of the speed paint of their you I mean you don't have to post everything and record but they say their theories. One recording the time-lapse to later overlap it under the handdrawn

[1:23:57] phone through a green screen and recording a time-lapse on the PC later again to overlap it with hidden traced art with a handdrawn monitor. And I this user wrote. They write again the biggest tell is to try to place yourself

[1:24:11] in their shoes. Quote, "If you were being accused of tracing AI, what would quote. showing myself drawing something with my hands or streaming my art, showing as much as I could, not these weird choices because yeah, how come

[1:24:25] like everybody that's traced AI somehow has the crappiest shittiest phone recording of their screen with the weirdest angles? There's always something cropped off. I swear, right? like half the time you can only see half

[1:24:38] like half the time you can only see half the screen or it's literally like 240p their layers and the time on the computer conveniently. Like it's kind of trying to prove your innocence, you're doing a horrific job of clearing your

[1:24:53] own name with some of these angles. For me, I'm just confused about these two lines because these lines I would truly be curious if somebody could recreate this with their own monitor. like film your monitor from this angle and somehow

[1:25:05] get these two really sharp thin dark lines on the side of your monitor. I am so confused. The border of their monitor is actually quite thin. So, I don't know your monitor. Like, it just looks so odd. And then again, when you scrub

[1:25:20] through midway through, there's like a blob that appears that just distorts border is very interesting. Maybe I'm long, but I'm so intrigued. Look at the top border of their monitor. But by the

[1:25:33] for a monitor. But maybe you got some schmoney like that. Why does it like we got to here in the video, right? I slowed the video down. Do you see that? why my brain just like wanted the number 30. But do you see how it jumped? There

[1:25:48] paint tool side program when the monitor itself did not move. Let me back this up again. Do you see that? It's so minor, but the monitor didn't move. So why is their drawing program shifting downwards? Did they like fake a monitor

[1:26:01] downwards? Did they like fake a monitor to overlay on top of a OBS recording of their speed paint? Look at that. Why is it doing that jump? It's literally for a split second like right here. So here we're again seeing a lot of jumping. I

[1:26:13] can see the monitor edge better. I could put it back to like where it used to be jump again. Their paint tool side is once again glitching up and down. And of is look at the thickness of the monitor edge which is again really thin,

[1:26:27] then you might be like, "Oh, maybe it got too dark, so you can't see the monitor anymore." Maybe, maybe, maybe. That is possible. But take a look right before it gets too dark to see the top of the the monitor. It's shrunk half the

[1:26:39] beginning of the video. Let's go from here back to here. That's like regular. see the paint tool side glitch down and back up without the monitor moving. Dude, hold on. Hold on. What is happening down here? Why is there white

[1:26:52] coming out from the bottom of your monitor screen? And you can see the task reset the colors to whatever was uploaded. Why can't you see the taskbar stuff? Note here, right? This whatever this blue icon is, there's no white bar

[1:27:06] don't see anything down here, but there's like a little white fuzz sticking out from beneath the bottom of the monitor here. Again, I'm just curious, okay, if you could answer me, what monitor do you use? I've seen many

[1:27:18] of monitors. I've like never seen a monitor with a border this translucent, this thin, and that can somehow reflect the white on the bottom here. and see at visible. And then look as it gets darker. If you zoom in, you can

[1:27:32] literally see the white showing on the bottom of their monitor. I use OBS all OBS. I've been using it for 8 years. I've never seen OBS create something like this. There's literally no explanation for that unless you faked a

[1:27:46] monitor because, okay, this is what also does not make sense, right? Somehow your monitor border is so thin to where it's just this tiny little black edge, but you have an absolute brick of a monitor. This is the regular thickness of the

[1:28:01] monitor border, which means we should see some sum of your room over here. No, of this monitor here. I'm just thinking if like the entire thing is bordered like that. But then again, there is no explanation for what looks like the

[1:28:13] highlights of your taskbar peeking out from the bottom here. Like look at this. the final thing that just kind of confuses me a little bit is that you can the video goes on. Probably because, you know, maybe took a while for them to

[1:28:26] record this, etc. Maybe this is my my tin foil hat conspiracy theory. But like, why does the screen brightness stay the same? Like, it is as bright as the room. Like, the screen brightness doesn't change. And typically, like if

[1:28:39] with zero lights on, like let's say you just did not turn any lights on between source in your room. Now, I'm going to imagine that your monitor is going to reflect light onto the objects around it, right? Like there's going to be some

[1:28:52] of the monitor because typically there's some protrusion, right? A lip of the monitor. And we don't see any of that. We just see this weird protrusion from the freaking search bar down here. We don't see any reflection of the light

[1:29:05] Cuz again, being super nitpicky, if this is the border of your monitor that is super super turbo thin, when it gets dark, we should see this like turn bluish white light emitted from your PC that's reflecting off of the monitor.

[1:29:18] the border of your monitor, right? This super thin black border. Should we not see like a reflection of the white light? [sighs and gasps] Man, look up split second. And maybe I'm looking too much into it. Like I I feel like I'm

[1:29:31] going crazy. There's like a split-second glitch where like again the canvas splitting right here, right, of the pixels. Like it's split right here. And the monitor lip does not move. And do you see the distortion in the actual

[1:29:43] warping and then suddenly it distorts back? The reason why I'm so suspect is computer glitch, a phone glitch, whatever. They're recording on a freaking iPhone 5, which is why it looks like this. Like, maybe I could believe

[1:29:57] you. Why is only half the icons glitching, though? Do you see that? Only this. But do you know what I mean? Like only specific parts of the canvas are actually warping. Oh, and the color wheel conveniently. Hm. We see another

[1:30:09] can see again part of the image is distorting. Look at the eyes. But again, actually this one is warping, too. But like some of these icons are staying still, but the color wheel shifted down. The face distorted inwards a little bit.

[1:30:22] And this icon here is warping downwards. shifted because the monitor bar is not shifting up here. Actually, it's You can see that. But these are just such weird distortions. You see it

[1:30:34] getting thinner, thicker, thinner, thicker, thinner, thicker. The monitor thinner, thicker. The edge of the monitor is distorting a little bit, but looks like the entire camera shook because they hit it or something. This

[1:30:47] the beginning of their speed paint, it's like throughout their speed paint. There's more warping happening. Like the monitor is not moving. This is warping. again warping. Here we have more shifting where the monitor is not

[1:31:00] download their speed paint, slow it down to like 25% and just arrow key clip through it. And to wrap this up, as you can see here, there is idea theft happening as well, where they take like the meme format that another artist has

[1:31:14] made prior and they just recreate it in their own style. And like, okay, look, it, yada yada yada. You literally like ripped it one for one. You didn't even change the pose. You didn't even change the outfit, actually. And everything is

[1:31:27] the same. They literally kept the color of the text the same. Like I guess they color selected this and used that same shade of like gray that like warm brown gray to write the text. This is so odd. I want to believe artists, but with the

[1:31:40] speed paint that scuffed and that chopped with that many inconsistencies in it where it literally looks like they drew the monitor on and I think people probably missed it here because the timeline bar of the video is is like

[1:31:52] down here. So, it's kind of obscuring the bottom of their monitor in this video. But until I see more proof that they are an artist that hand draws and a better speed paint video, this is not selling it. Because why does it look

[1:32:05] selling it. Because why does it look like you drew a monitor and put your OBS monitor drawing to try to pass it off as a speed paint? I've used OBS for eight plus years now and I have no explanation for this. There's no reasonable

[1:32:18] explanation that could like explain away why it looks like this and all the other inconsistencies in the speed paint. Wolf has this final post which is E621's update on Curu's investigation. This is noting the new speed paint. They read

[1:32:31] they write the same falsifiable video of Rogue first shared in November which making it possible to silently trace from an image without capturing in we saw from November. The investigation writes a video capture of their monitor

[1:32:44] with a system clock out of frame recorded from a static viewpoint. At 21 in the camera along with a sudden change in lighting. Additionally, OBS Studio was visible in the taskbar with a red circle indicating it was recording its

[1:32:58] own video. Given the double recording, the sudden change in lighting, and the camera angle at 21, and the failure to include any shot of the artist's hands or drawing implements, the visuals displayed on the monitor were likely to

[1:33:10] be pre-recorded or edited in post. So, at the end of the day, I am curious is a legitimate artist that is falsely accused? Do you think they faked the speed paint and actually drew a monitor

[1:33:23] to fake a speed paint so that people would not suspect the fact that they are tracing work? This artist made an explanation post to clear their name after a false accusation. Everything was spun on its head. Let's take a look at

[1:33:35] this. This all starts with this post made on threads by user Eliza Smith122 writing, "Attention. I recently worked with an author on a custom character scratch. The author was happy with the

[1:33:48] background tweak. The background was never part of the commission. Two, it was a stock image added only to showcase the character and give it more visual context. Three, if the author had asked, I would have removed the background

[1:34:01] immediately and delivered the character as a transparent PNG or on a plain white confused because like typically backgrounds are an extra fee and an extra ask on a commission. So if the author asks for a background tweak,

[1:34:14] you know, the background was never part of the commission. Yeah. You know, like they've paid for in the commission as the artist, that's your job to tell them you know, backgrounds are going to be an extra so and so for the commission. I

[1:34:29] can give you an answer. Then you said it was a stock image added only to showcase the charact. So then like why did you use a stock image slash some image at there was a misunderstanding." The author alleged that both the character

[1:34:44] despite the fact that I shared the Adobe layers, and provided progress visual. request. I'm genuinely trying to resolve this fairly and professionally. I'm even

[1:34:57] willing to share the source and Adobe file with any artist who wants to review and verify that the character was not created using AI. I would really would you expect this to be handled? An artist, how would you protect yourself

[1:35:10] like a misunderstanding around the use open to learning how to handle this better in the future. Thanks in advance downloaded because it's not available even though the Wii transfer was posted

[1:35:24] 2 days ago. I personally am just really confused because again, like what is first place that started this? Because if the author didn't purchase a background? They didn't purchase one. So, you should just tell them if you

[1:35:38] this much extra. That's it. But then you added a stock image that is allegedly AIL/ But you say it's not AI. Then we statement. And their threads handle is Biblio Bishop. And Bishop writes, "I am

[1:35:51] the author. I did like the initial image they provided. I did ask for background change because they use AI in the product when they claim to be an anti- AI artist. I was able to pull the JPEG out of the metadata and none of the work

[1:36:04] in progresses make sense according to multiple artists. I started a refund process after I was lied to about AI usage. You guys tell me, am I crazy? Should I apologize and remove the dispute? Which I really wish we could

[1:36:16] file that they're claiming would clear their name. So here we have a work in their name. So here we have a work in progress which I've never seen anybody draw like this before but maybe the stylistic aspect. Then we have this the

[1:36:29] body plus the shading and then the body and the shading separated and then them minor things like text design but not for illustration to a heavy degree. This is just an interesting way to draw because it's making more work for

[1:36:44] Because the character is modular. They drew it basically as if they're drawing a VTuber model or something to animate with like drawing the layers behind stuff that would obstruct it, which is not a particularly common way that you

[1:36:57] would see somebody draw art that does not require that as in art pieces that extra work. But let's take a look at the speed paint.

[1:37:11] tracing something. Now, what is it tracing? I don't know. But this is not a legitimate artist. Straight up. Okay, again I have to add my disclaimers. Okay, everybody draws differently. You basically will never see an artist draw

[1:37:26] like only a third of the body in full detail, mind you. Full detail, hair, curls, shading added. We go to draw the chest, the half of the face, and then one eyebrow is fully rendered in and only half of the hair. Then we get the

[1:37:40] other half of the hair. And again, take a look here. They drew in an uneven rest of the buttons. This literally looks like they're being an eraser finished piece and then erased parts of

[1:37:52] to fabricate a speed paint. Cuz again, watch this. The ordering of everything is just so odd. And any artist with eyeballs can take a look at this and paint. And people in the comments are 50/50. Somebody says, "As an artist

[1:38:06] claimed was not AI generated. After personally going through the file, I can the right. There is nothing in the file that indicates any AI generation or AI usage. Every single layer is clearly handdrawn by the artist. Another person

[1:38:21] says, "Straight talk here. The artist provided you with their workflow review. And your solution is to post it on social media and ask everyone else to, but from this vantage, it looks like you're trying to weasle your way out of

[1:38:34] a contract by using the AI card. I'd say that you ought to be ashamed, but on the back of this exchange here, I doubt it's possible." Other people are saying the speed paint is 100% them tracing over an AI image. Real artists change, resize,

[1:38:47] and tweak their work as art progresses. A digital drawing with no changes along the way is absolutely indicative of them tracing over another image. And if it hidden it from your view. Another person says, "Not once in my 39 years have I

[1:39:01] ever started a drawing with the line of the inside seam of a sleeve." That is a was funny. It cracked me up here. So Eliza follows up writing. So, whatever any public statements or reply to anyone from now on. I will deal with this issue

[1:39:16] with PayPal and make peace with whatever happens. Also, anyone who's here to anything, then you won't be entertained at all. Stay the hell out. I'm not obligated to answer you. I did my work with honesty, and I'm happy with it.

[1:39:29] by making those posts, but people are straight up ignoring the facts and you have any problems, simply block or mute or let me know, and I will block you. But I mean, I think it's just interesting because we can take a look

[1:39:43] at like their other art pieces to truly see like what is going on here. Here are some pieces they've drawn and they've used uh I guess stock image for the interesting looking. Is it AI? Is it legitimate? I just think it's

[1:39:57] pestle, but also there's like an avocado seed in the middle of it. I could be details and whatever this thing is supposed to be. And in the comments, Eliza had added more expanded layers panel so you can see the layers that

[1:40:11] they have for the piece. I just think at the end of the day, yes, we do have the layers and I guess a background that we've never seen because I can't available anymore where this speed paint is just so odd. And Adobe Illustrator is

[1:40:25] not a program that innately can record speed paints. So, they must have recorded a speed paint that looked like this on their own valition. Also, again, the final thing is it's just interesting to note because this artist again has no

[1:40:38] to note because this artist again has no prior examples of work before September 2025. And that's always a little bit of like a red flag as well. If it's a brand new account on top of the fact that the art process looks suspicious because if

[1:40:51] you have examples of your work dating to before Gen AI was popular, then that could maybe be something to clear your name and offer indications you're legit. But because that's also not available and the speed paint looks so off. It

[1:41:03] we do have this like error in the hand as well. Maybe it was just like a human mistake that the artist made, but they cut out like part of the thumb shading, something due to the characters lore in the book. So, at the end of the day,

[1:41:17] what are your thoughts? I'm curious about your thoughts on the situation. I definitely think that with what we have of the speed paint to take a look at, that is an odd speed paint. that speed paint is really odd. And the fact that

[1:41:30] they've like removed the file that they've uploaded of the illustrator work anymore to clear their name. Like they've said, it's not really doing a the day, people are like, you can separate the layers, so it's not AI

[1:41:44] generated. The main accusation is that there is some sort of AI usage involved in the production of the piece, as in tracing. You can trace something and layers because you traced over something. So, there's that. So, what

[1:41:57] generated? Do you think it's traced? I would love to hear your thoughts in the And with that, I appreciate it if you like and subscribe. Don't forget to check me out on Etsy. I have digital art there for streamers and creators. I also

[1:42:10] free sponsorship guide. And I stream on Twitch three days a week and I've Monday, Thursdays, and Saturdays at 6 p.m. PST. Hope to catch you all there or p.m. PST. Hope to catch you all there or in another video. Peace.