Lumiluz

That is not feasible, especially when it covers to the type of QR codes shown in the example, because humans can't read QR codes, which means we can't warp the data points in the QR just barely enough so that a reader could still pick it up because it's within the error threshold - we don't know what the threshold is. We could do something black and white with exact accuracy, like by using graph paper, but that wouldn't be the same as there's no warping of the code points, so what a human could do would at best always be a worse illusion than what the AI could do, because the AI can know what limit it can warp the QR too while keeping it readable, while we can't.

That's why I used this as an example - this is something only a machine can feasibly do with any practicality, because we don't have machine vision so as to calculate where error thresholds would lie if trying to reproduce by hand. I suppose if you're really, really good with math, you might be able to replicate something like what I posted, such as the red panda - but at that point, is using math to draw art? If so, then AI would be considered art too. If not, then 3D rendering isn't art either.

*before the judge is arrested

Don't think that undo this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQJL3htsDyQ

If we're doing anecdotes, the Mexican side of my family loves Sheinbaum too and are not in Lemmy (+1 friend and her boyfriend as well)

Says the person who has only responded to actual data with propaganda

Better name too

This is better evidence, but still would be difficult to keep such consistency with the character. That would be quite the advancement itself.

Inconsistent arm length is only proof that someone might have issues with reference sizing, not AI. Webcomic Pixie and Brutus had it so bad the artist made it into a hilarious joke and then stated they'd finally make a size reference chart to keep it consistent in the future. Freaking animated series Steven Universe, a professional production, constantly had issues with not just limb lengths but size consistency as well. Size consistency is the worst reasoning of them all if anything.

The flowers in the background could just be that the artist has issues with distance perspective / drawing. A lot of artists who don't do backgrounds have that issue.

And like I already mentioned, the best evidence so far would be the blur lines surrounding the character, which would be evidence of AI in that they added the character into these backgrounds, but not only could that also be just a standard blur tool (because the artist isn't good at backgrounds), but it would be weird that someone using Ai to make this would go through all the work of training a custom LORA or model on this character specifically, but wouldn't reduce the size of blurring in the parameters when inpainting. It's possible, sure, but usually someone who already went to the lengths of learning how to train a model or such to achieve such consistent results would also quickly look up how to set the inpainting parameters to not show such a massive blur line.

But the other thing to note that this might not be AI is the aspect ratio. Presumably this would have been done as separate panels on AI, and then you'd crop if needed and make a fake comic panels. If so, why would you crop the edges of the comic / leave them incomplete? Usually that's specifically where an artist of this type of comic panel would sign their work too, if they chose too. Cropping out signatures is something commonly done by people reposting work done by real artists, and has been an issue for years as well.

Now, all this is too say that it's not definite that this is made by a human. The point is that there's no strong evidence that it's AI. The clothes are consistent, the shoes and fingers are as well. That there's 5 fingers is actually suspicious, but it's definitely something an amateur artist would choose to do.

To me, the most likely case is this is a mix of AI and real drawn work / lots of manual editing work (for example, the mouth in panel 2 and 3 look the same, indicating it may have been copy and pasted by hand rather than generated). But my second guess it's purely drawn work with a lot of manual editing. What I can say is this is very unlikely to be 100% AI.