>>7646989
>random anon asks about background ai art, no proof of its association with whatever schizo attachment you've made for one person
>links an image THAT HAS NO ARTIFACTS in its image, so fucking /beg/ doesn't actually know the tell tale signs of what ai artifacts are.
Pic related you drooling fucktard
>""""""""""traced"""""""""
>image overlay is different, at best could accuse of referencing but the fucktard is too dumb to realize AI IMAGES USE EXISTING ART AND POSES TO BE GENERATED
>friends with literal who on /asg/, completely irrelevant
Wow. You're the dumbest motherfucker I've ever come across on /ic/. And that's saying a lot.