Background: Cortical multiple sclerosis lesions are clinically relevant but inconspicuous at conventional clinical MRI. Double inversion recovery (DIR) and phase-sensitive inversion recovery (PSIR) are more sensitive but often unavailable. In the past 2 years, artificial intelligence (AI) was used to generate DIR and PSIR from standard clinical sequences (eg, T1-weighted, T2-weighted, and fluid-attenuated inversion-recovery sequences), but multicenter validation is crucial for further implementation. Purpose: To evaluate cortical and juxtacortical multiple sclerosis lesion detection for diagnostic and disease monitoring purposes on AI-generated DIR and PSIR images compared with MRI-acquired DIR and PSIR images in a multicenter setting. Materials and Methods: Generative adversarial networks were used to generate AI-based DIR (n = 50) and PSIR (n = 43) images. The number of detected lesions between AI-generated images and MRI-acquired (reference) images was compared by randomized blinded scoring by seven readers (all with >10 years of experience in lesion assessment). Reliability was expressed as the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Differences in lesion subtype were determined using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. Results: MRI scans of 202 patients with multiple sclerosis (mean age, 46 years ± 11 [SD]; 127 women) were retrospectively collected from seven centers (February 2020 to January 2021). In total, 1154 lesions were detected on AI-generated DIR images versus 855 on MRI-acquired DIR images (mean difference per reader, 35.0% ± 22.8; P < .001). On AI-generated PSIR images, 803 lesions were detected versus 814 on MRI-acquired PSIR images (98.9% ± 19.4; P = .87). Reliability was good for both DIR (ICC, 0.81) and PSIR (ICC, 0.75) across centers. Regionally, more juxtacortical lesions were detected on AI-generated DIR images than on MRI-acquired DIR images (495 [42.9%] vs 338 [39.5%]; P < .001). On AI-generated PSIR images, fewer juxtacortical lesions were detected than on MRI-acquired PSIR images (232 [28.9%] vs 282 [34.6%]; P = .02). Conclusion: Artificial intelligence–generated double inversion-recovery and phase-sensitive inversion-recovery images performed well compared with their MRI-acquired counterparts and can be considered reliable in a multicenter setting, with good between-reader and between-center interpretative agreement.