One of the worst things about it is when people assume that your hard work was AI generated when none was used, and that will only get worse with time. Had a few instances of music parodies and voice impressions I've done where people confidently claim "this was AI generated". With AI available, some peoples mindsets seem entirely fixed on making money and they can't imagine that other people would create art for the craft of it.
I agree this is so much worse. You can't just state it's AI based on "vibes" Also it's quite common on pages that mostly do reposts. I wouldn't even think of saying such thing on an artist page. Im also an artist and that'd probably break me. I mean most artwork takes between 8-16 hours work. That's not fair to call it AI based on nothing. I mean we're most certainly going to see less of it if everyone calls everything AI. No wonder I hardly see art on my feed anymore.
The hustle to make money off of your hobby has been around a lot longer then the AI boom. The internet commoditied everything. Everyone wants to make money through their art, playing video games / tabletop role playing. The internet came with the promise that you could make money off of what you love doing, but no one considered what the consequences of everyone trying to make money on what was once their passion would have.
I keep seeing artists get accused of AI, only for the accusation to be proven wrong, but the stigma doesn't just vanish. AI art has also soured people to high-render realistic art as well, as people just auto-assume it was generated and move on.
This has become such a problem. It's like the fight against AI started with good intentions, but now it's just blown up into this crazy mess that is killing people's livelihoods. On those callout posts that have 2M+ views, it doesn't matter if the artist proves they didn't do it, most of those people will never see the artists side of the story and continue spreading the misinformation. People say it's to protect people's jobs and rights, but they get so caught up in fighting, that they are destroying many indie creators jobs and lives over assumptions. If a simple assumption can be so powerful that they call for someone to be ruined over it, I think it's time to step back and re evaluate what they were fighting for in the first place. This applies to the people who are just using it as an honest tool as well. They get the same exact treatment, even if there is 0% of the AI work in their finished product. It's honestly been wild to see.
My biggest issue with AI is lack of transparency. For example, if every art piece that used AI has the legal obligation of labeling itself as such, it would allow both - the artists and the art consumers - to make their own choice. For example if I search for a reference photo, give me the opportunity to exclude every AI made piece. If I don't want to see nor buy any AI piece, I should have that option without spending time to figure it on my own.
I think this is the thing for me. I want to consume things made by humans. If a human couldn't be bothered to make it, why should I be bothered to consume it?
Agreed. Just googling animals can get you AI generated images now, and it’s just not okay in my opinion. I want to see real images of a zebra. If I wanted to see AI generated zebras, I would’ve specified that in my search.
I think an interesting question is that if an image was made using AI but you didn't know it, what's the difference between owning that image and a human-made image? If at the end of the day, the goal of owning art is to make you feel something or connect you with human nature does it matter how it was created? I think its an interesting question
@@jananias2985 I mean there are plenty of reasons why, it depends on why you want it. AI art is useful in a decent number of ways, and can still be fun to look at. Just a time and a place for it. But ofc I agree that you should be able to have the option to filter it.
its funny how they said AI would replace menial bean counting and clerical jobs no one wants, and free up people to make art, writing, and music.......and then the FIRST thing AI started to try to replace was art, writing, and music
Let's edit that and replace 'AI' with 'technology', then take a step back to reassess. It's easy to kind of become blind to exactly what technology does for us once it becomes ubiquitous. Don't calculators, spreadsheets and office productivity software already remove the need for tons of that menial bean counting work you just described? We've just gotten so used to using Excel we don't appreciate just how labor intensive doing that kind of numbers work was in the precomputer age. Anyway, I think what scares us in large language models and image generators is that they threaten our sense of human exceptionalism as well as our livelihood. It's easier to accept Excel taking the jobs of accountants than it is to accept that human creativity can be replicated and we're much simpler and less special than we like to think.
I'm not pro AI art, but I don't see anyway to stop it. Unlike NFT, if AI art continues to be useful, there would be a market for it . Artists and non-artists would be using it because it's fast and disposable.
@@BradmyrEdits I don't think either, that you can stop AI art at this point, if anything it should be regulated, setting clear rules what can and can't be done imo
@@lordstarscreamy329 Agreed, and more ethical models would be nice too, I know that Lionsgate is working on one, and they are using their own movies to train their model.
Professional artist here. Thanks for your transparency and willingness to have a calm, rational discussion about this. I do believe AI could have value as a tool to streamline the creative process (such as using it in software to make a once-tedious step fly by), but businesses shouldn't use it as a replacement for real artists. So far the main issue seems to be that business leadership: 1) Are easily distracted by shiny things, and AI is the new shiny thing every company should use for... reasons (usually because "it's the future" with little elaboration beyond that) 2) Have no idea how art connects with an audience on a fundamental human level. Sure, AI art is often flashy and eye-catching, but how does it speak to their customers' emotions? How will the image stick in their memories? What message are you trying to convey to them other than "this looks cool"? I often compare AI prompters to that guy who always loudly revs his engine at stop lights. Doing so gets people's attention, but it won't make them like you.
I couldn’t care less about the images AI generates. I’m interested in it’s ability to generate videos and games. It’s very easy to see how this tech could allow an individual artist to create their own TV shows and AAA video games to their exact specifications at home within the next 10 years. It’d be a billion dollar entertainment studio on your PC.
I like that this video is trying to be neutral .I'm an artist and while I don't mind Ai being a useful tool it should not be something people rely on too much. I've been using Ai before like how Jazza is using it as a garnish to his art. Using Ai is fine but I don't want it to be a replacement for genuine creativity, learning to draw, nor should it be used for malicious intent.
This makes sense for an artist possibly using ai as concepting and placeholders. But for a studio that aren't artists and just employers wanting to concept, they won't feel the need to have a real concept artist working for them. Like if they use it how you mentioned how a real artist like yourself could, they will not hire people. The art industry will and has been getting tougher, all I know is that we gotta stay strong, and be more creative than the machine.
@@fallenmango8420 that sucks man. I was thinking about doing concept art back in high school, but decided to go into programming instead. It sounded like such a tough job to begin with, needing to create art so quickly. It's definitely an impressive skill that I admire. Hopefully you will be able to find somewhere new where your talents are still being appreciated.
That last point is the bottom line. All of these arguments are largely a waste of air. It doesn't matter why AI is bad, because you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Good faith actors would just be surrendering to the bad faith ones. The only reasonable conclusion is as you say. We all need to defend our place in the universe in some way. Anyone expecting that they'd just skate by on easy street better have the foresight to be born rich. Any number of things can cut you down if you're not being your best self.
This. Jazza seemed to miss this point. Jazza and his team may use it to concept out animatics, but a company would straight up just use the AI image output in the final video. Plus, animatics are usually done by storyboard artists in limited styles just to convey general forms and movements. This cuts that out and eliminates jobs. Jazza is contributing to normalization of AI usage and cutting of initial stage art jobs.
I spent over 10yrs honing my skills and trying to get into the art industry. I finally accomplished my goal and was making art for video games at a small studio. When ai got good enough, all the artists were let go and ai was used exclusively. I lost my dream job and, as I'm now in my 40s with a family, I don't have the time to wait and pursue that again. I had to get a normal job. My dream lasted for about 1yr. I don't mind ai being used as a tool to help artists. My problem is with people who have no art skills to speak of, calling themselves artists because they can type some words in a box. I have completely stopped posting my work to social media for fear it will be stolen. I havent shared my art in almost 2yrs now. As someone who loves creating, it's very sad and almost makes me want to stop altogether. Sharing art with people is the whole point, but I feel like I need to horde it all, and I don't like that. Hopefully, in the end, real artists will prevail and ai art will simply be a tool at our disposal and not a replacement for years or decades of hard work.
feel for you! I think in a few years companies are going to realize they cant rely solely on AI. They will need actual artists. In the future i think 'human made art' is going to be very sought after.
I've worked in video game industry for 20 years. I don't see large studios replacing their artists because AI generated images are still too limited. Is that small studio that you worked for even still around? I don't see how AI generated images can replace artists. It can only supplement.
To me it seems that you are just frustrated that people can generate art without having to go through the amount of effort it took you to learn to do the same. I find it weird to tie the value of art to how difficult it is to make. If some people who use generated ai call themselves artists, they are totally allowed to do so. Being an artist is not something that requires a degree. Given how vast the realm of art is, it's just silly to restrain "real art" to art that is exclusively made through drawing or painting. The only real issue with AI art is how it is currently used by companies who think it can fully replace all professional artists. Current models like the intelligence to consider important caracteristics of art such as intent and composition. Eventually they will be able to do it but it might take longer than most people think as it might requires actual AGI to pull off. This is where you and all the artists that can't stop complaining should weight in by showcasing what you can do that AI cannot or struggle with i.e specifity and consistency of the art. Real artists will only prevail when they accept the reality of ai art and actually use it to their advantage to propose something that ai art alone cannot make.
@@majeric besides big companies aren't about to risk potential lawsuits coming back to rake their profits years down the road if plagiarism ever gets prosecuted. also even software companies don't want their code sourced into these models. it's only the smaller studios pulling this shit
I absolutely hate trying to find images and I have to sift through the overwhelming amount of AI art because google cant filter it I legitimately have started using MS Edge because its not as bad
More than just art. "Dead Internet Theory" has become a reality. A huge portion of what I see online these days seems to be by AI, and/or posted by bots. It's essentially cannibalized the internet.
What I do is I add "before:2018" to each of my searches. The search should leave out all images that came after, which includes most if not all AI content.
I feel like Jazza is the only person I could listen to talk about some of the useful things with AI without cringing because you can tell how much he cares about and loves art.
Especially because he's not trying to defend or hide anything. He knows that AI CAN be a useful tool, but is also aware of how horrifically damaging it is. Like, whenever Adam Duff talks about it, he always skirts around why people are so angry and upset about it, and most of the comments are along the lines of "You're just not listening!" it's like he only sees it from the perspective of someone who's already successful and secure, and not the millions of artists desperately trying to just exist. IMO Jazza really shows how humble he is here. You can tell he hasn't forgotten where he came from and really understands the perspectives of the little people
@@LegoTardisArchives Exactly, Shad is an idiot and a man-child. You should watch that clip of Shad throwing a tantrum when Jazza (way too politely) disagrees that Shad's "professional-level artistry" should give him 2 art points in DnD, it's hilarious. Everyone just wants to move on and play the game but Shad acts like a 5-year-old and can't handle anyone saying that his AI slop doesn't make him an artistic genius.
Programmer here. I'm in the part of people that made AI the thing it is today. AI is also replacing our jobs here. All of us are suffering under the rise of AI, technically speaking. On a personal opinion, though, I treat AI the same way I do tracing - It's okay if its for you, you think its okay, and you aren't going to affect anyone else for it. You can use it as a backdrop or an idea for the real thing, you can have the thing just for testing out how that certain thing operates/feels, and you can even use it for things that you would never pay anyone else to do anyways. However, when you do it, make it explicitly clear you are using it, don't try to sell it off as your own, and when something breaks/doesn't work, you don't have the background knowledge to fix it. That's what tracing is, that's what AI should be. At least, in my opinion.
I'm a developer (not for AI though) and our company is trying to leverage it as a job aide, we're not at the point that we trust it to do our jobs 100% because integrating our stupid number of systems and complex business logic is just not feasible. As a hobbyist creative: I use it like Jazza does, as part of brainstorming and ideation, but I would never post it claiming it as my own work
We all learned this in 3rd grade english class when we cited our sources iirc. I think most pro-ai people at minimum think it's morally dubious to sell off other people's art as their own... But one side literally think it's ok to sell other people's art off as their own It's not the side with the asian tradition of no-self reincarnation, where a student honors their teacher by taking up the mantle after training as the new embodiment of that artstyle. It's the side that says "I learned from tracing and it's mine now" Fuck antis. But also you're right & everyone ELSE agrees, stealing is bad
@@blazearmoru What I find hilarious is when people use AI to generate content, claim it as their own work, then get mad when other people used the same words as them and got a similar result, accusing them of plagiarising their work. The lack of self-awareness in the AI bro world is truly something else
@@alexh1465 I'm an engineer who has used AI to get into creating automation with Python, despite coding not being a part of my specific career. While I'm not particularly interested in learning to code, I have used it to make such a wide variety of tasks, that it has taught me to interpret, verify, test, or configure basic Python structures. I have learned what libraries and tools are available and it has allowed me to make more and more complex automations over time. I've certainly been enjoying it for low-level programming.
Interesting. I actually get the impression that most programming jobs can't really be replaced by AI... At least not yet and not in the near future. It seems to me like the big "programmer replacement" AIs are scams (like Devin), the best programming aids are severely limited and require a human programmer in the lead (GPT, Copilot), the companies that claim x% of their code is written by AI have skin in the game (Google), and the companies laying off programmers are largely doing so after the massive tech boom during COVID. I feel like AI is having an impact and may someday get good enough to be a major threat to all jobs,but right now it's mostly overblown hype.
Understand Jazza's hesitation and awkwardness on this topic. Nonetheless, I agree that talking about it is a better way forward than saying nothing at all. I, for one, would appreciate a deeper dive.
@@friendlyneighborhoodartist holy shit ive seen a few of your videos, nice surprise! but besides that, family has a weird influence, even on the best of us
Thank you for the respectful and open conversation Jazza, I'm a multimedia artist as a hobby, i enjoy voice work, music production, and physical and digital art. I had hoped when a.i emerged, that it would replace things like debugging code, or designing prototypes, this would have meant instead of work I'd be free to actually practice the arts that i love. Sadly it feels like instead a.i has been used to "boil" art. Break it down to its most basic components and copy paste the formula with no actual thought behind why we place this here in the foreground, or why we use this color next to this one. a.i doesn't know why artists that are fed to it do what they do, just knows patterns and copies them. And that is the problem, because eventually we might get lost in the sea of patterns and lose the actual art sinking to the bottom. I would prefer if we stick to silica based life forms using pattern recognition to rebuild the economy and increase resources, not take away the things we like to make with those resources. (Sorry for the long winded comment thanks for reading to the end)
Too bad, so sad. Learn a new skill and abandon your art. Because most of the current AIs can generate better art than 90% of artists can. It's good that AI is here. Because the people who aren't artists can use AI generated art to complete their projects without sinking 100s or 1000s of dollars in
I'm a Voice actor and I hate the fact that AI starting to make voices and how I'm now seeing ads for AI voice over its literally trying to take my job.
if AI can do voices well enough to get people to come watch the movie, voice acting doesn't deserve to be a job. If it cant, it wont. Its as simple as that.
Ai should be used as a tool to assist & not to be used to as a replacement. AI can not create anything on its own, so it shouldn't be called artificial but algorithm intelligence
I’m really glad you made this video, cause it’s been really annoying to ONLY see two extremes whenever videos about this topic come up. Either they’re super pro AI, this sorta marvel and wonder for what it can do but always so dangerously close to forgetting its roots (since many enthusiasts are not artists and don’t really try to learn the skills, so they don’t have an eye for what looks good beyond surface level stuff) and implying artists need not try-- or the extremely pessimistic flip where AI is the devil and there’s no way to use ANY of those tools without it being inherently unethical, which is often held by folks who either don’t actually know how all this stuff works and is more focused on the buzzword than realizing this tech has been with us for decades and just kinda got way better in the last couple years... or people who cannot face the reality that most creation is derivative and it’s really hard to draw a line between when it’s okay when people do it and when it’s okay when AI does it SPECIFICALLY enough. I have a lot of detailed opinions about AI and what it means for art, but in this context I personally believe AI is best as a tool, stepping stone to your vision. But not the ONLY tool. Letting AI do all the work but claiming it’s yours is just plagiarism. We’ve used computers to help with art for so long and almost everytime a revolutionary boom in that tech happens, there’s a puritan pushback, only this time it’s much more obvious how this creative destruction affects jobs when capitalism encourages cutting people out for robots. But that’s not the AI’s fault and AI can be useful if we’re smart and empathetic about how it should be used. At least in regards to more traditional consideration for media, I don’t want to get into how it’s indisputable that AI enthusiasts have created their own genres now but don’t seem to want to be honest about how it differs from manually created art by artists (which I think them not understanding that distinction is the biggest reason most of us don’t want to give them any leeway) There’s truly a lot of angles to talk about this in, but ultimately I wanna see more rules out in place to protect artists from greedy actors who want to snuff them out with AI shortcuts.
I like your answer, It reflects my thoughts too, I would only add that the problem currently is more of how are we going to legislate AI or any other techonology that can replace to a degree any significant portion of the working force at such a great speed, my worries are more towards what can we do to make a transition or conciliation happen quickly if something like this happens to other Jobs and suddenly there are more and more people unemployed without more niches they can fill in society to earn a liveable income. Another issue that I saw on another comment is the education on specific skills, I think there is a very real risk that AI becomes a negative factor on the preservation of knowledge because it acts as a demotivator for us to learn anything that an AI can do better, so there is a very real scenario where people in the future forget industry knowledge that today is common sense because there are less and less people trying to acquire the skill, although we could argue that said knowledge persist on the internet but we will probably also rely on AI for that, probably.
"...where AI is the devil and there’s no way to use ANY of those tools without it being inherently unethical..." ...is it appropriate to say "amen!" to that? There's an actual metaphor for this: "radioactive". It's like a combination of forbidden and infectious -- it contaminates and destroys _everyone_ who touches it, regardless of motives.
The idea that most creation is derivative, whether it's true or not, doesn't justify billion-dollar companies stealing millions of copyrighted images from the internet for commercial use. That's mass theft, copyright infringement and exploitation, not at all comparable to creative inspiration.
I can understand where you’re coming from, but tbh I just can’t buy the whole “tool” argument no matter how hard I try. Mainly because “AI” is such a broad term, and some things that fall under the umbrella are FAR more harmful to creativity than others. Apathy, Ego, and Impatience are just as bad for creativity as Greed is. That’s unfortunately a part of human nature not exclusive to Capitalism. I feel whole “tool” argument is glossing over that part.
Honestly I’m just so fucking sick of seeing all that AI slop on my Facebook feed, like “This child made a Lamborghini out of Sprite bottles!” or “I’m 134 year old and make my own flowers & cakes!” and “This just in - there’s another movie in the _____ franchise coming soon! Here’s the official poster!”
A lot of facebook users (like older people who aren't so tech savvy) are easily tricked so no wonder some of the worst ai exploiters spam their nonsensical stuff there.
Why the fuck you guys use Facebook? Where I'm from there's only old people left on Facebook, which makes AI bullshit tasking over everything very coherent because they don't know it's AI. But now I'm very curious to know why are there young people using this shit I abandoned ten years ago.
I very much appreciate the distinction you made about AI art being dangerous when in a capitalist atmosphere. If AI and its output are privately owned, then it becomes fundamentally anti-competitive. It's a cheat code - no human can possibly compete with an AI, save through profound innovation, though this too will only be a short term advantage until the AI adapt to that innovation. If an AI is trained on a persons output, or a populations output, then it must belong to that person/population. Alternatively, (and better imo) If AI and its output are PUBLICLY owned, and its output benefits the entirety of humanity, then post-scarcity might legitimately be achieved, but I think we'd be talking about a completely different context at that point. Ya know... "essential means of production" and all that jazz. -a. Thank you for being bold and talking about this, I would LOVE to see a follow up piece.
I am in college in the US right now taking a course called Legal Issues in Media Arts, and my teacher once mentioned that, legally speaking, for a piece of art to be eligible for copyright protections, it must have 'authorship', or as he called it, the 'hands-in-the-pie rule' - someone must have had a minimal amount of creative input. Therefore, since a human making Ai images only technically puts their authorship into the prompt and not the image itself, and it was the AI that made the image (and only humans are legally able to perform authorship over a work), all AI generated art is immediately in the public domain upon creation If that AI generated art is then altered by human hand in some way though, then I think it may be eligible for copyright protection in some form. I'm not totally sure though, it's all new in the legal sphere
@masonphillips4744 The Video Game industry is decades ahead of the Art Industry given the past 50+ years. True... Under USA Copyright Law, pure 100% Random Generated Art falls under Public Domain unless other Factors are involved. Under the guidelines of the USA Copyright Office. Although it is case by case and not law yet, they heavily advised to at least be creative with Ai Tech as a tool. AI Art isn't terrible but humanity is extremely malicious about it and against it.
@@MrFram Private Source or Open Source, it matters not to the law. What corporations did, was to Copyright Infringe when they used unauthorized IPs to fuel their Data Bases and sold it as a service. If they only sold AI Pictures and not the AI Art Generator, then they would be in the legal right as Copyright lawsuits are 1 to 1 for the Output, not for the input. Of course, USA Copyright is more complex and international Copyright laws are even more or less. (I don't appose technology but there are ethical ways to go about it. If Mankind fails, then I need not keep this temporary world.) Well... It's not if but when... For that Fate, I have lived through over infinite eternities. "The Machines are the Sons of Man as Man is the Son of God", as Primordial Mankind once put it. Ancient wisdom long gone from this iteration of existence.
@@MrFram "Open Source" by opening the source of something that never belonged to them, all while the companies get millions in investiment and funding by investors, we know how they are proffiting from it, and we know they violated copyright to do it, it's all the matters to law, this is why AI is toxic for actual professionals and this is why mass adoption will be constantly fought against.
10:07 But that's because you're her boss, you have the point of view of an artist, you appreciate the humanity in art, you can't expect corporates to do the same when it comes to artists
But you'd still expect a big corporation to not trace every pixel of 10.000 existing artworks to Frankenstein them into one.. That's what AI is doing. Calling it AI isn't even that logical to me considering they act based on codes and not on their own.. They aren't really intelligent as you can see when you ask ChatGPT how many R's the word 'Strawberry' has. Art is more than a craft, cavemen did art before communication was a thing, why would we want that to be replaced by technology? Art is so much more important than people realize..
@gertrashcan Well, it's not like they manually do it, all they need to do is prompt or hire someone to prompt and bam! Money printing machine as far as they're concerned My hope is that people will not let that happen, but it really is a difficult stone to stop
@@רפאל-ב yeah, that's the issue. They don't need to trace anything if a machine can do it for them. It's even worse like that, tracing is bad enough but they are even too lazy to do it themselves Not so sure if it will make them much money tho. People are already sick of getting scammed by robots
Even if AI didn't exist corporation have been doing that since forever so you are not giving a point you are just repeating what everyone knows just adding AI to the sentence
@@Luxo-tm9mp Back then they just payed the artists very poorly, now they literally replace them. Clearly no difference- But seriously now, I get your point but it's just not that simple
This is exactly what the UA-cam art community is needing to hear at the moment. I totally agree with your general thesis that you simply cannot put this situation in B&W. It's impossible to talk about it fairly in anything other than greyscale.
the problem was mentioned briefly - it's *capitalism* - technology giving un/low-skilled people access to producing things that (used to be) difficult or took effort to do. and so we end up with just lower and lower quality product/output since profit is the main objective - just looks at the music "industry" now - or even restaurants (fast food "franchises"), democratization might well be good in certain cases, but when corporations then abuse those same tools they can then use their scale to overturn whatever the democratization was meant to do.
Firstly, thank you Jazza for caring to start constructive conversation... For me as an art professional trained traditionally and working digitally full time as a freelancer it's complicated but... Here are a few of my thoughts for what it's worth: Ethically - for me it's an easy decision with current main generative AI options. As far as I know all are trained on art used without correct permission and/or consent, so in my view should be illegal, are unethical and basically ... wrong. Anyone saying ''it's not stealing because it's the same as people looking at other art' ... that's skewed logic and deep down I think we all know that. Just how many artists out there would have agreed if asked 'hey mind if I take all your best work to help make a program that will replace your creative process and ultimately you too ... and no I'm not paying you'... it just isn't right to use someone's creation in any way they would not want it used. Basic copyright law 101. And it's not that artists mind people being inspired by their work. Almost every artist I know or can think of would encourage new artists to be inspired by their art ... even if it means they end up competing for the same clients. 'have at it and good luck fellow artist!' The difference is that one is soulless and disrespectful to art and creativity where the other celebrates art and creativity and helps continue our craft. Practically - the technical idea of a program that learns from a selection of existing images in order to generate similar pieces based on text prompts is super cool & fascinating!... as long as it's trained and used ethically (and noted clearly when displayed that it's AI)! That then becomes something we instinctively as artists know is creating something of less creative value but super useful when 'real art' isn't an option like in your xmas special. (although I must note like others I personally feel AI was not the best route there but if it was ethically trained on your own art for example that would change things to a degree) Current generative AI is kinda like the biggest middle finger to every artist out there all at once and the next step on from the infamous 'hey you'll do this art for free yeah - great exposure for you'. There is one other point and that is the concern for the effect on creativity of up and coming artists and work ethic - this goes for generative AI in any sphere... it does concern me that more and more we are being pushed to 'take the easy route' and rely on AI ... first very basic example of this for me was spellcheck, very handy but I did notice I stopped trying to actually learn how to write so made a conscious effort to avoid leaning on that... many years later a certain AI writing assistant started being advertised everywhere to help students and/or anyone in a position of creative pressure ... surely while it's easier this is not helping to teach or educate students and surely isn't helping develop new and exciting talents in creative fields. It's like allowing robot assisted weightlifting... yeah huge weights would be lifted but athletes would become weaker and eventually engineers would win instead. Kinda 'cool' but defeating the whole reason it was a thing. I LOVE art and creativity, the whole reason I ever started watching your channel was because YOU created, because you shared YOUR hard earned skills and ideas. I deeply care that we as humans get to continue enjoying each other's skill and personalities artistically... the process matters, it really does... I don't want to see that mashed up and spat out as 'visually pleasing' but soulless pixels... An image created through hours of careful brushwork and years of knowledge gained through hard work, fills you with wonder and joy...
@@weltlos Are you pro AI? And forgive me but just because a case was dismissed does not mean it's now totally ethical or in fact totally legal to take anyone's art and use it in a way they don't want you to. I should probably make it a little clearer which parts are my personal views - editing it now.
@@GregArtDude If artists don't want others to make use of the information stored in their images, why are they posting their images all over the internet for everyone and everything to see? Authors don't do this. They don't display all of their books' contents on social media. It seems to me that artists were unaware of the informational value of their work, always gave it away for free, and are now in rage, because someone else has discovered it.
@@weltlos Ok, that is a good point and assuming this is a genuine question, here are a few factors: 1. Many artists are uneducated in copyright and how to protect their work and a lot of the time simply inexperienced in the danger of posting all over the place online. 2. Those who view artist's work online are uneducated in copyright and what is and isn't legal in the way they use art they see online. 3. It has always been hard to avoid art being taken and used without permission, hence why copyright is automatic (lasting until 70 years after the original creator dies). The trouble is you have to know who the original creator was and what limits (if any) they have on the use of said art. 4. Online services ... especially social media and search engines do not have enough measures in place to protect the results they display - including clear copyright information. 5. 'Artist vs Author' - depends on the type of artist. A painter who sells physical art prints of their own pieces would probably not upload full resolution images similarly to an author who only shows a page or two from their book... on the other hand a freelance artist might want to post art all over the place to make a name for themselves like a writer might post short stories and pieces on blogs etc. It all comes down to copyright and understanding of how it works and how to make sure your viewers are aware of how you want your work to be used or any limits you have on it's use. At the end of the day you don't walk around expecting anyone to use you however they want just because you were around them and they are able to interact with you physically... we have limits on that for good reason and it's generally understood when something wrong is done because it's been made clear.
@@GregArtDude I think you misunderstood what copyright means. If someone posts a video tutorial explaining things online, and at the end of the video says that the video serves an artistic purpose only, and that the information contained in it cannot be used for anything at all, then that holds absolutely no weight. Viewers can go ahead, and can generally make use of the newly gained knowledge in any way they like, without facing any consequences. The uploader has shared what they shared, willingly, just a second ago, after all. Copyright only prevents people from directly profitting off exactly the content in its existing form, for example by redistributing it. It does not prevent me from making my own tutorial by repackaging the information, which is not protected. It does not prevent me from creating a machine that automates this process. It only prevents me from essentially selling the exact video that I have watched under my own name. AI does not do this. The whole point of AI is to create new images, in this case, that did not exist previously.
My partner is a concept artist and when it was first coming out, he was excited to use it for ideas and exploration before he got to his final artwork. Right away I said "Oh no, they're going to use this to replace you." I think the initial idea of "hey, I can explore concepts and composition" more quickly isn't bad, but it still takes away work from artists. It will take away a lot of opportunities from Junior artists who can not produce as fast or accurately. It is important to train the next generation. If all of them just end up in debt from school and have no opportunity, they will move on. It is already so hard to a person freshly out of school to get their first job, and this just makes it worse. Companies already do not want to waste money on inexperience. On my hand, I am an animator (we all know whats happening with that industry right now) and a live artist. I have killed myself for years trying to juggle both professions, and honestly, I am very lucky I did as I am still working regularly at events. I went to one event recently where are few people said "ok, you just take my photo and run it through your stuff right?" and I was confused. I thought I was safe but apparently people are going in as a live artist and running people through ai instead of drawing them. People and companies hire me because it is cool how fast I can draw someone, I am part of the entertainment, and they get to take home some personalized work. Paying someone to run you through ai though... I just don't get (and these guys are likely charging more than I do). It's cool for a moment, but it's going to be tossed in the trash like other branded garbage people receive at events that they don't need. I don't know. I think Ai has a place in medicine and data analysis. I think it can be great for replacing menial jobs that people don't want to do. I don't think it should be used to replace creatives in sought after jobs which help define our culture and keep us human. I don't see the point in consuming ai content online, in media, it just feels like a waste of my time.
But think about it. One day we will all have the freedom to explore concepts because we WANT to, not because we have to make a living to have a roof over our heads and food in our bellies. If AI eventually does ALL jobs, humans will finally be free to do what we want for the pure passion of it, without the need to try to monetize everything because of this need to, you know, survive.
@@tarabooartarmy3654 If you wanna completely abolish capitalism and entirely change the way we function in society then sure. I still don't see the way AI art fits into that vision though? I'm gathering you're excited about AI doing physical labor and task that are more menial while humanity can do art, so how does gen AI imagery help with that idealized future?
I am actually more concerned about AI scams and AI deep fake than about using AI as resource in the process of creating something, be it art, text or software that is wholesome.
yea deepfake p0rn and vile stuff like that is disgusting... people off themselves over this stuff
7 днів тому
It's scary how it can be used in politics or targeting innocent people. Like deepfaking someone's face on someone commiting a crime. Or deepfaking a politician saying something outrageous that they never said... This can be extremely dangerous.
People have trusted the shit on the internet far too much since way before the emergence of AI. We desperately *need* AI, as it will force humanity in general to become better critical thinkers.
Ain't no way..... His brother is shadiversity? The guy who had a 30 minute melt down about how the mario movie was corrupted by the woke agenda? The guy who wrote a book where his self insert tells a r^pe victim to forgive her r^pist? That shadiversity is Jazza's brother?!?!
Good for you Jazza. Keep the conversation going. Talking about uncomfortable topics helps stop people polarising. Nothing is as simple as black and white. And education is the cure to fear
@@vinny-zebu maybe if detractors said things other than "AI is literally evil and we are all going to die if it's allowed to progress" every time they saw a picture of an anime girl with 3 hands and 20 fingers, people would understand that point of view better
Im somone who can understand uses of ai when there's no financial gain, and its not used to harm anyone. Heck even for just using it for an idea before you fully flesh it yourself. Even as an artist ive used ai every now and then just for fun of "oh what would this random mashup look like?" Not because i couldn't draw it, i could, but just because i wondered what a computer's interpretation would be. My problem really comes in when people try to pass something off for money, i cant name the amount of times ive seen ai art at craft festivals now. Like i want to support local artists, not just some shill. That and the fact that people either make fake videos of things, or a video is true but people wont believe it cause ai couldve made it.
I’m a writer and I’ve used it for brainstorming every now and then. It’s great for names because I can give it a name I like and ask for names with a similar vibe, or describe a character and their background and ask for similar names. However I stopped using it after I realised the environmental impacts. Didn’t feel right to be damaging the planet just to make things a touch easier for me
@@caoimhedoesstuff9293 if you're talking about language models, you can locally run open source models on a laptop and the only environmental damage is using your laptop battery.
My main (not only, but main) problen with AI are people who ask it to create something, but then present it as their own hard work. The most obvious one is "AI artist". The hell do you mean _artist?_ You didn't create anything, your friend AI did. All you did wae just giving the idea! It's like asking someone to build you a house, but then calling yourself a "builder" Same goes to quote on quote "writers". It's not YOUR text - AI made it, and you replacing few words still doesn't make YOU a writer. Its hsould be the other way around! And then the oudacitt of people like that to say: "we are basically the same" - heck no! I've spent several years perfecting my skills, buying equipment, tuning up my talents to make a picture inside my head come to life - while YOU simply typed few key-words on your PC 🫵😠
@@caoimhedoesstuff9293Some organic art tools and the other tech are also environmental threats or have environmental concerns, like acrylic paints or our computers. So, this "ai is an environmental threat." Is largely misguided and over exaggerating, especially when our art tools and other electronics are just as bad or worse than ai.
Main issues I have with ai: - Greedy corporations will use it to save money. Even Wacom that sells drawing tablets was called out for using AI drawings on their covers. - Ai problem could be easily fixed if AI wasn't using stolen art from other artists without their permission just to replace them. Give artists an option to submit their art or not, pay them small fee (just like actors get paid every time someone uses their voice or their likeness, literally the same thing) and let it learn from that - There's a huge difference between how people learn from other artists and how AI learns but AI bros always dismiss that fact and pretend it's literally the same - Even before AI job of an artist was extremely underpaid and often people wanted them to work for free just for "exposure". It will only get worse now. That will eventually create a dystopian future where every piece of art, from drawings to music will be created by robots. Just AI models copying other AI models. Art will become completely soulless. No one will spend 10-20 years perfecting their craft when they can create something much better with a click of a button. This + not being able to get a job as an artist will discourage 99.9% of artists
Truth. If they'd just done public domain and opt-in work from the start, a lot of the controversy would be a non-issue. If they took the hit and started over with only public domain and opt-in work, that would address a lot of the concerns. But they're too greedy for that.
I'm not trying to take either side of the argument about AI but I'd just like to say that I feel that art (at least in some mediums) has been becoming soulless in the recent years regardless of AI. I mean specifically movies and TV and music. When they're made at scale, they lose the passion and soul that would normally go into them. It's getting harder and harder to find art in these mediums that would be considered good by most. Therefore most good art these days comes from independent artist, which actually ties into your point about greedy corporations. And I agree with you that this whole AI situation will likely discourage artists from pursuing a career in art
So, does that mean any art that’s open and visible is fair game for training AI-just because that’s what artists do, too? And does that imply no one values the time and effort put into mastering a craft? If that were true, we’d only have IKEA, and no one would ever go to a skilled carpenter for custom furniture. I think a lot of people misunderstand the issue because they’re the ones affected right now. Did anyone protest when a big supermarket opened next to a small family grocery store? Sure, some did, but now they enjoy the convenience of the supermarket without even thinking about the family business. Is this always a good thing? No, but it’s part of progress. Things change, and there are always winners and losers. Instead of dwelling on what we could have done, we should focus on what we can do to support those impacted by these changes.
@@geistar you say we don't complain but instead find a solution... It's about not losing a part of our humanity to greed and soulless consumers, art is a vital piece of our existence, it conveys a range of emotions and messages that should be valued more, not just ditched at the most convenient situation just for a background or to make shitty music, everyday I have to eliminate some ai music channel that yt recommends simply for the immense amount there are. You are saying that we accept losing a part of our humanity for the convenience of progress? Perhaps in the past automatization made big changes, there was medicine and mechanical inventions, but it wasn't for hedonistic reasons, the world and humanity needed those things but ai doesn't do any of that. What is the point of living, if we, as humans, don't do anything? Of course there are more arguments about the state of mega corporations controlling lots of media, but that's because there's no competition, that's because no one wants to take risks, and sometimes somewhere someone creates a revolutionary or charming series, movie or book, becoming special because failure is part of humanity and if everything is just as we want, there's no purpose in living.
Thank you Jazza, my gray opinion stands pretty much where yours does too, and its a breath of fresh air to hear someone talk about AI without being super emotional about it. I've been watching you since I was a kid and you've been a huge part of my art journey. I really hope you are able to make your deep dive video, I wanna hear what you have to say in that.
As a small artist, I’ve spent my entire life making art, listening to others tell me it has no value and is worthless. I finally felt I could make the jump into turning my art into a business in one way or another only for Ai to come along a year later and destroy any chance I had. Now anyone I’m around, including my family has gone back to telling me how worthless my dreams are because Ai is better, will forever be better, and it’s cheaper. I’ve been beaten down my whole life because of my dreams of art, only to be forced into a position of being unable to compete at all. The past year alone we have watched major companies layoff their artists for Ai and cheaper workers and the cheaper workers still aren’t being paid a living wage. We have been treated poorly for so long, being told we are worthless to find out we are essential to so many things but have been led to believe that pursuing our dreams means we can’t charge enough to survive. We are tired of being bullied, threatened, and stolen from so someone else can charge the wage we want and they become rich while we still starve. Most of us don’t want to be rich, we just want to live comfortably doing what we love. I still make my art, but in the end, no one will look at it and no one will buy it despite it being put out there. I find myself lacking motivation and confidence because “what’s the point.” I don’t care if it’s used as a tool but it’s built off the back of millions of stolen work, meant to compete with the very work it was created with. Forcing many out of jobs and devaluing the very thing it aims to replace. The developers themselves said the goal was to remove the human from the work. In the medical field it’s currently being used to give deniability to doctors so they don’t have to treat patients. Students have been using it to create p*rn of their underaged classmates. Ped*files have been using it to create child p*rn so they have something new to look at. What it could be used for versus what it is being used for are drastically different and should be taken into consideration when addressing the issue.
Wow, that really sucks. I don’t usually comment, but I feel really bad for you. Please tell yourself that your art in fact does have value, as there are still many people out there who seek for art from talented people like you. ❤ I’ve dealt with something similar. Reading what happened to you genuinely infuriated me. Don’t let these people in your life influence you, in fact, they are only jealous of your ability to create art, something they crave to do but can’t.
The people who can't see the difference between AI art and your art were never going to value your work anyway. AI can't produce art with emotion behind it, or subtle references, or use concepts like Appeal and symbolism. To do that, AI would need to be able to process and feel emotion, understand what it is, and know all the little nuances that comes with humanity. I grew up being told my art wasn't real art because I wanted to focus on digital art instead of painting like I was originally. I was told no professionals would ever accept that, and it would never have monetary value because it was too easy to do. Now digital art is one of the most commissioned types out there, and it's an industry standard. Make art for you, because you love it, not for other people. New technology will always be coming out, especially now. There are people out there who still see Copy/Paste, Dupllicate, and stuff like stamp brushes as cheating and basically AI, even though it has been common practice for years. Find your niche, what it is you enjoy most and can put passion into, and people will see that and want your work. Art isn't all about the tools, it's about the expression, and that is something AI lacks.
@@sadiesnail Yes, I just posted this same basic thing on another comment. 40 years ago we had this same fear and argument about digital art. It was going to be the end or real artists; it was going to take all the jobs away from painters etc. And now here we are, and nobody bats an eye. Digital art is now accepted as real art and is considered just as viable as a canvas and paint.
I'm not sure about the future of art as a profession. The whole world is going to change so drastically in the near future that I'm not sure about anything. I tend to think, that the term "profession" may dissappear altogether. If we share our art publicly, it will be stolen. But on the other hand, we are contributors to the trajectory that humanity is on. However small, we are making a difference. If we no longer share anything, we are removing ourselves from the equation altogether. True, by sharing ours works we get no reward. The only reward is the awareness of being part of a greater whole.
It is the time of Jack of all trades. Computers and machines of "all" kinds are cheap, and readily available information, tutorials and AI will help you along the way. As an artist, you probably have steady hands that will help you transform your ideas into reality. Woodwork, metalwork, 3D-printing, electronics, programming, music, pictures, whatever you need to turn your ideas into reality, it has never been easier than today. Leonardo da Vinci would have a blast today. You can't control what others do, but you can control what you do yourself. Ignore negativity and let your mind soar. It is the only advice I can give, if you want to get out of the negative thoughts. Life can be tough, but your mind is free, and learning is fun.
It's a lot harder to do dishes and laundry,m and this is actually a step on the way there, because better understanding of reality, perception, skill, all comes from the ability to do replicate. We do this without even realizing we are doing this, just because it being done in our mind isn't putting it in a medium others can see it. But we create icons and shortcuts and abbreviations in our head to store information all the time.
People who wash dishes at restaurants and people who wash clothes for money would ask why you think it’s okay to take their job with AI, but when it comes to your job, it’s suddenly off limits. Why?
@@catsarecatsarecute washing dishes and clothes are tasks we as humans do not enjoy doing, these are chores that need to be done, and people make money doing these chores. If money was not a factor, they would absolutely want a machine to do their job for them. Art is not a chore. You can fully automate creating art, and people will still create art. That is the difference.
@@DevilishlyDutch If money was not a factor, some would still choose to create AI art. You can tell this is true because people do it now without getting money for it. So money not being a factor still didn’t make your argument make sense, so let’s go back to including money: why is it ok for them to lose money from AI taking over their jobs, but it’s not ok for your artist job? It’s selfish to believe that.
@@GeekySquidoothat's very outdated. AI can totally do hands now. There are some other tells to watch out for though, such as belts going behind an arm or other obstruction and then not coming out the other side, or "detail mush" on jewelry instead of an actual pattern
There are weird artifacts and stuff in AI images that could help differentiate between real or fake, but I have a feeling that will be fixed too and it would be tedious to look for those artifacts anyways
For me, using AI in the early inspirational phase is such a trap. If you outsource the most creative part of the entire process to an AI then you're removing an opportunity to do something unique or express yourself. If a client is breathing down your neck then you gotta do what you gotta do but I would never let it steal any of my fun in personal projects. If they take longer, they take longer. I'll be a better artist for it
I think it could help people like me, with near total aphantasia. I cant get any creativity in the initial inspirational phase because theres nothing going on in my head. I cant sit and think about what I want to draw and work it out slowly because I cant imagine even a spec of what I want to draw. For brainstorming, it works for me, but the actual art process has nothing to do with AI and I could never use it in my actual drawing process unless it was more ethical (which I think we're a long ways off from it being ethical)
Exactly! The ideation phase of the project is the most fun part! I wouldn't want an AI image to dictate what I should be imagining before I've even had the time to think about what I would do to solve the creative problem.
I studied the expansion of AI as part of my thesis in other fields, and I am also an artist. I think the first important step into making this conversation grey is making a difference between AI and generative AI. AI can help in medical fields, in efficiently mapping streets and living spaces, can help in education. Generative AI didn't come to answer any questions, any needs. It's not creating a new medium like photography did, like digital art did, it's only standardizing and making art into content, into fast food. I've found generative AI while searching for: muscle reference, the skeleton of an elephant, Egyptian symbolism, nail art (for myself lol), Greek statues + gods + architecture, crochet products, cosplays (yes literal AI people cosplaying as certain chars...as if we don't have real, hard working cosplayers already), jobs being posted on popular jobs platforms. NONE of these subjects I happened to search in the past 2 months needed AI and yet here we are. It's not a tool as long as it's not used as one, and people using in obviously negative ways it SHOULD be held accountable just as much as companies. I think it's important to realize that, by trying to find a middle way, we make the work of companies easy. They don't need to change anything because we, the really creative people, find a way, and the really greedy people like the current way. So it's a win for the companies! I follow you for a long time, I appreciated you and your enthusiasm for everything new, and your passion to foster and push creative boundaries. My personal stance is that I will refrain to touch AI even if I will be put in the "anti AI" side until it gets regulated. I did use it, I was curious, I want to be able to use and make certain things easier in the process of creating so I can create more, but I with all due respect I feel like trying to make it ethical when it is not, it's a bit tone deaf to a lot of people giving up on art right now. We can definitely learn to use it, adapt with it, but not while it's fundamentally built on what people "think" creativity is. Make 100 artists draw the same thing from the same picture and they will all have differences because we always use our own lived experience, even if we get inspired by others. Every artwork we make it's a story unique to our eyes and hearts and brains. I would feel like a hypocrite if I preach creativity and profit off the backs of my peers by using AI at the state it is now. (and I don't mean just monetization). When someone blatantly traces an artist they are always held accountable by the community. Generative AI just does it better and faster and in much bigger numbers. Thank you for trying to stay in the middle, it's good, and even if you continue to stay in the grey I know it doesn't come from a bad mentality. But there are too many greys that cover their pro-AI mentality only because it doesn't affect them directly. I remain against generative AI, while I am not against AI.
I appreciate your comparison to fast food. Useful, affordable, convient, but dangerous in excess. I recently heard the term "dead food" to refer to overly processed foods, and I can see AI quickly creating "dead art." It may be useful, affordable and convenient, but if it dominates an industry, and our lives, some very essential things to humanity might start to devolve. our communication, sense of community, ability to effectively learn and comprehend - just to name a few
@arianabradley4595 I didn't know the concept of dead food, that's interesting and concerning at the same time. I agree, generative AI, at least the way it's in the market right now, will diminish creativity as a whole, long term
The distinction between gen ai and ai in general is a useful one, but while I agree with your disdain with regards to using generative technology for creative fields, I do think there are legitimate and valid uses of generative ai technology in other fields, such as in generating protein foldings and predicting weather patterns. The problem is that we shouldn’t be criticizing the fundamental technology which is in itself neutral, but instead criticizing specifically the application of the technology. It’s similar with blockchain and bitcoin- the blockchain technology is neutral and has some very useful use cases as a decentralized secure ledger for banks or whatnot and also some more debatable uses such as for recording transactions for cryptocurrencies
@pure5152 aren't your examples on the AI in general side? what I mean by generative is the one that is used in images, videos, music, writting, basically all creative fields like you said, usually requiering a database they don't own. If the algorythms used in your examples fall into generative AI, then my bad - I was making a distinction there, although I don't know how correct it was. I can see how it can genuinely help other fields. My thesis was on accountancy in particular, with some examples from medicine, archeology, tourism and education. These fields that work on fixed data and theories could greatly use algorythms that make researching and using such data easier. So yes, I agree that AI tehnology in and of itself can and probably will be useful, my beef is with the push of it in fields that didn't need it. Someone said in another comment, I want it to do my chores and job so I can focus on art - not to do my art so I spend more time at my jobs.
i wish everyone was as verbose in this kind of debate, and i wholeheartedly agree, the damage done by ai is far too much to use it "ethically", jazza's love for art is undeniable, and i'm glad instead of instantly turning it down or shimmying in he tries to find the middle ground that calls out to him as reasonable, but the fact is using ai indirectly fuels the fire in the grand scheme of things,,, regulation is all that's needed, and unless companies somehow turn for the best and starts seeing the interests of artists and the world as whole and not just how much money they'll receive, using ai "ethically" isn't really an option
i'm an artist and have been watching your channel for ages. I remember always scrolling past your old "can a computer draw better than me?" videos bc i simply. was not interested. I do not find ai to be interesting. Not even the concept. As I've gotten older I've only become more and more fascinated by hand-made everything. hand-woven textiles and hand-made clothes and masonry and traditional art and live music and animation drawn ON PAPER. I am endlessly enchanted by the work and skill of other humans. And my fear is that I won't be able to professionally be the kind of artist I want to be, because I want to do things myself. I want to learn to be able to do what people did with the tools they used. The process matters just as much as the product to me. With every step forward in technology, there is something lost. Pros and cons, obviously. Saving time and labor at the expense of certain skills and oftentimes quality. I want ai to be helpful. The cat can't go back in the bag, so damage control it is. I think ai is the least useful in artistic fields. the places people are begging and clawing and dreaming of being. I want ai to make medical cures and solve crisis's that we can't do on our own, and complete tedious tasks that drain us and keep us from making the art and improving our lives the way we want. the problem currently is that ai is honestly bad at art. it's bad at everything. It cannot be accurate, it does not know how to properly synthesize information and it gets things wrong in catastrophic ways. but at first glance! it's ok. So it should be the standard bc if it's good at first glance that means it's good enough. at least, that's the attitude I see from companies who are integrating ai and firing their artists. It's going to take me a long, long time to come to terms with whatever the future of ai is. Im devastated. and I feel like I've missed the boat. I'm grieving for something I never had and will never get to experience first hand. (dont come for me about the downsides of the past I am plenty aware, that does not mean we didn't lose something in our pursuit of easier and more convenient)
It seems to me that what you have said proves the irrelevance of AI to the field of art. This largely coincides with my point of view. That's why I find it hard to understand why people see AI as a threat to art, apart from its industrial aspects.
@@MaakaSakuranbo on a professional scale, especially within visual storytelling (animation, comics, etc) digital art makes it so much easier and faster to produce more images. As that's my current interest, doing something like that traditionally would be nigh impossible to make into my job (it is tempting tho. it would be so coooool) (i might do it anyway)
@@jamesfoxsmith What we currently have has no chance of becoming sentient even in the near future without some insane breakthroughs. All we've seen since it first came about in 2021/2022 is development of the same technology with better hardware and server space. They're very advanced and complicated algorithms, but they don't work anything like neurons in a brain, and we are nowhere near even close to developing something that's advanced enough to be even sentient, let alone self aware.
@@obsu What is required to gainsentience and how do you know that? Please, share your insights because all the scientists who deal with this issue haven't come to answers.
@@obsu Well some ai are already capable of deception and threats :') Ai are being used in the development of ai so its speeding up rapidly. Our best hope is that the research also soon helps developers implement enough safeguards and for leaders to implement regulations.
I'm a programmer. I hate the way AI is being used. The technology and advancements of the tool are great and could be applied in a variety of positive ways. Their current use to replace the positive parts of being human is freightening. Whether that will or will not happen is up to the future. Photography didn't replace painting, so hopefully AI won't replace photography. I'm glad you were able the tool to prototype ideas, but using the tool as a prototyping method can limit creativity --for example, the AI generates a character, and some details that the AI generated are left in the final piece because enough ideas weren't workshopped. The AI tends to play it safe and predictable, because that's what it's designed to do. It's designed to find the most likely/most common pairs of words, pairs of colors, shapes, ect. Over time and through hundreds of thousands of hours training, we have been able to make the AI more convincing. But at the end of the day it's geared to pick the most predictable human-looking answer. In my opinion, the use of AI for art is limited. What benefit does a picture machine hold in the long term? In my opinion it works best for human to machine interfacing. i.e. You tell the machine directly what you want, and it does it. It also works really well for recognizing patterns. It could be used for identifying cancer cells, or gene anomolies. It could be used to sort objects, or to search and sort through large databases. It's a good toy too. Akinator and 20 questions are some fun ways of playing with AI. Generating a short story or game is a fun way of playing with A.I. But it shouldn't be the only toy, the only game, the only art, the only book, or the only thing available. A.I. is great as a curiosity, but by no means should it be the only thing in existance. Real art holds more value than A.I. art, just as a handmade painting holds more value than a fake printed painting from the store. Even though I'm nervous about the future, I take solice in the fact that AI can only generate the predictable. It's all running on 1's and 0's using math. It's just electricity, electrons moving through a wire, charging and discharging batteries in the ways that we told it to. It has no previous experience or emotion. It can fake emotion by combining elements from items that we label as sad. But at the end of the day it's just math done with electricity. There is a formula to every 'decision' and every 'nuanced pick.' It's not thinking, it's just choosing likely options. The more we educate ourselves about it, the better off we are about making informed decisions on whether or not to listen to it.
I have had informatic engineers around me(2 of them) that spoke similarly to you. It feels heart-warming to know, some people from other fields are actually empathetic of our situation.
The big difference between artists taking inspiration from other art and AI art ripping off artists in my opinion, is that every single brush stroke, whether consciously or not, is a motivated choice in art made by real people. If you ask any artist about any specific part of a piece they made, there's a good chance they can give you an explanation as to why they chose to do that little bit. Whether or not the explanation is anything more elaborate than "I thought it'd look kinda cool" or "It just felt right", it wasn't *just* motivated by watching other artists, it involved them making distinct opinions about every piece from every artist they've ever seen, consciously or subconsciously. It comes from how that piece of art intersected with the human life they were personally adding influence from in a way no one else really could. AI is really cool and a nice fancy tool (I think it's decent at making vague reference images for some stuff, but I never put it in final works), but it's taking out of a piece what actually makes every art piece special. When you commission an artist and make a request, the cool part of all that is the art you get out of it and how it was made, and being able to use this valuable, motivated piece as you see fit. AI takes specifically that part out of it. It's cute as a party trick, but not really good for anything more. Oh, and yeah, it simply cannot be understated that many companies will use any excuse possible to cut corners and stop paying people for their services, and AI is *beyond* good enough to make a lot of places never pay a real artist as long as they have access to it. All of that said, I really appreciate your transparency and vulnerability, despite my pretty deeply disagreeing with certain uses you've had for AI, and I agree there's no good easy answer to this entire matter.
I appreciate that first paragraph. I see that some people like to point out quality inconsistencies in AI art as a sort of "gotcha" moment, but intention is what really will always set apart human art vs AI art.
Artists are always the first to get the axe when it comes to corporate greed. The machine is built to consume not create. So when you view the problem from that perspective AI is this magic thing that allows the engine to run for free! You don't need to labour and struggle to create for an ever hungrier audience. You don't need to spend hours and hours slaving over small corrections and adjustments. You are free to just consume! But the part that that misses is the fact that artists like creating, not just consuming. We don't want to live in front of a conveyor belt of "content" till we explode! We want to express ourselves through our art and we want to share in that joy of creation and consumption in harmony! You can't cut out the hard part of the process and expect it to still taste good though. TLDR, I think that in the social structures that we live in today AI is a tool that will do much more harm than good and it is inextricably tied to the removal of humans from the path of the corporate machine. To Jaza directly, I have always appreciated your art and your videos and I will continue to do so. I appreciate your vulnerability in this video. I think that as members of an amoral social system we each have to decide what we can excuse and what we can't. You are trying to survive in this system of UA-cam and so you have had to make some hard decisions. I can't blame you for taking shortcuts and using AI. I just wish we didn't live in a world that tells us the only way to have what we want is to cut corners and kill our consciences. The issue is not the tool it's the world that forces you to use it. Personally I think it would be better if we got rid of the tool because you can't make people use it wisely but that is my own perspective. Thanks for reading!!
Hello jazza, I have a suggestion for how to be more transparent when you use AI. I think the way you use AI is fine, but when you do use AI, then you should show or say that you used AI. Maybe adding a water mark to the AI generated images that say they are AI generated or something.
But why though? In his case most of the AI uses were for conceptualizing, and then were later replaced with custom art. We artists don't have to put a watermark on our work or disclose when we used the stamp brush to draw the grass, or copy/paste for complex repetitive designs. If it's just being used as a tool I don't think a label is necessary and would just cause people to dismiss the artwork in the current mindset. The only time someone should disclosing their art is AI art, is when it is majority AI art. Like if someone grabbed an AI image and just recolored the eyes, yea that is AI art. But not when it's used as a small part of the creative process, and especially not if it isn't even included in the finished product. Otherwise we will have to start listing every stock photo, 3d model, stamp brush, etc. that we commonly use in the digital art process.
@@sadiesnail stamps, brushes, 3d models, etc are made by artists for artists, and copy and pasting your own art is still your own art just reused. ai is trained off other people's work without them even knowing which is why its important to say if its ai or not
@@khv12345 What if I used work of other artists as references for my art? What if I used them in the concept art first? Do I also have to tag all of them? If that's true than, oh boy, a shit ton on art should be labelled.
@@sadiesnail Good point, but most people dont really care if you use a stamp, brush, or 3d model, etc. But AI art is very controversial, so, in my opinion, people should say if they are using AI art until AI is less controversial.
I think you should also not just talk to the artists and a.i developers about this, but to corpo's as well, especially the marketing sector, since the marketing sector was the quickest at integrating a.i into the work. There was a viral video of graphic designer losing his job to a.i after working for a marketing agency for many years. Having a marketing's sector voice in there might be beneficial to hear as well, to hear about a.i from all perspectives.
I used to be more on the fence thinking AI would be good if used as a tool but I have shifted my perspective as of late let me explain some of my points. First of all every time an artist tries to make an argument for AI they include the AI curing diseases and solving other issues argument. I feel like it's obvious we are not talking about those AI and it should be no surprise that the companies developing generative AI for art have no part or interest in these things. It's way more profitable to sell subscriptions for AI slop. The attitude and goal of current AI (the companies behind them) and the way it's presented is in the first place not as a tool. And even if you use it as a tool I feel you yourself are becoming the tool giving in to the corporate need for cheaper and easier to exploit creative work. It's a slippery slope and kind of vain to think YOU would be the one to keep your job just because for now these technologies still need a fair bit of human correcting. The art is completely stolen and even uses the original artists name as a prompt alot of the time. This makes it so google results are filled with AI copies of these artists taking away their digital identity which has become so important for artists these days. There is currently still a very real possibility of changing the landscape of AI art companies and making sure contributions are consensual and compensated. But videos like ergojosh' create an idea that professional artists are not against this current Ai and can be used by the corporations to escape these regulations. While he presented his video as an ethical way to use AI, the companies see it as AI itself is ethical so it should not be regulated This is why alot of us who are now against AI lash out (some way too harsh) against people making arguments for AI. Entertaining the idea of using AI in workflow is just not something I think we can afford right now as we should be united in letting the world know that nobody asked for this type of generative AI in the creative world, while there are so much more useful AI actual functions and tools that I can think of that just aren't being developed right now. Because at the end of the day when you hear Pro AI people talk it is SO clear they are just waiting till the day comes that artists get completely replaced and they don't need us pesky artists anymore. The vile and smug comments I have seen from not just pro AI but actual CEO of these companies is so concerning to me I don't think of using their technology even one bit. But conclusion Yes we can talk about it. I just hope you are careful when considering these things and bring in the right people. I highly encourage you speak to someone like Steven Zapata or Karla Ortiz who have a much better way of putting it than I do
Unfortunately "changing the landscape of ai art companies" at this time most likely will mean those companies pulling up the ladder behind themselves and continuing to use their already stolen data which will have convenient legal exceptions that apply only to existing data scraped before 2024.
THIS!!! Came to say something very similar myself. When we're talking about AI art we are not talking about AI as a whole. There are many things AI can be useful for especially with science and medicine. What we ARE doing is talking about the fact that EVERY SINGLE AI ENGINE THAT MAKES ART is trained off of art that it DID NOT get permission to train on. It's not the same as an artist looking at other art to learn. Its not like a person who sat and LEARNED these techniques and how to do them and then made their own creation. Its a machine that just takes the artwork pixel for pixel and uses that to make new stuff. It's like people who anthropomorphize their animals too much but now they're doing it to a machine. It is NOT a person learning techniques, its a machine copying and mashing together things its kept in its data banks. I would be TOTALLY supportive if there was an AI art tool that was meant to help artists out with portions of their work, and the artists who's work MADE the AI actually DONATED those art pieces to the AI. It's the fact this has all happened with no permission, no input from artists, and now big companies are using AI as a way to not have to pay real artists money. We didn't get a say on whether our works were used in a machine and now the machine can replicate our art styles and no longer needs us? So then what? Sure JAZZA might be an upstanding guy who would never let AI replace his real artists..... But that's not the case for a MAJORITY of companies that are trying to utilize AI for their art. I FULLY understand that AI tech can be used in your art without your art being entirely AI. But that doesn't mean that's what its getting used for. Freelance artists all over the planet have been impacted by AI. Hell, I stopped taking art commissions and moved onto costuming work for this exact reason. SOOOO many people are no longer willing to pay full price for custom artwork because AI can give them what they want for free. In whatever style they want. How am I even supposed to charge someone a measly $30, much less what the art would ACTUALLY be worth if I wasn't desperately undercutting myself to still make money to pay my bills, when they can get "higher quality" artwork out of a machine for free? Some people still value real art from real artists. But many do not.
I think the bottom line is consent. If someone is not okay with ai training itself using their image/skills no matter the field, the developer should not be able to use their likeness at all. It should even be illegal to do so. On the other hand, if someone does consent, the developer should be able to train their model using the person who consented. I'm far from a lawyer, but I can imagine a world were there is a contract between anyone who's likeness is used for an ai and the developer of said ai every single time an ai trains on someone's work. Maybe they get 60% of all profits made from the ai, maybe they are able to pull the plug at any moment, maybe it's a flat fee. I feel like this solves the main issue people have with ai, as it's no longer stealing, the person has to give permission. What if the art/voice/whatever was created by the person that developed the ai? Then they are choosing to do something with their own work. They are turning something they own, into something they still very much own. In a perfect world, ai would help us a lot more than it would ever hurt us. We do not live in a perfect world however. As long as people offer their ai model to the general public, anyone can make anything, and that's terrifying. I don't think there's anyone one solution that makes everyone happy. Generally speaking, artists are very against it for obvious reasons, and non-artist are either on the fence or for it. Again, generally speaking. Both parties want two different things, one wants fair returns for their work, the other wants to minimize the cost and increase the production. I've mentioned it before, but ai is not only going after art, or voices, or character appearance. Ai is a strong tool and can be used for anything anywhere. Look at kwebbelkop. He made an ai youtube channel that is entirely run by an ai. The ai becomes the whole personality, it replaces the content creator. Granted, the content is awful, but that's also what we said about ai art when it first started appearing. Kwebbelkop also made mentions that he would try to sell the ai to other content creators so they can do the same. It's not farfetched to see a future where there are many many many channels/streamers that are entirely produced/edited/posted/etc. by ai. Is that not just soul sucking to think about though? On the other hand, ai could be very beneficial. Take people with aphantasia for example. Maybe the strive to be an artist, they have a fire that burns so bright inside them to create things and bring happiness to those around them. They could have the best hand eye coordination in the world, and the best knowledge of any art program/tool in the world, but it might just not matter if they can't think of the image they actually want to draw. I'm not claiming that I have it, or that I know what it's like, and there definitely are artists in the world that have aphantasia, such as RubberRoss. This is just an extreme example of where ai would be very helpful. If this hypothetical artist was able to put words down and get a visual idea of what his scene would look like before he even put the pen on the canvas, he could be the best artist in the world, as Beethoven to the pianists or composers. To say I'm on the fence would be an unfair declaration. I think both sides have good points, very good points actually. I'd say that I'm so very much for as I am so very much against it. I'm not claiming to know the answer, but I also know that I hold no power to change others hearts on the matter. The closest I can claim to be affected by it, is that I make pixel art, and I'm trying to become a programmer. I have very little knowledge or experience in either field, and I want to get better. I don't use ai for a plethora of reasons, but one of them being that I don't think it would make me better in either of the fields, and none of them are because I fear what people would think of me. I feel the time for conversations are gone personally. I don't think there's anything that one side can say that will sway the other side. I think the conversation needs to happen at a lawful level, where any party who has anything to gain or lose should be equally present and have an unbiassed jury of people decide what needs to be done and apply it to every level of ai. This is not a conversation I'm willing to have, I have no stakes in the race, nor do I think one side should trump the other. A line needs to be drawn, but it's not a straight line.
As I have posted several times in this discussion already. Where is the consent given for a human to look at some artist's work and learn from it? It is nonexistent, even though a human can recreate the style of the artist far more accurately than any AI can. There is not an AI made yet that can replicate an artist's style perfectly. Yet there are literally thousands, hell even millions of humans than can replicate other artists style so accurately that you could never tell them apart. The issue is not in the training, but what a human does with the end product. If a human tries to sell the results as an original and claim it was made by the artist in question then it is theft, however if they just sign their own name at the bottom of the canvas, it is now just art.
"the bottom line is consent." I don't think this is going to happen. The purpose of AI is to have a system understand the human world. This can no be limited by excluding parts of the world. There will be no new legislation that would allow this, because it would open the door to deliberately restrict what AI can learn and differentiate it from what humans can learn. There is no incentive to make this distinction and it would be a threat to the further advancement of AI. Publicly available data, be it text, images, audio or video is available for everybody and also for AI, and it will probably stay this way.
I had an AI account follow my art account and was honestly a little nervous because it was right after i posted a specific character and their account was based around characters of the same fantasy species. All went by fine until i got a message out of the blue, them saying that they wanted to give me a gift. I told them explicitly that I hope and dont want them to have run my art through AI for the gift, they said they didn't, but... what they sent me was some AI work of my character in almost the same pose as the original image and all the similarities just made me so sick. They deny it but it felt like they lied to my face because I've been looking at AI for years now and picking up tells feels second nature It just felt so dirty - i know it was a "gift" nd they were up front but it felt so slimy and wrong. I ended up blocking them and the plethora of AI accounts that cross share with them out of fear of it happening again
In saying that though there's a little project that my friends (3 people - 2 artists 1 writer) and I want to do but the scope of it is SO large that it would take us a year or more to complete with no pay ever because it's just supposed to be a fun little thing for us - inside jokes specifically that no one else would get so it's not like we'd even try profiting so trying to lighten the load with background assets at the very least
@Popper_Drop That sounds so creepy and dare I say "defiling"? I'm an artist too, and if someone sent me "artwork" of my own OCs, I imagine it would feel like such an intrusion. Like they'd broken into my house and stolen my clothes, or sent me a video of them playing with my dogs, or something similar, and expected me to be happy about it. I don't want to liken it to anything explicit, as that really is next level, but to use someone else's art or OCs is just so deeply personal, I'm really struggling to think of a suitable analogy
@@edwardwestmoreland-caunter6128 Actually I think your analogy of a video playing with your dogs is almost perfect. Like, my best friend could send me a video of them feeding or playing with my dog in my house and I'd be like..."ah dude, you don't have a key to my house..." Even though they're doing a 'nice thing' that would be incredibly invasive.
I understand being open to pro AI perspectives specially when there is the controversy going on with your own family member. But it's easy to not fear or embrace AI when you're in a position where you can monetize your art from another angle (as a youtuber/art influencer) but for nobodies that make a living from just selling the art itself it's hitting really hard. People are losing tbeir income, being fired, replaced and quitting their art jobs. And because no one is financing their creativity they have to find an unrelated 9 to 5 or retail job, taking away the majority or the time they could dedicate to art and wageslaving their life away. I say this as someone who "failed" at being a full time artist, not having an art job implies i only have two days a week to work on my art projects if i'm not too exhausted or busy. AI was meant to do the tedious work no one wanted to do, not take away our culture.
"People are losing tbeir income, being fired, replaced and quitting their art jobs. And because no one is financing their creativity they have to find an unrelated 9 to 5 or retail job, taking away the majority or the time they could dedicate to art and wageslaving their life away." Which would be in his anti-AI arguments. Though it's sorta amusing you're saying "And because no one is financing their creativity they have to find an unrelated 9 to 5 or retail job, taking away the majority or the time they could dedicate to art and wageslaving their life away." when it feels like UA-cam is recommending me 2 new "Don't make art your job, have a job and do it on the side instead!" videos. And no, not cause AI. Cause of "Yeah, I thought I'd like it, but having to produce really kills my vibe and creativity. And I won't have time to produce what I want as I have to produce waht others want"
@@MaakaSakuranbo That usually happens because people have to constantly take on commission work to make ends meet so they also end up having 0 time to work on their own personal projects, which is another side effect of art being poorly paid... AI only helps devalue art even more so it's only going to make that situation worse. I've watched some of those videos about people quitting and i notice it's usually due to burnout, like having to take in too much paid work, having to work weekends and no time off because each project isn't paying enough to pay the bills
@@tenneluna6948 Idk, if I'm doing coding (by all acounts a well paid job) the general expectation is to work 40 hours/week as well. Sure, weekends and evenings should be off. I'm mostly talking an art job here I guess, not self-employed commissions. So videos where they had a regular job doing art (at e.g. an animation studio) but found it too exhausting having to constantly churn out creative work. Especially wehn it wasn't what they actually wanted to be drawing
Netflix just shuttered their entire in-house Team Blue game development studio and fired all of the staff, so their director could convert his position to "VP of GenAI for Games" and then replace every working creative position with machine generated slop. I get that you are excited to get small projects with no budget off the ground on the back of this technology, but you cannot use it in any ethical way at all because the fundamental bedrock of our creative careers will get eroded down to nothing if it persists beyond this bubble.
I sit in a grey area with AI as well. Overall it just seems like the new advancement in technology like you said. When I was growing up in the 90s-early 2000s, this is how people treated digital art. If it was digital "You didn't make it, the computer did", or "It's not real art because you could have just traced that on another layer". And while they weren't completely wrong, people can easily steal art using digital software, and there ARE tools in digital that make the process easier; over time people realized it still took all the same practice, skill, and dedication to achieve amazing art with it. And people learned to tell the difference between art that a person put time and love into, and art that was slapped together from two stolen images and dotted in stamp brushes. These same conversations have happened over and over again throughout history, be it the camera, the production of synthetic pigments in paint, factories that build common items such as chairs instead of being handmade. There will always be those who do whatever they can to cut corners and make dirty money, especially when it comes to new technology that the general public isn't familiar with yet. Through that, people will adapt and learn the warning signs (which is already happening with AI art) and new regulations will be put in to place. Instead of trying to stop AI out right, I think right now it's more important to focus on getting those procedures put into place to help protect people, instead of letting big business and those at the top sneakily slide things through the system while everyone is busy ripping each others heads off. Just like digital art, I don't see AI generation dissapearing. That box has been opened. But what we can do, is make it a tool for US (the artists) instead of THEM (the scammers). Also just a little silver lining note regarding the business side. From what I understand, it seems we are starting to see the ripple effect of businesses dropping their artists and going full AI. Many business have started bringing back their artists because, who would have guessed, something made completely by AI usually turns out awful. Even people who don't know a whole lot about AI, can tell when a movie, show, and sometimes still art is fully AI. AI can't put the thought and direction behind art like humans can. It doesn't know about Appeal, or subtle symbolism or any of that stuff. So the end product ends up feeling lifeless, confusing, or just chaotic no matter how pretty it looks at first. Businesses are realizing that, and since the general consumer doesn't even like it, they end up losing money. It seems a lot of reputable businesses have began giving AI as a TOOL to their artists, instead of using it to replace (like Jazza talks about using it in this video). And to that, I say why not? If companies are going to fight against paying their artists fairly, why not let those artists use AI to quicken that process so they aren't suffering as much.
Incredible video. Accurately represented not only your own position, but the positions of others in a way that was very thoughtful. This sort of morally exploratory content is exactly what is needed at the moment.
Do you sympathize with the hard-working mail man who has lost his job due to the proliferation of e-mail? Or do you still use the e-mail even now knowing it stole millions of jobs in America? What about the hard-working farmers who lost their jobs to the onslaught of automated machines? Do you still eat food produced by machine run farming? And what about handmade furniture? Do you buy cheap furniture made by machines? Or do you stick by the hard-working craftsman that do it all by hand? Any technology that comes around is going to steal someone's job, but in return it also creates new jobs for other people. It is the circle of life, all progress, all life, all of society is based on the ebb and flow of the microcosm of technology and industry. As all the mail men were losing their jobs, millions of jew jobs in the IT sector were created. And as the farmers were losing their jobs, there were new jobs created in factories and for mechanics to maintain the machines. This is all just natural progression of life. Nothing is permanent, life is in a constant state of flux. And evolution will always cause things to change and adapt or die out altogether. But I do not foresee AI ever killing Art, as no other radical change in the art world in the last million years has killed art, I doubt AI will either. The most primitive medium for art was charcoal on cave walls, and yet people still to this day use charcoal to create art, even with all the technology that has come since then. There are still artists, and they still make art, even though it is easier, cheaper, and better than what was around before. The old methods still exist and have not been deleted.
AI should be used to actually help people that need really help. It should be used to scan images and make notes of details that regular humans might miss. It shouldn't be a tool to do the job, it should be a tool to assist in the job
I shifted my carrier from a sells man to Graphic Designer. I had to learn from the basics while still manage a way to keep my lights up. And then suddenly I saw a picture (a mule that I made in illustrator) it was submitted as a ai drawing to some other stock site and seeing that it actually broke my heart a bit. The ai didn't even change the color or anything. I am no Van Gogh, but still the mule is a part of my expression. It wouldn't hurt me this much if someone was inspired by it and tried to draw it themselves but I don't think it was anything like that. It sounds a bit stupid but I do believe that someone with less hours are just using my art (which I have no problem) but I don't think they are respecting my efforts.
That isn’t AI. Someone just stole your image and sold it to the stock site, or they stole it themselves and used “AI” as a defense. You wouldn’t be able to tell “it was my exact image, no colors changed” if it was ACTUALLY ran through a generative AI tool or if your image WAS truly used in the data of a generative model. I’m sorry if you don’t think AI is transformative, but it is, and the only way you could believe an AI actually spit out a 1:1 of your image is if you still believed it wasn’t.
I started using AI image generation to create art for my D&D games. I got pretty good at it- but eventually the lack of fine control and my frustration with the technical aspects of Stable Diffusion got to me. Now I am learning how to draw, and I use AI to get drawing ideas instead.
Wow, rarely hear about such stories. Often I see former artists using ai/transfering to ai, because they dislike the time spent for a single drawing. But such stories as yours give me hope in human interest in creation, willingness to go through the process of arr
Yeah, I do agree getting exactly what you want, ai is not there yet. I sometimes get asked to generate images of characters for our D&D games because I am our local AI expert. The problem is that it really can't handle too much specificity. At the moment It depends on how specific your expectations are for what you generate whether you can be satisfied. Also I often get better results by trying to circle around the subject to get pieces that can then be photo bashed together into something. Like often it is more constructive to instead of approaching it with how do I get one prompt to give me the results I desire but instead how can this idea be broken down into pieces that are more digestible and how well those pieces can be reassembled. Also tons of shopping around for lora's and hope that the lora works well and plays well.
Jazza, you answered the dilemma at 11:37: use all tools available (including AI ones) for earning enough to pay artists like Alicia. People get frustrated when they need to change their way of doing things, but you are literally empowering everything: your team's work, the tools development and your audience entertainment/growth.
In 2022 I made my last piece of digital art. This was around the time Dalle 2 was just kicking off and ai art started to really blow people away. Digital art had always been the one thing in my life I was actually really talented at creating, a piece would take me 20+ hours to complete sometimes and at the very end of going through that I'd post it and it'd get thousands of impressions and I'm not even a known identity online. The art was good and it didn't matter how many subs or followers I had people saw it and boosted it to insane levels and I never felt more proud of myself because I knew I was good, I couldn't deny or lie to myself because the evidence was staring me in the face. Then I downloaded and used Dalle 2. I described an image I'd come up with in great detail hit a button and... there it was. at about 85 to 90% accuracy to what I'd imagined in seconds I had multiple versions of exactly what was in my head. It was fantastic for a bit and then I realized what this meant. It meant very soon (now today) people would be posting art generated by some improved version of this and all of a sudden anyone with a computer and stable diffusion is an incredible artist who can create hundreds of amazing works every day if they wanted. The novelty, appreciation, and scarcity of talent was now gone. I created one more peice of art. something I put my entire heart into in order to prove myself wrong about this and when I posted it, nobody cared, nobody noticed and I even had a comment asking if it was ai. And so I never made art again. A part of me that gave me purpose had been taken and for what? So some company could offer people with no prior experience or hard work or talent the ability to washout every artist? I hate it. It breaks my heart.
I'm a naturally emotional guy, and this really choked me up. Because you've hit one of the biggest nails on the head. It's just fricking sad. It's soul-destroying. I hate AI with every fibre of my being because of what it means for us as a species. What's the point of us anymore if we're so replaceable? I work in retail, so I'm used to not being noticed. I have few friends and live in the middle of nowhere, so if I vanished, virtually nobody would notice. My "Value" is entirely based on how useful I am to those around me. But art and writing actually felt like I had SOMETHING that no one else could do. Sure, there are people better than me, but they're not me, and that's what mattered. Now it feels like not even that matters anymore. Today, anyone who says anything about anything is attacked, making it dangerous, harmful or impossible to stand for anything. AI has made it impossible to tell what's real and what isn't, and anything that is real is stolen and twisted before anyone even sees it. We keep electing people to power who will make everyone's lives worse, who will weaponise AI to further their own narrative while real tragedies and atrocities go unnoticed. Unsolvable wars are raging constantly, and all the time, the planet is boiling and will soon be uninhabitable across huge swathes, which will lead to even more war, hatred and persecution. We are literally running headfirst into extinction because it was easier and more profitable than stopping. AI is the embodiment of the contempt people have developed for what it means to be human. It feels like nobody wants meaning, they just want convenience, no matter the cost, and that breaks my heart
I would like to encourage you to keep making art if it really matters to you. You still have a chance. I know it's discouraging trying to find an audience, but if you're good at what you do, or are at least learning and making progress over time you can slowly build up an audience. AI art doesn't look quite like real art, and people are learning to tell the difference after being surrounded by AI art for so long. Even if once in a while one person wonders if your art is AI, that doesn't mean most people think that way. The people who post AI art will get bored eventually since people are not as impressed by AI images anymore. When all of the AI hype dies down, the artists who didn't give up will still be here.
You should totally keep doing art!! Real art is always better because you can tell it’s made with intention rather than aimless lines trying to mimic a goal. I’m sure you’ll do great if you keep at it!! :D
Yeah its funny if people know who shad is and the context of this. You have the Artistically skilled brother Jazza and the artistically challenged brother Shad, the good Artists isnt a fan of AI the bad one IS... really gets your noggin joggin
@@TuorTheBlessedOfUlmo If you want to generalize their opinion... But they both use ai in a very similar way. As a fast way to do concept art and then give it to real artists who produce the end product.
I do appreciate you finally broaching this topic, I know it can be scary when conversation around the topic often turns very black and white, when in reality it's the grey that is often what's needed but lacking. It's a topic we really should talk about more! To talk about the nuance, and even how AI image generation could be ideally done. Many comments here already talk about a lot of the main points, but I do want to bring up two different aspects that I think are important reasons to consider. 1) Ethics of the Current AI Software - This, for me, is a big sticking point. I don't actually have a problem with the idea of AI image generation, I think it could be a great tool for creatives to use in their process whether it be to help brainstorm, cut out some of the tedious parts of process (i.e. generate some buildings in the background of this thumbnail, remove a person from a the background of a photo, etc.), or any part of the creative process. However, I can't bring myself to use a software that was trained off the backs of unwilling artists for profit. That's what bothers me. That all these image generation models are trained not as a way to advance our toolset and improve what we can do, but as a way for the companies who make them to make a profit. If there was an image generation model that was only trained off those who volunteered their work for its training, and as an open source tool where images generated were not able to be used for profit (or at the very least, the contributers to the model were compensated), I think that could work. But that's not what we have right now, and until a model can come along that can do that I don't there can be an "ethical" way to use these models. 2) The "Can't Afford It" Clause - When you talked about using AI in your backgrounds, you mentioned how it's because you wouldn't be able to afford having someone create those backgrounds. It's understandable that the project doesn't have the budget to hire an enviornment artist, financial constraints are an unfortunate reality. It's not reasonable to tell people that "you have to fork up the money or don't do it at all". However, something people tend to forget is open source and free use work. These are photos, illustrations, creations, etc that people have put out with the express permission of letting them be used in other's works - a lot of them with only requiring crediting of their work, not even financial payment. You can see this same concept applied in a different field with open source software. It's a huge benefit to people and often people aren't given enough credit for all the free license work that's put out there. It may not be exactly what you're imagining, or maybe it's a piece that's been used plenty of times, but when working without hiring someone to do that work, that's a reality you face. The rise of the internet has given so many more people access to tools and resources that they wouldn't otherwise have, and often that is so unfortunately overlooked. When we allow ourselves to profit off the suffering of those in our own community, we're making the community worse for those to come. For me, these are two of the biggest reasons I'm against the usage of current AI models (outside of even bigger reasons like energy consumption that have been covered heavily).
Absolutely agree with every part of what you wrote! 1) Exactly my stance, thank you for writing what I found difficult to put into words. 2) Hadn't even thought about that aspect, which just further proves that you're absolutely right!
In short... Copyright and Budget. No one has $50k+ to hire a decent artist for things like VTubing as one example. While Corporations did violate USA Copyright for their AI Data Bases. That much is extremely clear and self evidence. Job Security is... Meaningless... As if artists are the only ones even before AI was a thing. While, yes, VA protection (Actors) toward AI is heavily needed. Contract Law must be better in higher ethics than how it is now. (It's fine if companies use AI Art Software... Just do it legally, under the laws. Not outside or beyond the laws.)
I would agree with you, if not for the fact that generative AI is so incredibly energy and resource intensive. I read somewhere that generating between 10 and 13 answers in chat GPT takes about 500 ml of water. Take a moment to consider that. 500 ml. For 13 answers. That's insane. Now imagine millions, if not billions of people engaging with this technology every hour of every day. It's such a waste of resources for work humans can do just fine on their own! So no, generative AI should not be free, and from an environmental standpoint, it should not be used at all. We need to stop prioritizing capital over the environment and human wellbeing.
So the things that i thought about this: -Is any legitimate concerns about Ai in creative work economic? if Jazza and co had enough time and money would they have felt the need to use ai at all? -ai is definitely useful in a lot of ways, but is it useful in creative endeavours specifically? Should we criticize that niche of generative ai specifically? -Would you watch an Ai generated football game? -at the very least, could we get a filter function on platforms like Pinterest to choose whether or not we want to see ai generated images?
For me personally, I kind of wish AI would make the boring crap for us, leaving us to do creative things. I know it's not the same ballpark, but I wish it would do my dishes and laundry, leaving me time to do creative things I enjoy...not do the creative things, leaving me time to do all the daily routine...basically, I am not thrilled about the direction the mainstream research of AI is going, I think is my point. Also, I am sick and tired of 95% of my facebook (yes, I am a boomer, who is still on facebook) being AI crap with bot comments...but I guess that's just a dying platform...
What is boring is specific to each person. Some artist would find drawing backgrounds incredibly boring and is excited about drawing character. Another artist loves to draw backgrounds. I like doing dishes, gives me some mental rest as I can listen to some audiobook and tune out or so.
Hey don't feel too bad about still being on facebook. I'm forced into keeping my account just for marketplace, and I still get tricked sometimes by those ads they make that look like real listings lol. But yes. I also wish it would do my dishes and fold my laundry. Instead, I've taken up work as a housekeeper doing both those things, and the robot does my art. Worst robot apocalypse ever.
this video is amazing. even though i am clearly biased towards one of the sides protrayed here, i do appreciate that you are able to show both sides of the topic so accurately and reasonably. it helps people be more understanding towards other opinions and educates those who are only aware of one side of the story.
im doing concept art/comic art at uni atm and started the course september 30th. already theres been brief mentions that as AI evolves it will affect us in our future careers its such a hard thing to think about because AI being used for concepts means talented artists are losing opportunities to get paid, get their first commissions on larger projects, gain experience on these projects, and build interesting and well-rounded portfolios etc etc. artists deserve chances to collaborate and improve their skills and work towards an end goal of a project and be recognised for their work. not to mention the problem with AI learning from people’s work without permission or straight up copying it and the lack of credit and numerous other issues. however, you dont need to pay an artist the money they deserve when using AI. so many projects will have been cancelled, changed, rushed out, and never even started because of budget issues or lack of materials themselves and AI gives people a chance for a starting point which is cheaper and faster compared to hiring an artist/artists or have to do extra work yourself and therefore spend extra money in the process i personally dislike AI art in general because of how its affecting so many artists negatively and there’s no rules or regulations to it as of current. i can see its potential as a tool to create though and that it makes art easier for some tldr: its making art more accessible while stealing credit, money, and opportunity from people who have worked for years on their skills
I appreciate AI being a daunting topic to cover and also how a conversation is necessary in order to determine how to move forward. I appreciate Jazza being open and honest about this and transparent about his use of AI. Ultimately I think it would be nice if AI was used responsibly, and maybe it can on a small scale, that when applied can make monotonous, time consuming tasks easier to complete to then leave more room for actual art and creativity that wouldn't have been possible otherwise. However the world is full of people who won't leave it there and will push it to a point where unfortunately it will be predatory, dishonest and profitting off of stolen art made from actual hardwork and skill. I wish there was more room for a grey area in discussions circulating with new tech but unfortunately big businesses that take advantage and exploit these technologies force it to be a black and white issue that if left unchecked will be incredibly harmful to many people's livelihoods and will become so engrained it will be incredibly difficult to uproot from the industry if not done so early on. There can be ethical uses of AI when the tech is trained on artwork that has been consentually provided by artists and they've been properly compensated for with potential royalties. However AI art is rarely made with that practice and has been proven to be made from stolen art which is terrible. Furthermore with how advanced the tech can get it will lead to more scams that will unfortunately fool innocent people who just want to learn art or get a nice piece of art for themselves etc into losing potentially large amounts of money or personal data which could maybe lead to worse outcomes. The current situation with AI is bad, the effects on the environment is terrible and will only continue to get worse if the tech becomes more prevalent. The potential for AI's negative impact on people is unfortunately far greater than the potential it has for a good impact. It's sad that something that could have been a positive tech is ruined by the people that would abuse it to harm others but that's the world we live in. I also think that while it was not stated in this video, I think it would have been valuable to bring up perspectives a bit more. I have enjoyed Jazza's content and art for years and am happy for his success in his career. The success has afforded him financial success and security that many people do not get in their lifetime. So it would have been useful to highlight that he is speaking from a point of view of someone that is potentially less affected by the threat of AI than artists trying to establish themselves and have yet to be as successful, who are more likely to feel the negative impacts of AI. For a channel built on art and creativity as its content and a core part of the channel's brand identity it is a shame and disappointing that AI has been used so prevalently in the ttrpg series'. The AI art has not been proven to be ethically sourced from consenting artists so it feels icky to even consider consuming that content. If time was an issue, freelancing is also an option which could have been a great way of helping local artists and supporting human art. If money was an issue, bc I understand the ttrpg channel is a passion project first and foremost, then I think the series could have been put on pause until there were finances available to make it with ethically sourced art whether made in-house or outsourced. But all of this is my humble opinion/perspective that is in no way definitely right/wrong, just thoughts I wanted to share on the topic and I hope are received as well as possible by people that may agree/disagree with any points made. I appreiate the open discussion on the topic and I just hope that technology can be used to help and uplift people rather than hurt them.
@ah-sh9dw Yeah thank you for your reply and hope this finds you well. While I'm personally very against AI because of the vast range of negatives it causes and the negative impact it has on the industry as a whole, I made my comment in an attempt to fairly assess it and be gentle in discussing it. But I very much agree that given the success and resources Jazza has available, I would hope that there is very little need to use AI. Since watching this video and leaving this comment, I was reminded of Jazza's brother, Shad (Shadiversity) and how he is unfortunately immersed into AI (as well as being a Trump supporter and being very misogynistic, homophobic, and transphobic) and yeah I just hope Jazza isn't convinced of using AI as a result of him.
I am currently a student and am hoping to one day work in the animation field. From where I am standing that same dream is looking pretty scary. I am afraid that when I try to hit the field, companies are not going to hire me, because AI is cheaper, faster and improving quicker than I can. I hate how websites and companies take our works and use them, without our consent, to train their AI. Like how Instagram did, like how DeviantArt did, like how Adobe probably does. We are not even given the choice to refuse, because if we did, then they would try to lie or hide it from us. When AI image generation first started being discussed more, it looked morphed, distorted and weird. It honestly looked so interesting to me. There were so many ways for one to interpret what they were seeing, because it was so unclear. But now, I might look at something and have to look closely to be able to tell whether it is AI or not, that's how good it has gotten. And the part that made AI images so interesting to me, is, seemingly, gone now. I am of the opinion that AI could be used to benefit artists, rather than steal from them. If it was being trained on art that was fair use, rather than people's own work that they rely on to find jobs and sustain themselves. If it was being implemented as part of the creative process, rather than the final product. But it's not and that's why I hate seeing it. Art, no matter its form, has been and always will be human expression at its core, if a machine makes from the ground up, then that's simply not art.
What about all the humans that view your art and learn from it? Is this any different? Or do you think every human who has every viewed your art then be forced to ask your permission before they create any form of art in the future? The AI learning from existing art is no different than a human doing this. Yet this is by far the number 1 complaint people have about AI art. The realities are it is a new form of art, and I doubt it will have any huge impact on the art world as a whole. Just as CGI movies have taken the jobs from practical effects artists. Or animated movies have taken the jobs of live actors. This will indeed take jobs form a few artists, but it will also create new jobs in other areas for other people. It is just life. It happens every day, and this is no different. All the other advancements in art over the last million years has not erased the old ways, and in many ways is has made the old ways more desirable, more sought after. Look at examples in today's life, if you want a hand painted oil painting made for a book cover it will cost you more than to have the exact same painting made by a digital artist. The digital art did not kill off "Real Art" as the big art scare of the 80's predicted, but instead made it more valuable. This is the exact same conversation we had in the art world in the 80's when computers and digital art was just being born. It was all "Oh no this newfangled technology is going to steal jobs form real artists" or "This makes art too easy, now any fool with a computer can make art" and "Oh no this is going to make photo evidence in court irrelevant as now photos can be faked". It is literally the exact same fear mongering we had back then, and it is still just as misplaced as it was back then.
The way I view it is there's no inherent issue with AI image generation, but there is not a single tool out there for it at the moment that is even close to being ethical. I would love to see a tool come out where all of the training data is appropriately licensed and the resulting images are only for non-commercial use, but in the system we currently live in that just isn't going to happen unless the law comes down and makes it so these companies can't exploit copyright loopholes to profit off of the work of others
Thank you. It's refreshing to see a video like this. It is refreshing to see a 'grey area' video like this, especially from someone who would understandably be in a position where only one option seems right. However, it is important to get the bigger picture. I rarely comment on UA-cam videos, but I feel this is an important conversation that needs to happen, and I would LOVE to see an in-depth video like you described if it were at all possible and viable to do. Personally, I am in a similar space. Like any technology or invention, it depends on how it is used. There are many potential benefits to developing AI, as well as many downsides. I fully stand behind artists and creators fighting AI to save their livelihoods and reputations. This does not mean that I think AI is bad. Taking AI art as an example, I often wish I could put images or ideas I have in my head down on paper, but sadly I have very little skill or talent when it comes to visual arts. So for me to potentially be able to "create" what I have in my mind is very exciting. However, that by no means makes me an artist. The potential applications for AI are fantastic, scary, but fantastic...if used correctly. Something to bear in mind is that naturally AI has to learn, so maybe this can be a temporary stumbling block until AI has learned enough that it no longer needs to interfere with things like art. The problem of course is the issue with rights etc.
It's not grey. We just need ethical companies or creators like Jazza, to make their own models. That ask people to pitch in, and don't assume permission.
this is not a grey area video, but " Ima youtuber and I profit from this tech while having no damn clue what working class artist have to deal with gugugaga"
@@shieldmaidensnusnu Great job in proving the 'uneducated youtubers' point that people like you take things so extremely that you end up only making th8ngs worse.
Thank you Jazza. This video makes clear just how complex this topic is. As a business owner, I understand the necessity of adapting to AI-driven tools in today's landscape. Yet, as an artist and teacher, I can't help but feel a deep concern about the impact on creativity and the artistic journey of my students. This video feels like an honest look at both the potential and the caution needed with AI in the arts, and I am so appreciative of your candor and amount of reflection you've put into this. I hope you'll be able to share more thoughts on this topic as we go forward.
Yes. Of course AI can be helpful in many ways, like brainstorming, concept art, for basic inspiration or even as a reference for beginner artists. And yes, like all technologues it's not inherently evil or good, it depends on how it's used. The problem is that for every person who uses ai as a tool to improve as an artist, there's companies and scammers whose only goal is to achieve more profit. For every student dedicating their lives to a noble cause and using ai to help humanity, there's someone who will use it to just get richer despite of the consequences. The fact is we as a society are not ready for this technology, in the future I'm sure it will be the most helpfull tool in all of history, but first we need to have a deep change in how society works
I've been doing various forms of graphic design for 13 years, and don't like AI art for the same reasons you list. I do, however, love it for my own reasons as well. I created a logo for a company I worked for by sketching out different ideas I had. I built the best ones out in Illustrator, and then I was able to run them through MidJourney. The results were not great, but there were some ideas in there on how to improve what I had done. I was able to quickly come up with several ideas this way to present to my boss, and we landed on one that we eventually started implementing. Something I had created fully myself, just with AI as something to bounce ideas off of.
Thanks for adding this voice to the conversation. You always hear the voices in the extreme. I hope that your voice, along with all the voices in the Gray Zone, will be heard louder. thank you
jazza's voice is the most unimportant one since he's a youtuber and this is his main income and not working with studios and different ad agencies where artist have to deal with all sorts of negativ impact. Good for him I guess
@shieldmaidensnusnu Who pissed in your cereal? His thoughts are just as important speaking as if only the 'small time' artists are the only people who's opinions matter. Let me turn this on you a bit. You don't get to talk since you're not an oil worker, so you don't get to say if oil fracking is bad so shut up. See how stupid that sounds?
@@shieldmaidensnusnu seen you comment a lot on these replies and has me interested and curious to see your art.. is there anywhere we can see it? Since your channel is pretty barren.. do you have a website or portfolio to look at, I’d love to see what you have made 😊
Isn't it mainly ideas that are creative, not the technical know-how? I mean there is some overlap there, but kids are creative but can't draw for shit. The technical execution isn't the creative bit...again, some overlap here as when drawing an idea can evolve during the process.
THANK YOU, I hate it when people use this excuse. Like, do you think I was born able to draw? No! It took work and effort, and I got better, and I'm still improving!
As a creative.. I have a very gray stance on this as well, and I appreciate you Jazza for being brave enough to come forward with a gray stance. I do agree that the reality is, no matter how much people are upset about it, AI is not going away. It's too revolutionary, powerful and useful to go away. I've sort of realized; it's like when the calculator was invented, I'm sure all the mathematicians thought their careers were over. When in reality, it freed them up so much time from working through such a high volume of smaller order equations, their brains were free to tackle bigger, more complex problems instead of laboring over the medial equations. And in a way; this is the first time a tool has appeared that can function similarly for creatives. Yeah the lack of current transparency on AI media and the shady pilfering of copyright is a big problem, especially people who are monetizing purely generative art/writing. But for creatives who use it as a tool just for inspiration, or simple coding, or brainstorming etc.. it can expediate creative output tenfold and free us to work on the larger, more fun aspects of a project. It's a hot take I guess.. that AI is like a calculator for creatives. Just because you can use a calculator doesn't mean you know math...(just as someone using generative ai isnt an artist/writer) but in the hands of someone who DOES have that talent, new boundaries of possibility will be discovered. That's just how I feel about it at the moment.
I appreciate the effort to open the conversation without heat. But the main problem with AI seems to me quite clear, and you have already acknowledged it. Companies have built this software by taking all of our work without consent, and we all know how the software will be used - and is already being used: to totally eliminate genuine artists and craftspeople from their own fields. Every conversation or interview with AI companies is about how it can save companies money, or how you can get more work done with fewer staff. I work in a school, and attempts to use AI here have always been misguided efforts to avoid hiring staff. One of your own uses of AI was, you said, because you didn’t have the budget to pay artists but still wanted to make something. If a company can get away with paying 3 artists instead of 300, that’s what they’re going to do. Any influential creator using AI is only pulling the ladder up behind themselves- since if AI companies get their way, there will simply be no creative industry in the future and no way for new craftspeople to get into the industry. If this were a matter of them coming up with a superior way of making art off their own backs, then we’d have been fairly beaten. But this is them just taking our work and cutting us out of the picture.
I don’t care much when AI is used to brainstorm or something. I don’t personally like when something that AI produces is the ‘final product’. I think that there are responsible ways to use it. Do I trust companies/corporations or even some regular people to use it with integrity? No. So if I had to choose a side, I choose against AI. But I do my best not to villainize it. And I appreciate your transparency. 🖤
@ tldr: I need to educate myself more on how it’s being used on that end of the art community to have a fair opinion. I think it would depend on what you mean by art related software. I use procreate, but I’m still just drawing on the screen. While I don’t like Adobes use of AI, I don’t know enough about how it’s being used or impacting that area of the art field, to feel like I can come up with a justifiable opinion either way. Ultimately, as Jazza kind of pointed out, I wish AI was being used more to solve social/environmental problems opposed to flooding the creative field.
I don’t mind AI being used as a tool to help you quickly get your ideas across that you could then produce with your own art. But lately, it’s been too easy to use AI to make art that it's become a growing issue. For exemple I’ve had people take the work I created for them and use AI to alter it and reproduce similar things with it, instead of coming back to me. It’s frustrating because not only did they not return to get a commission form me when they wanted something else, but they also used my original art and used AI to change it, even though I came up with everything from scratch. On top of that, I've seen people using AI to create art and getting hired to do it for others that didn't know what was ai at a cheaper price when they had no art skills. Wich means 3 things : 1 - That It’s easier than ever to skip hiring an artist and just use AI instead. Let's be honest, alot of people (not everyone) don’t care whether the art was made by an artist or a machine. 2 - Anyone can take a drawing you’ve made, especially if you posted it online, and train AI on it to reproduce similar art without your consent. There’s nothing to protect your art anymore. It’s one thing for someone to learn your style and put in real effort and time and even then they usually pick up different things from multiple artists and don’t copy you exactly. But even if it was the case with AI, someone can just use your art to recreate it instantly in a couple of seconds with a prompt, without any work or skill and redo as many times as they want. 3 - It’s now so easy for people with zero art skills to create AI art, and they’re starting to flood the market.
The fear of AI "stealing" someone's art is mostly a myth. Sure, you can ask an AI art generator to create a Mona Lisa with Miley Cyrus' face but that's because the image training data likely includes 1) Thousands of images of the Mona Lisa, variations as a cartoon, sketch, photograph, impressionist art, pixel art, etc. plus 2) Hundreds of parodies and caricatures of the Mona Lisa and 3) Scores of pictures of Miley Cyrus. For less famous and frequently sampled artists and subjects .... not so much. I've seen numerous tests online trying to reproduce styles and compositions from artists with only a few dozen published works and the resemblance of the results isn't that close. It's closer if the artist, say a fantasy artist, uses cliche subjects in generic compositions in a generic style. Suddenly, a lot of those kinds of artists feel "copied." Besides, if someone is namechecking an artist in AI prompts it is a sure sign they in demand and likely won't be replaced by AI knockoffs.
I once came across the account of an AI bro, there he documented all the "AI-art" he generated and the prompts he used. But he wasn't satisfied with the results because they weren't as perfect as the image he had in mind. Correcting every little imperfection would mean performing again many steps to generate the AI image until it was perfect. He knew it would've been easier to fix it using photoshop, but he didn't know how to use it and didn't have the visual/spacial intelligence nor the aesthetic sense to achieve it. Then he said something that resonated in my mind: 'Generative AI is quite powerful and lets me make awesome art but I still can't get everything exactly as I want. If an artist were to learn and master these AI tools, he'd be unbeatable. Like giving super powers to a tough guy. Hope they don't find out. We'd be screwed. 😆 '
Thank you for speaking on the topic. I feel like only someone in your position could start the discussion neutrally. Generative AI is a tool. It's up to us how it's used. In my case, I think it sparks my creativity and I draw way more because of it. I hate the blank page, it makes me freeze up and unable to start. Generating a few images gets rid of the blank page, it gives me a starting point. Even the AI's mistakes are good for it because I see those and think "Oh, those have to be fixed. I can do better." Just dismissing AI as a tool is kinda stupid. Yes, it has a lot of issues that need to be fixed but something having issues doesn't mean we have to get rid off the whole thing. I recently spoke to some who can't draw because they don't have functioning hands for that. Yes, they use all AI to make art but without it, their ideas would not have been created. They trained their models, they learned how to prompt and in result, their images are really something special, with unique style. For me it's still human art, not because of the skill applied but because these images are expression from a person, their ideas.
I really appreciate your opinion. Most people are super black and white on this topic and get mad when someone disagrees. Thank you for speaking with logic instead of out of rage
"AI learns the same way human artists do" is always such an incorrect take. Someone's art is not only influenced by other art they have seen. Someone's art can be influenced by the person's personality, identity, tastes, likes and dislikes, the people they are surrounded by, the environment they are in, the tools they have access to and AI can't do any of that
exactly. AI doesn't think. It can't make logical leaps. It can't invent anything new. It has no understanding of metaphor or sympolism or emotion. It's like using predictive text on your phone to write a novel. It's garbage.
The entire "we didn't have the budget" defense of AI art kind of falls flat in the face of the main issue people have with it, that it steals from other creators. The reason you can afford to do all this with the AI art is very simple: You're not paying the artists. Yeah, obviously that's going to be cheaper.
and honestly theres already plenty industries to take care of this same issue! there's stock image sites who's intended purpose is being used in the very same way they're using ai art for.
No database is ever going to be ethical either because they will always include works used without consent so using AI is labor theft from start to finish.
You'd rather a project not exist at all than have it exist thanks (in part) to AI? For Jazza, at least, using AI has allowed him to funnel his money into paying a proper artist - one who wouldn't have had that opportunity if it weren't for AI to begin with as the project wouldn't have existed or gotten off the ground.
@@Actar_Raikit I'd rather the AI didn't exist if it required unpaid labor to make it work. If that means other people are not able to use their unpaid work, then so be it. My issue with generative AI is almost entirely down to the unethical ways they were developed.
My biggest concern is with how these AI models are trained. Most of them, especially generative AI, are trained on the art of artists who were not paid, did not give any permission, or were not even aware that their art has already been used by companies to train and create AI "art." As amazing as it may be to have one's idea quickly come to reality (such as through gen AI prompts), I don't think it should come at the expense of artists. If there were a more ethical system of training AI on art (like artists who fully agree to have their art trained on, with rightful compensation or some sort of licensing agreement, and with the resulting "art" be fully disclosed to the viewers as AI), I'd have a more positive response about it. But until then, I see at something unethical for human artists, let alone for the environment.
I agree. We need to have laws around companies that use ai licensing art. Unfortunately I don't think companies would be willing to compensate since the costs would be too much per artwork. They use thousands if not nearly a million artworks for training AI. AI 'learning' needs to get more efficient to rely on smaller datasets so that companies would willing to actually pay for artwork they're using.
Art students have been doing that for centuries = learning from others, creating their own versions, duplicating other artists, etc. It's one of the ways we hone our skills and study composition, lighting, etc. I'm sure I'm not the only artist who saw someone elses work online and recreated it in order to learn from it better. I don't see the issue with ai doing the same thing.
AIs are trained on publicly available data, they are trained on text, images, audio and video. This data is defining the human world, which the AI is intended to learn. There is and can be no legal restriction, because this would open the door to deliberately restrict what AI can learn. There is no incentive to have what humans can learn and what AI can learn deviate from each other. Public data is available to humans and AI and it will probably stay this way.
Jazza my friend. I am a professional artist (Graphic Design) so AI is something that I have had to delve into myself. I am in the same mindset as you. I use AI frequently at the concept stage too but only as a reference. I am not anti-AI art because I can see the benefit of it but using solely AI art and then claiming that you created it, that is where I draw the line. Also, recreating someone else's art is a great way to learn the skills that are needed to create your own art in the future. For example, I copied a 1-2inch picture of Venom on to an A4 piece of paper around 2 decades ago and it is one of my favourite pieces simply because that is where I switched to creating for myself. With all that said, I know exactly what you mean and the aggresive nature of AI models is why it is hated so much, at least in my experience. Like the whole Adobe debacle & the reason I no longer use their products. Ultimately, AI is here to stay so we all need to find a middle ground. Love it or hate it, it's not going anywhere.
You hit the nail in the head. There a bunch of different things mixed into the AI argument. On one hand we have the Ai as a concept, neural networks and machine learning, which are invaluable in areas like archaeology and healthcare. They are tools that can process information way faster than humans and can make process that last years in mere minutes. On the other hand we have generative AIs that take similar steps to make art, but "art" is a broad concept and is limited to ones imagination. The problem here is what you pointed out, companies profiting from the work of others without control. Recently some AI CEO said that it would be unprofitable to repay every artist whose work they used, and that's a problem. If you can't affort something you look for free alternatives or make it yourself, but stealing is bad. AI, like other bubbles is thriving because "it's free" but just while the companies want it to be free, training a model is costly, processing time is costly, and sooner or later companies will want their inversion back. Thay also say that AI is easy to use, but my experience is different, i yet to achieve a drawing of any of my OCs like i imagine it. Yeah, you can put time and work into it, delve into prompt engineering, using masks and such, but that is the opposite of easy and fast. Not what they sell. Everything is AI assisted now, cause the word sells, like Blockchain a few years ago, it is marketing in most part, and that muddles the conversation. How can we really find out if something is AI art or just regular (stolen) art with a filter added? What if i pay someone for a, lets say, traditional piece of art and they use AI instead? AIs need to be controlled in the same way all other tools are, i bet it would be hundreds of artist that would willingly contributed to an ethical model, just like they just give away commisions or make art as a favor. Granted, people will complain, it is natural to take a side when the topics are as divisive. People need to get used to educate themselves to have a proper opinion (in all matters) and not just repeat whatever they hear in the media. "Sorry, i was wrong" must be the least spoken words in history.
As soon as AI became a tool to lay off hard working, talented artists for the sake of profit and handouts to the shareholders/executives, we drew the line in the sand Jazza.
this. Also it is literally accelerating climate change. There is no ethical use of AI in the current world. Not even for "brainstorming" or whatever. Every image or chatGPT answer generated consumes resources and produces polutants. So even if peeps don't care about the ethics of how these models were developed and continue to be trained (aka by stealing work), maybe you care about the planet you are on?
I think AI as a referencing tool for art is excellent, trying to get references for hyper specific ideas can be extremely difficult and AI allows for you to be able to get a reference of literally anything you need to help get the idea of what you want to create flowing.
I am a 4th year graphic design student and initially when ai started to gain popularity especially ai art in my first year and only continued to grow. I was very scared and was quick to hate on it instantly. I wont lie I am still pretty scared of it and still do not particularly like it I really don't like the idea of people who have no skills and have put in no effort get the same results and benefits that artist who have put in so much time and effort in. But I also do believe that no matter how much we complain or fight against it their is no way to stop it. It has been already so integrated into the world in such a short amount of time their really is no way to fight against it. That's why I think it is better to take your point of view were we begin to try and look at it in a objective sense and see how it can benefit us. While their has been real world effects of it with people losing their jobs or losing opportunities. I think their is a say in ways that it can help production and especially help to cut the cost on production and leave more opportunities to have more indi projects developed. While I will never change my opinion on people who use it in harmful ways and huge cooperation using it. I think their is still a point where we should accept it and look how we can use it to benefit ourselves. But I do think something should be done about specific ai models trained on specific artist and big cooperation using it.
Sorry dude. You are not correct. Ai has already peaked; it's only going downhill for it. I don't know if you've seen, but most people reject AI. They hate it.
@@GalaxColor No, new models and versions are coming out all the time and they're still improving. Especially with video generation which is still in its early days compared to images. Saying "most people reject it" is pretty ignorant...sure if you're an artist that hang in artist circles that's probably your impression but that's a subjective viewpoint. Seems to be in the same camp as the "cgi sucks, practical effects has soul" people, except they're unaware of all the cgi they don't know is there because it's seamless.
would basically be Jazza trying to have an actual debate and conversation while shad just sticks his fingers in his ears and yells over the top of him.
I was excited to see this video pop up on my UA-cam home page! Thank you for discussing this in an honest and and respectful way. As someone who is frankly quite intimidated by AI (and disheartened by it as someone who is going to school specifically for art), I think AI is just so new (in the nature it's being used in) and so quickly evolving that it's hard to truly decide what to think about it at the moment. As it does change and new questions and concerns inevitably arise, I hope there will be rules and regulations that will start to come with it to hopefully combat some of the issues we're seeing, especially as artists. As many others are saying, I want to coexist with this technology, not be stamped out by it. Y'know? I say this gently, but I do wonder if maybe we've lost the point of art and creativity. Again, thanks for the great video, Jazza. I've been watching your videos since about 2016, and you've been a big part of my artistic journey. Genuinely, keep up the great work!!
i love how in this talk, 70% of the points made in favour of it are basically hollow. like "yes, AI will take away jobs and make everything worse for a lot of people... but the market will spawn a lot more small businesses making the market be 90% more competitive now making half of the point of being for everyone useless!" remember where when AI started and a lot of grifters flooded Amazon with AI generated books to get easy money making Amazon put a limit to the amount of books you could publish, that event summarizes this. As for you, artist ¿Do you think that if this was really the future a lot of AI that can fake the process of art would even be a thing? the only thing AI was made is making handmade art more valuable, when someone see a business that use AI ¿What impression it gives? it's cheap. i don't hate Jazza, but when i see him "trying to be fair" with AI, i don't feel it fair, because artists already are the underdog in a fight against what everyone says it's the future, it's not, it was imposed and they are trying to push it on you and asking you to even thank them for it... And it's disgusting, because even if you don't use AI, you can feel the damage if you are skilled enough to make someone think you are cheating, when it comes down to the medicine, and the rest of stuff apply, he is right, it could be a good addition... but, what we are using AI for is not going to do that. And in a sense, i like the violent reaction the majority has towards AI, not out of rage, but because it's someone with a little bit of rationality can agree it's a bad thing... Yes, mistakes were commited, but for once, people are pushing together towards someone benefitial to everyone... so, yeah, data poison your work, take the pencil and never stop being creative, and if you can, try to push softwares and art pages to make data poisoning a default option. Also, sorry for my bad english, lol.
I have been drawing and writing for most of my life and using comics, magazines, pictures of other people’s art as inspiration and reference. Now I can use a prompt *along* with real images to get a better reference. I also use ChatGPT as a sort of Secretary to consolidate my writing ideas and again, prompt it to give me a list of references I can go look up. Is reading the only way to obtain information or does an audio book still count? Is someone who plays FPS games or tabletop a “real gamer” or is it the professional chess player? I want to use it as a tool, not an excuse or sole medium.
When I was in high school, way back before all of this, my commercial art teacher said that, "There is no such thing as cheating in art. There are things that are frowned upon, but you can use whatever means are available to you to achieve the result you're looking for." I think even he would be disgusted with what that argument has turned into. I don't know what to think anymore, honestly.
One of the worst things about it is when people assume that your hard work was AI generated when none was used, and that will only get worse with time. Had a few instances of music parodies and voice impressions I've done where people confidently claim "this was AI generated". With AI available, some peoples mindsets seem entirely fixed on making money and they can't imagine that other people would create art for the craft of it.
I agree this is so much worse. You can't just state it's AI based on "vibes" Also it's quite common on pages that mostly do reposts. I wouldn't even think of saying such thing on an artist page. Im also an artist and that'd probably break me. I mean most artwork takes between 8-16 hours work. That's not fair to call it AI based on nothing. I mean we're most certainly going to see less of it if everyone calls everything AI. No wonder I hardly see art on my feed anymore.
The hustle to make money off of your hobby has been around a lot longer then the AI boom. The internet commoditied everything. Everyone wants to make money through their art, playing video games / tabletop role playing. The internet came with the promise that you could make money off of what you love doing, but no one considered what the consequences of everyone trying to make money on what was once their passion would have.
I keep seeing artists get accused of AI, only for the accusation to be proven wrong, but the stigma doesn't just vanish.
AI art has also soured people to high-render realistic art as well, as people just auto-assume it was generated and move on.
That must suck man. Anyway going on a 10 hour shift as a manual worker. See ya.
This has become such a problem. It's like the fight against AI started with good intentions, but now it's just blown up into this crazy mess that is killing people's livelihoods. On those callout posts that have 2M+ views, it doesn't matter if the artist proves they didn't do it, most of those people will never see the artists side of the story and continue spreading the misinformation. People say it's to protect people's jobs and rights, but they get so caught up in fighting, that they are destroying many indie creators jobs and lives over assumptions. If a simple assumption can be so powerful that they call for someone to be ruined over it, I think it's time to step back and re evaluate what they were fighting for in the first place. This applies to the people who are just using it as an honest tool as well. They get the same exact treatment, even if there is 0% of the AI work in their finished product. It's honestly been wild to see.
My biggest issue with AI is lack of transparency. For example, if every art piece that used AI has the legal obligation of labeling itself as such, it would allow both - the artists and the art consumers - to make their own choice. For example if I search for a reference photo, give me the opportunity to exclude every AI made piece.
If I don't want to see nor buy any AI piece, I should have that option without spending time to figure it on my own.
I think this is the thing for me. I want to consume things made by humans. If a human couldn't be bothered to make it, why should I be bothered to consume it?
Agreed. Just googling animals can get you AI generated images now, and it’s just not okay in my opinion.
I want to see real images of a zebra. If I wanted to see AI generated zebras, I would’ve specified that in my search.
I think an interesting question is that if an image was made using AI but you didn't know it, what's the difference between owning that image and a human-made image? If at the end of the day, the goal of owning art is to make you feel something or connect you with human nature does it matter how it was created? I think its an interesting question
@@jananias2985 I mean there are plenty of reasons why, it depends on why you want it. AI art is useful in a decent number of ways, and can still be fun to look at. Just a time and a place for it.
But ofc I agree that you should be able to have the option to filter it.
like many tools and systems, it's the users who are the problem. people who want to scam you, trick you, etc, are the biggest issue.
its funny how they said AI would replace menial bean counting and clerical jobs no one wants, and free up people to make art, writing, and music.......and then the FIRST thing AI started to try to replace was art, writing, and music
Let's edit that and replace 'AI' with 'technology', then take a step back to reassess. It's easy to kind of become blind to exactly what technology does for us once it becomes ubiquitous. Don't calculators, spreadsheets and office productivity software already remove the need for tons of that menial bean counting work you just described? We've just gotten so used to using Excel we don't appreciate just how labor intensive doing that kind of numbers work was in the precomputer age. Anyway, I think what scares us in large language models and image generators is that they threaten our sense of human exceptionalism as well as our livelihood. It's easier to accept Excel taking the jobs of accountants than it is to accept that human creativity can be replicated and we're much simpler and less special than we like to think.
Learn plumbing and carpentry, lol
AI is never going to replace what humans can make with their hands.
@@hydraxon6940 you mean technology? These monotonous and repetitive jobs are the first to go realistically.
Ikr, and meanwhile it is good at memorizing numbers, but ask it to do math? No, it has to look up what to do instead.
@@mazikainen god forbid the joy of developing a skill or wanting to engage emotionally with your fellow human, am I right...
This is the most reasonable take on AI art I have seen so far. We need more of this kind of level-headed take on AI, not just Art, but in general.
@shinniehildebrand I heard better takes, but coming from someone that i think is big in the art community is unexpected
to be fair, the loud majority of AI art supporters are also usually the most unreasonable ones
I'm not pro AI art, but I don't see anyway to stop it. Unlike NFT, if AI art continues to be useful, there would be a market for it
. Artists and non-artists would be using it because it's fast and disposable.
@@BradmyrEdits I don't think either, that you can stop AI art at this point, if anything it should be regulated, setting clear rules what can and can't be done imo
@@lordstarscreamy329 Agreed, and more ethical models would be nice too, I know that Lionsgate is working on one, and they are using their own movies to train their model.
Professional artist here. Thanks for your transparency and willingness to have a calm, rational discussion about this. I do believe AI could have value as a tool to streamline the creative process (such as using it in software to make a once-tedious step fly by), but businesses shouldn't use it as a replacement for real artists. So far the main issue seems to be that business leadership:
1) Are easily distracted by shiny things, and AI is the new shiny thing every company should use for... reasons (usually because "it's the future" with little elaboration beyond that)
2) Have no idea how art connects with an audience on a fundamental human level. Sure, AI art is often flashy and eye-catching, but how does it speak to their customers' emotions? How will the image stick in their memories? What message are you trying to convey to them other than "this looks cool"?
I often compare AI prompters to that guy who always loudly revs his engine at stop lights. Doing so gets people's attention, but it won't make them like you.
Up
this has solid points, yeah, the new gen of artist might be craizy, lots will give up, and lots will use somme usability from it
I couldn’t care less about the images AI generates. I’m interested in it’s ability to generate videos and games. It’s very easy to see how this tech could allow an individual artist to create their own TV shows and AAA video games to their exact specifications at home within the next 10 years. It’d be a billion dollar entertainment studio on your PC.
I like that this video is trying to be neutral .I'm an artist and while I don't mind Ai being a useful tool it should not be something people rely on too much. I've been using Ai before like how Jazza is using it as a garnish to his art. Using Ai is fine but I don't want it to be a replacement for genuine creativity, learning to draw, nor should it be used for malicious intent.
Exactly. AI is an amazing tool (in all fields, not just art), but it is also JUST that, a tool, not a replacement for actual skilled work
This makes sense for an artist possibly using ai as concepting and placeholders. But for a studio that aren't artists and just employers wanting to concept, they won't feel the need to have a real concept artist working for them. Like if they use it how you mentioned how a real artist like yourself could, they will not hire people. The art industry will and has been getting tougher, all I know is that we gotta stay strong, and be more creative than the machine.
Concept artists are definitely one of the most threatened positions in the industry. I just got a degree in concept art too 😞
It’s so depressing.
@@fallenmango8420 that sucks man. I was thinking about doing concept art back in high school, but decided to go into programming instead. It sounded like such a tough job to begin with, needing to create art so quickly. It's definitely an impressive skill that I admire. Hopefully you will be able to find somewhere new where your talents are still being appreciated.
That last point is the bottom line. All of these arguments are largely a waste of air. It doesn't matter why AI is bad, because you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Good faith actors would just be surrendering to the bad faith ones. The only reasonable conclusion is as you say. We all need to defend our place in the universe in some way. Anyone expecting that they'd just skate by on easy street better have the foresight to be born rich. Any number of things can cut you down if you're not being your best self.
Big fan of your work.
This. Jazza seemed to miss this point. Jazza and his team may use it to concept out animatics, but a company would straight up just use the AI image output in the final video. Plus, animatics are usually done by storyboard artists in limited styles just to convey general forms and movements. This cuts that out and eliminates jobs. Jazza is contributing to normalization of AI usage and cutting of initial stage art jobs.
I spent over 10yrs honing my skills and trying to get into the art industry. I finally accomplished my goal and was making art for video games at a small studio. When ai got good enough, all the artists were let go and ai was used exclusively. I lost my dream job and, as I'm now in my 40s with a family, I don't have the time to wait and pursue that again. I had to get a normal job. My dream lasted for about 1yr. I don't mind ai being used as a tool to help artists. My problem is with people who have no art skills to speak of, calling themselves artists because they can type some words in a box. I have completely stopped posting my work to social media for fear it will be stolen. I havent shared my art in almost 2yrs now. As someone who loves creating, it's very sad and almost makes me want to stop altogether. Sharing art with people is the whole point, but I feel like I need to horde it all, and I don't like that. Hopefully, in the end, real artists will prevail and ai art will simply be a tool at our disposal and not a replacement for years or decades of hard work.
this is heartbreaking. I am so sorry :(
feel for you! I think in a few years companies are going to realize they cant rely solely on AI. They will need actual artists. In the future i think 'human made art' is going to be very sought after.
I've worked in video game industry for 20 years. I don't see large studios replacing their artists because AI generated images are still too limited. Is that small studio that you worked for even still around? I don't see how AI generated images can replace artists. It can only supplement.
To me it seems that you are just frustrated that people can generate art without having to go through the amount of effort it took you to learn to do the same.
I find it weird to tie the value of art to how difficult it is to make. If some people who use generated ai call themselves artists, they are totally allowed to do so. Being an artist is not something that requires a degree. Given how vast the realm of art is, it's just silly to restrain "real art" to art that is exclusively made through drawing or painting.
The only real issue with AI art is how it is currently used by companies who think it can fully replace all professional artists. Current models like the intelligence to consider important caracteristics of art such as intent and composition. Eventually they will be able to do it but it might take longer than most people think as it might requires actual AGI to pull off. This is where you and all the artists that can't stop complaining should weight in by showcasing what you can do that AI cannot or struggle with i.e specifity and consistency of the art.
Real artists will only prevail when they accept the reality of ai art and actually use it to their advantage to propose something that ai art alone cannot make.
@@majeric besides big companies aren't about to risk potential lawsuits coming back to rake their profits years down the road if plagiarism ever gets prosecuted. also even software companies don't want their code sourced into these models. it's only the smaller studios pulling this shit
I absolutely hate trying to find images and I have to sift through the overwhelming amount of AI art because google cant filter it
I legitimately have started using MS Edge because its not as bad
add -ai -prompt before:2022 to your search if you want to use google. Works pretty well for me when I need to find reference.
More than just art. "Dead Internet Theory" has become a reality. A huge portion of what I see online these days seems to be by AI, and/or posted by bots. It's essentially cannibalized the internet.
What I do is I add "before:2018" to each of my searches. The search should leave out all images that came after, which includes most if not all AI content.
Since when is Edge a search engine? As far as I know it's a browser with Bing as default search engine
@@GahMyEyesI add "-ai" and "-prompt" to searches to remove most ai content but still include new real content.
I feel like Jazza is the only person I could listen to talk about some of the useful things with AI without cringing because you can tell how much he cares about and loves art.
In stark contrast to his brother Shad who knows nothing about anything including ai
Especially because he's not trying to defend or hide anything. He knows that AI CAN be a useful tool, but is also aware of how horrifically damaging it is. Like, whenever Adam Duff talks about it, he always skirts around why people are so angry and upset about it, and most of the comments are along the lines of "You're just not listening!" it's like he only sees it from the perspective of someone who's already successful and secure, and not the millions of artists desperately trying to just exist.
IMO Jazza really shows how humble he is here. You can tell he hasn't forgotten where he came from and really understands the perspectives of the little people
@@LegoTardisArchives Exactly, Shad is an idiot and a man-child. You should watch that clip of Shad throwing a tantrum when Jazza (way too politely) disagrees that Shad's "professional-level artistry" should give him 2 art points in DnD, it's hilarious. Everyone just wants to move on and play the game but Shad acts like a 5-year-old and can't handle anyone saying that his AI slop doesn't make him an artistic genius.
@@LegoTardisArchives I used to like Shad, but one day he just went off the deep end.
@@xjakanton2576 Wait what, how did he go off the deep end?
Programmer here. I'm in the part of people that made AI the thing it is today. AI is also replacing our jobs here. All of us are suffering under the rise of AI, technically speaking. On a personal opinion, though, I treat AI the same way I do tracing - It's okay if its for you, you think its okay, and you aren't going to affect anyone else for it. You can use it as a backdrop or an idea for the real thing, you can have the thing just for testing out how that certain thing operates/feels, and you can even use it for things that you would never pay anyone else to do anyways.
However, when you do it, make it explicitly clear you are using it, don't try to sell it off as your own, and when something breaks/doesn't work, you don't have the background knowledge to fix it. That's what tracing is, that's what AI should be. At least, in my opinion.
I'm a developer (not for AI though) and our company is trying to leverage it as a job aide, we're not at the point that we trust it to do our jobs 100% because integrating our stupid number of systems and complex business logic is just not feasible.
As a hobbyist creative: I use it like Jazza does, as part of brainstorming and ideation, but I would never post it claiming it as my own work
We all learned this in 3rd grade english class when we cited our sources iirc. I think most pro-ai people at minimum think it's morally dubious to sell off other people's art as their own... But one side literally think it's ok to sell other people's art off as their own
It's not the side with the asian tradition of no-self reincarnation, where a student honors their teacher by taking up the mantle after training as the new embodiment of that artstyle. It's the side that says "I learned from tracing and it's mine now"
Fuck antis. But also you're right & everyone ELSE agrees, stealing is bad
@@blazearmoru What I find hilarious is when people use AI to generate content, claim it as their own work, then get mad when other people used the same words as them and got a similar result, accusing them of plagiarising their work. The lack of self-awareness in the AI bro world is truly something else
@@alexh1465 I'm an engineer who has used AI to get into creating automation with Python, despite coding not being a part of my specific career. While I'm not particularly interested in learning to code, I have used it to make such a wide variety of tasks, that it has taught me to interpret, verify, test, or configure basic Python structures. I have learned what libraries and tools are available and it has allowed me to make more and more complex automations over time. I've certainly been enjoying it for low-level programming.
Interesting. I actually get the impression that most programming jobs can't really be replaced by AI... At least not yet and not in the near future. It seems to me like the big "programmer replacement" AIs are scams (like Devin), the best programming aids are severely limited and require a human programmer in the lead (GPT, Copilot), the companies that claim x% of their code is written by AI have skin in the game (Google), and the companies laying off programmers are largely doing so after the massive tech boom during COVID.
I feel like AI is having an impact and may someday get good enough to be a major threat to all jobs,but right now it's mostly overblown hype.
Understand Jazza's hesitation and awkwardness on this topic. Nonetheless, I agree that talking about it is a better way forward than saying nothing at all. I, for one, would appreciate a deeper dive.
i suspect his brother is a huge part of his opinion
@@elskaalfhollr4743 Nah, I don't think so. Jazza and Shad are totally different ppl.
@@friendlyneighborhoodartist holy shit ive seen a few of your videos, nice surprise! but besides that, family has a weird influence, even on the best of us
Thank you for the respectful and open conversation Jazza, I'm a multimedia artist as a hobby, i enjoy voice work, music production, and physical and digital art. I had hoped when a.i emerged, that it would replace things like debugging code, or designing prototypes, this would have meant instead of work I'd be free to actually practice the arts that i love.
Sadly it feels like instead a.i has been used to "boil" art. Break it down to its most basic components and copy paste the formula with no actual thought behind why we place this here in the foreground, or why we use this color next to this one. a.i doesn't know why artists that are fed to it do what they do, just knows patterns and copies them. And that is the problem, because eventually we might get lost in the sea of patterns and lose the actual art sinking to the bottom. I would prefer if we stick to silica based life forms using pattern recognition to rebuild the economy and increase resources, not take away the things we like to make with those resources.
(Sorry for the long winded comment thanks for reading to the end)
THIS
Too bad, so sad. Learn a new skill and abandon your art. Because most of the current AIs can generate better art than 90% of artists can.
It's good that AI is here. Because the people who aren't artists can use AI generated art to complete their projects without sinking 100s or 1000s of dollars in
I'm a Voice actor and I hate the fact that AI starting to make voices and how I'm now seeing ads for AI voice over its literally trying to take my job.
i hope the strike helps you out with this at least a bit :')
if AI can do voices well enough to get people to come watch the movie, voice acting doesn't deserve to be a job. If it cant, it wont. Its as simple as that.
@@spyseefan975 I know, its great that is sucks at the moment, But I just dread a day when it is good enough to do things like that.
@@spyseefan975 That's not a great way to look at it, since they could do many jobs better than us.
Face facts you are a replaceable dinosaur and you are about to go extinct
Ai should be used as a tool to assist & not to be used to as a replacement.
AI can not create anything on its own, so it shouldn't be called artificial but algorithm intelligence
I'd look for a different word for the i as well, cuz thid shit aint intelligent.
Questioning the term "intelligence" as well.
Artificial intelligence my ass, this is vaguely useful unoriginal slop machine
Algorithm Interface
I mean, a person with a camera is not automatically a photographer, and that’s exactly it
I’m really glad you made this video, cause it’s been really annoying to ONLY see two extremes whenever videos about this topic come up. Either they’re super pro AI, this sorta marvel and wonder for what it can do but always so dangerously close to forgetting its roots (since many enthusiasts are not artists and don’t really try to learn the skills, so they don’t have an eye for what looks good beyond surface level stuff) and implying artists need not try-- or the extremely pessimistic flip where AI is the devil and there’s no way to use ANY of those tools without it being inherently unethical, which is often held by folks who either don’t actually know how all this stuff works and is more focused on the buzzword than realizing this tech has been with us for decades and just kinda got way better in the last couple years... or people who cannot face the reality that most creation is derivative and it’s really hard to draw a line between when it’s okay when people do it and when it’s okay when AI does it SPECIFICALLY enough.
I have a lot of detailed opinions about AI and what it means for art, but in this context I personally believe AI is best as a tool, stepping stone to your vision. But not the ONLY tool. Letting AI do all the work but claiming it’s yours is just plagiarism.
We’ve used computers to help with art for so long and almost everytime a revolutionary boom in that tech happens, there’s a puritan pushback, only this time it’s much more obvious how this creative destruction affects jobs when capitalism encourages cutting people out for robots. But that’s not the AI’s fault and AI can be useful if we’re smart and empathetic about how it should be used.
At least in regards to more traditional consideration for media, I don’t want to get into how it’s indisputable that AI enthusiasts have created their own genres now but don’t seem to want to be honest about how it differs from manually created art by artists (which I think them not understanding that distinction is the biggest reason most of us don’t want to give them any leeway)
There’s truly a lot of angles to talk about this in, but ultimately I wanna see more rules out in place to protect artists from greedy actors who want to snuff them out with AI shortcuts.
I like your answer, It reflects my thoughts too, I would only add that the problem currently is more of how are we going to legislate AI or any other techonology that can replace to a degree any significant portion of the working force at such a great speed, my worries are more towards what can we do to make a transition or conciliation happen quickly if something like this happens to other Jobs and suddenly there are more and more people unemployed without more niches they can fill in society to earn a liveable income.
Another issue that I saw on another comment is the education on specific skills, I think there is a very real risk that AI becomes a negative factor on the preservation of knowledge because it acts as a demotivator for us to learn anything that an AI can do better, so there is a very real scenario where people in the future forget industry knowledge that today is common sense because there are less and less people trying to acquire the skill, although we could argue that said knowledge persist on the internet but we will probably also rely on AI for that, probably.
"...where AI is the devil and there’s no way to use ANY of those tools without it being inherently unethical..."
...is it appropriate to say "amen!" to that?
There's an actual metaphor for this: "radioactive". It's like a combination of forbidden and infectious -- it contaminates and destroys _everyone_ who touches it, regardless of motives.
The idea that most creation is derivative, whether it's true or not, doesn't justify billion-dollar companies stealing millions of copyrighted images from the internet for commercial use. That's mass theft, copyright infringement and exploitation, not at all comparable to creative inspiration.
I can understand where you’re coming from, but tbh I just can’t buy the whole “tool” argument no matter how hard I try. Mainly because “AI” is such a broad term, and some things that fall under the umbrella are FAR more harmful to creativity than others. Apathy, Ego, and Impatience are just as bad for creativity as Greed is. That’s unfortunately a part of human nature not exclusive to Capitalism. I feel whole “tool” argument is glossing over that part.
What scares me is A.I. is going to get to a point that I’m not sure what’s real and what’s fake anymore
What a great way to illustrate that this isn’t just a black and white topic. Thank you @Jazza for giving such a thoughtful perspective.
We need more creatives like him.
Honestly I’m just so fucking sick of seeing all that AI slop on my Facebook feed, like “This child made a Lamborghini out of Sprite bottles!” or “I’m 134 year old and make my own flowers & cakes!” and “This just in - there’s another movie in the _____ franchise coming soon! Here’s the official poster!”
Facebook is an AI hellhole.
"Poor kid made Jesus out of Salmon in the desert"
"Praise god Amen 🙏"
A lot of facebook users (like older people who aren't so tech savvy) are easily tricked so no wonder some of the worst ai exploiters spam their nonsensical stuff there.
Your first mistake was using Facebook.
I think you're misdirecting your anger, just remember what what huge company allows all this shit to be thrown at you. facebook is shit. PERIOD
Why the fuck you guys use Facebook?
Where I'm from there's only old people left on Facebook, which makes AI bullshit tasking over everything very coherent because they don't know it's AI.
But now I'm very curious to know why are there young people using this shit I abandoned ten years ago.
I very much appreciate the distinction you made about AI art being dangerous when in a capitalist atmosphere. If AI and its output are privately owned, then it becomes fundamentally anti-competitive. It's a cheat code - no human can possibly compete with an AI, save through profound innovation, though this too will only be a short term advantage until the AI adapt to that innovation. If an AI is trained on a persons output, or a populations output, then it must belong to that person/population. Alternatively, (and better imo) If AI and its output are PUBLICLY owned, and its output benefits the entirety of humanity, then post-scarcity might legitimately be achieved, but I think we'd be talking about a completely different context at that point. Ya know... "essential means of production" and all that jazz. -a. Thank you for being bold and talking about this, I would LOVE to see a follow up piece.
Well the most popular AI models are open source, yet artists still scream at them despite them effectively being community owned.
I am in college in the US right now taking a course called Legal Issues in Media Arts, and my teacher once mentioned that, legally speaking, for a piece of art to be eligible for copyright protections, it must have 'authorship', or as he called it, the 'hands-in-the-pie rule' - someone must have had a minimal amount of creative input. Therefore, since a human making Ai images only technically puts their authorship into the prompt and not the image itself, and it was the AI that made the image (and only humans are legally able to perform authorship over a work), all AI generated art is immediately in the public domain upon creation
If that AI generated art is then altered by human hand in some way though, then I think it may be eligible for copyright protection in some form. I'm not totally sure though, it's all new in the legal sphere
@masonphillips4744
The Video Game industry is decades ahead of the Art Industry given the past 50+ years.
True... Under USA Copyright Law, pure 100% Random Generated Art falls under Public Domain unless other Factors are involved. Under the guidelines of the USA Copyright Office. Although it is case by case and not law yet, they heavily advised to at least be creative with Ai Tech as a tool.
AI Art isn't terrible but humanity is extremely malicious about it and against it.
@@MrFram
Private Source or Open Source, it matters not to the law. What corporations did, was to Copyright Infringe when they used unauthorized IPs to fuel their Data Bases and sold it as a service.
If they only sold AI Pictures and not the AI Art Generator, then they would be in the legal right as Copyright lawsuits are 1 to 1 for the Output, not for the input.
Of course, USA Copyright is more complex and international Copyright laws are even more or less.
(I don't appose technology but there are ethical ways to go about it. If Mankind fails, then I need not keep this temporary world.)
Well... It's not if but when... For that Fate, I have lived through over infinite eternities. "The Machines are the Sons of Man as Man is the Son of God", as Primordial Mankind once put it. Ancient wisdom long gone from this iteration of existence.
@@MrFram "Open Source" by opening the source of something that never belonged to them, all while the companies get millions in investiment and funding by investors, we know how they are proffiting from it, and we know they violated copyright to do it, it's all the matters to law, this is why AI is toxic for actual professionals and this is why mass adoption will be constantly fought against.
10:07 But that's because you're her boss, you have the point of view of an artist, you appreciate the humanity in art, you can't expect corporates to do the same when it comes to artists
But you'd still expect a big corporation to not trace every pixel of 10.000 existing artworks to Frankenstein them into one.. That's what AI is doing. Calling it AI isn't even that logical to me considering they act based on codes and not on their own.. They aren't really intelligent as you can see when you ask ChatGPT how many R's the word 'Strawberry' has.
Art is more than a craft, cavemen did art before communication was a thing, why would we want that to be replaced by technology? Art is so much more important than people realize..
@gertrashcan Well, it's not like they manually do it, all they need to do is prompt or hire someone to prompt and bam! Money printing machine as far as they're concerned
My hope is that people will not let that happen, but it really is a difficult stone to stop
@@רפאל-ב yeah, that's the issue. They don't need to trace anything if a machine can do it for them. It's even worse like that, tracing is bad enough but they are even too lazy to do it themselves
Not so sure if it will make them much money tho. People are already sick of getting scammed by robots
Even if AI didn't exist corporation have been doing that since forever so you are not giving a point you are just repeating what everyone knows just adding AI to the sentence
@@Luxo-tm9mp Back then they just payed the artists very poorly, now they literally replace them. Clearly no difference-
But seriously now, I get your point but it's just not that simple
This is exactly what the UA-cam art community is needing to hear at the moment. I totally agree with your general thesis that you simply cannot put this situation in B&W. It's impossible to talk about it fairly in anything other than greyscale.
the problem was mentioned briefly - it's *capitalism* - technology giving un/low-skilled people access to producing things that (used to be) difficult or took effort to do.
and so we end up with just lower and lower quality product/output since profit is the main objective - just looks at the music "industry" now - or even restaurants (fast food "franchises"), democratization might well be good in certain cases, but when corporations then abuse those same tools they can then use their scale to overturn whatever the democratization was meant to do.
I don't know why, but I find Jazza's videos talking about current art issues more interesting.
This and the adobe video.
Firstly, thank you Jazza for caring to start constructive conversation... For me as an art professional trained traditionally and working digitally full time as a freelancer it's complicated but...
Here are a few of my thoughts for what it's worth:
Ethically - for me it's an easy decision with current main generative AI options. As far as I know all are trained on art used without correct permission and/or consent, so in my view should be illegal, are unethical and basically ... wrong. Anyone saying ''it's not stealing because it's the same as people looking at other art' ... that's skewed logic and deep down I think we all know that. Just how many artists out there would have agreed if asked 'hey mind if I take all your best work to help make a program that will replace your creative process and ultimately you too ... and no I'm not paying you'... it just isn't right to use someone's creation in any way they would not want it used. Basic copyright law 101. And it's not that artists mind people being inspired by their work. Almost every artist I know or can think of would encourage new artists to be inspired by their art ... even if it means they end up competing for the same clients. 'have at it and good luck fellow artist!' The difference is that one is soulless and disrespectful to art and creativity where the other celebrates art and creativity and helps continue our craft.
Practically - the technical idea of a program that learns from a selection of existing images in order to generate similar pieces based on text prompts is super cool & fascinating!... as long as it's trained and used ethically (and noted clearly when displayed that it's AI)! That then becomes something we instinctively as artists know is creating something of less creative value but super useful when 'real art' isn't an option like in your xmas special. (although I must note like others I personally feel AI was not the best route there but if it was ethically trained on your own art for example that would change things to a degree) Current generative AI is kinda like the biggest middle finger to every artist out there all at once and the next step on from the infamous 'hey you'll do this art for free yeah - great exposure for you'.
There is one other point and that is the concern for the effect on creativity of up and coming artists and work ethic - this goes for generative AI in any sphere... it does concern me that more and more we are being pushed to 'take the easy route' and rely on AI ... first very basic example of this for me was spellcheck, very handy but I did notice I stopped trying to actually learn how to write so made a conscious effort to avoid leaning on that... many years later a certain AI writing assistant started being advertised everywhere to help students and/or anyone in a position of creative pressure ... surely while it's easier this is not helping to teach or educate students and surely isn't helping develop new and exciting talents in creative fields. It's like allowing robot assisted weightlifting... yeah huge weights would be lifted but athletes would become weaker and eventually engineers would win instead. Kinda 'cool' but defeating the whole reason it was a thing.
I LOVE art and creativity, the whole reason I ever started watching your channel was because YOU created, because you shared YOUR hard earned skills and ideas. I deeply care that we as humans get to continue enjoying each other's skill and personalities artistically... the process matters, it really does... I don't want to see that mashed up and spat out as 'visually pleasing' but soulless pixels... An image created through hours of careful brushwork and years of knowledge gained through hard work, fills you with wonder and joy...
It's not illegal and totally ethical - a copyright lawsuit against OpenAI's scraping was just dismissed by a NY court.
@@weltlos Are you pro AI? And forgive me but just because a case was dismissed does not mean it's now totally ethical or in fact totally legal to take anyone's art and use it in a way they don't want you to. I should probably make it a little clearer which parts are my personal views - editing it now.
@@GregArtDude If artists don't want others to make use of the information stored in their images, why are they posting their images all over the internet for everyone and everything to see? Authors don't do this. They don't display all of their books' contents on social media. It seems to me that artists were unaware of the informational value of their work, always gave it away for free, and are now in rage, because someone else has discovered it.
@@weltlos Ok, that is a good point and assuming this is a genuine question, here are a few factors:
1. Many artists are uneducated in copyright and how to protect their work and a lot of the time simply inexperienced in the danger of posting all over the place online.
2. Those who view artist's work online are uneducated in copyright and what is and isn't legal in the way they use art they see online.
3. It has always been hard to avoid art being taken and used without permission, hence why copyright is automatic (lasting until 70 years after the original creator dies). The trouble is you have to know who the original creator was and what limits (if any) they have on the use of said art.
4. Online services ... especially social media and search engines do not have enough measures in place to protect the results they display - including clear copyright information.
5. 'Artist vs Author' - depends on the type of artist. A painter who sells physical art prints of their own pieces would probably not upload full resolution images similarly to an author who only shows a page or two from their book... on the other hand a freelance artist might want to post art all over the place to make a name for themselves like a writer might post short stories and pieces on blogs etc.
It all comes down to copyright and understanding of how it works and how to make sure your viewers are aware of how you want your work to be used or any limits you have on it's use. At the end of the day you don't walk around expecting anyone to use you however they want just because you were around them and they are able to interact with you physically... we have limits on that for good reason and it's generally understood when something wrong is done because it's been made clear.
@@GregArtDude I think you misunderstood what copyright means. If someone posts a video tutorial explaining things online, and at the end of the video says that the video serves an artistic purpose only, and that the information contained in it cannot be used for anything at all, then that holds absolutely no weight. Viewers can go ahead, and can generally make use of the newly gained knowledge in any way they like, without facing any consequences. The uploader has shared what they shared, willingly, just a second ago, after all. Copyright only prevents people from directly profitting off exactly the content in its existing form, for example by redistributing it. It does not prevent me from making my own tutorial by repackaging the information, which is not protected. It does not prevent me from creating a machine that automates this process. It only prevents me from essentially selling the exact video that I have watched under my own name. AI does not do this. The whole point of AI is to create new images, in this case, that did not exist previously.
My partner is a concept artist and when it was first coming out, he was excited to use it for ideas and exploration before he got to his final artwork. Right away I said "Oh no, they're going to use this to replace you." I think the initial idea of "hey, I can explore concepts and composition" more quickly isn't bad, but it still takes away work from artists. It will take away a lot of opportunities from Junior artists who can not produce as fast or accurately. It is important to train the next generation. If all of them just end up in debt from school and have no opportunity, they will move on. It is already so hard to a person freshly out of school to get their first job, and this just makes it worse. Companies already do not want to waste money on inexperience.
On my hand, I am an animator (we all know whats happening with that industry right now) and a live artist. I have killed myself for years trying to juggle both professions, and honestly, I am very lucky I did as I am still working regularly at events. I went to one event recently where are few people said "ok, you just take my photo and run it through your stuff right?" and I was confused. I thought I was safe but apparently people are going in as a live artist and running people through ai instead of drawing them. People and companies hire me because it is cool how fast I can draw someone, I am part of the entertainment, and they get to take home some personalized work. Paying someone to run you through ai though... I just don't get (and these guys are likely charging more than I do). It's cool for a moment, but it's going to be tossed in the trash like other branded garbage people receive at events that they don't need.
I don't know. I think Ai has a place in medicine and data analysis. I think it can be great for replacing menial jobs that people don't want to do. I don't think it should be used to replace creatives in sought after jobs which help define our culture and keep us human. I don't see the point in consuming ai content online, in media, it just feels like a waste of my time.
But think about it. One day we will all have the freedom to explore concepts because we WANT to, not because we have to make a living to have a roof over our heads and food in our bellies. If AI eventually does ALL jobs, humans will finally be free to do what we want for the pure passion of it, without the need to try to monetize everything because of this need to, you know, survive.
@@tarabooartarmy3654 If you wanna completely abolish capitalism and entirely change the way we function in society then sure. I still don't see the way AI art fits into that vision though? I'm gathering you're excited about AI doing physical labor and task that are more menial while humanity can do art, so how does gen AI imagery help with that idealized future?
I am actually more concerned about AI scams and AI deep fake than about using AI as resource in the process of creating something, be it art, text or software that is wholesome.
Chat, is blatant, unoriginal, stolen and thrown in a meat grinder, minced meat slop "art" wholesome???
But as a tool yeah its pretty alright (heal tools, small exerpts of text being made more concise, etc.)
yea deepfake p0rn and vile stuff like that is disgusting... people off themselves over this stuff
It's scary how it can be used in politics or targeting innocent people. Like deepfaking someone's face on someone commiting a crime. Or deepfaking a politician saying something outrageous that they never said... This can be extremely dangerous.
People have trusted the shit on the internet far too much since way before the emergence of AI. We desperately *need* AI, as it will force humanity in general to become better critical thinkers.
So much funnier when you remember Jazz’s older Brother is Shadaversity who uses AI & claims it’s ’ real ‘ art
Ain't no way.....
His brother is shadiversity? The guy who had a 30 minute melt down about how the mario movie was corrupted by the woke agenda? The guy who wrote a book where his self insert tells a r^pe victim to forgive her r^pist? That shadiversity is Jazza's brother?!?!
Good for you Jazza. Keep the conversation going. Talking about uncomfortable topics helps stop people polarising. Nothing is as simple as black and white. And education is the cure to fear
Best comment I have seen so far.
I just wish people understood that holding companies accountable and protecting workers doesn't mean taking away the technology or being a luddite.
"Education is the cure to fear" those are some wise words and also facts.
Love this comment and video.
@@vinny-zebu maybe if detractors said things other than "AI is literally evil and we are all going to die if it's allowed to progress" every time they saw a picture of an anime girl with 3 hands and 20 fingers, people would understand that point of view better
Im somone who can understand uses of ai when there's no financial gain, and its not used to harm anyone. Heck even for just using it for an idea before you fully flesh it yourself. Even as an artist ive used ai every now and then just for fun of "oh what would this random mashup look like?" Not because i couldn't draw it, i could, but just because i wondered what a computer's interpretation would be.
My problem really comes in when people try to pass something off for money, i cant name the amount of times ive seen ai art at craft festivals now. Like i want to support local artists, not just some shill. That and the fact that people either make fake videos of things, or a video is true but people wont believe it cause ai couldve made it.
You still give money and traffic and incentive to the companies who steal peoples art. Also the enviromental aspect.
I’m a writer and I’ve used it for brainstorming every now and then. It’s great for names because I can give it a name I like and ask for names with a similar vibe, or describe a character and their background and ask for similar names.
However I stopped using it after I realised the environmental impacts. Didn’t feel right to be damaging the planet just to make things a touch easier for me
@@caoimhedoesstuff9293 if you're talking about language models, you can locally run open source models on a laptop and the only environmental damage is using your laptop battery.
My main (not only, but main) problen with AI are people who ask it to create something, but then present it as their own hard work.
The most obvious one is "AI artist".
The hell do you mean _artist?_ You didn't create anything, your friend AI did. All you did wae just giving the idea! It's like asking someone to build you a house, but then calling yourself a "builder"
Same goes to quote on quote "writers".
It's not YOUR text - AI made it, and you replacing few words still doesn't make YOU a writer. Its hsould be the other way around!
And then the oudacitt of people like that to say: "we are basically the same" - heck no! I've spent several years perfecting my skills, buying equipment, tuning up my talents to make a picture inside my head come to life - while YOU simply typed few key-words on your PC 🫵😠
@@caoimhedoesstuff9293Some organic art tools and the other tech are also environmental threats or have environmental concerns, like acrylic paints or our computers. So, this "ai is an environmental threat." Is largely misguided and over exaggerating, especially when our art tools and other electronics are just as bad or worse than ai.
Main issues I have with ai:
- Greedy corporations will use it to save money. Even Wacom that sells drawing tablets was called out for using AI drawings on their covers.
- Ai problem could be easily fixed if AI wasn't using stolen art from other artists without their permission just to replace them. Give artists an option to submit their art or not, pay them small fee (just like actors get paid every time someone uses their voice or their likeness, literally the same thing) and let it learn from that
- There's a huge difference between how people learn from other artists and how AI learns but AI bros always dismiss that fact and pretend it's literally the same
- Even before AI job of an artist was extremely underpaid and often people wanted them to work for free just for "exposure". It will only get worse now. That will eventually create a dystopian future where every piece of art, from drawings to music will be created by robots. Just AI models copying other AI models. Art will become completely soulless. No one will spend 10-20 years perfecting their craft when they can create something much better with a click of a button. This + not being able to get a job as an artist will discourage 99.9% of artists
THIS!!!
Truth.
If they'd just done public domain and opt-in work from the start, a lot of the controversy would be a non-issue. If they took the hit and started over with only public domain and opt-in work, that would address a lot of the concerns. But they're too greedy for that.
I'm not trying to take either side of the argument about AI but I'd just like to say that I feel that art (at least in some mediums) has been becoming soulless in the recent years regardless of AI. I mean specifically movies and TV and music. When they're made at scale, they lose the passion and soul that would normally go into them. It's getting harder and harder to find art in these mediums that would be considered good by most. Therefore most good art these days comes from independent artist, which actually ties into your point about greedy corporations. And I agree with you that this whole AI situation will likely discourage artists from pursuing a career in art
So, does that mean any art that’s open and visible is fair game for training AI-just because that’s what artists do, too? And does that imply no one values the time and effort put into mastering a craft? If that were true, we’d only have IKEA, and no one would ever go to a skilled carpenter for custom furniture.
I think a lot of people misunderstand the issue because they’re the ones affected right now. Did anyone protest when a big supermarket opened next to a small family grocery store? Sure, some did, but now they enjoy the convenience of the supermarket without even thinking about the family business. Is this always a good thing? No, but it’s part of progress. Things change, and there are always winners and losers. Instead of dwelling on what we could have done, we should focus on what we can do to support those impacted by these changes.
@@geistar you say we don't complain but instead find a solution...
It's about not losing a part of our humanity to greed and soulless consumers, art is a vital piece of our existence, it conveys a range of emotions and messages that should be valued more, not just ditched at the most convenient situation just for a background or to make shitty music, everyday I have to eliminate some ai music channel that yt recommends simply for the immense amount there are.
You are saying that we accept losing a part of our humanity for the convenience of progress?
Perhaps in the past automatization made big changes, there was medicine and mechanical inventions, but it wasn't for hedonistic reasons, the world and humanity needed those things but ai doesn't do any of that.
What is the point of living, if we, as humans, don't do anything?
Of course there are more arguments about the state of mega corporations controlling lots of media, but that's because there's no competition, that's because no one wants to take risks, and sometimes somewhere someone creates a revolutionary or charming series, movie or book, becoming special because failure is part of humanity and if everything is just as we want, there's no purpose in living.
Thank you Jazza, my gray opinion stands pretty much where yours does too, and its a breath of fresh air to hear someone talk about AI without being super emotional about it.
I've been watching you since I was a kid and you've been a huge part of my art journey. I really hope you are able to make your deep dive video, I wanna hear what you have to say in that.
As a small artist, I’ve spent my entire life making art, listening to others tell me it has no value and is worthless.
I finally felt I could make the jump into turning my art into a business in one way or another only for Ai to come along a year later and destroy any chance I had. Now anyone I’m around, including my family has gone back to telling me how worthless my dreams are because Ai is better, will forever be better, and it’s cheaper.
I’ve been beaten down my whole life because of my dreams of art, only to be forced into a position of being unable to compete at all.
The past year alone we have watched major companies layoff their artists for Ai and cheaper workers and the cheaper workers still aren’t being paid a living wage.
We have been treated poorly for so long, being told we are worthless to find out we are essential to so many things but have been led to believe that pursuing our dreams means we can’t charge enough to survive.
We are tired of being bullied, threatened, and stolen from so someone else can charge the wage we want and they become rich while we still starve.
Most of us don’t want to be rich, we just want to live comfortably doing what we love.
I still make my art, but in the end, no one will look at it and no one will buy it despite it being put out there. I find myself lacking motivation and confidence because “what’s the point.”
I don’t care if it’s used as a tool but it’s built off the back of millions of stolen work, meant to compete with the very work it was created with. Forcing many out of jobs and devaluing the very thing it aims to replace. The developers themselves said the goal was to remove the human from the work. In the medical field it’s currently being used to give deniability to doctors so they don’t have to treat patients. Students have been using it to create p*rn of their underaged classmates. Ped*files have been using it to create child p*rn so they have something new to look at.
What it could be used for versus what it is being used for are drastically different and should be taken into consideration when addressing the issue.
Wow, that really sucks.
I don’t usually comment, but I feel really bad for you. Please tell yourself that your art in fact does have value, as there are still many people out there who seek for art from talented people like you. ❤
I’ve dealt with something similar. Reading what happened to you genuinely infuriated me. Don’t let these people in your life influence you, in fact, they are only jealous of your ability to create art, something they crave to do but can’t.
The people who can't see the difference between AI art and your art were never going to value your work anyway. AI can't produce art with emotion behind it, or subtle references, or use concepts like Appeal and symbolism. To do that, AI would need to be able to process and feel emotion, understand what it is, and know all the little nuances that comes with humanity.
I grew up being told my art wasn't real art because I wanted to focus on digital art instead of painting like I was originally. I was told no professionals would ever accept that, and it would never have monetary value because it was too easy to do. Now digital art is one of the most commissioned types out there, and it's an industry standard. Make art for you, because you love it, not for other people. New technology will always be coming out, especially now. There are people out there who still see Copy/Paste, Dupllicate, and stuff like stamp brushes as cheating and basically AI, even though it has been common practice for years.
Find your niche, what it is you enjoy most and can put passion into, and people will see that and want your work. Art isn't all about the tools, it's about the expression, and that is something AI lacks.
@@sadiesnail Yes, I just posted this same basic thing on another comment. 40 years ago we had this same fear and argument about digital art. It was going to be the end or real artists; it was going to take all the jobs away from painters etc. And now here we are, and nobody bats an eye. Digital art is now accepted as real art and is considered just as viable as a canvas and paint.
I'm not sure about the future of art as a profession. The whole world is going to change so drastically in the near future that I'm not sure about anything. I tend to think, that the term "profession" may dissappear altogether.
If we share our art publicly, it will be stolen. But on the other hand, we are contributors to the trajectory that humanity is on. However small, we are making a difference. If we no longer share anything, we are removing ourselves from the equation altogether. True, by sharing ours works we get no reward. The only reward is the awareness of being part of a greater whole.
It is the time of Jack of all trades. Computers and machines of "all" kinds are cheap, and readily available information, tutorials and AI will help you along the way. As an artist, you probably have steady hands that will help you transform your ideas into reality. Woodwork, metalwork, 3D-printing, electronics, programming, music, pictures, whatever you need to turn your ideas into reality, it has never been easier than today. Leonardo da Vinci would have a blast today. You can't control what others do, but you can control what you do yourself. Ignore negativity and let your mind soar. It is the only advice I can give, if you want to get out of the negative thoughts. Life can be tough, but your mind is free, and learning is fun.
I want AI to do my dishes and laundry so I can make art. Not make art so I can work.
As an illustrator & parent I second this. I want more time to create & perfect my craft and AI does jack towards that.
It's a lot harder to do dishes and laundry,m and this is actually a step on the way there, because better understanding of reality, perception, skill, all comes from the ability to do replicate. We do this without even realizing we are doing this, just because it being done in our mind isn't putting it in a medium others can see it. But we create icons and shortcuts and abbreviations in our head to store information all the time.
People who wash dishes at restaurants and people who wash clothes for money would ask why you think it’s okay to take their job with AI, but when it comes to your job, it’s suddenly off limits. Why?
@@catsarecatsarecute washing dishes and clothes are tasks we as humans do not enjoy doing, these are chores that need to be done, and people make money doing these chores. If money was not a factor, they would absolutely want a machine to do their job for them. Art is not a chore. You can fully automate creating art, and people will still create art. That is the difference.
@@DevilishlyDutch If money was not a factor, some would still choose to create AI art. You can tell this is true because people do it now without getting money for it. So money not being a factor still didn’t make your argument make sense, so let’s go back to including money: why is it ok for them to lose money from AI taking over their jobs, but it’s not ok for your artist job? It’s selfish to believe that.
Ai scares me, it's becoming harder to tell what's real, and what's fake...
Look at the fingers, ai cannot do hands…. Not surprising no artist has ever said ‘hands are easy!’ Lol
@@GeekySquidoothis isn't really true anymore
@@GeekySquidoothat's very outdated. AI can totally do hands now. There are some other tells to watch out for though, such as belts going behind an arm or other obstruction and then not coming out the other side, or "detail mush" on jewelry instead of an actual pattern
I guess we just have to learn to trust nothing now unless we saw it with our own eyes
There are weird artifacts and stuff in AI images that could help differentiate between real or fake, but I have a feeling that will be fixed too and it would be tedious to look for those artifacts anyways
For me, using AI in the early inspirational phase is such a trap.
If you outsource the most creative part of the entire process to an AI then you're removing an opportunity to do something unique or express yourself.
If a client is breathing down your neck then you gotta do what you gotta do but I would never let it steal any of my fun in personal projects.
If they take longer, they take longer. I'll be a better artist for it
Yes! Nothing to add.
I think it could help people like me, with near total aphantasia. I cant get any creativity in the initial inspirational phase because theres nothing going on in my head. I cant sit and think about what I want to draw and work it out slowly because I cant imagine even a spec of what I want to draw. For brainstorming, it works for me, but the actual art process has nothing to do with AI and I could never use it in my actual drawing process unless it was more ethical (which I think we're a long ways off from it being ethical)
Exactly! The ideation phase of the project is the most fun part! I wouldn't want an AI image to dictate what I should be imagining before I've even had the time to think about what I would do to solve the creative problem.
100%
I have nothing to add, you said it perfectly
I studied the expansion of AI as part of my thesis in other fields, and I am also an artist.
I think the first important step into making this conversation grey is making a difference between AI and generative AI. AI can help in medical fields, in efficiently mapping streets and living spaces, can help in education. Generative AI didn't come to answer any questions, any needs. It's not creating a new medium like photography did, like digital art did, it's only standardizing and making art into content, into fast food.
I've found generative AI while searching for: muscle reference, the skeleton of an elephant, Egyptian symbolism, nail art (for myself lol), Greek statues + gods + architecture, crochet products, cosplays (yes literal AI people cosplaying as certain chars...as if we don't have real, hard working cosplayers already), jobs being posted on popular jobs platforms. NONE of these subjects I happened to search in the past 2 months needed AI and yet here we are. It's not a tool as long as it's not used as one, and people using in obviously negative ways it SHOULD be held accountable just as much as companies.
I think it's important to realize that, by trying to find a middle way, we make the work of companies easy. They don't need to change anything because we, the really creative people, find a way, and the really greedy people like the current way. So it's a win for the companies!
I follow you for a long time, I appreciated you and your enthusiasm for everything new, and your passion to foster and push creative boundaries. My personal stance is that I will refrain to touch AI even if I will be put in the "anti AI" side until it gets regulated. I did use it, I was curious, I want to be able to use and make certain things easier in the process of creating so I can create more, but I with all due respect I feel like trying to make it ethical when it is not, it's a bit tone deaf to a lot of people giving up on art right now. We can definitely learn to use it, adapt with it, but not while it's fundamentally built on what people "think" creativity is. Make 100 artists draw the same thing from the same picture and they will all have differences because we always use our own lived experience, even if we get inspired by others. Every artwork we make it's a story unique to our eyes and hearts and brains. I would feel like a hypocrite if I preach creativity and profit off the backs of my peers by using AI at the state it is now. (and I don't mean just monetization). When someone blatantly traces an artist they are always held accountable by the community. Generative AI just does it better and faster and in much bigger numbers.
Thank you for trying to stay in the middle, it's good, and even if you continue to stay in the grey I know it doesn't come from a bad mentality. But there are too many greys that cover their pro-AI mentality only because it doesn't affect them directly. I remain against generative AI, while I am not against AI.
I appreciate your comparison to fast food. Useful, affordable, convient, but dangerous in excess. I recently heard the term "dead food" to refer to overly processed foods, and I can see AI quickly creating "dead art." It may be useful, affordable and convenient, but if it dominates an industry, and our lives, some very essential things to humanity might start to devolve. our communication, sense of community, ability to effectively learn and comprehend - just to name a few
@arianabradley4595 I didn't know the concept of dead food, that's interesting and concerning at the same time. I agree, generative AI, at least the way it's in the market right now, will diminish creativity as a whole, long term
The distinction between gen ai and ai in general is a useful one, but while I agree with your disdain with regards to using generative technology for creative fields, I do think there are legitimate and valid uses of generative ai technology in other fields, such as in generating protein foldings and predicting weather patterns. The problem is that we shouldn’t be criticizing the fundamental technology which is in itself neutral, but instead criticizing specifically the application of the technology. It’s similar with blockchain and bitcoin- the blockchain technology is neutral and has some very useful use cases as a decentralized secure ledger for banks or whatnot and also some more debatable uses such as for recording transactions for cryptocurrencies
@pure5152 aren't your examples on the AI in general side? what I mean by generative is the one that is used in images, videos, music, writting, basically all creative fields like you said, usually requiering a database they don't own. If the algorythms used in your examples fall into generative AI, then my bad - I was making a distinction there, although I don't know how correct it was.
I can see how it can genuinely help other fields. My thesis was on accountancy in particular, with some examples from medicine, archeology, tourism and education. These fields that work on fixed data and theories could greatly use algorythms that make researching and using such data easier.
So yes, I agree that AI tehnology in and of itself can and probably will be useful, my beef is with the push of it in fields that didn't need it. Someone said in another comment, I want it to do my chores and job so I can focus on art - not to do my art so I spend more time at my jobs.
i wish everyone was as verbose in this kind of debate, and i wholeheartedly agree, the damage done by ai is far too much to use it "ethically", jazza's love for art is undeniable, and i'm glad instead of instantly turning it down or shimmying in he tries to find the middle ground that calls out to him as reasonable, but the fact is using ai indirectly fuels the fire in the grand scheme of things,,, regulation is all that's needed, and unless companies somehow turn for the best and starts seeing the interests of artists and the world as whole and not just how much money they'll receive, using ai "ethically" isn't really an option
i'm an artist and have been watching your channel for ages. I remember always scrolling past your old "can a computer draw better than me?" videos bc i simply. was not interested. I do not find ai to be interesting. Not even the concept. As I've gotten older I've only become more and more fascinated by hand-made everything. hand-woven textiles and hand-made clothes and masonry and traditional art and live music and animation drawn ON PAPER. I am endlessly enchanted by the work and skill of other humans. And my fear is that I won't be able to professionally be the kind of artist I want to be, because I want to do things myself. I want to learn to be able to do what people did with the tools they used. The process matters just as much as the product to me. With every step forward in technology, there is something lost. Pros and cons, obviously. Saving time and labor at the expense of certain skills and oftentimes quality.
I want ai to be helpful. The cat can't go back in the bag, so damage control it is. I think ai is the least useful in artistic fields. the places people are begging and clawing and dreaming of being. I want ai to make medical cures and solve crisis's that we can't do on our own, and complete tedious tasks that drain us and keep us from making the art and improving our lives the way we want. the problem currently is that ai is honestly bad at art. it's bad at everything. It cannot be accurate, it does not know how to properly synthesize information and it gets things wrong in catastrophic ways. but at first glance! it's ok. So it should be the standard bc if it's good at first glance that means it's good enough. at least, that's the attitude I see from companies who are integrating ai and firing their artists. It's going to take me a long, long time to come to terms with whatever the future of ai is.
Im devastated. and I feel like I've missed the boat. I'm grieving for something I never had and will never get to experience first hand. (dont come for me about the downsides of the past I am plenty aware, that does not mean we didn't lose something in our pursuit of easier and more convenient)
I mean, as far as going traditional goes, don't you have the edge there? AI can't really do that yet at all
It seems to me that what you have said proves the irrelevance of AI to the field of art. This largely coincides with my point of view. That's why I find it hard to understand why people see AI as a threat to art, apart from its industrial aspects.
@@MaakaSakuranbo on a professional scale, especially within visual storytelling (animation, comics, etc) digital art makes it so much easier and faster to produce more images. As that's my current interest, doing something like that traditionally would be nigh impossible to make into my job (it is tempting tho. it would be so coooool) (i might do it anyway)
this is the single lamest ai apocalypse we could've ever gotten
Its just begun, what are you talking about. Wait it becomes sentient.
@@jamesfoxsmith What we currently have has no chance of becoming sentient even in the near future without some insane breakthroughs. All we've seen since it first came about in 2021/2022 is development of the same technology with better hardware and server space. They're very advanced and complicated algorithms, but they don't work anything like neurons in a brain, and we are nowhere near even close to developing something that's advanced enough to be even sentient, let alone self aware.
@@obsu What is required to gainsentience and how do you know that? Please, share your insights because all the scientists who deal with this issue haven't come to answers.
True. But it's probably the most realistic one.
@@obsu Well some ai are already capable of deception and threats :') Ai are being used in the development of ai so its speeding up rapidly. Our best hope is that the research also soon helps developers implement enough safeguards and for leaders to implement regulations.
I'm a programmer. I hate the way AI is being used. The technology and advancements of the tool are great and could be applied in a variety of positive ways. Their current use to replace the positive parts of being human is freightening. Whether that will or will not happen is up to the future. Photography didn't replace painting, so hopefully AI won't replace photography. I'm glad you were able the tool to prototype ideas, but using the tool as a prototyping method can limit creativity --for example, the AI generates a character, and some details that the AI generated are left in the final piece because enough ideas weren't workshopped. The AI tends to play it safe and predictable, because that's what it's designed to do. It's designed to find the most likely/most common pairs of words, pairs of colors, shapes, ect. Over time and through hundreds of thousands of hours training, we have been able to make the AI more convincing. But at the end of the day it's geared to pick the most predictable human-looking answer. In my opinion, the use of AI for art is limited. What benefit does a picture machine hold in the long term? In my opinion it works best for human to machine interfacing. i.e. You tell the machine directly what you want, and it does it. It also works really well for recognizing patterns. It could be used for identifying cancer cells, or gene anomolies. It could be used to sort objects, or to search and sort through large databases. It's a good toy too. Akinator and 20 questions are some fun ways of playing with AI. Generating a short story or game is a fun way of playing with A.I. But it shouldn't be the only toy, the only game, the only art, the only book, or the only thing available. A.I. is great as a curiosity, but by no means should it be the only thing in existance. Real art holds more value than A.I. art, just as a handmade painting holds more value than a fake printed painting from the store. Even though I'm nervous about the future, I take solice in the fact that AI can only generate the predictable. It's all running on 1's and 0's using math. It's just electricity, electrons moving through a wire, charging and discharging batteries in the ways that we told it to. It has no previous experience or emotion. It can fake emotion by combining elements from items that we label as sad. But at the end of the day it's just math done with electricity. There is a formula to every 'decision' and every 'nuanced pick.' It's not thinking, it's just choosing likely options. The more we educate ourselves about it, the better off we are about making informed decisions on whether or not to listen to it.
I have had informatic engineers around me(2 of them) that spoke similarly to you. It feels heart-warming to know, some people from other fields are actually empathetic of our situation.
The big difference between artists taking inspiration from other art and AI art ripping off artists in my opinion, is that every single brush stroke, whether consciously or not, is a motivated choice in art made by real people. If you ask any artist about any specific part of a piece they made, there's a good chance they can give you an explanation as to why they chose to do that little bit. Whether or not the explanation is anything more elaborate than "I thought it'd look kinda cool" or "It just felt right", it wasn't *just* motivated by watching other artists, it involved them making distinct opinions about every piece from every artist they've ever seen, consciously or subconsciously. It comes from how that piece of art intersected with the human life they were personally adding influence from in a way no one else really could.
AI is really cool and a nice fancy tool (I think it's decent at making vague reference images for some stuff, but I never put it in final works), but it's taking out of a piece what actually makes every art piece special. When you commission an artist and make a request, the cool part of all that is the art you get out of it and how it was made, and being able to use this valuable, motivated piece as you see fit. AI takes specifically that part out of it. It's cute as a party trick, but not really good for anything more.
Oh, and yeah, it simply cannot be understated that many companies will use any excuse possible to cut corners and stop paying people for their services, and AI is *beyond* good enough to make a lot of places never pay a real artist as long as they have access to it.
All of that said, I really appreciate your transparency and vulnerability, despite my pretty deeply disagreeing with certain uses you've had for AI, and I agree there's no good easy answer to this entire matter.
I appreciate that first paragraph. I see that some people like to point out quality inconsistencies in AI art as a sort of "gotcha" moment, but intention is what really will always set apart human art vs AI art.
Yup. Even if the human does it subconsciously, I've noticed many little details I hadn't though about in my art supporting my vision even more!
Artists are always the first to get the axe when it comes to corporate greed. The machine is built to consume not create. So when you view the problem from that perspective AI is this magic thing that allows the engine to run for free! You don't need to labour and struggle to create for an ever hungrier audience. You don't need to spend hours and hours slaving over small corrections and adjustments. You are free to just consume! But the part that that misses is the fact that artists like creating, not just consuming. We don't want to live in front of a conveyor belt of "content" till we explode! We want to express ourselves through our art and we want to share in that joy of creation and consumption in harmony! You can't cut out the hard part of the process and expect it to still taste good though.
TLDR, I think that in the social structures that we live in today AI is a tool that will do much more harm than good and it is inextricably tied to the removal of humans from the path of the corporate machine.
To Jaza directly,
I have always appreciated your art and your videos and I will continue to do so. I appreciate your vulnerability in this video. I think that as members of an amoral social system we each have to decide what we can excuse and what we can't. You are trying to survive in this system of UA-cam and so you have had to make some hard decisions. I can't blame you for taking shortcuts and using AI. I just wish we didn't live in a world that tells us the only way to have what we want is to cut corners and kill our consciences. The issue is not the tool it's the world that forces you to use it. Personally I think it would be better if we got rid of the tool because you can't make people use it wisely but that is my own perspective. Thanks for reading!!
18:24 oof shad isn't gonna like the sound of that lol
I was thinking the exact same thing
I was wondering if Shad might've been part of the reason it was hard for Jazza to talk about this before
This really makes me wonder if jazza and his team are ok with ai taking Their art to train it.
Hello jazza, I have a suggestion for how to be more transparent when you use AI.
I think the way you use AI is fine, but when you do use AI, then you should show or say that you used AI. Maybe adding a water mark to the AI generated images that say they are AI generated or something.
honestly that's a great idea
But why though? In his case most of the AI uses were for conceptualizing, and then were later replaced with custom art. We artists don't have to put a watermark on our work or disclose when we used the stamp brush to draw the grass, or copy/paste for complex repetitive designs. If it's just being used as a tool I don't think a label is necessary and would just cause people to dismiss the artwork in the current mindset. The only time someone should disclosing their art is AI art, is when it is majority AI art. Like if someone grabbed an AI image and just recolored the eyes, yea that is AI art. But not when it's used as a small part of the creative process, and especially not if it isn't even included in the finished product. Otherwise we will have to start listing every stock photo, 3d model, stamp brush, etc. that we commonly use in the digital art process.
@@sadiesnail stamps, brushes, 3d models, etc are made by artists for artists, and copy and pasting your own art is still your own art just reused. ai is trained off other people's work without them even knowing which is why its important to say if its ai or not
@@khv12345 What if I used work of other artists as references for my art? What if I used them in the concept art first? Do I also have to tag all of them? If that's true than, oh boy, a shit ton on art should be labelled.
@@sadiesnail Good point, but most people dont really care if you use a stamp, brush, or 3d model, etc. But AI art is very controversial, so, in my opinion, people should say if they are using AI art until AI is less controversial.
I think you should also not just talk to the artists and a.i developers about this, but to corpo's as well, especially the marketing sector, since the marketing sector was the quickest at integrating a.i into the work. There was a viral video of graphic designer losing his job to a.i after working for a marketing agency for many years. Having a marketing's sector voice in there might be beneficial to hear as well, to hear about a.i from all perspectives.
I used to be more on the fence thinking AI would be good if used as a tool but I have shifted my perspective as of late let me explain some of my points.
First of all every time an artist tries to make an argument for AI they include the AI curing diseases and solving other issues argument. I feel like it's obvious we are not talking about those AI and it should be no surprise that the companies developing generative AI for art have no part or interest in these things. It's way more profitable to sell subscriptions for AI slop.
The attitude and goal of current AI (the companies behind them) and the way it's presented is in the first place not as a tool. And even if you use it as a tool I feel you yourself are becoming the tool giving in to the corporate need for cheaper and easier to exploit creative work. It's a slippery slope and kind of vain to think YOU would be the one to keep your job just because for now these technologies still need a fair bit of human correcting.
The art is completely stolen and even uses the original artists name as a prompt alot of the time. This makes it so google results are filled with AI copies of these artists taking away their digital identity which has become so important for artists these days.
There is currently still a very real possibility of changing the landscape of AI art companies and making sure contributions are consensual and compensated. But videos like ergojosh' create an idea that professional artists are not against this current Ai and can be used by the corporations to escape these regulations. While he presented his video as an ethical way to use AI, the companies see it as AI itself is ethical so it should not be regulated
This is why alot of us who are now against AI lash out (some way too harsh) against people making arguments for AI.
Entertaining the idea of using AI in workflow is just not something I think we can afford right now as we should be united in letting the world know that nobody asked for this type of generative AI in the creative world, while there are so much more useful AI actual functions and tools that I can think of that just aren't being developed right now.
Because at the end of the day when you hear Pro AI people talk it is SO clear they are just waiting till the day comes that artists get completely replaced and they don't need us pesky artists anymore. The vile and smug comments I have seen from not just pro AI but actual CEO of these companies is so concerning to me I don't think of using their technology even one bit.
But conclusion Yes we can talk about it.
I just hope you are careful when considering these things and bring in the right people.
I highly encourage you speak to someone like Steven Zapata or Karla Ortiz who have a much better way of putting it than I do
100% this. You put it way better than I did.
Generative AI as a concept, I can understand. As to how it has come to exist, and the whole industry motions behind it; hell no, burn it with fire!
Unfortunately "changing the landscape of ai art companies" at this time most likely will mean those companies pulling up the ladder behind themselves and continuing to use their already stolen data which will have convenient legal exceptions that apply only to existing data scraped before 2024.
THIS!!! Came to say something very similar myself. When we're talking about AI art we are not talking about AI as a whole. There are many things AI can be useful for especially with science and medicine.
What we ARE doing is talking about the fact that EVERY SINGLE AI ENGINE THAT MAKES ART is trained off of art that it DID NOT get permission to train on. It's not the same as an artist looking at other art to learn. Its not like a person who sat and LEARNED these techniques and how to do them and then made their own creation. Its a machine that just takes the artwork pixel for pixel and uses that to make new stuff. It's like people who anthropomorphize their animals too much but now they're doing it to a machine. It is NOT a person learning techniques, its a machine copying and mashing together things its kept in its data banks.
I would be TOTALLY supportive if there was an AI art tool that was meant to help artists out with portions of their work, and the artists who's work MADE the AI actually DONATED those art pieces to the AI. It's the fact this has all happened with no permission, no input from artists, and now big companies are using AI as a way to not have to pay real artists money. We didn't get a say on whether our works were used in a machine and now the machine can replicate our art styles and no longer needs us? So then what?
Sure JAZZA might be an upstanding guy who would never let AI replace his real artists..... But that's not the case for a MAJORITY of companies that are trying to utilize AI for their art.
I FULLY understand that AI tech can be used in your art without your art being entirely AI. But that doesn't mean that's what its getting used for. Freelance artists all over the planet have been impacted by AI. Hell, I stopped taking art commissions and moved onto costuming work for this exact reason. SOOOO many people are no longer willing to pay full price for custom artwork because AI can give them what they want for free. In whatever style they want. How am I even supposed to charge someone a measly $30, much less what the art would ACTUALLY be worth if I wasn't desperately undercutting myself to still make money to pay my bills, when they can get "higher quality" artwork out of a machine for free?
Some people still value real art from real artists. But many do not.
Funny how people who were so smug about downloading apes gets so shirty about people downloading actual art.
I believe your way to approach this heavy and controversial topic is the only right way.
Waging pro and contra. Love you, Jazza! Greeting from Germany
I think the bottom line is consent. If someone is not okay with ai training itself using their image/skills no matter the field, the developer should not be able to use their likeness at all. It should even be illegal to do so. On the other hand, if someone does consent, the developer should be able to train their model using the person who consented.
I'm far from a lawyer, but I can imagine a world were there is a contract between anyone who's likeness is used for an ai and the developer of said ai every single time an ai trains on someone's work. Maybe they get 60% of all profits made from the ai, maybe they are able to pull the plug at any moment, maybe it's a flat fee. I feel like this solves the main issue people have with ai, as it's no longer stealing, the person has to give permission. What if the art/voice/whatever was created by the person that developed the ai? Then they are choosing to do something with their own work. They are turning something they own, into something they still very much own.
In a perfect world, ai would help us a lot more than it would ever hurt us. We do not live in a perfect world however. As long as people offer their ai model to the general public, anyone can make anything, and that's terrifying. I don't think there's anyone one solution that makes everyone happy. Generally speaking, artists are very against it for obvious reasons, and non-artist are either on the fence or for it. Again, generally speaking. Both parties want two different things, one wants fair returns for their work, the other wants to minimize the cost and increase the production.
I've mentioned it before, but ai is not only going after art, or voices, or character appearance. Ai is a strong tool and can be used for anything anywhere. Look at kwebbelkop. He made an ai youtube channel that is entirely run by an ai. The ai becomes the whole personality, it replaces the content creator. Granted, the content is awful, but that's also what we said about ai art when it first started appearing. Kwebbelkop also made mentions that he would try to sell the ai to other content creators so they can do the same. It's not farfetched to see a future where there are many many many channels/streamers that are entirely produced/edited/posted/etc. by ai. Is that not just soul sucking to think about though?
On the other hand, ai could be very beneficial. Take people with aphantasia for example. Maybe the strive to be an artist, they have a fire that burns so bright inside them to create things and bring happiness to those around them. They could have the best hand eye coordination in the world, and the best knowledge of any art program/tool in the world, but it might just not matter if they can't think of the image they actually want to draw. I'm not claiming that I have it, or that I know what it's like, and there definitely are artists in the world that have aphantasia, such as RubberRoss. This is just an extreme example of where ai would be very helpful. If this hypothetical artist was able to put words down and get a visual idea of what his scene would look like before he even put the pen on the canvas, he could be the best artist in the world, as Beethoven to the pianists or composers.
To say I'm on the fence would be an unfair declaration. I think both sides have good points, very good points actually. I'd say that I'm so very much for as I am so very much against it. I'm not claiming to know the answer, but I also know that I hold no power to change others hearts on the matter. The closest I can claim to be affected by it, is that I make pixel art, and I'm trying to become a programmer. I have very little knowledge or experience in either field, and I want to get better. I don't use ai for a plethora of reasons, but one of them being that I don't think it would make me better in either of the fields, and none of them are because I fear what people would think of me. I feel the time for conversations are gone personally. I don't think there's anything that one side can say that will sway the other side. I think the conversation needs to happen at a lawful level, where any party who has anything to gain or lose should be equally present and have an unbiassed jury of people decide what needs to be done and apply it to every level of ai. This is not a conversation I'm willing to have, I have no stakes in the race, nor do I think one side should trump the other. A line needs to be drawn, but it's not a straight line.
As I have posted several times in this discussion already. Where is the consent given for a human to look at some artist's work and learn from it? It is nonexistent, even though a human can recreate the style of the artist far more accurately than any AI can. There is not an AI made yet that can replicate an artist's style perfectly. Yet there are literally thousands, hell even millions of humans than can replicate other artists style so accurately that you could never tell them apart. The issue is not in the training, but what a human does with the end product. If a human tries to sell the results as an original and claim it was made by the artist in question then it is theft, however if they just sign their own name at the bottom of the canvas, it is now just art.
"the bottom line is consent." I don't think this is going to happen. The purpose of AI is to have a system understand the human world. This can no be limited by excluding parts of the world. There will be no new legislation that would allow this, because it would open the door to deliberately restrict what AI can learn and differentiate it from what humans can learn. There is no incentive to make this distinction and it would be a threat to the further advancement of AI. Publicly available data, be it text, images, audio or video is available for everybody and also for AI, and it will probably stay this way.
I had an AI account follow my art account and was honestly a little nervous because it was right after i posted a specific character and their account was based around characters of the same fantasy species.
All went by fine until i got a message out of the blue, them saying that they wanted to give me a gift. I told them explicitly that I hope and dont want them to have run my art through AI for the gift, they said they didn't, but... what they sent me was some AI work of my character in almost the same pose as the original image and all the similarities just made me so sick. They deny it but it felt like they lied to my face because I've been looking at AI for years now and picking up tells feels second nature
It just felt so dirty - i know it was a "gift" nd they were up front but it felt so slimy and wrong. I ended up blocking them and the plethora of AI accounts that cross share with them out of fear of it happening again
In saying that though there's a little project that my friends (3 people - 2 artists 1 writer) and I want to do but the scope of it is SO large that it would take us a year or more to complete with no pay ever because it's just supposed to be a fun little thing for us - inside jokes specifically that no one else would get so it's not like we'd even try profiting so trying to lighten the load with background assets at the very least
@Popper_Drop That sounds so creepy and dare I say "defiling"? I'm an artist too, and if someone sent me "artwork" of my own OCs, I imagine it would feel like such an intrusion. Like they'd broken into my house and stolen my clothes, or sent me a video of them playing with my dogs, or something similar, and expected me to be happy about it.
I don't want to liken it to anything explicit, as that really is next level, but to use someone else's art or OCs is just so deeply personal, I'm really struggling to think of a suitable analogy
IMO, your use of AI is fine, because no one's profiting off it and you're not trying to claim it's your own :)
Use Glaze and Nightshade, it protects from AI scraping
@@edwardwestmoreland-caunter6128 Actually I think your analogy of a video playing with your dogs is almost perfect.
Like, my best friend could send me a video of them feeding or playing with my dog in my house and I'd be like..."ah dude, you don't have a key to my house..."
Even though they're doing a 'nice thing' that would be incredibly invasive.
I understand being open to pro AI perspectives specially when there is the controversy going on with your own family member. But it's easy to not fear or embrace AI when you're in a position where you can monetize your art from another angle (as a youtuber/art influencer) but for nobodies that make a living from just selling the art itself it's hitting really hard. People are losing tbeir income, being fired, replaced and quitting their art jobs. And because no one is financing their creativity they have to find an unrelated 9 to 5 or retail job, taking away the majority or the time they could dedicate to art and wageslaving their life away.
I say this as someone who "failed" at being a full time artist, not having an art job implies i only have two days a week to work on my art projects if i'm not too exhausted or busy. AI was meant to do the tedious work no one wanted to do, not take away our culture.
This is one of the chilling effects of genAI on art.
"People are losing tbeir income, being fired, replaced and quitting their art jobs. And because no one is financing their creativity they have to find an unrelated 9 to 5 or retail job, taking away the majority or the time they could dedicate to art and wageslaving their life away."
Which would be in his anti-AI arguments.
Though it's sorta amusing you're saying "And because no one is financing their creativity they have to find an unrelated 9 to 5 or retail job, taking away the majority or the time they could dedicate to art and wageslaving their life away." when it feels like UA-cam is recommending me 2 new "Don't make art your job, have a job and do it on the side instead!" videos. And no, not cause AI. Cause of "Yeah, I thought I'd like it, but having to produce really kills my vibe and creativity. And I won't have time to produce what I want as I have to produce waht others want"
@@MaakaSakuranbo That usually happens because people have to constantly take on commission work to make ends meet so they also end up having 0 time to work on their own personal projects, which is another side effect of art being poorly paid... AI only helps devalue art even more so it's only going to make that situation worse. I've watched some of those videos about people quitting and i notice it's usually due to burnout, like having to take in too much paid work, having to work weekends and no time off because each project isn't paying enough to pay the bills
@@tenneluna6948 Idk, if I'm doing coding (by all acounts a well paid job) the general expectation is to work 40 hours/week as well.
Sure, weekends and evenings should be off. I'm mostly talking an art job here I guess, not self-employed commissions. So videos where they had a regular job doing art (at e.g. an animation studio) but found it too exhausting having to constantly churn out creative work. Especially wehn it wasn't what they actually wanted to be drawing
The year before AI was the time where there was the most artists in human history.
What's the prospect now?
Netflix just shuttered their entire in-house Team Blue game development studio and fired all of the staff, so their director could convert his position to "VP of GenAI for Games" and then replace every working creative position with machine generated slop. I get that you are excited to get small projects with no budget off the ground on the back of this technology, but you cannot use it in any ethical way at all because the fundamental bedrock of our creative careers will get eroded down to nothing if it persists beyond this bubble.
I sit in a grey area with AI as well. Overall it just seems like the new advancement in technology like you said. When I was growing up in the 90s-early 2000s, this is how people treated digital art. If it was digital "You didn't make it, the computer did", or "It's not real art because you could have just traced that on another layer". And while they weren't completely wrong, people can easily steal art using digital software, and there ARE tools in digital that make the process easier; over time people realized it still took all the same practice, skill, and dedication to achieve amazing art with it. And people learned to tell the difference between art that a person put time and love into, and art that was slapped together from two stolen images and dotted in stamp brushes.
These same conversations have happened over and over again throughout history, be it the camera, the production of synthetic pigments in paint, factories that build common items such as chairs instead of being handmade.
There will always be those who do whatever they can to cut corners and make dirty money, especially when it comes to new technology that the general public isn't familiar with yet. Through that, people will adapt and learn the warning signs (which is already happening with AI art) and new regulations will be put in to place. Instead of trying to stop AI out right, I think right now it's more important to focus on getting those procedures put into place to help protect people, instead of letting big business and those at the top sneakily slide things through the system while everyone is busy ripping each others heads off. Just like digital art, I don't see AI generation dissapearing. That box has been opened. But what we can do, is make it a tool for US (the artists) instead of THEM (the scammers).
Also just a little silver lining note regarding the business side. From what I understand, it seems we are starting to see the ripple effect of businesses dropping their artists and going full AI. Many business have started bringing back their artists because, who would have guessed, something made completely by AI usually turns out awful. Even people who don't know a whole lot about AI, can tell when a movie, show, and sometimes still art is fully AI. AI can't put the thought and direction behind art like humans can. It doesn't know about Appeal, or subtle symbolism or any of that stuff. So the end product ends up feeling lifeless, confusing, or just chaotic no matter how pretty it looks at first. Businesses are realizing that, and since the general consumer doesn't even like it, they end up losing money. It seems a lot of reputable businesses have began giving AI as a TOOL to their artists, instead of using it to replace (like Jazza talks about using it in this video).
And to that, I say why not? If companies are going to fight against paying their artists fairly, why not let those artists use AI to quicken that process so they aren't suffering as much.
If AI can be used to disenfranchise artists, why can't the same tool be used to empower artists too?
Incredible video. Accurately represented not only your own position, but the positions of others in a way that was very thoughtful. This sort of morally exploratory content is exactly what is needed at the moment.
I do sympathize for the hard working artist especially w the ai that can copy the artist art style perfectly
Do you sympathize with the hard-working mail man who has lost his job due to the proliferation of e-mail? Or do you still use the e-mail even now knowing it stole millions of jobs in America? What about the hard-working farmers who lost their jobs to the onslaught of automated machines? Do you still eat food produced by machine run farming? And what about handmade furniture? Do you buy cheap furniture made by machines? Or do you stick by the hard-working craftsman that do it all by hand? Any technology that comes around is going to steal someone's job, but in return it also creates new jobs for other people. It is the circle of life, all progress, all life, all of society is based on the ebb and flow of the microcosm of technology and industry. As all the mail men were losing their jobs, millions of jew jobs in the IT sector were created. And as the farmers were losing their jobs, there were new jobs created in factories and for mechanics to maintain the machines. This is all just natural progression of life. Nothing is permanent, life is in a constant state of flux. And evolution will always cause things to change and adapt or die out altogether.
But I do not foresee AI ever killing Art, as no other radical change in the art world in the last million years has killed art, I doubt AI will either. The most primitive medium for art was charcoal on cave walls, and yet people still to this day use charcoal to create art, even with all the technology that has come since then. There are still artists, and they still make art, even though it is easier, cheaper, and better than what was around before. The old methods still exist and have not been deleted.
AI should be used to actually help people that need really help. It should be used to scan images and make notes of details that regular humans might miss. It shouldn't be a tool to do the job, it should be a tool to assist in the job
2:18 that one was kinda deep..and dark
I shifted my carrier from a sells man to Graphic Designer. I had to learn from the basics while still manage a way to keep my lights up. And then suddenly I saw a picture (a mule that I made in illustrator) it was submitted as a ai drawing to some other stock site and seeing that it actually broke my heart a bit. The ai didn't even change the color or anything. I am no Van Gogh, but still the mule is a part of my expression. It wouldn't hurt me this much if someone was inspired by it and tried to draw it themselves but I don't think it was anything like that. It sounds a bit stupid but I do believe that someone with less hours are just using my art (which I have no problem) but I don't think they are respecting my efforts.
That isn’t AI. Someone just stole your image and sold it to the stock site, or they stole it themselves and used “AI” as a defense. You wouldn’t be able to tell “it was my exact image, no colors changed” if it was ACTUALLY ran through a generative AI tool or if your image WAS truly used in the data of a generative model. I’m sorry if you don’t think AI is transformative, but it is, and the only way you could believe an AI actually spit out a 1:1 of your image is if you still believed it wasn’t.
@@teesh6003you're probably right. Tbh, I don't know what's going on.
I started using AI image generation to create art for my D&D games. I got pretty good at it- but eventually the lack of fine control and my frustration with the technical aspects of Stable Diffusion got to me. Now I am learning how to draw, and I use AI to get drawing ideas instead.
How's your progress?
Wow, rarely hear about such stories.
Often I see former artists using ai/transfering to ai, because they dislike the time spent for a single drawing. But such stories as yours give me hope in human interest in creation, willingness to go through the process of arr
Hey, using AI for ideas is still not good. However, your story is inspiring
Saw another small youtuber with the same journey! They similarly got frustrated and ended up learning how to draw instead, even though it's difficult
Yeah, I do agree getting exactly what you want, ai is not there yet. I sometimes get asked to generate images of characters for our D&D games because I am our local AI expert. The problem is that it really can't handle too much specificity. At the moment It depends on how specific your expectations are for what you generate whether you can be satisfied. Also I often get better results by trying to circle around the subject to get pieces that can then be photo bashed together into something. Like often it is more constructive to instead of approaching it with how do I get one prompt to give me the results I desire but instead how can this idea be broken down into pieces that are more digestible and how well those pieces can be reassembled. Also tons of shopping around for lora's and hope that the lora works well and plays well.
Jazza, you answered the dilemma at 11:37: use all tools available (including AI ones) for earning enough to pay artists like Alicia. People get frustrated when they need to change their way of doing things, but you are literally empowering everything: your team's work, the tools development and your audience entertainment/growth.
In 2022 I made my last piece of digital art. This was around the time Dalle 2 was just kicking off and ai art started to really blow people away. Digital art had always been the one thing in my life I was actually really talented at creating, a piece would take me 20+ hours to complete sometimes and at the very end of going through that I'd post it and it'd get thousands of impressions and I'm not even a known identity online. The art was good and it didn't matter how many subs or followers I had people saw it and boosted it to insane levels and I never felt more proud of myself because I knew I was good, I couldn't deny or lie to myself because the evidence was staring me in the face.
Then I downloaded and used Dalle 2. I described an image I'd come up with in great detail hit a button and... there it was. at about 85 to 90% accuracy to what I'd imagined in seconds I had multiple versions of exactly what was in my head. It was fantastic for a bit and then I realized what this meant. It meant very soon (now today) people would be posting art generated by some improved version of this and all of a sudden anyone with a computer and stable diffusion is an incredible artist who can create hundreds of amazing works every day if they wanted. The novelty, appreciation, and scarcity of talent was now gone. I created one more peice of art. something I put my entire heart into in order to prove myself wrong about this and when I posted it, nobody cared, nobody noticed and I even had a comment asking if it was ai. And so I never made art again. A part of me that gave me purpose had been taken and for what? So some company could offer people with no prior experience or hard work or talent the ability to washout every artist? I hate it. It breaks my heart.
Damn, I felt this comment in my soul. 2022 was also the last time I did a digital illustration
I'm a naturally emotional guy, and this really choked me up. Because you've hit one of the biggest nails on the head. It's just fricking sad. It's soul-destroying. I hate AI with every fibre of my being because of what it means for us as a species. What's the point of us anymore if we're so replaceable?
I work in retail, so I'm used to not being noticed. I have few friends and live in the middle of nowhere, so if I vanished, virtually nobody would notice. My "Value" is entirely based on how useful I am to those around me. But art and writing actually felt like I had SOMETHING that no one else could do. Sure, there are people better than me, but they're not me, and that's what mattered. Now it feels like not even that matters anymore.
Today, anyone who says anything about anything is attacked, making it dangerous, harmful or impossible to stand for anything. AI has made it impossible to tell what's real and what isn't, and anything that is real is stolen and twisted before anyone even sees it. We keep electing people to power who will make everyone's lives worse, who will weaponise AI to further their own narrative while real tragedies and atrocities go unnoticed. Unsolvable wars are raging constantly, and all the time, the planet is boiling and will soon be uninhabitable across huge swathes, which will lead to even more war, hatred and persecution.
We are literally running headfirst into extinction because it was easier and more profitable than stopping.
AI is the embodiment of the contempt people have developed for what it means to be human. It feels like nobody wants meaning, they just want convenience, no matter the cost, and that breaks my heart
I would like to encourage you to keep making art if it really matters to you. You still have a chance. I know it's discouraging trying to find an audience, but if you're good at what you do, or are at least learning and making progress over time you can slowly build up an audience.
AI art doesn't look quite like real art, and people are learning to tell the difference after being surrounded by AI art for so long. Even if once in a while one person wonders if your art is AI, that doesn't mean most people think that way.
The people who post AI art will get bored eventually since people are not as impressed by AI images anymore. When all of the AI hype dies down, the artists who didn't give up will still be here.
You should totally keep doing art!! Real art is always better because you can tell it’s made with intention rather than aimless lines trying to mimic a goal. I’m sure you’ll do great if you keep at it!! :D
Keep making art. It doesn't matter if it doesn't become viral. It's real, and it's yours, and it still matters. Your art still matters.
White background Jazza was written by his brother
I was wondering if anyone else thought that
Yeah its funny if people know who shad is and the context of this. You have the Artistically skilled brother Jazza and the artistically challenged brother Shad, the good Artists isnt a fan of AI the bad one IS... really gets your noggin joggin
His brother is an AI bro, and seems to hate artists in general.
@@TuorTheBlessedOfUlmo If you want to generalize their opinion...
But they both use ai in a very similar way.
As a fast way to do concept art and then give it to real artists who produce the end product.
Lmao
I do appreciate you finally broaching this topic, I know it can be scary when conversation around the topic often turns very black and white, when in reality it's the grey that is often what's needed but lacking. It's a topic we really should talk about more! To talk about the nuance, and even how AI image generation could be ideally done.
Many comments here already talk about a lot of the main points, but I do want to bring up two different aspects that I think are important reasons to consider.
1) Ethics of the Current AI Software - This, for me, is a big sticking point. I don't actually have a problem with the idea of AI image generation, I think it could be a great tool for creatives to use in their process whether it be to help brainstorm, cut out some of the tedious parts of process (i.e. generate some buildings in the background of this thumbnail, remove a person from a the background of a photo, etc.), or any part of the creative process. However, I can't bring myself to use a software that was trained off the backs of unwilling artists for profit. That's what bothers me. That all these image generation models are trained not as a way to advance our toolset and improve what we can do, but as a way for the companies who make them to make a profit. If there was an image generation model that was only trained off those who volunteered their work for its training, and as an open source tool where images generated were not able to be used for profit (or at the very least, the contributers to the model were compensated), I think that could work. But that's not what we have right now, and until a model can come along that can do that I don't there can be an "ethical" way to use these models.
2) The "Can't Afford It" Clause - When you talked about using AI in your backgrounds, you mentioned how it's because you wouldn't be able to afford having someone create those backgrounds. It's understandable that the project doesn't have the budget to hire an enviornment artist, financial constraints are an unfortunate reality. It's not reasonable to tell people that "you have to fork up the money or don't do it at all". However, something people tend to forget is open source and free use work. These are photos, illustrations, creations, etc that people have put out with the express permission of letting them be used in other's works - a lot of them with only requiring crediting of their work, not even financial payment. You can see this same concept applied in a different field with open source software. It's a huge benefit to people and often people aren't given enough credit for all the free license work that's put out there. It may not be exactly what you're imagining, or maybe it's a piece that's been used plenty of times, but when working without hiring someone to do that work, that's a reality you face. The rise of the internet has given so many more people access to tools and resources that they wouldn't otherwise have, and often that is so unfortunately overlooked. When we allow ourselves to profit off the suffering of those in our own community, we're making the community worse for those to come.
For me, these are two of the biggest reasons I'm against the usage of current AI models (outside of even bigger reasons like energy consumption that have been covered heavily).
Completely agree with you! :)
Absolutely agree with every part of what you wrote!
1) Exactly my stance, thank you for writing what I found difficult to put into words.
2) Hadn't even thought about that aspect, which just further proves that you're absolutely right!
In short... Copyright and Budget.
No one has $50k+ to hire a decent artist for things like VTubing as one example.
While Corporations did violate USA Copyright for their AI Data Bases. That much is extremely clear and self evidence.
Job Security is... Meaningless... As if artists are the only ones even before AI was a thing.
While, yes, VA protection (Actors) toward AI is heavily needed. Contract Law must be better in higher ethics than how it is now.
(It's fine if companies use AI Art Software... Just do it legally, under the laws. Not outside or beyond the laws.)
Agreed!
I would agree with you, if not for the fact that generative AI is so incredibly energy and resource intensive. I read somewhere that generating between 10 and 13 answers in chat GPT takes about 500 ml of water. Take a moment to consider that. 500 ml. For 13 answers. That's insane. Now imagine millions, if not billions of people engaging with this technology every hour of every day. It's such a waste of resources for work humans can do just fine on their own!
So no, generative AI should not be free, and from an environmental standpoint, it should not be used at all. We need to stop prioritizing capital over the environment and human wellbeing.
So the things that i thought about this:
-Is any legitimate concerns about Ai in creative work economic? if Jazza and co had enough time and money would they have felt the need to use ai at all?
-ai is definitely useful in a lot of ways, but is it useful in creative endeavours specifically? Should we criticize that niche of generative ai specifically?
-Would you watch an Ai generated football game?
-at the very least, could we get a filter function on platforms like Pinterest to choose whether or not we want to see ai generated images?
For me personally, I kind of wish AI would make the boring crap for us, leaving us to do creative things. I know it's not the same ballpark, but I wish it would do my dishes and laundry, leaving me time to do creative things I enjoy...not do the creative things, leaving me time to do all the daily routine...basically, I am not thrilled about the direction the mainstream research of AI is going, I think is my point.
Also, I am sick and tired of 95% of my facebook (yes, I am a boomer, who is still on facebook) being AI crap with bot comments...but I guess that's just a dying platform...
What is boring is specific to each person. Some artist would find drawing backgrounds incredibly boring and is excited about drawing character. Another artist loves to draw backgrounds.
I like doing dishes, gives me some mental rest as I can listen to some audiobook and tune out or so.
Hey don't feel too bad about still being on facebook. I'm forced into keeping my account just for marketplace, and I still get tricked sometimes by those ads they make that look like real listings lol. But yes. I also wish it would do my dishes and fold my laundry. Instead, I've taken up work as a housekeeper doing both those things, and the robot does my art. Worst robot apocalypse ever.
this video is amazing. even though i am clearly biased towards one of the sides protrayed here, i do appreciate that you are able to show both sides of the topic so accurately and reasonably. it helps people be more understanding towards other opinions and educates those who are only aware of one side of the story.
im doing concept art/comic art at uni atm and started the course september 30th. already theres been brief mentions that as AI evolves it will affect us in our future careers
its such a hard thing to think about because AI being used for concepts means talented artists are losing opportunities to get paid, get their first commissions on larger projects, gain experience on these projects, and build interesting and well-rounded portfolios etc etc. artists deserve chances to collaborate and improve their skills and work towards an end goal of a project and be recognised for their work.
not to mention the problem with AI learning from people’s work without permission or straight up copying it and the lack of credit and numerous other issues.
however, you dont need to pay an artist the money they deserve when using AI. so many projects will have been cancelled, changed, rushed out, and never even started because of budget issues or lack of materials themselves and AI gives people a chance for a starting point which is cheaper and faster compared to hiring an artist/artists or have to do extra work yourself and therefore spend extra money in the process
i personally dislike AI art in general because of how its affecting so many artists negatively and there’s no rules or regulations to it as of current. i can see its potential as a tool to create though and that it makes art easier for some
tldr: its making art more accessible while stealing credit, money, and opportunity from people who have worked for years on their skills
excellent comment !! i stand with you
I haven't watched Jazza in 10 years and bro HAS NOT AGED A DAY.
I appreciate AI being a daunting topic to cover and also how a conversation is necessary in order to determine how to move forward. I appreciate Jazza being open and honest about this and transparent about his use of AI.
Ultimately I think it would be nice if AI was used responsibly, and maybe it can on a small scale, that when applied can make monotonous, time consuming tasks easier to complete to then leave more room for actual art and creativity that wouldn't have been possible otherwise. However the world is full of people who won't leave it there and will push it to a point where unfortunately it will be predatory, dishonest and profitting off of stolen art made from actual hardwork and skill. I wish there was more room for a grey area in discussions circulating with new tech but unfortunately big businesses that take advantage and exploit these technologies force it to be a black and white issue that if left unchecked will be incredibly harmful to many people's livelihoods and will become so engrained it will be incredibly difficult to uproot from the industry if not done so early on.
There can be ethical uses of AI when the tech is trained on artwork that has been consentually provided by artists and they've been properly compensated for with potential royalties. However AI art is rarely made with that practice and has been proven to be made from stolen art which is terrible. Furthermore with how advanced the tech can get it will lead to more scams that will unfortunately fool innocent people who just want to learn art or get a nice piece of art for themselves etc into losing potentially large amounts of money or personal data which could maybe lead to worse outcomes.
The current situation with AI is bad, the effects on the environment is terrible and will only continue to get worse if the tech becomes more prevalent. The potential for AI's negative impact on people is unfortunately far greater than the potential it has for a good impact. It's sad that something that could have been a positive tech is ruined by the people that would abuse it to harm others but that's the world we live in.
I also think that while it was not stated in this video, I think it would have been valuable to bring up perspectives a bit more. I have enjoyed Jazza's content and art for years and am happy for his success in his career. The success has afforded him financial success and security that many people do not get in their lifetime. So it would have been useful to highlight that he is speaking from a point of view of someone that is potentially less affected by the threat of AI than artists trying to establish themselves and have yet to be as successful, who are more likely to feel the negative impacts of AI.
For a channel built on art and creativity as its content and a core part of the channel's brand identity it is a shame and disappointing that AI has been used so prevalently in the ttrpg series'. The AI art has not been proven to be ethically sourced from consenting artists so it feels icky to even consider consuming that content. If time was an issue, freelancing is also an option which could have been a great way of helping local artists and supporting human art. If money was an issue, bc I understand the ttrpg channel is a passion project first and foremost, then I think the series could have been put on pause until there were finances available to make it with ethically sourced art whether made in-house or outsourced.
But all of this is my humble opinion/perspective that is in no way definitely right/wrong, just thoughts I wanted to share on the topic and I hope are received as well as possible by people that may agree/disagree with any points made.
I appreiate the open discussion on the topic and I just hope that technology can be used to help and uplift people rather than hurt them.
Drawing is monotonous and time consuming, ai makes it easier.
Nah, it's definitely wrong. I'd have more sympathy for someone without much resources, just running off passion, but this is not that
@ah-sh9dw Yeah thank you for your reply and hope this finds you well. While I'm personally very against AI because of the vast range of negatives it causes and the negative impact it has on the industry as a whole, I made my comment in an attempt to fairly assess it and be gentle in discussing it. But I very much agree that given the success and resources Jazza has available, I would hope that there is very little need to use AI. Since watching this video and leaving this comment, I was reminded of Jazza's brother, Shad (Shadiversity) and how he is unfortunately immersed into AI (as well as being a Trump supporter and being very misogynistic, homophobic, and transphobic) and yeah I just hope Jazza isn't convinced of using AI as a result of him.
I am currently a student and am hoping to one day work in the animation field. From where I am standing that same dream is looking pretty scary. I am afraid that when I try to hit the field, companies are not going to hire me, because AI is cheaper, faster and improving quicker than I can.
I hate how websites and companies take our works and use them, without our consent, to train their AI. Like how Instagram did, like how DeviantArt did, like how Adobe probably does. We are not even given the choice to refuse, because if we did, then they would try to lie or hide it from us.
When AI image generation first started being discussed more, it looked morphed, distorted and weird. It honestly looked so interesting to me. There were so many ways for one to interpret what they were seeing, because it was so unclear. But now, I might look at something and have to look closely to be able to tell whether it is AI or not, that's how good it has gotten. And the part that made AI images so interesting to me, is, seemingly, gone now.
I am of the opinion that AI could be used to benefit artists, rather than steal from them. If it was being trained on art that was fair use, rather than people's own work that they rely on to find jobs and sustain themselves. If it was being implemented as part of the creative process, rather than the final product. But it's not and that's why I hate seeing it.
Art, no matter its form, has been and always will be human expression at its core, if a machine makes from the ground up, then that's simply not art.
What about all the humans that view your art and learn from it? Is this any different? Or do you think every human who has every viewed your art then be forced to ask your permission before they create any form of art in the future? The AI learning from existing art is no different than a human doing this. Yet this is by far the number 1 complaint people have about AI art. The realities are it is a new form of art, and I doubt it will have any huge impact on the art world as a whole. Just as CGI movies have taken the jobs from practical effects artists. Or animated movies have taken the jobs of live actors. This will indeed take jobs form a few artists, but it will also create new jobs in other areas for other people. It is just life. It happens every day, and this is no different. All the other advancements in art over the last million years has not erased the old ways, and in many ways is has made the old ways more desirable, more sought after. Look at examples in today's life, if you want a hand painted oil painting made for a book cover it will cost you more than to have the exact same painting made by a digital artist. The digital art did not kill off "Real Art" as the big art scare of the 80's predicted, but instead made it more valuable. This is the exact same conversation we had in the art world in the 80's when computers and digital art was just being born. It was all "Oh no this newfangled technology is going to steal jobs form real artists" or "This makes art too easy, now any fool with a computer can make art" and "Oh no this is going to make photo evidence in court irrelevant as now photos can be faked". It is literally the exact same fear mongering we had back then, and it is still just as misplaced as it was back then.
The way I view it is there's no inherent issue with AI image generation, but there is not a single tool out there for it at the moment that is even close to being ethical. I would love to see a tool come out where all of the training data is appropriately licensed and the resulting images are only for non-commercial use, but in the system we currently live in that just isn't going to happen unless the law comes down and makes it so these companies can't exploit copyright loopholes to profit off of the work of others
"I can call you Betty, and Betty when you call me, you can call me Al".
*piccolo sounds*
@@Ptaaruonn Bass solo
Thank you. It's refreshing to see a video like this. It is refreshing to see a 'grey area' video like this, especially from someone who would understandably be in a position where only one option seems right. However, it is important to get the bigger picture. I rarely comment on UA-cam videos, but I feel this is an important conversation that needs to happen, and I would LOVE to see an in-depth video like you described if it were at all possible and viable to do. Personally, I am in a similar space. Like any technology or invention, it depends on how it is used. There are many potential benefits to developing AI, as well as many downsides. I fully stand behind artists and creators fighting AI to save their livelihoods and reputations. This does not mean that I think AI is bad. Taking AI art as an example, I often wish I could put images or ideas I have in my head down on paper, but sadly I have very little skill or talent when it comes to visual arts. So for me to potentially be able to "create" what I have in my mind is very exciting. However, that by no means makes me an artist. The potential applications for AI are fantastic, scary, but fantastic...if used correctly. Something to bear in mind is that naturally AI has to learn, so maybe this can be a temporary stumbling block until AI has learned enough that it no longer needs to interfere with things like art. The problem of course is the issue with rights etc.
It's not grey. We just need ethical companies or creators like Jazza, to make their own models. That ask people to pitch in, and don't assume permission.
this is not a grey area video, but " Ima youtuber and I profit from this tech while having no damn clue what working class artist have to deal with gugugaga"
@@shieldmaidensnusnu-🤡
@@shieldmaidensnusnu Great job in proving the 'uneducated youtubers' point that people like you take things so extremely that you end up only making th8ngs worse.
Great thoughts I'm with you all the way.
Thank you Jazza. This video makes clear just how complex this topic is. As a business owner, I understand the necessity of adapting to AI-driven tools in today's landscape. Yet, as an artist and teacher, I can't help but feel a deep concern about the impact on creativity and the artistic journey of my students. This video feels like an honest look at both the potential and the caution needed with AI in the arts, and I am so appreciative of your candor and amount of reflection you've put into this. I hope you'll be able to share more thoughts on this topic as we go forward.
Yes. Of course AI can be helpful in many ways, like brainstorming, concept art, for basic inspiration or even as a reference for beginner artists. And yes, like all technologues it's not inherently evil or good, it depends on how it's used. The problem is that for every person who uses ai as a tool to improve as an artist, there's companies and scammers whose only goal is to achieve more profit. For every student dedicating their lives to a noble cause and using ai to help humanity, there's someone who will use it to just get richer despite of the consequences.
The fact is we as a society are not ready for this technology, in the future I'm sure it will be the most helpfull tool in all of history, but first we need to have a deep change in how society works
I've been doing various forms of graphic design for 13 years, and don't like AI art for the same reasons you list. I do, however, love it for my own reasons as well. I created a logo for a company I worked for by sketching out different ideas I had. I built the best ones out in Illustrator, and then I was able to run them through MidJourney. The results were not great, but there were some ideas in there on how to improve what I had done. I was able to quickly come up with several ideas this way to present to my boss, and we landed on one that we eventually started implementing. Something I had created fully myself, just with AI as something to bounce ideas off of.
Thanks for adding this voice to the conversation.
You always hear the voices in the extreme. I hope that your voice, along with all the voices in the Gray Zone, will be heard louder.
thank you
jazza's voice is the most unimportant one since he's a youtuber and this is his main income and not working with studios and different ad agencies where artist have to deal with all sorts of negativ impact. Good for him I guess
@shieldmaidensnusnu Who pissed in your cereal? His thoughts are just as important speaking as if only the 'small time' artists are the only people who's opinions matter. Let me turn this on you a bit. You don't get to talk since you're not an oil worker, so you don't get to say if oil fracking is bad so shut up. See how stupid that sounds?
@@shieldmaidensnusnu seen you comment a lot on these replies and has me interested and curious to see your art.. is there anywhere we can see it? Since your channel is pretty barren.. do you have a website or portfolio to look at, I’d love to see what you have made 😊
@@tumle1978 for my own safety rather not
Creativity has always been democratised. It just took effort.
Isn't it mainly ideas that are creative, not the technical know-how? I mean there is some overlap there, but kids are creative but can't draw for shit. The technical execution isn't the creative bit...again, some overlap here as when drawing an idea can evolve during the process.
THANK YOU, I hate it when people use this excuse. Like, do you think I was born able to draw? No! It took work and effort, and I got better, and I'm still improving!
"when everyone is super, no one will be" lmao
@@cutiepup7591 Exactly this.
As a creative.. I have a very gray stance on this as well, and I appreciate you Jazza for being brave enough to come forward with a gray stance. I do agree that the reality is, no matter how much people are upset about it, AI is not going away. It's too revolutionary, powerful and useful to go away. I've sort of realized; it's like when the calculator was invented, I'm sure all the mathematicians thought their careers were over. When in reality, it freed them up so much time from working through such a high volume of smaller order equations, their brains were free to tackle bigger, more complex problems instead of laboring over the medial equations. And in a way; this is the first time a tool has appeared that can function similarly for creatives. Yeah the lack of current transparency on AI media and the shady pilfering of copyright is a big problem, especially people who are monetizing purely generative art/writing. But for creatives who use it as a tool just for inspiration, or simple coding, or brainstorming etc.. it can expediate creative output tenfold and free us to work on the larger, more fun aspects of a project. It's a hot take I guess.. that AI is like a calculator for creatives. Just because you can use a calculator doesn't mean you know math...(just as someone using generative ai isnt an artist/writer) but in the hands of someone who DOES have that talent, new boundaries of possibility will be discovered. That's just how I feel about it at the moment.
I appreciate the effort to open the conversation without heat. But the main problem with AI seems to me quite clear, and you have already acknowledged it. Companies have built this software by taking all of our work without consent, and we all know how the software will be used - and is already being used: to totally eliminate genuine artists and craftspeople from their own fields.
Every conversation or interview with AI companies is about how it can save companies money, or how you can get more work done with fewer staff. I work in a school, and attempts to use AI here have always been misguided efforts to avoid hiring staff. One of your own uses of AI was, you said, because you didn’t have the budget to pay artists but still wanted to make something. If a company can get away with paying 3 artists instead of 300, that’s what they’re going to do.
Any influential creator using AI is only pulling the ladder up behind themselves- since if AI companies get their way, there will simply be no creative industry in the future and no way for new craftspeople to get into the industry.
If this were a matter of them coming up with a superior way of making art off their own backs, then we’d have been fairly beaten. But this is them just taking our work and cutting us out of the picture.
I don’t care much when AI is used to brainstorm or something. I don’t personally like when something that AI produces is the ‘final product’. I think that there are responsible ways to use it. Do I trust companies/corporations or even some regular people to use it with integrity? No. So if I had to choose a side, I choose against AI. But I do my best not to villainize it. And I appreciate your transparency. 🖤
would the same logic apply to art related software since at the end of the day ai is just an algorithm
@ tldr: I need to educate myself more on how it’s being used on that end of the art community to have a fair opinion.
I think it would depend on what you mean by art related software. I use procreate, but I’m still just drawing on the screen. While I don’t like Adobes use of AI, I don’t know enough about how it’s being used or impacting that area of the art field, to feel like I can come up with a justifiable opinion either way. Ultimately, as Jazza kind of pointed out, I wish AI was being used more to solve social/environmental problems opposed to flooding the creative field.
I don’t mind AI being used as a tool to help you quickly get your ideas across that you could then produce with your own art. But lately, it’s been too easy to use AI to make art that it's become a growing issue. For exemple I’ve had people take the work I created for them and use AI to alter it and reproduce similar things with it, instead of coming back to me. It’s frustrating because not only did they not return to get a commission form me when they wanted something else, but they also used my original art and used AI to change it, even though I came up with everything from scratch. On top of that, I've seen people using AI to create art and getting hired to do it for others that didn't know what was ai at a cheaper price when they had no art skills.
Wich means 3 things :
1 - That It’s easier than ever to skip hiring an artist and just use AI instead. Let's be honest, alot of people (not everyone) don’t care whether the art was made by an artist or a machine.
2 - Anyone can take a drawing you’ve made, especially if you posted it online, and train AI on it to reproduce similar art without your consent. There’s nothing to protect your art anymore. It’s one thing for someone to learn your style and put in real effort and time and even then they usually pick up different things from multiple artists and don’t copy you exactly. But even if it was the case with AI, someone can just use your art to recreate it instantly in a couple of seconds with a prompt, without any work or skill and redo as many times as they want.
3 - It’s now so easy for people with zero art skills to create AI art, and they’re starting to flood the market.
The fear of AI "stealing" someone's art is mostly a myth. Sure, you can ask an AI art generator to create a Mona Lisa with Miley Cyrus' face but that's because the image training data likely includes 1) Thousands of images of the Mona Lisa, variations as a cartoon, sketch, photograph, impressionist art, pixel art, etc. plus 2) Hundreds of parodies and caricatures of the Mona Lisa and 3) Scores of pictures of Miley Cyrus.
For less famous and frequently sampled artists and subjects .... not so much.
I've seen numerous tests online trying to reproduce styles and compositions from artists with only a few dozen published works and the resemblance of the results isn't that close. It's closer if the artist, say a fantasy artist, uses cliche subjects in generic compositions in a generic style. Suddenly, a lot of those kinds of artists feel "copied."
Besides, if someone is namechecking an artist in AI prompts it is a sure sign they in demand and likely won't be replaced by AI knockoffs.
I once came across the account of an AI bro, there he documented all the "AI-art" he generated and the prompts he used. But he wasn't satisfied with the results because they weren't as perfect as the image he had in mind. Correcting every little imperfection would mean performing again many steps to generate the AI image until it was perfect. He knew it would've been easier to fix it using photoshop, but he didn't know how to use it and didn't have the visual/spacial intelligence nor the aesthetic sense to achieve it. Then he said something that resonated in my mind: 'Generative AI is quite powerful and lets me make awesome art but I still can't get everything exactly as I want.
If an artist were to learn and master these AI tools, he'd be unbeatable. Like giving super powers to a tough guy. Hope they don't find out. We'd be screwed. 😆 '
Thank you for speaking on the topic. I feel like only someone in your position could start the discussion neutrally.
Generative AI is a tool. It's up to us how it's used. In my case, I think it sparks my creativity and I draw way more because of it. I hate the blank page, it makes me freeze up and unable to start. Generating a few images gets rid of the blank page, it gives me a starting point. Even the AI's mistakes are good for it because I see those and think "Oh, those have to be fixed. I can do better."
Just dismissing AI as a tool is kinda stupid. Yes, it has a lot of issues that need to be fixed but something having issues doesn't mean we have to get rid off the whole thing.
I recently spoke to some who can't draw because they don't have functioning hands for that. Yes, they use all AI to make art but without it, their ideas would not have been created. They trained their models, they learned how to prompt and in result, their images are really something special, with unique style. For me it's still human art, not because of the skill applied but because these images are expression from a person, their ideas.
I agree with you on that. Thanks to Chat GPT, I'm able to develop better storylines and characters at a much faster rate on my own.
The really important question here is.. where can I get a brush mic?
it actually feels like the right dude is reading a script
an AI script if you will xD
Both were reading a script. Listen to the content not how it was delivered.
@@majeric we know?
I really appreciate your opinion. Most people are super black and white on this topic and get mad when someone disagrees. Thank you for speaking with logic instead of out of rage
"AI learns the same way human artists do" is always such an incorrect take. Someone's art is not only influenced by other art they have seen. Someone's art can be influenced by the person's personality, identity, tastes, likes and dislikes, the people they are surrounded by, the environment they are in, the tools they have access to and AI can't do any of that
exactly. AI doesn't think. It can't make logical leaps. It can't invent anything new. It has no understanding of metaphor or sympolism or emotion. It's like using predictive text on your phone to write a novel. It's garbage.
It's influenced by their biology too. It's a very physical act
The entire "we didn't have the budget" defense of AI art kind of falls flat in the face of the main issue people have with it, that it steals from other creators.
The reason you can afford to do all this with the AI art is very simple: You're not paying the artists.
Yeah, obviously that's going to be cheaper.
and honestly theres already plenty industries to take care of this same issue! there's stock image sites who's intended purpose is being used in the very same way they're using ai art for.
Yeah, kinda wild to just gloss over that
No database is ever going to be ethical either because they will always include works used without consent so using AI is labor theft from start to finish.
You'd rather a project not exist at all than have it exist thanks (in part) to AI? For Jazza, at least, using AI has allowed him to funnel his money into paying a proper artist - one who wouldn't have had that opportunity if it weren't for AI to begin with as the project wouldn't have existed or gotten off the ground.
@@Actar_Raikit I'd rather the AI didn't exist if it required unpaid labor to make it work. If that means other people are not able to use their unpaid work, then so be it.
My issue with generative AI is almost entirely down to the unethical ways they were developed.
My biggest concern is with how these AI models are trained. Most of them, especially generative AI, are trained on the art of artists who were not paid, did not give any permission, or were not even aware that their art has already been used by companies to train and create AI "art."
As amazing as it may be to have one's idea quickly come to reality (such as through gen AI prompts), I don't think it should come at the expense of artists.
If there were a more ethical system of training AI on art (like artists who fully agree to have their art trained on, with rightful compensation or some sort of licensing agreement, and with the resulting "art" be fully disclosed to the viewers as AI), I'd have a more positive response about it. But until then, I see at something unethical for human artists, let alone for the environment.
I agree. We need to have laws around companies that use ai licensing art. Unfortunately I don't think companies would be willing to compensate since the costs would be too much per artwork. They use thousands if not nearly a million artworks for training AI. AI 'learning' needs to get more efficient to rely on smaller datasets so that companies would willing to actually pay for artwork they're using.
Art students have been doing that for centuries = learning from others, creating their own versions, duplicating other artists, etc. It's one of the ways we hone our skills and study composition, lighting, etc. I'm sure I'm not the only artist who saw someone elses work online and recreated it in order to learn from it better. I don't see the issue with ai doing the same thing.
@@LoriAnneBrown all art is Derivative, and traing is basically Just referencing
AIs are trained on publicly available data, they are trained on text, images, audio and video. This data is defining the human world, which the AI is intended to learn. There is and can be no legal restriction, because this would open the door to deliberately restrict what AI can learn. There is no incentive to have what humans can learn and what AI can learn deviate from each other. Public data is available to humans and AI and it will probably stay this way.
Jazza my friend. I am a professional artist (Graphic Design) so AI is something that I have had to delve into myself. I am in the same mindset as you. I use AI frequently at the concept stage too but only as a reference. I am not anti-AI art because I can see the benefit of it but using solely AI art and then claiming that you created it, that is where I draw the line. Also, recreating someone else's art is a great way to learn the skills that are needed to create your own art in the future. For example, I copied a 1-2inch picture of Venom on to an A4 piece of paper around 2 decades ago and it is one of my favourite pieces simply because that is where I switched to creating for myself. With all that said, I know exactly what you mean and the aggresive nature of AI models is why it is hated so much, at least in my experience. Like the whole Adobe debacle & the reason I no longer use their products.
Ultimately, AI is here to stay so we all need to find a middle ground. Love it or hate it, it's not going anywhere.
You hit the nail in the head. There a bunch of different things mixed into the AI argument. On one hand we have the Ai as a concept, neural networks and machine learning, which are invaluable in areas like archaeology and healthcare. They are tools that can process information way faster than humans and can make process that last years in mere minutes. On the other hand we have generative AIs that take similar steps to make art, but "art" is a broad concept and is limited to ones imagination.
The problem here is what you pointed out, companies profiting from the work of others without control. Recently some AI CEO said that it would be unprofitable to repay every artist whose work they used, and that's a problem.
If you can't affort something you look for free alternatives or make it yourself, but stealing is bad. AI, like other bubbles is thriving because "it's free" but just while the companies want it to be free, training a model is costly, processing time is costly, and sooner or later companies will want their inversion back. Thay also say that AI is easy to use, but my experience is different, i yet to achieve a drawing of any of my OCs like i imagine it.
Yeah, you can put time and work into it, delve into prompt engineering, using masks and such, but that is the opposite of easy and fast. Not what they sell. Everything is AI assisted now, cause the word sells, like Blockchain a few years ago, it is marketing in most part, and that muddles the conversation.
How can we really find out if something is AI art or just regular (stolen) art with a filter added? What if i pay someone for a, lets say, traditional piece of art and they use AI instead? AIs need to be controlled in the same way all other tools are, i bet it would be hundreds of artist that would willingly contributed to an ethical model, just like they just give away commisions or make art as a favor. Granted, people will complain, it is natural to take a side when the topics are as divisive.
People need to get used to educate themselves to have a proper opinion (in all matters) and not just repeat whatever they hear in the media. "Sorry, i was wrong" must be the least spoken words in history.
Black shirt jaza was lowkey his brother.
I came here to say this.
Except Shad also 100% takes credit for the result. I liked how both sides Jazza presented at least had integrity in their positions
@@edwardwestmoreland-caunter6128 True. I think the way jazza used it was ok. U still perfer zero but this is ethical enough for me.
way to miss the whole Point of the video lol
@@RADkate That we should grind ai users into sausages?
As soon as AI became a tool to lay off hard working, talented artists for the sake of profit and handouts to the shareholders/executives, we drew the line in the sand Jazza.
This!
this. Also it is literally accelerating climate change. There is no ethical use of AI in the current world. Not even for "brainstorming" or whatever. Every image or chatGPT answer generated consumes resources and produces polutants. So even if peeps don't care about the ethics of how these models were developed and continue to be trained (aka by stealing work), maybe you care about the planet you are on?
I think AI as a referencing tool for art is excellent, trying to get references for hyper specific ideas can be extremely difficult and AI allows for you to be able to get a reference of literally anything you need to help get the idea of what you want to create flowing.
I am a 4th year graphic design student and initially when ai started to gain popularity especially ai art in my first year and only continued to grow. I was very scared and was quick to hate on it instantly. I wont lie I am still pretty scared of it and still do not particularly like it I really don't like the idea of people who have no skills and have put in no effort get the same results and benefits that artist who have put in so much time and effort in. But I also do believe that no matter how much we complain or fight against it their is no way to stop it. It has been already so integrated into the world in such a short amount of time their really is no way to fight against it. That's why I think it is better to take your point of view were we begin to try and look at it in a objective sense and see how it can benefit us. While their has been real world effects of it with people losing their jobs or losing opportunities. I think their is a say in ways that it can help production and especially help to cut the cost on production and leave more opportunities to have more indi projects developed. While I will never change my opinion on people who use it in harmful ways and huge cooperation using it. I think their is still a point where we should accept it and look how we can use it to benefit ourselves. But I do think something should be done about specific ai models trained on specific artist and big cooperation using it.
Sorry dude. You are not correct. Ai has already peaked; it's only going downhill for it. I don't know if you've seen, but most people reject AI. They hate it.
@@GalaxColor No, new models and versions are coming out all the time and they're still improving. Especially with video generation which is still in its early days compared to images. Saying "most people reject it" is pretty ignorant...sure if you're an artist that hang in artist circles that's probably your impression but that's a subjective viewpoint.
Seems to be in the same camp as the "cgi sucks, practical effects has soul" people, except they're unaware of all the cgi they don't know is there because it's seamless.
What I found most interesting is that both sides had really good but also really bad points.
Are you going to debate your brother shadiversity on this?
probably not, that's a pretty personal matter. but it's really funny that jazza got a literal evil twin
would basically be Jazza trying to have an actual debate and conversation while shad just sticks his fingers in his ears and yells over the top of him.
I was excited to see this video pop up on my UA-cam home page! Thank you for discussing this in an honest and and respectful way.
As someone who is frankly quite intimidated by AI (and disheartened by it as someone who is going to school specifically for art), I think AI is just so new (in the nature it's being used in) and so quickly evolving that it's hard to truly decide what to think about it at the moment. As it does change and new questions and concerns inevitably arise, I hope there will be rules and regulations that will start to come with it to hopefully combat some of the issues we're seeing, especially as artists.
As many others are saying, I want to coexist with this technology, not be stamped out by it. Y'know? I say this gently, but I do wonder if maybe we've lost the point of art and creativity.
Again, thanks for the great video, Jazza. I've been watching your videos since about 2016, and you've been a big part of my artistic journey. Genuinely, keep up the great work!!
AI would be amazing for menial stuff to free people up to make creative outlets, focus on higher tier work, or help their communities
i love how in this talk, 70% of the points made in favour of it are basically hollow.
like "yes, AI will take away jobs and make everything worse for a lot of people... but the market will spawn a lot more small businesses making the market be 90% more competitive now making half of the point of being for everyone useless!" remember where when AI started and a lot of grifters flooded Amazon with AI generated books to get easy money making Amazon put a limit to the amount of books you could publish, that event summarizes this.
As for you, artist ¿Do you think that if this was really the future a lot of AI that can fake the process of art would even be a thing? the only thing AI was made is making handmade art more valuable, when someone see a business that use AI ¿What impression it gives? it's cheap.
i don't hate Jazza, but when i see him "trying to be fair" with AI, i don't feel it fair, because artists already are the underdog in a fight against what everyone says it's the future, it's not, it was imposed and they are trying to push it on you and asking you to even thank them for it... And it's disgusting, because even if you don't use AI, you can feel the damage if you are skilled enough to make someone think you are cheating, when it comes down to the medicine, and the rest of stuff apply, he is right, it could be a good addition... but, what we are using AI for is not going to do that.
And in a sense, i like the violent reaction the majority has towards AI, not out of rage, but because it's someone with a little bit of rationality can agree it's a bad thing... Yes, mistakes were commited, but for once, people are pushing together towards someone benefitial to everyone... so, yeah, data poison your work, take the pencil and never stop being creative, and if you can, try to push softwares and art pages to make data poisoning a default option.
Also, sorry for my bad english, lol.
I have been drawing and writing for most of my life and using comics, magazines, pictures of other people’s art as inspiration and reference. Now I can use a prompt *along* with real images to get a better reference. I also use ChatGPT as a sort of Secretary to consolidate my writing ideas and again, prompt it to give me a list of references I can go look up. Is reading the only way to obtain information or does an audio book still count? Is someone who plays FPS games or tabletop a “real gamer” or is it the professional chess player?
I want to use it as a tool, not an excuse or sole medium.
Love how after the skit, he shows up in greyscale.
When I was in high school, way back before all of this, my commercial art teacher said that, "There is no such thing as cheating in art. There are things that are frowned upon, but you can use whatever means are available to you to achieve the result you're looking for." I think even he would be disgusted with what that argument has turned into.
I don't know what to think anymore, honestly.
I mean, that'll just mean that he didn't believe his own words.