Strictly speaking, putting images online doesn't make them "public domain" in a legal sense, as the legal term "public domain" means "no longer subject to copyright". A thing can be put online for viewing and still be copyrighted - copyrighting is a legal protection where people are _ordered_ not to copy it, not a physical protection to make it unable to be copied. So claiming that things put online are "public domain" is poor phrasing - they're publicly accessible. That difference is important. When Google web-crawls your art to make it searchable, that is not them getting the right to infinitely reproduce your work, nor to monetise it, they are in turn creating their own unique creative circumstances that is deemed to be its own thing (they actually have been sued over exactly this issue, and that was how it was ruled). _But_ the argument against non-consensual use of people's images to train AI still doesn't work because there is no real difference between an AI looking at an image to learn from it and a human looking at an image to learn from it - in both cases, the subject observes the art, finds patterns, stores those patterns away, and attempts to practice and reapply them later for some creative work. The legal theory of the lawsuits would imply that anyone who retains memory of other peoples' works cannot make an original work, and instead are simply generating an analogue collage. Unfortunately this is not how the originality or transformative nature of a work is legally assessed. It's the final product that is what gets judged - by its differences in both content and context - not the method by which the art was made (with one exception, I'm about to get to). And going back to the point in the first paragraph that Google doesn't get the right to infinitely reproduce your work or to monetise it just because you put it online, that is also a distinction that can be made with AI art - the one difference that method causes is that works created through predominantly automated processes cannot be held in copyright (so while legally Google search results _are_ their own creative work independent of the creative works they might display, they are not a copyrightable one). Copyright is a thing held by a person for their own creative work. So the person putting the text input doesn't hold the copyright because their idea is not directly translated by them into art (they got a non-human actor to generate one or more responses to their idea, and just picked the one they liked from that set), the AI itself doesn't hold the copyright because it is not a person to be able to hold a copyright, and the people who created the AI but had no involvement in the specific piece of art cannot say that they contributed to its creative vision. But art that is created by a person can be copyrighted. That legal protection to have sole control over how art you hold the copyright over is monetised is a valuable commodity in and of itself. If you hire an artist to create something for you based off a creative vision you give them, you can own the copyright to that image - and attempts to reproduce it (even via AI) can be ruled to be infringement against that unique creative work, and banned from use (you can even be monetarily compensated for people trying to do that). You don't get that protection with AI-created art. But, while AI-created art cannot be copyrighted, as stated earlier it can infringe copyright. And legally that's a judgement call made per piece of art, not overall by what the AI was trained on.
@tomtantillo316 You should maybe not be so hostile over someone making a simple responce. And not make such a dumb response and assumption of what I think of my degenerate dumbass =-=.
It could be used to infringe on copyright, but other tools can be too. So should we ban pencils because someone can replicate some artist's work with them and then sell it for profit..? No! It sounds ridiculous. Just like if someone would say that computers need to be banned because you can code viruses using them... AI itself is a tool, a more advanced than something like Krita, but still a tool. And like any tool it depends on the one holding it, whether it would be used for good or bad.
One of the main issues I have with the way anti-ai point of view presents itself is the issue of framing. Artists very often frame the issue as "technology bad vs human good", or "corporations bad vs human good" at best, instead of doing the technology justice and framing it as "we want more financial security and cultural protection in this system, which as it is now, doesn't do enough to grant such protection, and we're frustrated because of that" Instead of this, most of the things I personally see online is "ai bad/technology bad/im blaming technology for the systemic issues of capitalism". If I let myself be a bit more biased for a second, I actually think that some artists just don't have "balls" to say it outloud, especially in the US, which has a history of smearing anti-capitalist movements as "commies".
I see your point but i agree with Matthew, these ai data scrapers weren't public knowledge and these artists put it up for the purpose of other humans, not AI and machine learning. I think we should see where it goes but we should not let it de-value the beauty of human activity and self expression
That's like telling someone not to record you in public. If you don't want to be recorded, don't go in public. If you don't want search engines to scrape your website and images, don't put those things online. If you don't want more advanced diffusion models to look at your artwork as one of millions or billions of other images to form an idea of what something looks like, don't put it on the internet. Again- once you put something on the internet, it is right-click saveable by any human or bot. This is the nature of the internet.
I strongly think that artists will loose these lawsuits, at least the ones going on right now. If you read the arguments, it shows a gross misunderstanding about how generative models work, and the comparisons and analogies used are extremely poorly reasoned and don't hold much meaning.
That is ultimately the problem I have with this whole debate. I feel sympathetic towards artists, I don't even like AI creations, I hate how they all look the same, but my conscience does not allow me to accept the faulty arguments. I can not honestly defend someone who has no ground to stand on in terms of reasoning, just because I feel bad for them.
so your conscience can't "allow you to accept faulty arguments" but your conscience can accept what, then? art theft? i look forward to a world in 20 years where the social contract around attitudes towards AI brings shame to companies and people who advocated for its use in creativity. at some point, we need to put "logic" and policy aside and turn to the power of the consumer's public opinion
@@marcinexus for me to accept art theft, I would have to first accept that there is art theft, which I do not, because I do not accept the faulty arguments that your kind brings. Ideologs of all kinds seem to have the same issue with understanding that people who don't agree with them, do not, in fact, agree with them. Also, a ton of emotion and no substance, par for the course, really.
@Spellweaver5 I guess our differences lies in I would rather listen to the voices of those negatively affected than adhere to some false sense of objectivity. Emotions are not inherently irrational
@@marcinexus our differences lie in the fact that I'm not an ideolog who would call someone else's sense of objectivity "false". Emotions are not inherently bad, but your emotions are your emotions. Not mine.
I don't mind the technology, but I have gripes about the people who use this technology with little to no effort while claiming they have created such content. I don't mind people posting AI art on Twitter either,saying it is AI generated content. What specific AI artists I hate are those who threaten to undermine existing artist because it isn't good enough, or their art style is too "AI-like". Even going as far as to ask "what prompt did you generate this with" is just sad. I hate people who claim they used the AI to make art, without touching the model itself and generating content that I could make by doing an hour or two of research. I hate people submitting portfolios and job letters claiming they are professionals with months of experience working with AI. There was a COVER LETTER for a CONCEPT ARTIST position claiming they can make lots of content within hours, far more than an average artist. I hate people who specifically go about their way to join an art stream, screenshot the art, only to run it through AI and post it before the artist even can finish the work and post it, claiming it is the original artist who stole from them and demand credit. I hate it when an artist who passed away has his entirety of work converted to a model for a "tribute" when the family is still in the process of mourning, telling people to credit not the artist but himself when people use this particular model to replicate the arts of the dead artist. I hate that we live in a world where art will inevitably be replaced simply because it's fast and efficient, and that people insult artists for thinking they are some luxury-inclined, millionaires who are too stingy about the prices when in reality, some of the commission prices they earn do pay their living expenses, and they write up the prices believing their work is worth just that much money. Most of the time, it's actually lower than the minimum wage unless you are asking from someone who works on a professional environment. I hate it that some AI artists believe artists are gatekeeping art from regular people when all they could do is pick up a pencil and learn through the nothing but practice.
I am super into AI Art and agree with almost everything you said. I don’t see non AI artists as the enemy, I see these AI bullies as the enemy. they are hurting people who try to use AI ethically as much as artists. I use public domain artists, often put hours of work into my prompts, always label as AI, don’t take work from artists, and don’t try to make art exactly in someone else’s style. I just have to say that it’s not as easy as picking up a pencil and learning to draw for a lot of people. I love to draw and do try to spend a few hours a week drawing but it’s EXTREMELY painful for me to hold a pencil and i have a very clingy toddler so i can’t do anything more than that. not because i’m lazy but because traditional art doesn’t work for my current situation.
I can somewhat imagine a similar or greater furor having taken place way back when the printing press was invented and copyist monks became sort of irrelevant. You know what they did? They had to find something new to do and in that process elevated (among many other fields) the works, arts and products of: - beekeeping - wine-making - beer brewing Whatever tasks and fields "AI" will end up being better and faster at, we will find something else to do. Heck, maybe, artists in the future will be able to produce art for the sake of producing art and not to make a living. Such freedom! Very opportunity! Much wow!
Late to the party but your statement 'pick up a pencil and learn through the nothing but practice' is untrue for many disabled and neurodiverse individuals.
Not that simple, I've tried on and off again for years and I just can't draw. My wife is a brilliant artist and I wish I was half as good as she is. But I do a lot of digital art like PicsArt, Photoshop, etc. and I'm actually pretty good at that.
Everything people hate about AI is more about the difficult relationship between creative fields and a capitalist market. People are concerned with their work getting devalued by everyone who wants to pay the least amount possible to generate art assets. I mean, AI outside of creative fields is concerning for it's potential to generate misinformation, and people abusing it, which is an obvious inevitability. Idk, I'm in graphic design, a field that will be heavily phased out by this technology, but even so I'm sure adaptations will happen. I DO think a real annoyance comes from the pretentious tech bro douchebags acting like they've broken into the field of high art; people who have never valued or appreciated the efforts and passions of the creatives who have always been underpaid and under-respected even before this shift started. I think the "learning" angle of AI is a stretch though. You can't say AI functions just like a human so it's fine. AI is a man made tool with calculable results. AI can't own a copyright or be given human rights. AI cannot be considered a creative generator of it's own ideas. It's a tool, and one that requires everyone else's work in order to function and exist. Saying it might be legal doesn't mean much, lots of things are legal that probably shouldn't be. Lots of things are under-regulated, and new technology always takes time before people decide on laws to govern it. Every piece of tech and social media farms data on user habits, and that data goes into AI and advertisers and giant caches of big data to sell to the highest bidder. Yes, this is legal, currently, but laws change, and lots of people have propositioned legal change to data collection, and the profits made out of the labor of all the people who contribute to that data collection. Saying "it's legal so it's fine" to people talking about what should or shouldn't be legal is just circular reasoning.
@@phosphorescenceking6114 so it’s artists vs human nature…. Capitalism is an amoral thing that just comes natural to humans. We need to stop conflating capitalism with corporatism.
The vast majority of artists who are making money are not creative anyways. Their boss tells them what to paint and how to paint it, and creativity isn't normally what the boss wants.
This discussion is so nuanced and polarizing. Irregardless of whether this is the precursor to an idealistic, high tech nirvana or a doom and gloom dystopian hell scape, I can’t say I currently care one way or the other. It could be one. It could be the other. It could be neither, or a combination of the two. I’ve spent the last few months mulling over the options, and I’ve come to realize that It doesn’t matter to me which narrative “prevails”. My biggest problem, and my only real gripe, is the inevitable relinquishing of human agency. I feel like, even five years ago, if asked to perform an effortless or arduous task, most people would choose the easier option-so long as the easier option gave immediate results. In this instance, the “Ai” debate is just another extension of the same pervasive issue. Call me fatalistic, but it seem to me that we’re slowly drifting towards a place where the choice to remain unchanged-mentality wise, physically or emotionally-is easier than ever. And mental health seems to be suffering for that lack of resistance, almost across the board. One of the most valuable aspects, in my opinion, that comes with learning a skill-of doing something difficult for an extended period of time-is the personal growth that’s intrinsically tied to that journey. You can’t start on one side of the Dunning-Kruger graph and then years later find yourself somewhere in the middle, without fundamentally changing as a person in order to get there-most often, as far as I’ve noticed, for the better. By learning to be proficient at something, you inevitably learn to sleep better, eat more healthily, exercise enough so that you brain functions properly, etc. You improve a myriad number of seemingly inconsequential flaws in your character, that’ve suddenly become integral if you have any hope of becoming the person that can do the things you dream of doing. *You* grow, as your *skill* grows. I’m more empathetic for having done difficult things. And more appreciative of people’s efforts in all fields, because I know how hard it can be to stick with something for years. The heights of human excellence is not as limitless as more technological means, but it can be pretty damned impressive if you give it room to flourish. It saddens me to see some of the pinnacles of individual human merit, torn down so callously-almost gleefully-as opposed to being appreciated for what they were somehow able to achieve in their relatively short life span. It breaks my heart to know that the era self made specialists, experts, and professionals is coming to an end-to be replaced by tool assistance and ease of excellence. I don’t know, call me what you will, but I’d always been under the impression that difficulty informs value-not commercial value, but intrinsic value. Maybe I was wrong. I just don’t see how this makes for a better world in the end, is my opinion. A more efficient world, most definitely. I just worry over what we’re losing when we streamline like this.
As far as difficulty informing value, you don't need to put in less effort. The place you put effort into just changes. The difficulty goes from 3 weeks spent on a single image to using advanced tools to spend 3 weeks creating an entire book or movie or videogame or whatever. You create more with less effort but the effort you have to spend is still the same.
@@Merilirem It isn’t though. And it’s not something I can describe adequately if you haven’t experienced it for yourself. I feel like this is the hidden divide in mentality that a lot of “artists” and those outside of the space, fundamentally differ on. Mostly because it’s such a nuanced feeling that gets misconstrued in communication. What most see is the end result. What artists sees is the path it took to get there. What you’re talking about is a product. What I’m talking about is the constant altering of neural pathways that allow one to perceive the world in ways they couldn’t a day, a year, or a decade before. If all there was to the art making process was the act of churning out product after product, I feel like the arts would have far less appeal overall-turning off many of the introspective’s that are naturally drawn to it. The draw, in my opinion, is derived from the things you *don’t* see. Making products-or, in other words, making something meant for others to see-is a job. Getting to that point-through changing the way one’s brain works at a subconscious level-is the the reason why many chose to devote their lives to their art in the first place. Whether the goal was far away or tantalizingly close, you kept going because it was fun. My entire point was that, by changing what artists are allowed or incentivized to put effort into, you intrinsically tear out the beating heart of the process and-not to be melodramatic-replace it with a machine. To which most non artists would likely say “So what? It’s faster isn’t it? What’s the big deal?” To which I would propose, “That was never really the point.” Leave the mid-maxing and hyper efficiency to the individuals that would *rather* parts of the process be cut away. I’ve never met a programmer that says they actually *like* coding. I can’t speak for all artists here, but I feel like at some point, if you shear away enough pieces of the process, it eventually becomes another thing entirely. One more bastion of creativity turned into another soulless nine to five. Don’t get me wrong, just as there are those now that enjoy the editing process more than the drafting process of the book. Or those who gravitate to more managerial positions where they can embody a jack of all trades mentality, there will be some that excel in this new paradigm and create beautiful work. But, I doubt that represents most artists. In fact I’m confident it only represents a small majority-a mere fraction. At its core, the entire confused and chaotic discourse aside, I believe that most artists are against this ‘change’ as you put it, not because they’re stubborn or regressive, but because you’re essentially asking them to give away the very meaning they’ve been cultivating for however long they’ve been practicing. Taking away the parts they’re most proud of, call it style, muscle memory, etc. and replacing it with nothing. All so that there can be more product pumped out for the consumer. Only made worse by the fact that it’ll likely be more product than they’ll know what to do with. When an artist stares starry eyed at at something they’ve just made, an observer might conclude they were admiring the piece at face value-‘its a good product and that’s why they’re proud,’ they might assume. In actuality, the artist-consciously or not-is appreciating the years worth of effort it took to reach that pinnacle. Pushed to work insane hours, not by deadlines or societal pressure, but because the process demanded it. There were days they wanted to stop, but didn’t. There were days they wanted to quit, but preserved. And then there’s that final product that informs why all that effort had been worth while. Not just the effort spent on a single output, but everything that came before. Anyone who sees all that, and still believes the “solution” is to cut away all the extended or arduous parts completely, is someone I’ll disagree with till the day I die.
AI encrypts images inside coefficients of a neuron network, instead of a ZIP file. With the right input parameters you could retrieve an image similar to the original. This opens a legal door for legal piracy using AI encryption. Movies, software, pirated using AI, by providing the right input, you get a pirate copy. If the copy is not 100% accurate to justify that it is transformational, a small patch could fix the pirate copy. So judges would be legalizing AI piracy.
@@bamensanders8407 There was a time when being an artist meant you had to source and create your own medium, hunting for the raw materials to create with. People specialized and eventually the greatest masters were also reliant on the people who produced the best tools to create their works with. Technology advanced and art mediums became more mass produced and accessible, allowing people to create works of larger scope. Digital tools let people learn without spending so much time and money sourcing paint, ink, or canvas, and allowing them to work together collaboratively without being in the same room. Nowadays we have an entire industry built on bringing together hundreds of artists across different fields to create cinematic masterpieces. Every step of the way tools improved and increased accessibility of art to the masses, but it also made it possible to create more, to create things that otherwise would have been impossible or impractical. And just like today there were likely people who were afraid of what these new tools would enable, or that they somehow cheapened the work. For some it did, they didn't have to go through the same challenges that created the greatest artists of the past, some took the easy route. Others took those tools and made use of the efficiency to focus on other areas, improving beyond their peers. As you said, the value comes from putting in hard work and overcoming challenges. AI art is just another tool to learn and master, some will use it as a cheap shortcut to make meaningless junk, and some people will find new challenges to overcome with it. For example, lets say an indie dev was working on a personal project where they did all the art for their game. Perhaps it took them 3 years to produce where a team could have done it in weeks. Well now they could use this tool to produce that same game faster and move on to other projects, or perhaps they put in the same 3 years and make something spectacular in scope that no one has ever done as a solo project before. It's a very generic example, but I hope it illustrates my point. Everyone uses shortcuts, we've learned to do things more efficiently with time. But that doesn't mean people are necessarily lazy because of it, there is always more to strive for.
I'm hoping for a future where you can't use AI art to make money/financial gain, but rather just for personal use. I mean yeah, AI art is cool and interesting as a tech, but it's sad and depressing to think how it feels like art is devalued now that it's easier to make. Literally anyone can do it now and it's bittersweet. Sure as a non-artist, it's a really really exciting and fun tech. If you're a writer but been stuck not being able to visualize your world, then AI art is a dream come true. But it's sad for artists. And creating unique prompts is not an equal effort of actually having the skill to create those artworks. It's not a skill. Am I only sad/mad because it's directly affecting me? Sure. To others, 'it's just pictures bro'. People who already think visual art and artists are a joke, now surely find all this amusing.
My grandmother made a lot of beautiful art of, ranches, tropics, and, animals. I showed her AI generated art, and she was amazed that in second it could do what took her hours. She never painted for profit, it was always a hobby to her. It’s when share your labor with the world you shouldn’t be surprised if another artist or AI in this case uses it to their benefit.
Look at modern art there is no skill involved, yet it sells at ridiculus prices, not for skill or meaning only for the artists name on it. Sure there is a loss, but that started long ago with the massproduction of entertainment, then ramped-up to eleven by the internet and now this. To underline this, think of your writer sitting together with an artist in a pub sketching and talking about the world, throwing ideas at each other etc. Now compare it to the same writer commissioning an artist via the internet. This is why I think the human process matters in Art, not just because it affects the outcome, but also the person involved.
@@mehnameehjeff6325 it's sad but I have zero doubt AI art will thrive and be used commercially by big corporations to save money. Or hire 1-2 guys who's really good at setting up AI art generation or training an AI. And don't get me wrong. I do find AI art amazing as well. Just sad in terms of financial incentives. Give it a few more years as more and more competition and ease of use apps gets released for AI art, when literally everyone has a cheap, easy to use AI app on their phones... Then yeah that'll be a nail in the coffin.
@@bakurascoffeeshop7960 if you're talking one of those modern 'art' like a banana taped on a canvas, I do find that aspect of modern art as ridiculous. And I do agree that name and clout is extremely important. Any talented painter could recreate mona Lisa probably, but it'll still be a knock off. And you're right about the human process of it all. We're losing more and more of that, not just in the art industry. It's a technological feat and can make things easier for humans but it's a double edge sword. There will always be a backlash with any technological advancements. Maybe things won't be as bad. Idk. When digital art was flourishing, traditional artists were fuming, seeing digital art as a threat but traditional art still exists. But of course there's a huge difference in that digital art still require skill. AI art required nothing but appropriately crafted prompts. You just need to be good at English.
I think the problem is by no means whether or not it violates copyright law, the main concern is that AI will become superior in every employable way so that making any form of art, whether it is traditional visual art, filmmaking, music, or whatever it may be, manually is invalidated and "inefficient". Not to mention that now it makes the use of audio/video evidence for or against someone too easy to fake, meaning that if someone disagrees with me, they can deepfake me saying things I didn't say or doing things I didn't do, and even if that technology is pretty detectable now, it will *inevitably* get better, simply because it exists. It will get to the point where if someone were to manually create any form of art, there will be no way to prove they did it themselves and not via AI. Therefore, as much as I love other people being able to express themselves through art much easier, I still believe it will do more harm than good, despite it being technically legal.
Imagine a viral video of you acting like a psycho knocking on your ex-girlfriend’s door through a ring camera, and it turns out to be a deep fake video of you just to make you look like a crazy. That’s just one of millions of scenarios
@@samuelanderson9416 it's already a brave new world which has proved that humans are not made of the right virtuous materials to take it on. We are petty and now we have more power at our fingertips than we even know what to do with. Let alone do what is right with.
Traditional art, in my opinion, will be making a huge come back in the next few years. I have nothing against AI art, but it will become so massed produced that it will lose it's value. When you can actually make something with your own hands, that literally is a once off piece, will be more valuable than something everyone can do. I say bring on the challenge.
Real art will flourish even more because there will be too much Ai art that people would want something genuine and have a soul. It's just like in food , people would prefer a home made food made by their mom rather than a mass produced Meal.
Putting something on the internet does not make it public domain by default. Nor does it suddenly make it ok to take it. I can take all the Disney pictures from the internet that I want. Disney will still sue me if I change 1 pixel and put it for sale.
In the top comment, the clarification is made about "public domain" vs "public sphere". Additionally, of COURSE you would be infringing if you just changed 1 pixel. That's not what's being discussed, and nobody is saying it is.
@@Sakuna451 I would mirror the sentiment because it's obvious to me the people saying things like "AI does not change 1 pixel" are Flat Earth levels of uninformed. It's sad to be honest.
I am a real artist and I don't care if my art is used for training. I am not afraid of a freaking roomba with a paintbrush taped to the side going after me.
And funny as your comment is, people DO swing buckets of paint over canvas and call it art, and can very much be successful artists. People who have created primitive or even "easy" or "stupid" art prior to AI have always pissed off artists as well. So AI as a threat to artists is really nothing new. Artists will always be made at other artists "garbage art" 😅
@@Sarahkozakj Yeah, the whole AI thing strongly reminds me of the outcry of the traditional artists when drawing tablets became finally cheap enough that anyone could use them.
The argument made here is not that putting something online is consenting for it to be used, the argument is that you are consenting for your art to be perceived. WHich is technically all that an Aggregate Image Generator is doing.
@@Ungrievable "Their well-being, their ability to survive, etc. as a human." The law has never concerned itself with this, you're conflating your morals with what the laws say. Every lawyer knows not to think of the law a moral guidance or moral protection.
Wow, this is an incredible video essay! You really hit on so many points that have been bouncing around in my head for a while. I've been an animation and film director for almost 15 years now, and it’s interesting-as a 'Director,' I’ve never had that visceral reaction to AI art like many of my colleagues do. Probably because my job is more about directing rather than getting hands-on with the work, if I’m being brutally honest with myself. In principle, the technology is fascinating, but my main concern is that it might usher in an era of mediocrity. Thanks for the video!
People don't realize that artists are not the ones who are at risk from AI But all people. People should call for regulation of artificial intelligence before it's too late Because artificial intelligence can destroy people's lives,
Eight years ago CGP Grey released a video called humans need not apply. I think he was quite prophetic but who knows. I do not have much faith that our legislators will act fast enough or wisely.
@@artcanhelp The video is right and it predicted a future where AI will do most of the work And for art It is difficult to take it because it is easy to protect the art and the artists, but so far the technique is not ready. It will take some time
The worst thing that could come from this debate is stricter copyright laws, which would hurt both artists and AI users. Especially fan art could become borderline illegal. For example some artists now want to make style copyrightable which would be horrible when some styles are forbidden to use.
We look at art to amire another human's technique, skill, effort and perseverance. We look to see what another living being has to say about love or suffering. We look to see through another's eyes. Another that is like us. In this respect it's impossible for 'AI art' to ever be of much value or interest. For rapid commercial image generation of course it will be useful. Maybe this provides a solution to the old question of whether commercial illustration is art?
I generally agree with you but just to play the devil's advocate; the point of calling it AI is that it is "like us." Aren't you being anthropocentric if you assume that no other life form will create an interesting statement about love and suffering?
@@artcanhelp Interesting response. You raise two points here and I'll respond to each in order: AI is like us: Calling it artificial intelligence doesn't mean that it's like us, it just means that it has intelligence that was created by non natural means. A chicken has a certain form of intelligence but it is not like us. In regards to art it is quite obviously not because it can spit out multiple fully rendered images in seconds. It creates images by looking at patterns in clouds of pixels. That's vastly different from any human. The anthropocentrism of my argument relating to emotions: I concede that in the future AIs could potentially develop emotions similar to ours but this is currently still the domain of science fiction. Let's imagine they do achieve this. I still think my argument holds because they will have their own problems and struggles that may be different to ours and therefore less relatable. As such I wasn't being anthropocentric by claiming humans are superior, just that humans will always be more relatable to other humans.
@@simontipper2669 In my first video on AI I mention that I don't like the term AI because it isn't intelligence. It is data organization which is hardly intelligent. It is quite literally dumb. It just looks like intelligence to us. In my most recent video on learning to make art regardless of the power of AI I talk about the similarities between how the algorithms generate images. It is really similar to how we store simple categories in our minds. So there is both a similarity and divergence in how we relate to these technologies. But in my first video I go into why AI art can still hold meaning. It is because the meaning is poured into an object by the viewer and their perception of the artist's hand. Since the algorithms are basically cliche generators then they will be really good at generating what we already know. emojis if you will, or memes. I still reserve that with creative prompting and creative training that they will be able to "say something new" about the human condition. But in general they will not. As a whole I think we largely agree?
@@artcanhelp Ok let's apply Wittgenstein's notion of family resemblance and agree to call it art. My initial comment was more focused on facts about why machine generated art will not be of much value to most people. I agree that beauty is in the eye of the beholder therefore any randomly generated image could be beautiful to someone. However it probably won't be of value or interest to most. Furthermore the overwhelming quantity of content and ease/speed of production make it even less valuable. Your last statement about creative prompting/training creating valuable art brings us full circle as you are implying human involvement and intentionality in the the creative process. Therefore we're kind of agreeing that if the machine is used as a tool by a human artist is can create a valuable work. This is a thoroughly enjoyable discussion by the way. I'm totally with you when you say most artists are missing the point when thinking about this new technology. The question isn't really 'has it copied?'' but ''can it produce something meaningful and valuable?''. I guess we'll find out in the coming years...
I find AI Work to be "fine". I see its positives and negatives, I just feel like it is extremely easy for it to be used negatively. When people use AI work they arent just spewing an idea like "person" and instead spew something like "person in the style of Artist1" or even "KnownPerson doing explicit". We have already seen the negative aspects of such AI with deepfakes of youtubers/streamers doing things they would not do. Aliternatively, more relating to this topic, the "Afghan girl" photo, (which I have a lot of gripes about in general), ends up being replicated by AI work when the prompt Afghan girl is given. Further on not all work out available in the public is not necessarily supposed to be public. We see this with the recent case of the airport no fly list being leaked. We can also see this in news articles, films, medical records, and etc. You mentioned how AI uses mathematical representation to create art similar to human. I disagree with this. the way AI creates art is inherently different than how a living organism does. I also can see some arguments that AI Generators arent really transformative. But of course I might be wrong. I personally can find something transformative while another person may not, and the opposite. Of course there are some positive to AI works. As AI evolves it will be much easier for a normal person with no art skills to create works he wants. As art becomes more accessible hopefully other forms of creative mediums can become easier to produce and hence enjoyed like video games, animation, film, etc. On another topic different than AI, I think the copyright and fair use system we have today is quite flawed in general. Like there is no reason at all for copyright to be able to be held for more than 70 years plus.
when you say AI is just doing the same thing as humans are just faster. you just prove that you have no idea of how the process of constructing a picture works
These are all points I've made in the past. If any of these lawsuits actually win against these companies, it will be bad for artists, mark my words. Why? Simple. The internet, a thing which artists benefit from the existence of, operates off of a lot of the same legal principles that these A.I do. Lose one, lose the other. =\
The lawsuits started now prove that artists crying about AI are not seeing the whole picture: the lawsuits are distribution sites like getty against fair use, not artists against AI. It is the distribution industry trying to keep or extend the benefit copyright laws give them. There is no, and will be no lawsuit to defend any interest of artists, because they do not understand what is happening. If you want to play a game, know the rules, know what you can win, know what you can lose, and know who is playing before you run in whining like a baby, or you will lose, guaranteed.
Basically because the fundamental core of their complainings is that AI makes their skills not so special and painting/drawing (or even 3D) is gonna be available for everyone. That’s all. All the stuff about rights, moral or anything like that is only a curtain to cover their ego, and at certain point is normal because it takes years to master drawing and painting skills. But it has been like this like forever, in the past iron crafting was tough to learn, to do and to master, and there were famous blacksmiths because of their tools, specially weapons. Now it’s an industrial process almost completely. Basically they want to stop the industry (or get royalties for free) only because now is knocking on their doors. And is funny to see many digital artists whining and crying when they are using digital software to work, instead a traditional canvas, the knowledge to blend colors, and all that. But you know, when it’s and advantage for me is ok but if it’s not then is not fair…human history.
I'm sorry, but this is entirely incorrect. There are multiple lawsuits, and individual artist have collectively joined a class-action. It's the people using these image generators that don't see the whole picture. It's going to drive a significant portion of an industry towards using unskilled labor, which means driving down wages. It's often those with no skill who laud these AIs, because they couldn't be bothered to develop the skill. They'd rather steal from artists, act like they didn't, and pretend it's acceptable. It's not.
@@lloydsaul997 I think Jpin answered to great part of that. And about some individual artists joining a class action lawsuit. Will they overshadow the lawsuits from distributors, and their lobby? Or will they be used as pawn be the industry? Now if you care about skill, image generators only replace the draftsmen, not the artists, or is the Gioconda worth less since the invention of AI image generators?
14:43 Arguably excellence springs out of mediocrity. And the fact that anyone can scribble doesn't take away the engaging qualities of the paintings in this video. A digital artist may lean on various computer programs while the stillness of his hand to draw a fine line atrophies but why should his creativity suffer? In a world where an artist could instantly manifest their imagination onto paper or a screen, there is no reason to think they'd lose their ability to be creative. AI however is like using the imagination of someone else to complement one's own. Taste becomes the new skill and creativity atrophies
AI for me has just multiplied my creativity. Artistic visions that never would have seemed achievable before now seem within grasp, and it's incredibly inspiring and empowering.
Great arguments! I think AI is actually good for ART (but bad for some artisis). Real artists with real skill and talant will always stay. A bunch of generic mediocre "artists" with no distinct style and personality - they will be replaced, because they're no different from AI. Yes, AI art is mediocre so it will replace mediocre artists (those who complain the most) So it will be in good ol' days - only the most talalnted and skillful people will be able to call themselves ARTISTS. Quality over quantity. I am wrighting this as a musician that discovered Udio and absolutely LOVING it! If I had a band now, I would use some Udio generated riffs as the base for new songs, but now I'm just creating songs that I enjoy. In the end - the result is the only thing that matters.
@@AlexRazorGame Real Talent doesn't exist. All art is work and working isn't talent. You work until you are a professional level, so when you say 'mediocre' and 'generic' you are talking about artists who are working towards being professional. You are getting rid of everyone 'below you', which is crappy.
I’ve heard a lot of rumors about copyright issues and AI, I believe you did good on elaborating the problem. My argument was always based with America isn’t the only one with AI and the internet, and the countries who are advancing them have a history to not adhere copyright laws.
Amazing video, the points that you give against the arguments of copyright that artists have brought up on the internet regarding AI art, especially bringing up court cases before AI art was a thing where artists who did transformative work with other artists' work was deemed legal by the justice system. You're the first youtuber I have seen that has talked about this topic in a mature way, also bringing about the dangers of what will happen to the art sphere if the normal man or artist themselves lean too much on it, that is the thing however, as pro-AI and someone working on advancements with training AI I have seen the potential it has every single day and the aid it can give to those with creative minds and easing the work flow for professional artists with tedious tasks like so many technological advancements has done for many art forms. My only concern is AI art becoming a monopoly for major corporations and said corporations put a strangle-hold on the current open-source nature that is available to the public, which said public has used to lead to many amazing advancements every day, but knowing the internet, nothing can truly be locked away so my fears might be unjustified and the only thing that would happen is that getting free-open source AI art programs would just require a little more work for the average joe who is interested.
Thank you for the praise! I am most concerned with the combination of algorithms that predict your social media feed being combined with algorithms that generate the things in your feed.
@@artcanhelp For me this is the least concerning part. Simply put - people want to see what other people are doing. That's why streaming is popular. You can have bots play a match and be perfect at it - but nobody would be interested in this in the long run. When content becomes massively AI-generated, people will look for ways to filter it out. The question that was asked in one of the videos i saw was: "Would You like to receive a love letter from a robot"? And My answer is - no. It's technologically fascinating, but it's fake. Holds no value without a person behind it. AI art might go this path - after the initial "hype", people will simply burnout (TBH I think it's already happening). I would like to also point out, that we have a whole industry that produces ready-to-heat food. So in that logic - why anyone still learns to be a Chef? Why people are still going to restaurants, when they can get a robot-processed food easily and cheaply? Please also remember that in 2015 people were saying Facebook will replace the internet and websites - how funny is that in 2023? Motion controls were supposed to change everything a decade ago. 3D media and screens anyone? VR can hardly make a impact.
It is dangerous to use ideas conceived before a new paradigm to judge the world after. The rules of the world before were not convinced adjusted to the existence of AI Artist. A piece of Art may be perceived and studied by anyone to inform their own Art. Never before was there an Artist to perfectly remember all the art available to be perceived, all at once and to instantly study all to mastery. Only limited by the compute resources. This is not where AI is today but seemingly where it could end up. In such a case, an excellent Artist's work may find recognition on its own, but its main function will be to inspire the machine Artist who consumes all perceivable art to inform its own imagination. The only thing that is making AI a tool is its need for a prompt. An AI that prompts itself on the details of the art based on the feeling or idea it wants to promote is no longer a tool but an Artist. It becomes the solution to the main need. The need that brings about the Artist in the first place. *This is not the death of Art but of the Artist*
The essay you mention has quite interesting points, but I believe the philosophical dispute goes beyond just what AI is capable of achieving and delves deeper into what it means to be human. One must first ask what art is and why it attracts us... Because, of course, the amateur person will always try to do everything as best as possible and rise, while the professional seeks to optimize their work. That is correct, but there is more to consider... For example, what is important in an artistic piece? The piece or the author? That is the first dilemma, in my opinion, that needs to be addressed. If we bring psychoanalytic therapy terms into this (which I hope ChatGPT translates well since I am using it to translate this comment into English), we have transference and countertransference, which summarize how the patient feels the relationship with the therapist (transference) and how the therapist feels with the patient (countertransference). Now, if we go into the world of art, the discussion no longer involves just two people, as it is not just the author and the observer, but also the elephant in the room: the artwork itself. So, where does the artwork come in? The observer will mostly interact with the piece, which will evoke emotions that make them like or dislike it, while the author will also mostly interact with the piece as it is where they express what they want to convey (even if it is for work, something is always expressed, something is always communicated). So, if we have the artwork as the center of this communicative process, it becomes the one that takes on the main role. Then, what do we understand by art? I am not going to look for quotes or anything, but personally, I understand art as capturing one's feelings into something, expressing something that is felt. The thing is, if, for example, I make a sad instrumental song because it is Monday, and I want to sleep longer and not go to work, that is my transference towards the song (or countertransference to define the mentioned roles). But the fact that I express this does not limit the observer, in this case, the listener, from associating it specifically with that; instead, they have the freedom to project their own transference onto the piece depending on their own subjectivity. That is to say, they might associate it with romantic problems, the death of someone important, an academic or work failure, etc. As an author in this case, I have no way to control the listener's associations because they do not depend on my subjectivity but on theirs, and that is okay. So, what I want to convey with all this thought journey is that the artistic piece, regardless of its type, is what matters, and how it is made is irrelevant to that transference. Instead, it only serves to feed egos tied to artistic technique (playing an instrument well, drawing well, etc.). But those egos are not what is important in the piece itself. Thank you very much for reading.
Art is no longer art if it is made by an unconscious machine with no true knowledge and experience of the human condition. What makes art beautiful is that it was made by a _person_ . For example, when I look at the School of Athens, or the Pietá, or the statue of David, they are all beautiful in their own individual ways, and they all have meaning within them. Aswell as that, I myself cannot do anything other than gape at the sheer effort these pieces of art must have took to be made, it is hard to believe that a human made that with his hands and mind. Another example is the Sistine Chapel. That required Michelangelo to lie on his back for 4 YEARS painting that. Are you really going to tell me that this nonsense slapped together by a machine could ever be of equal value to that? Give me an example of an unconscious machine giving its art meaning. I will wait. AI Art will only be true art if AI were sentient and were able to make paintings, sculptures and other pieces of art by imbuing it with their own meaning. Don't even get me started on the generators revolving around prompts for stories and poetry. No machine, lest it be sentient, will ever come close to the likes of Shakespeare or Dante or Oscar Wilde or Homer or Emily Dickinson.
You talk as if the people given this machine prompts are mindless zombies. If I give a prompt to create “an astronaut in space painting a crowded train station” will you not call that inspiration? Furthermore the prompt you give it will determine the quality of the art, is that in itself not a form of skill? The AI didn’t come up with that inspiration even though it has the tools to create that kind of art. Will you call the art a senseless rendition? I fail to see the point in your Michelangelo example, if I can swim across the Atlantic, does it make sense for me to do so if the possibility of using an aircraft is there? Making art on the computer manually, is that also pointless? If Michelangelo were alive today, he would have adopted AI in his art to create even greater masterpieces that would otherwise not be possible without AI. We should learn to adopt this technology to take us to heights we never thought would be possible in our lifetime rather putting them down.
@@femiairboy94 1. I do not mean that the people giving the machine prompts are mindless zombies, what I mean is that these people are acting as if they are mindless zombies. They are capable of making meaningful art, but a couple of algorithms throwing random images together is not art; it is laziness. 2. No, I wouldn't call it inspiration, I would call the Sistine Chapel inspiration. 3. No, entering in a couple of words and making sure you string them together in a clever way is not a skill, being able to create entire worlds in your art using only your hands and mind is a skill. 4. Yes, it is senseless. Putting words into a generator is nothing, anyone could sit down and do that if they wanted to. The true artists are the people willing to dedicate their lives to their art, not this tripe. 5. You're using the same non-sequitur I see all of you AI art proponents throw out; 'its more useful! Its faster! Its better!' Yeah nobody asked for that. Art is not what is mindlessly pumped out quicker, art is something somebody has put genuine effort into. _That_ is inspirational. You probably shouldn't swim across the Atlantic Ocean (especially if you have access to alternatives, such as planes and boats), but that is you comparing apples and oranges. Does one risk their life to sit down and put careful effort thought into a piece of art? Not even remotely. Even if you did do that, I probably call it an achievement anyway. 6. Making art on a computer manually? No, because one must put careful and precise thought and effort into what they are doing, that is very different compared to one stringing some words together a certain way, letting all the algorithms do all the work for you by rolling a bunch of images into one, and then there you are; something some people have the nerve to call "art". 7. If Michelangelo were here, he would scoff at humanity's laziness and degradation, so much so that they can't put a chisel to stone, or a pencil to paper, or a brush to a canvas. Art is not what about "looks cooler", that is mere aesthetic. Art is what best depicts the condition of concious beings which are alive and what to express their emotions and thoughts (if this isn't your definition of a "masterpiece", then I'm not sure what is). The day there will ever be "AI Art" will be the day when AI become conscious, but depending on if humanity degrades any further, that may either be a good thing or a bad thing. 8. No, this accelerationist propaganda you are buying into should be laughed out of any room it is in. This drivel is the equivalent of Flat Earth Theory or Young Earth Creationism.
It does indeed depend on your definition of art. I would love to see what you think of my earlier video on AI art. Can it be art? I think it can and yet I partially agree with you. We make art when we fill an artwork with meaning. The viewer imbues meaning not the artist. The artist sets the scene.
@@femiairboy94 prompters provide the idea. The machine provides the expression. This is like saying producers are film creators. They only provide one part of the entire piece.
@@irish_deconstruction Your hands shouldn't be required to make art. Your mind is enough and you can accomplish what is in your mind using any number of tools before AI existed. AI will help people create what they want, what is in their minds. So what part of that shouldn't be called art?
on my philosophical end of things, AI art vindicates my materialism, my mental attitude that humans are far too arrogant to allow the truth out that what we do isn’t that special. im sad that this belief of mine is vindicated, because it doesn’t leave us much. I bet there’s a better lens to look at things for this going forwards though.
That is definitely an interesting take. Personally, I am not a materialist. I think the backlash against it actually supports a metaphysical frame work. Why are so many "materialists," (I am not suggesting this is you btw) mad about AI? It is as if they believe there is inherent value and meaning in human endeavors that is categorically different than mere material entities. For example if a tiger rips a gazelles legs off then slowly eats it organs as it dies a horrific death we don't call the tiger evil. But, if a human did so virtually every person on the planet would be appalled. Why? There must be some difference between humans and tigers.
Your inability to appreciate the incredible ability of the world's greatest artists says more about you than it does them. Watch a Kim Jung Gi or Casey Baugh at work and tell me that what they do isn't that special. The machines used to generate similar results is just an illusion. Unplug the machine and you have nothing. Human creativity is and will always be special. Your attitude is coming from a place of jaded, passive aggressive envy, and borderline jealousy.
@@artcanhelp The difference between the human and the tiger is obvious. The human would be taking the life of the gazelle unnecessarily. Humans can thrive without eating animals. The Tiger do not have that option. The outrage comes from the fact that all animal life on the planet would perish if humans were allowed to eat them indiscriminately.
@@sentry8992 kill the human and you have nothing either. all this machine does is show the creation of art dosent need a human to do it. the is proved though it making good art that a great many enjoy. It’s just a statement that AI can do it. it can detect colours too and sort apples. all it’s doing is just adding to a growing list of things robots can do equally or better than humans. of course I appreciate good art, that’s why the AI is vindictive of my hypothesis that a great many things humans hold special can be done by a sophisticated computer. as is this case with the quality AI art. idk what you want from me?
@@broorb4104 According to those that use this technology extensively, it does require constant human guidance. It's a Mashup machine. Without a human being pulling the levers, nothing will come out of the Black box. These robots can't spontaneously create on their own. They are only lines of code running a script. That's not the same as authentic human creativity.
They screwed up releasing Ai image generation to the public so early. Think about it. Ai was originally trained on image information scraped from the internet but what is it trained on now? Image database now are filled with Ai generated images corrupting Ai's ability to advance beyond its own flaws. How is it supposed to learn how hands look when its database is filled with Ai generated images with incorrect hand rendering. It is basically feeding back into the training model all of the flaws it needs to fix. They should have kept it private but now they have tainted the internet with junk data that it can't ues.
@@_B_E It is happening and it is happening with generative text programs as well. Diffrent language models are are showing signs of parroting themselves. Simply put there will be eventually be more unrefined ai content on the internet that it will push ai and to a developmental cul-de-sac.
@@davidcomito505 It's literally not my dude. There might be some newer models that are in testing with different data sets, but the data sets themselves are not being altered. You're literally lying lmao
I hear the argument that it hurts the ability for an artist to make a living, but what of other past advances? Modern agriculture equipment transformed us from a world where >70% of people were working on farms to one where the needs of the many are met by a few. You can use the argument to shutdown anything that increases a persons efficiency to produce value. Think of all the artisan paint and ink makers who were displaced by other digital art tools. To take things to their logical conclusion, we're steadily moving towards a world where there won't be enough jobs for everyone. We need to figure out how to handle it as that future inevitably draws closer. The problem isn't the tool increasing our efficiency, no ones arguing we need to go back to ice boxes because refrigerators replaced an entire profession, its the hoarding of resources and wealth that are generated by all this efficiency. Instead of improving the lives of everyone, or setting up safety nets for people like those who are displaced, its funneled upwards into the musks and bezos of the world, creating classes of wealth that were once impossible and serve no beneficial purpose. Not advocating for any political ideology here, though it may sound socialist. But what's wrong with the idea of a world where everyones most basic needs are met while still allowing for those who desire more to work and compete for it. AI may lessen the value of art as a means to make money in some fields, but it will never destroy the individual value of traditional art. As you said, it's just a tool. Some will make great use of it to do things that no one has seen before, others will abuse it while the laws take time to catch up.
Even with the creation of digital drawing tools the industries behind producing paint and ink didn't die out. Now folks are into small batch creating their own paints. I think after a while of dealing with advancements in technology folks just get tired of it and are drawn to the old. Also on the topic of farming it's a shame that there's farms out there that get paid by the government to NOT produce anything because they "specialize" in corn and corn as a crop is an over saturated market. So these people get paid to sit around doing nothing while having huge plots of land meanwhile normal folks be struggling to make ends meet and get accused of begging for handouts simply from wanting living wages. Bleh.
@@AlottaBoulchit Certainly, technology opens up new possibilities but the older methods and materials have their own charms. They just don't exist to the same scale as they used to, when it was the only way to do things. And I agree, its so wasteful. Similar thing happens with milk, farmers dumping thousands of gallons to keep the price up and profitable. We have the capabilities to produce more than we need, but money must come first, always.
The AI is a machine built on the patterns of human artist. These patterns are an integral part of AI machine. They are its nuts and bolts. Is it fair use to build a machine based on the nuts and bolts of others? While our minds also store patterns, it is not a machine for the public to use. It is our most private sphere. You cannot just extrapolate copyrights applicable to private humans to a public machine.
@@LeafSouls Well does the artist when he puts his work out, consented to have it used by a machine? Or did he only consent to have it used by humans? My point is that art consumed by a machine, is not the same thing as art consumed by a human. And artist never consented that they art be turned into an algorithm.
@@nicolasaeschlimann3718 You own no right to consent to this, yes it maybe your art that I am currently perhaps drawing, but let us say, you did not consent to me drawing it, I am not talking about putting it on the internet, rather simply drawing in the real world, does your non-consent mean anything morally? Despite being your own art and creation that I am recreating? And should I take it seriously and comply? No, and the same applies to the algorithm That is because the law exists to protect the value of what you own, not one's pettiness
Issue with ai art is that its uses are very ill intended. It lets the ""less creatively talented"" to mass produce ""creative"" pieces. It's a plastic immitation that has gotten good enough to trick the masses and can win contests, and competitions. And have been used to take advantage of others work. While maybe not illegal. It is quite simply not a good thing. It's a crutch for the masses, and a somewhat useful tool for those not intending to take advantage of a weak market and oblivious observers. Not illegal. But the potential for evil. Like a knife
It allows for the masses to have easy access to cheap outcomes, even if it is at a lower quality. What you just described is mass production. You even said it yourself. So do you reject mass produced goods of all types and buy purely handcrafted goods made by professionals, or does that moral stance stop at your career field?
@@C052-ip9zs Nothing is being taken from artist, no copyright is being violated. Fair use already allows for far less transformative uses of art without permission. AI is not stealing, get over it.
No human ever consents to being born. But here we are. Visual art, like music, and like all creative expression, is just one of the many methods we utilize to cope with being alive. It’s an attempt to make sense of, and to find meaning in-our suffering as well as in our joys-within the confines of our brief lives. Maybe what we need to do is to stop looking to the economists to tell us how to value lives. Maybe that’s what it would take for us to gradually become a healthier species and maybe only then would we find a better balance with the rest of nature. Should we start by decoupling art and commerce? It might work for some but how would that work out for the materialists? Thanks for your excellent content! Please keep at it! 🤝
Great thoughts. I saw an instagramer talking about the realization that their photography would no longer compete in the commercial realm. Rather than feeling lost she realized she could make photos for the sheer love of making photos. While I don't know the full ramifications of a "commerceless" artworld I hope that these generators will push us towards a deeper value system. The commerce as king mindset will need to shift as we automate more and more of our world especially our creative industries. Maybe we can stop calling them creative industries and see them as fields of human endeavor.
@@artcanhelp that’s an interesting idea! If AI can replicate human effort and hyper-optimize all of its output for engagement and personalize content for each individual, then how would humans be able to compete? What kind of world would that be? Where all of our human potential is harvested by machines that do not exist in the physical world? Will machines continue to supplant humans as creators leaving us behind, mainly to exist as hyper-consumers (even more so than we already are)? I’m not anti AI, but am concerned about how this impacts the human creative spirit going forward. I hope it will not lead to further disillusionment. Maybe a Guaranteed Global UBI could solve a lot of issues in the “work or die”, “work status”, “work-flex”paradigm that we are in. A guaranteed global UBI might lead to a less stressed out world where people can still create, love, learn, research, invent, discover, play, volunteer, and just live out the rest of their lives in peace, without having to constantly be worried about job loss, homelessness, water, food, shelter. Some essential jobs and specialized jobs would still remain. People would still be able to do voluntary work and would still be able to contribute in their own unique ways, but without the constant instability and sometimes constant extreme anxieties around basic human survival needs. Once basic needs are met/stabilized would we see a creativity explosion? Or a creativity implosion? Really not sure.
@@Ungrievable Eventually humanity needs to move away from human labor entirely. The machines will soon enough become capable of all of it without us after all. We need to carefully balance humanity itself so that instead of a small group discarding the rest of humanity in favor of machines it is humanity as a whole who shows the "labor" of said machines. Such a world would be one where no one would work. We would all simply do what we desired with the resources the machines had generated for us. Such a world is a lifetime or more away of course but we are definitely transitioning toward it. Its just a matter of how rough things will be while we figure it all out. No doubt there will be people forcing the idea of human labor long after its required.
I personally have a lot of other issues with AI art, but you make a very good point about decoupling art and commerce. The conception of art as "product" or "content" is what got us here. When you view art like this, the actual process becomes "drudgery" to be automated away. I wonder sometimes if AI art would have as much appeal in a society where art was solely pursued as expression.
I suppose a more nuanced take would be, they want to stop the algorithm from using their images without being able to charge a price. Regardless, most folks who are up in arms against the tech are tying to "stop it" in some manner. Some I am sure want it to be completely done away with, as you can see in this comments section. Most want "fair" compensation and if they don't get it a lawsuit is an implied "stop."
"Transformative use of other artwork" The Koons case also doesn't hold up here. He was using ordinary images of women's feet in a transformative way to make a commentary on that very imagery. AI artwork doesn't use existing art to make a commentary. If you take fifty images of women's feet and train an AI image generator, it will generate an image of women's feet. It is not transformative, and it is not a commentary; it is just reproducing those images as competing artwork.
Nope. Diffusion by definition is transformative. It pulls a similar image out of noise. If that is not transformative then nothing is. It is definitely different but also definitely similar.
@@artcanhelp "Transformative" refers to the resulting image, not the process used to create that image. I can scan in a copyrighted image, compress it via JPEG into a pattern of 1's and 0's, and then combine those into a perfect reproduction of the original image. The data is transformed, but the resulting image is still a copy. Compressing an image into noise and then pulling that image out is not a transformative piece of artwork. The resulting image is not expressing a different idea, such as the works of Warhol.
@@abates17 which is a great point for iconic images or logos. Like the Getty image issue. But those are realistically niche cases that the companies will easily weed out of their models.
@@artcanhelp All artists deserve equal copyright protection, not just the most recognizable or iconic ones. These AI companies are opening themselves up for massive lawsuits unless they start over with new models after asking for permission.
Intent is ultimately the foundation of all creation. WHY did someone train a generator on images of feet? WHY did they write a prompt doing so? Was the intent to be transformative, subversive, critical? If the intent is there, and the result of their process creates a unique output, then that's just as artistically meritable as any other form of creation.
Look at what it made six months ago and look at what it is making now. It drastically outpaces the average human artist. The images are not amazing right now but give it a few months or a year. Then that argument will no longer stand up.
@@artcanhelp the stuff it's making now don't seem much better than last year imo. It cant even figure out truly complex structures like hands. People last year when dalle-2 came was being shown off said the same thing to me and yet it still can't do hands, let alone creatively interesting stuff. People seem to think that ai is magic and just improves on its own. That's not how it works. It does evolve on its own, but that doesn't mean it will involve in a desirable way or even expected way. There is a massive amount of work and genius and data going into squeezing the results we see out of these algorithms. For sure it's exiting tech, but it's not magic. Another thing, getting AI close to human ability is orders of magnitude easier than getting AI at or surpassing human ability. The distance between where the tech was in the very beginning and where it is now is smaller than the distance between where it is now and where it would have to go to replace a skilled craftsman or an creative mind.
@@444-w8k it certainly has a ways to go with hands but just look at how quickly it learned photorealistic faces. Hands are far more complex but it will get there quicker than you expect.
@@artcanhelp I guess only time will tell. Im impressed with ai but I think people conceptualize technological developments as linear and inevitable. In reality it's near impossible and all exponential growth flatlines until another major breakthrough is made. So ai should be conceptualized as an s curve in which each plateau is exponentially more difficult to breakthrough than the last.
@@444-w8k you would have a point, if you didn't miss the part where there have been 2 or 3 major breakthroughs every month for the last 3 or 4 months in the ai art field. all the open source ai art generators are already at least 3 or 4 full generations of improvements behind the current best. finger issues solved. noticeable texture mess is solved. even consistent characters across prompts is solved. i'm gonna say even given setbacks we are at most a year out from the ai generation to be completely indistinguishable from the real thing consistently from every prompt. you say only time will tell.. well the sad thing is, time did tell, its just not a public released ai model 'yet'.
What about ai art which use artist's name in their generation. They basically use their name, identity and style to produce artwork that looks like the original owner. I know style is not copyright, but if it's to the instance where ai art disrupting the artist's livelihood and identity where massive corporation/individual can just analyze artist artwork and claim as theirs, then that just devalue the reason of making art in the first place. Imagine if somebody take your videos, name and your voices to create another channel that looks like you but its not you. Is that even fair at this point ? Plus, we all know this company is able to produce a more ethical ai art generation. I mean just look at dance diffusion.
Make no mistake I am not happy about what the impact of these technologies will most likely be. I am merely saying that the way we think about copyright now will not suffice to protect things like "style." On the one hand style is important but even a highly stylized form is difficult to tie boundaries too. If we have to actually define our style then what do we do as our style evolves. I also have to wonder why we haven't fought automation in the past as ardently because it had devalued many industries. Yet, we didn't care as much. But now that it is threatening artists we suddenly want to stop it. All in all it is a difficult conundrum. Even saying one company is more "ethical" than another is interesting. By what ethical metric?
My argument is that if someone has enough of A presence on the internet to have pictures On google images or Some website who wouldn't Type In their name and go For a little NSFW spin?! Does no one see how violating This technology is?
I have felt this way personally for a long time. I have tried to keep as many images of my face off the internet. Back when China started the social credit score based on facial recognition. Unfortunately it becomes harder and harder.
This is of course going to be something that comes up but its not really an AI issue. Just like the ability to stab someone with a knife isn't an issue with knives themselves. We simply need to grow humanity itself past the point where such things are a problem.
That whole quote by the poet was just dumb. He only points out amateur vs professional instead of pointing out the novice vs the experienced He also attempts to coin both terms as either "love" and "work" when neither is the reality in how you can also love to make art and grow in experience (professional) in it. He just really wanted to point out the difference between the street artist and the mass produced artist which neither affect each other as they are both means of creating art. Is the street artist just upset that a factory prints more? Then why not triumph the industry by being a professional /expert?
It doesn't matter what arguments you make in favour of ai. It ALL boils down to wanting to make a quick buck. All these "ai artists" had no interest in art until now. When technology does all the work for you you have achieved nothing and the vast majority will lose interest when the next trend comes along. The art is in the endeavour. It's why people say Micheal Jordan made basketball an art form, why Messi made football an art form. Real people appreciate seeing the fruits of endeavour and dedication Art made by humans won't die, it'll fall through the cracks where it will thrive.
I can foresee a future where artists block their work from public view and put it behind a login form and possibly paid subscriptions to prevent ai from using their work free.
@@fuckakakaka > *Thats what getty images essentially does* Not exactly sure if I understand how the OP's suggestion is at all comparable to the current design of Getty - I mean, I don't need to login or anything to see the watermarked images allegedly at the center of the controversy/lawsuit.
That would have saved me some time. My friend did ask chat gpt to make an argument for the benefits of productivity and speed that chat gpt offers as more valuable than learning to be a creative human. It was disturbing to say the least.
I as a painter look at a flower, i get inspired and turn to the canvas, then i recall the image i've seen, but the imsge is not there, for my brain stores not images but patterns, and i understand long oval shapes coming out of a circular center, each oval has a slight downward curve to it, specially the upper oval, and upon defining the image, i recall the art i've seen in my life, how shapes can be portrayed by strokes, and how i define my own specifications of such information. And i paint, and i finish it. I am a human, yet the process was no different from that of an AI. This is how AI works, it stores not images, but specifications, if you're gonna ban it for stealing, then ban all art museums as well!
the discussion is not about the art per-se ... is about the data hoarding goddammit and how the data is handled by big corps ... in exchange for monthly signature ...
i dont understand how a human using your art as reference is ok, but ai using it is stealing. i simpathise with you since your dream job is at risk. but welcome to being an adult, many things you take for granted like some agriculture machines took some peoples jobs in the past.
Excellent video and valuable contribution. Whether one loves or hates AI generated art, the copyright infringement issue is a distracting non starter. The broader points and question you raise are the ones we really should be discussing.
I think of art as a resource in the context of this argument, like oil. Art is the fuel for these tools. The artists probably should have some say over how their resource is used. Nice deep dive on this issue.
This is the cutting edge video. It’s arguing the legal battle. talk all we want about the ethics, the legality is the bar. you made a good case for how it will likely play out in favour of AI. thats a sub from me for the explanation.
"This idea of consent is raising people's hackles when we've been consenting to have our personal data used by posting to social media" I don't even know where to start with this one. You're comparing apples to oranges here. Copyrighted artwork is not the same thing as personal identifiable information. If I post my picture online and Google uses that information for their own purposes, fine. That doesn't give them the right to steal my artwork. You're saying that sharing data online means we can't complain about copyrighted artwork being stolen, which is absolutely not the case.
It is in some cases. You need to read the Eula regarding each platform. Many platforms will claim copyright just based on a user uploading images. The lawsuits against the pirate bay further confuse who owns copyrights, the users or the platforms. At least who should be held accountable for when a copyright is infringed. If diffusion models can be prosecuted based on training databases then so can we crawlers based on search term databases.
@@artcanhelp Search engines are not crawling websites, then using that data to create a competing website. But diffusion models are crawling images and then using that to create competing images. And no, I am not aware of a single website that claims copyright to your images when you post them.
@@abates17 how is midjiourney a market composition? The images are not copyright protected and anyone can use them for free? Midjiourney is funded off of user fees. Not licensing. Hence my future video about the flood.
I was a anti-AI art conservative back 2 years ago. but through thinking it through and seeing how it can not replace artists since artist can adapt to its, since it is a tool. I can say the goals matter more than consent, since companies never asked my consent when blocking Art from use due to Copyright. I am sure that progressives can you use more to give impressions on a post capitalist ruled earth.
The way I look at the ethical issue of data sets is from a somewhat simplified view of a company creating a product. One defining feature of this product is that it’s digital, but let’s remove that element and simply look at it on that base level of product creation. Any time a product is created the components of that product need to be purchased for that use. Let’s say a company is building a machine. This machine is held together with nuts and bolts. Those nuts and bolts are an essential part of the machine; it cannot function without them. The company creating this machine cannot just take the nuts and bolts they need, they have to purchase them or the materials to fabricate their own. And this goes for every crucial element of a product from parts to labor to marketing. All of these essential components of that product have to be purchased. Now, I don’t think any AI engineer would argue that a large data set is a crucial component to an AI programs ability to function at a high level. The art taken is a crucial piece of their product, so why would we not expect them to have to purchase their parts, as we do in every other case?
@@artcanhelp but people aren’t giving their art away. If you want to use someone’s art in any official capacity, you still have to pay for it regardless of whether it is posted online or not. And I don’t think in any other context the statement “a company should pay for the components of their product” would be a controversial one.
@@SkullandSwors_art It all depends on the nature of the "use." For example if someone left out a box of screws and nuts and you took them, measured them, adjusted for your own application, then implemented a slightly different screw, you would be within your rights. That is what is happening in most cases. Obviously some models are infringing on copyrights. Often the models are not copying but analyzing an artwork. We are giving away our art in a sense on the internet. Anyone can extrapolate patterns and forms from that work to applyfor their own ends. That is the manner in which we are giving away the nuts and bolts for free on the corner.
@@artcanhelp I’m not making an argument based on what AI is doing with its data set. I am making an argument based on the data set being a key component to their product, the AI program itself. This is where the ethical issues come into play. And let’s continue to run with this nuts and bolts analogy. Say you see a bucket of bolts in the corner of someone’s yard, you take them, remachine them to fit your purpose and use them to your ends. But what you didn’t know is that the person was actually just fixing a fence post, and you just took all of their hardware. Would this not be stealing? Even if based on a misunderstanding. Now if there is a written sign on the box “free to take” or if it is in a trash pile, clearly meant for disposal, that situation is different, because of the clear intention of the person leaving the bucket. Artists(most at least) are not posting their art online with the intention to allow anyone to do anything with it, certainly not to let AI companies train their programs on them. And it is truly a different thing for someone to see someone else’s piece and take inspiration from it or use it as a reference than it is for a corporate entity(from what I understand under the guise of research) to take art without permission or compensation to the owner, to create a for profit program. They are essential components of their base product, and regardless of how the AI uses that component, it should be paid for or acquired with permission. Paying for the components of a product you’re creating is a base cost of doing business across the board. Again, I just don’t see why this is a controversial stance.
@@SkullandSwors_art Let me be clear, I am not saying your stance is not ethically right or wrong. I am saying that our current laws do not make the training illegal. In most cases. It is more akin to finding a bucket of nuts and bolts left out on public property. You take the bolts, measure them and make molds of them, then leave them where you found them and make your own bolts. Even the copying part, the fact that the AI companies are downloading images is not quite actionable. Afterall, every web browser copies every image to the temporary memory of every computer it works on. Our laws are just not ready for this and unfortunately they laws are not aligned with the artists.
The point of the matter with "flooding the market" is because it speaks to the damage these Ais will have on the value of the artist's work that they are trained upon which is one of the hurdles in arguing fair use. The more damage it does to the value of a copyrighted work, the less likely it is pass that hurdle. Sorry, but you are just flat-out wrong about public images. Just because you put things out in the public view (which is not the "public domain", that is a very different definition and the two should not be used interchangeably because it causes confusion and misinformation) does not make it fair use. That is a cut and dry rule of copyright. If that were the case then anyone could claim ownership over anything that was publicly displayed and that is precisely why copyright law does not allow it. You do not have legal ownership over my art that I post to social media anymore than I do to your vacation photos that you post. For the record when you post something on Deviant Art it does come with a license that you as the artist can determine. For example I tend to use a creative commons, non-derivative, non-commercial works license 5.0 license. Meaning I like sharing my art and I believe that it can't really be considered art until it is shared, you can download my art for personal use like wallpapers, or prints to hang on your wall. At no point are you allowed to alter it (non-derivative) such as; crop, collage, photo-bash, add a filter, add text, layer a texture over it, use it in a meme, etc. Nor are you allowed to use it in any commercial setting or product without an expressed license from me. I even had to send a cease and desist order to a person who used it as their album cover and that was in 2012. So there is licensing when you post images online many people just do not know about it until they find them selves in litigation. Likewise social media platforms like Facebook and Instagram both are required by law to recognize copyright ownership over images that are uploaded however in their terms of service they reserve the right to license your images you upload from you for their own use, NOT for everyone else to use. Which is why you have to agree to it in order to use that service. Even then, as the copyright owners we can still reserve the right to stipulate the conditions of that license. Which is why in the description of my original pieces I mention the same terms of the license I described above. Even if it is not done in an official capacity, the intent of the license is made known and THAT is what the courts care about. Now, against Meta I may likely lose any litigation I pull them into over the rights of my art but that still doesn't give anyone else permission to use my art without licensing. I will say this, the ninth district court that these lawsuits are being filed in is very tech savvy and more lenient when it comes to technology benefiting the public at large so it is possible that these artists will lose their case however, the ninth district is also extremely arts and humanities-centered too with a firm stance on the precedence of copyright law. Which is why the lawsuits were filed there in the first place. The idea that this being decided upon as "fair use" in general is extremely unlikely due to the precedence it would set for all forms of media. It could be applied to movies, music, video games, etc. It is far more likely that it will be decided upon as copyright infringement and then individual future cases can argue certain use cases for fair use. That is another thing, a plaintiff can not bring fair use as their argument, only a defendant can use it as a defense for copyright infringement. It was designed that way to begin with. I agree that it will not END human-made art. It is going to make it much more valuable, less accessible, less prolific, and much much more expensive. I am not gonna stop creating, one way or the other, but all my stuff will be plastered with various watermarks moving forward though. You want to see it without watermark? You gonna have to pay for it and you have text to image Ais to thank for it. No more free wallpapers. You also have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the diffusion process works as well as what exactly gets stored on the data set and Ai models that are trained. I suggest Corridor Crew's "Lawyer Explains Stable Diffusion Lawsuit" video as well as the Corridor Cast Ep# 163 (both on YT). Just know that going into it they are all very pro-Ai tech people and even they are coming to terms with the implications of it all.
That was a great video and it does raise a serious issue that they did seem to store copyright images. But copyright does not stop me from saving your image to my computer. It stops me from making copy's for distribution. I would not be surprised if they end up saying that storing the images for ai training is not even considered "use." They are ultimately analyzing images, quantifying pixel patterns, then iterating new transformative images. I am not a legal expert but that definitely seems "fair" given the cases I raise. It can be best illustrated by the vcr actually. You are allowed to record a TV show for personal use on your own data storage device. But you can't distribute it for commercial purposes. This is why the copyright argument will probably fail unless new ideas are formed to take into account the new tech.
@@artcanhelp To be fair making copies of television programs with VCR was actually illegal. The same goes with recording songs off the radio with a cassette player or ripping movies from a DVD that you owned. It was just never enforced to any meaningful degree. Nowadays with DRM and the DMCA it does carry severe penalties. Just like always it took legislation and law enforcement a while to catch up with the technology. It isn't even the storing of copyright images that is the issue. That can be done for research purposes legally and the vast majority of artists understand this now. The issue is the diffused result from removing the noise in the training process generates a derivative work that is not transformative enough to be considered fair use and it will have a major impact on the value of the work (for better or worse, but still an impact) that it was trained upon. Also the fact that it was used to generate a commercial product is a violation of the owner's right to determine the licensing terms of their work.
@@JMulvy There is a great Atlantic article on Universal Studios vs. Sony Corporation of America. As far I can tell you are wrong about the vcr. Personal recording is allowed. So it hinges on whether the corporation "recording" the images is fair use.
@@artcanhelp I am familiar with it. Apologies I shouldn't say it was illegal. What it was is copyright infringement. It doesn't necessarily break teh law in every case but each case does come with penalties and damages. However SCOTUS did make the distinction that if it was for personal use it was perfectly allowable. Meaning in the same context; ai bros (forgive me, I do not know a better short hand to refer to them) would be allowed to generate images and then keep them for personal use. If we were to apply the same precedent then at no point would they be legally allowed to publicize them on social media or make money off of prints or merchandise.
USA has a law that if an artwork was created by an non human then it cannot be copyrighted. So any image or any creative works generated by anything other than a human is worthless.
Only if humans give it value. which most collectors of art would never pay millions for a piece that can be copied and sold millions of times. Ai art work can't be copywrite protected. Making it as valuable as those cheap posters one buys at a music store. No long term value can be gained from it. Therefore it's not art.
We’re no longer safe unless if laywers can be more stricted for destroying the A.I generated and make them illegal since bad actors can abuse it very easily. I’m actually studying quickly and defend artists how to stop this mess. I don’t want to see a bad future because of an A.I generated.
amazing that you think that because some people can abuse a tool that the tool itself should be destroyed. Do you think we should ban cars or knives because people use them for bad reasons? If you genuinely hold this position, then you need to do a LOT of studying because you're still at the starting line brother.
I have used AI to create around 10 thousand images in the last year. I've tested and experimented with the prompts and setting and styles, etc. What have I lost? absolutely nothing, but I have gained a new way of being creative. Have I created some masterpieces, maybe, but most likely not, but it was fun. Before getting a job and "enjoying" the "benefits" of adulthood I used to spend countless hours making 3d models, modest ones to be sure, but it was a joy to create things and share and get feedback. Once I had a job, most of the energy I used to create things vanished. If I spent too much time on modeling I would be frustrated I didn't relax enough, see a movie, make a better meal etc but if I didn't spend time on creating I would also become frustrated. In the end doing creative stuff became a chore and I stopped doing it. I collected a huge a mount of pictures as reference material for someday using it to model new things, but realistically I never will or will in a very limited capacity. With AI I can now enjoy the creative process in very short time frame. I know instant gratification isn't necessarily good, but as an average Joe that can't travel the world on a whim or spend months on some pleasant task what joys do we really have in life? Most of our time is spent at work and then on doing mundane stuff at home. What exactly is my purpose in that context? I honestly kind of hope AI will disrupt absolutely everything soon and force society to fundamentally change because as it is right now it does not feel rewarding or satisfying to just live. Even if I had more money and stuff, I'd just have to waste more time on dealing with it, maintain and clean, pay more taxes etc. Advanced technology is irrelevant if our mentality and society is stuck in the past. In my opinion the entire concept of copyright is a relic and is only useful for corporations and rich people as normal people would not have the resources to fight those who infringe or steal their work, especially across borders as is often the case. I'd be lying if I didn;t also feel some slight feeling of loss or sadness. Now is basically the last time period when most things we see and interact will have been made and decided on by mostly humans, but at the same time that is also a good thing because there is so much crap design and ugliness in this world.....
Your first and last paragraphs seem to contradict. Perhaps struggling for something will actually make it worth your time? Are those 10k images as satisfying as spending the time to make 1 good painting?
So one guy is able to output 10,000 images in a year with this technology? That means 1000 artists could output tens of millions. That's equal to visual pollution with nothing being gained. No skill being developed, just an endless sea of visual noise.
@@MrScrewKiller Exactly. I find myself scrolling right by interesting images simply because I know it's made by a machine. I enjoy the craftsmanship behind the art. A Big Mac will never be as enjoyable as a meal that I prepare in my own kitchen. I like studying other artists technique. Watching them create a piece right before my eyes. We are living in a time where we can learn from and witness artistic genuises as talented as the greatest Italian Renaissance Masters practice their craft and learn from them in real time. Why would we give that up? I can't get over how dumb the whole idea is. There are extraordinary artists working today. Just about all of them teach their techniques. Why are we asking a robot to do the work? I'm sorry, I find the whole concept of AI image generators to be, just plain dumb.
You can make much more than 10k in year, because you experiment a lot and also make dud variations, not all generations are decent, you actually need some knowledge to get your vision across. I am personally not spamming anything, just sharing on a few forums.
The argument is pretty simple, why does a regular artist gets hit with shame and lawsuits if they try to copy an artwork, while AI gets a freepass. That is were a lot of artist are pissed right now. its not a matter of getting left behind or anything, if a regular artist gets hit with it, then so as AI art for that equal treatment and PROPER rules on where they can join, its the reason you don't see photographers are joining a drawing contest or a poet joining a cook off and claims words are food for the mind.
> *while AI gets a freepass.* But ... on its own, barring overtraining/overfitting, which is erroneous/corrected (and undesirable), how does these things (ESPECIALLY neural net based ones) copy artwork?
@@gondoravalon7540 its kinda like this, AI is pretty much a tracer, in the art community everybody hates a tracer, even if you are human, nobody likes a tracer. The principle of AI art is like photobashing a lot of images. its pretty much the same thing on music company on how they are protective of their music even if its used as a sample, same goes to regular artist. For reference look, for the artist cutesexyrobot and shexyo, pretty much the same principle shexyo copied the art style and artwork and did some changes but still, nobody wants that.
@@AlottaBoulchit but there is a difference between practicing and monetizing the original artwork, the copyright law states you can't copy the whole piece, only small portions. For example the Mona Lisa piece, you can copy her pose but you have to change the whole angle, if you want to copy her clothing BUT you have to add something to it to make it fall under transformative art work. its fine to "trace" as long as it is for practice and study purposes and nothing more.
While an artistic style and identity takes a human artist decades to create and foster, AI can rip it in a matter of second. While humans can get inspired by other artist style and identity, AI should not be able to do so. It is true that our minds also store patterns, but it is not a machine for the public to use. It is our most private sphere. You cannot just extrapolate copyrights applicable to private humans to a public machine. The machine does not process work like our mind does. It process it in a perfect and mechanical way in matters of second enabling to rip an artists unique style in a matter of second. Is there now any incentives, for artist to create new styles and identity? Shouldn't artist creating new styles and identity be protected? isn't this a valuable commodity?New copyrights laws need to be put in place to protect artists style and identity.
This is my implied point. The way we treat artists and intellectual property needs to drastically change if we care about the impact this tech will have. We have not changed much when automation has ravaged other work sectors. Regarding your questions at the end. If art is made in order to make money then everyone should switch to AI. Perhaps there is a higher value that should be associated with art though? My video on why folks should make art even though AI can do it addresses this.
You can't say that AI is transformative by itself, because that's not true. Person is not changing anything visual, it's the algorithm that transformed 1s and 0s from original image to another format of 1s and 0s and then generates according to them. What can it do without the images? Or images made in "one room" scenario like same chair or table, then it wouldn't give much results. That's just another example of grow as fast as possible and worry about consequences later, companies make it seem like computers (conveyor belts) are just like people (magic black box) so need to have the same rights. The era of "slop" is coming
The person is changing something visual though. This is why babies must observe the world before that can shape it. We are all doing this. Take one thing, copy it, transform, and combine.
@@artcanhelp We are people, who have needs and a whole life. AI is just a machine that doesn't have reasons, morals or will. It's stupid to say that machines are like humans or the other way around. For example, on some events it is prohibited to have a camera, why? Because 0s and 1s are not the same as stupid neurons that can forget or change stuff. Kids can imagine stuff based on their natural creativity, AI is just putting numbers in matrices. It's nearly impossible for a person to almost perfectly copy Mona Lisa (from memory), ai can do it with 3 additional variants.
@@shallmow Correct, it is better at it than us. That is, it is better at copying than us. It is also better at transforming. But, for now, it is not that good at novel transformations. Just because it is better is not to say it is not like us in any way. It is walking through the same process as humans but with far greater speed and efficiency.
You can have all the arguments you want, but I'm off to generating my game assets in style of Leonardo da Vinci oil-painting. Can artist do 3000 assets per month for $20 in the same quality? If so, tell me and I will gladly use your services. I'll pay $30 😉
@@artcanhelp What's unethical about it? Ethics is subjective. I should've paid 100 times or more for slower and probably worse job or maybe unbearably slow and adequate job? Why? It's just evolution of technology and I'm using the tool. It's like saying factories were unethical to family owned businesses, but those couldn't handle the demand anyway, now it's just history. This will be too. What artist I'm hurting? Leonardo? He would probably be over the moon and using AI himself if he lived today.
@@SmartK8 something being expedient, business savey, and financially more feasible does not make a thing ethical. At the advent of automation and factories they did have the same conversation. That is what the story of John Henry is all about. You are ultimately proving my point.
@@artcanhelp But how it ended up? Factories won and workers just moved to less robotic work to and/or machine maintenance. What is artistic about making 8000 assets in the same style in least time possible? Sounds like a work for a "factory" to me. Wouldn't be better if artists moved to a more specialized work or just learned to use the AI to help them with art? Probably writing their specialized models.
@@SmartK8 that is how it seems to you because our culture has a view of work as slavish. Look at traditional Japanese master crafts and you will see that some people are able to take pride in their work even when it is something like making hundreds of sheets of paper. Btw, I am not saying you're wrong. I am saying you cannot simply dismiss the impact because humans have adapted to the past. Not everyone has the same capacities as you to adapt. So, what sort of ethic would fit the problem best? That is the hard question that will ultimately be ignored and progress will march on. Who knows who and how many will be trampled.
Idc anyomore honestly. People still go in the wild and/or have farms while there’s this very convenient life in cities. I’ll just continually do it until AI make up law stopping to make them art lol idk
We'll just be inundated with AI art that looks AI art. So in twenty/thirty years no one but machine's will be making images for other images to scrape.
Actually ai does just fine training on ai art. In fact, it's quickly becoming the primary way of training and you see pretty big improvements from it. The key is data curation and detailed labeling.
In all AI isn't bad It's just being used in a wrong way And there is this youtuber who like proposed some kind of solution to all this that might actually work Like I don't know all that shit about copyright, law or whatever but from the way he explains it seems possible Anyway here is the link to the video if you wish to know more about it. ua-cam.com/video/hpBVUXYi2XA/v-deo.html
when you say other people don't understand what legal terms mean, you should look it up yourself. Public domain does not mean on social media or the internet, it means long after you die. Look up public domain day, Mickey Mouse for example isn't public domain yet, but soon will be. Also look up fair use and the four factors. Extent of use matters. Fair use derives from our 1st amendment, ie no law can infringe speech even copyright, so fair use codifies that exception. Artists, as in painters do single paintings or limited prints, extent of use is why partly why Prince can use art of just about anything, fine art is pure 1st amendment protected expression. This is how artists during comic con can paint superheroes. It can transform it 100% and that is one factor. The style of Dr Seuss has been ruled infringing copyright. Their tech is able to copy just the style, thats still copying regardless if human artists might do that. Ask any artist and they will say they have their own style, its literally the only thing that makes our work have value. AI is a black box, it is rhetoric to say its working in a given way, nobody knows. How its creators describe it, its pretending its intelligent, its actually just big data storage, copying weights and statistics enough so it can recreate something good enough, much like video codecs do with video. The burden is on the AI companies to prove what looks the same isn't a copy, when it sure looks like it. AI should be thought to stand for Artificial Information processing, using big data language models. The black box must store a copy in memory, if its adding the getty logo to images, or the distorted signatures, its much like what coreldraw does to vector art when you shrink it down too small, it distorts the vectors. When you accidentally have a distorted getty logo, that evidence is in gettys case of infringement. Claims you copied via memory or learning isn't material, if it looks the same, that means its copied. Take away the top illustrators who are obviously being used to make these artworks so amazing, and its bleh. Transformative technically does not mean redrawing, it means an artist is saying something different than the original. An old joke is if you are a better painter you can copy. If you are just saying the same thing as the artist, its not YOUR expression. For example I did a superman painting at a dreamer fund raiser, noting he is literally an illegal alien, that political message is transformative, not the fact I painted him from memory. Further I just did a painting in a gallery, it did not affect DC's market, DC isn't in the fine art market. That two of the four factors. Further to use fair use as a defense requires admitting willful infringement, DC has a right to sue. Note that AI is limiting your ability to use the likeness of Tom Cruise, and its not doing this with music, its only infringing individuals and avoiding labels and actors known to sue. They should have avoided stock photo sites. Getty spent years putting in keywords and descriptions, using the Getty site, a pay to use the photos, thats clearly dumb, they are known to sue. Their case is also going to be strong.
The storage and training is definitely the way to go after them. I should not have said public domain rather public view. Personally I don't think they will be able to get them on the storage issue. At least the collecting of data has not been criminalized in the past. See the case of the young man who was downloading en masse JSTOR articles at MIT. The fear was not the storing it was the distribution. Altogether we need new and different laws. I agree regarding calling it AI.
@@artcanhelp you are going in circles, storage or distribution isn't the issue, its copying. Its an issue of copyright. The scraping is part of copying, its the first step in redistributing a copy. Remember the AI researchers have NO idea how the black box inside an AI is doing its magic, its self trained, so when they say its doing it like an artist ( who they also have no idea about ). You are using terms with specfic meanings you don't understand, and just using the wrong term has a very different and very specific meaning. That isn't just an accident, it makes what you are saying in the video nonsensical. Unless you know public domain isn't just being in public, most of what you are criticizing just is going to go over your head. These are legal arguments, you simply aren't understanding the language. The Swartz case vs MIT wasn't about copyright, but fraud, and he was charged, i don't see any court rulings from that. Yes downloading material you stream without paying fees is illegal from any pay for usage platform. Note that these scrapers were using stock photography sites, which copyright their captions on the images so they are searchable, that is under their terms of use contracts protected. The Prince case was for a fine artist, transformative is just ONE factor, a fine artist is simply doing a gallery of show of fine art, the affect on the market is another factor ( and Fine Art is protected by the 1st amendment, no law can infringe, fair use is codifiction of that concept ). Again look at the Dr Seuss Case which describes teh style as being protected ( and its a book copying a book, a more direct competitor in the same market ) Unless you list ALL four factors for EVERY case, you are missing the way copyright fair use works. Further to claim fair use REQUIRES admission of willful infringement, and there is NO precedent being set, the judges reserve the right to decide what is and isn't fair use on a per trial basis, it is ONLY decided AFTER the trial is fully concluded. The sharing of images publically is what copyright enables, I can do so freely because of it. I can put images in public view without consenting to copying, or any usage. Consent isn't assumed. That is how I can get my work as an artist out there. This is needed to protect artists. No this does not mean search engines cannot index my work, it means google books cannot just turn around and start selling books, and that an AI program cannot just turn around and start selling art in my style. If you remove that protection, I remove my artwork entirely. In fact I likely have to do something else. Obviously the courts can decide AI is not infringing ( the courts are not technically savvy, nor are they experts in anything about art ) Then this AI, which no longer has access, cannot copy the skills of real artists, because we are in hiding. Then all this great looking work ceases to look so great, because its not actually able to do it, itself. If certain key artists remove their work, and you cannot use their names, just about all which is so impressive about this AI art just falls apart. I am already looking at focusing on Live art painting, as no AI can copy that, much like most musicians no longer make enough money from streaming and albums to make a living, and must do live performances.
I subbe'd a while back, I like your channel. I guess we won't need photographers anymore. I don;t know but with A.I. art the possibilities are endless.
This was a reallly nice video on the subject. I believe we will have to find new avenues to define the value of creative work that doesnt soley rely on producing financial gain.
@@artcanhelp Thats the beauty of human creation that non sentient mashines will never be able to achieve. Art for its on sake. But i do worry about income it is already hard enough and I believe as a society we should support people pursuing art with at least a livable wage to let them do that.
@@simonyin9229 You're gucci. If you can last 5-10 years, we'll probably reach ai singularity level. This would break capitalism and make a large universal basic income actually viable for once.
Self-replicating, self-repairing and physically self-adaptable, (physically evolving) machines have been in the works. Initially, the machines will require minimal human maintenance. The longer-term goal however, is for them to require no direct physical human maintenance at all. 5 They’re part of the future Mars programs.
@@pinip_f_werty1382 Really the worst case scenario is that AI + self assembling, self repairing, self replicating and self evolving robots will just take up all the robot maintenance and repair jobs. So we’ll just have to adapt and find new jobs. It’s fine.
"Entering the public domain IS consent." Right off the bat, you are using this term incorrectly. "Public domain" does not mean "artwork that is visible to the public." You can find images of Mickey Mouse online, but the character of Mickey Mouse is copyrighted. It is not in the public domain, and you can and will be sued for using Mickey Mouse as your own character. Publicly visible artwork does not make it public domain.
I should not have said public domain but rather just public. Entering the public is consent to be seen. Therefore you cannot be mad at an diffusion model analyzing your publicly available work.
@@artcanhelp Consent to be seen is not consent for copying and reproduction. A diffusion model can analyze thousands of images of Mickey Mouse and then generate new images of Mickey Mouse, but that is still a copyright violation.
@@abates17 new images of Mickey is tricky. But new images of anything that is not brand iconic is much simpler. Diffusion by nature transforms it's training data. It does so in a similaranner as a we crawler or your own web browser that copies images so that you can view them on your screen. This is where the dilemma rises. Our tech and laws allow for some copying. We were not ready for diffusion models to hijack our current tech and legislation to beat us at our own remixing game.
@@artcanhelp Whether it's copying an iconic image of Mickey Mouse or someone's personal artwork, it's still copying. And lawsuits are currently underway to make sure that this corporate theft of artwork does not continue.
On the one hand, you advocate for a nuanced assessment, but at the same time you use terms like "public domain" imprecisely. You claim that innovation will now make artists unemployed. What artists exactly are we talking about? All artists? Most of them? How is art actually defined in the first place? What does that mean to the debate about artificial intelligence? How can this definition of art change in society? These are questions that the news articles generally don't cover. Art is about achievement, the story and the person behind it. You say in one of your comments the meaning of the image is basically a projection of the viewer but this is not nuanced enough to do justice to your own desire for a nuanced take on the matter. You are also comparing human inspiration to the AI learning process, although there are significant differences. Humans don't decipher data, they consciously experience a work of art and see meaning in it. Humans have their own sensory impressions and memories that interact with the art work, while computers draw their so-called "inspiration" exclusively from other works of art. Moreover, memory significantly distorts what is seen. Human perception is based on meaning, but a computer analysis is based on content like color data etc. By actually making the artwork the ideas transform again and by using your own hands you reach an individual result that can not easily be compared to the linear inspiration and creation process of A.I. Copyright has the pragmatic function of protecting artists economically so that they can sell their works. The basic idea of copyright is therefore violated when the works of artists can be used for ai training. Previous transformative artworks have never been as epidemic as transformation through artificial intelligence. This must be included in the evaluation. The law is not designed for systemic transformation of artworks, therefore a consideration according to current standards is insufficient.
AI = Neuron network + Data Neuron network is pure code. Data comes from artwork used to make AI to learn. Learning is about adjusting neuron coefficients. So Art generators are not really generators, they are machines of plagiarism, derivative work from input images. If you teach AI to draw squares, it can only draw squares. Use Van Gogh art paintings and it can only draw Vang Gogh squares. The concept of "scratch" is relative. How similar two images are is what determines the boundary of copyright violation. AI is not a matemathical representation, it is actually the data converted to coefficient format. It is like saying that if I zip a software, it is no longer the software, even if unzipping brings the software back. Try not using the paintings of that author and you will see how AI is unable to make arts like that author does.
IMO that is a heck of a stretch when it comes to the definition of plagiarism - especially considering that there is a point at which it'd be hard pressed to actually call the data "the original" (referring to the image data) in any meaningful way.
As an AI art enthusiast, I think this video is dead on. The typical arguments against AI art are terrible. They are ridiculous double standards, and often want to actually increase copyright protections, which almost always benefits big media corps like Disney and Nintendo. I agree that AI art (and AI in general) will have huge consequences on our society. And we need to prepare for that. But these bogus lawsuits just aren’t the way.
The funny thing is just plain ole computer programs and technology is good enough to create for creative people and artists. Hell plain ole analog equipment is good enough and in some cases better. Just how Fuckn uncreative do you have to be, to have some other entity or species or intelligence whatever the fuck you like to call it, create the damn shit for you? That is the real issue and truth here!
People use AI for the exact same reasons they would otherwise pay an artist for. They have a need for a custom image and do not have the time or skills needed to make it themselves. If you wanna say AI users are not artists, fine whatever. Doesn't change the demand for the service.
@@omgukillkenny7576 just because there is a need or demand for something by aparently by the hummm ignorant or the exploitatives out there does not make it essential, ethical or even moral. For example the need for human replacement or even the need for slavery or in the case of AI Humans being replaced to be in essence the slaves of their masters efficient whims and needs. Demand being like marketing demand, does not make it right or acceptible by the mass of humans, kept ignorant and out of the control or devision making process that will determine their ultimate future outcomes. Supply and demand chain in a real caputalism would be controlled by the consumers. Not so much though in todays exploitative Capitalism that has pretty much replaced a real Capitalism. This whole concept and idea is spawned and controlled by an elite few handshaking corporations playi g the game of competition but in reality are nothing more than a controlling of industry cartel. Which will ultimately determine the downfall and highly probable extinction of Human function as well as the species itself. Looking for the lame excuse of the so called higher or more efficiency or the poor pitiful humans who cant learn and become creative for themselves. Heres an idea hire a more creative human of you are creatively void who will actually insure the well being if a human instead of a non human species or your greedy or lazy self indulgenceof Rober Barronistic brain malfunction towards other Humans and the human species. Sounds like a win for both you and that other Human you are trying to replace with a slave. You see these corporations culd not legally convert all of their Human workers legally into slaves. But they want slaves so badly, they are jumping on to the AI party bandwagon jolly of getting a slave at the cost of only Humans. What a bargain!
@@eadsbridgemembers4052 This is dumb argument. Choosing to use AI is not slavery. No one is entitled to patronage, if artists want anyone to pay them they need to be that one offering the best service. And supply and demand is controlled by consumers. You are 100% free to spend your money however you want. If you don't like AI do not buy from companies that use it.
"Ai art have no soul" Brother wth is a soul????? When people talk about "soul put behind it" their talking about the intention and process of creating and shaving it into something that represents one's idea, which, is exactly the process of creating a ai art, and I mean an actual good ai art not some random stuff that you make by typing 3 keyword. An actual good ai art need immense amount of slight adjustment and knowledge to actually adjust it, sure you aren't drawing it by using a pen but that is just like sculptures where you aren't making by putting ink on
ai will lead humanity toward mediation, it is the shiva trident that cuts the Brahma 5th head...who is chasing his own daughter satarupa (100 forms) artist must explore the source of all art within self only then real art will sprout again out of the bliss
I believe that the latest version of Stable Diffusion took out many copyrighted images, yet I've heard some people want to sue them, not because they think they can win, but just to cause the company to lose money. Although I haven't seen any evidence of either with my own eyes, I believe both of them, and that also makes me think about a point I haven't seen anybody talk about. If artists sue all the AI companies they can, and either somehow win the lawsuits or cause the companies to go bankrupt, then somebody in a country that doesn't care about copyright will see a chance to make money, and will simply use any art they can, without a care for who has copyright for that art. I think it's unlikely that will happen, but artists might be able to negotiate something like allowing artists to opt in to having their art used to train AIs, if they are willing to talk. If they don't then there isn't really anything they can do.
China was mentioned in this video about that very thing. China already doesn't give a crap about copyright so if they don't have an ai generator yet they're making one. I can't help but feel folks against AI are cutting off their noses to spite their faces over this.
@@AlottaBoulchit You also have to consider if Ai can create art that perfectly replicates what a human could do, what else could the replicate. What could be faked. The future could get pretty dark.
@@AlottaBoulchit Sad but true. The issue with AI fakes is that it's much easier to fake serious things, and destroy careers of people other people don't like. Especially if anybody is able to create nearly anything about anyone else and try and make others think it's real.
his video is not grounded. it essentializes the human element without consideration for how AI functions, and without consideration for copyright law. it’s not a good video for the fate of AI
Actually James Gourney wrote an article about a painting machine that uses brushes, mixes paints and applies them to canvas. Problem is it’s much cheaper for that to be done in Dafen Village.
In the short term, certainly. Of course printers will print and machines will be built to create more and more physical tactile art. So its at best a few decades behind digital.
@@Merilirem At best, if I had to bet I'd say we will see it in a few years. But, @Zachary said, people may appreciate human made art in a different at that point.
The bottom line is. AI art generators is essentially the outsourcing of art to machines. No artist can legitimately claim that these machine creations are a tool. When I prompt midjourney with a bunch of words, I have no idea what's going to come out of the Black box. No one does. All humans can do is say yes I like this one. No I don't like this one. There is zero creativity, skill, knowledge, or discipline that goes into the process. At the end of the day, AI makes human beings dumber. It makes human thinking itself obsolete. AI image generators are a hideous, toxic virus and should be treated as such.
Strictly speaking, putting images online doesn't make them "public domain" in a legal sense, as the legal term "public domain" means "no longer subject to copyright". A thing can be put online for viewing and still be copyrighted - copyrighting is a legal protection where people are _ordered_ not to copy it, not a physical protection to make it unable to be copied. So claiming that things put online are "public domain" is poor phrasing - they're publicly accessible. That difference is important. When Google web-crawls your art to make it searchable, that is not them getting the right to infinitely reproduce your work, nor to monetise it, they are in turn creating their own unique creative circumstances that is deemed to be its own thing (they actually have been sued over exactly this issue, and that was how it was ruled).
_But_ the argument against non-consensual use of people's images to train AI still doesn't work because there is no real difference between an AI looking at an image to learn from it and a human looking at an image to learn from it - in both cases, the subject observes the art, finds patterns, stores those patterns away, and attempts to practice and reapply them later for some creative work. The legal theory of the lawsuits would imply that anyone who retains memory of other peoples' works cannot make an original work, and instead are simply generating an analogue collage. Unfortunately this is not how the originality or transformative nature of a work is legally assessed. It's the final product that is what gets judged - by its differences in both content and context - not the method by which the art was made (with one exception, I'm about to get to).
And going back to the point in the first paragraph that Google doesn't get the right to infinitely reproduce your work or to monetise it just because you put it online, that is also a distinction that can be made with AI art - the one difference that method causes is that works created through predominantly automated processes cannot be held in copyright (so while legally Google search results _are_ their own creative work independent of the creative works they might display, they are not a copyrightable one). Copyright is a thing held by a person for their own creative work. So the person putting the text input doesn't hold the copyright because their idea is not directly translated by them into art (they got a non-human actor to generate one or more responses to their idea, and just picked the one they liked from that set), the AI itself doesn't hold the copyright because it is not a person to be able to hold a copyright, and the people who created the AI but had no involvement in the specific piece of art cannot say that they contributed to its creative vision.
But art that is created by a person can be copyrighted. That legal protection to have sole control over how art you hold the copyright over is monetised is a valuable commodity in and of itself. If you hire an artist to create something for you based off a creative vision you give them, you can own the copyright to that image - and attempts to reproduce it (even via AI) can be ruled to be infringement against that unique creative work, and banned from use (you can even be monetarily compensated for people trying to do that). You don't get that protection with AI-created art.
But, while AI-created art cannot be copyrighted, as stated earlier it can infringe copyright. And legally that's a judgement call made per piece of art, not overall by what the AI was trained on.
Yes this is a great reiteration of my argument. Using the term public domain, though I tried to explain I meant public sphere, was misleading.
@@artcanhelp
You should of double checked your script.
@@darkzeroprojects4245 You should stop to think before stating the obvious and acting you are so perfect.
@tomtantillo316
You should maybe not be so hostile over someone making a simple responce.
And not make such a dumb response and assumption of what I think of my degenerate dumbass =-=.
It could be used to infringe on copyright, but other tools can be too. So should we ban pencils because someone can replicate some artist's work with them and then sell it for profit..? No! It sounds ridiculous. Just like if someone would say that computers need to be banned because you can code viruses using them...
AI itself is a tool, a more advanced than something like Krita, but still a tool. And like any tool it depends on the one holding it, whether it would be used for good or bad.
One of the main issues I have with the way anti-ai point of view presents itself is the issue of framing. Artists very often frame the issue as "technology bad vs human good", or "corporations bad vs human good" at best, instead of doing the technology justice and framing it as "we want more financial security and cultural protection in this system, which as it is now, doesn't do enough to grant such protection, and we're frustrated because of that" Instead of this, most of the things I personally see online is "ai bad/technology bad/im blaming technology for the systemic issues of capitalism". If I let myself be a bit more biased for a second, I actually think that some artists just don't have "balls" to say it outloud, especially in the US, which has a history of smearing anti-capitalist movements as "commies".
I see your point but i agree with Matthew, these ai data scrapers weren't public knowledge and these artists put it up for the purpose of other humans, not AI and machine learning. I think we should see where it goes but we should not let it de-value the beauty of human activity and self expression
That's like telling someone not to record you in public. If you don't want to be recorded, don't go in public. If you don't want search engines to scrape your website and images, don't put those things online. If you don't want more advanced diffusion models to look at your artwork as one of millions or billions of other images to form an idea of what something looks like, don't put it on the internet. Again- once you put something on the internet, it is right-click saveable by any human or bot. This is the nature of the internet.
@@setzstonealready your first comparison makes no sense, stop yapping
@@Vanilla3609what didn't make sense to you?
@@setzstone that's a weetawded analogy lmao
I strongly think that artists will loose these lawsuits, at least the ones going on right now. If you read the arguments, it shows a gross misunderstanding about how generative models work, and the comparisons and analogies used are extremely poorly reasoned and don't hold much meaning.
exactly
You have no clue how it works. It is thievery and cannot be denied.
The old Lumberjack vs the machine story.
Pretty sure you mean John Henry, he laid the railroad but as I would say, same same but different.
@@artcanhelp Paul Bunyan raced against a steam engine as well.
@@raymondharnack4160 forgot about that
That is ultimately the problem I have with this whole debate.
I feel sympathetic towards artists, I don't even like AI creations, I hate how they all look the same, but my conscience does not allow me to accept the faulty arguments. I can not honestly defend someone who has no ground to stand on in terms of reasoning, just because I feel bad for them.
you don't even have to be a mystical fortune teller to predict this would happen giving how rapidly technology is growing.
so your conscience can't "allow you to accept faulty arguments" but your conscience can accept what, then? art theft? i look forward to a world in 20 years where the social contract around attitudes towards AI brings shame to companies and people who advocated for its use in creativity. at some point, we need to put "logic" and policy aside and turn to the power of the consumer's public opinion
@@marcinexus for me to accept art theft, I would have to first accept that there is art theft, which I do not, because I do not accept the faulty arguments that your kind brings.
Ideologs of all kinds seem to have the same issue with understanding that people who don't agree with them, do not, in fact, agree with them.
Also, a ton of emotion and no substance, par for the course, really.
@Spellweaver5 I guess our differences lies in I would rather listen to the voices of those negatively affected than adhere to some false sense of objectivity. Emotions are not inherently irrational
@@marcinexus our differences lie in the fact that I'm not an ideolog who would call someone else's sense of objectivity "false".
Emotions are not inherently bad, but your emotions are your emotions. Not mine.
I don't mind the technology, but I have gripes about the people who use this technology with little to no effort while claiming they have created such content.
I don't mind people posting AI art on Twitter either,saying it is AI generated content. What specific AI artists I hate are those who threaten to undermine existing artist because it isn't good enough, or their art style is too "AI-like". Even going as far as to ask "what prompt did you generate this with" is just sad.
I hate people who claim they used the AI to make art, without touching the model itself and generating content that I could make by doing an hour or two of research. I hate people submitting portfolios and job letters claiming they are professionals with months of experience working with AI. There was a COVER LETTER for a CONCEPT ARTIST position claiming they can make lots of content within hours, far more than an average artist.
I hate people who specifically go about their way to join an art stream, screenshot the art, only to run it through AI and post it before the artist even can finish the work and post it, claiming it is the original artist who stole from them and demand credit.
I hate it when an artist who passed away has his entirety of work converted to a model for a "tribute" when the family is still in the process of mourning, telling people to credit not the artist but himself when people use this particular model to replicate the arts of the dead artist.
I hate that we live in a world where art will inevitably be replaced simply because it's fast and efficient, and that people insult artists for thinking they are some luxury-inclined, millionaires who are too stingy about the prices when in reality, some of the commission prices they earn do pay their living expenses, and they write up the prices believing their work is worth just that much money. Most of the time, it's actually lower than the minimum wage unless you are asking from someone who works on a professional environment.
I hate it that some AI artists believe artists are gatekeeping art from regular people when all they could do is pick up a pencil and learn through the nothing but practice.
Well said
I am super into AI Art and agree with almost everything you said. I don’t see non AI artists as the enemy, I see these AI bullies as the enemy. they are hurting people who try to use AI ethically as much as artists. I use public domain artists, often put hours of work into my prompts, always label as AI, don’t take work from artists, and don’t try to make art exactly in someone else’s style. I just have to say that it’s not as easy as picking up a pencil and learning to draw for a lot of people. I love to draw and do try to spend a few hours a week drawing but it’s EXTREMELY painful for me to hold a pencil and i have a very clingy toddler so i can’t do anything more than that. not because i’m lazy but because traditional art doesn’t work for my current situation.
I can somewhat imagine a similar or greater furor having taken place way back when the printing press was invented and copyist monks became sort of irrelevant. You know what they did? They had to find something new to do and in that process elevated (among many other fields) the works, arts and products of:
- beekeeping
- wine-making
- beer brewing
Whatever tasks and fields "AI" will end up being better and faster at, we will find something else to do. Heck, maybe, artists in the future will be able to produce art for the sake of producing art and not to make a living. Such freedom! Very opportunity! Much wow!
Late to the party but your statement 'pick up a pencil and learn through the nothing but practice' is untrue for many disabled and neurodiverse individuals.
Not that simple, I've tried on and off again for years and I just can't draw. My wife is a brilliant artist and I wish I was half as good as she is. But I do a lot of digital art like PicsArt, Photoshop, etc. and I'm actually pretty good at that.
Everything people hate about AI is more about the difficult relationship between creative fields and a capitalist market. People are concerned with their work getting devalued by everyone who wants to pay the least amount possible to generate art assets. I mean, AI outside of creative fields is concerning for it's potential to generate misinformation, and people abusing it, which is an obvious inevitability. Idk, I'm in graphic design, a field that will be heavily phased out by this technology, but even so I'm sure adaptations will happen. I DO think a real annoyance comes from the pretentious tech bro douchebags acting like they've broken into the field of high art; people who have never valued or appreciated the efforts and passions of the creatives who have always been underpaid and under-respected even before this shift started.
I think the "learning" angle of AI is a stretch though. You can't say AI functions just like a human so it's fine. AI is a man made tool with calculable results. AI can't own a copyright or be given human rights. AI cannot be considered a creative generator of it's own ideas. It's a tool, and one that requires everyone else's work in order to function and exist. Saying it might be legal doesn't mean much, lots of things are legal that probably shouldn't be. Lots of things are under-regulated, and new technology always takes time before people decide on laws to govern it. Every piece of tech and social media farms data on user habits, and that data goes into AI and advertisers and giant caches of big data to sell to the highest bidder. Yes, this is legal, currently, but laws change, and lots of people have propositioned legal change to data collection, and the profits made out of the labor of all the people who contribute to that data collection. Saying "it's legal so it's fine" to people talking about what should or shouldn't be legal is just circular reasoning.
Finally, i hate it when people anthropomorphize ai
Like Rick Rubin once said, People who have a artistic mind wish they had a business mindset and business people wish they had an artistic mindset
@@phosphorescenceking6114 so it’s artists vs human nature…. Capitalism is an amoral thing that just comes natural to humans. We need to stop conflating capitalism with corporatism.
The vast majority of artists who are making money are not creative anyways. Their boss tells them what to paint and how to paint it, and creativity isn't normally what the boss wants.
This discussion is so nuanced and polarizing.
Irregardless of whether this is the precursor to an idealistic, high tech nirvana or a doom and gloom dystopian hell scape, I can’t say I currently care one way or the other. It could be one. It could be the other. It could be neither, or a combination of the two. I’ve spent the last few months mulling over the options, and I’ve come to realize that It doesn’t matter to me which narrative “prevails”.
My biggest problem, and my only real gripe, is the inevitable relinquishing of human agency. I feel like, even five years ago, if asked to perform an effortless or arduous task, most people would choose the easier option-so long as the easier option gave immediate results. In this instance, the “Ai” debate is just another extension of the same pervasive issue.
Call me fatalistic, but it seem to me that we’re slowly drifting towards a place where the choice to remain unchanged-mentality wise, physically or emotionally-is easier than ever. And mental health seems to be suffering for that lack of resistance, almost across the board.
One of the most valuable aspects, in my opinion, that comes with learning a skill-of doing something difficult for an extended period of time-is the personal growth that’s intrinsically tied to that journey. You can’t start on one side of the Dunning-Kruger graph and then years later find yourself somewhere in the middle, without fundamentally changing as a person in order to get there-most often, as far as I’ve noticed, for the better.
By learning to be proficient at something, you inevitably learn to sleep better, eat more healthily, exercise enough so that you brain functions properly, etc. You improve a myriad number of seemingly inconsequential flaws in your character, that’ve suddenly become integral if you have any hope of becoming the person that can do the things you dream of doing.
*You* grow, as your *skill* grows. I’m more empathetic for having done difficult things. And more appreciative of people’s efforts in all fields, because I know how hard it can be to stick with something for years.
The heights of human excellence is not as limitless as more technological means, but it can be pretty damned impressive if you give it room to flourish. It saddens me to see some of the pinnacles of individual human merit, torn down so callously-almost gleefully-as opposed to being appreciated for what they were somehow able to achieve in their relatively short life span. It breaks my heart to know that the era self made specialists, experts, and professionals is coming to an end-to be replaced by tool assistance and ease of excellence.
I don’t know, call me what you will, but I’d always been under the impression that difficulty informs value-not commercial value, but intrinsic value. Maybe I was wrong. I just don’t see how this makes for a better world in the end, is my opinion. A more efficient world, most definitely. I just worry over what we’re losing when we streamline like this.
That is why we need more human centric arguments. It won't stop the development but it will help us understand where and how is best to apply AI.
As far as difficulty informing value, you don't need to put in less effort. The place you put effort into just changes. The difficulty goes from 3 weeks spent on a single image to using advanced tools to spend 3 weeks creating an entire book or movie or videogame or whatever. You create more with less effort but the effort you have to spend is still the same.
@@Merilirem It isn’t though. And it’s not something I can describe adequately if you haven’t experienced it for yourself. I feel like this is the hidden divide in mentality that a lot of “artists” and those outside of the space, fundamentally differ on. Mostly because it’s such a nuanced feeling that gets misconstrued in communication. What most see is the end result. What artists sees is the path it took to get there. What you’re talking about is a product. What I’m talking about is the constant altering of neural pathways that allow one to perceive the world in ways they couldn’t a day, a year, or a decade before.
If all there was to the art making process was the act of churning out product after product, I feel like the arts would have far less appeal overall-turning off many of the introspective’s that are naturally drawn to it. The draw, in my opinion, is derived from the things you *don’t* see. Making products-or, in other words, making something meant for others to see-is a job. Getting to that point-through changing the way one’s brain works at a subconscious level-is the the reason why many chose to devote their lives to their art in the first place.
Whether the goal was far away or tantalizingly close, you kept going because it was fun.
My entire point was that, by changing what artists are allowed or incentivized to put effort into, you intrinsically tear out the beating heart of the process and-not to be melodramatic-replace it with a machine. To which most non artists would likely say “So what? It’s faster isn’t it? What’s the big deal?” To which I would propose, “That was never really the point.” Leave the mid-maxing and hyper efficiency to the individuals that would *rather* parts of the process be cut away. I’ve never met a programmer that says they actually *like* coding.
I can’t speak for all artists here, but I feel like at some point, if you shear away enough pieces of the process, it eventually becomes another thing entirely. One more bastion of creativity turned into another soulless nine to five.
Don’t get me wrong, just as there are those now that enjoy the editing process more than the drafting process of the book. Or those who gravitate to more managerial positions where they can embody a jack of all trades mentality, there will be some that excel in this new paradigm and create beautiful work. But, I doubt that represents most artists. In fact I’m confident it only represents a small majority-a mere fraction.
At its core, the entire confused and chaotic discourse aside, I believe that most artists are against this ‘change’ as you put it, not because they’re stubborn or regressive, but because you’re essentially asking them to give away the very meaning they’ve been cultivating for however long they’ve been practicing.
Taking away the parts they’re most proud of, call it style, muscle memory, etc. and replacing it with nothing. All so that there can be more product pumped out for the consumer. Only made worse by the fact that it’ll likely be more product than they’ll know what to do with. When an artist stares starry eyed at at something they’ve just made, an observer might conclude they were admiring the piece at face value-‘its a good product and that’s why they’re proud,’ they might assume.
In actuality, the artist-consciously or not-is appreciating the years worth of effort it took to reach that pinnacle. Pushed to work insane hours, not by deadlines or societal pressure, but because the process demanded it. There were days they wanted to stop, but didn’t. There were days they wanted to quit, but preserved. And then there’s that final product that informs why all that effort had been worth while. Not just the effort spent on a single output, but everything that came before.
Anyone who sees all that, and still believes the “solution” is to cut away all the extended or arduous parts completely, is someone I’ll disagree with till the day I die.
AI encrypts images inside coefficients of a neuron network, instead of a ZIP file. With the right input parameters you could retrieve an image similar to the original. This opens a legal door for legal piracy using AI encryption. Movies, software, pirated using AI, by providing the right input, you get a pirate copy. If the copy is not 100% accurate to justify that it is transformational, a small patch could fix the pirate copy. So judges would be legalizing AI piracy.
@@bamensanders8407 There was a time when being an artist meant you had to source and create your own medium, hunting for the raw materials to create with. People specialized and eventually the greatest masters were also reliant on the people who produced the best tools to create their works with. Technology advanced and art mediums became more mass produced and accessible, allowing people to create works of larger scope. Digital tools let people learn without spending so much time and money sourcing paint, ink, or canvas, and allowing them to work together collaboratively without being in the same room. Nowadays we have an entire industry built on bringing together hundreds of artists across different fields to create cinematic masterpieces.
Every step of the way tools improved and increased accessibility of art to the masses, but it also made it possible to create more, to create things that otherwise would have been impossible or impractical. And just like today there were likely people who were afraid of what these new tools would enable, or that they somehow cheapened the work. For some it did, they didn't have to go through the same challenges that created the greatest artists of the past, some took the easy route. Others took those tools and made use of the efficiency to focus on other areas, improving beyond their peers.
As you said, the value comes from putting in hard work and overcoming challenges. AI art is just another tool to learn and master, some will use it as a cheap shortcut to make meaningless junk, and some people will find new challenges to overcome with it. For example, lets say an indie dev was working on a personal project where they did all the art for their game. Perhaps it took them 3 years to produce where a team could have done it in weeks. Well now they could use this tool to produce that same game faster and move on to other projects, or perhaps they put in the same 3 years and make something spectacular in scope that no one has ever done as a solo project before. It's a very generic example, but I hope it illustrates my point. Everyone uses shortcuts, we've learned to do things more efficiently with time. But that doesn't mean people are necessarily lazy because of it, there is always more to strive for.
I'm hoping for a future where you can't use AI art to make money/financial gain, but rather just for personal use. I mean yeah, AI art is cool and interesting as a tech, but it's sad and depressing to think how it feels like art is devalued now that it's easier to make. Literally anyone can do it now and it's bittersweet.
Sure as a non-artist, it's a really really exciting and fun tech. If you're a writer but been stuck not being able to visualize your world, then AI art is a dream come true. But it's sad for artists.
And creating unique prompts is not an equal effort of actually having the skill to create those artworks. It's not a skill.
Am I only sad/mad because it's directly affecting me? Sure. To others, 'it's just pictures bro'. People who already think visual art and artists are a joke, now surely find all this amusing.
My grandmother made a lot of beautiful art of, ranches, tropics, and, animals. I showed her AI generated art, and she was amazed that in second it could do what took her hours. She never painted for profit, it was always a hobby to her. It’s when share your labor with the world you shouldn’t be surprised if another artist or AI in this case uses it to their benefit.
Keep dreaming, then. I'm hoping for a future where we all get a puppy for Christmas.
Look at modern art there is no skill involved, yet it sells at ridiculus prices, not for skill or meaning only for the artists name on it.
Sure there is a loss, but that started long ago with the massproduction of entertainment, then ramped-up to eleven by the internet and now this. To underline this, think of your writer sitting together with an artist in a pub sketching and talking about the world, throwing ideas at each other etc.
Now compare it to the same writer commissioning an artist via the internet. This is why I think the human process matters in Art, not just because it affects the outcome, but also the person involved.
@@mehnameehjeff6325 it's sad but I have zero doubt AI art will thrive and be used commercially by big corporations to save money. Or hire 1-2 guys who's really good at setting up AI art generation or training an AI.
And don't get me wrong. I do find AI art amazing as well. Just sad in terms of financial incentives. Give it a few more years as more and more competition and ease of use apps gets released for AI art, when literally everyone has a cheap, easy to use AI app on their phones... Then yeah that'll be a nail in the coffin.
@@bakurascoffeeshop7960 if you're talking one of those modern 'art' like a banana taped on a canvas, I do find that aspect of modern art as ridiculous. And I do agree that name and clout is extremely important. Any talented painter could recreate mona Lisa probably, but it'll still be a knock off.
And you're right about the human process of it all. We're losing more and more of that, not just in the art industry. It's a technological feat and can make things easier for humans but it's a double edge sword.
There will always be a backlash with any technological advancements. Maybe things won't be as bad. Idk. When digital art was flourishing, traditional artists were fuming, seeing digital art as a threat but traditional art still exists. But of course there's a huge difference in that digital art still require skill. AI art required nothing but appropriately crafted prompts. You just need to be good at English.
I think the problem is by no means whether or not it violates copyright law, the main concern is that AI will become superior in every employable way so that making any form of art, whether it is traditional visual art, filmmaking, music, or whatever it may be, manually is invalidated and "inefficient". Not to mention that now it makes the use of audio/video evidence for or against someone too easy to fake, meaning that if someone disagrees with me, they can deepfake me saying things I didn't say or doing things I didn't do, and even if that technology is pretty detectable now, it will *inevitably* get better, simply because it exists. It will get to the point where if someone were to manually create any form of art, there will be no way to prove they did it themselves and not via AI. Therefore, as much as I love other people being able to express themselves through art much easier, I still believe it will do more harm than good, despite it being technically legal.
That is my ultimate point I suppose. Our legal system isn't ready for this. Neither is our society.
Imagine a viral video of you acting like a psycho knocking on your ex-girlfriend’s door through a ring camera, and it turns out to be a deep fake video of you just to make you look like a crazy. That’s just one of millions of scenarios
@@samuelanderson9416 it's already a brave new world which has proved that humans are not made of the right virtuous materials to take it on. We are petty and now we have more power at our fingertips than we even know what to do with. Let alone do what is right with.
So it's a symptom of industrialised art's problems than being a problem in and of itself?
@@samuelanderson9416 imagine deepfake detectors. That's just one of the few scenarios for each one in those billions
Traditional art, in my opinion, will be making a huge come back in the next few years. I have nothing against AI art, but it will become so massed produced that it will lose it's value. When you can actually make something with your own hands, that literally is a once off piece, will be more valuable than something everyone can do. I say bring on the challenge.
Real art will flourish even more because there will be too much Ai art that people would want something genuine and have a soul. It's just like in food , people would prefer a home made food made by their mom rather than a mass produced Meal.
Putting something on the internet does not make it public domain by default. Nor does it suddenly make it ok to take it. I can take all the Disney pictures from the internet that I want. Disney will still sue me if I change 1 pixel and put it for sale.
In the top comment, the clarification is made about "public domain" vs "public sphere". Additionally, of COURSE you would be infringing if you just changed 1 pixel. That's not what's being discussed, and nobody is saying it is.
That's neat, but that's not what AI does, nor ever has, and isn't relevant to the discussion about AI art generation.
@@TRENCHESandTREADS Except AI does not change 1 pixel. I recommend you look up how AI generate art.
@@Sakuna451 I would mirror the sentiment because it's obvious to me the people saying things like "AI does not change 1 pixel" are Flat Earth levels of uninformed.
It's sad to be honest.
I am a real artist and I don't care if my art is used for training. I am not afraid of a freaking roomba with a paintbrush taped to the side going after me.
😂😂😂😂
And funny as your comment is, people DO swing buckets of paint over canvas and call it art, and can very much be successful artists. People who have created primitive or even "easy" or "stupid" art prior to AI have always pissed off artists as well. So AI as a threat to artists is really nothing new. Artists will always be made at other artists "garbage art" 😅
@@Sarahkozakj Yeah, the whole AI thing strongly reminds me of the outcry of the traditional artists when drawing tablets became finally cheap enough that anyone could use them.
Putting something online is not consent to use it. If anyone wants an intelligent discourse on this subject check out video The end of Art.
The argument made here is not that putting something online is consenting for it to be used, the argument is that you are consenting for your art to be perceived. WHich is technically all that an Aggregate Image Generator is doing.
@casspirburns Joel is right. It is not a use issue it is a perception issue.
People have been wrong but no one has ever been as wrong as you. Zapata is a grifter and nothing in that video is even remotely valuable or accurate.
@@Ungrievable you will need to help me understand what you mean by "use". As far as I can tell midjourney analyzed lots of art. That is all.
@@Ungrievable "Their well-being, their ability to survive, etc. as a human."
The law has never concerned itself with this, you're conflating your morals with what the laws say. Every lawyer knows not to think of the law a moral guidance or moral protection.
Wow, this is an incredible video essay! You really hit on so many points that have been bouncing around in my head for a while. I've been an animation and film director for almost 15 years now, and it’s interesting-as a 'Director,' I’ve never had that visceral reaction to AI art like many of my colleagues do. Probably because my job is more about directing rather than getting hands-on with the work, if I’m being brutally honest with myself. In principle, the technology is fascinating, but my main concern is that it might usher in an era of mediocrity. Thanks for the video!
I am glad you enjoyed it! We share the same fears.
People don't realize that artists are not the ones who are at risk from AI
But all people. People should call for regulation of artificial intelligence before it's too late
Because artificial intelligence can destroy people's lives,
Eight years ago CGP Grey released a video called humans need not apply. I think he was quite prophetic but who knows. I do not have much faith that our legislators will act fast enough or wisely.
@@artcanhelp The video is right and it predicted a future where AI will do most of the work
And for art
It is difficult to take it because it is easy to protect the art and the artists, but so far the technique is not ready. It will take some time
Much thanks for your level headed presentation. No drama, no slogan shouting, no mud slinging.
The worst thing that could come from this debate is stricter copyright laws, which would hurt both artists and AI users. Especially fan art could become borderline illegal. For example some artists now want to make style copyrightable which would be horrible when some styles are forbidden to use.
We look at art to amire another human's technique, skill, effort and perseverance. We look to see what another living being has to say about love or suffering. We look to see through another's eyes. Another that is like us.
In this respect it's impossible for 'AI art' to ever be of much value or interest.
For rapid commercial image generation of course it will be useful. Maybe this provides a solution to the old question of whether commercial illustration is art?
I generally agree with you but just to play the devil's advocate; the point of calling it AI is that it is "like us." Aren't you being anthropocentric if you assume that no other life form will create an interesting statement about love and suffering?
@@artcanhelp Interesting response. You raise two points here and I'll respond to each in order:
AI is like us:
Calling it artificial intelligence doesn't mean that it's like us, it just means that it has intelligence that was created by non natural means. A chicken has a certain form of intelligence but it is not like us. In regards to art it is quite obviously not because it can spit out multiple fully rendered images in seconds. It creates images by looking at patterns in clouds of pixels. That's vastly different from any human.
The anthropocentrism of my argument relating to emotions:
I concede that in the future AIs could potentially develop emotions similar to ours but this is currently still the domain of science fiction. Let's imagine they do achieve this. I still think my argument holds because they will have their own problems and struggles that may be different to ours and therefore less relatable. As such I wasn't being anthropocentric by claiming humans are superior, just that humans will always be more relatable to other humans.
@@simontipper2669 In my first video on AI I mention that I don't like the term AI because it isn't intelligence. It is data organization which is hardly intelligent. It is quite literally dumb. It just looks like intelligence to us. In my most recent video on learning to make art regardless of the power of AI I talk about the similarities between how the algorithms generate images. It is really similar to how we store simple categories in our minds. So there is both a similarity and divergence in how we relate to these technologies.
But in my first video I go into why AI art can still hold meaning. It is because the meaning is poured into an object by the viewer and their perception of the artist's hand.
Since the algorithms are basically cliche generators then they will be really good at generating what we already know. emojis if you will, or memes. I still reserve that with creative prompting and creative training that they will be able to "say something new" about the human condition. But in general they will not.
As a whole I think we largely agree?
@@artcanhelp Ok let's apply Wittgenstein's notion of family resemblance and agree to call it art.
My initial comment was more focused on facts about why machine generated art will not be of much value to most people.
I agree that beauty is in the eye of the beholder therefore any randomly generated image could be beautiful to someone. However it probably won't be of value or interest to most. Furthermore the overwhelming quantity of content and ease/speed of production make it even less valuable.
Your last statement about creative prompting/training creating valuable art brings us full circle as you are implying human involvement and intentionality in the the creative process. Therefore we're kind of agreeing that if the machine is used as a tool by a human artist is can create a valuable work.
This is a thoroughly enjoyable discussion by the way. I'm totally with you when you say most artists are missing the point when thinking about this new technology. The question isn't really 'has it copied?'' but ''can it produce something meaningful and valuable?''. I guess we'll find out in the coming years...
I find AI Work to be "fine". I see its positives and negatives, I just feel like it is extremely easy for it to be used negatively. When people use AI work they arent just spewing an idea like "person" and instead spew something like "person in the style of Artist1" or even "KnownPerson doing explicit".
We have already seen the negative aspects of such AI with deepfakes of youtubers/streamers doing things they would not do. Aliternatively, more relating to this topic, the "Afghan girl" photo, (which I have a lot of gripes about in general), ends up being replicated by AI work when the prompt Afghan girl is given.
Further on not all work out available in the public is not necessarily supposed to be public. We see this with the recent case of the airport no fly list being leaked. We can also see this in news articles, films, medical records, and etc.
You mentioned how AI uses mathematical representation to create art similar to human. I disagree with this. the way AI creates art is inherently different than how a living organism does.
I also can see some arguments that AI Generators arent really transformative. But of course I might be wrong. I personally can find something transformative while another person may not, and the opposite.
Of course there are some positive to AI works. As AI evolves it will be much easier for a normal person with no art skills to create works he wants.
As art becomes more accessible hopefully other forms of creative mediums can become easier to produce and hence enjoyed like video games, animation, film, etc.
On another topic different than AI, I think the copyright and fair use system we have today is quite flawed in general. Like there is no reason at all for copyright to be able to be held for more than 70 years plus.
when you say AI is just doing the same thing as humans are just faster. you just prove that you have no idea of how the process of constructing a picture works
Suggest using politics for UBI - Universal Basic Income.
It could be paid for by removing the corporate welfare we have now.
This time around isn't going to be artists... It's going to be most of us.
These are all points I've made in the past. If any of these lawsuits actually win against these companies, it will be bad for artists, mark my words.
Why? Simple. The internet, a thing which artists benefit from the existence of, operates off of a lot of the same legal principles that these A.I do. Lose one, lose the other. =\
The lawsuits started now prove that artists crying about AI are not seeing the whole picture: the lawsuits are distribution sites like getty against fair use, not artists against AI. It is the distribution industry trying to keep or extend the benefit copyright laws give them. There is no, and will be no lawsuit to defend any interest of artists, because they do not understand what is happening.
If you want to play a game, know the rules, know what you can win, know what you can lose, and know who is playing before you run in whining like a baby, or you will lose, guaranteed.
Very true
Basically because the fundamental core of their complainings is that AI makes their skills not so special and painting/drawing (or even 3D) is gonna be available for everyone. That’s all. All the stuff about rights, moral or anything like that is only a curtain to cover their ego, and at certain point is normal because it takes years to master drawing and painting skills. But it has been like this like forever, in the past iron crafting was tough to learn, to do and to master, and there were famous blacksmiths because of their tools, specially weapons. Now it’s an industrial process almost completely. Basically they want to stop the industry (or get royalties for free) only because now is knocking on their doors.
And is funny to see many digital artists whining and crying when they are using digital software to work, instead a traditional canvas, the knowledge to blend colors, and all that. But you know, when it’s and advantage for me is ok but if it’s not then is not fair…human history.
@@JotaP1n Pretty much. Which is why I make an argument for making art that has nothing to do with making money from the skill.
I'm sorry, but this is entirely incorrect. There are multiple lawsuits, and individual artist have collectively joined a class-action.
It's the people using these image generators that don't see the whole picture. It's going to drive a significant portion of an industry towards using unskilled labor, which means driving down wages.
It's often those with no skill who laud these AIs, because they couldn't be bothered to develop the skill. They'd rather steal from artists, act like they didn't, and pretend it's acceptable. It's not.
@@lloydsaul997 I think Jpin answered to great part of that.
And about some individual artists joining a class action lawsuit. Will they overshadow the lawsuits from distributors, and their lobby? Or will they be used as pawn be the industry?
Now if you care about skill, image generators only replace the draftsmen, not the artists, or is the Gioconda worth less since the invention of AI image generators?
14:43 Arguably excellence springs out of mediocrity. And the fact that anyone can scribble doesn't take away the engaging qualities of the paintings in this video.
A digital artist may lean on various computer programs while the stillness of his hand to draw a fine line atrophies but why should his creativity suffer? In a world where an artist could instantly manifest their imagination onto paper or a screen, there is no reason to think they'd lose their ability to be creative.
AI however is like using the imagination of someone else to complement one's own. Taste becomes the new skill and creativity atrophies
AI for me has just multiplied my creativity. Artistic visions that never would have seemed achievable before now seem within grasp, and it's incredibly inspiring and empowering.
Great arguments!
I think AI is actually good for ART (but bad for some artisis). Real artists with real skill and talant will always stay. A bunch of generic mediocre "artists" with no distinct style and personality - they will be replaced, because they're no different from AI. Yes, AI art is mediocre so it will replace mediocre artists (those who complain the most)
So it will be in good ol' days - only the most talalnted and skillful people will be able to call themselves ARTISTS. Quality over quantity.
I am wrighting this as a musician that discovered Udio and absolutely LOVING it! If I had a band now, I would use some Udio generated riffs as the base for new songs, but now I'm just creating songs that I enjoy.
In the end - the result is the only thing that matters.
Eventually it may replace professional art though?
@@LeafSouls Professional mediocrity - yes. Real professional talant - no.
well this was fucking stupid.
@@AlexRazorGame Real Talent doesn't exist. All art is work and working isn't talent. You work until you are a professional level, so when you say 'mediocre' and 'generic' you are talking about artists who are working towards being professional. You are getting rid of everyone 'below you', which is crappy.
I’ve heard a lot of rumors about copyright issues and AI, I believe you did good on elaborating the problem. My argument was always based with America isn’t the only one with AI and the internet, and the countries who are advancing them have a history to not adhere copyright laws.
This is a great vid and the comments equally so. Trying to find sensible argument on ai is hard, good stuff .
Amazing video, the points that you give against the arguments of copyright that artists have brought up on the internet regarding AI art, especially bringing up court cases before AI art was a thing where artists who did transformative work with other artists' work was deemed legal by the justice system.
You're the first youtuber I have seen that has talked about this topic in a mature way, also bringing about the dangers of what will happen to the art sphere if the normal man or artist themselves lean too much on it, that is the thing however, as pro-AI and someone working on advancements with training AI I have seen the potential it has every single day and the aid it can give to those with creative minds and easing the work flow for professional artists with tedious tasks like so many technological advancements has done for many art forms.
My only concern is AI art becoming a monopoly for major corporations and said corporations put a strangle-hold on the current open-source nature that is available to the public, which said public has used to lead to many amazing advancements every day, but knowing the internet, nothing can truly be locked away so my fears might be unjustified and the only thing that would happen is that getting free-open source AI art programs would just require a little more work for the average joe who is interested.
Thank you for the praise! I am most concerned with the combination of algorithms that predict your social media feed being combined with algorithms that generate the things in your feed.
@@artcanhelp For me this is the least concerning part. Simply put - people want to see what other people are doing. That's why streaming is popular. You can have bots play a match and be perfect at it - but nobody would be interested in this in the long run. When content becomes massively AI-generated, people will look for ways to filter it out. The question that was asked in one of the videos i saw was: "Would You like to receive a love letter from a robot"? And My answer is - no. It's technologically fascinating, but it's fake. Holds no value without a person behind it. AI art might go this path - after the initial "hype", people will simply burnout (TBH I think it's already happening).
I would like to also point out, that we have a whole industry that produces ready-to-heat food. So in that logic - why anyone still learns to be a Chef? Why people are still going to restaurants, when they can get a robot-processed food easily and cheaply?
Please also remember that in 2015 people were saying Facebook will replace the internet and websites - how funny is that in 2023? Motion controls were supposed to change everything a decade ago. 3D media and screens anyone? VR can hardly make a impact.
Sorry. I do not act as if corporations are human. Period.
You might not but the government does.
It is dangerous to use ideas conceived before a new paradigm to judge the world after. The rules of the world before were not convinced adjusted to the existence of AI Artist.
A piece of Art may be perceived and studied by anyone to inform their own Art. Never before was there an Artist to perfectly remember all the art available to be perceived, all at once and to instantly study all to mastery. Only limited by the compute resources.
This is not where AI is today but seemingly where it could end up. In such a case, an excellent Artist's work may find recognition on its own, but its main function will be to inspire the machine Artist who consumes all perceivable art to inform its own imagination.
The only thing that is making AI a tool is its need for a prompt. An AI that prompts itself on the details of the art based on the feeling or idea it wants to promote is no longer a tool but an Artist.
It becomes the solution to the main need. The need that brings about the Artist in the first place.
*This is not the death of Art but of the Artist*
The essay you mention has quite interesting points, but I believe the philosophical dispute goes beyond just what AI is capable of achieving and delves deeper into what it means to be human. One must first ask what art is and why it attracts us...
Because, of course, the amateur person will always try to do everything as best as possible and rise, while the professional seeks to optimize their work. That is correct, but there is more to consider... For example, what is important in an artistic piece? The piece or the author? That is the first dilemma, in my opinion, that needs to be addressed. If we bring psychoanalytic therapy terms into this (which I hope ChatGPT translates well since I am using it to translate this comment into English), we have transference and countertransference, which summarize how the patient feels the relationship with the therapist (transference) and how the therapist feels with the patient (countertransference). Now, if we go into the world of art, the discussion no longer involves just two people, as it is not just the author and the observer, but also the elephant in the room: the artwork itself. So, where does the artwork come in? The observer will mostly interact with the piece, which will evoke emotions that make them like or dislike it, while the author will also mostly interact with the piece as it is where they express what they want to convey (even if it is for work, something is always expressed, something is always communicated). So, if we have the artwork as the center of this communicative process, it becomes the one that takes on the main role. Then, what do we understand by art? I am not going to look for quotes or anything, but personally, I understand art as capturing one's feelings into something, expressing something that is felt. The thing is, if, for example, I make a sad instrumental song because it is Monday, and I want to sleep longer and not go to work, that is my transference towards the song (or countertransference to define the mentioned roles). But the fact that I express this does not limit the observer, in this case, the listener, from associating it specifically with that; instead, they have the freedom to project their own transference onto the piece depending on their own subjectivity. That is to say, they might associate it with romantic problems, the death of someone important, an academic or work failure, etc. As an author in this case, I have no way to control the listener's associations because they do not depend on my subjectivity but on theirs, and that is okay. So, what I want to convey with all this thought journey is that the artistic piece, regardless of its type, is what matters, and how it is made is irrelevant to that transference. Instead, it only serves to feed egos tied to artistic technique (playing an instrument well, drawing well, etc.). But those egos are not what is important in the piece itself. Thank you very much for reading.
It's not the ai art generator's fault it's the people who use it.
Art is no longer art if it is made by an unconscious machine with no true knowledge and experience of the human condition. What makes art beautiful is that it was made by a _person_ . For example, when I look at the School of Athens, or the Pietá, or the statue of David, they are all beautiful in their own individual ways, and they all have meaning within them. Aswell as that, I myself cannot do anything other than gape at the sheer effort these pieces of art must have took to be made, it is hard to believe that a human made that with his hands and mind. Another example is the Sistine Chapel. That required Michelangelo to lie on his back for 4 YEARS painting that. Are you really going to tell me that this nonsense slapped together by a machine could ever be of equal value to that?
Give me an example of an unconscious machine giving its art meaning. I will wait.
AI Art will only be true art if AI were sentient and were able to make paintings, sculptures and other pieces of art by imbuing it with their own meaning.
Don't even get me started on the generators revolving around prompts for stories and poetry. No machine, lest it be sentient, will ever come close to the likes of Shakespeare or Dante or Oscar Wilde or Homer or Emily Dickinson.
You talk as if the people given this machine prompts are mindless zombies. If I give a prompt to create “an astronaut in space painting a crowded train station” will you not call that inspiration? Furthermore the prompt you give it will determine the quality of the art, is that in itself not a form of skill? The AI didn’t come up with that inspiration even though it has the tools to create that kind of art. Will you call the art a senseless rendition? I fail to see the point in your Michelangelo example, if I can swim across the Atlantic, does it make sense for me to do so if the possibility of using an aircraft is there? Making art on the computer manually, is that also pointless? If Michelangelo were alive today, he would have adopted AI in his art to create even greater masterpieces that would otherwise not be possible without AI. We should learn to adopt this technology to take us to heights we never thought would be possible in our lifetime rather putting them down.
@@femiairboy94 1. I do not mean that the people giving the machine prompts are mindless zombies, what I mean is that these people are acting as if they are mindless zombies. They are capable of making meaningful art, but a couple of algorithms throwing random images together is not art; it is laziness.
2. No, I wouldn't call it inspiration, I would call the Sistine Chapel inspiration.
3. No, entering in a couple of words and making sure you string them together in a clever way is not a skill, being able to create entire worlds in your art using only your hands and mind is a skill.
4. Yes, it is senseless. Putting words into a generator is nothing, anyone could sit down and do that if they wanted to. The true artists are the people willing to dedicate their lives to their art, not this tripe.
5. You're using the same non-sequitur I see all of you AI art proponents throw out; 'its more useful! Its faster! Its better!'
Yeah nobody asked for that. Art is not what is mindlessly pumped out quicker, art is something somebody has put genuine effort into. _That_ is inspirational. You probably shouldn't swim across the Atlantic Ocean (especially if you have access to alternatives, such as planes and boats), but that is you comparing apples and oranges. Does one risk their life to sit down and put careful effort thought into a piece of art? Not even remotely. Even if you did do that, I probably call it an achievement anyway.
6. Making art on a computer manually? No, because one must put careful and precise thought and effort into what they are doing, that is very different compared to one stringing some words together a certain way, letting all the algorithms do all the work for you by rolling a bunch of images into one, and then there you are; something some people have the nerve to call "art".
7. If Michelangelo were here, he would scoff at humanity's laziness and degradation, so much so that they can't put a chisel to stone, or a pencil to paper, or a brush to a canvas. Art is not what about "looks cooler", that is mere aesthetic. Art is what best depicts the condition of concious beings which are alive and what to express their emotions and thoughts (if this isn't your definition of a "masterpiece", then I'm not sure what is). The day there will ever be "AI Art" will be the day when AI become conscious, but depending on if humanity degrades any further, that may either be a good thing or a bad thing.
8. No, this accelerationist propaganda you are buying into should be laughed out of any room it is in. This drivel is the equivalent of Flat Earth Theory or Young Earth Creationism.
It does indeed depend on your definition of art. I would love to see what you think of my earlier video on AI art. Can it be art? I think it can and yet I partially agree with you. We make art when we fill an artwork with meaning. The viewer imbues meaning not the artist. The artist sets the scene.
@@femiairboy94 prompters provide the idea. The machine provides the expression. This is like saying producers are film creators. They only provide one part of the entire piece.
@@irish_deconstruction Your hands shouldn't be required to make art. Your mind is enough and you can accomplish what is in your mind using any number of tools before AI existed. AI will help people create what they want, what is in their minds. So what part of that shouldn't be called art?
on my philosophical end of things, AI art vindicates my materialism, my mental attitude that humans are far too arrogant to allow the truth out that what we do isn’t that special. im sad that this belief of mine is vindicated, because it doesn’t leave us much. I bet there’s a better lens to look at things for this going forwards though.
That is definitely an interesting take. Personally, I am not a materialist. I think the backlash against it actually supports a metaphysical frame work. Why are so many "materialists," (I am not suggesting this is you btw) mad about AI? It is as if they believe there is inherent value and meaning in human endeavors that is categorically different than mere material entities. For example if a tiger rips a gazelles legs off then slowly eats it organs as it dies a horrific death we don't call the tiger evil. But, if a human did so virtually every person on the planet would be appalled. Why? There must be some difference between humans and tigers.
Your inability to appreciate the incredible ability of the world's greatest artists says more about you than it does them. Watch a Kim Jung Gi or Casey Baugh at work and tell me that what they do isn't that special. The machines used to generate similar results is just an illusion. Unplug the machine and you have nothing. Human creativity is and will always be special. Your attitude is coming from a place of jaded, passive aggressive envy, and borderline jealousy.
@@artcanhelp The difference between the human and the tiger is obvious. The human would be taking the life of the gazelle unnecessarily. Humans can thrive without eating animals. The Tiger do not have that option. The outrage comes from the fact that all animal life on the planet would perish if humans were allowed to eat them indiscriminately.
@@sentry8992 kill the human and you have nothing either. all this machine does is show the creation of art dosent need a human to do it. the is proved though it making good art that a great many enjoy. It’s just a statement that AI can do it. it can detect colours too and sort apples. all it’s doing is just adding to a growing list of things robots can do equally or better than humans. of course I appreciate good art, that’s why the AI is vindictive of my hypothesis that a great many things humans hold special can be done by a sophisticated computer. as is this case with the quality AI art.
idk what you want from me?
@@broorb4104 According to those that use this technology extensively, it does require constant human guidance. It's a Mashup machine. Without a human being pulling the levers, nothing will come out of the Black box. These robots can't spontaneously create on their own. They are only lines of code running a script. That's not the same as authentic human creativity.
They screwed up releasing Ai image generation to the public so early. Think about it. Ai was originally trained on image information scraped from the internet but what is it trained on now? Image database now are filled with Ai generated images corrupting Ai's ability to advance beyond its own flaws. How is it supposed to learn how hands look when its database is filled with Ai generated images with incorrect hand rendering. It is basically feeding back into the training model all of the flaws it needs to fix. They should have kept it private but now they have tainted the internet with junk data that it can't ues.
That's literally not true at all lmao the recursive image thing has been constantly refuted.
@@_B_E It is happening and it is happening with generative text programs as well. Diffrent language models are are showing signs of parroting themselves. Simply put there will be eventually be more unrefined ai content on the internet that it will push ai and to a developmental cul-de-sac.
@@davidcomito505 It's literally not my dude. There might be some newer models that are in testing with different data sets, but the data sets themselves are not being altered. You're literally lying lmao
@@_B_E Ai content is getting into data sets. They should have spent much longer in refining the tech before releasing it for use.
I hear the argument that it hurts the ability for an artist to make a living, but what of other past advances? Modern agriculture equipment transformed us from a world where >70% of people were working on farms to one where the needs of the many are met by a few. You can use the argument to shutdown anything that increases a persons efficiency to produce value. Think of all the artisan paint and ink makers who were displaced by other digital art tools.
To take things to their logical conclusion, we're steadily moving towards a world where there won't be enough jobs for everyone. We need to figure out how to handle it as that future inevitably draws closer. The problem isn't the tool increasing our efficiency, no ones arguing we need to go back to ice boxes because refrigerators replaced an entire profession, its the hoarding of resources and wealth that are generated by all this efficiency. Instead of improving the lives of everyone, or setting up safety nets for people like those who are displaced, its funneled upwards into the musks and bezos of the world, creating classes of wealth that were once impossible and serve no beneficial purpose. Not advocating for any political ideology here, though it may sound socialist. But what's wrong with the idea of a world where everyones most basic needs are met while still allowing for those who desire more to work and compete for it.
AI may lessen the value of art as a means to make money in some fields, but it will never destroy the individual value of traditional art. As you said, it's just a tool. Some will make great use of it to do things that no one has seen before, others will abuse it while the laws take time to catch up.
Even with the creation of digital drawing tools the industries behind producing paint and ink didn't die out. Now folks are into small batch creating their own paints. I think after a while of dealing with advancements in technology folks just get tired of it and are drawn to the old.
Also on the topic of farming it's a shame that there's farms out there that get paid by the government to NOT produce anything because they "specialize" in corn and corn as a crop is an over saturated market. So these people get paid to sit around doing nothing while having huge plots of land meanwhile normal folks be struggling to make ends meet and get accused of begging for handouts simply from wanting living wages. Bleh.
@@AlottaBoulchit Certainly, technology opens up new possibilities but the older methods and materials have their own charms. They just don't exist to the same scale as they used to, when it was the only way to do things.
And I agree, its so wasteful. Similar thing happens with milk, farmers dumping thousands of gallons to keep the price up and profitable. We have the capabilities to produce more than we need, but money must come first, always.
The AI is a machine built on the patterns of human artist. These patterns are an integral part of AI machine. They are its nuts and bolts. Is it fair use to build a machine based on the nuts and bolts of others?
While our minds also store patterns, it is not a machine for the public to use. It is our most private sphere. You cannot just extrapolate copyrights applicable to private humans to a public machine.
Yes, your point is just silly
@@LeafSouls Well does the artist when he puts his work out, consented to have it used by a machine? Or did he only consent to have it used by humans? My point is that art consumed by a machine, is not the same thing as art consumed by a human. And artist never consented that they art be turned into an algorithm.
@@LeafSouls your response is really silly because there is nothing to it.
@@nicolasaeschlimann3718 You own no right to consent to this, yes it maybe your art that I am currently perhaps drawing, but let us say, you did not consent to me drawing it, I am not talking about putting it on the internet, rather simply drawing in the real world, does your non-consent mean anything morally? Despite being your own art and creation that I am recreating? And should I take it seriously and comply?
No, and the same applies to the algorithm
That is because the law exists to protect the value of what you own, not one's pettiness
@@nicolasaeschlimann3718 I added my concerns here above
Issue with ai art is that its uses are very ill intended. It lets the ""less creatively talented"" to mass produce ""creative"" pieces. It's a plastic immitation that has gotten good enough to trick the masses and can win contests, and competitions. And have been used to take advantage of others work. While maybe not illegal. It is quite simply not a good thing. It's a crutch for the masses, and a somewhat useful tool for those not intending to take advantage of a weak market and oblivious observers. Not illegal. But the potential for evil. Like a knife
It allows for the masses to have easy access to cheap outcomes, even if it is at a lower quality. What you just described is mass production. You even said it yourself. So do you reject mass produced goods of all types and buy purely handcrafted goods made by professionals, or does that moral stance stop at your career field?
@@OMGUKILLKENNY2 Ai users are so entitled, if you don't put in effort to learn drawing, you don't deserve to make art!
@@C052-ip9zs If you don't learn woodworking, you don't deserve to have a table.
@@omgukillkenny7576 if I pay for it, yes. Not if I steal it.
@@C052-ip9zs Nothing is being taken from artist, no copyright is being violated. Fair use already allows for far less transformative uses of art without permission. AI is not stealing, get over it.
No human ever consents to being born. But here we are.
Visual art, like music, and like all creative expression, is just one of the many methods we utilize to cope with being alive.
It’s an attempt to make sense of, and to find meaning in-our suffering as well as in our joys-within the confines of our brief lives.
Maybe what we need to do is to stop looking to the economists to tell us how to value lives. Maybe that’s what it would take for us to gradually become a healthier species and maybe only then would we find a better balance with the rest of nature.
Should we start by decoupling art and commerce? It might work for some but how would that work out for the materialists?
Thanks for your excellent content! Please keep at it! 🤝
Great thoughts. I saw an instagramer talking about the realization that their photography would no longer compete in the commercial realm. Rather than feeling lost she realized she could make photos for the sheer love of making photos. While I don't know the full ramifications of a "commerceless" artworld I hope that these generators will push us towards a deeper value system. The commerce as king mindset will need to shift as we automate more and more of our world especially our creative industries. Maybe we can stop calling them creative industries and see them as fields of human endeavor.
@@artcanhelp that’s an interesting idea!
If AI can replicate human effort and hyper-optimize all of its output for engagement and personalize content for each individual, then how would humans be able to compete?
What kind of world would that be? Where all of our human potential is harvested by machines that do not exist in the physical world? Will machines continue to supplant humans as creators leaving us behind, mainly to exist as hyper-consumers (even more so than we already are)?
I’m not anti AI, but am concerned about how this impacts the human creative spirit going forward. I hope it will not lead to further disillusionment.
Maybe a Guaranteed Global UBI could solve a lot of issues in the “work or die”, “work status”, “work-flex”paradigm that we are in.
A guaranteed global UBI might lead to a less stressed out world where people can still create, love, learn, research, invent, discover, play, volunteer, and just live out the rest of their lives in peace, without having to constantly be worried about job loss, homelessness, water, food, shelter. Some essential jobs and specialized jobs would still remain. People would still be able to do voluntary work and would still be able to contribute in their own unique ways, but without the constant instability and sometimes constant extreme anxieties around basic human survival needs.
Once basic needs are met/stabilized would we see a creativity explosion? Or a creativity implosion? Really not sure.
@@Ungrievable Eventually humanity needs to move away from human labor entirely. The machines will soon enough become capable of all of it without us after all. We need to carefully balance humanity itself so that instead of a small group discarding the rest of humanity in favor of machines it is humanity as a whole who shows the "labor" of said machines. Such a world would be one where no one would work. We would all simply do what we desired with the resources the machines had generated for us.
Such a world is a lifetime or more away of course but we are definitely transitioning toward it. Its just a matter of how rough things will be while we figure it all out. No doubt there will be people forcing the idea of human labor long after its required.
I personally have a lot of other issues with AI art, but you make a very good point about decoupling art and commerce. The conception of art as "product" or "content" is what got us here. When you view art like this, the actual process becomes "drudgery" to be automated away. I wonder sometimes if AI art would have as much appeal in a society where art was solely pursued as expression.
"Neither of these arguments will actually stop this technology." - You assume the goal of lawsuit is to stop the technology? Who said that?
I suppose a more nuanced take would be, they want to stop the algorithm from using their images without being able to charge a price. Regardless, most folks who are up in arms against the tech are tying to "stop it" in some manner. Some I am sure want it to be completely done away with, as you can see in this comments section. Most want "fair" compensation and if they don't get it a lawsuit is an implied "stop."
"Transformative use of other artwork" The Koons case also doesn't hold up here. He was using ordinary images of women's feet in a transformative way to make a commentary on that very imagery. AI artwork doesn't use existing art to make a commentary. If you take fifty images of women's feet and train an AI image generator, it will generate an image of women's feet. It is not transformative, and it is not a commentary; it is just reproducing those images as competing artwork.
Nope. Diffusion by definition is transformative. It pulls a similar image out of noise. If that is not transformative then nothing is. It is definitely different but also definitely similar.
@@artcanhelp "Transformative" refers to the resulting image, not the process used to create that image. I can scan in a copyrighted image, compress it via JPEG into a pattern of 1's and 0's, and then combine those into a perfect reproduction of the original image. The data is transformed, but the resulting image is still a copy. Compressing an image into noise and then pulling that image out is not a transformative piece of artwork. The resulting image is not expressing a different idea, such as the works of Warhol.
@@abates17 which is a great point for iconic images or logos. Like the Getty image issue. But those are realistically niche cases that the companies will easily weed out of their models.
@@artcanhelp All artists deserve equal copyright protection, not just the most recognizable or iconic ones. These AI companies are opening themselves up for massive lawsuits unless they start over with new models after asking for permission.
Intent is ultimately the foundation of all creation. WHY did someone train a generator on images of feet? WHY did they write a prompt doing so? Was the intent to be transformative, subversive, critical? If the intent is there, and the result of their process creates a unique output, then that's just as artistically meritable as any other form of creation.
The true argument against ai is that it makes shitty art
Look at what it made six months ago and look at what it is making now. It drastically outpaces the average human artist. The images are not amazing right now but give it a few months or a year. Then that argument will no longer stand up.
@@artcanhelp the stuff it's making now don't seem much better than last year imo. It cant even figure out truly complex structures like hands. People last year when dalle-2 came was being shown off said the same thing to me and yet it still can't do hands, let alone creatively interesting stuff. People seem to think that ai is magic and just improves on its own. That's not how it works. It does evolve on its own, but that doesn't mean it will involve in a desirable way or even expected way. There is a massive amount of work and genius and data going into squeezing the results we see out of these algorithms. For sure it's exiting tech, but it's not magic. Another thing, getting AI close to human ability is orders of magnitude easier than getting AI at or surpassing human ability. The distance between where the tech was in the very beginning and where it is now is smaller than the distance between where it is now and where it would have to go to replace a skilled craftsman or an creative mind.
@@444-w8k it certainly has a ways to go with hands but just look at how quickly it learned photorealistic faces. Hands are far more complex but it will get there quicker than you expect.
@@artcanhelp I guess only time will tell. Im impressed with ai but I think people conceptualize technological developments as linear and inevitable. In reality it's near impossible and all exponential growth flatlines until another major breakthrough is made. So ai should be conceptualized as an s curve in which each plateau is exponentially more difficult to breakthrough than the last.
@@444-w8k you would have a point, if you didn't miss the part where there have been 2 or 3 major breakthroughs every month for the last 3 or 4 months in the ai art field.
all the open source ai art generators are already at least 3 or 4 full generations of improvements behind the current best. finger issues solved. noticeable texture mess is solved. even consistent characters across prompts is solved. i'm gonna say even given setbacks we are at most a year out from the ai generation to be completely indistinguishable from the real thing consistently from every prompt.
you say only time will tell.. well the sad thing is, time did tell, its just not a public released ai model 'yet'.
What about ai art which use artist's name in their generation. They basically use their name, identity and style to produce artwork that looks like the original owner. I know style is not copyright, but if it's to the instance where ai art disrupting the artist's livelihood and identity where massive corporation/individual can just analyze artist artwork and claim as theirs, then that just devalue the reason of making art in the first place. Imagine if somebody take your videos, name and your voices to create another channel that looks like you but its not you. Is that even fair at this point ?
Plus, we all know this company is able to produce a more ethical ai art generation. I mean just look at dance diffusion.
Make no mistake I am not happy about what the impact of these technologies will most likely be. I am merely saying that the way we think about copyright now will not suffice to protect things like "style." On the one hand style is important but even a highly stylized form is difficult to tie boundaries too. If we have to actually define our style then what do we do as our style evolves.
I also have to wonder why we haven't fought automation in the past as ardently because it had devalued many industries. Yet, we didn't care as much. But now that it is threatening artists we suddenly want to stop it. All in all it is a difficult conundrum. Even saying one company is more "ethical" than another is interesting. By what ethical metric?
AI isn't going to scrape my brain anytime soon. Until then your vison and your talent still belongs to you as an individual. It cant take your voice.
Google Eleven Labs.
@@artcanhelp LMFAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
My argument is that if someone has enough of A presence on the internet to have pictures On google images or Some website who wouldn't Type In their name and go For a little NSFW spin?! Does no one see how violating This technology is?
I have felt this way personally for a long time. I have tried to keep as many images of my face off the internet. Back when China started the social credit score based on facial recognition. Unfortunately it becomes harder and harder.
This is of course going to be something that comes up but its not really an AI issue. Just like the ability to stab someone with a knife isn't an issue with knives themselves. We simply need to grow humanity itself past the point where such things are a problem.
@@Merilirem well that's kinda my point But the world is not ready for this technology and that's the problem i think most people have rn
It doesn't create mediocre work anymore...
Indeed. I think my point that things will get worse was accurate.
Yup. What we've learned most over the course of the last year is that artists are, by and large, incredibly dumb.
That whole quote by the poet was just dumb.
He only points out amateur vs professional
instead of pointing out the novice vs the experienced
He also attempts to coin both terms as either "love" and "work"
when neither is the reality in how you can also love to make art and grow in experience (professional) in it.
He just really wanted to point out the difference between the street artist and the mass produced artist
which neither affect each other as they are both means of creating art. Is the street artist just upset that a factory prints more?
Then why not triumph the industry by being a professional /expert?
It doesn't matter what arguments you make in favour of ai. It ALL boils down to wanting to make a quick buck. All these "ai artists" had no interest in art until now. When technology does all the work for you you have achieved nothing and the vast majority will lose interest when the next trend comes along. The art is in the endeavour. It's why people say Micheal Jordan made basketball an art form, why Messi made football an art form. Real people appreciate seeing the fruits of endeavour and dedication Art made by humans won't die, it'll fall through the cracks where it will thrive.
I am generally not in favor of this tech. Check out my new video which is the best argument against ai
I can foresee a future where artists block their work from public view and put it behind a login form and possibly paid subscriptions to prevent ai from using their work free.
That's called a patreon,and that doesn't work,if you show it to the public in any capacity you risk it being used.
Thats what getty images essentially does, and they still scrapped from them
@@fuckakakaka > *Thats what getty images essentially does*
Not exactly sure if I understand how the OP's suggestion is at all comparable to the current design of Getty - I mean, I don't need to login or anything to see the watermarked images allegedly at the center of the controversy/lawsuit.
ChatGPT generated the script of this video.
That would have saved me some time. My friend did ask chat gpt to make an argument for the benefits of productivity and speed that chat gpt offers as more valuable than learning to be a creative human. It was disturbing to say the least.
@@artcanhelp " your friend" nice try ChatGPT, you are not fooling anyone. Lol
I as a painter look at a flower, i get inspired and turn to the canvas, then i recall the image i've seen, but the imsge is not there, for my brain stores not images but patterns, and i understand long oval shapes coming out of a circular center, each oval has a slight downward curve to it, specially the upper oval, and upon defining the image, i recall the art i've seen in my life, how shapes can be portrayed by strokes, and how i define my own specifications of such information. And i paint, and i finish it. I am a human, yet the process was no different from that of an AI. This is how AI works, it stores not images, but specifications, if you're gonna ban it for stealing, then ban all art museums as well!
Well said.
the discussion is not about the art per-se ... is about the data hoarding goddammit and how the data is handled by big corps ... in exchange for monthly signature ...
What's crazy is that we have been giving them data for over a decade but this is finally getting the public's attention!
i dont understand how a human using your art as reference is ok, but ai using it is stealing. i simpathise with you since your dream job is at risk. but welcome to being an adult, many things you take for granted like some agriculture machines took some peoples jobs in the past.
Exit Through the Gift Shop
Good video! Really gave me a different perspective
Excellent video and valuable contribution. Whether one loves or hates AI generated art, the copyright infringement issue is a distracting non starter. The broader points and question you raise are the ones we really should be discussing.
I think of art as a resource in the context of this argument, like oil. Art is the fuel for these tools. The artists probably should have some say over how their resource is used. Nice deep dive on this issue.
I'm just going to keep doing art anyway.
Good! Me too
@@artcanhelp good. where can we see your visual art at?
@@Ungrievable website is in my links
This is the cutting edge video. It’s arguing the legal battle. talk all we want about the ethics, the legality is the bar. you made a good case for how it will likely play out in favour of AI. thats a sub from me for the explanation.
Thank you!
"This idea of consent is raising people's hackles when we've been consenting to have our personal data used by posting to social media" I don't even know where to start with this one. You're comparing apples to oranges here. Copyrighted artwork is not the same thing as personal identifiable information. If I post my picture online and Google uses that information for their own purposes, fine. That doesn't give them the right to steal my artwork. You're saying that sharing data online means we can't complain about copyrighted artwork being stolen, which is absolutely not the case.
It is in some cases. You need to read the Eula regarding each platform. Many platforms will claim copyright just based on a user uploading images. The lawsuits against the pirate bay further confuse who owns copyrights, the users or the platforms. At least who should be held accountable for when a copyright is infringed. If diffusion models can be prosecuted based on training databases then so can we crawlers based on search term databases.
@@artcanhelp Search engines are not crawling websites, then using that data to create a competing website. But diffusion models are crawling images and then using that to create competing images. And no, I am not aware of a single website that claims copyright to your images when you post them.
@@abates17 how is midjiourney a market composition? The images are not copyright protected and anyone can use them for free? Midjiourney is funded off of user fees. Not licensing. Hence my future video about the flood.
@@artcanhelp If someone can get artwork for free instead of paying for it, then that is absolutely market competition!
I was a anti-AI art conservative back 2 years ago. but through thinking it through and seeing how it can not replace artists since artist can adapt to its, since it is a tool. I can say the goals matter more than consent, since companies never asked my consent when blocking Art from use due to Copyright. I am sure that progressives can you use more to give impressions on a post capitalist ruled earth.
The way I look at the ethical issue of data sets is from a somewhat simplified view of a company creating a product. One defining feature of this product is that it’s digital, but let’s remove that element and simply look at it on that base level of product creation. Any time a product is created the components of that product need to be purchased for that use. Let’s say a company is building a machine. This machine is held together with nuts and bolts. Those nuts and bolts are an essential part of the machine; it cannot function without them. The company creating this machine cannot just take the nuts and bolts they need, they have to purchase them or the materials to fabricate their own. And this goes for every crucial element of a product from parts to labor to marketing. All of these essential components of that product have to be purchased. Now, I don’t think any AI engineer would argue that a large data set is a crucial component to an AI programs ability to function at a high level. The art taken is a crucial piece of their product, so why would we not expect them to have to purchase their parts, as we do in every other case?
If folks were giving away nuts and bolts on every corner would the company still have to pay for them?
@@artcanhelp but people aren’t giving their art away. If you want to use someone’s art in any official capacity, you still have to pay for it regardless of whether it is posted online or not. And I don’t think in any other context the statement “a company should pay for the components of their product” would be a controversial one.
@@SkullandSwors_art It all depends on the nature of the "use." For example if someone left out a box of screws and nuts and you took them, measured them, adjusted for your own application, then implemented a slightly different screw, you would be within your rights. That is what is happening in most cases. Obviously some models are infringing on copyrights. Often the models are not copying but analyzing an artwork. We are giving away our art in a sense on the internet. Anyone can extrapolate patterns and forms from that work to applyfor their own ends. That is the manner in which we are giving away the nuts and bolts for free on the corner.
@@artcanhelp I’m not making an argument based on what AI is doing with its data set. I am making an argument based on the data set being a key component to their product, the AI program itself. This is where the ethical issues come into play. And let’s continue to run with this nuts and bolts analogy. Say you see a bucket of bolts in the corner of someone’s yard, you take them, remachine them to fit your purpose and use them to your ends. But what you didn’t know is that the person was actually just fixing a fence post, and you just took all of their hardware. Would this not be stealing? Even if based on a misunderstanding. Now if there is a written sign on the box “free to take” or if it is in a trash pile, clearly meant for disposal, that situation is different, because of the clear intention of the person leaving the bucket. Artists(most at least) are not posting their art online with the intention to allow anyone to do anything with it, certainly not to let AI companies train their programs on them. And it is truly a different thing for someone to see someone else’s piece and take inspiration from it or use it as a reference than it is for a corporate entity(from what I understand under the guise of research) to take art without permission or compensation to the owner, to create a for profit program. They are essential components of their base product, and regardless of how the AI uses that component, it should be paid for or acquired with permission. Paying for the components of a product you’re creating is a base cost of doing business across the board. Again, I just don’t see why this is a controversial stance.
@@SkullandSwors_art Let me be clear, I am not saying your stance is not ethically right or wrong. I am saying that our current laws do not make the training illegal. In most cases.
It is more akin to finding a bucket of nuts and bolts left out on public property. You take the bolts, measure them and make molds of them, then leave them where you found them and make your own bolts.
Even the copying part, the fact that the AI companies are downloading images is not quite actionable. Afterall, every web browser copies every image to the temporary memory of every computer it works on. Our laws are just not ready for this and unfortunately they laws are not aligned with the artists.
The point of the matter with "flooding the market" is because it speaks to the damage these Ais will have on the value of the artist's work that they are trained upon which is one of the hurdles in arguing fair use. The more damage it does to the value of a copyrighted work, the less likely it is pass that hurdle.
Sorry, but you are just flat-out wrong about public images. Just because you put things out in the public view (which is not the "public domain", that is a very different definition and the two should not be used interchangeably because it causes confusion and misinformation) does not make it fair use. That is a cut and dry rule of copyright. If that were the case then anyone could claim ownership over anything that was publicly displayed and that is precisely why copyright law does not allow it. You do not have legal ownership over my art that I post to social media anymore than I do to your vacation photos that you post. For the record when you post something on Deviant Art it does come with a license that you as the artist can determine. For example I tend to use a creative commons, non-derivative, non-commercial works license 5.0 license. Meaning I like sharing my art and I believe that it can't really be considered art until it is shared, you can download my art for personal use like wallpapers, or prints to hang on your wall. At no point are you allowed to alter it (non-derivative) such as; crop, collage, photo-bash, add a filter, add text, layer a texture over it, use it in a meme, etc. Nor are you allowed to use it in any commercial setting or product without an expressed license from me. I even had to send a cease and desist order to a person who used it as their album cover and that was in 2012. So there is licensing when you post images online many people just do not know about it until they find them selves in litigation.
Likewise social media platforms like Facebook and Instagram both are required by law to recognize copyright ownership over images that are uploaded however in their terms of service they reserve the right to license your images you upload from you for their own use, NOT for everyone else to use. Which is why you have to agree to it in order to use that service. Even then, as the copyright owners we can still reserve the right to stipulate the conditions of that license. Which is why in the description of my original pieces I mention the same terms of the license I described above. Even if it is not done in an official capacity, the intent of the license is made known and THAT is what the courts care about. Now, against Meta I may likely lose any litigation I pull them into over the rights of my art but that still doesn't give anyone else permission to use my art without licensing.
I will say this, the ninth district court that these lawsuits are being filed in is very tech savvy and more lenient when it comes to technology benefiting the public at large so it is possible that these artists will lose their case however, the ninth district is also extremely arts and humanities-centered too with a firm stance on the precedence of copyright law. Which is why the lawsuits were filed there in the first place. The idea that this being decided upon as "fair use" in general is extremely unlikely due to the precedence it would set for all forms of media. It could be applied to movies, music, video games, etc. It is far more likely that it will be decided upon as copyright infringement and then individual future cases can argue certain use cases for fair use. That is another thing, a plaintiff can not bring fair use as their argument, only a defendant can use it as a defense for copyright infringement. It was designed that way to begin with.
I agree that it will not END human-made art. It is going to make it much more valuable, less accessible, less prolific, and much much more expensive. I am not gonna stop creating, one way or the other, but all my stuff will be plastered with various watermarks moving forward though. You want to see it without watermark? You gonna have to pay for it and you have text to image Ais to thank for it. No more free wallpapers.
You also have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the diffusion process works as well as what exactly gets stored on the data set and Ai models that are trained. I suggest Corridor Crew's "Lawyer Explains Stable Diffusion Lawsuit" video as well as the Corridor Cast Ep# 163 (both on YT). Just know that going into it they are all very pro-Ai tech people and even they are coming to terms with the implications of it all.
That was a great video and it does raise a serious issue that they did seem to store copyright images. But copyright does not stop me from saving your image to my computer. It stops me from making copy's for distribution. I would not be surprised if they end up saying that storing the images for ai training is not even considered "use." They are ultimately analyzing images, quantifying pixel patterns, then iterating new transformative images. I am not a legal expert but that definitely seems "fair" given the cases I raise. It can be best illustrated by the vcr actually. You are allowed to record a TV show for personal use on your own data storage device. But you can't distribute it for commercial purposes. This is why the copyright argument will probably fail unless new ideas are formed to take into account the new tech.
@@artcanhelp To be fair making copies of television programs with VCR was actually illegal. The same goes with recording songs off the radio with a cassette player or ripping movies from a DVD that you owned. It was just never enforced to any meaningful degree. Nowadays with DRM and the DMCA it does carry severe penalties. Just like always it took legislation and law enforcement a while to catch up with the technology. It isn't even the storing of copyright images that is the issue. That can be done for research purposes legally and the vast majority of artists understand this now. The issue is the diffused result from removing the noise in the training process generates a derivative work that is not transformative enough to be considered fair use and it will have a major impact on the value of the work (for better or worse, but still an impact) that it was trained upon. Also the fact that it was used to generate a commercial product is a violation of the owner's right to determine the licensing terms of their work.
@@JMulvy There is a great Atlantic article on Universal Studios vs. Sony Corporation of America. As far I can tell you are wrong about the vcr. Personal recording is allowed. So it hinges on whether the corporation "recording" the images is fair use.
@@artcanhelp I am familiar with it. Apologies I shouldn't say it was illegal. What it was is copyright infringement. It doesn't necessarily break teh law in every case but each case does come with penalties and damages. However SCOTUS did make the distinction that if it was for personal use it was perfectly allowable. Meaning in the same context; ai bros (forgive me, I do not know a better short hand to refer to them) would be allowed to generate images and then keep them for personal use. If we were to apply the same precedent then at no point would they be legally allowed to publicize them on social media or make money off of prints or merchandise.
@@JMulvy but the images they generate are transformations of the originals. Not the originals. The vcr doesn't transform the original. The ai does.
USA has a law that if an artwork was created by an non human then it cannot be copyrighted. So any image or any creative works generated by anything other than a human is worthless.
Worthless in the sense of money. Humans use far more measures of value than just that. Cash is king right now but maybe it shouldn't be.
Perhaps money, of course art is only valuable to the viewer so it's kind of up to humans to decide if something has value or not.
@@tiberiousjc3739 which means that AI images can have value.
Only if humans give it value. which most collectors of art would never pay millions for a piece that can be copied and sold millions of times. Ai art work can't be copywrite protected. Making it as valuable as those cheap posters one buys at a music store. No long term value can be gained from it. Therefore it's not art.
Small amendment, they would be worth less than the paper they were printed on.
We’re no longer safe unless if laywers can be more stricted for destroying the A.I generated and make them illegal since bad actors can abuse it very easily. I’m actually studying quickly and defend artists how to stop this mess. I don’t want to see a bad future because of an A.I generated.
amazing that you think that because some people can abuse a tool that the tool itself should be destroyed. Do you think we should ban cars or knives because people use them for bad reasons? If you genuinely hold this position, then you need to do a LOT of studying because you're still at the starting line brother.
I have used AI to create around 10 thousand images in the last year. I've tested and experimented with the prompts and setting and styles, etc. What have I lost? absolutely nothing, but I have gained a new way of being creative. Have I created some masterpieces, maybe, but most likely not, but it was fun.
Before getting a job and "enjoying" the "benefits" of adulthood I used to spend countless hours making 3d models, modest ones to be sure, but it was a joy to create things and share and get feedback. Once I had a job, most of the energy I used to create things vanished. If I spent too much time on modeling I would be frustrated I didn't relax enough, see a movie, make a better meal etc but if I didn't spend time on creating I would also become frustrated. In the end doing creative stuff became a chore and I stopped doing it. I collected a huge a mount of pictures as reference material for someday using it to model new things, but realistically I never will or will in a very limited capacity.
With AI I can now enjoy the creative process in very short time frame. I know instant gratification isn't necessarily good, but as an average Joe that can't travel the world on a whim or spend months on some pleasant task what joys do we really have in life? Most of our time is spent at work and then on doing mundane stuff at home. What exactly is my purpose in that context?
I honestly kind of hope AI will disrupt absolutely everything soon and force society to fundamentally change because as it is right now it does not feel rewarding or satisfying to just live. Even if I had more money and stuff, I'd just have to waste more time on dealing with it, maintain and clean, pay more taxes etc. Advanced technology is irrelevant if our mentality and society is stuck in the past.
In my opinion the entire concept of copyright is a relic and is only useful for corporations and rich people as normal people would not have the resources to fight those who infringe or steal their work, especially across borders as is often the case.
I'd be lying if I didn;t also feel some slight feeling of loss or sadness. Now is basically the last time period when most things we see and interact will have been made and decided on by mostly humans, but at the same time that is also a good thing because there is so much crap design and ugliness in this world.....
Your first and last paragraphs seem to contradict. Perhaps struggling for something will actually make it worth your time? Are those 10k images as satisfying as spending the time to make 1 good painting?
So one guy is able to output 10,000 images in a year with this technology? That means 1000 artists could output tens of millions. That's equal to visual pollution with nothing being gained. No skill being developed, just an endless sea of visual noise.
@@sentry8992 i am getting bored see generated art polluting social media
@@MrScrewKiller Exactly. I find myself scrolling right by interesting images simply because I know it's made by a machine. I enjoy the craftsmanship behind the art. A Big Mac will never be as enjoyable as a meal that I prepare in my own kitchen. I like studying other artists technique. Watching them create a piece right before my eyes. We are living in a time where we can learn from and witness artistic genuises as talented as the greatest Italian Renaissance Masters practice their craft and learn from them in real time. Why would we give that up? I can't get over how dumb the whole idea is. There are extraordinary artists working today. Just about all of them teach their techniques. Why are we asking a robot to do the work? I'm sorry, I find the whole concept of AI image generators to be, just plain dumb.
You can make much more than 10k in year, because you experiment a lot and also make dud variations, not all generations are decent, you actually need some knowledge to get your vision across. I am personally not spamming anything, just sharing on a few forums.
The only argument that's valid is that it's soulless.
The argument is pretty simple, why does a regular artist gets hit with shame and lawsuits if they try to copy an artwork, while AI gets a freepass. That is were a lot of artist are pissed right now. its not a matter of getting left behind or anything, if a regular artist gets hit with it, then so as AI art for that equal treatment and PROPER rules on where they can join, its the reason you don't see photographers are joining a drawing contest or a poet joining a cook off and claims words are food for the mind.
> *while AI gets a freepass.*
But ... on its own, barring overtraining/overfitting, which is erroneous/corrected (and undesirable), how does these things (ESPECIALLY neural net based ones) copy artwork?
@@gondoravalon7540 its kinda like this, AI is pretty much a tracer, in the art community everybody hates a tracer, even if you are human, nobody likes a tracer.
The principle of AI art is like photobashing a lot of images. its pretty much the same thing on music company on how they are protective of their music even if its used as a sample, same goes to regular artist.
For reference look, for the artist cutesexyrobot and shexyo, pretty much the same principle shexyo copied the art style and artwork and did some changes but still, nobody wants that.
@@bummer01 Tracing is used a lot in art creation. It's literally a "fine art hack" for getting your reference out quickly so you can get to painting.
@@AlottaBoulchit but there is a difference between practicing and monetizing the original artwork, the copyright law states you can't copy the whole piece, only small portions.
For example the Mona Lisa piece, you can copy her pose but you have to change the whole angle, if you want to copy her clothing BUT you have to add something to it to make it fall under transformative art work.
its fine to "trace" as long as it is for practice and study purposes and nothing more.
While an artistic style and identity takes a human artist decades to create and foster, AI can rip it in a matter of second. While humans can get inspired by other artist style and identity, AI should not be able to do so. It is true that our minds also store patterns, but it is not a machine for the public to use. It is our most private sphere. You cannot just extrapolate copyrights applicable to private humans to a public machine. The machine does not process work like our mind does. It process it in a perfect and mechanical way in matters of second enabling to rip an artists unique style in a matter of second. Is there now any incentives, for artist to create new styles and identity? Shouldn't artist creating new styles and identity be protected? isn't this a valuable commodity?New copyrights laws need to be put in place to protect artists style and identity.
This is my implied point. The way we treat artists and intellectual property needs to drastically change if we care about the impact this tech will have. We have not changed much when automation has ravaged other work sectors.
Regarding your questions at the end. If art is made in order to make money then everyone should switch to AI. Perhaps there is a higher value that should be associated with art though? My video on why folks should make art even though AI can do it addresses this.
the "creator"gave us free will & we the pepole have the first amendment
You can't say that AI is transformative by itself, because that's not true. Person is not changing anything visual, it's the algorithm that transformed 1s and 0s from original image to another format of 1s and 0s and then generates according to them. What can it do without the images? Or images made in "one room" scenario like same chair or table, then it wouldn't give much results. That's just another example of grow as fast as possible and worry about consequences later, companies make it seem like computers (conveyor belts) are just like people (magic black box) so need to have the same rights. The era of "slop" is coming
The person is changing something visual though. This is why babies must observe the world before that can shape it. We are all doing this. Take one thing, copy it, transform, and combine.
@@artcanhelp We are people, who have needs and a whole life. AI is just a machine that doesn't have reasons, morals or will. It's stupid to say that machines are like humans or the other way around. For example, on some events it is prohibited to have a camera, why? Because 0s and 1s are not the same as stupid neurons that can forget or change stuff. Kids can imagine stuff based on their natural creativity, AI is just putting numbers in matrices. It's nearly impossible for a person to almost perfectly copy Mona Lisa (from memory), ai can do it with 3 additional variants.
@@shallmow Correct, it is better at it than us. That is, it is better at copying than us. It is also better at transforming. But, for now, it is not that good at novel transformations.
Just because it is better is not to say it is not like us in any way. It is walking through the same process as humans but with far greater speed and efficiency.
The tech ought to be free.
Why?
Who will pay for running servers ?
You can have all the arguments you want, but I'm off to generating my game assets in style of Leonardo da Vinci oil-painting. Can artist do 3000 assets per month for $20 in the same quality? If so, tell me and I will gladly use your services. I'll pay $30 😉
That is the one issue about ethics, to each their own.
@@artcanhelp What's unethical about it? Ethics is subjective. I should've paid 100 times or more for slower and probably worse job or maybe unbearably slow and adequate job? Why? It's just evolution of technology and I'm using the tool. It's like saying factories were unethical to family owned businesses, but those couldn't handle the demand anyway, now it's just history. This will be too. What artist I'm hurting? Leonardo? He would probably be over the moon and using AI himself if he lived today.
@@SmartK8 something being expedient, business savey, and financially more feasible does not make a thing ethical. At the advent of automation and factories they did have the same conversation. That is what the story of John Henry is all about.
You are ultimately proving my point.
@@artcanhelp But how it ended up? Factories won and workers just moved to less robotic work to and/or machine maintenance. What is artistic about making 8000 assets in the same style in least time possible? Sounds like a work for a "factory" to me. Wouldn't be better if artists moved to a more specialized work or just learned to use the AI to help them with art? Probably writing their specialized models.
@@SmartK8 that is how it seems to you because our culture has a view of work as slavish. Look at traditional Japanese master crafts and you will see that some people are able to take pride in their work even when it is something like making hundreds of sheets of paper.
Btw, I am not saying you're wrong. I am saying you cannot simply dismiss the impact because humans have adapted to the past. Not everyone has the same capacities as you to adapt. So, what sort of ethic would fit the problem best? That is the hard question that will ultimately be ignored and progress will march on. Who knows who and how many will be trampled.
Idc anyomore honestly. People still go in the wild and/or have farms while there’s this very convenient life in cities. I’ll just continually do it until AI make up law stopping to make them art lol idk
We'll just be inundated with AI art that looks AI art. So in twenty/thirty years no one but machine's will be making images for other images to scrape.
That is certainly one of my fears as well.
Actually ai does just fine training on ai art. In fact, it's quickly becoming the primary way of training and you see pretty big improvements from it.
The key is data curation and detailed labeling.
In all AI isn't bad
It's just being used in a wrong way
And there is this youtuber who like proposed some kind of solution to all this that might actually work
Like I don't know all that shit about copyright, law or whatever but from the way he explains it seems possible
Anyway here is the link to the video if you wish to know more about it. ua-cam.com/video/hpBVUXYi2XA/v-deo.html
I find this youtuber's opinion is far more persuasive: ua-cam.com/video/iik25wqIuFo/v-deo.html
@@artcanhelp yeah you are right
when you say other people don't understand what legal terms mean, you should look it up yourself.
Public domain does not mean on social media or the internet, it means long after you die. Look up public domain day, Mickey Mouse for example isn't public domain yet, but soon will be.
Also look up fair use and the four factors. Extent of use matters. Fair use derives from our 1st amendment, ie no law can infringe speech even copyright, so fair use codifies that exception.
Artists, as in painters do single paintings or limited prints, extent of use is why partly why Prince can use art of just about anything, fine art is pure 1st amendment protected expression. This is how artists during comic con can paint superheroes.
It can transform it 100% and that is one factor. The style of Dr Seuss has been ruled infringing copyright. Their tech is able to copy just the style, thats still copying regardless if human artists might do that. Ask any artist and they will say they have their own style, its literally the only thing that makes our work have value.
AI is a black box, it is rhetoric to say its working in a given way, nobody knows. How its creators describe it, its pretending its intelligent, its actually just big data storage, copying weights and statistics enough so it can recreate something good enough, much like video codecs do with video. The burden is on the AI companies to prove what looks the same isn't a copy, when it sure looks like it.
AI should be thought to stand for Artificial Information processing, using big data language models.
The black box must store a copy in memory, if its adding the getty logo to images, or the distorted signatures, its much like what coreldraw does to vector art when you shrink it down too small, it distorts the vectors. When you accidentally have a distorted getty logo, that evidence is in gettys case of infringement. Claims you copied via memory or learning isn't material, if it looks the same, that means its copied.
Take away the top illustrators who are obviously being used to make these artworks so amazing, and its bleh.
Transformative technically does not mean redrawing, it means an artist is saying something different than the original. An old joke is if you are a better painter you can copy. If you are just saying the same thing as the artist, its not YOUR expression. For example I did a superman painting at a dreamer fund raiser, noting he is literally an illegal alien, that political message is transformative, not the fact I painted him from memory. Further I just did a painting in a gallery, it did not affect DC's market, DC isn't in the fine art market. That two of the four factors.
Further to use fair use as a defense requires admitting willful infringement, DC has a right to sue.
Note that AI is limiting your ability to use the likeness of Tom Cruise, and its not doing this with music, its only infringing individuals and avoiding labels and actors known to sue. They should have avoided stock photo sites. Getty spent years putting in keywords and descriptions, using the Getty site, a pay to use the photos, thats clearly dumb, they are known to sue. Their case is also going to be strong.
The storage and training is definitely the way to go after them. I should not have said public domain rather public view. Personally I don't think they will be able to get them on the storage issue. At least the collecting of data has not been criminalized in the past. See the case of the young man who was downloading en masse JSTOR articles at MIT. The fear was not the storing it was the distribution.
Altogether we need new and different laws.
I agree regarding calling it AI.
@@artcanhelp you are going in circles, storage or distribution isn't the issue, its copying. Its an issue of copyright. The scraping is part of copying, its the first step in redistributing a copy. Remember the AI researchers have NO idea how the black box inside an AI is doing its magic, its self trained, so when they say its doing it like an artist ( who they also have no idea about ).
You are using terms with specfic meanings you don't understand, and just using the wrong term has a very different and very specific meaning. That isn't just an accident, it makes what you are saying in the video nonsensical. Unless you know public domain isn't just being in public, most of what you are criticizing just is going to go over your head.
These are legal arguments, you simply aren't understanding the language. The Swartz case vs MIT wasn't about copyright, but fraud, and he was charged, i don't see any court rulings from that. Yes downloading material you stream without paying fees is illegal from any pay for usage platform. Note that these scrapers were using stock photography sites, which copyright their captions on the images so they are searchable, that is under their terms of use contracts protected.
The Prince case was for a fine artist, transformative is just ONE factor, a fine artist is simply doing a gallery of show of fine art, the affect on the market is another factor ( and Fine Art is protected by the 1st amendment, no law can infringe, fair use is codifiction of that concept ). Again look at the Dr Seuss Case which describes teh style as being protected ( and its a book copying a book, a more direct competitor in the same market ) Unless you list ALL four factors for EVERY case, you are missing the way copyright fair use works.
Further to claim fair use REQUIRES admission of willful infringement, and there is NO precedent being set, the judges reserve the right to decide what is and isn't fair use on a per trial basis, it is ONLY decided AFTER the trial is fully concluded.
The sharing of images publically is what copyright enables, I can do so freely because of it. I can put images in public view without consenting to copying, or any usage. Consent isn't assumed. That is how I can get my work as an artist out there. This is needed to protect artists. No this does not mean search engines cannot index my work, it means google books cannot just turn around and start selling books, and that an AI program cannot just turn around and start selling art in my style.
If you remove that protection, I remove my artwork entirely. In fact I likely have to do something else. Obviously the courts can decide AI is not infringing ( the courts are not technically savvy, nor are they experts in anything about art )
Then this AI, which no longer has access, cannot copy the skills of real artists, because we are in hiding. Then all this great looking work ceases to look so great, because its not actually able to do it, itself. If certain key artists remove their work, and you cannot use their names, just about all which is so impressive about this AI art just falls apart.
I am already looking at focusing on Live art painting, as no AI can copy that, much like most musicians no longer make enough money from streaming and albums to make a living, and must do live performances.
@@brianmeyer8229 > *Remember the AI researchers have NO idea how the black box inside an AI is doing its magic*
What do you mean?
I subbe'd a while back, I like your channel. I guess we won't need photographers anymore. I don;t know but with A.I. art the possibilities are endless.
At least for most advertising gigs. Thanks for the subscribe!
This was a reallly nice video on the subject. I believe we will have to find new avenues to define the value of creative work that doesnt soley rely on producing financial gain.
At the very least we should still make our own art for the love of making things.
@@artcanhelp Thats the beauty of human creation that non sentient mashines will never be able to achieve. Art for its on sake. But i do worry about income it is already hard enough and I believe as a society we should support people pursuing art with at least a livable wage to let them do that.
@@simonyin9229 You're gucci. If you can last 5-10 years, we'll probably reach ai singularity level. This would break capitalism and make a large universal basic income actually viable for once.
Self-replicating, self-repairing and physically self-adaptable, (physically evolving) machines have been in the works.
Initially, the machines will require minimal human maintenance.
The longer-term goal however, is for them to require no direct physical human maintenance at all. 5
They’re part of the future Mars programs.
@@pinip_f_werty1382 Really the worst case scenario is that AI + self assembling, self repairing, self replicating and self evolving robots will just take up all the robot maintenance and repair jobs. So we’ll just have to adapt and find new jobs. It’s fine.
Destroying gatekeep in any field or subject is ultimately a good thing.
what do you mean with gatekeeping in this context?
NIce,.. good to hear someone talking some logic. Well done
This aged like milk lmao
Your brain did.
@@JudgeHoldenUwU this is why your father left you
@@C052-ip9zs oh no... the random kid on the internet says my father left me... what will I ever do now 😢
This is definitely the best video I've seen on the topic of AI generated art. You articulated a lot of my thoughts much more eloquently than I could
The argument is bad because AI learns the same way most artists learn and that’s by looking at other art and emulating it.
Ai doesn't learn like humans. It steals artistic traits without knowing why. And the users of it certainly dont know shit about art.
@@C052-ip9zs "It steals artistic traits without knowing why" just like humans do.
@@sigdec7789 No, real artists steal traits they enjoy from other artists because they think they look good, AI can't think.
@@C052-ip9zs Lol someone doesn't know what source amnesia is.
"Entering the public domain IS consent." Right off the bat, you are using this term incorrectly. "Public domain" does not mean "artwork that is visible to the public." You can find images of Mickey Mouse online, but the character of Mickey Mouse is copyrighted. It is not in the public domain, and you can and will be sued for using Mickey Mouse as your own character. Publicly visible artwork does not make it public domain.
I should not have said public domain but rather just public. Entering the public is consent to be seen. Therefore you cannot be mad at an diffusion model analyzing your publicly available work.
@@artcanhelp Consent to be seen is not consent for copying and reproduction. A diffusion model can analyze thousands of images of Mickey Mouse and then generate new images of Mickey Mouse, but that is still a copyright violation.
@@abates17 new images of Mickey is tricky. But new images of anything that is not brand iconic is much simpler. Diffusion by nature transforms it's training data. It does so in a similaranner as a we crawler or your own web browser that copies images so that you can view them on your screen. This is where the dilemma rises. Our tech and laws allow for some copying. We were not ready for diffusion models to hijack our current tech and legislation to beat us at our own remixing game.
@@artcanhelp Whether it's copying an iconic image of Mickey Mouse or someone's personal artwork, it's still copying. And lawsuits are currently underway to make sure that this corporate theft of artwork does not continue.
this are very Bad Arguments
On the one hand, you advocate for a nuanced assessment, but at the same time you use terms like "public domain" imprecisely. You claim that innovation will now make artists unemployed. What artists exactly are we talking about? All artists? Most of them? How is art actually defined in the first place? What does that mean to the debate about artificial intelligence? How can this definition of art change in society? These are questions that the news articles generally don't cover.
Art is about achievement, the story and the person behind it. You say in one of your comments the meaning of the image is basically a projection of the viewer but this is not nuanced enough to do justice to your own desire for a nuanced take on the matter. You are also comparing human inspiration to the AI learning process, although there are significant differences. Humans don't decipher data, they consciously experience a work of art and see meaning in it. Humans have their own sensory impressions and memories that interact with the art work, while computers draw their so-called "inspiration" exclusively from other works of art. Moreover, memory significantly distorts what is seen. Human perception is based on meaning, but a computer analysis is based on content like color data etc. By actually making the artwork the ideas transform again and by using your own hands you reach an individual result that can not easily be compared to the linear inspiration and creation process of A.I.
Copyright has the pragmatic function of protecting artists economically so that they can sell their works. The basic idea of copyright is therefore violated when the works of artists can be used for ai training. Previous transformative artworks have never been as epidemic as transformation through artificial intelligence. This must be included in the evaluation. The law is not designed for systemic transformation of artworks, therefore a consideration according to current standards is insufficient.
AI = Neuron network + Data
Neuron network is pure code.
Data comes from artwork used to make AI to learn. Learning is about adjusting neuron coefficients.
So Art generators are not really generators, they are machines of plagiarism, derivative work from input images.
If you teach AI to draw squares, it can only draw squares. Use Van Gogh art paintings and it can only draw Vang Gogh squares.
The concept of "scratch" is relative. How similar two images are is what determines the boundary of copyright violation.
AI is not a matemathical representation, it is actually the data converted to coefficient format. It is like saying that if I zip a software, it is no longer the software, even if unzipping brings the software back.
Try not using the paintings of that author and you will see how AI is unable to make arts like that author does.
IMO that is a heck of a stretch when it comes to the definition of plagiarism - especially considering that there is a point at which it'd be hard pressed to actually call the data "the original" (referring to the image data) in any meaningful way.
As an AI art enthusiast, I think this video is dead on. The typical arguments against AI art are terrible. They are ridiculous double standards, and often want to actually increase copyright protections, which almost always benefits big media corps like Disney and Nintendo.
I agree that AI art (and AI in general) will have huge consequences on our society. And we need to prepare for that.
But these bogus lawsuits just aren’t the way.
The funny thing is just plain ole computer programs and technology is good enough to create for creative people and artists. Hell plain ole analog equipment is good enough and in some cases better. Just how Fuckn uncreative do you have to be, to have some other entity or species or intelligence whatever the fuck you like to call it, create the damn shit for you? That is the real issue and truth here!
People use AI for the exact same reasons they would otherwise pay an artist for. They have a need for a custom image and do not have the time or skills needed to make it themselves. If you wanna say AI users are not artists, fine whatever. Doesn't change the demand for the service.
@@omgukillkenny7576 just because there is a need or demand for something by aparently by the hummm ignorant or the exploitatives out there does not make it essential, ethical or even moral. For example the need for human replacement or even the need for slavery or in the case of AI Humans being replaced to be in essence the slaves of their masters efficient whims and needs. Demand being like marketing demand, does not make it right or acceptible by the mass of humans, kept ignorant and out of the control or devision making process that will determine their ultimate future outcomes. Supply and demand chain in a real caputalism would be controlled by the consumers. Not so much though in todays exploitative Capitalism that has pretty much replaced a real Capitalism. This whole concept and idea is spawned and controlled by an elite few handshaking corporations playi g the game of competition but in reality are nothing more than a controlling of industry cartel. Which will ultimately determine the downfall and highly probable extinction of Human function as well as the species itself. Looking for the lame excuse of the so called higher or more efficiency or the poor pitiful humans who cant learn and become creative for themselves. Heres an idea hire a more creative human of you are creatively void who will actually insure the well being if a human instead of a non human species or your greedy or lazy self indulgenceof Rober Barronistic brain malfunction towards other Humans and the human species. Sounds like a win for both you and that other Human you are trying to replace with a slave. You see these corporations culd not legally convert all of their Human workers legally into slaves. But they want slaves so badly, they are jumping on to the AI party bandwagon jolly of getting a slave at the cost of only Humans. What a bargain!
@@eadsbridgemembers4052 This is dumb argument. Choosing to use AI is not slavery. No one is entitled to patronage, if artists want anyone to pay them they need to be that one offering the best service. And supply and demand is controlled by consumers. You are 100% free to spend your money however you want. If you don't like AI do not buy from companies that use it.
"Ai art have no soul"
Brother wth is a soul?????
When people talk about "soul put behind it" their talking about the intention and process of creating and shaving it into something that represents one's idea, which, is exactly the process of creating a ai art, and I mean an actual good ai art not some random stuff that you make by typing 3 keyword. An actual good ai art need immense amount of slight adjustment and knowledge to actually adjust it, sure you aren't drawing it by using a pen but that is just like sculptures where you aren't making by putting ink on
ai will lead humanity toward mediation, it is the shiva trident that cuts the Brahma 5th head...who is chasing his own daughter satarupa (100 forms) artist must explore the source of all art within self only then real art will sprout again out of the bliss
I believe that the latest version of Stable Diffusion took out many copyrighted images, yet I've heard some people want to sue them, not because they think they can win, but just to cause the company to lose money.
Although I haven't seen any evidence of either with my own eyes, I believe both of them, and that also makes me think about a point I haven't seen anybody talk about.
If artists sue all the AI companies they can, and either somehow win the lawsuits or cause the companies to go bankrupt, then somebody in a country that doesn't care about copyright will see a chance to make money, and will simply use any art they can, without a care for who has copyright for that art.
I think it's unlikely that will happen, but artists might be able to negotiate something like allowing artists to opt in to having their art used to train AIs, if they are willing to talk.
If they don't then there isn't really anything they can do.
China was mentioned in this video about that very thing. China already doesn't give a crap about copyright so if they don't have an ai generator yet they're making one. I can't help but feel folks against AI are cutting off their noses to spite their faces over this.
@@AlottaBoulchit You also have to consider if Ai can create art that perfectly replicates what a human could do, what else could the replicate.
What could be faked.
The future could get pretty dark.
@@shadowcat6762 We already gotta deal with deep fakes. AI is a great tool but so many people are misusing it which really sucks.
@@AlottaBoulchit Sad but true.
The issue with AI fakes is that it's much easier to fake serious things, and destroy careers of people other people don't like.
Especially if anybody is able to create nearly anything about anyone else and try and make others think it's real.
Check Steven Zapata's video he puts the best arguments dk how you didn't find his video.
his video is not grounded. it essentializes the human element without consideration for how AI functions, and without consideration for copyright law. it’s not a good video for the fate of AI
@@broorb4104 yea he talks about that part in a proko podcast .. or idk stream check that also if you want
I think it pushes for more tactile art. AI art is confined to the digital space and so the artists will persist in our nomadic state elsewhere
Nomadic indeed. Hopefully they don't give the AI bodies anytime soon.
Actually James Gourney wrote an article about a painting machine that uses brushes, mixes paints and applies them to canvas. Problem is it’s much cheaper for that to be done in Dafen Village.
@@StevieMoore One day the machines will overcome!
In the short term, certainly. Of course printers will print and machines will be built to create more and more physical tactile art. So its at best a few decades behind digital.
@@Merilirem At best, if I had to bet I'd say we will see it in a few years. But, @Zachary said, people may appreciate human made art in a different at that point.
The bottom line is. AI art generators is essentially the outsourcing of art to machines. No artist can legitimately claim that these machine creations are a tool. When I prompt midjourney with a bunch of words, I have no idea what's going to come out of the Black box. No one does. All humans can do is say yes I like this one. No I don't like this one. There is zero creativity, skill, knowledge, or discipline that goes into the process. At the end of the day, AI makes human beings dumber. It makes human thinking itself obsolete. AI image generators are a hideous, toxic virus and should be treated as such.
Holy shit we have the exact same point view my man