@KingBlackknucle Ay bro, I get a feeling that most artists now are just gonna diversify their audiences, it's as a good time as any, if they were mainly digital then they'll probs traditional or if their audience was primarily online, they go about looking for real-life art communities and markets. Cause the way I see it AI only became this powerful, due to the Internet and digital media becoming so powerful. We're forced to rely on it so much that proper real-life communication has become a foreign concept, makes me feel like I've been low-key deceived by modern convenience.
Unless I'm mistaken it's debatable whether AI art qualifies as art in the legal sense in the first place, at least here in the EU. IIRC a work needs to be deliberately created by a human with artistic intent for the kind of IP protection normally associated with art to be applicable. There was one case where a guy had a bunch of chimps (or some other kind of primate, I forget which exactly) paint, and the EU court found that the paintings didn't qualify. In another vein, transformative works are protected and belong to the artist. Depending on HOW transformative, the artist may be more or less prohibited from making money off of it, as is the case with fanfiction for instance - it's fair use so long as it's free. If you're old and involved enough you may remember the dramatics regarding fanfiction from the 90s and 2000s. I expect we may see more of it in the future with how common commissions and crowdfunding/donations of various sorts has become. To me AI art blurs the line between transformative art and fulfilling the criteria of being made by a human. Randomised art IS protected (like the kind where you throw paint or spin leaking containers of paint on a canvas, for instance), but I think it's dubious at best to use others' art and just produce an amalgamation of it until you get a randomised result that looks good. Off the top of my head the obvious ways to regulate AI art then is either to strip the AI art itself of all protection (the transformed work doesn't qualify), or prohibit it from being monetised since it's fair use. I think it has incredible potential for certain kinds of art and for something you could almost call concept sketches, but it's tainted by the copyright infringement and art theft inherent in the data mining the owners and users ended up doing. Were I to use it, that's probably how I'd do it - suppose you're commissioning artwork and can't communicate clearly, and you're able to whip up some AI trashpics to get the gist across, for instance. Alternatively, if you've done the work involved and played a fair game by only using sources you own or have permission to use, then it would also be fine to use it. This extends to other forms of AI art other than pictures as well, I feel. I think voice AI for instance would probably be OK if it's public figures, parody and not used for the purpose of profit. Making money off of commercials and such by posting them on YT is muddling the waters a bit but personally I'm fine with that specific avenue of profit for voice AI; where the hosting site is the one paying for the traffic or whatever. Kind of sloppy, hope my points got across. Another banger bro you're on fire lately
Just out a code in ai software to let you check through a database (open source) so we know who to boycott or get non-ai artists to put a certain seal of approval to let us know if it gets that bad
I think you overall captured my thoughts on AI art perfectly. I think some of it looks pretty decent, but I'll never consider it actual art with a soul. With that said, I'm gonna go draw something in my notebook
I don’t care what anyone says. A.I. art is NOT ART!!! it has no spirit, no effort, blood sweat or tears. A.I. visually is pretty but it will never be beautiful. That’s why most ppl look it at and go, “cool” but it never moves them. A.I. art does not bring an observer to tears. It’s soulless data collection; an imitation of art imitating life, imitating sparks of creativity. It should be used to help animation but should not take it over.
The more and more of this AI talk is making me low-key regret that I became so enamored with the Internet and video games at such a young age, I feel utterly betrayed. As a kid, I would be happy and at peace just watching cartoons and anime on TV, then get my weekly Sunday issue of the Supa Strikas comic book and at least watch one or two superhero films at either the cinema or a rented DVD/TV re-run on weekends overall. Those moments would inspire me the most, I'd fill out the back of my school books with drawings and short parody comics of these shows. I'd be bullied at school, scolded by parents, have books confiscated by teachers, but regardless I still kept drawing. Then the Internet and video game culture became a lot more prominent, printed comic books and TV anime got phased out, cartoons and superhero films got worse over the years. Had me spiral into depression, porn addiction, junk food and drug addiction. It was the beginning of a bad time for me, a permanent reminder that childhood is never permanent. Only recently I've gotten back into drawing again, and slowly hoping to rebuild my skills use it as a means to be less reliant on the internet and make actual communication with people of similar hobbies IRL.
Great video as always. I believe The issue isnt ai honestly. Its peoples morality which we dont have anymore. People dont care how something is "created" they only care if it "looks cool". People have been using AI to make comics/manga and when they get called out for it, were the bullies. So this mindset creates a problem of entitlement, to the point that people of similar circumstances rally together and since the amount of people who cant or wont take the time to learn is greater than those who have, you get a domino effect of hate and separation from both parties with both trying to eliminate the other. I dont support ai art nor people who try to "advocate" for it, especially writers and im ten toes on that statement.
I like to call ai image generation the fast foodification of art. Very similar to a meat processing factory grinding up poultry with hormones, research chemicals and preservatives and stuffing it into a sausage casing. Its food, you can eat it, theres some nutritional value... but that shit is clearly ultra processed slop
like one of the comments said, it made them appreciate human art more. i think we're gonna see a trend of rejecting ai art, just like physical media is snowballing in response to streaming.
It definetly is happening.. even in tech.. look at mkhb review on the ai pin.. the more and more they talk about ai.. the more people are concerned about privacy.. but also.. why. You have to feed ALL your info for ai to do it. Same with ai art.. ai can’t create something new.. thats why ai art starts to feel tiresome.. the gimmick is dying.. and the only people tht love it are those that aren’t creative.. and are profiting from it.. no artist likes this.. and we’re seeing more nad more even in the tech world.. people aren’t as into ai like it was a few months ago. And we associate ai with lazy.. cutting corners, firing people.. etc.. so if you hear there was ai in the movie, Music, etc.. people are going to expect that thing to be cheap.. or free.. because no humans were involved.
We need some actual court cases to clarify whether using people's art in AI training sets is actually stealing. I know it feels like stealing, but when you look around a bit, you see that there are other examples that are analogous that we generally don't consider to be stealing. For example, there is no Google search engine unless Google first sucks down zillions of copyrighted web pages in order to scan them and index them. We have the robots.txt protocol now so that people can opt their web pages out of being scanned, but that came later. The core search engine technology was built on scanning people's work without consent or payment. So are internet search engines "theft machines?" We don't generally consider them so. Artists all over the internet are making the "stealing" claim with respect to generative AI. They may be right, but they may also be wrong. We really won't know until we get some definitive rulings and case law. In the mean time, artists should be having the difficult conversation, as a community and maybe even across different kinds of art (e.g., visual art, music, video, animation, etc.), as to what new laws (or amendments to existing laws) the community wants to advocate for. You want to be paid when your art is used in an AI training set? Great. How does that work? How much does everyone get paid? Do you get paid once when the AI trains on your art or do you get paid some micropayment whenever the AI outputs new art? How are these payments collected, distributed, and audited? What enforcement mechanisms should be in place? In other words, if artists were to write model legislation protecting their rights, what would that legislation say? The community is devoting a lot of energy to complaining and crying foul, but IMHO not nearly enough to laying out what would legally fix the situation to their satisfaction. And no, it can't be "the total banning of generative AI." That's not going to happen.
@@fluffytail5000 You're wrong but it also doesn't make stealing right. Everything builds on things that came before it, this is just the next stage of that to make the next thing
Me personally I don’t care too much for AI art I just enjoy seeing what people can do on their own because I believe everyone is talented it’s just most people are lazy or clearly don’t give a shit enough to actually put effort into their work but then again I’m just slowly falling out of touch with the direction the world is going in I’m old fashioned and I’m only 21
15:36 not even.. tell them to draw the apple shaded. The most basic beginner art lessons. That will tell yoyu everything Then ask them to draw a face - not realistic.. “ something from their imaginations.. original.. they can’t do it
the thing that will always make *human* artists superior to *artificial* intelligence is the process. we artists can take a pencil, a piece of paper (or a tablet/computer/phone and a drawing app), and our memory of the world, and turn it into a drawing that expresses *us*. consciously or not, we put tiny bits of ourselves into every and every bit of our work. for simpleton things, it’s like baking & decorating a cake (except you can’t eat art lol). ai just takes the output of our design, smashes it all together, and done. no soul, no life, no thought, the result never expresses anything about the robot that basically stole a bunch of pieces of cake made by different bakers, smushed them into something that resembles a new cake (but isn’t), and said “done”. to the average viewer (or consumer, following the cake analogy), the differences might seem nonexistent, but when you look closely, ai could never even hope to reach the same level of human artists. ai can’t think for itself. humans can. all sentient animals can. ai? never. to my fellow artists - whether your work is about stories or stained glass or animation or photography or whatever else falls under the category of “art”: there will always be that flair to our works that ai will never have. and that’s what makes us special.
Well personally I'd like to jump n and say I think The fact that tech for the most part is far to stupid currently to come anywhere close to what would likey take several century's to achieve of digital self awareness/digital consciousness...@@MaakaSakuranbo
AI art is bad, it's soulless, plastic sludge and everyone knows it. I dont think AI can replace the human element, but that's not going to stop a bunch of out of touch, idiot techbros shoving it in every orifice they can attempting to replace the human element. Who is AI "art" for? I mean actually tell me who wanted or asked for this. Certainly not the unconsenting artists who the datasets are trained off of. People dont hate making art. They dont hate writing stories. They don't hate making music. Who is this for? Why are we trying to automate something that shouldn't be automated? That nobody asked to be automated? The people using AI because "real art is hard" are missing the point of art. Next time you boot up a videogame, why dont you just install a script that skips all that hard gameplay and just sends you straight to the end credits? Surely the game is more fun now that you dont have to waste time playing it right? Art is already fun to make. Why are we trying to automate it? I can name dozens of jobs everyone hates that actually suck and we should automate, but no: we're gonna automate art so theres more time for you to work those shitty jobs. It makes sense if they're a rich asshole that wants all the benefits of making "art" without having to pay artists, musicians, and writers. It makes sense if they're a lazy asshole that doesnt understand art and creativity are labours of love where the process and challenge are the point and part of the fun. It makes sense if they're as a member of the owner class that want to once again rip labor power away from another industry of workers and take yet another skill humans independently have and erode it away over generations until they're reliant on the owner class for that skill/product. People can shit talk the Luddites, but we used to be able to grow our own food, make our own clothes, and build our own houses. The cost of "convenience" is we are now dependent on corporations that know they're our only choice and they can price gouge us as much as they want knowing we don't have the power to say no. What do you think is going to happen to art when people become so reliant on AI that the instant it's taken away they lose the ability to make art?
We do have the power to say no. The cost is comfort and convenience. I do agree with your statement. I, for one, don't want that type of world where art - of any medium, becomes code and nothing more than that, versus produced by human expression. That's actually a nightmare of a world that's already on the verge of a nightmare itself. Thank you for this comment, I'm going to go and read a book written by a human now. Lol
I’ve seen prompts that still wasn’t able to remove the original artists signature. AI art how it is today is for corporations to get artists work without having to pay them. I don’t think it’s by accident. I don’t think it’ll change. Every major studio waging war against their artists and if they win every show and film we see will be less and less quality. I fully agree. I think these independent artists and animators will be what saves art.
In my opinion i think ai art is fun to mess around with, but i dont think that it makes the user an artist and the people who think that they're artist are out of there god damn mind. But i also think that people shit on others who just use it for fun or those who ai as a workaround way too much. Like that whole scooby doo fiasco last year where the creator used ai voices since they couldnt afford va's, but then ended up getting large amounts of death threats and almost blacklisted from the industry from a va.
4:07 Yeah, especially if its in a style that u really like. Like slasher horror movie characters made in a cutesy Disney art style or Harry Potter characters drawn in Studio Ghibli anime style.
2:18 not an artist myself but someone with some artistic eye, it might seem stupid but I think the "off" about AI made pictures is that it lacks warmth or soul if you will.
@@Nightmare704RY I'm just saying it doesn't mean anything that the video already doesn't say. Heck, might even just be your human bias and biased feelings that maek you feel it's cold just by virtue of knowing it's AI or suspecting it's AI based on other factors.
The main reason AI art looks wrong, imo comes down to the lack of logical reasoning ability in the program. When you draw something, you are constantly making decisions even about small details, and every part of the image was intentionally put there, while AI just guesses based on similar pieces so you end up with things out of place but also there is a bunch of extra details which a real artist would not have thought of that get added to the image.
Art is a form of human expression and creativity. A computer is incapable of expression, emotion, thought, or creativity. This means that images generated by AI cannot be considered art, in my opinion, and I would encourage others to adopt this line of thinking. “AI Art” is an oxymoron, and we should only ever refer to it as AI Generated Images. Prompters cannot be considered artists because the images themselves are not art. To me, the conversation ends there.
Ai art will never an art im my vocabulary till my last death. Wasting my bones and passion to learn drawing and I see an dummy who use ai generate and get more attention than my works Ai can generated an beautiful thing ever but never will be able to capture human art.
I think ai should be worked on in tandem with human creativity were gonna be fused together so it might as well an enhancement that can ever adapt and enhance our humanity than to be squashed entirely also having a new species is also a possibility but that's for the rapid growth generation to figure out
This isn’t related to the video exactly (although hopefully feeds the algorithm haha) - the video in the background around the 4:30 mark, is one of the guys talking in the corner Naoki Urasawa???
I fuckin hate ai art and I don’t consider it are. But one of the main reason I hate it is because of how it is used and the harm it can and has done to the industry and the future of creatives. At the bare minimum ai models should use an opt in system instead of opt out they are doing. (Especially considering they are denying ppl who are in their data base). credit and compensation should also be given. Lots of artists I know would be all for Gen AI if its training data was ethically made.
@@Vash16xli oh lol thought you meant somethin else. But yea I stumbled across Bomberman back in the early 2000s when I copped on of them PlayStation Underground discs
@@KingBlackknuckle That's wassup. I learned about Bomberman when I got a N64 for Christmas in elementary school. Played Bomberman 64 first then got Hero later.
I'm still waiting for a group of artists to band together to prove a point to the world about skill and talent. Like the Prince of Egypt did when 3D animation was starting to take over. Feel free to correct me if that isn't the case but for 1998 that was a very well done animation from voice, music, screen play, animation, design, ect. ❤ Ai art is just a tool in a tool box. It just photoshops, it cannot generate actual art. Real art is from the soul, artists connect with others with their work, AI cannot do this. That's the big difference.
1. I see AI art as a tool like any other tool that is controversial. It's like a crow bar, you can use it for good or bad. You can use it as construction equipment, a way to pry open things or use it to rob banks. I agree folks that use AI art and claim it's theirs are corny ass goof balls. Especially the one's that wanna act high and mighty or some kind of entitlement like certain folks that DGAF about animators well being and be crying about wanting the 2nd part of spiderverse. 2. Would it be ok if you were to use AI art as inspiration for your own drawing that isnt AI. For context if I wanna draw a pose, lighting/shading or some kind of environment but i have a hard time picturing it in my head, could I use AI art to draw inspiration for my own art? 3. There's a guy who talked about it and i want your thoughts on it.he states "What's with all the forced AI hate recently? I can understand the "they're taking our jobs" aspect of the critique, but then people say shit like "the things AI produce is generic". If that were the case aren't you saying that since AI is replacing you that all you produce is generic slop too. And doesn't that mean AI won't replace people that are actually exceptional which means if you get replace you wouldn't worth a damn anyway? I don't know it sounds like a cell phone if you ask me" 4. 20:33 This may sound weird but hear me out. I only see this when it comes big greedy amoral companies. Because 2 days ago on Asmondgold's video, a graphics design talked about how he got layed off cause why would companies need certain workers if AI can do it for them in sec. To my mentality companies that throw away workers in favor of something that can be solved within seconds shows you they dont or never cared about you to begin with and you should never always think companies care about you and have a back up plan. He guy got layed off also said he figured he can go to other competitor companies and i instantly knew where this was going and he said he found out 15 other companies are doing the exact same thing because they're big time companies trying to compete so no duh. It's funny, sad and fucked up at the same time. Cause i feel bad for these workers but again it goes to show you companies DGAF about you. Last thing to mention he talked about how AI is becoming more advanced and if you think all they gotta worry about is the hands or eyes he said your dead wrong it progresses incredibly fast to the point you wouldn't be able to tell.
2) If youre lookin at it in the same sense as googling pictures for references, id say its fine. There are people believe it or not who think drawing from reference is cheating. But thats honestly ridiculous because then that means anyone who has ever done a still life drawing is cheating, which like i said is ridiculous. I think so long as one isnt using the ai generated art itself and claiming they created it, its cool. 3) I wouldnt say its forced hatred. I think many are just tired of the oversaturation of it and constantly seeing it everywhere they turn. As for it producing generic slop, i think what people mean is the artwork having that soulless copy and paste aesthetic. Similar to how alot of people are sick of the cal arts style in western animation. Its stagnant, overdone, and lacks distinction. Unlike older gen cartoons that had a variety of art styles that made them stand out from each other. As for "doesnt that mean AI wont replace exceptional people", even those people would deem as exceptional can be replaced too if enough of their art into a generator. As for the cell phone remark, thats just not a good comparison. An upgraded cell phone is replacing an older model, its not replacing people or the concept of people speaking to each other. 4) yea these companies couldnt care less about the employees so long as their own pockets stay fat. Which is exactly why theres no real success to be had in being a company man or a corporate slave. The job youre risking your own health for would hire someone else to replace you if you dropped dead in the building lobby. Its a cog in the machine type of deal. One gets worn out, another takes its place.
@@KingBlackknuckle 2) Exactly like that, also really using reference is cheating? LAMO. 3) Ok when you put it like that it makes total sense because i initially agreed what the guy was saying but still can't help but disagree on some parts on what he was saying but i didn't know why. I wasn't gonna bring this up because it's hypocritical and irrelevant but do you think shows and movies are using relying too heavily on CGI because i feel that's oversaturated even though we still have 2D Western animation. I'm sorry but can you elaborate more on the cell phone comparison because i'm genuinely confused isn't the upgraded Cell phone AI and the older model represent humans? Because i'm picturing it like flip phones being us and smart phones being AI. 4) That's why I don't feel like working for companies like Marvel or DC I wanted to work for them as a kid way before the MCU and way before Anime was on my mind. I even wanted them to use my OC's hoping to see them be adapted, That was until the many issues i had with comics being run with the constant killing and resurrecting characters, retconning, rebooting and putting characters in unnecessary BS. Then there's the MCU/ DCEU. I also had problems of my own such as needing to gain 3-4 years experience which is hard to get entry jobs. I also recently feel if i were to have a job which revolves around my hobby working for either or another company, i'd be in a similar situation like Mappa employees or other artist that hardly get paid like the hastag comic broke me trend. I'd hate my hobby while feeling drained and used. At this point i'd rather continue my hobby and some day be a YT art channel or Instagram artist to create my OC's while telling stories around them and somehow make profit of it by my own accord. I wanna be like Akiyria Toriyama and make characters and telling interesting stories for people to enjoy
@@Achieme 3) Id say they are. Theyre using CGI where they couldve gone practical, like with She Hulk for example and how they couldve used the tall woman they had on set as opposed to making her full on CGI. As for animation, i also think theyre overdoing it, which is why its considered generic now. You have the usual disney movie style 3D animation with the same usual art style, then you have the Spiderverse movies with their unique styles of animation that greatly stand out from the usual stuff. As for cellphones, theyre simply a tool for engaging in long distance conversations. It replaces the need for sending letters to a relative or friend far away when you can just give them a call or face time em. But cellphones themselves dont stop people from speaking to each other in person. They also dont put people out of a job. In fact, there are literally jobs that require the use of a cellphone. Something like that is more of a friend than an adversary because its making life easier for people. And I think one of the MAIN main issues with things like automation is the fact that its there to replace humans but theres nothing in place meant to compensate humans for being replaced. Imagine being taken out of your own house, not because you dont pay your bills, but because the landlord just wants someone else to live there. Tossing an old piece of tech into the garbage cuz its ineffective isnt the same as tossing a person out because they cant keep up with ridiculous conditions or because they got old.
@@KingBlackknuckle 3) Yo, you're not alone some of us have been saying they could've use practical effects when it came to She-hulk, they could've hired a tall woman put paint on her and use camera tricks to make her taller, but was told that Practical effects cost more as oppose to CGI when i personal don't see how that can be the case. I mean cosplayers can do better job if you gave them $400 or 700. 3) Ok when you put it that way it makes sense, thanks for clearing it up for me.
@@Achieme man the fact that cosplayers with a lower budget can do a better job at costume design than these productions with MILLIONS to spare is some next level pitiful shxt bruh
i dont like Ai " art " i don't like how its made i don't the way it works i don't like how its used :) day 1 Ai "art" h^#÷r :3 it is the antithesis of art .
@@samankucher5117 No idea where you pulled that meaning from it, but if you're going to go "I don't carea bout anything, is just my opinion", feel free Fixing your post then for you: "in my opinion, it is the antithesis of art" :3 :3 :3
FYI, Adding the suffix “Bros” to an activity will not make people stop doing it. Besides the “AI bros” are not so much the laypeople making colorful AI images on midjourney as they don’t own/control the underlying tech. The true “AI bros” are the trillion dollar companies like NVIDIA who make the AI processing hardware and they care nothing about angry online screeds and youtube videos. Also placing hope in “Regulating” AI art is the silliest, western first world, fantasy I can imagine. We don’t live on a planet ruled by a single government that controls All internet communication & graphics technology. the U.S. & European governments cannot stop other countries from Building nukes or literally killing people.(you know ,important stuff) why would anyone think they can “regulate” some other countries online/offline generative AI image technology.
AI art cannot be art. However, is a normie going to care about that in 10 years? If someone can present 5000 pieces of the art they want versus someone who can present 1 using the same amount of time and money. I don't care about you being an artist. I need 100 pieces of artwork of this character doing this specific pose to make game model or see how this scene is going to actually work in real time. I'm not going to pay you and wait months when my competitor is doing that in seconds by getting a guy that can mimic you. A lot of artists are going to get the candlestick maker treatment instead of embracing AI since they actually have training in art and can do a better job than someone who just takes the art and runs it through AI. They're still candle stick makers to this day, but they sure as hell aren't popular after people found other sources of light. AI isn't going anywhere and it's getting better, hands aren't a problem anymore and soon even 3D to 2D and 2D to 3D isn't going to be problem. You can keep wringing your hands or you can get with the program. A lot of artists are just removing their art from the internet. However, the internet doesn't forget. Your stuff is somewhere, someone has it on their hard drive or database. We're in transition right now. You can only stop this stuff for a moment but soon normies who buy your art won't be able to tell. I don't need to be called an artist. I just need this stuff done, and I'm not waiting a month when I get 500 things slammed out in an afternoon. Screwed up hands or not. People used to talk crap about Adobe Photoshop, people got over that with a quickness. They're going to get over writing , art and anything else AI can mimic because the one thing human beings don't have is *_TIME._* We're all turning to dust. Some of us want that bag now though. I don't care if you're the best candlemaker in the world if I'm an electrician. We both work with things that produce light, but people are going to pay for the electrician's services more often. They're still areas where the candlestick maker is need if an electrician can't their equipment to an area, but it's only a matter of time until they do. Learn to live in realities of what's coming or die in the fantasy of believing things will remain even close to the way they are now.
That's why artists are pushing laws to prevent AI companies from illegally stealing people's art to train them now. I personally like AI stuff, cause it looks funny and is cool. But at the cost of artists? Nah
Its not about the art at the end of the day, AI art is just the big, bloated elephant in the room and the fight the tech bros want to have, the real machine learning algos are taking pictures of people's retinas and changing the prices of fast food menus on the fly, that's the real shit that we should be worried about, machine learning is not smart but it is viewed as the next evolution of mankind, the amount of people that will be hurt and the jobs that will be lost in the wake of poverty that we're currently living in is disgusting and plain evil. I don't care what this technology can do, the scams that are happening to people who still haven't caught up with what social media did a decade ago are proof enough, there will be no truth, you will own nothing, you will like it, there are less and less jobs, we are going to return to tribes and small communities just to survive because there is less shit being made in the real world than ever before, and the things that are made are so cheap and designed to break just so you buy another one as much as the art conversation is important and our ground is being taken over by dipshits who think they know better and just want the same slop regurgitated again and again, that is irrelevant, we are starving out here, our equipment keeps breaking down and its becoming harder and sometimes illegal (or at least voiding warranty) to fix, our clothes are landfill trash a month after they're bought, and the printing press enjoyers have the BALLS to say "grow up lel muh photographs" while the already shit conditions and massive layoffs go on as if they're getting our jobs, nah they're not getting our jobs either, the algorithms are going to take over ALL the jobs, our lives collectively will be made miserable, this is not "adding to the workflow" this is straight up creating poverty and shoveling more and more trash onto the scene.
Lmao the hypocrisy when you excuse the theft of fan art. They didn’t get consent to use thise copyrighted characters. Also, a lot of you consider photographers artists but if you simplify it like you try and simply ai art all they do is click a button.
@KingBlackknuckle Like I said, if you simply it like people do about AI art, then you will have people saying you're just pushing a button. Photography, just like AI art, is more complex than that. In AI art, you can set the lighting, position, action, background environment, and add many specific details. Good AI art is a legitimate skill set you can learn and acquire just like good photography. People said photography wasn't art, people said Photoshop wasn't art, people said digital art wasn't art people said collages weren't art. Every few years, people want to gatekeep what is and isn't art and who isn't an artist.
@@aura7117 that's because people wanted to insist that the human element or human efforts weren't involved when using things like that. But when it was made apparent that those methods take skill, it became harder to argue that they didn't count as art. No different than how alotta westerners didn't think anime counted as art. If you wanna use AI then go ahead. But don't try to make it seem like something it's not.
why would you want that? something made by meshmashing and promts is soulless and meaningless, besides sora is built on using people's work without their consent AI is a tool made for lazy individuals on the works of skilled people, it's sad but the reasons why people are mad about it is because people take pride on their skills and their achievements, while lazy people thrive in it sadly
you won't have to, an AI will just prompt the other AI, and if you really think a generated movie is just as good as hollywood then why wait? we're already there.
Uhhh yeah, about that. Not going to happen haha. Unless you think a mashup of inconsistent 10 second clips with no artistic eye/training is going to somehow be better than hollywood
no youre pretty much just telling a machine that unconsensually steals copyrighted work for its training what u want and hoping u get that its no where near the same
@@Cussingpenguin the democratization of ability is the new paradigm shift. Trust me, I've wasted a lot of my life building negative skills. Can't imagine what it's like to have a positive one that feels like it's going to become obsolete. But it's not. Human emotion will never go away or become irrelevant. Paying $1000 for a book cover... Maybe
@@jorje0068 so capturing a picture of a inanimate real life object is the same as stealing people who DID NOT and DO NOT want their copyrighted works they put hundreds of hours into a machine to prepare a mashup that takes away the very soul that made its training data in the first place in order to replace human creativity and butcher those who unkowingly made the training data that made it possible in the first place?
Zero art was stolen. Learn the definition of theft. And don’t post you shit online. It’s public access and you will never be able to proof that your picture has anything to do with any ai generated content
@@Kongongongg Loss is no longer having something. Artists don't lose their artstyle just because an AI is copying it. Stealing is taking something without consent. Since most artists aren't giving permission to have their art fed into AI, that makes it stolen.
@@Kongongongg Job opportunities most likely. Why would a company hire them or keep them around when they can have an AI mimic their art style and use that instead?
How do yah think AI art should be regulated goin forward? Do you think real artists can still thrive in the this post ai setting?
@KingBlackknucle Ay bro, I get a feeling that most artists now are just gonna diversify their audiences, it's as a good time as any, if they were mainly digital then they'll probs traditional or if their audience was primarily online, they go about looking for real-life art communities and markets. Cause the way I see it AI only became this powerful, due to the Internet and digital media becoming so powerful. We're forced to rely on it so much that proper real-life communication has become a foreign concept, makes me feel like I've been low-key deceived by modern convenience.
@@keithmjali761 not gon lie, you spittin
Unless I'm mistaken it's debatable whether AI art qualifies as art in the legal sense in the first place, at least here in the EU. IIRC a work needs to be deliberately created by a human with artistic intent for the kind of IP protection normally associated with art to be applicable. There was one case where a guy had a bunch of chimps (or some other kind of primate, I forget which exactly) paint, and the EU court found that the paintings didn't qualify.
In another vein, transformative works are protected and belong to the artist. Depending on HOW transformative, the artist may be more or less prohibited from making money off of it, as is the case with fanfiction for instance - it's fair use so long as it's free. If you're old and involved enough you may remember the dramatics regarding fanfiction from the 90s and 2000s. I expect we may see more of it in the future with how common commissions and crowdfunding/donations of various sorts has become.
To me AI art blurs the line between transformative art and fulfilling the criteria of being made by a human. Randomised art IS protected (like the kind where you throw paint or spin leaking containers of paint on a canvas, for instance), but I think it's dubious at best to use others' art and just produce an amalgamation of it until you get a randomised result that looks good.
Off the top of my head the obvious ways to regulate AI art then is either to strip the AI art itself of all protection (the transformed work doesn't qualify), or prohibit it from being monetised since it's fair use. I think it has incredible potential for certain kinds of art and for something you could almost call concept sketches, but it's tainted by the copyright infringement and art theft inherent in the data mining the owners and users ended up doing. Were I to use it, that's probably how I'd do it - suppose you're commissioning artwork and can't communicate clearly, and you're able to whip up some AI trashpics to get the gist across, for instance.
Alternatively, if you've done the work involved and played a fair game by only using sources you own or have permission to use, then it would also be fine to use it.
This extends to other forms of AI art other than pictures as well, I feel. I think voice AI for instance would probably be OK if it's public figures, parody and not used for the purpose of profit. Making money off of commercials and such by posting them on YT is muddling the waters a bit but personally I'm fine with that specific avenue of profit for voice AI; where the hosting site is the one paying for the traffic or whatever.
Kind of sloppy, hope my points got across. Another banger bro you're on fire lately
People will always want that human touch
Just out a code in ai software to let you check through a database (open source) so we know who to boycott or get non-ai artists to put a certain seal of approval to let us know if it gets that bad
I think you overall captured my thoughts on AI art perfectly. I think some of it looks pretty decent, but I'll never consider it actual art with a soul. With that said, I'm gonna go draw something in my notebook
truth in the booth right there b
I don’t care what anyone says. A.I. art is NOT ART!!! it has no spirit, no effort, blood sweat or tears. A.I. visually is pretty but it will never be beautiful. That’s why most ppl look it at and go, “cool” but it never moves them. A.I. art does not bring an observer to tears. It’s soulless data collection; an imitation of art imitating life, imitating sparks of creativity. It should be used to help animation but should not take it over.
The more and more of this AI talk is making me low-key regret that I became so enamored with the Internet and video games at such a young age, I feel utterly betrayed.
As a kid, I would be happy and at peace just watching cartoons and anime on TV, then get my weekly Sunday issue of the Supa Strikas comic book and at least watch one or two superhero films at either the cinema or a rented DVD/TV re-run on weekends overall.
Those moments would inspire me the most, I'd fill out the back of my school books with drawings and short parody comics of these shows. I'd be bullied at school, scolded by parents, have books confiscated by teachers, but regardless I still kept drawing.
Then the Internet and video game culture became a lot more prominent, printed comic books and TV anime got phased out, cartoons and superhero films got worse over the years. Had me spiral into depression, porn addiction, junk food and drug addiction. It was the beginning of a bad time for me, a permanent reminder that childhood is never permanent.
Only recently I've gotten back into drawing again, and slowly hoping to rebuild my skills use it as a means to be less reliant on the internet and make actual communication with people of similar hobbies IRL.
One thing about ai art that really gives it away is the coloring.
Great video as always. I believe The issue isnt ai honestly. Its peoples morality which we dont have anymore. People dont care how something is "created" they only care if it "looks cool". People have been using AI to make comics/manga and when they get called out for it, were the bullies. So this mindset creates a problem of entitlement, to the point that people of similar circumstances rally together and since the amount of people who cant or wont take the time to learn is greater than those who have, you get a domino effect of hate and separation from both parties with both trying to eliminate the other. I dont support ai art nor people who try to "advocate" for it, especially writers and im ten toes on that statement.
yea you right, theres definitely a moral aspect to this too.
@@KingBlackknuckle there's more I can say on this topic but this just sums up what I've noticed so far
I like to call ai image generation the fast foodification of art. Very similar to a meat processing factory grinding up poultry with hormones, research chemicals and preservatives and stuffing it into a sausage casing. Its food, you can eat it, theres some nutritional value... but that shit is clearly ultra processed slop
like one of the comments said, it made them appreciate human art more. i think we're gonna see a trend of rejecting ai art, just like physical media is snowballing in response to streaming.
that would definitely be a boon to creatives
It definetly is happening.. even in tech.. look at mkhb review on the ai pin.. the more and more they talk about ai.. the more people are concerned about privacy.. but also.. why. You have to feed ALL your info for ai to do it.
Same with ai art.. ai can’t create something new.. thats why ai art starts to feel tiresome.. the gimmick is dying.. and the only people tht love it are those that aren’t creative.. and are profiting from it.. no artist likes this.. and we’re seeing more nad more even in the tech world.. people aren’t as into ai like it was a few months ago.
And we associate ai with lazy.. cutting corners, firing people.. etc.. so if you hear there was ai in the movie, Music, etc.. people are going to expect that thing to be cheap.. or free.. because no humans were involved.
Thank you for this video. People forget that without actual artists to steal from. There is or would be be no Ai.
thats a snapple top fact
Yeah, people wouldn’t be able to steal from each other either. Oh, I mean be inspired by.
We need some actual court cases to clarify whether using people's art in AI training sets is actually stealing. I know it feels like stealing, but when you look around a bit, you see that there are other examples that are analogous that we generally don't consider to be stealing.
For example, there is no Google search engine unless Google first sucks down zillions of copyrighted web pages in order to scan them and index them. We have the robots.txt protocol now so that people can opt their web pages out of being scanned, but that came later. The core search engine technology was built on scanning people's work without consent or payment. So are internet search engines "theft machines?" We don't generally consider them so.
Artists all over the internet are making the "stealing" claim with respect to generative AI. They may be right, but they may also be wrong. We really won't know until we get some definitive rulings and case law.
In the mean time, artists should be having the difficult conversation, as a community and maybe even across different kinds of art (e.g., visual art, music, video, animation, etc.), as to what new laws (or amendments to existing laws) the community wants to advocate for.
You want to be paid when your art is used in an AI training set? Great. How does that work? How much does everyone get paid? Do you get paid once when the AI trains on your art or do you get paid some micropayment whenever the AI outputs new art? How are these payments collected, distributed, and audited? What enforcement mechanisms should be in place?
In other words, if artists were to write model legislation protecting their rights, what would that legislation say? The community is devoting a lot of energy to complaining and crying foul, but IMHO not nearly enough to laying out what would legally fix the situation to their satisfaction. And no, it can't be "the total banning of generative AI." That's not going to happen.
@@bgill7475 at least humans have the ability to actually add their own creativity to art they’ve been inspired by, unlike ai which just steals
@@fluffytail5000 You're wrong but it also doesn't make stealing right. Everything builds on things that came before it, this is just the next stage of that to make the next thing
King of the bracelets has me on the floor crying bruh 😂
Lmaooo 😆
Me personally I don’t care too much for AI art I just enjoy seeing what people can do on their own because I believe everyone is talented it’s just most people are lazy or clearly don’t give a shit enough to actually put effort into their work but then again I’m just slowly falling out of touch with the direction the world is going in I’m old fashioned and I’m only 21
definitely hear you on that. Im personally more on the side of using analog and tech based means to get things done.
ai art had made me appreciate human art more
15:36 not even.. tell them to draw the apple shaded. The most basic beginner art lessons.
That will tell yoyu everything
Then ask them to draw a face - not realistic.. “ something from their imaginations.. original.. they can’t do it
the thing that will always make *human* artists superior to *artificial* intelligence is the process.
we artists can take a pencil, a piece of paper (or a tablet/computer/phone and a drawing app), and our memory of the world, and turn it into a drawing that expresses *us*. consciously or not, we put tiny bits of ourselves into every and every bit of our work. for simpleton things, it’s like baking & decorating a cake (except you can’t eat art lol).
ai just takes the output of our design, smashes it all together, and done. no soul, no life, no thought, the result never expresses anything about the robot that basically stole a bunch of pieces of cake made by different bakers, smushed them into something that resembles a new cake (but isn’t), and said “done”.
to the average viewer (or consumer, following the cake analogy), the differences might seem nonexistent, but when you look closely, ai could never even hope to reach the same level of human artists.
ai can’t think for itself. humans can. all sentient animals can. ai? never.
to my fellow artists - whether your work is about stories or stained glass or animation or photography or whatever else falls under the category of “art”: there will always be that flair to our works that ai will never have.
and that’s what makes us special.
The vast majority of people dont have a single original thought nor are they original personalities.
@@TallicaMan1986 have you talked to the vast majority of people? do that before responding
Nice way to veer into the topic of "what is sentience", and if you believe animals can be sentient, then what makes AI unable to be?
@@MaakaSakuranbo animals at least have a survival instinct. ai does not.
Well personally I'd like to jump n and say I think The fact that tech for the most part is far to stupid currently to come anywhere close to what would likey take several century's to achieve of digital self awareness/digital consciousness...@@MaakaSakuranbo
AI art is bad, it's soulless, plastic sludge and everyone knows it. I dont think AI can replace the human element, but that's not going to stop a bunch of out of touch, idiot techbros shoving it in every orifice they can attempting to replace the human element.
Who is AI "art" for?
I mean actually tell me who wanted or asked for this. Certainly not the unconsenting artists who the datasets are trained off of.
People dont hate making art. They dont hate writing stories. They don't hate making music. Who is this for? Why are we trying to automate something that shouldn't be automated? That nobody asked to be automated?
The people using AI because "real art is hard" are missing the point of art.
Next time you boot up a videogame, why dont you just install a script that skips all that hard gameplay and just sends you straight to the end credits? Surely the game is more fun now that you dont have to waste time playing it right?
Art is already fun to make. Why are we trying to automate it? I can name dozens of jobs everyone hates that actually suck and we should automate, but no: we're gonna automate art so theres more time for you to work those shitty jobs.
It makes sense if they're a rich asshole that wants all the benefits of making "art" without having to pay artists, musicians, and writers.
It makes sense if they're a lazy asshole that doesnt understand art and creativity are labours of love where the process and challenge are the point and part of the fun.
It makes sense if they're as a member of the owner class that want to once again rip labor power away from another industry of workers and take yet another skill humans independently have and erode it away over generations until they're reliant on the owner class for that skill/product.
People can shit talk the Luddites, but we used to be able to grow our own food, make our own clothes, and build our own houses. The cost of "convenience" is we are now dependent on corporations that know they're our only choice and they can price gouge us as much as they want knowing we don't have the power to say no.
What do you think is going to happen to art when people become so reliant on AI that the instant it's taken away they lose the ability to make art?
We do have the power to say no. The cost is comfort and convenience. I do agree with your statement.
I, for one, don't want that type of world where art - of any medium, becomes code and nothing more than that, versus produced by human expression.
That's actually a nightmare of a world that's already on the verge of a nightmare itself.
Thank you for this comment, I'm going to go and read a book written by a human now. Lol
well said, b. Wish i said some of that myself, heh
@@KingBlackknuckle You can use it if you want. It's an amalgamation of good anti AI points I read and wanted to spread.
I’ve seen prompts that still wasn’t able to remove the original artists signature. AI art how it is today is for corporations to get artists work without having to pay them. I don’t think it’s by accident. I don’t think it’ll change. Every major studio waging war against their artists and if they win every show and film we see will be less and less quality. I fully agree. I think these independent artists and animators will be what saves art.
if ai "art" ain't got no hater i'm DEAD =>=
AI bros is nasty work lol
In my opinion i think ai art is fun to mess around with, but i dont think that it makes the user an artist and the people who think that they're artist are out of there god damn mind. But i also think that people shit on others who just use it for fun or those who ai as a workaround way too much. Like that whole scooby doo fiasco last year where the creator used ai voices since they couldnt afford va's, but then ended up getting large amounts of death threats and almost blacklisted from the industry from a va.
There's no subject to have beef, they are glorified button pushers, there's no skill involved in what they are doing
Fr bro. Ive been in many arguments with folks that are adamant about AI prompts being art.
4:07
Yeah, especially if its in a style that u really like. Like slasher horror movie characters made in a cutesy Disney art style or Harry Potter characters drawn in Studio Ghibli anime style.
Perfectly said.
2:18 not an artist myself but someone with some artistic eye, it might seem stupid but I think the "off" about AI made pictures is that it lacks warmth or soul if you will.
That's like a non-answer and about as good as "I dunno, but something seems off" unless you can specify what characterises "warmth" and "soul"
@@MaakaSakuranbo it's difficult to describe but, don't you ever seen a AI made picture and felt it cold?
@@Nightmare704RY I'm just saying it doesn't mean anything that the video already doesn't say.
Heck, might even just be your human bias and biased feelings that maek you feel it's cold just by virtue of knowing it's AI or suspecting it's AI based on other factors.
@@MaakaSakuranbo in my experience it's this feeling that makes me suspect it's AI not the other way around.
@@Nightmare704RY Well then for it to be more than "I dunno it feels off/cold/whatever", you still need to come up with some reasoning
Lazy people used to be quiet and minding their business on something they aren’t apart of, but now we heard it everyday.
The main reason AI art looks wrong, imo comes down to the lack of logical reasoning ability in the program. When you draw something, you are constantly making decisions even about small details, and every part of the image was intentionally put there, while AI just guesses based on similar pieces so you end up with things out of place but also there is a bunch of extra details which a real artist would not have thought of that get added to the image.
There is zero reasoning with them.
Art is a form of human expression and creativity. A computer is incapable of expression, emotion, thought, or creativity. This means that images generated by AI cannot be considered art, in my opinion, and I would encourage others to adopt this line of thinking. “AI Art” is an oxymoron, and we should only ever refer to it as AI Generated Images. Prompters cannot be considered artists because the images themselves are not art. To me, the conversation ends there.
i use microsoft copilot cus craiyon don't make the images look good.
Yo bro whats that wukong animation?
its an animation from Yusuke Murata
Ai art will never an art im my vocabulary till my last death.
Wasting my bones and passion to learn drawing and I see an dummy who use ai generate and get more attention than my works
Ai can generated an beautiful thing ever but never will be able to capture human art.
facts
The cope is insane
@@Tom-ws6qo fr
I think ai should be worked on in tandem with human creativity were gonna be fused together so it might as well an enhancement that can ever adapt and enhance our humanity than to be squashed entirely also having a new species is also a possibility but that's for the rapid growth generation to figure out
This isn’t related to the video exactly (although hopefully feeds the algorithm haha) - the video in the background around the 4:30 mark, is one of the guys talking in the corner Naoki Urasawa???
Yup, from one of the videos in his Manben series
Ahh yes the child like joy and glee I feel watching captialism dismantle humanity
What's the alternative system you suggest?
I followed you on IG I hope your comic is going well
Ppreciate that, hope you like the comic when it drops 💪🏿💪🏿💪🏿💪🏿💪🏿
Algorithm fuel ⛽
💪🏿💪🏿💪🏿💪🏿💪🏿
Preach (x100)
I fuckin hate ai art and I don’t consider it are. But one of the main reason I hate it is because of how it is used and the harm it can and has done to the industry and the future of creatives. At the bare minimum ai models should use an opt in system instead of opt out they are doing. (Especially considering they are denying ppl who are in their data base). credit and compensation should also be given. Lots of artists I know would be all for Gen AI if its training data was ethically made.
What you know about that redial though??? Also ai art should be regulated.
not sure what that is.
@@KingBlackknuckle Redial is the first song you used in this video. Came from one of my favorite childhood video games. Check out Bomberman hero OST.
@@Vash16xli oh lol thought you meant somethin else. But yea I stumbled across Bomberman back in the early 2000s when I copped on of them PlayStation Underground discs
@@KingBlackknuckle That's wassup. I learned about Bomberman when I got a N64 for Christmas in elementary school. Played Bomberman 64 first then got Hero later.
AI users don't deserve the right to call themselves illustrators or painters imo but the are an artist within their own domain however.
Nah.
I'm still waiting for a group of artists to band together to prove a point to the world about skill and talent. Like the Prince of Egypt did when 3D animation was starting to take over.
Feel free to correct me if that isn't the case but for 1998 that was a very well done animation from voice, music, screen play, animation, design, ect. ❤
Ai art is just a tool in a tool box. It just photoshops, it cannot generate actual art. Real art is from the soul, artists connect with others with their work, AI cannot do this. That's the big difference.
Instead of Misusing AI I'd Just use it as a Step by Step man.
Or a Outline for my Novel and it might me links to Art Tutorials.
A king take 💪
1. I see AI art as a tool like any other tool that is controversial. It's like a crow bar, you can use it for good or bad. You can use it as construction equipment, a way to pry open things or use it to rob banks.
I agree folks that use AI art and claim it's theirs are corny ass goof balls. Especially the one's that wanna act high and mighty or some kind of entitlement like certain folks that DGAF about animators well being and be crying about wanting the 2nd part of spiderverse.
2. Would it be ok if you were to use AI art as inspiration for your own drawing that isnt AI. For context if I wanna draw a pose, lighting/shading or some kind of environment but i have a hard time picturing it in my head, could I use AI art to draw inspiration for my own art?
3. There's a guy who talked about it and i want your thoughts on it.he states
"What's with all the forced AI hate recently? I can understand the "they're taking our jobs" aspect of the critique, but then people say shit like "the things AI produce is generic". If that were the case aren't you saying that since AI is replacing you that all you produce is generic slop too. And doesn't that mean AI won't replace people that are actually exceptional which means if you get replace you wouldn't worth a damn anyway? I don't know it sounds like a cell phone if you ask me"
4. 20:33 This may sound weird but hear me out. I only see this when it comes big greedy amoral companies. Because 2 days ago on Asmondgold's video, a graphics design talked about how he got layed off cause why would companies need certain workers if AI can do it for them in sec.
To my mentality companies that throw away workers in favor of something that can be solved within seconds shows you they dont or never cared about you to begin with and you should never always think companies care about you and have a back up plan.
He guy got layed off also said he figured he can go to other competitor companies and i instantly knew where this was going and he said he found out 15 other companies are doing the exact same thing because they're big time companies trying to compete so no duh.
It's funny, sad and fucked up at the same time.
Cause i feel bad for these workers but again it goes to show you companies DGAF about you.
Last thing to mention he talked about how AI is becoming more advanced and if you think all they gotta worry about is the hands or eyes he said your dead wrong it progresses incredibly fast to the point you wouldn't be able to tell.
2) If youre lookin at it in the same sense as googling pictures for references, id say its fine. There are people believe it or not who think drawing from reference is cheating. But thats honestly ridiculous because then that means anyone who has ever done a still life drawing is cheating, which like i said is ridiculous. I think so long as one isnt using the ai generated art itself and claiming they created it, its cool.
3) I wouldnt say its forced hatred. I think many are just tired of the oversaturation of it and constantly seeing it everywhere they turn. As for it producing generic slop, i think what people mean is the artwork having that soulless copy and paste aesthetic. Similar to how alot of people are sick of the cal arts style in western animation. Its stagnant, overdone, and lacks distinction. Unlike older gen cartoons that had a variety of art styles that made them stand out from each other. As for "doesnt that mean AI wont replace exceptional people", even those people would deem as exceptional can be replaced too if enough of their art into a generator. As for the cell phone remark, thats just not a good comparison. An upgraded cell phone is replacing an older model, its not replacing people or the concept of people speaking to each other.
4) yea these companies couldnt care less about the employees so long as their own pockets stay fat. Which is exactly why theres no real success to be had in being a company man or a corporate slave. The job youre risking your own health for would hire someone else to replace you if you dropped dead in the building lobby. Its a cog in the machine type of deal. One gets worn out, another takes its place.
@@KingBlackknuckle 2) Exactly like that, also really using reference is cheating? LAMO.
3) Ok when you put it like that it makes total sense because i initially agreed what the guy was saying but still can't help but disagree on some parts on what he was saying but i didn't know why.
I wasn't gonna bring this up because it's hypocritical and irrelevant but do you think shows and movies are using relying too heavily on CGI because i feel that's oversaturated even though we still have 2D Western animation.
I'm sorry but can you elaborate more on the cell phone comparison because i'm genuinely confused isn't the upgraded Cell phone AI and the older model represent humans?
Because i'm picturing it like flip phones being us and smart phones being AI.
4) That's why I don't feel like working for companies like Marvel or DC I wanted to work for them as a kid way before the MCU and way before Anime was on my mind. I even wanted them to use my OC's hoping to see them be adapted, That was until the many issues i had with comics being run with the constant killing and resurrecting characters, retconning, rebooting and putting characters in unnecessary BS. Then there's the MCU/ DCEU.
I also had problems of my own such as needing to gain 3-4 years experience which is hard to get entry jobs.
I also recently feel if i were to have a job which revolves around my hobby working for either or another company, i'd be in a similar situation like Mappa employees or other artist that hardly get paid like the hastag comic broke me trend. I'd hate my hobby while feeling drained and used. At this point i'd rather continue my hobby and some day be a YT art channel or Instagram artist to create my OC's while telling stories around them and somehow make profit of it by my own accord.
I wanna be like Akiyria Toriyama and make characters and telling interesting stories for people to enjoy
@@Achieme 3) Id say they are. Theyre using CGI where they couldve gone practical, like with She Hulk for example and how they couldve used the tall woman they had on set as opposed to making her full on CGI. As for animation, i also think theyre overdoing it, which is why its considered generic now. You have the usual disney movie style 3D animation with the same usual art style, then you have the Spiderverse movies with their unique styles of animation that greatly stand out from the usual stuff.
As for cellphones, theyre simply a tool for engaging in long distance conversations. It replaces the need for sending letters to a relative or friend far away when you can just give them a call or face time em. But cellphones themselves dont stop people from speaking to each other in person. They also dont put people out of a job. In fact, there are literally jobs that require the use of a cellphone. Something like that is more of a friend than an adversary because its making life easier for people.
And I think one of the MAIN main issues with things like automation is the fact that its there to replace humans but theres nothing in place meant to compensate humans for being replaced. Imagine being taken out of your own house, not because you dont pay your bills, but because the landlord just wants someone else to live there. Tossing an old piece of tech into the garbage cuz its ineffective isnt the same as tossing a person out because they cant keep up with ridiculous conditions or because they got old.
@@KingBlackknuckle 3) Yo, you're not alone some of us have been saying they could've use practical effects when it came to She-hulk, they could've hired a tall woman put paint on her and use camera tricks to make her taller, but was told that Practical effects cost more as oppose to CGI when i personal don't see how that can be the case. I mean cosplayers can do better job if you gave them $400 or 700.
3) Ok when you put it that way it makes sense, thanks for clearing it up for me.
@@Achieme man the fact that cosplayers with a lower budget can do a better job at costume design than these productions with MILLIONS to spare is some next level pitiful shxt bruh
i dont like Ai " art "
i don't like how its made i don't the way it works i don't like how its used :)
day 1 Ai "art" h^#÷r :3 it is the antithesis of art .
Kendrick diss reference😂
@@Drawperfectcircles yes 💀
Depends on your definition of "art"
Do you want a pretty image, or do you want, idk, the subculture
@@MaakaSakuranbo
ahhh it's the "everything is a social contract 🤓☝🏼" ahhh response . i don't care if it is art to you or anyone to me it isn't art .
@@samankucher5117 No idea where you pulled that meaning from it, but if you're going to go "I don't carea bout anything, is just my opinion", feel free
Fixing your post then for you:
"in my opinion, it is the antithesis of art"
:3 :3 :3
FYI, Adding the suffix “Bros” to an activity will not make people stop doing it.
Besides the “AI bros” are not so much the laypeople making colorful AI images on midjourney as they don’t own/control the underlying tech.
The true “AI bros” are the trillion dollar companies like NVIDIA who make the AI processing hardware and they care nothing about angry online screeds and youtube videos.
Also placing hope in “Regulating” AI art is the silliest, western first world, fantasy I can imagine.
We don’t live on a planet ruled by a single government that controls All internet communication & graphics technology.
the U.S. & European governments cannot stop other countries from
Building nukes or literally killing people.(you know ,important stuff)
why would anyone think they can “regulate” some other countries online/offline generative AI image technology.
One of the 7 deadly sins is SLOTH you ボケ!!!!
If you drew that avatar, you don't have to worry about AI art taking anything from you
stop it, im gonna piss myself laughin youre so funny
AI art cannot be art. However, is a normie going to care about that in 10 years? If someone can present 5000 pieces of the art they want versus someone who can present 1 using the same amount of time and money. I don't care about you being an artist. I need 100 pieces of artwork of this character doing this specific pose to make game model or see how this scene is going to actually work in real time. I'm not going to pay you and wait months when my competitor is doing that in seconds by getting a guy that can mimic you.
A lot of artists are going to get the candlestick maker treatment instead of embracing AI since they actually have training in art and can do a better job than someone who just takes the art and runs it through AI. They're still candle stick makers to this day, but they sure as hell aren't popular after people found other sources of light. AI isn't going anywhere and it's getting better, hands aren't a problem anymore and soon even 3D to 2D and 2D to 3D isn't going to be problem.
You can keep wringing your hands or you can get with the program. A lot of artists are just removing their art from the internet. However, the internet doesn't forget. Your stuff is somewhere, someone has it on their hard drive or database. We're in transition right now. You can only stop this stuff for a moment but soon normies who buy your art won't be able to tell. I don't need to be called an artist. I just need this stuff done, and I'm not waiting a month when I get 500 things slammed out in an afternoon. Screwed up hands or not.
People used to talk crap about Adobe Photoshop, people got over that with a quickness. They're going to get over writing , art and anything else AI can mimic because the one thing human beings don't have is *_TIME._* We're all turning to dust. Some of us want that bag now though. I don't care if you're the best candlemaker in the world if I'm an electrician. We both work with things that produce light, but people are going to pay for the electrician's services more often. They're still areas where the candlestick maker is need if an electrician can't their equipment to an area, but it's only a matter of time until they do. Learn to live in realities of what's coming or die in the fantasy of believing things will remain even close to the way they are now.
Copium
That's why artists are pushing laws to prevent AI companies from illegally stealing people's art to train them now. I personally like AI stuff, cause it looks funny and is cool. But at the cost of artists? Nah
Its not about the art at the end of the day, AI art is just the big, bloated elephant in the room and the fight the tech bros want to have, the real machine learning algos are taking pictures of people's retinas and changing the prices of fast food menus on the fly, that's the real shit that we should be worried about, machine learning is not smart but it is viewed as the next evolution of mankind, the amount of people that will be hurt and the jobs that will be lost in the wake of poverty that we're currently living in is disgusting and plain evil.
I don't care what this technology can do, the scams that are happening to people who still haven't caught up with what social media did a decade ago are proof enough, there will be no truth, you will own nothing, you will like it, there are less and less jobs, we are going to return to tribes and small communities just to survive because there is less shit being made in the real world than ever before, and the things that are made are so cheap and designed to break just so you buy another one
as much as the art conversation is important and our ground is being taken over by dipshits who think they know better and just want the same slop regurgitated again and again, that is irrelevant, we are starving out here, our equipment keeps breaking down and its becoming harder and sometimes illegal (or at least voiding warranty) to fix, our clothes are landfill trash a month after they're bought, and the printing press enjoyers have the BALLS to say "grow up lel muh photographs" while the already shit conditions and massive layoffs go on as if they're getting our jobs, nah they're not getting our jobs either, the algorithms are going to take over ALL the jobs, our lives collectively will be made miserable, this is not "adding to the workflow" this is straight up creating poverty and shoveling more and more trash onto the scene.
Lmao the hypocrisy when you excuse the theft of fan art. They didn’t get consent to use thise copyrighted characters.
Also, a lot of you consider photographers artists but if you simplify it like you try and simply ai art all they do is click a button.
you clearly dont understand how photography works then if you think its just pushing a button
@KingBlackknuckle Like I said, if you simply it like people do about AI art, then you will have people saying you're just pushing a button. Photography, just like AI art, is more complex than that. In AI art, you can set the lighting, position, action, background environment, and add many specific details. Good AI art is a legitimate skill set you can learn and acquire just like good photography.
People said photography wasn't art, people said Photoshop wasn't art, people said digital art wasn't art people said collages weren't art. Every few years, people want to gatekeep what is and isn't art and who isn't an artist.
@@aura7117 that's because people wanted to insist that the human element or human efforts weren't involved when using things like that. But when it was made apparent that those methods take skill, it became harder to argue that they didn't count as art. No different than how alotta westerners didn't think anime counted as art.
If you wanna use AI then go ahead. But don't try to make it seem like something it's not.
I am waiting for Sora Ai to destroy Hollywood. I cant wait to be able to create my own cinematic movie in a week through prompts
why would you want that? something made by meshmashing and promts is soulless and meaningless, besides sora is built on using people's work without their consent
AI is a tool made for lazy individuals on the works of skilled people, it's sad but the reasons why people are mad about it is because people take pride on their skills and their achievements, while lazy people thrive in it sadly
Bro, you have Mac and cheese for brains bruh
@@AweryGhe if i did id be happy, i love Mac And cheese 🐀
you won't have to, an AI will just prompt the other AI, and if you really think a generated movie is just as good as hollywood then why wait? we're already there.
Uhhh yeah, about that. Not going to happen haha. Unless you think a mashup of inconsistent 10 second clips with no artistic eye/training is going to somehow be better than hollywood
Ai sucks
You just said you wish you could just manifest what's in your mind onto the canvas. But you're mad that people are doing that?
no youre pretty much just telling a machine that unconsensually steals copyrighted work for its training what u want and hoping u get that its no where near the same
He’s mad cuz doing that basically steals art and infringes copyright without any input of ANY sort of skill other than typing basic words
@@Neno-zb1ci that's true to an extent. How many people have taken a picture of the moon? Who deserves credit for that?
@@Cussingpenguin the democratization of ability is the new paradigm shift. Trust me, I've wasted a lot of my life building negative skills. Can't imagine what it's like to have a positive one that feels like it's going to become obsolete. But it's not. Human emotion will never go away or become irrelevant. Paying $1000 for a book cover... Maybe
@@jorje0068 so capturing a picture of a inanimate real life object is the same as stealing people who DID NOT and DO NOT want their copyrighted works they put hundreds of hours into a machine to prepare a mashup that takes away the very soul that made its training data in the first place in order to replace human creativity and butcher those who unkowingly made the training data that made it possible in the first place?
Zero art was stolen. Learn the definition of theft.
And don’t post you shit online. It’s public access and you will never be able to proof that your picture has anything to do with any ai generated content
you can try to find all the loopholes you want, stealing is stealing and ai prompters are not artists. end of story
@@KingBlackknuckle steal by definition means loss. What exactly artist LOSE when they arts is used in data base for training AI?
@@Kongongongg Loss is no longer having something. Artists don't lose their artstyle just because an AI is copying it. Stealing is taking something without consent. Since most artists aren't giving permission to have their art fed into AI, that makes it stolen.
@@KingBlackknuckle when something is taking you no longer have it. What exactly artists don’t have after their arts was used in data base?
@@Kongongongg Job opportunities most likely. Why would a company hire them or keep them around when they can have an AI mimic their art style and use that instead?