AI can create stunning portraits. What does that mean for the art world?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 сер 2024
- Amazing artwork is being made using artificial intelligence and image rendering software, but it's raising questions about creativity, copyrights and commerce. NBC News’ Jacob Ward shares his own story of unintentionally buying AI-generated art.
» Subscribe to NBC News: nbcnews.to/Subs...
» Watch more NBC video: bit.ly/MoreNBCNews
NBC News Digital is a collection of innovative and powerful news brands that deliver compelling, diverse and engaging news stories. NBC News Digital features NBCNews.com, MSNBC.com, TODAY.com, Nightly News, Meet the Press, Dateline, and the existing apps and digital extensions of these respective properties. We deliver the best in breaking news, live video coverage, original journalism and segments from your favorite NBC News Shows.
Connect with NBC News Online!
NBC News App: smart.link/5d0...
Breaking News Alerts: link.nbcnews.c...
Visit NBCNews.Com: nbcnews.to/ReadNBC
Find NBC News on Facebook: nbcnews.to/LikeNBC
Follow NBC News on Twitter: nbcnews.to/Foll...
#NBCNews #ArtificialIntelligence #Art
Calling yourself an artist because you generated an image with AI is like calling yourself a chef because you ordered a meal at a restaurant.
A fast food restaurant, no less.
@@moomoocowsly You don’t even do that. AI decides everything besides vague statements from the prompt. These AI “artists” are coming up with random amalgamations of words to farm exactly what they want from it
@@moomoocowsly Nah, it's more like "what if I shamelessly steal a ton of fresh cooked dishes from real chefs and give them to a robot, asking it to give me back a "new" dish, so the robot mixes these dishes into something that sort of looks like food but since robots don't have taste buds it's utterly bland and flavourless? Does that make me a chef?" Spoiler: it doesn't.
@@moomoocowsly but you don’t, u have little to no control what ai will give, u have no idea what it will generate you, u just hope for the best and scroll through result, trying to explain it with more prompts. It’s just mental masturbation, we don’t call ourselves drivers when we tell the uber driver where to turn.
@@moomoocowsly and also it's not from scratch if in order to create the "new dish" u have to scan billions of data points and use machine to optimize the result. On the other hand, humans are able to create it from scratch, because we started somewhere, even going back to drawing on a wall or cooking meat on campfire. Nobody teached humans it, they figured it out themselves that this gives you that. When you are a kid, no one tells how to draw or cook something. You might have seen something, but there is no delibarate command or training, you just think, oh, i will go play with pencils and groceries, will throw it in boiling water and see what happens. Ai is just a buzzword, the is no artificial intelegence, it's just a data scanning with noise generation. It didn't produce anything coherent when it was "trained" on non copyrighted works, and it was like this for at least two years, it was just random generation akin to convulsion strokes. And it became more coherent only after billions of data points illegally fed into it, and yet it still just spits out random generation to you. It even has a term of overfitting, when it generates you a complete copy of the reference material. It's just a very big randomizer.
i like how they purposely dont tell people they use AI. almost as if they know that the value of an artpiece comes from the hardwork and effort it took to make it
if ai art is real art then u should have no problem telling people an ai made it
@Bread Guy
it is actually not hard because you are not the one doing the making of the image it's the software that is doing it it's basically backseat game playing but for art lol.
and no it doesn't make me a artist even though I've used it because i used chatGPT too and that doesn't make me the writer of what it outputs but i can pretend .
Going into a restaurant, ordering a burger, requesting no pickles and asking them to add a fried egg does not make you a cook. Using an Al app doesn't make you an artist.
Exactly! Now they know, and knowing… is half the battle !
@@Ericksosasculptor 😂BOOMERS
The guy that says he is the artist that created it is a POS. Typing words into a text box will never under any circumstances make one an artist. That’s ridiculous and the height of arrogance on his part to say so.
Anyone who call themselves an artist is a POS. It’s pretentious title people that have no real life skills give to themselves.
Ah! So art IS objective?
@@fog8786 no is subjective. It's the artwork doofus! Calling yourself a artist, Cuz u pick random Ai images. If should be bann
Disrespectful to call this art or to say that guy is an artist. Art is about seeing the world through the eyes of an artist’s perspective. And, I would love to see them doing it with their own hands. There’s a reason handmade is still in demand. Because of the quality and sentimental value. This is cold and devoid of emotional value. And, there’s something missing. That human quality that only a human can portray through an art piece. I don’t even think this generation even knows what art really is. This is capitalism. Not art.
Same they said about photography once.
So true.
🤡
Preach.
@@samthesomniator photography is not based on the manual and intellectual labour of creative workers used without their consent
.
It doesn't 'learn the rules of art', it analyzes real pieces of artwork, pixel by pixel looking for patterns. It doesn't understand what things are at all, that's how you end up with 17 fingers, 3,5 pupils and hair that turns into a necklace that turns into fabric.
yah i mean it doesn't learn like a human it basically does math and takes that data to use and that is not how human learning works and even calling it learning is a bit off the mark it's more of a pattern recognition thing .
It doesn’t learn the way a human does because the way humans learn is dumb and slow. So it was created to be superior.
Yeah, it's just interpolating between two images a lot of the time. IE dumbly blending them together.
@@uwotmate-d3m Of course it's superior, it's a machine. But it doesn't think or learn, all it does is analyze and store data patterns. That's not learning lol
@@quetevalgavergaaa
i can't see that O guy coment ... UA-cam has a bot "Ai" that removes comments with slurs and misinformation i wonder what he said 🤔
I appreciate art that comes from an actual person's imagination and inspiration. This is nothing more than the result of soulless algorithms which I cannot bring myself to be impressed with.
Imagination and inspiration is just a fancy human way of saying copying. When your eyes look at an image, data of that image is being fed into your brain ( an AI ). If you then draw that image or something similar, you have generated it by being fed “stolen” art.
@@uwotmate-d3m definitely not how it works lol
@@uwotmate-d3m oh yes? i guess we indeed got an idea of bilbical angels as massive abominations with dozens of eyes and wings by seeing them in real life i guess, and not from "fancy human way of saying copying". Or thousends of other examples be it fantasy or folklore. Indeed, we just saw it with our eyes.
But what if you ain't no good of making images?
@@uwotmate-d3m example: a bunch of artists draw a human model posing. They'll each have a different interpretation of what they see and what they want to express in their drawing. To me that's 'art'. Some no-talent hack feeding words into a computer and generating a picture made up of an amalgam of artwork it scanned from the internet is definitely NOT an artist.
That guy in his keyboard thinking he is an artist by typing those words alone, he needs help. The delusion is soooo strong on that one
that guy claiming he is the artist for what the AI made is like an art commissioner claiming he is the artist just because he requested something to be made, the delusion is unreal.
Who cares? The word art or artist can mean anything you want.
@@uwotmate-d3m umm, nope
@@uwotmate-d3m who taught you that stupidity ?
@@uwotmate-d3m i suggest you to learn how to think critically, so you don't get deceived and end up in the wrong history that makes people life's harder.
If someone sells you a coffee table, claiming it is handmade, and then you get it, and it turns out it's a piece of particle board crap from a factory... That's fraud. Even if the thing looks OK on the surface, the consumer has the right to make an informed decision on how much they wanna pay based on it's labor and materials to make the product. If you are not transparent about what you are selling, then you are nothing more than a literal "scam artist."
It didn't say "handmade".
@Paul Spvk no, but it was listed as his art and did not disclose that it is ai. Most people don't even know about ML or the things it can do, so of course, most consumers don't know to inquire if an art piece is made by a human or not. This guy is clearly taking advantage of that. 80 bucks for a print that size is expensive even for a human-made piece. A consumer has the right to make an informed decision on what they are willing to pay for something based on labor and materials. By not disclosing that this isn't human-made, you are taking their ability to make that informed decision away. If you wanna spend 80 bucks on something, you can learn to make yourself for free by watching a 15 min UA-cam video, then that is your business. But the consumer deserves to know what they are buying. If you don't disclose, it is a scam.
@@maggiemctoon3018 The consumer will learn soon.
anyone who have no basic foundation in their career will perish by itself.
It's not technology that's the problem. It's the number of things that technology allows you to do without thinking..... that's the problem.
i agree and another problem is this technology is made to be a problem they literally use copyrighted materials to make derivative works of art and artists for profit and that is a clear copyrighted infringement .
and very unethical in my opinion.
@@samankucher5117 Imagination and inspiration is just a fancy human way of saying copying. When your eyes look at an image, data of that image is being fed into your brain ( an AI ). If you then draw that image or something similar, you have generated it by being fed “stolen” art.
There is no problem.
@@uwotmate-d3m there is a problem, companies are starting to lay off artists to use ai instead.
@@uwotmate-d3m
why are you pretending to be a neurologist and a Ml engineer in the same time ?
bro get a live .
I would really like to be interviewed, I'm a professional digital chef using UberEats to make my culinary masterpieces come to life!
lol that's a good one .
i mean me too i am a member of a elite military force i do all my missions as a professional in COD when my mom lets me play after i do my homework lol i want a interview now 🤣
i hope you understand my English.
Cope.
@@uwotmate-d3m How old are you, 14?
Cope and seethe, omg I'm so edgy and clever, no one has said that before
@@uwotmate-d3m dude you’ve been just saying “cope” under any comment that has a valid argument because you’re too dumb to argue with people.
There is literally nothing defending the illegality of AI and saying “cope” isn’t the incredible move you think it is that proves everyone wrong. It actually just makes you look pathetic, you don’t have a point but you’re simultaneously trying to go against actual arguments and facts in a matter that actually has affected people and their lives.
Just stop commenting it’s annoying
The creator is naive. In Midjourney's TOS they say you CAN'T sell it and if you get in trouble Midjourney won't help you and if they get caught in the heat you will have to pay them. Also that guy typing words hesitating and calling himself an artist...hilarious. He knows hes full of it.
wait ... they actually wrote that in the TOS ?
that is like a confession they are kinda saying things might go wrong (memorizing and over fitting) and you might get taken to court and when that happens it's not our problem it the users that paid for the service.
@@samankucher5117 Yes, is in the TOS of Midjourney, so yikes!:
"10. Limitation of Liability and Indemnity
We provide the service as is, and we make no promises or guarantees about it.
You understand and agree that we will not be liable to you or any third party for any loss of profits, use, goodwill, or data, or for any incidental, indirect, special, consequential or exemplary damages, however they arise.
You are responsible for your use of the service. If you harm someone else or get into a dispute with someone else, we will not be involved.
If you knowingly infringe someone else’s intellectual property, and that costs us money, we’re going to come find you and collect that money from you. We might also do other stuff, like try to get a court to make you pay our attorney’s fees. Don’t do it."
@@facuam1
this is basically saying (f#%@ off ) what our "tool" does is everyone elses problem .
and the last part
"we are going to find you and collect the money " wtf are they a gang or something.
You can literally change one pixel manually then it can be sold.
@@uwotmate-d3m thats not true.
“Are you an artist ?” The real answer is NO, he’s just having a software do everything for him… yet his delusion is mind bending his ability to see the truth…
@@creativebubblecat I get it and so do you and anyone with eyes. So sad 😞
“But he did not paint it. He typed words into an app”
SAY🗣IT🗣LOUDER🗣
Real Art Comes from the Heart
all what this does is turn hard working artists data into flutters for big tech companies to profit from. i hope he gets so many lawsuits that he doesn't even have time to go to sleep .
Definitely
@@Moodboard39
thanks for understanding.
cool, now make an interview with the artists that sued midjourney : )
they did what ?
Why would they interview a failed lawsuit filer?
@@uwotmate-d3m it didnt fail lol.
@@samankucher5117 a few artists filed a lawsuit just a 2 or 3 days before getty did. they all found their work in the database of these image generators.
@@zaungaestin was it a lawsuit or a class action litigation that other artists can join in?
I can already imagine the dystopia that will result from “fixing” the illegal copyright-violating scraping that has made these programs work: a future where Midjourney 2.0 hires legions of up and coming digital artists to paint like 500 cats each, or 10,000 mountains or whatever, that they can legally use as proprietary training data which never ever sees the light of day. And the actual “creative” opportunities are all monopolized by AI prompts.
> *“fixing” the illegal copyright-violating scraping that has made these programs work:*
Just claiming it IS an illegal, and copyright violating thing doesn't make it so - hence the court cases where a goal is to determine if this actually infringes or not.
True, that's why I think the whole copyright thing will not solve the core issue that this technology has. The main issue is, how easy it it to create high quality illustrations in a short amount of time, and that young artists without a large follower count feel useless because of that. Because who wants to pay a young artist to draw a nice illustration, when you can do it yourself for free, faster, and without having to learn how to draw first?
Ai: I scan and generate images for you.
Me: I'm a artist
Digital Art is cool and all and I'm a fan of it but there's something different in a genuine handmade artwork that makes you appreciate it even more. Also, art made by AI can only copy or render but it doesn't have the ability to conceptualize original images.
They look very original to me. 😅 There is a burning pumpkin Mona Lisa in the space. 😁
it can only make original images, dont trust everything you read online
Well digital art done by 'humans' is also handmade too as we use our hands and the same drawing mechanics apply to us just like traditional artists. Only thing is a different medium (computer) is being used as we are drawing through a computer. As for AI that can no way be compared to how a human digital artist works as the same mechanics clearly don't apply with it. No human actually creates the AI art after all.
@@MsInteresting yup digital art =/= AI art idk what the art historian was saying
Digital art is... Handmade, unless it's matte painting or something.
Gonna be a lot of copyright lawsuits coming soon...
I want to KNOW whether something is AI or human.
At this point i dont really care about AI.
I want real human interaction.
And no...using AI to call yourself an artists doesnt make you an artist.
What a joke. Types a couple key words and sells it as art
Anything made using AI should be public domain. The art work is still impressive I don't care if it's not made by a person. But I wouldn't pay for it either.
If images are used legal images and voluntarily provided art there would be no issue about AI generated artwork, but the fact that it’s exploitative and its nature was done maliciously
The biggest issue is how unregulated it is, a lot of people like to compare it to music AI and say that therefore image AI is ok, but what they don’t recognize is that music AI uses first of all copyright free music and voluntarily provided art by artist who agreed to have their work used as training material for AI. The current image AI uses art which has been stolen to a point artist have to manually check on websites if their artwork has been used without their permission knowing they can do nothing about it
not only does AI steal from artist, it’s the beginning of a much bigger problem. I encourage everyone to watch the video “ The end of art: an argument against image AIs”
Putting the discussion about how harmful AIs are to actual artists, people defending AI saying it’s so much work to put in prompts, don’t realize they’re just a pawn in the game. Every time you type in a prompt, and then choose the image that suits you best, you train the AI to find out what you like, and what the best version of your idea is. What makes you think an AI will need humans to write a prompt, when thousands of people are feeding it data by creating their own images right now.
Soon enough AI will write prompts based on current Internet events, as well as your private information, and create images, shows, etc based on it. Steven says it in his video best,
“The AIs will be very capable on running on autopilot, and it will get just as good at telling stories as they are at creating imagines and videos. They will produce novels, essays, and scripts in amounts that can fill the library of Babel, each piece a composit of half quotations and unattributed swiping. All this autogenerated text can be processed by the imagine and video AIs to generate long format media and the cycle will be complete. Self contained, and human free”
“We all feel a little uncomfortable when our phone shows us an add for something we mentioned to our friend over dinner, but what happens when it shows you a movie it made just for you about your breakup?”
“Our ambient digital systems already have intimate access to so many of the inputs that define our taste, in some sense, we sold our souls long ago”
The people defending AI right now are creating a trap they will regret when it’s too late
A robot did not make it….. it’s using stolen images from artists that breaks copy right law. Big lawsuits are already in the process!
Wrong - they are not creating - they are programmed and then given a task that is governed by that programming - there is no spontaneous independent thought.
You don't know how it works.
@@theplayerformerlyknownasmo3711 Ah you must be one those suckers we hear are born every minute.
> *they are not creating*
Creating in computing is a thing - files not existing, then saving when writing files to disc for instance.
there are banned words in some of this AI art, I cant type "Hitler crucified in a surreal concentration camp in the style of Caravaggio". i would have to learn to paint to conjour that image.
It's not banned, its just that none of the pictures used in training referenced Hitler.
Use stable diffusion.
It can also without human edits make horrendous monsters that puts you deep in the uncanny valley of horror with hands and facial proportions so outside of any human reality…
AI isn't the problem it's cool technology, the problem is how this AI company harvesting their data to train their machine (and put a paywall to their service). I mean come on, please be honest, we all just human tryna make a living, if you want to train your machine to adapt some certain art style, hire some illustrators, designers or artists. Nobody likes their stuff to be stolen.
"Couple holding hands."
Good luck with THAT.
You'll get couples mashing claws.
I think we should create marks that signify whether something is AI or human artwork.
We should AT LEAST do that.
Im an artist myself and life is too hard as it is.
THIS IS NOT ART !!!!
This is sad
I mean i rather buy art made by humans, that brings value into it unlike A.I's art
Calling yourself a chef because you order food on an app …. 😂
Buy oil paintings instead of art prints.
Digital Art doesn't always mean it's AI generated..
I noticed you credited the AI wordsmiths.
I’m see how things transitioned from “Oh hey, such a fun and interesting software!” to “As cool as this is, there are problems to be addressed”. Really hope AI and artists can meet halfway in the future.
This is just poor reporting. They completely skip past the part of training data, the most essential bit of this whole thing.
I understand they don't want to get too technical for a broad audience, But just a graphic; images go in, AI does stuff, new images come out. Would have been enough. Instead of focussing on the output images, they should have shown some examples of an original artist's signature appearing in the newly generated images.
> *images go in, AI does stuff, new images come out.*
Images go in for training - but not for the actual image generation.
2:10-2:13 acknowledging his own action by tooking 3rd point pov in his mind to judge his own past action.
he wants his effort to type prompt to be considered as well by saying " i feel like i do owe some.... "
notice the little shrugging with his shoulder = telling " See i do contribute as well! " ( to show a bit justification to avoid being catch as 100% exploitative work )
at 2:14, notice how he cut the 3rd point pov to judge his own past action , and getting into "safe speech mode to appear innocent or just naive. "
at 2:15- 2:16 when he say " on the other hand " instead of saying on the other hand i took 95% of the artist work, he change it with "if u feel like it u like it " answer to induce middle area of answer
to not offend anyone , meaning = hoping to be seen as a person who likes to stand in middle ground as if he's not into fights ( same as what midjourney ceo avoiding the question )
. taking middle ground to solve 2 harsh polarized area is good.
but he stand from corruption path and now stand in middle ground to make it as if he's just innocent. easily on list to get jailed.
AI will not replace artists. Not for the next 100 years. If anything, brilliant veteran artists will use AI to their advantage & move even further into the future.
Well most of the celebrity toddlers were a fail.
They turk er jerb
None of this would exist without artists around the world and troughout history creating art for these programs to mix and match. Anyone using these results to make money are stealing peoples work.
Is this stunning? I think we need to define what stunning means 😒🙄
You thought you were going to get a realistic painting from a "talented artist" for $79? These are the very "talented journalists" that are going to get replaced by ChatGPT.
How did you find out the picture was painted by ai that’s my question
if you are an artist , you will consume art , breathing art, studying art so much to the point u developed heightened sense where the piece came from,
there's so many hidden things that people can only experience it if they pursuing that journey. not by assuming like a tree from point a - b - c.
without actually doing it, they will stuck in the dunning kruger hill forever.
1:57 face of being guilty. read the body language, constant nodding to hide the anxiety internally.
The only thing that differenciates this from the art buisness is acturally just the vanity and the name that comes attached to the art that you buy ans i sont think that market will change. Some people want art because its something a specific person created because they like that persons work and not nessisarily because of the subject of the piece. Its abit like a conversation starter and for the sake of collecting and that most likely will never go away. However, for the artist that is trying to make a name from the ground up, this is a devastating technology and will leave alot of new artists without any income wich will most likely make them ditch art alltogether and the scource material they can input for said AI will in the end become less diverse. I think at the very least we should treat it like it is, plagurism, since you are actively scanning, downloading, using it, and sell it as something else. Some would argue it would fall under "transformative media" but this only applies for entertainment or news media so the claim of "fair use" cant acturally be applied here. I think in order for a piece to be used for the algorithm of such techs you should have the full concent of each an every artist you use it from. Artstyles are like a fingerprint, if somebody tells the ai to draw something in your style and you get actural irl problems with somebody for recognizing your style when you did not draw an artwork of "suggestive" material you could argue it would hurt brand and therefore is also plagurising. I think we should be quick not to stop ai art, but to make sure that any scource used for the algorythms are fair.
i think they should not train those algorithms to copy artists or make derivative works of their art . it is not a big things to ask for and idk why people pretend that it is a big thing to ask for .
@@samankucher5117 Imagination and inspiration is just a fancy human way of saying copying. When your eyes look at an image, data of that image is being fed into your brain ( an AI ). If you then draw that image or something similar, you have generated it by being fed “stolen” art.
@@uwotmate-d3m
yah a human brain and those ml models are not actually the same so that example is not relevant.
try again.
The real cost of art is maintenance. To keep Mona Lisa, you need to build a Louvre. Digital art, once it is deleted, its value goes to zero. If you have a real piece of art, seek an architect.
However, anyone can print out "X" piece that comes from "Y" art generative software.
So really, doesn't matter in the "Digital art, once it is deleted, its value goes to zero" part you described.
Sadly, this is how it is.. I wish that there were stricter laws on deeplearning generative programs.. However, I have a feeling that these loop holes will keep existing for years.
Digital art(2D / 3D), Music, Literature, Code, and Voice has been effected by these new -tools- *programs* .
Wow that was unexpected
a bunch of salty people with b.o mad that A.I can do it better than them.
So easy to say when they didnt take YOUR lifes work to make money out of, isnt it?
@@Zere616 it didnt copy the work. It learnt from other art and reciprocated it (That's what a learning algorithm does). If I went to art school, studied every single artist on the planet and then started drawing art would you say I stole their lifes work to make money out of it? No. So, how does A.I differ, if its a learning program?
@@WeekendWarriorAirsoft Where did i say it copied? And no you wouldnt be stealing, you would add your own unique experiences, style, line and brush work, understanding etc to your work. AI doesnt understand or cant do anything experimental or add anything outside of its data set. Your work would be far more transformative.
AI's probably gonna replace us all eventually.
stop using the brain to think and believing any information the ai people wants you to believe is what they want. ur future is in ur hand. their future is in their hand. only 1 future will happen. choose wisely. wake up.
There's still a demand for authentic tattoos canvas paintings murals and originals. But my question is they own anything you create on that platform and maybe 1 day down line might take your profits or a % from what you sell. Im sure there's subscription prices. In a nutshell I could never walk into a Disney store take pic crop it and resell. Scanning artwork is foul just so you can gamble on the stock market and never profit..... WTF
In simple terms A.i art is the fast food of the art world it make look good but it will leave a bad taste in ur mouth
It all has the same kinda effect to them
AI art falls into the public domain.
I think the proper term for it would be to be a conceptualist, you yourself did not create they piece, you conceptualized it and the computer executed it. I think it may become a new medium, similar to being an oil painter or a water colorist. In that aspect it would be art, but a separation from the artists that use their own skill to execute the work. Though the artists that the programs are pulling from should definitely be compensated or allowed to opt out of having their work involved in the algorithm.
As an artist and open slimeball, I sort of feel like that a lot of people, artists, programmers, and others, are sort of missing the main problem with AI generated art, and that is that it's basically like replacing human moderators with algorithms to monitor social media for crap like hate speech and dangerous misinformation, and you can ask UA-cam how well it worked. These programs are impressive, but after a while, each piece blends into the other and creates artwork that ceases to make any sort of real impact, the same way COVID deniers, bigots, and other walking puke stains can outwit algorithms just by changing the text attached to their videos. Of course, it's cheaper than paying an artist or a moderator, so of course the corporate world is gonna love it even as it produces a worse and worse quality of product.
End note: They're talking about doing the same with music. If you thought elevator music was dull and monotonous, you ain't seen nothin' yet until you've seen Google try their hand at heavy metal.
Why don’t you type Mick Jagger with the Rolling Stones? Why are you counterfeiting black artist? 2:26
Well, for one thing Mick Jagger is alive, and still with the Rolling Stones. He was doing dead artists.
@@darkwitnesslxx Janis Joplin, the guy from the Grateful Dead why are you counterfeiting black artist?
He should do Janis Joplin that would be cool. Jerry was old when he died, so no point imagining what he'd look like as old guy. Maybe Kurt Cobain?
@@darkwitnesslxx exactly there you go
Looking forward to when AI replaces "journalists" ... especially TV ones. Put down the laptops and phones for a couple of days folks and learn some math and algebra. (else us coders will take YOUR job too ;) )
Doesnt AI do code already?
out with the old in with the new, AI is going to stay whether you like it or not, the future is coming for your jobs, enjoy the show lol
0:15 - 0:18 is a lie & misinformation / baiting. you CANNOT get what YOU exactly want with it. i've tried it for 1 month, and there's no joy in creating with it .
with so many only copy pasting code here and there very small part of human thoughts behind it.
the only way to really Make what YOU want is to be an artist. An Artist learn to Create . not just Picking a bunch of word and calling yourself an artist .
it's the same as if you pay to have a warehouse full of a thousand dresses made, then spend weeks picking out the best one, Does that make you a fashion designer ??????????
be honest to yourself.
It's not complicated.
The AI was trained uncopyrighted. The AI itself is a derivative work. The creators of the say I utilized other people's work in the creation of their own work. That's plagiarism. That's copyright infringement.
Imagination and inspiration is just a fancy human way of saying copying. When your eyes look at an image, data of that image is being fed into your brain ( an AI ). If you then draw that image or something similar, you have generated it by being fed “stolen” art.
It’s not complicated. Yet you don’t understand it.
@@uwotmate-d3m Oh, your brain can remember every pixel in a digital image? That's sick.
> *That's plagiarism.*
That's not how plagiarism works. Nor does using another's work automatically make it copyright infringement - for example, if it falls under fair use, which is often determined in litigation.
Collages are a legit art form BTW and often a fair use.
Bann Ai
This could be helpful to comic artists, as well as manga producers who have to provide hundreds of drawn images.
This will eliminate them entirely since they are already underpaid and publishers will enjoy the free labor of the machine with a minimum-wage prompt writer behind it.
@@0lalal11
Wouldn't they still need the comic drawers to input the wordings, as well as convey the characters expressions? I'm sure there are limit to what AI could make. Your point is valid though, it's sad really but there's a reason why making arts or comics isn't known as a way to get rich.
@@kensigregory361 Unfortunately artist`s input is very often underestimated, and it is sad to spend your life learning art fundamentals to type prompts and let the machine do the fun part.
@@0lalal11
I understand. The only thing that could help artists from this threat then, would be us as consumers not supporting AI artwork and strictly putting our money towards human drawn graphics . I'm sure they'll be some people who'd still support AI if it's offered for a cheaper price, but there'll be people with morals who'd be willing to pay more for real artists work. It just means real artists will have to up their prices, because they'll have no choice to market towards the middle class and upper class since the poor could only afford the art that's offered for cheap.
I guess you can call yourself writing descriptive artists if you must, lol Americans all claim everything ( I’m musician I’m this I’m that ) so what is the value in claiming anything anymore anyways
He's full of Lies to call himself the author of automated recycled processing learning software.
i hope it comes available soon
It's available now but it's technical and not typically easy to do for normal people
@@theplayerformerlyknownasmo3711I can do anything that I put my mind to.
@@intoodeepstl314 then you'll most likely be able to use stable diffusion or dalle. Go online and look up dalle 2 and sign up
@@theplayerformerlyknownasmo3711 Midjounrey is very easy to use.
@@jackied962 not for grandma
Holz said I don't want to be involved. Sorry, you are gonna be. If not in court, some artist on the street will get you involved. Physically.
Sometimes I wish violence is not bad
I like AI Art 😊❤
Lmao! 😂😂😂😂
Everyone knows the only real art is NFTs.
Those are commissionned images to a bot. They cannot be copyrighted, they have no soul, no human authorship, they are trained on non ethical datasets that use copyrighted images and personal data like medical record. This ai thingy is horrible.
A AI with alot of stole art of real artist to feed the program and created something without copyright cause not was created by a human was created by the AI
Imagination and inspiration is just a fancy human way of saying copying. When your eyes look at an image, data of that image is being fed into your brain ( an AI ). If you then draw that image or something similar, you have generated it by being fed “stolen” art.
@O that is so fundamentally wrong cause if our minds worked instantly like that we wouldn't even need to practice. Even then a begginer artists usually draw or paint from realism (stuff from real life) before looking at other work to learn the fundamentals of art, then apply that knowledge to other artists artwork. To put it simply we look at realism or art work to see how it was constructed from the fundamentals so we can eventually do it ourselves. Ai doesn't do that which is the reason why sometimes the anatomy or wacky or its overly rendered. Ai is all maths and algorithms NOT THE SAME. So no it doesn't have inspiration
@@ghost4439 > * that is so fundamentally wrong cause if our minds worked instantly like that we wouldn't even need to practice*
It isn't "wrong" just because you hyperfocus on the speed, and ignore the processes under the hood.
That's like saying a computer is "not doing math" just because it adds numbers in a fraction of the time we can with a pencil and paper.
@Gondor avalon "ignore the process under the hood" I didn't ignore a thing cause I literally mentioned the process. It analyse the art works pixels, or shapes and creates patterns (maths and algorithms). its the reason Why the anatomy is sometimes freaky or overly rendered. Heck there's ai imagery with smudged signatures and watermarks. So how a human learns the fundamental is very different to how ai learns. So it is "fundamentally wrong" 🙄
@@ghost4439 It takes time to put what is in your head into an actual image, but I am sure you can near instantly think of an piece of art with in your head, and might even do so while dreaming with out even trying. AI just has the advantage of it being able to directly paste what is inside it's "head".
It's really good art, for the first time I actually like it. Sorry everyone sucks at art and is jealous of a computer lol
AI is gonna takes away all your jobs , get ready for the next big layoff 😂
yah less jobs for people and more money for the silicon valley.
it's funny because they made "Ai" that can code they don't even case for their own.
Good. Artists are the biggest douches on the internet.
Wouldnt mind it, but this darn capitalism...
😂 ARTIST ARE NOW REPLACABLE! Why hire someone when I can have computer to make any type of art i want
Well you're just one moron along many, you are the first in line to be replaced. :)
The issue is that all AI generated art made on downloadable software, not self created software, is free use.
The images those AI robots use is uploaded photos on the internet which again are free use. Because the uploaders have entered a contractual agreement that their uploaded photos can be used by the company/others as if it’s their property because it was uploaded on their site with full consent of the original photographer. (You can infact take ANY Instagram/Facebook/meta photos even if they’re selfies that aren’t the artists own face and utilize them in an artwork as free use. Even if the image itself is of a patented/intellectual property that image still remains fair use when it’s uploaded.
And the artworks created are an amalgamation of hundreds of other artists works. Gathered from mostly Google search engines, you have to make sure the Google image isn’t smt like a stock photo, because that’s not uploaded for free contractual use by the creator those stock images can’t be easily utilized yet artworks that have been uploaded by independent artists to private apps/servers again gave up their ownership rights for exposure.
The only thing you can claim in the artwork of being related to a specific artist is the conceptual input fed to the machine.
The art work is not the final image but is the code (ex. Orange juice sky with a clementine sun. )
(That would be typed as the input and the Ai would generate options, so the thing that is typed is the conceptual art of the artist. That’s the only thing you can claim the artist did, which since the 1960s in the United States has been allowed and monetized.)
If you use free use content and generate the image you’ve essentially don’t the same thing major artist do where they create the idea and hire someone else to build it/paint it/sculpt/finalize while they continue on other projects. This isn’t a new idea of artists making art and richer artists will always hire cheaper laborers/assistants/internships to help do the work for them. It’s not even strange to suggest.
If an Ai artwork is uploaded to a site that work again becomes free use, nfts helped a bit with creating a private market for digital artwork that focused on sensationalism/collectors mentality. The best thing AI artists can do is make NFTs of their conceptual code, he would have a good change of not being sued already but if they did a bunch of drawings then fed that specifically into the machine which would churn out edits of an artists drawings then there would be greater interest in what the artist was producing as a finalized product.
While they have to find the source work and edit the final generated photos it’s drasticly different then hand painting abstractions/surrealism. and it mimicking that style and reutilizing it with robots sort of creates a whole new art-history section in the books…
There’s also the issue of the Ai not knowing anything about space which is the biggest hurdle,
the computer thinks in 2D flat surfaces if you were to ask for a sphere it will give you a shaded circle. If you ask for a Forrest it will photoshop drag a flat 2D Forrest.
If you ask for a hand with a hand print the computer has 2 issues, 1 a hand is a very pointed and rounded object meaning it’s either building a hand through multiple sets of images taken at various angles which results in the machine not understand what the flat object really looks like. AI can’t rotate a 3D object showing it multiple angles of a hand doesn’t help it understand that the object is 3D it just shows the machine that these things ‘hands’ look various. If you were to show a computer a peace sign it doesn’t understand that you folded your fingers it just things you have 2 finders pointed and a the rest are compressed (if you were to take the thumb away from the peace sign no other finger would be behind it it would just be skin tones. Fundamentally AI doesn’t recognize 2D from 3D and it doesn’t need to as all photos are 2D.
or the machine has to think of radial symmetry and know the exact size/length of ever digit, then it can move each of those points and overlap them if set in an xyz format. You have to give the Ai essentially cgi level space and plot points so it can go oooooh curves and space and oh folding/density. The artist would still need to make sure that the 3D object doesn’t fold in of itself and understand that the surface area of the hand prevents it form say a middle finger going all the way through a palm.
The Ai can only work in pixel dots making triangles or squares. To make things properly shaded you need a lot of points to suggest that each finger is a dense tube with stuff inside of it. AI doesn’t know how to make a fist it just thinks the person has short fingers and a thumb.
It also wouldn’t know wtf a handprint or a finger print is, and wouldn’t understand the the handprint is fold likes like something you’d see from folding a piece of leather. The Ai not recognizing that the handprint and hand are 1 thing, it will think the lines of a hand print are an overlay. And asking for a hand with a hand print might give you really weird results like (a hand with hundred of smaller hands to look like leopard print, it can’t understand that the hand folding and creating lines to match rotational movement and that skin surface area is actually bumpy not a flat plane
i disagree the platforms that people upload there art too only gain the right to host the art it doesn't get the copyright or the Ip right of that art work... i mean if what you are saying is true then Twitter has the copyright to spiderman because marvel has a Twitter account that posts Spiderman art and videos all the time.
and TOS don't overwrite actuall laws.
@@samankucher5117 okay so let me get this right you’re first taking Twitter (owned by Elon)
and comparing a Spider-Man movie produced by a company known for issuing cease and desist orders to UA-cam videos if not copyright strikes/suing
To
A private individual artist who has an account and uploads posts to their personal accounts.
Feels like one of those two has more money to be able to stop people from stealing their work by abusing legal systems/having enough moderators online scouting for even a hairline reference to said art. (I’m pretty sure Disney is able to hire unpaid interns to scroll online and manage social media accounts… does a random single artist have a team of people doing that for them? No? And if they do is it AS many employees as a billion dollar company? No? Shocking)
Also yes it is free use because either the image is used as exposure ie. Look at all the market buzz generated by viewers/subscribers tagging the image. Or it’s a 6 second clip (fair use tiktok style allowed to be displayed as fair use because it’s not someone uploading the entire movie and defunding the company idk 20$ in ticket sales/streaming options)
Not only that but the Spider-Man movie made by 5 minutes of continuous rolling credits of artists
Vs
1 independant artist uploading to a personal account that they themselves clicked a box saying they fully agreed to the terms and conditions of said app/website?
@@arianaink100
i stopped reading when you mentioned money .
if you think small artists don't deserve copyright because they don't have money like corporations ill just say i do not care about your opinion anymore.
and again TOS can never overwrite actuall laws .
@@samankucher5117 what’s deserves or not isn’t important, I never stated anything as a personal belief so don’t get it twisted
you’re kidding yourself if you think an average Joe can have as many patents as a corporation. Or that an individual creator would make as much money off of their patents as a corporation in this day and age.
@@arianaink100
cringe .
Some of the pictures are truly wonderful.
The old Biggie picture is...... wow. 😳
I'd buy it most definitely.
And the most terrible thing to say if of it all is.......it's art. It's very good art. Art that will replace the true artist because the common man will want this fast food version and this is just the beginning or a perfect example of how AI will replace us all one day. Enjoy.
When a progammer draws better than artist
to complain about this type of art is like saying a mural is not art because its on a wall and the wall was already there so it can't be art.
What even is this take??? A mural is a type of handmade art. However, calling yourself an artist after typing some prompts is like saying you're a professional chef because you know how to use a microwave.
Real dogshit take, guy...
Portraits were once the bread and butter for artists, but then came the photograph. This is not as big a change as that was, it is only a further evolution of what film did.