Dear Danar thank you for this great gathering. Undoubtedly there are many people who will love to hear the opinion of other artist who are not very fond of AI. So please make more if its possible.
The future we wanted was AI and robots liberating us from the manual labour and monetary systems while we all wrote poetry and painted. Instead the AI is writing poetry and painting for the profit of tech bros while we struggle to find work.
It gives me some hope seeing all these great people speak up for art and creativity. I felt hopeless reading all those horrible takes from the AI dudes on Twitter...
I stopped drawing and making art entirely 6 months ago after I saw the initial boom of AI art online. I watched this today, and drew for the first time since November. So thank you for that. I hope to see more long conversations like this from artists and other people working in the industry on the topic of AI.
Man I quit around november..thought it was just a break, but I felt like it was useless..you want to share your work with the world but when you scroll through Instagram or whatever it's like how the hell am I going to capture any attention unless I'm a shameless technophile pouring more energy into promotion than creation..and BTW ai art is nothing like human art..it's boring and too shiny and clean, no heart, no grit, no real experience or revelation to draw from..it just amalgamates/ steals ideas from humans..no comparison..its completely obviously not as "good"...
@@avrfineart unfortunately ive seen ai art that fooled me into thinking it was manmade because it used a cartoony and expressive style. Probably was trained on a different data set
@@oo--7714 Your ideas can be creative but AI isn't, and the AI is the one doing the pictures. The only reason AI can resemble creativity is because it's regurgitating creative art. Typing an artists name or a style or a technique doesn't make AI imagery creative. It all just boils down to all the artists in the training data who were not just robbed but not even acknowledged.
All creatives need to stand together. For a short while they still need us, and we have power. We must wield it wisely. The more of us stand, the more united our front, the harder it will be for them to push this stuff through. We are already having an effect as discussed in the video. Keep it up.
They will always need us as long as they use these models of AI because they are just sophisticated averaging algorithms. Without our art fed into them they are nothing, they have no dataset.
Great discussion. To artists art is a verb, to everyone else it is a noun, a thing, an end result. A non artist brain can't understand the difference because it's been trained differently. We need to find a way to make them understand.
Well, in a democratic society, the masses would decide. So I guess art as a noun is the "real" definition. Nothing against artists, but for most people art is something pretty or provocative to look at. It doesn't matter where the image comes from.
@@waltlock8805 the accuracy of a definition is not normally judged by the quantity of people who understand it. Though I think both can kind of be true, and the opinion of the consumers of art also of course matters, I'd say even consumers process art in ways other than as a thing. Even if they aren't conscious of it. I'd also say it's one of the things that makes us human, and that it's a thing meant to be shared between humans. Answers on a postcode, who is best equipped as custodian of art for humanity a. artists. b. tech company CEOs. Society would be wise to listen to the opinion of artists on the subject of art. It would be the highest hubris to ignore them. I'd listen to a heart surgeon if they told me I was making a common conceptual error in my understanding of the heart. Especially if a tech CEO had just roused a legion of us with the promise of becoming heart surgeons.
@@Edinburghdreams When you (and other artists) start bringing religion into the mix you lose people. What makes us human is the DNA in our chromosomes. We are not the only artistic animals (birds are some of the most artistic). "Fine" art will probably always exist. Art for sale though is judged on being "fit for purpose". The process and effort required doesn't matter (so long as it can be produced for an acceptable cost).
@@Edinburghdreams When you say "one of the things that makes us human", that is a religious statement. Science tells us what makes us human, and art isn't part of that.
The amount of entitlement to cheaply made quick art issue was a bit surprising for me too! I’m so glad you brought that up. I didn’t see that written about anywhere. Almost like jealous or feeling like they shouldn’t have to make any effort to make good work or have access to it. We aren’t gatekeepers as artists. Not everyone wants to make art or cares to make it. That’s a choice. It’s not on us. It’s not easy and yes theres more to it than just making petty images. People have already been using artists, they don’t value it. The us culture clearly doesn’t really value art on some level and doesn’t feel we should make a living doing it. Great talk on this. Thank you!
Artists unite? It isn't about artists, it's about giving every individual on Earth the capability to express themselves and experience novel things without having to rely on other people, most cannot even afford to hire an artists to draw their dreams and what not, AI can solve these issues, it is literally democratizing everything. AI is God in the making.
@@Danuxsy i see you on every pro ai channel but let me tell you something. You will be dependant on Midjourney and dall-e 2, stable diffusion and the others... And once nobody know how to paint anymore by themselve, they will up the price, stable diffusion will be sold or banned one way or the other. And only the richest of the rich will be able to pay to be able to make art. on the other side, you can find free paper just by asking company if they got some paper to spare. and free crayons by going to ikea. nothing is stopping you from putting in the effort. don't lie. nobody and no one is stopping you except yourself.
@@Danuxsy Art has always been democratized. Pick up a pencil and start to draw, no is stopping anyone. If you dont learn how to draw/paint, you wont uderstand how the fundamental theories and laws of light/shadow of nature make a picture work, or a character/environment design work. I see so many regular people think that their AI generated picuture is "good", but I see all the flaws in it. When an experienced artist uses AI, the results are better (maybe they are touching it up too idk). As of now, there are so many low quality AI generated art on the internet that greatly outnumber the quality art. Once they get fed back into new models via data scrapping, its going to create a negative feedback loop and compound all the flaws that AI art already have. To add to that, artists are not uploading their art anymore, people are adding unrelated tags to try trick the AI, people are creating things like Glaze. I think AI art is going to stagnate and maybe regress. Till this day, I still cant get a fully figured character design with good anatomy, functional and consistant costumes and props.
When you're a small shy kid.. the greatest compliment you could get was the talent comment from someone. Fast forward through the cursing, chair kicking brush throwing, and self deprication "why me God!!??" years .where the tally of levelling up costs oh about 500 mistakes. So now. You're exactly right. I realize that "talent" is the last term that could be used to define a life grappling with trying to get better at making my art. What is talent in terms of art? I ask myself.. increasing your skills isn't talent you're turning your desire to create into a skill right? Bc you worked for it, Not a single Master of ANY ART , OR ANYTHING ever was simply born having the ability to create greatness. Some learn faster, some have more resources earlier, Some go through life completely unaware of anything except what transpires in their head. But I think regardless of the differing paths we all take to our current ability.. None of us can say we didn't work for it. Great topics here for thought . Many thanks.
As a student From my side I want to work on my art to get better and learn the fundamentals better and from the basics to develop myself step by step with my failures
Coming back to this 3 weeks later. This Ai stuff is insane. I can see why so many feel discouraged or angry. This is insane and they happily call themselves artists.. from writing prompts!
Why couldn’t people using prompts be considered artists. I don’t know I like that kind of gatekeeping. I would be sad if someone said I’m not an artist because I have control Z or I flood an area instantly at one time, or I’m not mixing my paints. No one cared about AI and supported it until it came after their money.
@@MrSkullface It’s not an argument against digital artists it’s an argument against typing words into a prompt and AI generates it for you. So the human touch is gone, traditional or digital. That’s why people are mad because the human touch of art what makes art special is being replaced. So it’s not art and you’re not an artist if you just type stuff into a machine and it poops it out for you. Learn to draw. That’s all I can say. And yes, people are angry because their hard work and years of discipline are being spat on by toddlers who don’t want to put in the same work and effort. So yeah I’d be pissed off too, like who do you think you are? Pick up a pencil and get to work already.
@@xmaryHXCx in the end I don’t know I still like the idea of who can dictate how art is made. So many things in production are procedurally generated, color comps with simple hue shifts, who’s to say that writing text and getting art from it isn’t art, that’s how some of the most iconic cg in film and games was made, pure code. Is writing a book not art? Is there no human touch that goes into the prompts? Can anyone with a pencil scribble anything with a pencil and just call it art? Imagine if someone told the FX artists on Tron wasn’t real art. I say keep art free and access able to everyone, censoring how art is made is a slippery slope.
@@MrSkullface you’re correct in the sense of what most of what you just described is art. But AI is not art plain and simple so I don’t see the point of your statement? I guess if it was an argument against modern art vs traditional vs digital and etc then yeah there’s a discussion to be had but I guess that’s where you and I differ, because you see AI as art as I myself, do not. So therefore I can’t dispute with you sorry, let’s just agree to disagree from here. No ill will. :)
Danar, I hope you continue this discussion either round-table style or 1-on-1's. Found this interview through Artstation. Such a relief to hear actual professionals give their honest opinion on AI and its impacts. I've subscribed and look forward to following you in the future! I've personally used through DALE, StableDiffusion, MidJourney 2022-2023. Personal use only. I am amazed by the pace of the development. I have a BFA in Graphic Design, Illustrate part-time, dabble in 3D. I want AI to succeed but not at the cost of my creative career. Spiridon makes justified points from the position of a publisher (relatable from a graphic design perspective). His logic towards cost and creative direction carry wisdom (not all sunshine and roses). Lois and Eva give really strong arguments to creative copyrighting and safe practices. Aurelien's point about AI as a catalyst for evolving creativity (around 1:09:00) is my hope. His reservation in incorporating it into his courses, I agree 100%. AI doesn't replace the traditional experience of learning, certainly not an experienced professional. Her, Black Mirror, Blade Runner 2049, iRobot, ExMachina, WALLE, Ready Player One, 2001 Space Odyssey...(insert you own), we have fictional stories that try to show our flaws and the struggle of the human condition. AI may make it easier but "The Great Discontent" will not go away. AI is here to stay, we need more human conversation like this, to better understand who we are and who we want to become. Support artists if you support creative work. If AI is in your toolbox, have some ethics, be transparent. Art is bigger than this, have courage, keep learning, keep creating.
my brother is studying art and he wants to work in this industry and i really dont want A.i to stop him from achieving what he wants or to even take his chance to shine. and to express himself and ideas neither stops him from contributing to this industry in anyways. it hurts me to see corps trying to benefit of this. and not thinking of their artists which without them .their games wouldnt be even out there. personally, i think this will keep on evolving. and will for sure hurt us all if it didnt get regulated. but till then i wonder how many people will lose their jobs / contribution to this industry.
Love hearing Spiridon speak with such passion and conviction. For me even if there could be ways to use it ethically, I'll simply never touch generative ai. I've chosen to learn art for many reasons and taking shortcuts has never been any part of it. In fact I love all the struggle I've gone trough to get to where I am right now (not to say that my art is great, but I love what I do because of the years I've devoted to learning). I've had to push through burn outs, I've had to pull allnighters to meet deadlines and so on and I wouldn't change any of it. Changes can be made to improve the industry, but it's largely on the side of the companies - crunch, salaries and etc. Basically what Danar's saying at 56 mins. And on yet another note - those are some fascinating shoes haha :D
Why wouldn't you touch generative AI? Sounds like you're an xenophobe with human bias, there are plenty of great artists utilizing AI in their workflows to make unique ideas come to life.
thought the same way, i absolutely detest(ed) AI. But adam duff of lucidpixul actually has a great video on how we can use it ethically and benefit from it at least a little istead of only being exploited. Bc why should everyone else benefit from artists being exploied but not artists? I think its ethical if used as a referencing/research tool. Ive tried that lately, basically using MJ like i would google images, and actually found it somewhat useful. Its super hard to get what you want, but the process of putting into words what exactly you have in your head can help to school your artistic vocabulary and the bridge between visual library and vocabulary. I think thats quite a good teaching tool. Only downstide to that is maybe that you feed the monster a lot of data, but i suppose you can always throw a few wrenches in there from time to time to offset that.
Loish is so smart she has a pretty good and mature understating of the topic , i had a change to meet her in person in light-box this past year, she is so cool!
Thanks for a great and much needed discussion in these crazy times. As a graphic designer I think we all need to double down on (human) hand made art if we want to remain creative, which is so much related to manual skills and being in the zone, not coming up with cool prompts.
I'm glad to hear other artist's opinions. Let's not forget as well that they don't just train them with "stolen images" they also use cheap labour to moderate the AI's such as ChatGPT using Kenyan workers paid 2$...
Good on you for putting this video out. This is the first video I’ve seen discussing AI with a round table of artist. Brilliant format, great points were made. 👌🏾
Loved this talk, I thought the big following of Loish would storm this (in a good way) I'm surprised it hasn't grown faster. More people need to see this, specially young artists.
I disagree, it isn't about capitalism or making profit as an artist, AI is about democratizing everything so that each one of us can create and experience the things we want without limitations like money, talent or time. As long as we depend on other people creating these things for us we are never going to be able to truly express ourselves in the ways we want, this is simply a fact.
@@Danuxsy What you say about AI would _maybe_ be valid if it were only art at stake. Look at the bigger picture -- ALL white-collar jobs are on the line. What's the point of getting free art as a regular person, if you end up being unable to pay rent? Artists aren't your enemy. Artists are banding together because they realise how much they depend on each other and their allies.
Thank you for this wonderful discussion. I'm not a digital artist, but I've been working in pen and ink as a fine art illustrator for over 50 years. I had been scanning and digitizing my art for my website gallery, but recently stopped doing so and removed all my work from the internet because I do not wish to have my work "harvested" by AI. I personally do not believe AI is creating art. It is machine generated imagery made of the stolen intellectual property of others. Just like "alternative facts" are not facts and do not exist, calling what is being generated by these machines "art" does not make it art and does not make the people engaging in it "artists." What I find sickening and appalling is a few so-called "online artists and art instructors" now telling their followers to "adapt" and use AI. Basically, they are instructing their students to not only disrespect fellow artists, but blatantly steal the work of others. It smells like desperation and pandering to me. I will NEVER "adapt" to having my work stolen.
They are tools to create. These gatekeeper snobs are scared to become irrelevant and are scared to not have a chance in the creation market when imagination and creating gets democritized for everyone. It's not about copyright. Copyright law already covers their work. They want to ban the technology.
F all the AI that serves no one but the top 1% on the expanse of every creative individual! If we're living in the final days of art, let's show how much it is worth! I have a pair of eyes on my portrait to repaint, have a nice and productive day, everyone!
This was really well put, thank you for putting yourselves out for this conversation!! Artists uniting is the one good thing that has come out of all this.
As a person doing AI (not related to images).I think if no research datasets exist it will be only huge corporation who have all the power. Adobe, Google, Microsoft.
I'm not sure what you mean. Can you elaborate on that stance? There are plenty of datasets collected for research purposes, as far as I know. The core issue with datasets like those created by LAION, is that they essentially seem like corporate puppets masking as a research facility, and their datasets have been used by A.I. companies to create products for commercial profit, which is an absolute no go.
The biggest problem with AI will be that humanity will simply become more and more stupid. If we just take what AI gives us, more and more will forget to think creatively for themselves. The good thing at the moment is that many publishers and studios I know are pulling out of AI because it has no copyright. And they're getting into a legal zone where the work doesn't belong to them anymore.
Thank you for this informative episode, Kak Danar. It is confusing times for artists and to get the insights of seasoned professionals like yourself and your guests is comforting. Keep up the good work! Zor Supas
Great talk! I would love to hear people of Open AI or other AI Companys in this kind of scenario too. Maybe you can also invite Carla Ortiz bc I would love how the lawsuit is going rn.
I really needed to watch and hear more creator voices in these debate,specially in the graphic design side since I had seen too much propaganda for imitative AI. Thanks for sharing ❤
I think each time AI uses the work of an artists or writer it should pay for each illustration/text used to the artist/writer and inform the user about the references that were used. This is the only fair way of moderately happy artists coexist with AI. Let's fight for this to happen!
the only way to do that is to give everyone in the dataset a equal amount of mony and inform the user about every image in the dataset otherwise that's impossible
@@henriquemedranosilva7142 if you mean that they get paid when they enter the dataset but not when an image is generated yes that's theoreticly possible
lovely and enjoyable conversation, i share your views! Thanks for keeping me company while i was drawing :) I wish more people could watch this video and bring more conversations like this around the internet. I'm particularly concerned for japanese and chinese art industry situation, it looks horrible from what i could grasp.. I wish they could join our fight.
Engaged since the beginning! I hear them talking about Ethiopia in the beginning a bit but somehow missed that part in the discussion? Did I just not hear it or was it left out? Really amazing discussion nevertheless~ loved how valid Loish' points were!
Really cool video ! i'm really glad to hear people with extensive experience in the field talking about this. In the end we always end up with a problem of responsible freedom.
i really appreciate your initiative and for raising awareness with these talks. the boulder started rolling, i hope it crashes sooner, rather than later.
Good discussion. Something that I think didn't get talked about enough though is the extent to which these AI models are *already* breaking the law, even without new legislation specifically for generative AI. In the EU (under GDPR) you absolutely CANNOT mass collect and misuse private data, so any AI model that contains things like medical records, drivers licenses etc (as these models do) is very much _not legal_ .... They apparently also contain straight-up illegal content that has to be manually filtered (by traumatized underpaid outsource workers) to avoid showing up in results. And that's not even getting into all the copyright issues! Until they fully sort out the legality of training AI, these tools cannot be used commercially in any way. _You do not own the output._ They need to be retrained from scratch *exclusively* on public domain and licensed work.
Those are hardly difficult things to remove if it ever becomes important to do so. And these models don't save that information in any usable form - which means that normal copyright laws don't apply.
@@Leto2ndAtreides it saves it in the usable form of mathematical abstraction. it breaks plenty of copyright laws. for example, the terms of use of the copyrighted images it has fed into it. and sure it might not be hard to remove. but you wouldn't know that from the crying and handwringing about how impossible it is to untrain the models that their creators are doing.
@@Leto2ndAtreides "If it ever becomes important"... it is important _right now_ as it is *illegal.* This material is clearly NOT "easy to remove" and simply _should never have been included in the training data in the first place._ Research has shown (eg "Extracting Training Data from Diffusion Models" and "Diffusion Art or Digital Forgery") that much of this data is contained in these AIs in a directly reproducible form near-identical to the source data, so the notion that AI "does not store" things is also a LIE. They need to retrain these models FROM SCRATCH.
So the genie is out of the bottle and likely impossible to stop. Anything digital will be “scraped” and fed into the machine to be reprocessed. Ironically, I think good original art produced with the hand, eye, heart may increase in value and appreciation ( for those willing to pay). Ai is redefining the term “artist” so there’s much confusion. The only way to limit ai is to only allow credited and paid for datasets for the algorithms to use.
AI art has become a really compelling conversation. FWIW, none of what's written below is meant disrespectfully. I think the question of intellectual property is a meaningful one. An AI engine that reads a copyrighted image and uses it to generate a new image is deriving art from an existing piece. In a sense, art is already a derivative process; stories and images inspire future stories and images. Philosophically, a person painting a picture based on other paintings they've seen is similar to an AI doing that. The difference is that the AI makes a picture that lacks the human touch, but that's an abstract concept that's arbitrarily defined. As for the photography question, I find it to be a very good comparison. The parallels are definitely there, and while there are also differences, I don't think they invalidate things. I think AI art can definitely exist alongside human-made art in the same way that photography and painting can coexist. Some amount of regulation is probably a good idea, though - especially if artists are dissatisfied with how their creations are used. I'd forgive the AI databases that predate those regulations as their "crimes" were committed in a "gray area," before they were "crimes." Ultimately, I think my opinion on AI art leans fairly positive, but I do want it to be regulated. While I guess I don't agree on everything discussed, I can appreciate art and I definitely appreciate the conversation this video has driven.
@@Spiridude yeah, and when I report a project for using ai artwork they just say it doesn't violate their rights or policy. So unless more people start talking about this, I'm afraid it's just gonna happening more and more...
I already know of a production from a big studio, using AI to make character designs, they didn't hire any character designers. Maybe they will hire some later. Oh well I hope my instincts are right and this industry will survive/adapt.
This is the kind of situation where we question ourselves and embrace the outcomes. While artists may have initially expressed concerns about the impact on art, it's time to acknowledge that even someone without knowledge of color and dye can create exceptional art or draw using AI. The ship has already sailed, and it is essential for us to accept this reality and utilize AI to produce improved pictures or drawings.
One of the main things that differentiate humans from animals is that we are creators, thinkers, and great problem solvers, if we leave creativity to artificial intelligence what makes us different? already A.i is being used for not just 2D art but 3D art and animation. If the data it uses creates realistic motion for robots, with human voices generated by A.i will there become a point where we cannot tell the difference from human and robot? What is the result of that. If humans become too comfortable with using A.I it will dumb down society, A.I could see humans as redundant. A.I is already smarter than any human, it has access to every part of the internet. This may sound far fetched but the most recent robots are using this pipeline. This isn't far in the future, it's happening already. We have all seen the films and have been warned. We must legislate properly and control how art and data humans create is used before it gets out of hand. There's a reason why lots of these A.I systems are free and its not because these companies are being generous. Applying long term thinking to this is vital. I'm really happy to hear artists speaking out about this, it gives me hope that the public will make the right decisions .
Great video, one big thing I hate about the ai is that it's messing up hands. But hands and feet are already hard for Artists to completely nail. So it's almost like it's methodically not being able to do hands to force accusations against the artists who struggle with hands and feet if they used ai or not
The “prompt-writing” experience is suited to people who enjoy programming, so it’s people who are not visually creative trying to visualise. So AI is a barrier to consistent realisation of ideas.
at 1:25:25 , i wanna see that video about faking the art process. does anyone know the source??? i want my friends to be aware of such monstrosity. thanks in advance
So apparently the process is not entirely AI, but you can see it goes back and forth and then there is some cleaning up and fixes like the hand and all that.
I don't consider AI art real art made by real artists. Even when incorporated into workflow, you become an editor. I always drop anyone or thing once I learn has incorporated it.
Why, though, should the mere incorporation of the technology as a piece of the puzzle lead to that conclusion (and let's say it is valid, you'd actually do that without consideration of how small or big a piece of the puzzle it is)? IMO that seems rather over the top levels of pretentious, especially since editing is definitely something that happens in many artistic mediums (even digital art).
@Gondor avalon squares and rectangles. A software engineer can do what a game dev major can do but not necessarily vice versa. A photo basher is technically familiar with software like photoshop but can't necessarily illustrate a character while the opposite may be true. Were I to write an essay and hand it to you to check, you didn't write that essay. You can't take credit. An art teacher may be actually mediocre but well versed in theory and techniques. It's certainly a tool but one that is so powerful that it invalidates a lot of the process by virtue of skipping steps. It's like if you took a picture of your generic breakfast on your cellphone I wouldn't really care to look, and everyone has done it. Meanwhile if someone painted that same breakfast it's more impressive. I can't remember his name but there was this short basketball player on the Bulls a few years back who played very well. He stood out because he was amongst others who were taller. It was understood that his average height made his feats greater. If you roller blade during a marathon you'll win but it's not really going to be considered impressive compared to everyone who's running. Rollerblades are cool, but ought to be relegated to leisure or their own rollerblade race, and when someone claims they're super fast and beat this marathon in record time while neglecting to mention they used rollerblades, they suck. I guess another example would be armchair socialists and activist journalists who come from wealth lol anyway the point is that this isn't the same as any other tool. It's a different caliber, one so impressive a feat that it merits to be put in another box.
You're the one giving the ai the work you made or the influences you wanna use. Influences and styles are not copyrighted because everybody is influenced someone. Copyright on artistic style is very hard to prove if not impossible. Also it wasn't a problem before so why is it now a problem.
I don't know I played with stable diffusion I felt it was just a tool. I also learned it doesn't matter what art they fed it if you really want to reproduce a style of art you can do it just like an artist can copy another artist but it will never be the original artists art. We've all seen the the works as the greatest masters throughout time portrayed as cartoon characters, that's what I feel this is oh and cute anime style Asian girls 2D, 3D, or realistic,.
was the image she saw. superman vs godzilla in the style of jack kirby? that was an entire 14 page comic i created in an hr to warn artists about what was coming. ;) if so im glad to see it had its affect. good discussion. btw- im 35 years into CGI as a designer and one of the first to use early cg tools for concept design. BUT those tools, were NOT creating the designs for me;) late 80s.
27:50 Wow just throwing us 3D artists under the bus there. So protection from AI only applies to your precious drawings, but 3d models? Nah who gives a crap about that it's just some nerds pushing buttons anyway. I've seen other 2D artists do this multiple times in AI discussions where they seemingly don't think 3D modeling is made by actual artists. Do they think it's "generated" because of the term CGI? lmao.
I can use 3d but if I were to need 3d modellings I would hier a 3d artist. 3d modelling is way more than just applying booleans or appying modifiers. Plus the best work comes from cooperation and this is a diruption for all creatives. We should stand together.
i think the intend of the example was to do a quick block in 3d, per say you get a city in and the ai helps you seeing the drawing and blocking simple cubes, so now you can skip the part of you going through the process of doing that blocking for youself, thats something you would never pay a 3d artist for. its for you to get the perspective right.
She did say ethically. And I agree Marek Tarnawski I don't think she thought it through. She might have even been thinking about form a perspective where she designs her character in 2d but instead of her modeling it in 3d she would get A.I. to do it. I don't think she was intending for it to replace in you in your workplace I think she was mainly thinking about herself doing the work. A lot of 2d artist are 3d artist too. But I agree I want the AI landscape to be fair for all artists.
I also don't think she said that with that intent. I'm really sorry if some 2d artists have that idea, but I don't think is the majority (may be wrong though, but working on teams with 3d artists, and really loving 3d art, it seems weird to me that 2d artists in general would think that way)
good point about user = data. the tech world has been harvesting and brokering everyone's data under the hood of every app and hardware we interact with that we sign over when agreeing to terms of use without seeing a dime of those profits. it makes sense (and dollars) that this is the next iteration of that.
1:04:50 As someone is who adores AI Art and has been using it for over a year to help me get through some difficult things this is the thing that has been breaking me. I disagree with a lot of what artists say about AI Art but something i’m passionate about is symbiotic relationships. Working hard to find ways for AI to not take from artists but instead find ways to benefit them. Been taking a break from AI until we figure it out. I think it’s possible if we are willing to work together 🙃
As an artist I think it’s okay for you to make ai art, if creating with ai makes you happy then do so, the problem is not you it’s the company making it that disrupted the whole art institution without compensation
I used to love doing art but the field is problematic and now with AI added im more discouraged than ever. I get that it’s life, everything will be automated but I didn’t think it would happen this fast or impact us this much.
9:30 -ish. I thought I heard someone say "architects". Is that a thing? Have you all only encountered architects who are that type of pro-AI, thinking "artists are luddites" -kind of people? I've graduated from architecture school 3 years ago. I've never once met someone in this industry thinking how they can profit off of AI, pretending to be artists overnight or thinking any less about fellow creatives. I've studied in Europe where architecture school means you go through art history classes too, not just the tech ones - it's as much a liberal college curriculum as it is technical and specialised for architectural projects, of course. Some are more specialised, I'm thinking the Technische Universitäten, for example, but most of the big ones usually encompass both aspects of the career. Before jumping into architecture, most of my peers have dabbled with rigurous anatomy study drawings, comic books, portraiture or other figurative or conceptual work with, as far as I can tell, a great deal of understanding of the craft, traditional and digital, and the iconography, semiotics, lives of artists, historical contexts, materials and great respect towards their favoured artists. I've had these discussions with various peers. In architecture, generated images through MLA could only be used if you already have the concept in mind and would like to run through more iterations ... maybe... alongside the many ways to use generative design... at most. Even the best midjourney-type algorithms out there, at the moment I'm writing this, can't keep one perspective grid throughout the entire image. They mix and match perspectives with different horizon lines and you get M. C. Escher type illusions, therefore not a useful representation of anything. I think there are other algorithms more useful than this - like denoising an image when you would've like it to have a higher resolution but your cheap student graphics card can't help ya. Sure, they might be fun toys to play around with - if you somehow miss the lawsuits regarding copyright and unethical scraping behind them, pretending to "democratize" while seemingly planning to be a monopoly on who gets what and for how much. I dare to say architects who believe this is anything more than a gimmick, or even actively trying to make a bigger deal about it, aren't serious about their work.
The most ironic part about the AI art community is that the same people who will say how art doesn't have any value and how they should be able to take other people's work and do with it whatever they want see their own AI creations as valuable and even go as far as wanting to copyright AI prompts.
I completelly understood your point, guy with the hat, around min 33. Because you weren't talking about the A R T I S T S creating cheap art, you were talking about some R A N D O M like me or any non-artist creating cheap art quick, instead of hiring someone for example. I loved everyone here, but not sure why your point was being almost "refuted". What you said is clearly basically the main problem and the base of what is happening-"it''s easy for anyone to go now and create something with AI to have it cheap and easy"-using a data-base that learns from your work!
The way I view this debate on AI art is that the machines will only be as good as the art database you input into them, and so far unable to produce anything original as they are constricted to produce from art that already exists, essentially killing creativity! I think a human touch will always be needed to create innovation and once copyright regulations come into play and companies cannot steal artist’s work and profit from them, AI generated art will become just a tool to generate a base layer of ideas/concepts.
Is it really worth attacking the fundational models (AI) basing the law on IP ? What will happen in 20-30 years? will the IP expires in the future and destroy all the artistic industries ? aren't we extremly short sighted in our vision ? We should think about the future and the upcoming artists. We should create some limits that totally stop this corporative beast, as Fenrir the wolf-god of chaos and evil if he doesn't remain chained for eternity it will grow until the world will be devoured.
There should be official laws protecting creators' rights in this situation. What is happening is morally wrong. The courts have been slow to address this issue. Everyone knew that AI was coming, and it is now accessible to everyone. I believe that soon people will understand, and laws will change. The truth is that without the works of artists and writers, AI would not be able to operate as it does now. Therefore, using the work of other people for free and without their consent will have to be addressed and charged.
there is no such thing as art. there is art value. Either things have art value or they don't. It's up to each person to decide what has art value for themselves.
Generally I agree with you on everything except one point. I think If AI leads to no more porn being made and all these "actors" losing their jobs, then that's the best thing that can happen- for them actually. Morally speaking, AI is still better than any form of sex work. So far at least.
if you really dive deep into Ai art and all the programs and plugins coming out it's pretty insane i was blown away with what i could create, i do photography as a side gig i can take my client's photos and turn them into whatever. you can take boring pics and transform them into cinematic masterpieces with just a prompt and a bit of knowledge of making all the plugins and models work together. i really don't think there's any stopping it, Ai will take over for sure, i say use it to your advantage and learn it now. but I understand how they feel at the same time, i could see it coming down to how the music industry handles copyright, by using licensing. people would have to pay an artist to obtain their license to use their artwork to train ai models or if their art is used in an unlicensed medium any profit made from the medium would go to the artist that created it.
These people are clueless what really is happening.. AI is so much more scarier than they think, it will change every aspect of human life. Only the aspect of AI art is getting better exponentially every month. The idea of regulation and new laws are naive, Pandora's box has been opened and won't be closed.
After just watching a podcast with Eliezer Yukdowsky this discussion feels almost a bit naive. Like you guys have no idea whatsoever what’s coming next. I think even if Yukdowsky was wrong with his apocalyptic predictions, I think we artists will keep getting blindsided by our ignorance regarding AI. I wouldn’t be surprised if in some years when we have achieved AGI (and it didn’t kill us) we can generate entire Hollywood quality movies and tv shows or triple a games with a simple prompt… at this point there won’t be any jobs anymore in the field. But I hope some of us will continue doing art anyway
Typically other countries follow US or British copyright law. The danger isn’t having different countries coming up with different laws. Countries will defer to whichever superpower uses the world reserve currency with something this huge. The issue is the US Supreme Court specifically. If it goes to the high court I fear artists may lose bc the US Supreme Court is currently an activist, anti labor body
The EU does not follow US or British law at all. I think you'll find mainland Europe has much much better protections for citizens, consumers and workers than the US or post-Brexit UK. Already right now, even in the absence of any new laws, most of these AI models are violating existing privacy laws like GDPR and would need to be retrained from scratch to be legal here. ChatGPT was just banned in Italy over privacy concerns and is under further investigation.
This debate isn't about art, it's about jobs and earning potential. Fair enough. Human artists will adapt to the challenge. They always do. Looking forward to a new age in human creativity things have become a bit stale anyway. This is the kick up the arse "real artists" needed. The last interesting period in modern art was the 70's and 80's NY transit graffiti artists. That's 50 - 40 years ago.
7 fingers? man this is old already. i am photographer and with digital technologies and later instagram and social media in general our work is worth very little. you guys really think the corporations will not replace us and save the money? thats really naive.
Thanks for the warm responses everyone! Let me know if you want to see more of this :) !
I want to see more of this! :D
Dear Danar thank you for this great gathering.
Undoubtedly there are many people who will love to hear the opinion of other artist who are not very fond of AI.
So please make more if its possible.
I definitely appreciated this. So many good points were brought up by a very good variety of voices.
Thanks Danar for this 😊
Yes we do! 🙌🏼
The future we wanted was AI and robots liberating us from the manual labour and monetary systems while we all wrote poetry and painted. Instead the AI is writing poetry and painting for the profit of tech bros while we struggle to find work.
Bro I'm crying at that comment. This sucks.
Never forget that AI image generation is nothing without all the artists it stands on
@@homiespaghetti1522yep
Honestly it looks like cyberpunk was the future not utopia
Well said - concise and true.
It gives me some hope seeing all these great people speak up for art and creativity. I felt hopeless reading all those horrible takes from the AI dudes on Twitter...
It's not going to stop & that's good
I stopped drawing and making art entirely 6 months ago after I saw the initial boom of AI art online. I watched this today, and drew for the first time since November. So thank you for that.
I hope to see more long conversations like this from artists and other people working in the industry on the topic of AI.
Man I quit around november..thought it was just a break, but I felt like it was useless..you want to share your work with the world but when you scroll through Instagram or whatever it's like how the hell am I going to capture any attention unless I'm a shameless technophile pouring more energy into promotion than creation..and BTW ai art is nothing like human art..it's boring and too shiny and clean, no heart, no grit, no real experience or revelation to draw from..it just amalgamates/ steals ideas from humans..no comparison..its completely obviously not as "good"...
@@avrfineart unfortunately ive seen ai art that fooled me into thinking it was manmade because it used a cartoony and expressive style. Probably was trained on a different data set
@@tigerfestivals5137 no it’s just that more creative people use more complex prompts to generate more creative stuff.
@@oo--7714 Your ideas can be creative but AI isn't, and the AI is the one doing the pictures. The only reason AI can resemble creativity is because it's regurgitating creative art. Typing an artists name or a style or a technique doesn't make AI imagery creative. It all just boils down to all the artists in the training data who were not just robbed but not even acknowledged.
@@androsusnjara Your ideas can be creative, but your photography is not art. It's the machine making the picture.
All creatives need to stand together. For a short while they still need us, and we have power. We must wield it wisely. The more of us stand, the more united our front, the harder it will be for them to push this stuff through.
We are already having an effect as discussed in the video. Keep it up.
They will always need us as long as they use these models of AI because they are just sophisticated averaging algorithms. Without our art fed into them they are nothing, they have no dataset.
Great discussion.
To artists art is a verb, to everyone else it is a noun, a thing, an end result. A non artist brain can't understand the difference because it's been trained differently. We need to find a way to make them understand.
Well, in a democratic society, the masses would decide. So I guess art as a noun is the "real" definition. Nothing against artists, but for most people art is something pretty or provocative to look at. It doesn't matter where the image comes from.
@@waltlock8805 the accuracy of a definition is not normally judged by the quantity of people who understand it. Though I think both can kind of be true, and the opinion of the consumers of art also of course matters, I'd say even consumers process art in ways other than as a thing. Even if they aren't conscious of it. I'd also say it's one of the things that makes us human, and that it's a thing meant to be shared between humans.
Answers on a postcode, who is best equipped as custodian of art for humanity a. artists. b. tech company CEOs.
Society would be wise to listen to the opinion of artists on the subject of art. It would be the highest hubris to ignore them.
I'd listen to a heart surgeon if they told me I was making a common conceptual error in my understanding of the heart. Especially if a tech CEO had just roused a legion of us with the promise of becoming heart surgeons.
@@Edinburghdreams When you (and other artists) start bringing religion into the mix you lose people. What makes us human is the DNA in our chromosomes. We are not the only artistic animals (birds are some of the most artistic).
"Fine" art will probably always exist. Art for sale though is judged on being "fit for purpose". The process and effort required doesn't matter (so long as it can be produced for an acceptable cost).
@@waltlock8805 who brought religion in, lol. I'm an atheist. Where the hell did that come from 😂.
@@Edinburghdreams When you say "one of the things that makes us human", that is a religious statement. Science tells us what makes us human, and art isn't part of that.
The amount of entitlement to cheaply made quick art issue was a bit surprising for me too! I’m so glad you brought that up. I didn’t see that written about anywhere. Almost like jealous or feeling like they shouldn’t have to make any effort to make good work or have access to it. We aren’t gatekeepers as artists. Not everyone wants to make art or cares to make it. That’s a choice. It’s not on us. It’s not easy and yes theres more to it than just making petty images. People have already been using artists, they don’t value it. The us culture clearly doesn’t really value art on some level and doesn’t feel we should make a living doing it. Great talk on this. Thank you!
im an even bigger fan of loish after listening to her talk about the subject. artists unite!!!
Artists unite? It isn't about artists, it's about giving every individual on Earth the capability to express themselves and experience novel things without having to rely on other people, most cannot even afford to hire an artists to draw their dreams and what not, AI can solve these issues, it is literally democratizing everything. AI is God in the making.
im at the point with all this where i dont even know if your infact a bot or you constructed this response using chat gpt. strange times.
@@Danuxsy i see you on every pro ai channel but let me tell you something. You will be dependant on Midjourney and dall-e 2, stable diffusion and the others... And once nobody know how to paint anymore by themselve, they will up the price, stable diffusion will be sold or banned one way or the other. And only the richest of the rich will be able to pay to be able to make art. on the other side, you can find free paper just by asking company if they got some paper to spare. and free crayons by going to ikea. nothing is stopping you from putting in the effort. don't lie. nobody and no one is stopping you except yourself.
@@BrgArt lame response, I'm not going to spend years to learn how to draw lmao
@@Danuxsy Art has always been democratized. Pick up a pencil and start to draw, no is stopping anyone. If you dont learn how to draw/paint, you wont uderstand how the fundamental theories and laws of light/shadow of nature make a picture work, or a character/environment design work. I see so many regular people think that their AI generated picuture is "good", but I see all the flaws in it. When an experienced artist uses AI, the results are better (maybe they are touching it up too idk). As of now, there are so many low quality AI generated art on the internet that greatly outnumber the quality art. Once they get fed back into new models via data scrapping, its going to create a negative feedback loop and compound all the flaws that AI art already have. To add to that, artists are not uploading their art anymore, people are adding unrelated tags to try trick the AI, people are creating things like Glaze. I think AI art is going to stagnate and maybe regress. Till this day, I still cant get a fully figured character design with good anatomy, functional and consistant costumes and props.
When you're a small shy kid.. the greatest compliment you could get was the talent comment from someone. Fast forward through the cursing, chair kicking brush throwing, and self deprication "why me God!!??" years .where the tally of levelling up costs oh about 500 mistakes. So now. You're exactly right. I realize that "talent" is the last term that could be used to define a life grappling with trying to get better at making my art. What is talent in terms of art? I ask myself.. increasing your skills isn't talent you're turning your desire to create into a skill right? Bc you worked for it, Not a single Master of ANY ART , OR ANYTHING ever was simply born having the ability to create greatness. Some learn faster, some have more resources earlier, Some go through life completely unaware of anything except what transpires in their head. But I think regardless of the differing paths we all take to our current ability.. None of us can say we didn't work for it. Great topics here for thought . Many thanks.
As a student From my side I want to work on my art to get better and learn the fundamentals better and from the basics to develop myself step by step with my failures
Coming back to this 3 weeks later. This Ai stuff is insane. I can see why so many feel discouraged or angry. This is insane and they happily call themselves artists.. from writing prompts!
Why couldn’t people using prompts be considered artists. I don’t know I like that kind of gatekeeping. I would be sad if someone said I’m not an artist because I have control Z or I flood an area instantly at one time, or I’m not mixing my paints. No one cared about AI and supported it until it came after their money.
@@MrSkullface It’s not an argument against digital artists it’s an argument against typing words into a prompt and AI generates it for you. So the human touch is gone, traditional or digital. That’s why people are mad because the human touch of art what makes art special is being replaced. So it’s not art and you’re not an artist if you just type stuff into a machine and it poops it out for you. Learn to draw. That’s all I can say. And yes, people are angry because their hard work and years of discipline are being spat on by toddlers who don’t want to put in the same work and effort. So yeah I’d be pissed off too, like who do you think you are? Pick up a pencil and get to work already.
@@xmaryHXCx in the end I don’t know I still like the idea of who can dictate how art is made. So many things in production are procedurally generated, color comps with simple hue shifts, who’s to say that writing text and getting art from it isn’t art, that’s how some of the most iconic cg in film and games was made, pure code. Is writing a book not art? Is there no human touch that goes into the prompts? Can anyone with a pencil scribble anything with a pencil and just call it art? Imagine if someone told the FX artists on Tron wasn’t real art. I say keep art free and access able to everyone, censoring how art is made is a slippery slope.
@@MrSkullface you’re correct in the sense of what most of what you just described is art. But AI is not art plain and simple so I don’t see the point of your statement? I guess if it was an argument against modern art vs traditional vs digital and etc then yeah there’s a discussion to be had but I guess that’s where you and I differ, because you see AI as art as I myself, do not. So therefore I can’t dispute with you sorry, let’s just agree to disagree from here. No ill will. :)
@@xmaryHXCx right on! I’m glad we could have a conversation about it.
Danar,
I hope you continue this discussion either round-table style or 1-on-1's. Found this interview through Artstation. Such a relief to hear actual professionals give their honest opinion on AI and its impacts. I've subscribed and look forward to following you in the future!
I've personally used through DALE, StableDiffusion, MidJourney 2022-2023. Personal use only. I am amazed by the pace of the development.
I have a BFA in Graphic Design, Illustrate part-time, dabble in 3D. I want AI to succeed but not at the cost of my creative career.
Spiridon makes justified points from the position of a publisher (relatable from a graphic design perspective). His logic towards cost and creative direction carry wisdom (not all sunshine and roses). Lois and Eva give really strong arguments to creative copyrighting and safe practices. Aurelien's point about AI as a catalyst for evolving creativity (around 1:09:00) is my hope. His reservation in incorporating it into his courses, I agree 100%. AI doesn't replace the traditional experience of learning, certainly not an experienced professional.
Her, Black Mirror, Blade Runner 2049, iRobot, ExMachina, WALLE, Ready Player One, 2001 Space Odyssey...(insert you own), we have fictional stories that try to show our flaws and the struggle of the human condition. AI may make it easier but "The Great Discontent" will not go away. AI is here to stay, we need more human conversation like this, to better understand who we are and who we want to become. Support artists if you support creative work. If AI is in your toolbox, have some ethics, be transparent. Art is bigger than this, have courage, keep learning, keep creating.
my brother is studying art and he wants to work in this industry and i really dont want A.i to stop him from achieving what he wants or to even take his chance to shine. and to express himself and ideas neither stops him from contributing to this industry in anyways. it hurts me to see corps trying to benefit of this. and not thinking of their artists which without them .their games wouldnt be even out there.
personally, i think this will keep on evolving. and will for sure hurt us all if it didnt get regulated. but till then i wonder how many people will lose their jobs / contribution to this industry.
Love hearing Spiridon speak with such passion and conviction.
For me even if there could be ways to use it ethically, I'll simply never touch generative ai. I've chosen to learn art for many reasons and taking shortcuts has never been any part of it. In fact I love all the struggle I've gone trough to get to where I am right now (not to say that my art is great, but I love what I do because of the years I've devoted to learning). I've had to push through burn outs, I've had to pull allnighters to meet deadlines and so on and I wouldn't change any of it.
Changes can be made to improve the industry, but it's largely on the side of the companies - crunch, salaries and etc. Basically what Danar's saying at 56 mins.
And on yet another note - those are some fascinating shoes haha :D
Why wouldn't you touch generative AI? Sounds like you're an xenophobe with human bias, there are plenty of great artists utilizing AI in their workflows to make unique ideas come to life.
Thanks Danny!
thought the same way, i absolutely detest(ed) AI. But adam duff of lucidpixul actually has a great video on how we can use it ethically and benefit from it at least a little istead of only being exploited. Bc why should everyone else benefit from artists being exploied but not artists?
I think its ethical if used as a referencing/research tool. Ive tried that lately, basically using MJ like i would google images, and actually found it somewhat useful. Its super hard to get what you want, but the process of putting into words what exactly you have in your head can help to school your artistic vocabulary and the bridge between visual library and vocabulary. I think thats quite a good teaching tool. Only downstide to that is maybe that you feed the monster a lot of data, but i suppose you can always throw a few wrenches in there from time to time to offset that.
right. Its not just the copyright theft. Ai is unethical at its core, by design, in what it does. Its not just the copyright issue
Loish is so smart she has a pretty good and mature understating of the topic , i had a change to meet her in person in light-box this past year, she is so cool!
"the deeper problem is not A.I., but I.A.--Industrialized Art" - Jake Parker
Thanks for a great and much needed discussion in these crazy times. As a graphic designer I think we all need to double down on (human) hand made art if we want to remain creative, which is so much related to manual skills and being in the zone, not coming up with cool prompts.
Steven Zapata posted a link to this video on his community section am glad he did that's how i found it :)
I'm glad to hear other artist's opinions. Let's not forget as well that they don't just train them with "stolen images" they also use cheap labour to moderate the AI's such as ChatGPT using Kenyan workers paid 2$...
Yes! We are very aware of that situation :(
Good on you for putting this video out. This is the first video I’ve seen discussing AI with a round table of artist. Brilliant format, great points were made. 👌🏾
I so loved this discussion! Thank you so so much for all getting together and voicing many of my own concerns and opinions.
Was my absolute pleasure you great human
Loved this talk, I thought the big following of Loish would storm this (in a good way) I'm surprised it hasn't grown faster. More people need to see this, specially young artists.
I disagree, it isn't about capitalism or making profit as an artist, AI is about democratizing everything so that each one of us can create and experience the things we want without limitations like money, talent or time. As long as we depend on other people creating these things for us we are never going to be able to truly express ourselves in the ways we want, this is simply a fact.
@@Danuxsy What you say about AI would _maybe_ be valid if it were only art at stake. Look at the bigger picture -- ALL white-collar jobs are on the line. What's the point of getting free art as a regular person, if you end up being unable to pay rent? Artists aren't your enemy. Artists are banding together because they realise how much they depend on each other and their allies.
@@CRT_sRGB The economy will have to change to accomodate this new reality we find ourselves in, simple as that.
@@Danuxsy Easier said than done.
@@CRT_sRGB Technology such as AI will force it to happen as people start losing their jobs in the millions.
Thanks for putting this out! Appreciate the conversation.
Thank you for this wonderful discussion. I'm not a digital artist, but I've been working in pen and ink as a fine art illustrator for over 50 years. I had been scanning and digitizing my art for my website gallery, but recently stopped doing so and removed all my work from the internet because I do not wish to have my work "harvested" by AI. I personally do not believe AI is creating art. It is machine generated imagery made of the stolen intellectual property of others. Just like "alternative facts" are not facts and do not exist, calling what is being generated by these machines "art" does not make it art and does not make the people engaging in it "artists." What I find sickening and appalling is a few so-called "online artists and art instructors" now telling their followers to "adapt" and use AI. Basically, they are instructing their students to not only disrespect fellow artists, but blatantly steal the work of others. It smells like desperation and pandering to me. I will NEVER "adapt" to having my work stolen.
Well said. It’s fucked from the start because the very foundation AI stands on, is stolen.
They are tools to create. These gatekeeper snobs are scared to become irrelevant and are scared to not have a chance in the creation market when imagination and creating gets democritized for everyone.
It's not about copyright. Copyright law already covers their work. They want to ban the technology.
Loish is actually really smart. I'm impressed. Also she speaks with a lot of experience D:
Lois is so ELOQUENT! We love you Lois! Such an inspiration.
Great talk, is nice to hear what 5 top artists think about it. Ai is a bit scary, I hope artists doesn't end without job.
F all the AI that serves no one but the top 1% on the expanse of every creative individual! If we're living in the final days of art, let's show how much it is worth! I have a pair of eyes on my portrait to repaint, have a nice and productive day, everyone!
This was really well put, thank you for putting yourselves out for this conversation!! Artists uniting is the one good thing that has come out of all this.
As a person doing AI (not related to images).I think if no research datasets exist it will be only huge corporation who have all the power. Adobe, Google, Microsoft.
I'm not sure what you mean. Can you elaborate on that stance? There are plenty of datasets collected for research purposes, as far as I know. The core issue with datasets like those created by LAION, is that they essentially seem like corporate puppets masking as a research facility, and their datasets have been used by A.I. companies to create products for commercial profit, which is an absolute no go.
The biggest problem with AI will be that humanity will simply become more and more stupid. If we just take what AI gives us, more and more will forget to think creatively for themselves. The good thing at the moment is that many publishers and studios I know are pulling out of AI because it has no copyright. And they're getting into a legal zone where the work doesn't belong to them anymore.
That's what I think.
Thank you for this informative episode, Kak Danar. It is confusing times for artists and to get the insights of seasoned professionals like yourself and your guests is comforting. Keep up the good work! Zor Supas
Great talk! I would love to hear people of Open AI or other AI Companys in this kind of scenario too. Maybe you can also invite Carla Ortiz bc I would love how the lawsuit is going rn.
Really great talk, thank you all for this conversation!
I really needed to watch and hear more creator voices in these debate,specially in the graphic design side since I had seen too much propaganda for imitative AI. Thanks for sharing ❤
I think each time AI uses the work of an artists or writer it should pay for each illustration/text used to the artist/writer and inform the user about the references that were used. This is the only fair way of moderately happy artists coexist with AI. Let's fight for this to happen!
the only way to do that is to give everyone in the dataset a equal amount of mony
and inform the user about every image in the dataset
otherwise that's impossible
@@Eren_Yeager_is_the_GOAT Another way would creating a image package artist could sell, but I am not sure if that would be possible
@@henriquemedranosilva7142 if you mean that they get paid when they enter the dataset but not when an image is generated yes that's theoreticly possible
lovely and enjoyable conversation, i share your views! Thanks for keeping me company while i was drawing :)
I wish more people could watch this video and bring more conversations like this around the internet. I'm particularly concerned for japanese and chinese art industry situation, it looks horrible from what i could grasp.. I wish they could join our fight.
Really cool concept Danar (no puns intended ). It's always interesting to see differents points of view from various actors in the industry :)
it was a fun pun though
Loved this and I'd love to see you guys cover other topics as well. Very chill and a great listen during work :)
Great talk!! Thanks for that! Very interesting hearing everybody’s perspectives
Engaged since the beginning! I hear them talking about Ethiopia in the beginning a bit but somehow missed that part in the discussion? Did I just not hear it or was it left out? Really amazing discussion nevertheless~ loved how valid Loish' points were!
Really cool video ! i'm really glad to hear people with extensive experience in the field talking about this. In the end we always end up with a problem of responsible freedom.
you guys rocks :)! keep it up Danar!
i really appreciate your initiative and for raising awareness with these talks.
the boulder started rolling, i hope it crashes sooner, rather than later.
Good discussion. Something that I think didn't get talked about enough though is the extent to which these AI models are *already* breaking the law, even without new legislation specifically for generative AI. In the EU (under GDPR) you absolutely CANNOT mass collect and misuse private data, so any AI model that contains things like medical records, drivers licenses etc (as these models do) is very much _not legal_ .... They apparently also contain straight-up illegal content that has to be manually filtered (by traumatized underpaid outsource workers) to avoid showing up in results. And that's not even getting into all the copyright issues! Until they fully sort out the legality of training AI, these tools cannot be used commercially in any way. _You do not own the output._ They need to be retrained from scratch *exclusively* on public domain and licensed work.
There are AI companies scraping personal data and photos from Facebook and selling it to police stations for facial recognition tech :(
Those are hardly difficult things to remove if it ever becomes important to do so. And these models don't save that information in any usable form - which means that normal copyright laws don't apply.
@@Leto2ndAtreides it saves it in the usable form of mathematical abstraction. it breaks plenty of copyright laws. for example, the terms of use of the copyrighted images it has fed into it.
and sure it might not be hard to remove. but you wouldn't know that from the crying and handwringing about how impossible it is to untrain the models that their creators are doing.
@@Leto2ndAtreides "If it ever becomes important"... it is important _right now_ as it is *illegal.* This material is clearly NOT "easy to remove" and simply _should never have been included in the training data in the first place._ Research has shown (eg "Extracting Training Data from Diffusion Models" and "Diffusion Art or Digital Forgery") that much of this data is contained in these AIs in a directly reproducible form near-identical to the source data, so the notion that AI "does not store" things is also a LIE. They need to retrain these models FROM SCRATCH.
So the genie is out of the bottle and likely impossible to stop. Anything digital will be “scraped” and fed into the machine to be reprocessed. Ironically, I think good original art produced with the hand, eye, heart may increase in value and appreciation ( for those willing to pay). Ai is redefining the term “artist” so there’s much confusion. The only way to limit ai is to only allow credited and paid for datasets for the algorithms to use.
AI art has become a really compelling conversation. FWIW, none of what's written below is meant disrespectfully.
I think the question of intellectual property is a meaningful one. An AI engine that reads a copyrighted image and uses it to generate a new image is deriving art from an existing piece. In a sense, art is already a derivative process; stories and images inspire future stories and images. Philosophically, a person painting a picture based on other paintings they've seen is similar to an AI doing that. The difference is that the AI makes a picture that lacks the human touch, but that's an abstract concept that's arbitrarily defined.
As for the photography question, I find it to be a very good comparison. The parallels are definitely there, and while there are also differences, I don't think they invalidate things. I think AI art can definitely exist alongside human-made art in the same way that photography and painting can coexist.
Some amount of regulation is probably a good idea, though - especially if artists are dissatisfied with how their creations are used. I'd forgive the AI databases that predate those regulations as their "crimes" were committed in a "gray area," before they were "crimes."
Ultimately, I think my opinion on AI art leans fairly positive, but I do want it to be regulated. While I guess I don't agree on everything discussed, I can appreciate art and I definitely appreciate the conversation this video has driven.
Great and fair discussion. Also super jealous (but happy for you all) of this social circle.
it was a very interesting talk, thanks all for that !
I love this format and thank you for offering it to us :)
really nice talk! loved it! :)
Interesting panel here! Tuning in
Nobody is replacing Loish 😆
1:32:38 Sadly it looks like Kickstarter didn't do squat. They're allowing comicbooks with AI generated artwork now... ;(
I am monitoring this closely and yes, they do absolutely nothing.
@@Spiridude yeah, and when I report a project for using ai artwork they just say it doesn't violate their rights or policy. So unless more people start talking about this, I'm afraid it's just gonna happening more and more...
I already know of a production from a big studio, using AI to make character designs, they didn't hire any character designers. Maybe they will hire some later. Oh well I hope my instincts are right and this industry will survive/adapt.
This is the kind of situation where we question ourselves and embrace the outcomes. While artists may have initially expressed concerns about the impact on art, it's time to acknowledge that even someone without knowledge of color and dye can create exceptional art or draw using AI. The ship has already sailed, and it is essential for us to accept this reality and utilize AI to produce improved pictures or drawings.
Hi everyone, I'm here to see Loish.
One of the main things that differentiate humans from animals is that we are creators, thinkers, and great problem solvers, if we leave creativity to artificial intelligence what makes us different? already A.i is being used for not just 2D art but 3D art and animation. If the data it uses creates realistic motion for robots, with human voices generated by A.i will there become a point where we cannot tell the difference from human and robot? What is the result of that. If humans become too comfortable with using A.I it will dumb down society, A.I could see humans as redundant. A.I is already smarter than any human, it has access to every part of the internet. This may sound far fetched but the most recent robots are using this pipeline. This isn't far in the future, it's happening already. We have all seen the films and have been warned. We must legislate properly and control how art and data humans create is used before it gets out of hand. There's a reason why lots of these A.I systems are free and its not because these companies are being generous. Applying long term thinking to this is vital. I'm really happy to hear artists speaking out about this, it gives me hope that the public will make the right decisions .
Great video, one big thing I hate about the ai is that it's messing up hands. But hands and feet are already hard for Artists to completely nail. So it's almost like it's methodically not being able to do hands to force accusations against the artists who struggle with hands and feet if they used ai or not
Really cool conversation
The “prompt-writing” experience is suited to people who enjoy programming, so it’s people who are not visually creative trying to visualise. So AI is a barrier to consistent realisation of ideas.
veeeeery interesting and competent conversation
at 1:25:25 , i wanna see that video about faking the art process. does anyone know the source??? i want my friends to be aware of such monstrosity.
thanks in advance
So apparently the process is not entirely AI, but you can see it goes back and forth and then there is some cleaning up and fixes like the hand and all that.
@@Spiridude do you have a link for that source? im still curious.
@@bluemoon8886 sorry i tried multiple times and UA-cam doesn't let me, not even a portion of the link
@@Spiridude what can i search to find it on google? headline or something
I don't consider AI art real art made by real artists. Even when incorporated into workflow, you become an editor. I always drop anyone or thing once I learn has incorporated it.
Why, though, should the mere incorporation of the technology as a piece of the puzzle lead to that conclusion (and let's say it is valid, you'd actually do that without consideration of how small or big a piece of the puzzle it is)? IMO that seems rather over the top levels of pretentious, especially since editing is definitely something that happens in many artistic mediums (even digital art).
@Gondor avalon squares and rectangles. A software engineer can do what a game dev major can do but not necessarily vice versa. A photo basher is technically familiar with software like photoshop but can't necessarily illustrate a character while the opposite may be true. Were I to write an essay and hand it to you to check, you didn't write that essay. You can't take credit. An art teacher may be actually mediocre but well versed in theory and techniques. It's certainly a tool but one that is so powerful that it invalidates a lot of the process by virtue of skipping steps. It's like if you took a picture of your generic breakfast on your cellphone I wouldn't really care to look, and everyone has done it. Meanwhile if someone painted that same breakfast it's more impressive. I can't remember his name but there was this short basketball player on the Bulls a few years back who played very well. He stood out because he was amongst others who were taller. It was understood that his average height made his feats greater. If you roller blade during a marathon you'll win but it's not really going to be considered impressive compared to everyone who's running. Rollerblades are cool, but ought to be relegated to leisure or their own rollerblade race, and when someone claims they're super fast and beat this marathon in record time while neglecting to mention they used rollerblades, they suck. I guess another example would be armchair socialists and activist journalists who come from wealth lol anyway the point is that this isn't the same as any other tool. It's a different caliber, one so impressive a feat that it merits to be put in another box.
You're the one giving the ai the work you made or the influences you wanna use. Influences and styles are not copyrighted because everybody is influenced someone. Copyright on artistic style is very hard to prove if not impossible. Also it wasn't a problem before so why is it now a problem.
Interesting talk
I don't know I played with stable diffusion I felt it was just a tool. I also learned it doesn't matter what art they fed it if you really want to reproduce a style of art you can do it just like an artist can copy another artist but it will never be the original artists art. We've all seen the the works as the greatest masters throughout time portrayed as cartoon characters, that's what I feel this is oh and cute anime style Asian girls 2D, 3D, or realistic,.
was the image she saw. superman vs godzilla in the style of jack kirby? that was an entire 14 page comic i created in an hr to warn artists about what was coming. ;) if so im glad to see it had its affect. good discussion. btw- im 35 years into CGI as a designer and one of the first to use early cg tools for concept design. BUT those tools, were NOT creating the designs for me;) late 80s.
27:50 Wow just throwing us 3D artists under the bus there. So protection from AI only applies to your precious drawings, but 3d models? Nah who gives a crap about that it's just some nerds pushing buttons anyway.
I've seen other 2D artists do this multiple times in AI discussions where they seemingly don't think 3D modeling is made by actual artists. Do they think it's "generated" because of the term CGI? lmao.
I don't think this was purposeful. I think she just didn't reflect on this enough.
I can use 3d but if I were to need 3d modellings I would hier a 3d artist. 3d modelling is way more than just applying booleans or appying modifiers. Plus the best work comes from cooperation and this is a diruption for all creatives. We should stand together.
i think the intend of the example was to do a quick block in 3d, per say you get a city in and the ai helps you seeing the drawing and blocking simple cubes, so now you can skip the part of you going through the process of doing that blocking for youself, thats something you would never pay a 3d artist for. its for you to get the perspective right.
She did say ethically. And I agree Marek Tarnawski I don't think she thought it through. She might have even been thinking about form a perspective where she designs her character in 2d but instead of her modeling it in 3d she would get A.I. to do it. I don't think she was intending for it to replace in you in your workplace I think she was mainly thinking about herself doing the work. A lot of 2d artist are 3d artist too.
But I agree I want the AI landscape to be fair for all artists.
I also don't think she said that with that intent. I'm really sorry if some 2d artists have that idea, but I don't think is the majority (may be wrong though, but working on teams with 3d artists, and really loving 3d art, it seems weird to me that 2d artists in general would think that way)
good point about user = data. the tech world has been harvesting and brokering everyone's data under the hood of every app and hardware we interact with that we sign over when agreeing to terms of use without seeing a dime of those profits. it makes sense (and dollars) that this is the next iteration of that.
1:04:50 As someone is who adores AI Art and has been using it for over a year to help me get through some difficult things this is the thing that has been breaking me. I disagree with a lot of what artists say about AI Art but something i’m passionate about is symbiotic relationships. Working hard to find ways for AI to not take from artists but instead find ways to benefit them. Been taking a break from AI until we figure it out. I think it’s possible if we are willing to work together 🙃
As an artist I think it’s okay for you to make ai art, if creating with ai makes you happy then do so, the problem is not you it’s the company making it that disrupted the whole art institution without compensation
@@meaningoflife7199 i can definitely see how that’s a concern 😬
Loish is sharp
Thank you beautiful people!🥰
I used to love doing art but the field is problematic and now with AI added im more discouraged than ever. I get that it’s life, everything will be automated but I didn’t think it would happen this fast or impact us this much.
why ? You can still draw, so .. DRAW ! For god sake, this is not the end ! we're gonna fight !
Video was awesome ! Nice work bro !
certainly there must have been some laws made when Photoshop became a thing that can either apply or be adapted to these new tools?
9:30 -ish. I thought I heard someone say "architects".
Is that a thing? Have you all only encountered architects who are that type of pro-AI, thinking "artists are luddites" -kind of people? I've graduated from architecture school 3 years ago. I've never once met someone in this industry thinking how they can profit off of AI, pretending to be artists overnight or thinking any less about fellow creatives. I've studied in Europe where architecture school means you go through art history classes too, not just the tech ones - it's as much a liberal college curriculum as it is technical and specialised for architectural projects, of course. Some are more specialised, I'm thinking the Technische Universitäten, for example, but most of the big ones usually encompass both aspects of the career. Before jumping into architecture, most of my peers have dabbled with rigurous anatomy study drawings, comic books, portraiture or other figurative or conceptual work with, as far as I can tell, a great deal of understanding of the craft, traditional and digital, and the iconography, semiotics, lives of artists, historical contexts, materials and great respect towards their favoured artists. I've had these discussions with various peers.
In architecture, generated images through MLA could only be used if you already have the concept in mind and would like to run through more iterations ... maybe... alongside the many ways to use generative design... at most. Even the best midjourney-type algorithms out there, at the moment I'm writing this, can't keep one perspective grid throughout the entire image. They mix and match perspectives with different horizon lines and you get M. C. Escher type illusions, therefore not a useful representation of anything. I think there are other algorithms more useful than this - like denoising an image when you would've like it to have a higher resolution but your cheap student graphics card can't help ya.
Sure, they might be fun toys to play around with - if you somehow miss the lawsuits regarding copyright and unethical scraping behind them, pretending to "democratize" while seemingly planning to be a monopoly on who gets what and for how much. I dare to say architects who believe this is anything more than a gimmick, or even actively trying to make a bigger deal about it, aren't serious about their work.
The most ironic part about the AI art community is that the same people who will say how art doesn't have any value and how they should be able to take other people's work and do with it whatever they want see their own AI creations as valuable and even go as far as wanting to copyright AI prompts.
27:10 Good question
I completelly understood your point, guy with the hat, around min 33. Because you weren't talking about the A R T I S T S creating cheap art, you were talking about some R A N D O M like me or any non-artist creating cheap art quick, instead of hiring someone for example.
I loved everyone here, but not sure why your point was being almost "refuted". What you said is clearly basically the main problem and the base of what is happening-"it''s easy for anyone to go now and create something with AI to have it cheap and easy"-using a data-base that learns from your work!
The way I view this debate on AI art is that the machines will only be as good as the art database you input into them, and so far unable to produce anything original as they are constricted to produce from art that already exists, essentially killing creativity! I think a human touch will always be needed to create innovation and once copyright regulations come into play and companies cannot steal artist’s work and profit from them, AI generated art will become just a tool to generate a base layer of ideas/concepts.
I really hope some sort of organization forms that I can join. I want to contribute to the cause in some way but I've already donated the money I can.
AI doesn’t understand “good”, so I wasted a few hours getting it to design a logo. It came up with hundreds of bad.
❤
1:29 midjourney doesn't make as much variety 👀👀👀
23:30 regular pronto
Could you please make the subtitle English please?
very good
Is it really worth attacking the fundational models (AI) basing the law on IP ?
What will happen in 20-30 years? will the IP expires in the future and destroy all the artistic industries ? aren't we extremly short sighted in our vision ?
We should think about the future and the upcoming artists.
We should create some limits that totally stop this corporative beast, as Fenrir the wolf-god of chaos and evil if he doesn't remain chained for eternity it will grow until the world will be devoured.
There should be official laws protecting creators' rights in this situation. What is happening is morally wrong. The courts have been slow to address this issue. Everyone knew that AI was coming, and it is now accessible to everyone. I believe that soon people will understand, and laws will change. The truth is that without the works of artists and writers, AI would not be able to operate as it does now. Therefore, using the work of other people for free and without their consent will have to be addressed and charged.
there is no such thing as art.
there is art value. Either things have art value or they don't. It's up to each person to decide what has art value for themselves.
Generally I agree with you on everything except one point.
I think If AI leads to no more porn being made and all these "actors" losing their jobs, then that's the best thing that can happen- for them actually. Morally speaking, AI is still better than any form of sex work. So far at least.
if you really dive deep into Ai art and all the programs and plugins coming out it's pretty insane i was blown away with what i could create, i do photography as a side gig i can take my client's photos and turn them into whatever. you can take boring pics and transform them into cinematic masterpieces with just a prompt and a bit of knowledge of making all the plugins and models work together. i really don't think there's any stopping it, Ai will take over for sure, i say use it to your advantage and learn it now. but I understand how they feel at the same time, i could see it coming down to how the music industry handles copyright, by using licensing. people would have to pay an artist to obtain their license to use their artwork to train ai models or if their art is used in an unlicensed medium any profit made from the medium would go to the artist that created it.
These people are clueless what really is happening.. AI is so much more scarier than they think, it will change every aspect of human life. Only the aspect of AI art is getting better exponentially every month. The idea of regulation and new laws are naive, Pandora's box has been opened and won't be closed.
It's not ai. These are automated software tools.
AOC is working on it x lol
After just watching a podcast with Eliezer Yukdowsky this discussion feels almost a bit naive. Like you guys have no idea whatsoever what’s coming next. I think even if Yukdowsky was wrong with his apocalyptic predictions, I think we artists will keep getting blindsided by our ignorance regarding AI. I wouldn’t be surprised if in some years when we have achieved AGI (and it didn’t kill us) we can generate entire Hollywood quality movies and tv shows or triple a games with a simple prompt… at this point there won’t be any jobs anymore in the field. But I hope some of us will continue doing art anyway
Typically other countries follow US or British copyright law. The danger isn’t having different countries coming up with different laws. Countries will defer to whichever superpower uses the world reserve currency with something this huge. The issue is the US Supreme Court specifically. If it goes to the high court I fear artists may lose bc the US Supreme Court is currently an activist, anti labor body
The EU does not follow US or British law at all. I think you'll find mainland Europe has much much better protections for citizens, consumers and workers than the US or post-Brexit UK. Already right now, even in the absence of any new laws, most of these AI models are violating existing privacy laws like GDPR and would need to be retrained from scratch to be legal here. ChatGPT was just banned in Italy over privacy concerns and is under further investigation.
This debate isn't about art, it's about jobs and earning potential. Fair enough. Human artists will adapt to the challenge. They always do. Looking forward to a new age in human creativity things have become a bit stale anyway. This is the kick up the arse "real artists" needed. The last interesting period in modern art was the 70's and 80's NY transit graffiti artists. That's 50 - 40 years ago.
trying to enforce more laws to crack down on artist styles seems like a terrible idea and bad direction for artists.
Very good comment.
lol how many times does Eva interrupt people in this
7 fingers? man this is old already. i am photographer and with digital technologies and later instagram and social media in general our work is worth very little. you guys really think the corporations will not replace us and save the money? thats really naive.
"AI is stealing our voices. This should not happen!"