AI Art is the 'FUTURE' ....and why its not
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 жов 2024
- I share my general thoughts about AI and AI art.
Special thanks to Jon Lam for staying on top of the AI art awareness.
Please go check out this guy's stuff:
www.instagram....
The Complete Introduction to 2D Animation
Buy the complete introduction to 2D animation tutorial/video package:
gum.co/Introto...
My Photoshop actions for auto-matte and toning
gumroad.com/l/...
Main Website: www.tonikopant...
Twitter: / tonikopantoja
Instagram: / tonikopantoja
Online Store/Tutorials: gumroad.com/st...
Patreon Account: / stringbing
Equipment I use:
Drawing Tablet: Wacom Cintiq 22HD: www.wacom.com/...
Software I use:
Animation - TVPAINT
Animation - Adobe Flash/Animate CC, ToonBoom
Compositing - After Effects
Painting and Illustration - Photoshop
Video Editing - Premiere
3D - BLENDER
"But we can learn to draw. There's the myth that you are either born draftsman or not. Wrong! Obviously, natural talent is a great help and the desire is essential, but drawing can be taught and drawing can be learnt. It's best to have done a ton of it at art school to get the foundation in early. But it can be done at any time. Just do it." - Richard Williams, The Animator's Survival Kit
An early interest as well as an educator capable of getting the right messages through (human or otherwise) is what builds what we recognize as talent. If you throw out other concerns, of course you have time to get good.
What if I like using ai and don't want to learn drawing?
@@Jimmy-jx1pf you'll limit your ability to make what you got work when you run up against a situation that needs more. Never hurts to be able to pick up the slack the machine couldn't quite get right.
If it's good enough for your purposes, great. Hopefully you'll never need more!
@@Jimmy-jx1pf then you can't call yourself an artist
@@trashcatlinol a good educator is so important, I've seen so many stories on twitter from people who were discouraged from pursuing art, sometimes completely, bc their teachers were dicks
I'm just going to say this...
AI Should be a TOOL, not a REPLACEMENT for the Artist
Exactly THIS!!!!
It is a tool...a highly effective tool..
I am not sure what you think AI art is...
Well, that's exactly what SD is =) Tool that so easy to use and accessible, that person with almost no skills can produce well looking art piece. Very random, by accident and without control on details, but still possible. Many users like this even think they're an artists =)
It doesn't make Stable Diffusion a bad thing though. With artistic skills on top this tool can dramatically enhance quality and speed for you as an artist. Combining of your hand drawn sketch with img2img and good prompt (not just "8K super puper realistic masterpiece Greg Rutkowski", but something related to your idea) allows you to improve lighting and detalization in short period of time, and with artistic skills you can easily fix mistakes like f*d up hands, that unaccesable for prompters ;)
Artist even can train their own custom model on finished artworks to keep style while generating variants of new artworks. And spend more time on idea of artworks (and fixing ai mistakes :D).
I hope more artists will understand this sooner or later.
Reminds me a "boom" of procedural texturing with Substance Painter. Drag and drop pre-made "smart material" onto your geometry and get decent result! "Look, ma, I'm a texture artist now!". But same tool made work of professionals much easier as well, so great (not just decent) result might be achieved in a few hours instead of several days, so they still way ahead of non skilled enthusiasts. And industry got much better textures in general.
Same thing happening wit 3D animation, for example Cascadeur at first looks like magical button. People with close to zero experience can roughly make few key poses, and AI turns it into physically accurate animation which respects physics. Not just interpolation, but fixes poses itself to make it more believable and place center of masses where it should to be.
Does it destroys animators, who spent years to learn how to do it manually? Nope. It gave them artistic freedom to spend more time on expressive poses, ideas, rather than routine.
@@Meryle25 I don’t consider it a tool since it’s literally solving all the fundamentals of art. This is why it can’t be compared to when cameras or photoshop came to be. You always had to understand the fundamentals, whereas with an AI you don’t even have to have any knowledge about the human form or anatomy, let alone how to perceive all that on a two dimensional surface through a three dimensional illusion by conveying the form in perspective.
Though I could agree with you, peoples opinions, about what makes software a tool, vary.
For instance, this... person... says he sees no difference between Photoshop and AI as a tool. A mind blowingly ignorant statement. ua-cam.com/video/7PszF9Upan8/v-deo.htmlm56
To say AI can exist as a tool only, is to trust people not to abuse it. I lack that faith in humanity.
A lot of what I've been seeing about the "wonders" of AI art, it's never really impressed me because it plays off of the novelty of this being able to replicate styles without an artist's hand. I'm more impressed with its application to speed up certain production processes by being a supplement to the artist's vision. I feel people get so enamored by the flashiness of some new technology and go all in on that for the news outlets when its practical application is more subtle and boring.
Oh, absolutely! Beyond the novelty, current AI have limited utility to those who don't already poses at least half decent art skills. I should know! I've racked up a ridiculous number of hours messing around with Stable Diffusion since late November.
Some of these models are remarkably good if you don't have anything too specific in mind, and stupid good at rendering generic stuff with all the visual flare you could possibly ask for. However they struggle badly if you ask for anything outside their comfort zone. At that point it takes quite a lot of real manual drawing or photo bashing to guide the poor little AI in the right direction and get a useful result. And frankly I just don't have the skills to do that. There are plenty of images I've given up on because it became obvious that there were no models that had a clue what to do.
Still though, these models are improving at a pretty fast pace. I've seen a meaningful improvement in coherence and composition just this last month by switching to a new, better trained model and adding some generic but powerful embeddings.
The novelty of AI will wear off for sure, but their usefulness will keep improving rapidly. Models will get less dumb, their interfaces will become more user friendly and powerful, and people will find more uses for them. For example, I've seen one dude who merged a bunch of completely different models into some cursed, hodgepodge, bizarro-model specifically to subtly touch up his own artwork with the particular look he was after. Thus achieving a better visual quality than his skill level and available time would normally allow. There are likely some purists who would call that cheating, but their opinion won't matter much to those working on a tight schedule.
Honestly, as an artist I find the algorithm very impressive and stuning. From a purely technical point of view. The fact alone that technology has progressed to a point where it can actually compete with humans in something intelectual like making art, music, writing whole storys is simply amazing.
But at the end of the day it is a computer, algorithms. The creative process behind, the people writing the prompts that's the part I find the least impressive. Because literaly everyone can do that. It's not comparable with actually mastering something.
AI art is way more than just that. There are several big communities related to it for a reason.
To make a prompt is no different than making a custom order at Starbucks. You may have listed all the ingredients and how you want it made, but your hands took no part it it's creation. To call yourself an artist is no different than me calling myself a barista for my very specific Starbucks order.
You gave the program you use a very specific commission, and then the program manufactured images to meet your order requirements. You then choose an image you like and in some cases pay for it to download it. Most Ai artists wouldn't know how to fix any mangled/extra limbs, missing necks or off-putting eyes often found in ai art. Majority of these artists simply want the self gratification without them having any actual skill aside from typing or knowing what to type, a skill most people with reading and writing comprehension along with access to a keyboard is capable of doing.
If you are not impressed about a freaking machine being capable to learn and create newt images, including photorealistic images, there's something wrong with you lol.
I think artists going onto AI art and start nitpicking every single mistake is because often they are extremely obvious lacks in anatomy, proportions, and general composition of the piece. The main issue with most AI users is that they post it thinking the image they took from AI is "perfect" and refers to it as such.
Most of those into the art community in general knows that there's probably nothing more annoying than someone who clearly begun to draw only recently but already claims to be "professional level" despites its clear flaws due to lack of experience and studying. Often paired with an aggressive behaviour towards any form of constructive criticism, which will damage his path to improvement in the future.
AI users often do not know the gigantic mistakes the software has made onto a picture, as they just ignore it due to never have truly studied what makes a proportionally correct looking body, or when something is out of perspective, and post it. They then proceed to call anyone who might genuinely be pointing out big mistakes as "AI haters", "Art gatekeepers" and "Technophobes". This behaviour is someone who usually do not care about the art itself. They just want stats going up. Art becomes a fast food consumer good to trade for praises.
They are beginner drivers being gifted a Hypercar right at their home, and now they pretent to be treated like professional F1 pilots right away. This is why most artists just refuse to respect them.
exactly, they cant wrap their brains around the artist’s mentality, thats its all more than just some pretty pictures
This sums it up perfectly. They aren't able to understand the fundamentals of it because they never put in any of the work that artists do to understand what creates it. They really are just people who are trying to bank off of something they don't understand.
Honestly, it's pretty to fun me to watch artists point out some of the mistakes the AI makes. The don't seem to understand how incredibly fast the technology is evolving. Just a year ago AI was just capable of generating abstract fantasy shapes, and now it generates photorealistic and almost indistinguishable pictures, and people still laught at fingers. Also, engineers have the technology and capability to teach the AI actual art theory, including an advanced model of human anatomy, color theory, lighting, composition, etc. It's just that for the moment it's a big and uninteresting effort, but it's definitely possible.
Would you do "constructive crtizism" for someone like, lets say the "Artist" who made this Video, who is doing a stand for "Artists" as a "Artist". No you wouldnt.
At least we drive faster cars than you, who have spent how many years learning?
Artists are told all their lives by non-artists they’ll never find a job because art is not found in STEM. They say “Art doesn’t cure cancer” and “get a real job”. Now the same people want to be artists??? I thought being an artist was the dumb useless thing to do? now y’all want to sell your Ai images? Pick a sidddee
They are hypocritical, only wanting things once they can use it themselves, seeing anything else as useless.
who really goes around saying this? it sounds like something an archetypal old fashioned parent would say, scared of their future, who doesn't understand what stem or art is apart from the stereotypes that stem makes money and artists struggle to make money
@@CapsAdmin That stereotype is backed by data. While some artists can make a good chunk of money, the fact of the matter is that the "starving artist" trope is a real thing, and that STEM fields are far more financially lucrative as a whole. The richest people on the planet are all there because of STEM. The best you get with artists is that their labor is used in some of the richest companies, owned by non-artists, or perhaps an independent artist of some notoriety getting lucky and making six figures.
@@SamWeltzin the people who get rich off of steam are just as rare as those who get filthy rich from art. Most stem people are in dead end jobs
@@harigovind7845 Only if you include the STEM fields everyone knows don't pay squat (like forest and conservation technicians) but those aren't the ones being talked about here. STEM is a pretty big field, given that it covers science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Art is a lot more constrained, unless you're also counting music and acting, which most people do not.
So technically, you are correct. Colloquially, you are not. I guess it depends on which conversation we want to have.
Either way, STEM has a much higher earning potential that art can't even begin to compare to, dead-end jobs or not.
After talking and looking more into the actual process of stable diffusion- I do admit I over generalized the process of AI and stable diffusion in my recent video (and why its called stable diffusion), sometimes using terminology to mistake the process. I take ownership of that error. I'll do better in my future videos. My stance and feelings on AI art hasn't really changed, and I do strongly believe art made by people should still thrive.
I made a comment without watching the video so I have some of the blame on my part. But after watching the entire thing I can agree with your points entirely, AI art “*has*” potential to be something good for people and their art
But right now, it’s to new and mysterious .. And what people do with the technology without understanding the impact it can have on artists who work hard on their art doesn’t help. It needs to have some control over it I guess.
But thank you for making the video, I do really appreciate to hear someone’s thoughts on it that aren’t immediately putting it down
Absolutely, it's when AI can storyboard and flawlessly animate + color where we should panic, lol.
Absolutely based
@@BBWahoo we shouldn't panic. We should work together to overcome it, whatever it takes.
Tech is not the problem, it's people who use it for their selfish wanton.
Man May Never Be Replaced.
I want to underline something that AI art will never get from artists: the memories and the emotions of receiving something made by another human being that took its time and effort. What will you remember better? A custom piece of art your favourite artist has made specifically for you after days or weeks of work which made your day, or some RNG picture made by AI that looks in the style of your favourite artist done in seconds, which will probably be worth at most 10 seconds of "wows" and then forgotten in your hard drive/public gallery?
Art is not only about looking at the finished piece. For its very process nature, AI will never have that.
What hurts me most is the extreme lack of empathy towards artists. I mean, even after expressing our very valid concerns, why do people come back at us like we're the ones in the wrong? What did we ever do?
Because they are not artists. They've never picked up a pencil in their entire life and tried creating something. They had never put those hours and efforts that an average artist puts to polish her/ his skill.
Because they are lazy simple minded thieves with no sense of morality. If you look into their disgusting communities at all, not one single prompt is void of a mention of some artist's name.
I am an artist myself, and it's not like I have no sympathy for people of my kind, but I do think that the whole art stealing thing is laughable. Those who claim that ai is taking away their passions or something are unreasonable. Ai doesn't stop me from creating whatever I want and whenever I want. Another point: "Ai steals the art of others to generate images, without shouting out sources of inspiration". Yes, like human artists do. You may shout out the work of art you were inspired by, but there are things that inspire you unconsciously. You may see the shape of a building and place it in the back of your memory, so that when drawing you can return to it without even noticing. The same way you learn to draw anything. I've learnt to draw things not only by observing them, I also observed works of other artists and acknowledged their ways of solving the problems I was facing. I can't shout-out every single thing I saw in my life, that shaped my world image. And what if I will copy the style of other artist? What if I will make money off of it? If I am drawing as good as Leonardo Da Vinci did, but copy his style entirely isn't my income deserved? At the end of the day, he received his fame and fortune because of the beauty of his art, and my art might be just as stunning as his. If I deliver the same product for a cheaper price and take away someone's audience, what is so wrong about it? If I am inspired by someone's art there is nothing but my generous initiative that obliges me to shout-out the artist. The other idea is that ai is taking over people's jobs and therefore it is bad. Well that isn't a question of moral is it? If there is an artist better than me, taking away my clients it is in my interest to change my specialty or best myself in order to win the competition. I certainly wouldn't go out and protest against the skillful artist just because his efficiency hinders me. And though ai doesn't have feelings and imposing sanctions against it doesn't not hurt it, there are consumers, that would've received their product cheaper, faster and in a better quality only if you didn't show up with your selfish demands. For the same reason we might've not invented cars, since the coachmen would've lost their source of income. Every human invention was made for making our lifes easier, with every new technology there is one human job less. If ai will fully take over the arts the consequences will be the same, as those of industrialization. Many will loose their jobs, many will adapt, the lifes of many will become easier. This is just a part of human progress.
@L M While I agree with some of your sentiments, too much progress can be a bad thing. What I mean is that I feel like life is losing its meaning. It seems that all everyone cares about now is how to make a quick cash grab. Sure, life is getting easier, but where does that leave us? If we get rid of hard work, what reason would we have to strive for anything, to try? I'm not saying that life should be miserable with war and violence, but there has to be some sort of balance of struggle: too much will make us heartless and cold, but too little and we become lazy.
@@lm2916 it could've been better if it wasn't fed on copyrighted imagery, now stable diffusion is having legal trouble with Getty images. It should've been fed from specific images in the public domain from the start. It should've been limited to where you have to manually feed images to the AI.
As a solo indie dev who's a programmer first, I value AI not as an Art Generator, but as an Asset Generator. Not to imply assets are less than "art for the sake of art" - they just have a different purpose for a game developer.
I can't afford to pay anyone, I'm not good to collab with, and the 2022 events have cut me off from the asset stores.
I have to do my own assets, and the more tools I have at my disposal the better the end result will be. Maybe that dirt texture doesn't have anyone's soul in it, but the game as a whole hopefully will.
That said, I do feel for people whose job is making assets, which could likely be supplanted by AI in the nearest future. I wish we as a society could handle this transition well.
yeah I agree, AI is making that more accessible which is a great wonderful thing. As long as it can be done ethically no one should be opposing it. Plus a lot of AAA studios need their asses kicked and AI is a great way to level out the field a bit. Indies might actually have a shot at competing with the bigger studios now and we might start seeing a lot more innovative ideas as a result of the process being more democratized. I think we need some clarity though on what we can and can't do with AI as that's a major factor in my own confidence with using AI in a production setting, right now the safest option is just to use it for references and produce derivatives from that manually. They do need to fix the legal ambiguities before you could use output in a production setting.
As someone who plays and makes games I can say… I absolutely do look for soul in assets. An individual asset may not seem that important, but as a whole they determine the art style of the game. You can easily tell when games reuse premade assets vs have original assets, as an example.
I don’t think using AI for game assets is a bad thing though. I think ideally, AI could generate assets and then they would be tweaked by a designer to fit the overall visual style of the game.
@@mrcyberpunk >> Indies might actually have a shot at competing with the bigger studios now and we might start seeing a lot more innovative ideas as a result of the process being more democratized.
Honestly, this makes sense.
@@CrniWuk "How to find that one "Hollow Night" or "Ori and the blind Forrest" or "Undertale" when you have 100 of them with similar visual style?"
And that's what people forget. AI will generally generate similar assets, rather than invent new ones. You'd still need human input for that.
Speaking as a freelance Illustrator I feel that you hit the nail on the head. Especially when it comes to the disrespect of the people using these AI.They almost always seem to be entitled jerks gleefully mocking other people's work and feelings.
Exactly, "seem". Because the only people that you hear about are precisely the people that make a big fuss about it, the people that want to gain attention by being rude on internet, people that just want profit at all costs and assholes in general. You won't hear about a random person doing personal or harmless stuff with a new and powerful tool. Be careful generalising when your POV is so biased and subjective.
@@jaunbeltza7661 That makes sense. But without any other examples what am I supposed to think? And quite frankly I think using AI art as it is now is unethical. So the disrespect and lack of moral character just seems to be something you would find out of people who don't mind cheating and prospering by taking advantage of other people's work.
@@bryansyme6215 I don't want to tell you what to think, I'm just pointing out that your perception is biased. And yes, many many people are unethical about intellectual property most of the time, it has always been like this. People don't usually use uncopyrighted material for simple school project, to make a funny postcard for a family member, to illustrate a group activity or to design a board game to play with their friends.
@@jaunbeltza7661 What do you mean when you say my opinion is biased? I just want to understand exactly what you're saying.
@@bryansyme6215 > *But without any other examples what am I supposed to think?*
I can't phrase it any other way, so pardon if this comes off as prickish (not AT ALL my intent) but did you look hard enough, or in the right places?
A lot of the music industry's protections evolved out of what the internet and sites like Napster did to it. It still feels overly hopeful to think that digital art might get better treatment after AI starts ruining a powerful corporation's profits (say, Disney).
IMO to desire this is actually ... really short sighted. Because of the lobbying (plobbying people who have no idea how the technology works) we have the DMCA, which created part of the copyright hell we have on UA-cam, and contributes to making legitimate technological research a minefield.
You think copyright trolling with media is bad now, extending it to visual arts in the exact same manner, forget about it. I'm calling it now, if that thing passes, the minefield will quintuple in size.
@@DanknDerpyGamer Making changes to respect peoples work is not a bad thing, I've never encountered a single problem with copyright during my 20+ years of working in the industry.
To create requirement of public databases or respect creators wishes for how their work is being used is not a big deal.
And people rather go trough trolling, prove their work and then move on. Rather than having their work taken and used by other for profit.
@@katanasharp2866 > *Making changes to respect peoples work is not a bad thing,*
Nor is opposing going about it a certain way saying it is a bad thing to update laws.
Just becasue you've never had issues doesn't mean issues don't exist, either.
The reason people don't mess around with the music industry is because they have conglomerates and lawyers in place to punish those who don't respect their property.
It may be cynical but I think the only thing that will keep artists safe from these bro personalities are legitimate financial threat and follow through.
I think a limited version of AI, as a tool, can help actual artists do their work better but never replace it. That said, it needs to be seriously regulated in a way that prevents art theft, first and foremost.
This can only work as long as companies such as Disney, Nintendo etc. get a hold of these companies and sue them for a enethical use of their content really.
@@bashartz if only, but those are animation studios, not digital art, (still art), studios. That kind of company doesn't exist--at least not yet. The closest thing we have is social media and places like Art Station and Patreon, (and they certainly don't care enough about us to do anything meaningful).
That's the thing. Nobody wants to give the big music studios an excuse to go to court, because they are famously eager to lawyer up at the slightest hint of copyright infringement, and they've got the money to drag any plebeian who displeases them down to courtroom hell, even in cases where they've no legs to stand on, they can drag out cases and make it properly punishing. Also, the music industry sees less of a benefit from AI generation, since they make more money from selling colourful personalities, than from selling the music itself.
Visual artists on the other hand can safely be stepped on, since they've got meagre means for fighting back aside from complaining on the internet. Also, mainstream consumers care little about specifically who made the visual art they consume everyday in vast quantities, so it is a lot more tempting for big studios to secretly side with the unfeeling machine rather than the fleshy meatbags who demand pay and half-decent working conditions.
Though, perhaps the flood of generated imagery will cause more people to appreciate the hard work of human artists. Somehow I doubt it though. Maybe I'm too cynical.
Agreed 100%! Thank you, now I don't need to comment as you've expressed my exact thoughts XD
> *to punish those who don't respect their property.*
Not just people who actually do though - people who they THINK do - look at them trying (and failing) to take on decentralized P2P and BitTorrent clients, audiocasette tape recording, etc.
Legal weight existing doesn't mean it is always thrown around meritoriously.
The gatekeeping thing drives me crazy. Yes, when you try to enter a community by breaking every single rule that the community set up, actively disrespect those in the community including popular figures and go out of your way to make a mockery of the concern of those who where there before, then that community will absolutely tell you to fuck off. The ai community can extend an olive branch by offering proper compensation and credit as well as condemning those who steal artwork or enter ai art into competitions that were meant for regular art. But instead they act like petulant crybabies and spoiled brats.
Here's a quick and simple counter to the "gate keeping argument".
Which one is cheaper?
4,000$+ PC that can run most of the AI programs, or a subscription that could cost a lot of money per month?
or, some paper, and a pencil?
Who are the real gatekeepers, hmm?
using aimbot or insta win is not fun for anyone if you play games or have some pride in your skills
@@s-zz fr, ive been saying this for months lol, nobodys gatekeeping shit, pick up a pencil and draw!!!
I had people calling me "Playing piano of other's song as uncreative as using an AI!"
They really do crap on people just because they never put in effort themselves to read context nor sees other people as human to begin with.
Imagine buying art from people who doesn't even see you as a human.
Also copyright aside, I'd argue stealing people's watermark for Patreon extends to aggressive or unfair advertising that instead of Patent Court, they need to worry against Fair Trade Commission.
@@defaulted9485 They did the same with photography and even digital art. Claiming that the ai is just a tool like a camera or Photoshop. Except neither of those things do all of the god damn work for you. They have no respect or understanding of the craftsmanship creatives put in to there work. They want the prestige and admiration that artists get but not the effort it takes to earn that prestige in the first place.
I work with both 2D and 3D artwork/animations, I think AI can be used as a tool to help make the process easier (i.e. visualizing thoughts, references, etc). HOWEVER, you should never use it as the ONLY tool to make art. A lot of these AI bros are ignorant about the artistic process of making art, and instead see and treat art as another "get rich quick" type of thing. And since that's how they view art, they think artists think the same way as them but that is most certainly not the case. I think art education is the most important thing in this situation because it's clear that many of the AI bros are uneducated about art.
Remember, AI art would not be a thing if it weren't for real artists, due to AI needing existing art to pull from. So to AI bros: Be respectful to artists/animators when they are voicing their concerns about a subject they are experienced in.
thank you!! It is absolutely projecting when they call us "greedy"
artists were notoriously underpaid already, despite being one of the hardest jobs in the sense of lifelong training and commitment/self discipline.
If we only cared about money, we wouldn't have stayed on this path despite all the difficulty and uncertainty.
@@cosmicllama6910 Definitely true.
Condescendingly speaking from a position of superiority, prejudice and arbitrarily assuming how they think and why... it sure is a great way to ask for something. I wonder why many "AI bros" dislike some artists. /s
@@meybi6272 Artist ain't the one who spew out words like "luddites". Or the one who use someone's hard work to generate something, or the one who dismiss a community's concern. Really, it only exploded like this because their concern are not being heard of the company behind this tech and the bros are defending this company.
@@Jasmera Victimist and grossly biased "artists-good, them-bad" discourses are neither constructive nor part of any solution, but rather part of the problem. Unless you believe that artists are harmless beings of light, free from defects and harmful attitudes.
Well no, both sides are people of flesh and blood. You are not morally superior or a better person by picking up a brush or not, and both sides have been nasty to each other from start, and still are. Enough of the hypocrisy and biased representations.
This video really calmed me down a bit from the AI panic.
I'm a young artist who wants to have a career in art or animation and all this ai art stuff got me so worried that my mom had to get me a career counselor (Who happens to be an art teacher) to help me figure out what my career should be.
I've started trying Blender, clay art and painting to open more paths.
AI can be a useful tool to help in art, but the issue is... That's not what it is being used for at all. It is being used more to avoid having to commission a big artist to get something in their style rather than something for finding ideas or help with things like shading. Regulation needs to be a thing for this but we all know that people listen to the AI advocates more than artists. People don't really bother trying to respect, let alone understand artists and their struggles.(Take a shot every time someone got confused on how you can't just immediately scribble something for them in five seconds for free and they say "But it's just a drawing") People like and respect tech more than art sadly.
Because tech improves lives in a visible and obvious ways. Regulations do not.
@@kissmyaft and tech harms lives in visible and obvious ways. Which is why we have regulations for cars, buildings, plower plants, etc.
Regulating the AI will result in making it a empty husk of what it was before, being pretty much boring and dull.
The problem resides in the devious people that use it to show off about the image generated, proclaiming it's theirs and benefit from it. Not the software itself.
If the anti-Ai-art succeds people will sooner or later develop some Ai without *ANY* limitations that anyone can download and reupload like a pirated software. It's inevitable.
The conclusion is that we are aproaching times were posibilities in the creative world are endless and *instantaneous,* and copyright laws just hinders them and lock us in a smallholding.
I *DON'T* want copyright to disappear, but i think developing technology on this field and other fields will lead in some way to the abolition of author rights or a MASSIVE overhaul.
@@kissmyaft AI image generation is not an improvement on the quality of life.
@Keldyo No, regulating AI will ensure that people are paid and recognized for their work. Imagine if you paid an artist to make a set of images for training. Now you have a skilled artist's style, and future artists will still have a reason to learn art.
If you don't regulate AI, in 25 years you won't be able to find an artist anymore, and art will become stale.
My main fear is as we continue making art and posting online, AI people will continue to scrape and evolve their models to copy art better and better. What kind of world do they want us to live in? One without human invention and creativity? I just don't understand the end goal here.
One without many human more like it, welcome to the 🕳🐇
Chess AI is better than humans but humans still play it. Humans will still draw even if AI is better at it
@@haaland9997
You usually don't have a chess bot and a regular human player compete though for the very same reason though.
@@huhhuh9598 hey, that gave me idea, we do not need to stop the AI, we just have to make it not profitable and move it outside of our work!
An ai still needs the human element to create. It can do nothing without prompts, and it will deliver generic pictures like the ones posted in this video if you don’t know how to use it (inpainting, img2img,etc). You bring up human invention and creativity, things like Stable Diffusion lower the skill ceiling for those who want to create but don’t have the time or talent to learn. In terms of creativity, it allows more people that ability.
What AI may do though, is attack those who have used art as a means to get business or attention. For the person that doesn’t know how to draw or paint and takes the time to learn it, it’s an artificial artist they can manage and get their ideas represented on the paper as closely as they can word and inpaint it, but their eye will be untrained leaving errors and potentially bad composition.
To the trained artist, they can use the img2img function and use it as a virtual assistant speeding up their workflow and making up for some of their weaker aspects. It’s powerful in the sense that a trained artists won’t deal with some of the setbacks a prompter will and their eye will be better suited to pick out the mistakes and pick the better composition. They can also clean up the mistakes manually.
So yeah, the end goal here would be the enabling of everyone’s creativity and lightening the workload for those who are already trained.
There's a simple truth which 'ai artists' tend to avoid: AI artists cannot create without sampling the work of prior artists. True artists' craft is embodied and not dependent on using machines that sample the work of others. Give me a pencil and paper - I'll create. Give me a computer - ill create. Take away the computer and alot of these 'ai artists' are lost. It's arguable the machine in that case is more artist than them. Zvakavoma.
The weird thing is a lot of these AI bros and users seem to revel in the idea of practiced artists losing work and becoming irrelevant, and less about the creation of art itself. To them it's a petty victory that they haven't and didn't earn. No way in a world with "art" generated by people like that would sustain itself for long.
I think the biggest problem that I have with AI art is that the people using it are either interested in art purely on a surface level (everyone prompt-engineers for the same aesthetic) or as a new kind of grift (oh hey an art generator, lemme just resell its output everywhere I can think of). The devaluation that AI art is doing is not purely in the direct copying of the training set data (although that still IS a huge problem) but in the erosion of social norms caused by its misuse. Its the specific people who want art to be a consumable product that are the root cause. The people who want art to neatly conform to a statistical distribution of "objectively good" art; one that always comforts the comfortable, and disturbs the disturbed.
I think stablediffusion and its children are first and foremost *content* generators rather than *art* generators.
Human artists can (and honestly should) use whichever tools help them do their work, but I'm willing to bet that tech bro upstarts who think they'll replace artists because they can "pump out jpegs" are going to have another thing coming when it turns out that *content*, while enjoyable, isnt everything.
I say this as a programmer myself
When I first heard of AI art, my first reaction was “oh, awesome!” I was optimistic, because I adore animation. Using an AI to aid in animation instead of needing a giant studio of people and a huge budget, that just sounded perfect for aspiring animators to see their ideas realized.
I still feel that optimism, though it’s been soured quite a bit. Why would I spend days on a drawing when someone else can mass produce commissions with a program? Even if it’s not technically stealing art, it’s still taking something away from artists.
My copium is that A.I is going to become so boring, people would start gravitating towards traditional art again.
@@netanelaker4437 I mean thats the thing with the trends... after like a few months people just stop caring and move on to the next one. I personally do consider this one a trend just give it a few months, people will still use it but they will stop acting like the world changed forever or is about to end. But I do thing it will be a permanent problem with the art community... imagine having to prove you drew something every time you share your art🫠
@@netanelaker4437 i think the oversaturation and abundance of AI art, MIGHT give rise to a movement that focuses on the humanity of art. Hope that happens cause it would be an interesting movement lol
@@-lemelon- the main reason why i'm worried this may not be true for Ai because really big companies, even the companies that artists depend on everyday, are trying to do this stuff. With the automatic "opt in your art the moment you post" systems which can only indicate these companies are making their own AI, im afraid that there's a storm brewing behind the scenes and we're only seeing the beginning of it
That was my initial thought too
The scary thing about Ai is that it's a job replacement in its infancy, The technology only gets better from here. It may be marked and used as a tool, but once it becomes more profitable as a replacement, corporations will jump on the chance to use it as a cheaper, faster alternative to handmade art.
the thing is, ai can't get better from here, it's literally working on copying, you can't get better than that, AI makes pictures out of static noise based on images
As far as I know, AI generated work can’t be copyrighted, so companies that loves to protect their properties like Disney can’t do that with say a comic that was created by AI
@@Thispersonisreal yeah, AI art *needs* human art; it's fundamentally parasitic, unable to sustain itself on its own
It's not just companies at all. Even normal people are *already* making money out of AI "art" and showing enthusiam about the tools because of how easy they are.
@@ThispersonisrealI don’t think that’s right, it’s learning everyday and is definitely gonna get better
how people think using ai is their own work and not them just effectively commissioning a bot to make art for them is beyond me
Most proponents for image-gen art (AI is a stretch, they're just algorithms) are very clearly not versed in anything art-related because understanding that art is about the execution, not the idea is one of the first things you learn. The fact a lot of them also genuinely believe "if it's on the internet, it's fair game to use" is also a huge report on their actual art experience.
In defence technically some do need to be trained in order to produce new styles or art but whether that ai model is "their" and they own it is a complicated idea in itselfand whether the art is produces is the owners is debateable
YoU NeEd To AdApT
@@marchereve3280 in all fairness ai cant animate or make actual 3d model files or 3d animation so technically speaking you could just start animating but again a pretty bad excuse techies put forward imo
@@obiomajronyekwere4469 they're already making ai for those....
(Edit) So it looks like there's been a huge blowup since I misinterpreted how this type of AI works. Rather than pulling from other artists' works to create its own art, these AIs are instead "trained" on other artists' pieces to create their own "original" art, which to be fair would have a tough time qualifying as copyright infringement. That being said, many AIs are trained on datasets to perform tasks without human intervention. What makes this case unique, as is the case with Chat GPT and other similar AIs, is that the data being fed into them is intellectual property. Thousands, if not millions, of artists and writers have had their works used to train AIs without their consent. If that doesn't present a foundational legal challenge to AI art, I don't know what does.
"As scary as AI art is, its biggest weakness is copyright infringement. Unlike taking inspiration from others' work, which is next to impossible to verify legally, it should be incredibly easy to track what artworks get sampled by an AI, and each artist of those artworks could be part of a class-action lawsuit. That's of course assuming the right laws get put in place around AI."
The problem with tech and the law is that the law is always having to play catch up with the tech due to the loop holes and unexplored gray areas.
But what about AI that doesn't work based on sampling in the first place, like Stable Diffusion? Yes, it does use reference images during training process but the AI itself doesn't do any sampling. In big summary the way training works is checking how good current formula is based on examples of what we want to achieve. The model used for generation does NOT use any artworks at any point in time. It doesn't matter if you train your model on 1MB of artworks or 50TB of artworks, the size of a model will always be the same, because the only thing that changes is the weights used by that formula. What AI does is finding the best formula based on what user defined as desired output, so that it can later use that learned formula to create stuff without using any pre-existing data which would only then be considered sampling.
Also to comment on the "it should be incredibly easy to track" part, that's actually false for the exact same reason - it's not sampling, it's diffusion. Once model is trained you have literally no way of knowing what was used in order to train it anymore. And on top of that you can train one model with another, making it basically impossible to track at scale.
@@Meryle25 what do you mean?
The problem is that they teach A.I. to draw from inspiration, and not copy-and-mix.
They're creating it to be as similar to the process of a human drawing as possible, which means that if an A.I. can draw and it's plagiarism, so is everything that you draw.
Let me just say upfront; as a digital artist, that I whole-heartedly agree that Ai is the future of art in general. I do not question it's validity as an art form and as an artist I would LOVE to be able to use it to bounce ideas and compositions off of before drafting a final piece, however until it can be done ethically I can not in good conscience use it without hurting my fellow artists in the process. Let's take this one hurdle at a time and the biggest of which seems to be copyright.
First of all ai artists need to be aware that you do not legally own anything you make using ai generated image software (aigis). The US Copyright Office has already decided that without a significant amount of human authorship aigis will not be subject to copyright law. You do not even have a soft copyright to the ownership that is afforded to non-ai artists. So be careful and just be aware that is the situation until it legislated otherwise, regardless of what a software's terms of service may tell you. The one example of the person who made the graphic novel being issued a copyright, has since been revoked because she was not upfront that it was made in Midjourney.
Stable Ai has confirmed that they used the research branch of their organization to scrape BILLIONS of protected and copyright data in the name of research, which is all perfectly legal according to SCOTUS. Yes, I am aware that Stable Ai is UK-based but aside from a few minor differences here and there the majority of the world uses the US model for copyright law. They then used that research data to make a commercial product without licensing ANY of that data which is illegal. You can not use research data that is protected in a commercial product without licensing, period. Then they decided to monetize that commercial product and completely ignore any royalties that any of the copyright holders would be due. Again, illegal, period.
They also demonstrated that ai models can be made ethically when they decided to make a music Ai using non-copyright material because they would no doubt incur legal penalties from all the record companies. The Institute of Ai Ethics in both Montreal and Turkey warned them not to release the algorithm to the public using the research data set because it would "cause legal difficulty for future development of ai software". They ignored these warnings and released it anyways for a return on their investment. So now the cat is out of the bag and nothing can be done right? Wrong.
They have shown a blatant disregard for the concerns raised by artist and privacy right advocates, as well as copyright law. Several artists have organized and are currently making efforts to petition the FTC to enact their policy on algorithmic disgorgement. Essentially forcing a company to erase and delete any offending data and software they have, as well as funding lobbying for Congress to make provisions that would prevent the future implementation of the disgorged data and software. It can be done and has been done before. I think the most recent use was with Cambridge Analytica. Coincidentally it is the same solution they use with COPPA and CSAM complaints.
They brought this onto themselves. They knew they begun with legally radioactive material and it would end with a legally radioactive result. Aside from that, my personal "hang up" with Aigi's is that there is zero accountability or accreditation in the images they produce. Another thing being asked for right now is the use of metadata being attached to each image these softwares produce including usernames and a full string of the prompt that was used. To check for any direct line of offense while using it.
Also just for the record, Yes, sampling music that you are going to use in your own songs that will potentially be made into a commercial product is very much illegal. Some of my favorite bands in the early 2000s lost their shirts in litigation over music sampling. We have DMCA laws for a reason. Likewise just because something is put out to the public does not make it fair-use. Uploading images online does not negate any ownership rights to those images. You can not use non-royalty free google image results in a commercial product without obtaining a license for them and if you do that is a sure-fire way to either get sued or get fired from your job. Any graphic designer or music producer will confirm this.
Im glad that community came up in this argument, because I think that its sorely lacking in sub-sections of certain artforms. This is not AI related, but an example I've seen is the commodifcation of bottled animation techniques for 2DFX. A couple of years ago I started to dedicate myself to 2DFX. I tried hard to speak to 2DFX people and make an effort to be in a community. I quickly realsied how much of a facade the community was. You've got the top artists who will only interact with you if you've bought their tutorial and copied it, frame for frame. They repost and praise it purely to drive their own sales. It sets a bad precedent to encourage an over-relyance on canned tutorials instead of actually learning the fundamentals. This turned into a popularlity contest, where learning artists will obbesseivel praise the big dogs and compltetly ignore you if you are'nt offering praise, promotion or an avenue for more success. You can't have a decent conversation (not that its deserved), everything has a veneer of genuine interaction. It masqurades as a community when its just revolving around these industry pro's profiting of the idea of a community. Its upsetting, I've been told many times to stop being so bitter and that no one is deserving of a supportive community. But hearing how artists have been helping eachother, and how you highlighted the importance of ommunity, I do feel its somewhat applicable and I wish there was more exposure on the problem.
I tried explaining to someone why AI art is so hated in the community (bc artwork is used without permissions) and it was the most mind numbing debate ive ever had.
They even tried to use the fact i make fan art for company owned characters against the fact that small artists have their work used without permission for AI art commissions.
Bruh
As a indie dev I love fanart, it is free advertising and I'm pretty sure majority of the industry see it the same way since it is so widely accepted. I don't even care if someone earned money on paining my characters for others, as long as they point from which game they are from =P
Fanart > Original creator get free advertising which might lead to more sales.
AI > Steal the original creators work to feed the AI. That might harm the Original creator down the line.
Pretty simply really why you can't compare them. But people tries to find ways to justify their addiction to instant gratification.
These AI's are simple just a fancy Gacha machine XD
That's definitely not the actual reason why though, is it? They're becoming obsolete by AI, and they don't like it. The muh copyright is post hoc reasoning made by people who don't understand copyright. Not the law couldn't change, but then again any law could be made regardless of how bad the effects are or how fallacious the reasoning.
@@katanasharp2866 Does not change the fact that fan art is copyright infringement.
Yeah and what is the problem about that argument? You just directly admitted to copyright infringement by drawing fanart, because what is being copyrighted is not style but the characters so it does not matter how much your style differs if you mark it as fanart of the character and it is recognizable as that character you are infringing on someones copyright. Also most of the AI take the picture and "learn" from it, it does not keep it saved somewhere and copies it so unless you are using it to make copyrighted characters you are not really breaking copyright (style is not copyrighted) and if you are using it to make copyrighted characters then it is the same infringement like you do when you make fan art.
It's only been 10 minutes and its clear people in the comments haven't heard what I had to say
If the title is misleading and you make a very long video, idk what you expect but people will assume you're on the side of ai
Maybe it would help if you put quotes around the title to help prevent people getting the wrong idea?
@@connorcoker5112 true
I think you may need to edit the title of your video. The title was a bit misleading.
I’m watching the video because I want to hear his thoughts on it! Yes it’s long, and yes people are just gonna go straight to the comments to jump to conclusions, but I’m not gonna be one of those guys! And I’m already halfway through and contrary to what the comments say, this vid REALLY IS interesting! I’m not gonna say whether I agree or not, (I’m only halfway done after all) but regardless of my feelings towards AI Art, I want to let Toniko know that I’m thankful for voicing his thoughts about this! I could care less if I agree with him or not, I’m just thankful he’s putting his thoughts out there!
This is how an Aibro thinks
1. Human brains don’t need to ask permission to gain knowledge
2. The Ai works just like a human brain would
3. Ai doesn’t need to ask permission to gain knowledge
4. Artists are gatekeeping knowledge from the Ai
5. Artists = luddite elitist gatekeepers
6. "Embrace Progress"
When the internet became a thing art was (and still is) constantly reposted. There are no laws against reposting someone else's work. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's okay. Aibros do not steal art because it's justified. They steal because they know the artists they'll ask permission from will say no. Even if the Ai works exactly like a human brain, nothing will ever change that it's tech. If creatives don't want their work to be in a model they have every right to stand up for themselves.
that argument that ai thinks just like people is very funny to me, as if a robot can get depressed or suffer from schizophrenia or dementia and those things having a significant affect on their work. or have early memories that they hold dear or maybe want to just forget and bury. these tech dudes are kinda forgetting what it means to be a person.
@@aztro.99 Except every part of those is just a part of your brain.
The A.I. can by synonymous to just one part of it, so it's just as human as that one part.
AI Art matters? My traditional drawn gun says otherwise 🔫
🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫 Here are many guns sir!!!! or Ma'am!
@@MegaToonzNetwork It is sir and *Y e s*
I used to be one of the "It's learning just like humans learn" guys. I've come around after considering what other machines, algorithms, devices, or whatever you want to bring up, do. Copyrights and theft are things of human concern. We can use machines to help us commit such acts, but it's not about the machines themselves. I don't see why AI can't be a tool for theft. Can I just do whatever I want so long as I hide it behind some neural network model and say my device "learned it like a human"? Of course not.
It's really not that different if I upload a bunch of $60 games to my website and encrypt them, and to get the full decrypted games out of them, a user simply needs to supply a password or a "prompt" which can decrypt the data and spit the full game out to them. I can add noise to the data as well, so I can say my "AI" created the game, just look at the noise my "AI" created. I can continue to obfuscate this system so it becomes less obvious what I'm doing, but to convert my "AI's" output to get the actual full games, someone (me) simply needs to create a de-noising program and distribute it to users. In the end, the fact is, AI weights aren't different from my encrypted ball of pirated games, and both were built off of copyrighted materials I didn't create or get permission to use.
You can try to say AI learns like a human by looking at stuff or listening to stuff, but you could just say a camera can see like a human, or a 5 terabyte disk drive full of pirated materials can remember the experience of games and moves like a human and retell them to you. It's meaningless. I don't get to take a photograph of someone's art and then turn around and say I used my camera as a tool and created and own the rights to the thing in that picture.
I don't think you can stop these AIs forever, but at least you can encourage people to get consent or get their own training data rather than just stealing it.
i think that my main issue is that the vast majority of AI "artists" are complete and utter asswipes. i saw one girl post her painting and some guy replied with an AI replica of the same painting at a different angle with the caption along the lines of "erm aktually AI can make this in 30 seconds youre not special 🤓." theres a large amount of them just trying to piss off artists by targeting their work. also them selling their images is bad, and winning art contests. thats like me taking something from ChatGPT and winning a slam poetry contest.
Don't take them to be the vast majority, no one likes those people. The real majority are people you never hear about, those who use an online service or sometimes run a local host just for themselves. I'm one of those people, and despite the technical impressiveness that appeals to someone like me, the results aren't really unique or noteworthy enough to go around telling anyone. When it comes to bad actors, they definitely need to be ostracized, but its important to do so to them individually, not as a group, otherwise you risk overgeneralizing
I've had ai bros say that I'm denying the future and evolution of humans and that I'm being selfish etc. I have said on numerous occasions I'm not knowledgeable enough about other fields to differentiate how far ai should go into said career and how I can't make a good argument (and immediately got flamed about how I don't care about other careers).
Second, i can differentiate between artists despite them having the same training and or having the same inspirations, i can't differentiate one ai "artist" and another. Nor can I differentiate the pieces between midjourney and stable diffusion.
Ai bros are also the same one that's trying to compare fucking Photoshop and ai, saying i should be making my own paint since it's hypocrisy like ???
They're wrong. Ai used like this is the end of the future. Let me explain. Ai can only rehash, it can't create new. So if we disincentive humans to write, to draw etc.... what happens? Ai just rehashes things people have written before and humanity is frozen in the here and now. They're blind to this (as they always are) but this is how the technology works.
@@saliferousstudios It's so baffling how people can be so blind to so much. Even if you tell them, they just don't listen.
Yep, I've been making AI bros swallow their words because I'm a 2D professional comic book artist, a digital painter, a 3d modeler, and my side hustle is game development (I'm not a "real" programmer, but my second game is a third-person shooter). It's pretty standard to have all these skills in the industry lately. I've been using AI 2D image generators to create concepts for my game. Lately, I'm using 2D AI to create backgrounds for my comics.
Is it the future? Maybe. Can it "replace" content creators that everyone is calling "artists". Yep, pretty much. But AI Bros will NEVER EVER know how an artist feels when they create. It's about the state of flow in the creative process. I automatize many of my processes with AI, for 2D and 3D. But it's when I create content, a product, a "stuff" to be consumed by other people. It is not art. Don't waste your time trying to explain this to them. If they say you are "not knowledgeable enough about other fields", they are NOT knowledgeable enough about the creative process. Let them be. (And their argument does NOT make sense. You don't need to be a programmer to use AI and I barely believe all AI Bros are coders. I'm an intermediate coder, and it's not much, but my experience with AI, for 2D and 3D, didn't demand any python, C++, or whatever language they think we should know. I've used more "programming logic" to create material on Unreal than any AI I've used).
@@Amelia_PC I myself am not knowledgeable in other fields, but yes, I agree with the overall statement. But I've always been selfish, and my art is selfish. J don't create it for others but rather myself.
@@ncm2738 " But I've always been selfish, and my art is selfish."
I wouldn't say that. Art is a human expression (even with us forcing other animals to try art, like elephants). Your art can't be selfish, because you're expressing Art through your mind and body (and spirit). When people say "serve people with Art", they're talking about content and products, not Art. It doesn't need to be useful, practical, or to please others. As I said, they'll never understand the flow state in this creative field if they use a "middleman/ AI" to do the job.
I can’t handle AI art. It’s as bad as Instagram filters. Instead of trying to learn a new skill, like drawing or painting, people do just like they do on Instagram. They take the easy way out and bombard the Internet with junk that they produced in a few seconds. it’s getting to the point that anytime you get on the Internet, there is either the photo of somebody’s food or AI art. There’s nothing special, there’s nothing heartfelt, there is no blood and sweat in that stuff. It is just ones and zeros. For me, it’s just a zero.
Thanks for this Toniko. A number of other creators have recently had some really rancid takes on this and I'm glad that you don't completely dismiss the tech out of hand. It's not the tech that's the problem, it never has been. It's always been the database, it's always been how it's being used. Ethical AI is something that I think there is definitely a place for in the future, but it's ultimately about having an individual choice that won't potentially nuke your career. If I wanted to never use AI in my process ever I should have that option freely, and never be opted in without being asked. If I wanted to ai generate backgrounds for an animation, I shouldn't have to worry where those images came from or whose art was pried from their cold dead hands to make it happen. It should always have been opt in, and they exploited legal loopholes for the ai generator that they knew they would never get away with for DiscoDiffusion (music ai).
I've been told to kms in other comments sections, I've been talked down to saying that if I'm not coding every pixel manually I'm not a real digital artist, that if I don't mix my own paints etc. But other tools, even the camera don't automate the entire process like AI. A photo is nothing without a subject, a model, composition, lighting, colour grading. AI is just a magic fast fashion button to keep up with what's trendy and without it prompters wouldn't have any transferable skills to other mediums. Poetry maybe?
They say that AIs do not store images. In fact, they do not store the image itself. However, they are able to replicate characters like Spiderman and Sonic. This means that AIs are able to replicate the art style composition or original characters if the artist has a large portfolio with patterns, such as repetitive characters in art. No, this is not a style learned by the AI if it has learned the patterns from the artist's portfolio. This is plagiarism. AIs do not create anything outside the scope they were trained to do. They collect patterns and use them, regardless of whether there is plagiarism in a generated pattern or not. In addition, the size of the parts of patterns that the AI will use to generate an image are relative. The greater the amount of repetitive images used in training, the greater the fragments of art used in generating images. Signatures are an example that confirm this, famous characters are also an example. But if the character is not famous, it will not be possible for whoever generated the image to recognize it, only those who know the character and style itself.
Here in Brasil art is already underappreciated alot, it's REALLY hard to a fresh artist thrive and get any commission (animation and 3D art barely exist), and now also compete even slightly with AI is problematic
Ai art versus artist just reminds me the episode of SpongeBob, where SpongeBob versus King Neptune in a cook off
There needs to be an AI or program developed for detecting copyrighted components in AI art. If the content is too similar to existing copyright material or if the AI can detect what kind of training material was fed into it, it throws out a claim at the company or prompt user. I wouldn't be surprised if music and other industries are already funding technology like this. Another example is how UA-cam already has algorithms that automatically review videos and blast copyright claims for audio use.
The problem is, that finding actual identical piece of copyrighted work is very highly unlikely. Diffuser models do not store any information about the material it was trained of and makes the image out of static noise. Model file contains the information and weights how to recreate approximated image out of the noise, not the actual image pieces it used from other works to composite the result. Probably only easy way is to spot the signatures, but even then the AI might just put the amalgamation of signature out of entire image because aesthetic score told it so.
Music has different composition and far limited scope than colored pixels so its far easier to detect used samples by just comparing the waveform. Tho music has AI generation for years just for different things like samples and chord progressions or synths, not entire songs. YT example is a bit weak because it will match up if you use exact fragment of copyright music. Get the same fragment and change the instrument so the waveform won't match and you most likely pass.
Instead of hunting claims I'd rather have clear transparency what was used in the model with ability to opt-out and voluntary opt-in with compensation.
Totally agree this is definitely what is needed! 💯💯💯
@@wailfulcrab But what if you ask it to draw a specific pice 1:1 imitating the original art? That would be a 100% plagiarism on the AI part. Make no mistake - its just a matter of time, when these tools get slammed by atomic-level copyright lawsuits. Not from the single artists, but those huge media companies like Disney, WB or game developers - when their intellectual properties will be used to bootleg art, poster and merchandising - costing them billions of dollars in revenue. It is like YT - back in the day You could upload anything with no worries. What happened? YT got slammed by copyright lawsuits and had to implement limitations. If you had to pay a royalty for every image that this systems are trained on - the AI sector would collapse instantly.
@@RainPotion that's up to the user, but even then if you ask it to create "mona Lisa by da Vinci" it will be similar to original mona lisa but not exactly the same. I highly doubt outputs will be ever be able to be taken to court unless the user will go miles to make as similar as possible (likely using the source image as input to image-to-image). With current (outdated) laws poses or styles are not subject to copyright if they are transformative. Artists only can hope for change the law to protect against using images to train the models, any other changes to sue the output will just hurt everybody (fanart, covers, inspiration). AI will still use public domain images and produce decent outputs though.
@@wailfulcrab The core issue IMO is the input data, not output. Data needs to go in for it to make something - as transformative it might look at the end. It's like stealing vegetables from a store, putting them into a magic blender and getting a soup as a result. The soup does not reassemble the "input" vegetables at any form - BUT - that does not mean that the stuff was not stolen and the person "imputing" them should not be held accountable. As legal stuff will start to spin around AI - the work that will need to be done, to have a "clean and legal" training data, could significantly impact these systems.
I'm confident many will just look at the title of this video and comment without watching. Be careful, people. :) I watched this video to the end. Wonderful video, honest and throught-provoking! I've long been on a similar mindset as both an artist and an AI and software enthusiast. AI can have uses as an artistic tool, but a human should always be behind the art--and not just by a few surface-level text prompts. If AI acts a tool to help humans express (like you mention at the beginning of the video) I've been for that--like you've said in other videos, it can help streamline a human-artists process--like any other tool. And those are some powerful words you've put about the artist community, artists supporting other artists. We look out for each other! I think you also have some good insight on the very likely reality that AI in the field of art will be here to say, and that it may very likely change and get polished for its proper and ethical use--at least that's what I hope. We learn from history that a lot of new technology does this--we just have to figure out how to use it in ways that we agree collectively are best. With a lot of controversary and doubt and fear among many artists out there right now, I appreciate your honest, thoughtful, and dare I say grounded insight on the matter. Thank you.
My thoughts exactly!!!!
Initially I was like “wait, what?” But immediately stopped and was like “let’s just watch this and hear him out.”
I too, am an artist and tech enthusiast! And my stance on AI art is exactly the same! I feel it can be a great tool to help streamline the creative process, and help with art block!
But all the nefarious uses, and selfish people feeding into the concerns and often very deliberately stirring the heresy and misinfo pot, are just making any potential constructive growth and feedback and ethical changes much harder and seem less likely, even if constructive growth is actually happening and the programmers are actually being ethical about it!
Now that I’ve seen the whole video, I can say I agree 100% with everything in this video!!!
Thank you Toniko!
That all being said, I won’t be using AI art anytime soon, until serious updates and changes are in place to help make it an actually useful, and ethically designed/programmed piece of software! There is a Stable Diffusion plug-in someone made for Blender, that allows you to make a very simple, bare bones solid shape scene and use Stable to make it into anything you want. I will admit, it’s very cool, but as you said, it’s still not the best, as there needs to be better laws in place for this new software. And as I said, I won’t be downloading or installing this SD add on. Not until serious changes are made to the AI.
But just as much as I don’t want artists like you and me and my friends to be shunned by misguided uses of AI, I also don’t want AI and software to get discontinued permanently, as I can see it being a useful tool to help streamline the creative process; to assist and supplement human artists, not replace them!
Again, thank you so much for making this!
Hope you’re doing well!❤
I was just planning on reading the comments but this one is very rational and well expressed.
I don't know if artist communities actually exist as I've not committed to any irl or online but I will try.
I don't have an issue with AI even though I personally don't enjoy using it because none of my images are private so it kind of defeats the purpose of using them when to even build concepts for my own projects if others can use it too.
I just look at other people AI images and take what I like and draw it. That is really it.
I like that AI art is ugly most of the time because it reminds me art standards are cultural based preferences not absolute laws.
It would be cool to have image generating tools built into digital drawing software that allows me to create variants of my concepts. In this way he'd be a great tool! And also add a private feature.
I disagreed with most of the arguments made, but I did watch it all the way through.
So many things would change if "artists" stopped to think about what art is and what an artist is before arguing using those words. But it would be quite uncomfortable for many what would result from it.
@@meybi6272 What do you mean by this?
Really great to hear your take on this whole topic!
If AI Image Generation was actually being used as a tool to help with stuff like coloring, lighting (especially for your Knighthund project, or to help create more 2D animations in the style of Klaus), or 3D unwrapping, then I'm sure none of us would be against that! But alas, that's not the case. If that Music AI is using copyright-free/public domain pieces of art, why cant these Image Generation Tools do the same? Like,... why do visual artists always have to get the shit end of the deal? :,)
Also, I actually did one of these "Say No to AI Generated Images" pieces, where I used the T-800 from Terminator to represent the "AI" and I got a ton of shit from AI bros calling me a hypocrite for using a copyrighted character from existing media, among other unsavory things. YES I KNOW, I basically kicked the hornet's nest by making and posting that but... YEEEESH.
god i hate that fucking argument about copyright, theres a difference between clearly referencing something, and stealing something and nobody can tell you took it
@@aztro.99 RIGHT!? It's called "fan art" for a reason. And fact is that artist still created the piece with their actual taught skill and practice.
There is such a massive difference between that and an A.I. literally taking from where the fan art comes from as well as other things. That it's not even funny.
Now if you could use the A.I. to help you fix your anatomy from a sketch you created. And you can keep modifying it and it helps you tweak it. Then it would be fine. You could get it to generate different lighting so you could modify your colors or something.
Now this would be ok because you could use it to clean up your own art in ways you might need help. But again there is nothing, absolutely nothing ok with how it currently works.
AI sycophants will try any tactics to defend their little scamming schemes. They're vile.
aimbot is also a tool but you dont see genuine gamers using it but dishonest players do
same problem with ai degenerators
the problem is the art world trust humans to play fair in a game where theres no anti cheat but suddenly they made aimbot and bozos starting using them and they wont be punished atleast not yet
What you did for free, is an insult in their capitalist eyes.
They claim theres nothing original under the sun, but sells prompts and AI generated NFTs.
Going off the metaphor in the video, the difference between ai art and actual art is baking a cake yourself, and buying a cake from the store that mass-produces it.
Yeah both had effort put in them, except that the "effort" in the second one was a 10-minute walk to the store, while the first one brought out a cookbook, collected the ingredients, and spent an entire day preparing it, maybe even messing up or starting over a few times.
Honestly, I think the best thing we can do is to have both communities, artists and AI users, sit down and talk about all of this. Voice concerns and benefits from both sides and figure out what we can do for both parties for the betterment of their future.
I think most artists would be Okay with AI if it would be treated as it’s own distinct thing instead of it posing the possibility of it competing with them. Someone brought up chess bots, and most people are fine with them because they are treated as it’s own seperate thing which frankly can hardly be abused by the sport.
@@huhhuh9598 Exactly.
I appreciate how comprehensive this is. I think it's very telling that tech bros are throwing a hissy fit about giving artists their due credit and pay, almost like they don't actually care about the value of art in society made and thought by humans. as a fellow animator, I also understand the Sisyphean nature of the medium and how AI can be used as an ethical supplement that quickens a very tedious process. But how it is being developed from the top down is hypercapitalistic in nature, and their eagerness to not pay artists and even gleefully ruining their careers is so vile. it's hard to organize and advocate for ourselves in written law when we dont have the monetary support like the music industry does, but maybe this will change that. though this situation is pretty horrible, it's good that people are really thinking about the implications of technology like this and what it means for artists, hopefully we come out of this as a smarter and stronger community.
Do you give credit to every artist whose paintings you viewed or drew inspiration from? Stable Diffusion doesn't copy art (unless you specifically give it an image) - it creates a brand new picture based on the patterns it has learned. Kind of like humans do.
@@waltlock8805 if I heavily reference from them then yes.
This is... odd.
Many factories that opened up during the industrialization era copied many works of art to make cheap factory made stuff like hats for example.
People never cared about those who went homeless due to cheap and soulless factory made stuff being available, not even the artists who are supposedly the ones who care about human creativity cared.
@@razi_man oh but you're wrong, people did care about them , there were even protests against it, but what's your point, none of us were even alive then???
Why do you want that to happen to other people???
@@razi_manand we are paying for it with the loss of thousands of traditions around the world, unethical extraction of resources, and even climate catastrophe. Yes, turning everything into mass produced commodities has provided more access but we are also living with unprecedented amounts of pollution, economic inequality, and quite a few other calamities…
Others have mentioned… this is just the cherry on the s**t cake that is late stage capitalism… but go off I guess
2023 is going to be a very rocky year for artists, regardless I am curious to see where the technology goes, even if it's extremely demoralizing.
I had a conversation with some prompt engineers in a discord server.
The discussion sprouted from my wondering if machine learning art was to be considered art.
I clarified I just didn't know the answer and I was open to any.
The discussion was incredibly civilized, they were very passionate about it and extensively answered all of my questions.
However, there was a big issue with their approach.
The discussion was a polite ping pong of our contrasting opinions and arguments but after half an hour of continuous conversation I realized:
*They weren't listening.*
I believe it may have been caused by falling into the echo chamber that a community where everyone is pro-machine learning art can turn into.
They were marching, going on and on with the arguments, and started repeating themselves to a point where it felt like I was talking to an "AI"!
They just don't listen to counterarguments.
I'm not personally afraid that Machine learning art is going to replace human-made art.
Taking Mid journey as an example: yes, the works are visually impressive, crisp, and saturated...
But they lack any intent, they lack storytelling in the detail, they lack continuity in it, they sometimes look like a fever dream and there's a reason: the thing is just piecing together an approximation of the prompt with no clue of what it's actually doing.
It almost always results in a piece where it looks like the artist changed their mind on what they were going for multiple times during the sketching phase, and never erased anything and painted over the messy collage of ideas.
It's getting better, but as of now, It's impossible to overcome these issues without straight-up stealing pre-existing art pieces pixel by pixel
The thing you need to remember is that current AIs are dumb as bricks. They only have a rudimentary understanding of the prompt because of limitations of the text/image encoder. Most of the time the AI is literally just has to guess what your intentions are, because detailed descriptions are mangled on the way to the image generating part of the AI. For example, if you ask today's AIs to draw something simple, like a red pyramid sitting on top of a green cube on a plain white background, they derp out hard. Those relations between shapes and colours are severely degraded, and what you get is a bizarre blend of cubes and balls in red, green and white. Comma-separated tags however are relatively easy for the encoder to keep track of, even when their meaning is quite vague, like "beautiful", "uncanny", "horrifying", "detailed background" or "cinematic". It mostly just looks at which words/tags are percent. That's why you get these messy collages of ideas. For interesting prompts the AIs are just plain uncertain right to the end of what what they're even trying to draw, and how. That's also why you magically get better results by padding your prompts with stupid buzzwords which the AI associates with quality.
It's worth noting that this dumb encoder was a gigantic step forward from the previous text/image encoders, which were borderline useless as soon as you took them out of the narrow domain they were trained in. It's a small miracle that you can ask for multiple different things, and the generator will actually include them all in the same image in a manner which makes some sense. What we need though is an AI which has a decent understanding of natural language, as well as image processing, so that you can give the AI more specific instructions. As it happens, there are rumours that GPT4 is supposed to have image processing capabilities. I don't think we'll have to wait too much longer for the next breakthrough. There's too much money and effort pouring into the field.
@@fnorgen as far as I know, GPT-4 will not only be trained on images, but also on videos and sound/speech. It will be a complete game-changer, and in a scale never seen before.
Now, if only they finally be true to their name (OpenAI) and make it open source...
Of course, they won't hear anything. They believe, like religious fanatics, that the world belongs to the left-brained world and there's no room for abstract inspiration, intuition, and subtle wisdom. They're fixed in paradigms created by humans and nothing outside an anthropocentric perspective exists. And that's the reason philosophy was kicked out of school. Who needs to learn how to contemplate their own existence? We just need to create more stuff to be consumed, to sh*t more stuff, to be consumed... An Ouroboros left-brained world.
@@Amelia_PC Philosophy was kicked out of school? Wait what country are you writing from?
@@_Sigfried_ from a third world country. don't ask haha XD
Honestly if AI generator knows and understands what some artist art style looks like (for example Ilya Kuvshinov), then it definitely used that artists data for training, and creators/company of that AI program then must to pay royalties even if they were caught only ones, this is the minimum in my opinion. Yes, of course the company going to get bankrupt, if something like that was implemented, but you know, they should have known better, we all bear responsibilities for our actions, why for them it should be different?
Based on the definition of "artist", AIBros should not called themselves "artist" or "AI artist" is not even a title. The AI does the art, those who input stuff are just clients of the AIs, which are real artists here
In my country there's a clothes store named Medicine. It recently made an art contest where you could submit your design and if you won your art would be printed on shirts as a collection. Someone submitted AI art to this contest and it actually won. Later when people started criticising this decision Medicine came out with a statement that "the rules didn't specify what kind of tools you can use to make this art whether traditional or digital"
As a programmer that has dabbled in AI image generation, I like that you spoke about the positives of AI image generation and not straight off went into the negatives. There are still some things missing from your argument about technology and how it works, but I agree that people trying to pass as artists or sell their generated images is wrong. I see the program as being art and what it makes as a tool. I only have used it to give better examples to help portray my ideas to the artist I'm commissioning. I mainly use stock images for my program. So instead of calling it AI art, call it AI images or image generation. I also like to point out that I'm talking about Weak(Narrow) AI and not Strong AI
For porn, the images of AI, I'm not surprised that it happened. The internet is horny; people want the art of characters they love in NSFW and fetishes. Midjouny has many of these keywords banned, as people would make NSFW if they could. Why the explosion of NSFW when Stable diffusion came out. Since Stable diffusion is free to use. So I don't think this is mainly the fault of people using the program.
I feel like, in time, Image generation will get better and keep raising the bar for artists, just like computers making art more accessible. I don't see technology taking some jobs away but not taking artists away. There will still be jobs; it will be more challenging. This is the same for other areas as AI is also making it difficult for voice acting, coding, video making, music, and almost any we can think of. I still see humans working in these fields, but at a higher level, they are now. There's also a joke in some areas, either we are all jobless in 5 years or doing the same thing we have been doing for the next 50 years.
Thank you for your video. I love to talk to you about AI image generation. I have also been helping a friend with a video about this problem. I hope for the best and wish you the best of luck!
P.s.s. I didn't even know people were trying to claim terms. That, to me, is silly and shouldn't be attempted.
The AI won't replace artists but it will certainly make people ten times lazier to be a create art.
They said the same thing about Photoshop and Zbrush. 🙄
@@rockon8174 did photoshop steal your medical files in order to function?
@@bunnywar The question is why were the medical records published in a public place? Also, stabilityAI can train AI from scratch without copyrighted material and it will still work just fine.
@@leoblanco4644 own that fraud
@@rockon8174 You comparing apples to oranges.
Both photoshop and Zbrush can function without it being feed other peoples work.
Yeah, cruel AI bros are the second worst part of the AI situation (the art theft that went on the training goes first).
There's a level of dehumanization of the people they are affecting, and that is very sad. My main problem is that there is no apparent safe place to put art online that actually makes the compromise to keep it safe. Guess nothing online has never been truly safe, but its very desolating to know there doesn't seem to be a fiber of protection for artists who literally put their art out there for the delight of others.
They steal people's work and call it theirs under the name ai art I hope artists who had been stolen to not stand silent
"Why do these pompous artists deserve credit?"
Damn I can't believe people want to get paid for their work and effort, what a selfish world we live in.
"Takers" will never stop taking. They never learn to give something of worth from themselves. They don't know the sacrifice of those that create.
I am not a big fan of AI art programs or even feel intimidated by it, but it is certainly uncharted legal territory that has to be looked into more deeply. I recall in my art history class that painting artists said nearly the same thing about photography when it first came out and that there wasn't an artistry element to it, and that it would destroy the painting industry, which is partly what happened, but it didn't disappeared and brought along a deep questioning on what is art and forced it to explore new avenues that it didn't before. Now views on it has changed a lot and is now considered full artform in itself and is heavily used to help traditional artists in their painting for reference. I wonder if anything similar will happen with AI art maybe? but to say the least this will be a radical new shift in the industry.
I'm a professional 2d illustrator, and in the lucky position where I work mainly on style guide art for large brands so my work has to be clean and consistent across the board, but I have to admit it's still a worrying situation even for me.
The main 2 issues with AI artwork is 1. The general consumer often doesn't care how much work, how much time or who created the picture, but more how the picture looks. (And annoyingly AI is already turning out some very good looking work.
It also already seems to understand lighting and layout that is instantly appealing to the human eye)
Then 2. There are the publishers on top of that who look at time = money, and AI is much quicker for a 45 minute rendered picture than paying an artist that might take a day or three to do the same thing.
Unless there is a direct rip off from an artist's work, and hasn't been changed enough to be noticeable, AI art will be very strong and expensive for the general artist to fight against.
The world moves on, and people have to adapt. That's innovation
@@aaron6807 I'm not sure if it can be called innovation just yet.
It's the same as self checkouts in supermarkets and shops. It saves the company money sure, but the average person trying to get a job is also being replaced by machines, which means they find it harder to find jobs, which means people have less money to spend, which means the companies make less and can't afford to pay their remaining staff, which means they put up prices, which means the cost of living goes up, which means their staff strike for more pay, which costs the companies more, and also leads to more people claiming benefits, which costs countries money. (Almost the same loop as the current financial situation too)
Without an end target of AI and overall machine usage, it's more backward steps than innovation.
It isn't far before AI builds a proper catalogue of hands, feet and eyes to look far more accurate and will end up replacing artists (people are saying it won't, but it already is sooo)
Then those artists will have to get normal every day jobs... Which will be hard to find because of machines replacing people. It's not innovative. It will end up with companies removing machines and hiring people as a selling point to the average consumer to look like "Hey, we're a company for the people, run by people" kind of thing 😆
Unless the world gets rid of money, It's all totally backwards
@@grandmasterj5 I doubt it man. A friend of mine is a self declared Marxist, and even he still goes straight to the self checkout every single time because it's marginally cheaper. People largely value low cost and convenience. There will always be some enthusiasts who are willing to pay a premium for the human touch, but consider this; Most people prefer home made bread if given the option. Yet very few people actually pay for hand made bread, because the big factory-bakeries produce decent products at a much lower price.
Also, it is far too easy to create an image of being a "company for the people, run by people". Consider all the companies that blatantly lie about sourcing their materials ethically, and just get away with it when they are found out. Or all the companies that slap "made in America" stickers on products because they import Chinese components and do final assembly and boxing in America as a token effort.
The potential savings from widespread automation are just too great, and lying about it to those who actually care is too easy. If it came to it, the elite would happily continue to automate tasks to serve each other, and completely forget about the rest of us if they no longer needed our labour.
Personally though I am hopeful new professions become available to take up the slack. At least that's what has happened after past revolutions in automation, though often after some turmoil. I just struggle to imagine how an increase in productivity and efficiency will be a bad thing in the long term, since demand usually rises to meet supply, even if that demand may shift to other fields.
@@fnorgen the savings from automation haven't been passed on to consumers though. At least not in the UK.
Self service isn't cheaper over here. It costs the same.
The only savings are for the company that uses them, but they also don't increase wages any higher than inflation, so the people in charge are making the pocket on it with bonuses etc and that's it.
The issue is that it's the lower end people that are suffering first, and until it starts hitting higher up (which at some point it will), the companies won't care
The same will go for publishers etc creating children's books for example. They will happily use AI when it becomes more consistent over an artist in future.
One thing I haven't heard people talk about much is how a lot of the critisisms levied at AI that relate to unethical behaviour or stealing also apply to photobashing. Now, I don't really like the look of most AI aesthetically, and I also don't like the look of most photobashed art, but that's beside the point. I don't think that AI art is good for individual artists, but since the industry has adopted photobashing as standard practice for making concept art -- I think it's likely that AI art will be used in a similar way, by industries. Individual art assets and concepts that artists use to make more complex and personalized peices afterwards. A lot of concept art never gets shared due to NDAs, so it's likely that the industry will move on and keep using AI on the backend because it's more efficient and we'll never hear about it until there's a whistleblower. Still, the thing about photobashing still bothers me. Is AI art not just the logical progression of something we've been letting slide for decades now. If we wanted to nip this problem in the bud, shouldn't we have been collectively opposed to photobashing from the start?
damn some of these people in the comment really don't have the attention span to sit back and watch the entire video first before making assumptions
i mean, it have some potential but with what we currently have now is definitely a bad thing since the people behind these ai stole copyrighted artworks from other people without their permission to "feed" these machines
@@naila4856 I think most are still very emotional about this development. I know I was, and every time a video on this subject pops up I'm instantly just a tad bit anxious. Much like turbulence in a flight.
As a fellow animator I just knew you'd have the best tasteful take on this, not to toot my own horn lol. But you must admit its easier for us animators, especially with 2D animation which is extremely hard to replicate VIA AI art, and if you're a traditional Cel animator like myself (pratt institute grad 2019) there's almost no way for the look to be replicated as digital always looks digital. So we are much safer from say, an oil painter or a landscape charcoal artist. Our styles are a bit more "safe" from plagiarism, so its not fair for us to tell the still artists to calm down when they are much easier to replicate VIA databases.
2d animators have an upper hand because you need to understand all 12 principles at once, ai only recognizes only a few of them usually making animation look choppy and disgusting, we already have some kind of ai in our craft, the motion tween is ai, and it completely undermines the concept by doing the boring game of connect the dots, no timing, no easing, nothing about it looks good if you decide to move character with it
@@Thispersonisreal Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't motion tween just calculations, not AI? In my view, AI is something that changes along with the world's view of things (it's own intelligence). Don't calculations just run the inputs through a formula and spits out the output?
I haven't dabbled with 2D animation yet, so I might be entirely wrong. Also I'm not smart. At all.
@@luqmanji_ AI is literally working on noise to produce pictures, it's calculations on steroids
@@Thispersonisreal Yep, that's why I don't believe AI art generators are 'true' AI, they turn source material into noise and try to reverse the process.
Feeding it billions of training data has made it almost good-looking enough, although a bit over-rendered in some cases.
OMG thank you for making this video!! This is everything that I’ve had problems with tech bros and their AI art all the time.
I think some people just don't have an emotional attachment to any art, and don't understand why a human made piece is so much more important than a computer basically randomly picking bits and pieces of other art to emulate a new piece. Art has lost its meaning over time, and a large sum of people can't even do it themselves, no matter how hard they try, my mom being one of them. It's a sad reality we live in, but as long as we push art into a more emotionally excepted way the future should have more artists.
I like to put descriptions of my characters to see what the AI thinks it should look like, so I can reference new ideas and concepts.
"Those who would seek to replace artists with machine learning and Al clearly don't understand what art is for. Replace stuff that people don't want to do, or can't do. But people get joy (and their livelihood) from creating art, and they want to do it. It's one of the things that make us human. I'm no Luddite, and I love using new tools to create my animation. But when it starts to encroach upon the fulfillment that I get from creating, then no thanks!"
- James Baxter
istg we're getting closer to living like in wall-e every single day
Hello! I think that the professional animation community has to be vigilant in defending themselves against Artificial Intelligences because very soon they will also steal animators' art to generate animations.
it's impossible to copy animation, you can't animate without understanding the principles, the ai may try but animation will looks absolutely bad, animators have an upper hand here
@@Thispersonisreal This is true, I've seen some of those AI works it just looks off. It does not understand things like when you use less frames for certain things and more for others. Instead it tries to keep the exact same rate trough the entire thing.
im not an advocate of AI, im actually against it replacing artists. but we have to set the facts straight. AI text to image generator like stable diffusion doesn "sample" images directly. it actually destroys the images fed to it into noise and then try to recreate it using machine learning by taking and learning all the defining features and patterns of the image. so we can stop the argument that AI outright steals art by sampling and mix and match it together. also some people that are actually can be considered artists also said that these dataset images used to train AI are all acutually deeply curated and in consent of the artist. and there are also others who argue that since AI isnt exactly sampling images and mix the together like we all used to believe, then it taking random images on the internet and use them as training datasets is literally no different than when a human sees an artwork on the internet and remembers it in their memory as reference in their artwork. these are all, at face value, legit counter arguments towards that anti AI movement.
HOWEVER. i do think that AI STILL does steal from artists. not necessarily their artwork, but their " IDENTITY". You see, when a human sees a reference and use it in their artwork they actually mix it in with their own identity as a human. their life experiences and their preferences all build up on this unique artstyle and identity and every single artist has differentlly. AI however, isnt capable of that. all they did was recreate exactly 1 to 1 their reference training images and has no identity of their own. no matter how transformative these artworks are they still are actually other people's identity and artstyle being mixed and matched together by the AI and the "AI ARTSIT" now this isnt enought to make this a legal matter, but some of these youtubers also refuted the fact that this is an ethical matter. which is sad. because it is an ethical matter. you cannot say to me stealing a person's identity and mixing them and claiming them as your own isnt wrong. but the sad truth is, this is nowhere in the copyright laws. so idk. if youre so adamant about this, then maybe we should try to chang3e the law
I love how all the artist influencers are making video like this saying “I’m not against it I’m just making a video about AI without saying nothing..” thanks a lot. People that never took a pencil are creating accounts and selling AI artworks everywhere. Some Album covers already switched from real artists to AI and this is only the beginning and all the videos I am watching about AI from artists are so polite and correct. Hope you have some other skills other than art because we will need it soon, it’s already happening I don’t understand why artists are still in the phase of denying. You are the influencers, so influence! Speak up!
There are speaking up.
the metaphore for the problems if was seen by the music industry really open up my perception.
In classical music training that I did when was as a kid and teenage the understatement was: archive technical fluency, and tangible perfection, so you may honor the "greats" compositors with your performance.
Only after you have a great level of skills and all music theories that you may try to be a compositor. I see this type of close and hierarchical mind in other creative fields also.
So for some people to be able to finally have some skills without all the usual hard work is enought to justify anything. because ethics of intelectual propriety is really rare for outside of the bubble.
Many genres of music is made with a lot of sampling and other "ready-made" "plug and play" used without much complexity or innovation, but still there is luck or talent or perception that can make something more outstanding.
for what little I understand for programmers a huge part of their work culture is building up from others previous work without credits, compensation or even authorization, so it's easy to not even that it in consideration.
I was a very frustraded 6 years old that wanted to make music, actual composition, not enter an academic ego circle that killed most of that side of me. I can empathize with people that feels the joy to finally be "able" to create.
bruh there's no barrier in music and art just yourself unwillingness to be in uncomfortable situation to reach your potential as a musician or an artist. For a 6 years old a great example is multiplayer games you can cheat all you want and beat pros with your aimbot or other unfair advantages, but without the cheat you will realize that pressing a button is not a masterpiece or impressive to anyone or yourself
for 'inspiration' they forget that we humans do get inspo from the 3d world around us, not just looking up images off the computer.
I wish we had BCI implants to turn thoughts of what we see into images that others can see on screen at least. That is true efficiency and has soul in it. Even though my art skill can never do me justice of what I see, at least it's something. AI art will never be able to do it for me since it doesn't exist on the internet. I'd have to draw it to train it, then there is no point as I might as well do it myself. I prefer AI tools or tools in general like using a 3D model in CSP, vector lines, or the upcoming shader AI tool to help me get things done faster.
I want the world back where the artist matters. I am on Deviantart.
To get what I want is to get back the category list browsing. AI should be an option just like 3D, digital, traditional, etc.
I want to know if it was someone's 6-10 hours of suffering and 10 years of xp doing that work or just some typing.
When the camera was invented, artists could still explore the realm of abstract art and draw things that don't exist or can't exist in this world, but with ai art, even abstract art is no longer safe so what can artists make that ai can't?
I think it is interesting but in many cases where people say this will completely replace this doesn't happen. One case is where the Navy was defunded by Truman during the beginning of the Cold War since the army said there was no need to have any invasions because they had nukes, but because the Navy was defunded they couldn't bring troops over to Korea until they ended up having more funds to do so.
Your "ai bro" voice is exactly how everything I read from them sounds in my head!
AI art is just lazy as hell, I sure hope it’s not the future or we artists are screwed.
Watch the video first before you make judgments
@@connorcoker5112 I still have the same opinion, though I wouldn’t say it’s lazy anymore. It just feels kind of wrong to use AI art
AI art as an end product is like binging on cake batter instead of working on the darn cake. This won't change. You need artists to make art. What will happen is this will embed itself as a new tool for artists to automate the more tedious parts of their craft. I'm down for that.
@@jaegermonster9549 eh maybe, perhaps if certain laws were in place like what happened to NFT’s, then A.I. Art wouldn’t seem so “taboo” I guess.
But for right now, there a lot of rightful hate towards it as mentioned in the videos, people don’t understand how A.I. Art can impact Artists who make their own pieces only to just have it used and integrated into something without their consent.
I don’t know, believe what you want I guess, I’m just not on board with it currently
You really should've chosen a different title. You make some incredible points and give a lot of good reasonings as to what AI art can be used for without the need to cross the line of morality, but most people just read the title and then unsubscribe or leave because they can't just sit through the video and take the information into the consideration.
Good job though, great points here.
👍
I think it might've been intended as clickbait
I think it was fairly good. More pro-AI people would see the title and watch thinking it will vindicate how it's being used. Still, it did feel very invalidating at first. Guess it also plays into: see it through yourself instead of instantly reacting.
Taking a plane to go to another country doesn't make you a traveler, it makes you a tourist.
There's been rumblings that studios are already adopting AI for their pipeline in concept art from a few pros I've seen -- just to offer a different side to when you said studios are not using it.
Rumors isn't the same as implementing it. A studio executive might mention it in a meeting, but it goes back to the copyright issues that could occur using AI. If it is used ever, it would be in the very early stages of pre-production where the non-artist producer is wanting to give a meeting a basic idea on what they're envisioning.
@@xanderholland6086 a professional artist in contact with other pros said it's being used in design pipelines. blue sky stuff, as you mentioned. but i'm sure disney has an AI trained on their massive art history, avoiding copyright. it's not long before artists are clean up artists. There will still be a need for elite level talent but juniors like me, it's gonna get hard. At least directors like del toro and james cameron are against it but they're not the studio heads.
It's not even a matter only of "digital" art specifically, but visual arts as a whole almost, "except for" original physical art pieces sold as such, vs licensed or work-for-hire. But it can impact even that to some degree.
Dunno if anyone notice, artist cant fight ai, but coder can..theres this ai called copilot that can create code on their own..and coder is not pleased with that, trying to fight them back.
AI art is cool, but no matter what, I'll always stick to handrawn.
Holy crap! That animation youre doing is insanely good! 🤯🤯
So quick explanation here, I am an computer science engineer, in university I have been studying deep learning and testing some hypothesis, i killed my old laptop by doing so, ai technology is very complicated when it comes to hypothesis with almost about anything you do with it. I did some testing with vqgan and diffusion models when they did come out to answer a personal simple question. Can ai be considered creative. The short answer is no, it is not creative, but please note that it is my testing i might be wrong with approach or execution. So i think you already familiar with diffusion models and how they trained so i won't explain that and straight explain what i did. I trained my model from scratch it didn't know anything, i fed him pictures of very stickmen alike black dogs in a white background with resolution 64x64 and amount of thousands images, i know resolution seems low but it is actually enough to test, and also fed him images of dog's head. And when i requested to cut images of head from dog images it did fairly good job not perfect but it was going in a right direction. And then i fed him images of blue swords and also images of dogs holding a blue swords with a mouth and images of red pistols without dogs. Now what we have model that can recognize dog, dog's head, blue sword, dog holding a blue sword, red pistol. Now moment of truth if i will request him do generate image of dog holding a red pistol with a mouth will it make it or not. And as you might know answer it just give up and were generating mess trying to blend together dog and pistol. So why am i writing all of this, i often hear arguments against and for ai art generation. Some people say that ai is training on data same as people do so it is not stealing, this argument is hard to disprove because nature of ai makes hard to prove or disprove almost anything but we can say for sure that humans are creative and as i tested ai is not, so we already process information in different ways, ai's pattern recognition works in different way than humans so calling out ai for stealing might be true but then again it is not coping it directly, it is using it is knowledge of pattern that just differs from humans. Okey i will finish my observations here and further will just speak my mind about this situation. Ai is perfect representation of our society. Have any of you noticed that every time something original happens like very successful game, movie or some song. Industries and companies will do everything it takes to take piece of this successful cake and they will deny any other ideas whether they are original or not. Most big companies in entertainment industry always make same thing over and over again and the only original works were made are always made by small group of people and when they reach their success Industry giants will start to manufacture idea of this small group in a greater scales to greater profit because it proven to work to profit. This ai situation is exactly the same, if you lost your ability to distinguish ai made art from human made it is not because ai is making original content it is because people are stagnating and making same stuff over and over. Ever wondered why ai so good at generating anime waifus, it is because they are very similar in appearance to each other because we stopped pushing it forward. By making stable diffusion open source we effectively made every human being a corporation, now every one can mass manufacture popular art or art style but nobody will make original art, and even if somebody will make original works it can easily be taken and also mass produced without consent or mention. Ai is here to stay not because it is better in art than humans but because it is better in worst thing about our society today at creating same idea with low effort.
In my own understanding
Art espicially (including other media as well) stand out alot from a ai prompt is because we put alot of meanings to it. It has a role, and soul to it. Rather then a ai generated thing where its created from text and promps. I personally think that ai is good for generating ideas when one is stuck with a design or just can't capture a specific feel of something. Just that some internet nerd is going to abuse it and use it for their own profit.
So what can we do us artist? What we should do is to improve to a point that bypass these technology that could distroy and tear apart many things. As they say, Modern problems requires traditional methods.
also speaking about the ai image around: 12:59 Theres an actual artist who basically rosted that user by making it 1000% better.
Anyways, stay funki broz
I don't think there is much to worry about. Like in music production. There are virtual orchestra , virtual drummers already for a long time around. But still alive orchestra and alive drummers are highly appreciated among many listeners and creators. I think with the visual art will be about the same.
Similar to how the internet quickly got fed up of "pictures of Jesus on CCTV", being able to generate pictures in a certain style will hopefully lose its novelty eventually. I hope that stuff like ripping artists off on purpose just won't be something someone will be interested in pursuing in the near future. And since it is hard to create very specific pictures or characters without work, I don't think that commission artists will actually be hit to hard by non-artist AI Bros' interference.
Looking at Google trends, the peak of interest for AI art already seems to be in the past
@@zwitshr Noticed that too, many places now even ban AI images because people are tired of seeing them.
I didnt want to become a comic book artist only to have a robot do the work for me. What disturbs me the most is not the notion of theft but rather laziness, why bother making stuff from scratch when you can tell a computer to do it for you? I´m pretty damned concerned with the industry as a whole and how it will affect people who will not use the AI. Sure, such things are in early development, but whose to say that robots wont be able to replicate styles completely in merely ten years or so?
A huge problem I rarely see mentioned: you as a user never know if what AI has generated is legally safe to use. How do I know that it didn't generate me something so close to somebody else's work (without me even knowing), it might be argued in court to be copyright infringement?
We know it *can* generate copyrighted stuff if you *ask it to* but as you've said, you often can trace what the AI took as reference without telling AI to reference something specific.
I saw a video from a lawyer addressing this. It's technically a breach but the issue is finding who to blame ; the AI user? the AI coders or the companies behind it?. Personally I hold the companies liable.
@@AnnasVirtual it's in google's terms of service so no we can't and shouldn't sue google. However artists who don't even use the AI have their art used to train the AI without their consent.
@@kylelee5966 Ultimately, if I put an AI image of an unspecified cartoon plumber that happened to have a red cap and a black bushy stache into my game, Nintendo will go after ME, and a single person vs a giant corporation is basically unwinnable.
@@LizardOfOz true but what about a collection of a ton of different lawsuits from different individual people who they infringed on? I'm honestly just curious what the outcome of that would be .
The same thing can happen with human generated art. If you paint something to close to something else, you can be sued for it - even if you never saw the original work.
I evaluated the product and decided I wouldn't use it for any production purpose and I'm even considering abandoning it. The quality is bad. The ethics aren't set right. And it's a free for all of all sorts of whacky things that I don't want to have in my toolset as for production ready materials. I'll reconsider SD for production when they solve all the ethical and kink controversy around the product.
I find the behavior of AI tech bros ludicrous considering that the same technology they claim will replace artists will actually replace software engineers first. I've experimented with ChatGPT for writing and learning code and the program does a fairly okay job of creating a pong game from a one-sentence prompt (not a working game but captures some essential components of the code for a pong game). 10 years from now these same people boasting about how we've superseded the need for human creativity will find themselves out of a job which will lead to another pointless economic crisis.
Music has already legal precedents that would take StableDiffusion&Co apart to a molecular level. We go back roughly at the end of the 90's when pirated music and pirate sites that allowed music to be downloaded were popping up like mushrooms. The arguments were EXACTLY the same. Some of the readers may remember Napster. That's why the AI music apps are coded to steer clear from copyrighted material and fishing from licence free/CC ones. What is striking my attention is how silent the big dogs in gaming, movie making etc are. Back in the day Blizzard used to nuke even fan arts made for mere showcase, same was Capcom, Nintendo and the evergreen Disney that can litigate for a pixel back to the 4th generation. Their assets have been fed to the AI apps too. They will be fed to it again. Why are they silent?
Second and even scarier part: AI is being developed, trained and tested off unpaid labor, basically. Thousands of folks are spending hours training that thing, free of charge Some of them are even paying monthly subscriptions to do it. isn't it a form of slavery? I doubt that AI would have developed THIS fast ( less than a year) without the mass of disposable workforce. And the last bitter note...while visual artists may have little protection ( copyright laws etc)... AI "artists" have NONE. AI generated material cannot be copyrighted, we have already few legal precedents that ruled out of copyright protection an entire comic book. So these people also have no ground to claim what they're producing with this tech. Is it so hard for them to see how wildly exploited they are too? Wouldn't be better to have a this AI sourced ethically and regulated a bit so everyone is happy?
@@AnnasVirtual that's not quite how the AI works either. That's how "traditional" art thieves work. Either ways are not excuses or justifications that make those processes "legit". Not by the slightest. Hence why there's the need of a bit of rules. To give you the scale : imagine if these concepts were applied to practical life, including the AI bros favorite concept " who cares about if it's theft". Imagine losing your power, when someone breaks into your house, to enforce your legitimate rights of being safe, of not being financially damaged so on and so forth. Is not JUST about the images generated with this AI tool. Is the enormous implications that the current phylosophy behind it is pushing. And..."art" is not just pretty pictures. I give you one last example to think about: if tomorrow the artists disappear by magic...no more movies, no more music, no more clothes, no more haistyling, no more furniture. There is so much more than just " a fancy picture". This said, i can't stress this enough: nothing against the tool. I am against HOW the tool is built. If if it changes, more than happy to give it a go and support it. Till that day i will not change my mind. Have a good end of the year and an excellent start tomorrow. ( no sarcasm, i mean it)
Lack of consent is a serious issue, and not just with Art. How do you think all those facial- and voice-recognition models were trained? On our faces and voices. And i'm pretty sure none of us gave any consent to that. Hopefully, these issues will gain traction and something will be done.
i think AI generates signatures because when it learned from the datasets most of the art had signatures, so it tries to create new and reproduce these scribbly lines because it thinks that signatures are part of the art.
I (as a random IT guy), think AI must be used as a tool, an aid. Not a replacement to a human. I imagine a future where AI could be used to rapidly develop artistic pieces from line art and the vision of an artist, more so speeding up their work flow.
IF AI made to replace human artist, soon your IT job 'll come next on the dead list anyway.
@@huymaivan8671 I'm a garbage. I'll eventually get replaced.
I'm just hoping when AI replaces most jobs, everything will be a magical utopia...
@@windowsagent981 DOnt be naive, utopia alway build of the base of a Distopia as a trade off. There's no magical. Money dont come our of thin air, when some thing cheap, other thing'll be expensive.
And guess what, those who get job replace 'll alway be on Distopia side because the rich and the big company already take over the room in Utopia side. If you cant be on Utopia side, dont wish for this future.
My problem with AI Art is that it could kill my chances of getting a job in the animation industry, or my dream of creating my own animated series.
It will not.
If anything AI art once more defined, will streamline or simplify the animation process as we know it nowadays. if you have story to tell or animation you want done, you just gonna need to learn some aditional tools, but no matter how much AI is impemented in the process you still gonnna need an artist behind it all.
@@Koakimeiruvalafar Right on.
I wouldn't worry too much about that I see it more as a tool. when 3d animation came out everyone said 2d animation would die but that wasn't the case both exist. It'll be better used as maybe a reference generation tool to speed up idea generation the biggest issue is the way its being used currently is unethical. like the case of the ai art winning a art competition and the "ai bros" defending it that they're just better refusing to realize it's built off of existing art. If we just stopped the database would stagnate and there goes the new ai art being possible
I’m an aspiring traditional artist, but I could see the potential in using AI to create a bunch of mock-ups for inspiration. Although I’m curious what people like Feng Zhu think of this. On another note, I don’t know much or really anything blockchain stuff, but I’m all for it if it contributes to attribution for one’s work.
4:45 Image-generators don't actually collage, they're just really good at replication (they're literally machines). This doesn't mean it's not a breach of copyright for using copyrighted works as training material in for-profit tools.
So does this mean i should give up on art?
Watch the video first
Personally, I don't think any of us should give up on art. But more from a principle point of view.
There is a wealth of knowledge in making art that AI automates. This could lead to a loss of that knowledge in humans. After all, "You lose it if you don't use it."
In the same way we lose native languages because not enough people speak them and TEACH them to others, we could lose the fundamentals of how to draw and paint: gesture, anatomy, light and shadow, perspective, color theory, composition.
I believe these things are worth learning and preserving, even when AI is continuously trying to devalue it.
Fuck no
@@stephaniewozny3852 I agree, but also on a technical point of view. Anyone in the field knows it takes more to make a good product than just bashing stolen parts together into a superfluous mess.
It's not only as a principle, but as a fact, that art needs an artist. The savvy artist will adapt AI into their toolset, and progress faster.
Short answer: no.
Long answer: This is an exciting time to be an artist. We're seeing the awesome, albeit at first look terrifying, birth of a new technology that can be employed for our benefit. Don't let the brainrotten AI bros think you're obsolete. Imagine having your own body of work, using automated commands to recompile it and start up on a whole new piece from there. That's the kind of tool we'll have.
Early disclaimer, I'm going to also gatekeep the term "AI Art." When I say AI Art or AI Artist, I mean someone actually trying to make art. Not someone trying to generate random images and putting no real effort into it beyond typing a few words and hitting go. There are plenty of people that just do that, and I agree with you on most of your sentiment about that -- I especially hate when people tag in an artists on a low effort prompt with no revisions and call it art. (ex: "Zelda in the style of Lisa Frank and Monet")
For someone trying to make AI art it isn't just set it and forget it, or just keep regenerating until it's right. "They work like humans...all" -> Your argument here is that AI needs to feel. AI doesn't need to feel, that's the human component. The human generating the image is having the feeling or is trying to generate something based on a feeling they have. AI is not just "sampling" and making a collage out of bits and pieces of other people's works. "Rip off stuff all the time..." -> The revision process you talk about is the exact same for the human making the prompt as the artist making the tribute piece. Down to, and including fixing the number of fingers on AI generated hands. "Artists don't understand the tech" -> Some do, but most do not. Your biggest complaint is that ai is stealing parts of people's images. In the case of the big 3 AIs, it absolutely, categorically is NOT doing that. The process is so much more difficult and intensive than that. I agree though, I don't think most artists are afraid of it, I think most are curious and a lot of the anger comes from misleading statements by click bait farms. It goes both ways though, a lot of the AI-Bros you talk about are just sick of making the same arguments over and over again because the forums get flooded with anti-artists that refuse to have a conversation. It's usually pretty clear who wants to cause trouble and who wants to learn/discuss. "It's not about prompts" -> You got most of this right. The part you're missing is that it isn't always happy accidents. There's a lot of intentional changes made via "inpainting" there's canvas expansion and background updates with "outpainting," there's facial cleanup work to be done, tone shifting. Of course, you missed half of the prompting - you don't have to start off with just words. You can make a crappy sketch and put it in, describe what it should be and come reasonably close. "Stable diffusion for music" - > Already exists, just not Stable Diffusion. It's also pretty bad right now... but so was stable diffusion 2 years ago. "Future warning" -> I agree, I think stable diffusion will shake things up. I think artists will always have a place but I think your main studios are going to demand "low effort assets" for things like backgrounds, props, etc. Your "deep embedded item" won't work- AI models don't steal from artists, they toss your art into a scrap heap with a bunch of other images and words, then crush it down, then throw it in a blender, and output a perfectly cute little trash cube full of the essence of the images. Assuming the process is working correctly you should not be able to recover any individual input. That being said, I think in the future there will be legal precedent that making the "Kim Jung Gi" model will be illegal due to how similar it is to his works.
Your cake example misses the biggest point of all - the process of making that cake and learning about it is the same as the process for making AI art. The AI artists has to learn how to generate the image the way he wants, he gets closer to the system as he goes and starts to learn the ins-and-outs of the words, he learns the cadence of the build process, and he learns how likely certain combinations will be to obtain a result. And like the new trendy baker, he posts the image of it to instagram and gets #cakefail. The only difference is that the cake maker gets to laugh and move on, the AI artist gets flooded with anti-ai artists talking about how evil he is and how his art isn't real art. If you want people to take you seriously and stop making fun of your concerns, you also need to give them the same courtesy instead of making fun of them "1 cup of big boobs." (Though I did find it funny, and for some people, it's absolutely true.)