I am on the position of "Bowl is kinda immature here". Because the dude spent his time trying to yell out insults and when he leaves, there's an audio of everyone clapping. ... get it? The "everyone clapped" kind of moment?
@@frenchbaguetteintelligence Only thing I disagree with Bowl about (not in this video, he did great here, I mean in "Art vs Modern Art") is the "knowing the artist through their work" thing. It's been bothering me a lot since I last saw that video. I HIGHLY recommend Bowl plays "A Beginner's Guide." It's a very in depth analysis as to what trying to put together and make assumptions about who the artist is based exclusively off their work does in the long run.
@@TheManBehindtheFunny I always feel like this phrase is more about "to know him as an artist" than "I know the life of this man I have seen all his drawing" in short, time, place and old painting and aspiration can give light to some work and knowing that will help comprehend a particular work.
Bowl really likes Goya, so his standard for art is based on expressive figurative works with individual style and emotional / political content. He has very little patience for high Modernism, total abstraction in general, or really anything that seeks to mask the hand of the artist.
It's always nice seeing The Bowl drop his clown act and be the most knowledgeable in the room. And Pele's geniune fealings of betrayal are so validating.
Boy, that part when Sapient 0.2 compared the tiny Earth and big Earth photographs, said the sizes were wrong, ticked me off. Because he's right, there IS an obvious discrepancy at first glance... So why didn't NASA make the obvious choice to fabricate images of the Earth and Moon with the "right sizes"? Nope. NASA am stupider than he; only his brilliance can correctly comprehend distance and size proportions.
Bowl's monster of an argument followed by his final message to the server was phenomenal, especially after seeing the last video. A huge win for Bowl here.
Even though Bowl's performance in this vid was obviously great, Pêle was a really fun "protagonist" in this imo. Love the vids with different protags, in general.
I'm an artist. I'd never release an AI output (won't call it art) as final product, but I do use it sometimes. Very useful for quick character concept art. I can make several iterations, show it to my teammates and she uses it as reference for the actual drawing. I'm also trying to use it to create art from it. I don't have an exact idea yet but I'm thinking of generating small parts, putting them together, then applying dithering and color indexing to blend all together. On low resolution with a good color palette it has potential for a nice effect I think. A bit inspired by Omori's battle background made of modified stock photos. I don't see any value in AI output as themselves but I can see them as just another tool to create new things from. And no, artists will never be replaced.
@@Bru21424 Because of what the AI use for training? Yes, I mean it depends on the AI but there can be ethic issues regarding copyright. I only used it for reference and experiments yet so I haven't had to worry about that yet but yeah it's something I would have to look into if I want to use any for more serious projects. Which isn't the case as of now.
Artists will never be replaced. An artwork that used to take 100 hours will still take 100 hours. But all of the rudimentary and boring work will be done in less time and more of those 100 hours can be spent on pushing the envelope! This is what a.i. art means.
AI art is fun, and can be used as a crutch for individuals who are too poor to afford an artist for an indie project they are working on. At least until they get the funding to hire an actual artist. However, it should be banned for all companies. Massive fines for any company that tries to pull that shit. They have the money and have no excuse.
@@anubis7457It's been a blessing for modders. Suddenly silent Skyrim mods get a voice with elevenlabs and anything that requires portraits can get them fast.
@@anubis7457luckily lawsuits against said companies seem to be progressing positively for artists. And can potentially lead to a precedent that better protects artists in general not just in the industry. Though work for hire contracts and so on can still be a problem. And cause further issues
Artists don't draw because a machine can't do it, they draw because they like it. People that play chess didn't suddenly stop playing because a computer got really good at it.
Creating something is very different from playing something. Not to say that chess players don't put any work in, but to say those things are completely incomparable. Also, I am an artist, and can say that I absolutely hate AI art, as well as any artist I've met. How many artists have actually told you AI art isn't bad?
@@candace219 I guess the main question with AI art is who will use it and for what. It's not the same if the machine is used by, say, writers and worldbuilders trying to ilustrate something they wrote about and, in general, folks not willing nor able to pay a comission than corporations and individuals using it for profit motifs.
@@candace219Every artist I’ve worked with in a professional setting hasn’t cared, because they know I’m still using them. I use AI art to create an initial reference and have artists draw the character I described in their own style. It’s a lot easier than me trying to describe a character in tedious detail. Also, I guess a better analogy would be, do people who create sculptures and decorative carpentry still do so even though it’s now mass produced? Yes, but a lot less than before due to it not being profitable for most.
too idealistic. People do draw for money. Maybe they just lost their passion for art along their carrier but keep doing it for the cash. Maybe there is another reason. Saying "artist don't draw for money" 100 times wont make it true.
@@Pele-mele. I have a player who likes to draw her favorite scene from every session, but I don't have the talent for even a sketch. Having AI be good enough that someone like me can get stuff out of their brain and onto paper? That would be incredible.
@@Pele-mele. I’ve used it twice to try and get the idea of a Studio Ghibli-styled Legend of Zelda scene out of my head but it was so awful at doing it I gave up I’d rather pay someone $200 to draw it for me than deal with the bullshit algorithms
@@Pele-mele.I sometimes use ai art if I'm just interested in seeing particular kinds of images to stimulate my imagination and either don't know artists that make the kind of art I want in a style a like, do know those artists but know they don't have it, or just want to see how accurate an AI will get to what I like
@@plushenjoyingfiend4335 No, I'd say the former. It's one of the few times Bowl completely removes his comically-bigoted clown persona and actually takes people seriously.
When FC isn't around to do the heavy lifting, Bowl can actually make good arguments, how about that? My two cents; there was a Christmas movie that just came out that used AI to do 3D style lighting on handdrawn art, resulting in a unique and visually stunning style. But there was an artist doing the actual work, before and after the AI was used. The AI was simply used to do a repetitious, tedious task that would've taken humans many times longer and required no creative thinking. Even then, humans went through after and had to touch it up. Point being; that's using AI as a tool for art. The AI generated images, what was actually being talked about here, are just some guy typing in "big boobie anime girl" and playing around with different words until it pops out a picture he likes. I think AI art as a tool has a olace as an argument, but few people are using it that way.
@@massiveidiot77 It created a 3D look on handrwan art. Something that was too labor intensive to do on a reasonable timeline without AI. So yes, I agree. It is using a tool. Like I argued originally.
@@moonblaze2713 no I mean it literally is a tool. A lot of companies will use the ai term to describe normal computer effects even if they have absolutely nothing to do with ai
Please tell me that Harry managed to join this server. I want this to be a full blown trilogy of how a bunch of nerds got a server full of “free thinkers” to completely implode.
we need more videos from different people's perspective, this was really fun to watch. also it took me a minute to realize this was the same server as the moon video which made this so much funnier
Ai-generated content has it's place. I think it can serve as a good way to create a baseline for a larger work. Trying to write a story? Have something like ChatGPT generate some prompts to get the ball rolling. Trying to design a character? Have an image generator create a usable likeness and work from there. But as Bowl said, AI can only do so much. We shouldn't shun it, but relying on it entirely is just foolish. I would say it's akin to cheating on a test; Your answers may be correct, but that doesn't mean you understand why.
AI "artists" are absolutely not artists. If I microwave a frozen meal and I believe it tastes better then restaurant food, in no world would I consider myself a cook on level with professionals, and people calling themselves "artists" by using AI to churn out pieces is disrespectful to those who have actually worked on their craft. I will say that I wouldn't mind purchasing AI art, but that is an entirely separate discussion. Edit: Trying to answer everybody in the replies. I am not here to discuss whether or not you would consider AI art art or not. That, I believe, is far more subjective, (though personally I believe that AI art is intrinsically less meaningful, and thus less artistic as a whole). My point is that people call themselves artists, when all they do is give a set of commands to a program that carries out the bulk of the actual work. AI artists are, at best, designers or critics.The AI artist is showing an AI the path they want, as a director would for an artist in trying to create their vision. Digital art is still art because it simplifies the process, while many AI "artists" remove the creative process entirely, or, if nothing else, follow an extremely different creative process I admit that this analogy is not the best, but the food metaphor is meant simply to indicate the amount of time that went into one. Frozen food takes minutes to create, while professional cooks spent years training and can spend hours preparing a dish. It is not a measure of quality or taste (people can like whatever they want), simply a comparison of the effort put into each, and how it could be difficult to compare them as a result.
If I microwaved something that tastes better than the same thing at a certain restaurant for a meal, I'd question going back to the restaurant... Because clearly I am not _preparing a meal_ but reheating a prepackaged mass produced food item. So, yeah, agreed.
Too reductive, you reduce AI (same as Bowl) to its the most simplistic form. Not every person who uses AI and calls themselves artist is the same. Your analogy is also simply false, as it breaks down on too many levels, - a microwave and AI are not similar at all, even in principle of their workings. Some artist, with skills and all, still can utilize AI in one way or another (and there are those that do), since even generative AI has tons of tools to use that are beyond simple 'M.C.Escher' in the prompt, or just straight up photobashing different pieces of AI images. Hell, some people train AI on their own art, gotta be of some help to them. I don't see a point in being called 'AI artist', though, since those people that I describe are just artists, they just realize their own vision with some help of AI.
@@munchkintaker4263 The argument isn't whether you can/should use AI to _help_ create/inspire art. But rather if AI itself is an artist. AI is a tool, so it'd be comparable to saying a paintbrush is an artist. Sure a paintbrush can be used to make art, but it's not an artist. And yeah, AI can create amazing works of art if you give it the right style of prompts, enough batches of attempts to do so, and example pieces for reference... But it's a simulation of art using an algorithm to basically make an image generator. It is belittling human artists to say AI is the exact same category. I wouldn't say there aren't good AI peices, but I also don't believe it should share in a category as human art. It's a different creative process and (AI/Human art) should respectively be treated differently from each other.
Thanks “Pelermele” for standing where FC couldn’t so we could witness more of this mental asylum. Also Bowl for his artistic knowledge that continues to inspire me.
Bowl's that dude that you always argue with and *want* to argue with the moment you see them just for the fun of it, but the moment coals are put under either of your feet, the boots come on and that man is ready to tread all over with a serious attitude (In a good way.)
FR, as a somewhat beginner artist (got some commissions but wouldn't say I'm professional yet) it's refreshing to see bowl, who's normally just around as comedy, actually defend art AND be totally correct is so refreshing
Holy shit, there are 7139 languages in the world, but Bowl decided to speak FACTS ! That's his best tirade ever, and he must have been really pissed if he didn't even troll about being gay or british or misanthropic...
I want to start this by saying that I do not like AI art, especially when sold as it detracts from actual artists. That being said, I do have an appreciation for AI art for an entirely different reason. As someone who is a programmer, I find it interesting to try and push an AI to new limits (in any field not just art). I understand that AI art is not artistic, but it does not necessarily require zero skill to do. When I say this, I don't mean just going to an image generator (anybody can do that), I am talking about someone actually creating an AI image generator because it takes a lot of skill to create and train an AI to do anything, especially something as complex as art. I understand that it has zero actual artistic value, but that is not what it is about for me, its more of a show of skill for the AI's creator than anything else.
Well, you could say the same about, say, a money laundering machine or cheating software for a videogame. I would agree that if anyone involved in AI "art" is an artist, it'd be the programmer that made the hodgepodge machine in the first place, but the art in this scenario would as such be the machine itself, not the hodgepodge it barfs out.
I usually don't comment, but I wanted to talk about bowl's points at the end, in terms of both good and bad. I don't think many here will agree with me, but I wanted to get it off my chest. His first point about "Just because something's similar doesn't make it same" is a VERY odd point to make when literally talking about a *visual* medium. If AI art could truly replicate the visuals of art indistinguishably, then it's going to give you the same feelings of happiness, sadness, awe, fear, etc, at least on the immediate visual scale. And those feelings are real. His second point kind of merges with his fourth, so I'll talk about it there. His third point starts with "subjectivity" but then goes on to kinda talk like "betrayal" it's universal. If we're talking about when it's clearly labeled as AI, then there's nothing to argue because that feeling of betrayal is subjective itself. If your reaction to finding out an AI work is such when it's labeled so, then I can't argue against that cause it'd be like arguing spiders aren't scary to someone with a phobia of them. I'll be very curious how the generation who grows up with AI art will feel though, if they'll be "betrayed". If talking about not clearly labeled, I'll agree there that it's "betraying", but how much someone feels betrayed is gonna vary heavily it's self. If it's a paid work or a contest, then absolutely. If it's trying to feed off your emotions for clicks, sure... though there's already a lot of that to the point of desensitization for some. If it's just something that's been put up cause they think it was cool looking generation and they aren't expecting much... well then we're back to just weather you feel betrayed innately like with the previous phobia point. Finally, on the topic of effort and being worthy of respect, I'm not gonna try to argue it like some tech-bros do. AI art does not have significant effort nor is "AI artist" some "respectable occupation". The whole point is that anyone can do it. Even if some guys argue that they "spent hundreds of hours perfecting their craft", the whole point is to make it easier and easier until we eventual go from text-to-art to brain-to-art. (That'll be a really wild time for arguing about the human aspect). You absolutely have points on effort and respect. I could keep going on and on about this topic, but my comment's already too long. Maybe I made some people think, maybe I'll just make people mad. I just wanted to talk about it.
Hello! I saw your answer and found it really civil, interesting even if I don't agree with it. " If AI art could truly replicate the visuals of art indistinguishably, then it's going to give you the same feelings of happiness, sadness, awe, fear, etc, at least on the immediate visual scale. And those feelings are real. " Except it would only a copy of a style, of a genre, of an image. And he included the persons who can feels those things in his argumentary. When 99% Cannot see the difference, 1% can. Also, I don't know if it's because of anticipation, implicit pact or what but.... People do tend to loose their perception when they learn it's AI generated. Maybe bias against machines, who know? To complete my precedent, I'd say that the same problem with counterfeit goods. The difficulty is present, but it'll never be a perfect photocopy, no matter how hard you tried. Or else experts would be useless.And then.... there is ALSO the "Why". "Why they used this color", "why there is brush traces here", "Why there is some differences between his two eyes". All these questions, an AI art would not give you any explanation, any reflexion. Emotion felt in front of a paint made by an artist could be intentional, Counterfeit probably not and AI Art DEFINITIVELY not. It does not mean that it cannot give emotions but... In movies, you could try to make a scene serious but your plan goes wrong and it make it hillarious. Same principe. Wanting to share an emotion and Feeling that same emotion are completely disconnected. Well, about the subjectivity of being betrayed if there ARE labelled "AI Art", I'd say Yes and No, because of the Painter's goal. If you begin to feel things before looking at the art, you could feel betrayed because you thought that the artist wanted to give you this emotion. AI does wan't Nothing. And you wouldn't stop to consider the fact that you felt emotions the "artist" never wanted you to feel to begin with. Of course, it IS subjective the way you feel something but with an actual artist, you can actually fool yourself into thinking that was the intended way. And for your next point... Maybe THIS is the Crux of the problem? When you search images, you can hypothetise about its creator's experience, how much time did he or she took to have that level Skill and feeling admirative of it. Afterall, Art is already heavily subjective, why the experiment of the Artist wouldn't be considered? All and all, I think that "AI Art" vs "Human Art" could be resumed with a signe expression and the affect you have for it : "It's not the goal, it's the journey to it that count". I hope my english was not too crappy...
I do get what you mean about "intent" in an image and how AI doesn't give that, but I would say that's not *entirely* the case... but also kind of is. It's on one's perception of this. Say someone wants to make an AI image on something they're actually interested or passionate about. Best example I can think of is the Dungeons and Dragons community. Maps, Items, Monsters, you name it, can all be generated. While these people aren't going to be able to tell you why "this eye looks different to that eye", they could definitely tell you the intent. In fact... *you* can see the intent as much as them, because you can see the item or monster is as they described and wanted. Same thing goes for other AI creations. They couldn't tell you the finer details. They may not even know such finer details exist. But they do have an intent that's reflected. In some cases, highly reflective of a bunch of stuff they tried. Different words at different strengths, different models, different "special words", in-painting, etc. To put this another way. If you went to someone's AI work, felt awe and asked what their intent was (without telling them you felt awe), they can still say awe... because they intended to make you feel that way, lol. They might even be able to comment on certain aspects because they literally asked for those certain aspects. One *could* even ask for "differing eyes". The people inputting stuff aren't emotionless robots. (For now) But I will also say again and agree, when it comes to the finer detail, they couldn't tell one thing from another, and they didn't "feel emotion in every brush stroke". How much one cares one way or the other comes to their personal preference. As both you and Bowl have mentioned, it may just be that ~99% of people couldn't tell nor care and it's ~1% that do. Of course, who knows the actual number, eh? Or how it might change over time. Again, I really wonder what's gonna be the opinions of the generation growing up with AI art. Also - also, as a side point on that thing I mentioned at the end about brain-to-art, it once again muddies the conversation when it eventually happens. Cause what you make would literally be your minds intent interpreted. No challenge or time taken at all, but it's literally intent brought to life as one-to-one as possible.@@kirua258
As someone that recently started roaming through Deviantart again, I can definitely relate to that feeling that you are scrolling, most of the time finding some really nice stuff whether it happens to be popular or severely underrated but made it to my feed due to the algorithm...and then there's how sometimes you get stuff that either *seems* nice but you can tell something's iffy with the art details or the style is familiar and you see it was tagged to be made with AI. Its like "Oh cool let's check this out- *bruh* " and while maybe DA is the one art site where that seems to be common as how its allowed, I can imagine the disappointment being doubled if you were to run into one of those untagged somewhere else.
This was pretty interesting! It'd be pretty fun to see other people you know make some videos on your channel too, see their own perspectives, see how they style these videos, that kinda thing. I'd be open to see more from Pêle-mêle too.
"The irony that we're automating the production of art instead of the jobs everybody hates shouldn't be lost on us." - Jimmy McGee, 'The AI Revolution is Rotten to the Core'
Reductive sentence honestly, AI has nothing and I mean NOTHING to do with automation, which is used to replace most boring and awful jobs, like how the fuck is an AI going to replace a janitor? And for the part where AI does “steal” the job of artists I always point the finger at those who choose it over actual people’s work because clearly if you were replaced by an AI that means they did not care about you or ur piece of art but only about the money they could make out of it
Nothing more annoying than people quoting stuff to look smart and replying like a troll when confronted “apologist” if anything it’s dumb idiots that started reject AI for no reason because they worry they suck too much to compete with it when that has never been the point Next thing you’ll say is that technology ruined everything and people don’t read books anymore
Machines can replace most jobs such as Cashiers and factory workers, replacing a janitor can be done by training AI with deep learning algorithms to perform the Job Optimally
4:46 Apologies for the extreme example, but by their logic, it would be okay to assault someone on public property because they are "giving their body to the public".
2:55 Either this is Bowl getting scared the shit out of the simple assumption of NFTs (Nearsighted French Tomboys) beung real or this is a historical moment of the creation of Canada
I have a feeling that Harry would support AI art and go on a rant about real artists being driven to extinction by evolution and natural selection. Or that he would say he’s an AI himself.
Harry is not in that server. Maybe it's better that way though since they seem to ban people whom they perceive as hostile. You can literally say "The sky is blue" and get banned for provocation. 😬
I have to say, you got me really interested in Ace Attorney, to the point that it's become the first ever anime I've ever watched haha(Still on episode 17 don't spoil pls)
AI art is perfect for shitposting it can make some amazing things with literally zero effort I do prefer real art but no human could make V1 from ultrakill and the marauder from doom eternal sit down and have a nice picknick lunch in hell.
Ive said this before, I'll say it again, and again, and again, until I am convinced otherwise or it becomes a reality: AI has a *place*. Where it is right now, isn't quite it. It is a tool, like a hammer or a screwdriver. And like many tools, it can cause severe and potentially irreparable damage if used incorrectly or by the ignorant to it's purpose. As a literal new tool, we are still figuring out the instruction manual, and using our hammers and screwdrivers to crush and maim instead of build and reinforce. I would LOVE to see more "AI assisted" pieces, but I do hate the current usage, of purely AI generated images.
I have heard somewhere some time ago that AI not being able to draw hands or simular properly has been mostly fixed, but that these improvements where not added to the public AI to fight against people making AI art, then saying they made it. I don’t have the source of this claim though :/
it's been a while since i've watched a French Baguetter Intelligence video, mostly because the latest topics were just not as interesting to me and some were too silly for me personally but this one is something i'm very opinionated on so I can't wait to see the thought from Bowl (specially because I know his love for art, human art)
I always appreciate Edgeworth-poses and body being Bowl's portrayal. It fits him. An odd suave-ness about him. Says what he wants, and doesn't give a damn if someone disagrees with him or not.
Seeing the name "Escher" again makea me both happy since I once went to an art museum where there was an exhibit, and it makes me sad knowing how AI is defiling such a wonderful style. Since talent like Escher does not come by shortcuts, if you are truly inspired then you could learn to incorporate a similar vibe rather than telling a bot to do the job. The people taking the ai shortcuts are no artists be it visual art, audible art, written art (poems for example), and much more. I do think AI does have potential but it shoud be used on something *productive*. A healthy balance of utility and our independency, which for art AI does not stick. Better a few disproportionate (or scuffed) drawings slowly getting better than instantly having a cheap mockery. I respect anyone who truly respects art. To me a piece is a reflection of the artist who worked on it, commissions have this trait somewhat but not as much as one made by the artists own choice rather than coin or bills.
Thanks for making this video. It actually made me look at this situation in a much more different light than before. Even if Bowl's arguments weren't yours, you still made this video entertaining enough that I watched the whole thing, even if I was tired of this stuff because it's engaging. I can't stress enough, thank you for making this video and show actual good arguments rather than just aggressively say "AI art bad" like many artists I've seen who talk about this stuff, even going as far as to insult the ones that disagree with them (which in my opinion, makes your credibility feel weak because of not being able to control your own emotions, which in turn could make some people disagree with you for the sake of getting into your nerves) Anyhow, I've rambled long enough so I'll just leave it off with me wishing you to continue making more of these. Good bye!
Bowl’s performance here was magnificent. The carbon monoxide analogy put to words my own unformed thoughts about the “you can’t tell the difference” argument. I already respected him a decent amount, but my respect for him has grown vastly with this video.
Actually, the Betrayal goes in one direction, not both. If you, as a sentient being, bought a product, hoping it would help you but the product is defective, you could be betrayed by it, even if the product itself did not sold itself to you by a lie. Technically, the producer of your product would be the one betraying you but that argument can also goes for the AI, the way it was programmed, where did he searched sources, and so on and so on. You don't actually need sentience for betrayal. You need giving hopes you cannot fulfill. You definitively need sentience of an ACTIVE betrayal though.
on the topic of knowing if it computer generated : it will always be a blend , a midlle ground and there is never the error that grew with teh drawing and author along the way , it always like purpose or meaning it is line for a line
…Ummm. Go Bowl! (I can’t believe I’m complimenting Bowl without any caveats. Maybe it’s because there weren’t any Frenchmen around?) Also, there’s an interesting trend in both crypto and AI. The first big AI shills were failed Crypto shills. It’s hardly surprising that mister, “I think so freely my brain fell out” also got into AI art. Also also, dogecoin isn’t exactly doing super hot on the whole, “having value” thing… I’d love to see them try to actually buy something with it… Edit: this whole thing is further evidence that the concept, “ are people” has been lost for a not-insignificant segment of the population… (the photorealistic painters thing is what brought this on. They’re not directly restricted because actually making a photorealistic painting is an extremely time-consuming task, so as-needed handling is perfectly sufficient. Meanwhile AI stuff is like a firehose)
Watching Bowl in these videos is like watching Master Shake have the occasional brain blast and just casually smoking everyone in the room and it is funny every time
I understand where Pele and Bowl come from, but a small issue I have is Bowls insistence on art being defined by emotions and depth. I think he has a point in the area of art being a human made thing, it holds value because humans put so much work into making the picture itself, and denying them the credit of being creators and the owners of many interesting ideas- however as an artist I don’t think art should have to be defined by depth or emotion, tons of pieces, famous pieces, exist simply to push the boundaries of art. And many artists are incredibly technical, they want to replicate what they see not to “tell a story” or to “communicate how they feel.” The reason I don’t like or trust AI art is because it denies the artist the right to be recognized as someone who spent decades of their life practicing and learning just to get to the point of being able to create similar things to what an AI can fairly accurately replicate. And also on the topic of an arguement that Mowgli visited, I hate this idea that any moment a piece enters the public that it means the artist has lost their creation, I like to think of the public domain as having the ability to recreate, and yes, vandalize, something an artist has already created, but this doesn’t remove what the artist originally created from the zeitgeist. An artist losing their child happens when animation studios take your idea and change it until it nolonger feels like it belongs to you, and then release the product before anyone could even hear what the original idea even was.
Also, Faux Cares, if you see this, I went to a French immersion school and still am learning! Albeit I’m not very good… I have been considering moving to Belgium when I’m old enough. I think making jokes about the British and the French are funny, yes, but having solidarity with another people group makes me very happy, so whenever I see you acting all French I’m very charmed. Keep up the great work! -^^-
I feel like AI art will have the same development that photography did. At first, it was rudimentary, and could not emulate the beauty created by human hands, but as technology adapts, i can gradually transform into a new form of art. The thing is, because it's a tool that everyone has access too and it has a low skill floor, the art space (that now encompases all the internet) becomes polluted with bad drawings. It's also kinda like the survivorship bias. You don't notice the good looking AI images.
The only problem with that is, AI has no human input over the actual work created. You just type in a prompt, and the machine does all the work for you. As an artist, writing down your idea to give to something else to tackle, isn't you creating anything, it's being lazy. Photography HAS a human input over the actual creation. The artist has to position the camera, adjust the settings, make sure the time of day is right, choose the right lens, focus the camera, etc The artist has complete control over the result more or less, while AI is just typing in a prompt and gambling on whether or not the robot produces something you want. AI art will NEVER be real art
@@mr.timusproductions116these points would have been made about Photography a few decades ago. I can't bother to recreate your whole message by replacing "AI art" with "photography" and "photography" with "paintings" while also tweaking some points so they make sense, but I hope you can see my point. Art is subjective. Anything can be art if even a single person thinks it's art. An artist could shit in a can and sell it as art (which actually did happen). Acting like "being human" is the ONLY requirement is genuinely very confusing, because is that really where you draw the line? What about a Chimp that learns to paint and makes genuinely beautiful pieces? Is it not art cause it's not human? Or maybe it is, and now you can see that the starting point didn't make much sense to begin with. Long story short, I believe AI art is art, and just because you don't like it, that doesn't make it unworthy of the label. Have a good day
Photos are photos you cannot make a realistic photo of something that does not exists AI can create from scratch, maybe when they develop a camera that can snap a photo of your imagination then the comparison will make sense
@@bruschetta7711Have you ever heard of Photoshop? I can photograph a white horse, stick a narwhal's horn on it's head, and that would be a pretty realistic unicorn, which to my knowledge don't exist
@@mr.timusproductions116Typing in a prompt is human input. Besides, you only notice AI art when it's bad, but if I was a good artist and made an AI painting, and then fixed the errors that the AI generates, you wouldn't recognize it as AI generated.
Yeah, I’m going to be honest. While I do use the tools myself, I will never refer to it as “art”; always as “AI generated images”. I also don’t even really see them as mine. I’ve slowly been trying to draw myself as well, though while my skills are still lacking, I use AI to generate concepts” images for my characters and such. Eventually, I’m hoping I’ll get to the point I won’t need it, but for now it’s a tool that I’ll use. Not to mention that even while using it, I’ve experienced frustration in having to reattempt generations again and again in order to get what’s sometimes essential details to be there at all. Oh and one final thing: I am not currently, and will not support it monetarily in the future; I’ve downloaded a personal Stable Diffusion model that runs entirely on my own device. If you really feel the need to generate images with AI, I recommend doing so as well (provided you have a powerful enough machine/good graphics card).
Though there’s a part of me that’s tempted to try and use the concepts generated by AI with my own personal skills to create something that *could* be called “art”, through the fusion of both man and machine. Maybe. It’s just an idea as of current.
IMHO, I think like that's the best, if maybe the only good use case for AI generated art - inspiration for your own, self-made crafts. A tool; a means to an end, rather than the end itself.
@@jesse422Wish more people have this mindset, both the AI supporters and the luddites. I code for a living, and I deal with AI on a regular basis. AI is a tool, the shit they generate is (currently) subpar so using it as is, is settling with mediocrity. Nowadays, you can ask AI to generate entire programs but without direction and someone to fix it into an actual program, its not gonna work, and if it does, it will look like an ugly code salad. AI art is the same, a simple prompt is a more visual salad than it is an art, but use it to draw inspiration and eliminate repetitive work and you get proper AI art. And people discrediting AI is discrediting a major ground breaking tech for personal use. You want an art piece of your dnd character? You can get it. You want to generate a wild concept no one ever thought to drew before? You have a personal artist now. If I search up roman legionary in napoleonic gear, or a griffon with an autocannon attached, I will have to previously go comission and wait for an artist to draw it for me, and if I want more than 1 picture, I have to comission more. But now, any wild shit I think I of, I can just get it.
Bowl literally came in, said his piece, said "fuck you all. you're all stupid." and then went, "You can't ban me, i'm leaving." Fucking based
U CAN'T FIRE ME I QUIT
Bowl is the best character of the Baguetteverse. Man's the real deal
I am on the position of "Bowl is kinda immature here". Because the dude spent his time trying to yell out insults and when he leaves, there's an audio of everyone clapping.
... get it? The "everyone clapped" kind of moment?
@@lexcentrique2554 he had good roasts even if I disagree with him completely....
@@Tha-mountainYOU CAN’T QUIT *_I_* QUIT
Does Bowl have an appreciation for Art? Y’know, just following the “Art vs Modern Art” video and this video now, I’m growing some respect for him.
He does very much so.
I believe that in the older video where art was discussed, he was especially found of van goth. Assuming I recall correctly.
@@frenchbaguetteintelligence Only thing I disagree with Bowl about (not in this video, he did great here, I mean in "Art vs Modern Art") is the "knowing the artist through their work" thing. It's been bothering me a lot since I last saw that video. I HIGHLY recommend Bowl plays "A Beginner's Guide." It's a very in depth analysis as to what trying to put together and make assumptions about who the artist is based exclusively off their work does in the long run.
@@TheManBehindtheFunny I always feel like this phrase is more about "to know him as an artist" than "I know the life of this man I have seen all his drawing" in short, time, place and old painting and aspiration can give light to some work and knowing that will help comprehend a particular work.
Bowl really likes Goya, so his standard for art is based on expressive figurative works with individual style and emotional / political content. He has very little patience for high Modernism, total abstraction in general, or really anything that seeks to mask the hand of the artist.
It's always nice seeing The Bowl drop his clown act and be the most knowledgeable in the room. And Pele's geniune fealings of betrayal are so validating.
Uhm.. actually
I was gonna correct you for I felt like a 🤓 which made me not do such.
Doesn't need to drop it to be knowledgeable
@@RudderSCoolmain There is no shame in correcting someone or being corrected, contrary to what someone insecure might tell you.
@
Uhm actually there is.
@@lastmanstanding7155 No.
There shouldve been a content warning for Real Ginger's appearance, that was absolutely mortifying.
You made me laugh.❤
@@Pele-mele. THE GOAT
Real Ginger actually makes my skin crawl from sheer contempt.
Yeah that was too much for me. I need a smoke.
@@Serpillard Oh no...
"unfortunate ban" *sees Real ginger* that's the server where faux cares got banned for standing on business about the moon isn't it.
They even called out a particular "photographer". I do wonder who they could be referring to.
Some people admit that they're wrong, others take a while to realize that they're wrong
But SOME simply refuse to be wrong
Boy, that part when Sapient 0.2 compared the tiny Earth and big Earth photographs, said the sizes were wrong, ticked me off.
Because he's right, there IS an obvious discrepancy at first glance... So why didn't NASA make the obvious choice to fabricate images of the Earth and Moon with the "right sizes"?
Nope. NASA am stupider than he; only his brilliance can correctly comprehend distance and size proportions.
@@isg4 The based, the slow, and the cringe, as they'd be called today.
Which video was that agin?
Bowl's monster of an argument followed by his final message to the server was phenomenal, especially after seeing the last video. A huge win for Bowl here.
>bowl plan
>enter
>troll everyone
>make great points
>leave
>success
Only FC can defeat Bowl. It is written
I wonder how often faux care is used as an emotional support animal without his consent 😂😂😂
Like daily.
@@Pele-mele. hes such a good friend)
Even though Bowl's performance in this vid was obviously great, Pêle was a really fun "protagonist" in this imo. Love the vids with different protags, in general.
Ikr? The "Helpppp" was sending me lmao
Hehe.
Man, I sympathize with Pele's plights. If they're magically reading this, then know thatcha aren't alone!!
Magic exists everywhere ❤
I'm an artist. I'd never release an AI output (won't call it art) as final product, but I do use it sometimes. Very useful for quick character concept art. I can make several iterations, show it to my teammates and she uses it as reference for the actual drawing.
I'm also trying to use it to create art from it. I don't have an exact idea yet but I'm thinking of generating small parts, putting them together, then applying dithering and color indexing to blend all together. On low resolution with a good color palette it has potential for a nice effect I think. A bit inspired by Omori's battle background made of modified stock photos.
I don't see any value in AI output as themselves but I can see them as just another tool to create new things from.
And no, artists will never be replaced.
That's what I was thinking as well! Thank god I wasn't the only one
I mean aren't you still using someone else work still?
@@Bru21424 Because of what the AI use for training? Yes, I mean it depends on the AI but there can be ethic issues regarding copyright.
I only used it for reference and experiments yet so I haven't had to worry about that yet but yeah it's something I would have to look into if I want to use any for more serious projects. Which isn't the case as of now.
Artists will never be replaced.
An artwork that used to take 100 hours will still take 100 hours.
But all of the rudimentary and boring work will be done in less time and more of those 100 hours can be spent on pushing the envelope!
This is what a.i. art means.
Bowl not be based challenge (Impossible)
For real though, AI "art (but not really)" is a plague. Props to both Bowl and Pêle-mêle.
I've been calling it ai content. Cause it's not art. It's content for people to post in there social media with minimal effort
Thankuu.
AI art is fun, and can be used as a crutch for individuals who are too poor to afford an artist for an indie project they are working on. At least until they get the funding to hire an actual artist.
However, it should be banned for all companies. Massive fines for any company that tries to pull that shit. They have the money and have no excuse.
@@anubis7457It's been a blessing for modders. Suddenly silent Skyrim mods get a voice with elevenlabs and anything that requires portraits can get them fast.
@@anubis7457luckily lawsuits against said companies seem to be progressing positively for artists. And can potentially lead to a precedent that better protects artists in general not just in the industry.
Though work for hire contracts and so on can still be a problem. And cause further issues
Artists don't draw because a machine can't do it, they draw because they like it.
People that play chess didn't suddenly stop playing because a computer got really good at it.
Creating something is very different from playing something. Not to say that chess players don't put any work in, but to say those things are completely incomparable. Also, I am an artist, and can say that I absolutely hate AI art, as well as any artist I've met. How many artists have actually told you AI art isn't bad?
@@candace219I am an artist, and I do not absolutely hate art, it's not nearly as bad as people make it out to be.
@@candace219 I guess the main question with AI art is who will use it and for what. It's not the same if the machine is used by, say, writers and worldbuilders trying to ilustrate something they wrote about and, in general, folks not willing nor able to pay a comission than corporations and individuals using it for profit motifs.
@@candace219Every artist I’ve worked with in a professional setting hasn’t cared, because they know I’m still using them.
I use AI art to create an initial reference and have artists draw the character I described in their own style. It’s a lot easier than me trying to describe a character in tedious detail.
Also, I guess a better analogy would be, do people who create sculptures and decorative carpentry still do so even though it’s now mass produced? Yes, but a lot less than before due to it not being profitable for most.
too idealistic. People do draw for money. Maybe they just lost their passion for art along their carrier but keep doing it for the cash. Maybe there is another reason.
Saying "artist don't draw for money" 100 times wont make it true.
Im starting to miss the old bowl sprite, not gonna lie. Captured the personality perfectly.
In my experience, most people who use AI art want pictures for their D&D campaigns.
I can actually somewhat understand that. I used to draw D&D characters for my buddies who play D&D.
@@Pele-mele.
I have a player who likes to draw her favorite scene from every session, but I don't have the talent for even a sketch.
Having AI be good enough that someone like me can get stuff out of their brain and onto paper? That would be incredible.
@@Pele-mele.I use AI art a lot, because where else am I going to get the most unimpressed space Jesus for free?
@@Pele-mele. I’ve used it twice to try and get the idea of a Studio Ghibli-styled Legend of Zelda scene out of my head but it was so awful at doing it I gave up
I’d rather pay someone $200 to draw it for me than deal with the bullshit algorithms
@@Pele-mele.I sometimes use ai art if I'm just interested in seeing particular kinds of images to stimulate my imagination and either don't know artists that make the kind of art I want in a style a like, do know those artists but know they don't have it, or just want to see how accurate an AI will get to what I like
Wow. I've never seen Bowl so... non unhinged
Or maybe everyone else in the server except Péle are so unhinged Bowl looks sane by comparison
Definitely the second one
@@plushenjoyingfiend4335 No, I'd say the former. It's one of the few times Bowl completely removes his comically-bigoted clown persona and actually takes people seriously.
:'He's bitter, this guy.'
I like how the guy [mowgli] genuinely thinks this about the bowl king
-when he's in that server with the owner and kiss-ass.
Boy, Peppercorn at 2:08 is the only ray hope for this server, aren't they ?
He probably hides those free-thinking opinions when faced with confrontation
ah yes, the "proving my point with facts is direspectful" discord
Bowl is in the title, this’ll be good
When FC isn't around to do the heavy lifting, Bowl can actually make good arguments, how about that?
My two cents; there was a Christmas movie that just came out that used AI to do 3D style lighting on handdrawn art, resulting in a unique and visually stunning style. But there was an artist doing the actual work, before and after the AI was used. The AI was simply used to do a repetitious, tedious task that would've taken humans many times longer and required no creative thinking. Even then, humans went through after and had to touch it up. Point being; that's using AI as a tool for art.
The AI generated images, what was actually being talked about here, are just some guy typing in "big boobie anime girl" and playing around with different words until it pops out a picture he likes.
I think AI art as a tool has a olace as an argument, but few people are using it that way.
Yeah, that's the actual nuance in this whole argument.
That's just using a tool. Adding lighting doesn't require an ai
@@massiveidiot77 It created a 3D look on handrwan art. Something that was too labor intensive to do on a reasonable timeline without AI.
So yes, I agree. It is using a tool. Like I argued originally.
@@moonblaze2713 no I mean it literally is a tool. A lot of companies will use the ai term to describe normal computer effects even if they have absolutely nothing to do with ai
Are you talking about Klaus? I wouldn't call it "just came out" though
Please tell me that Harry managed to join this server. I want this to be a full blown trilogy of how a bunch of nerds got a server full of “free thinkers” to completely implode.
Okay, I thought Bowl was just a man trolling for the sake of trolling, but now?
Now I've grown a deep respect for him. My hat's off to you, Bowl.
Pêle-Mêle is very precious, we must protect them at all costs.
we need more videos from different people's perspective, this was really fun to watch.
also it took me a minute to realize this was the same server as the moon video which made this so much funnier
Ai-generated content has it's place. I think it can serve as a good way to create a baseline for a larger work.
Trying to write a story? Have something like ChatGPT generate some prompts to get the ball rolling.
Trying to design a character? Have an image generator create a usable likeness and work from there.
But as Bowl said, AI can only do so much. We shouldn't shun it, but relying on it entirely is just foolish. I would say it's akin to cheating on a test; Your answers may be correct, but that doesn't mean you understand why.
Seeing Pele-mele finally get the spotlight deserved makes me happy. Nice argument
AI "artists" are absolutely not artists. If I microwave a frozen meal and I believe it tastes better then restaurant food, in no world would I consider myself a cook on level with professionals, and people calling themselves "artists" by using AI to churn out pieces is disrespectful to those who have actually worked on their craft. I will say that I wouldn't mind purchasing AI art, but that is an entirely separate discussion.
Edit: Trying to answer everybody in the replies. I am not here to discuss whether or not you would consider AI art art or not. That, I believe, is far more subjective, (though personally I believe that AI art is intrinsically less meaningful, and thus less artistic as a whole). My point is that people call themselves artists, when all they do is give a set of commands to a program that carries out the bulk of the actual work. AI artists are, at best, designers or critics.The AI artist is showing an AI the path they want, as a director would for an artist in trying to create their vision. Digital art is still art because it simplifies the process, while many AI "artists" remove the creative process entirely, or, if nothing else, follow an extremely different creative process
I admit that this analogy is not the best, but the food metaphor is meant simply to indicate the amount of time that went into one. Frozen food takes minutes to create, while professional cooks spent years training and can spend hours preparing a dish. It is not a measure of quality or taste (people can like whatever they want), simply a comparison of the effort put into each, and how it could be difficult to compare them as a result.
If I microwaved something that tastes better than the same thing at a certain restaurant for a meal, I'd question going back to the restaurant... Because clearly I am not _preparing a meal_ but reheating a prepackaged mass produced food item.
So, yeah, agreed.
Too reductive, you reduce AI (same as Bowl) to its the most simplistic form. Not every person who uses AI and calls themselves artist is the same. Your analogy is also simply false, as it breaks down on too many levels, - a microwave and AI are not similar at all, even in principle of their workings.
Some artist, with skills and all, still can utilize AI in one way or another (and there are those that do), since even generative AI has tons of tools to use that are beyond simple 'M.C.Escher' in the prompt, or just straight up photobashing different pieces of AI images. Hell, some people train AI on their own art, gotta be of some help to them.
I don't see a point in being called 'AI artist', though, since those people that I describe are just artists, they just realize their own vision with some help of AI.
@@munchkintaker4263trolling
@@munchkintaker4263 bait
@@munchkintaker4263 The argument isn't whether you can/should use AI to _help_ create/inspire art. But rather if AI itself is an artist. AI is a tool, so it'd be comparable to saying a paintbrush is an artist. Sure a paintbrush can be used to make art, but it's not an artist.
And yeah, AI can create amazing works of art if you give it the right style of prompts, enough batches of attempts to do so, and example pieces for reference... But it's a simulation of art using an algorithm to basically make an image generator. It is belittling human artists to say AI is the exact same category. I wouldn't say there aren't good AI peices, but I also don't believe it should share in a category as human art. It's a different creative process and (AI/Human art) should respectively be treated differently from each other.
Thanks “Pelermele” for standing where FC couldn’t so we could witness more of this mental asylum.
Also Bowl for his artistic knowledge that continues to inspire me.
Haha, you're welcome. ❤
Bowl's that dude that you always argue with and *want* to argue with the moment you see them just for the fun of it, but the moment coals are put under either of your feet, the boots come on and that man is ready to tread all over with a serious attitude (In a good way.)
I respect Bowl for this, he has won this for sure! :D
FR, as a somewhat beginner artist (got some commissions but wouldn't say I'm professional yet) it's refreshing to see bowl, who's normally just around as comedy, actually defend art AND be totally correct is so refreshing
That sure is a (good) thumbnail
Interesting topic. I would say it can be used as a tool, not a replacement
Bowl was weirdly... "sane" in this episode? XD I dont know how to word it. It was strange. Glorious, but strange.
Bowl is always sane, he’s just an asshole.
Unfathomably based.
Holy shit, there are 7139 languages in the world, but Bowl decided to speak FACTS ! That's his best tirade ever, and he must have been really pissed if he didn't even troll about being gay or british or misanthropic...
A treehugger? Damn, I didn't know Pêle-mêle was an ecologist
Bowl decided to use 1% of his infinite knowledge and ended up cooking everyone in the server
I want to start this by saying that I do not like AI art, especially when sold as it detracts from actual artists. That being said, I do have an appreciation for AI art for an entirely different reason. As someone who is a programmer, I find it interesting to try and push an AI to new limits (in any field not just art). I understand that AI art is not artistic, but it does not necessarily require zero skill to do. When I say this, I don't mean just going to an image generator (anybody can do that), I am talking about someone actually creating an AI image generator because it takes a lot of skill to create and train an AI to do anything, especially something as complex as art. I understand that it has zero actual artistic value, but that is not what it is about for me, its more of a show of skill for the AI's creator than anything else.
Well, you could say the same about, say, a money laundering machine or cheating software for a videogame. I would agree that if anyone involved in AI "art" is an artist, it'd be the programmer that made the hodgepodge machine in the first place, but the art in this scenario would as such be the machine itself, not the hodgepodge it barfs out.
I shit you not I just started screaming "BUT THAT’S JUST INCORRECT WE HAVE COPYRIGHT" at 4:44
This is the most coherent I've ever seen Bowl be, and as a direct result, the most based I've ever seen Bowl be as well.
Great vid Pêle
Thanku.❤
I usually don't comment, but I wanted to talk about bowl's points at the end, in terms of both good and bad. I don't think many here will agree with me, but I wanted to get it off my chest.
His first point about "Just because something's similar doesn't make it same" is a VERY odd point to make when literally talking about a *visual* medium. If AI art could truly replicate the visuals of art indistinguishably, then it's going to give you the same feelings of happiness, sadness, awe, fear, etc, at least on the immediate visual scale. And those feelings are real.
His second point kind of merges with his fourth, so I'll talk about it there.
His third point starts with "subjectivity" but then goes on to kinda talk like "betrayal" it's universal.
If we're talking about when it's clearly labeled as AI, then there's nothing to argue because that feeling of betrayal is subjective itself. If your reaction to finding out an AI work is such when it's labeled so, then I can't argue against that cause it'd be like arguing spiders aren't scary to someone with a phobia of them. I'll be very curious how the generation who grows up with AI art will feel though, if they'll be "betrayed".
If talking about not clearly labeled, I'll agree there that it's "betraying", but how much someone feels betrayed is gonna vary heavily it's self. If it's a paid work or a contest, then absolutely. If it's trying to feed off your emotions for clicks, sure... though there's already a lot of that to the point of desensitization for some. If it's just something that's been put up cause they think it was cool looking generation and they aren't expecting much... well then we're back to just weather you feel betrayed innately like with the previous phobia point.
Finally, on the topic of effort and being worthy of respect, I'm not gonna try to argue it like some tech-bros do. AI art does not have significant effort nor is "AI artist" some "respectable occupation". The whole point is that anyone can do it. Even if some guys argue that they "spent hundreds of hours perfecting their craft", the whole point is to make it easier and easier until we eventual go from text-to-art to brain-to-art. (That'll be a really wild time for arguing about the human aspect). You absolutely have points on effort and respect.
I could keep going on and on about this topic, but my comment's already too long. Maybe I made some people think, maybe I'll just make people mad. I just wanted to talk about it.
Hello! I saw your answer and found it really civil, interesting even if I don't agree with it.
" If AI art could truly replicate the visuals of art indistinguishably, then it's going to give you the same feelings of happiness, sadness, awe, fear, etc, at least on the immediate visual scale. And those feelings are real. "
Except it would only a copy of a style, of a genre, of an image. And he included the persons who can feels those things in his argumentary. When 99% Cannot see the difference, 1% can. Also, I don't know if it's because of anticipation, implicit pact or what but.... People do tend to loose their perception when they learn it's AI generated. Maybe bias against machines, who know?
To complete my precedent, I'd say that the same problem with counterfeit goods. The difficulty is present, but it'll never be a perfect photocopy, no matter how hard you tried. Or else experts would be useless.And then.... there is ALSO the "Why". "Why they used this color", "why there is brush traces here", "Why there is some differences between his two eyes". All these questions, an AI art would not give you any explanation, any reflexion. Emotion felt in front of a paint made by an artist could be intentional, Counterfeit probably not and AI Art DEFINITIVELY not. It does not mean that it cannot give emotions but... In movies, you could try to make a scene serious but your plan goes wrong and it make it hillarious. Same principe. Wanting to share an emotion and Feeling that same emotion are completely disconnected.
Well, about the subjectivity of being betrayed if there ARE labelled "AI Art", I'd say Yes and No, because of the Painter's goal. If you begin to feel things before looking at the art, you could feel betrayed because you thought that the artist wanted to give you this emotion. AI does wan't Nothing. And you wouldn't stop to consider the fact that you felt emotions the "artist" never wanted you to feel to begin with. Of course, it IS subjective the way you feel something but with an actual artist, you can actually fool yourself into thinking that was the intended way.
And for your next point... Maybe THIS is the Crux of the problem? When you search images, you can hypothetise about its creator's experience, how much time did he or she took to have that level Skill and feeling admirative of it. Afterall, Art is already heavily subjective, why the experiment of the Artist wouldn't be considered?
All and all, I think that "AI Art" vs "Human Art" could be resumed with a signe expression and the affect you have for it : "It's not the goal, it's the journey to it that count".
I hope my english was not too crappy...
I do get what you mean about "intent" in an image and how AI doesn't give that, but I would say that's not *entirely* the case... but also kind of is. It's on one's perception of this.
Say someone wants to make an AI image on something they're actually interested or passionate about. Best example I can think of is the Dungeons and Dragons community. Maps, Items, Monsters, you name it, can all be generated. While these people aren't going to be able to tell you why "this eye looks different to that eye", they could definitely tell you the intent. In fact... *you* can see the intent as much as them, because you can see the item or monster is as they described and wanted.
Same thing goes for other AI creations. They couldn't tell you the finer details. They may not even know such finer details exist. But they do have an intent that's reflected. In some cases, highly reflective of a bunch of stuff they tried. Different words at different strengths, different models, different "special words", in-painting, etc.
To put this another way. If you went to someone's AI work, felt awe and asked what their intent was (without telling them you felt awe), they can still say awe... because they intended to make you feel that way, lol. They might even be able to comment on certain aspects because they literally asked for those certain aspects. One *could* even ask for "differing eyes". The people inputting stuff aren't emotionless robots. (For now)
But I will also say again and agree, when it comes to the finer detail, they couldn't tell one thing from another, and they didn't "feel emotion in every brush stroke". How much one cares one way or the other comes to their personal preference. As both you and Bowl have mentioned, it may just be that ~99% of people couldn't tell nor care and it's ~1% that do. Of course, who knows the actual number, eh? Or how it might change over time. Again, I really wonder what's gonna be the opinions of the generation growing up with AI art.
Also - also, as a side point on that thing I mentioned at the end about brain-to-art, it once again muddies the conversation when it eventually happens. Cause what you make would literally be your minds intent interpreted. No challenge or time taken at all, but it's literally intent brought to life as one-to-one as possible.@@kirua258
10:09 "Painting for literates" So... writing ?
Now i need a T-shirt saying
"yeah i love NFTs
Nearsighted
French
Tomboys"
"My dogecoins allow me not to be tracked by the government unlike you credit card sheeple" is truly one the sentences of all time.
Bowl never fails to entertain
As someone that recently started roaming through Deviantart again, I can definitely relate to that feeling that you are scrolling, most of the time finding some really nice stuff whether it happens to be popular or severely underrated but made it to my feed due to the algorithm...and then there's how sometimes you get stuff that either *seems* nice but you can tell something's iffy with the art details or the style is familiar and you see it was tagged to be made with AI. Its like "Oh cool let's check this out- *bruh* " and while maybe DA is the one art site where that seems to be common as how its allowed, I can imagine the disappointment being doubled if you were to run into one of those untagged somewhere else.
This was pretty interesting! It'd be pretty fun to see other people you know make some videos on your channel too, see their own perspectives, see how they style these videos, that kinda thing. I'd be open to see more from Pêle-mêle too.
3:42 and I thought I couldn’t possibly hate tiktok more than I did earlier today…
Real Ginger is so open minded birds shit in it when they fly overhead
Of course Bowl loves true art. He commissions many pieces of tomboys and gay activities to hang around his house like a true champion of earth
"The irony that we're automating the production of art instead of the jobs everybody hates shouldn't be lost on us." - Jimmy McGee, 'The AI Revolution is Rotten to the Core'
Reductive sentence honestly, AI has nothing and I mean NOTHING to do with automation, which is used to replace most boring and awful jobs, like how the fuck is an AI going to replace a janitor?
And for the part where AI does “steal” the job of artists I always point the finger at those who choose it over actual people’s work because clearly if you were replaced by an AI that means they did not care about you or ur piece of art but only about the money they could make out of it
Found Ai apologist.
Nothing more annoying than people quoting stuff to look smart and replying like a troll when confronted
“apologist” if anything it’s dumb idiots that started reject AI for no reason because they worry they suck too much to compete with it when that has never been the point
Next thing you’ll say is that technology ruined everything and people don’t read books anymore
Machines can replace most jobs such as Cashiers and factory workers, replacing a janitor can be done by training AI with deep learning algorithms to perform the Job Optimally
@@Vermillenoyou're no better than Sapient "logical flaws" 2.0 over here. What's your response to his argument?
I love Bowl even more already~!
I swear to god...these guys whole act was "I'm better than 99% of the population!!"
If more people were as passionate as Bowl is about art, we’d be living in a utopian society.
4:46 Apologies for the extreme example, but by their logic, it would be okay to assault someone on public property because they are "giving their body to the public".
2:55
Either this is Bowl getting scared the shit out of the simple assumption of NFTs (Nearsighted French Tomboys) beung real or this is a historical moment of the creation of Canada
They talk about "respect" a lot, but when it comes to other peoples opinions it vanishes somewhere.
Oh hell yeah. Finally the Brits are making good points
I have a feeling that Harry would support AI art and go on a rant about real artists being driven to extinction by evolution and natural selection. Or that he would say he’s an AI himself.
Harry is not in that server. Maybe it's better that way though since they seem to ban people whom they perceive as hostile. You can literally say "The sky is blue" and get banned for provocation. 😬
I want to see Harry in that server.
It would be diabolical
Harry has always the most adorably unbased takes
Sometimes i forget why i loved Bowl so much to begin with, and this video just reminded me in the best way possible
You know what i think? Respect the man who made the AI, and call the people who use it and think they deserve respect for doing so stupid.
I have to say, you got me really interested in Ace Attorney, to the point that it's become the first ever anime I've ever watched haha(Still on episode 17 don't spoil pls)
Bowl just fucking solo'd everyone in the server at the end, since when did he become as good as faux in terms of arguments?
I have never seen that mowgli guy before but that hair is glorious
Steve only likes AI "art" for shitposting. where else could a man of cultural integrity find a flaming shrimp dunking on a shark in a storm?
Steve, my man! I haven't seen you in quite a long time.
@@sweetricecakeman8582 Steve misses your company, old friend
Greetings steve, punch down another tree at work today?
Me too. I am a shitposter down to my very CORE.
AI art is perfect for shitposting it can make some amazing things with literally zero effort I do prefer real art but no human could make V1 from ultrakill and the marauder from doom eternal sit down and have a nice picknick lunch in hell.
Glad to see that bowl went out in style
Ive said this before, I'll say it again, and again, and again, until I am convinced otherwise or it becomes a reality: AI has a *place*. Where it is right now, isn't quite it. It is a tool, like a hammer or a screwdriver. And like many tools, it can cause severe and potentially irreparable damage if used incorrectly or by the ignorant to it's purpose. As a literal new tool, we are still figuring out the instruction manual, and using our hammers and screwdrivers to crush and maim instead of build and reinforce. I would LOVE to see more "AI assisted" pieces, but I do hate the current usage, of purely AI generated images.
Bowl Bowled everywhere And Made non Bowlers Feel Abowled
Thank god to the Bowl and Pêle-Mêle for defending us artists
I have heard somewhere some time ago that AI not being able to draw hands or simular properly has been mostly fixed, but that these improvements where not added to the public AI to fight against people making AI art, then saying they made it. I don’t have the source of this claim though :/
It is fixed but only for the open source models like stable difusion and is something public
Free thinkers when a paid thinker enters the room
we consume not only the product,but also the story behind the product
it's been a while since i've watched a French Baguetter Intelligence video, mostly because the latest topics were just not as interesting to me and some were too silly for me personally but this one is something i'm very opinionated on so I can't wait to see the thought from Bowl (specially because I know his love for art, human art)
I always appreciate Edgeworth-poses and body being Bowl's portrayal. It fits him. An odd suave-ness about him. Says what he wants, and doesn't give a damn if someone disagrees with him or not.
How did they have arguments so bad it dealt psychic damage to me. Bowl really saved me
Bowl should run for president
Merci Pêle-mêle pour ce rapport détaillé des conneries usuelles des membres (notamment britanniques) du FBI 😄
À votre service, monsieur saucisson.
bowl's exit was awesome
Seeing the name "Escher" again makea me both happy since I once went to an art museum where there was an exhibit, and it makes me sad knowing how AI is defiling such a wonderful style. Since talent like Escher does not come by shortcuts, if you are truly inspired then you could learn to incorporate a similar vibe rather than telling a bot to do the job.
The people taking the ai shortcuts are no artists be it visual art, audible art, written art (poems for example), and much more. I do think AI does have potential but it shoud be used on something *productive*. A healthy balance of utility and our independency, which for art AI does not stick. Better a few disproportionate (or scuffed) drawings slowly getting better than instantly having a cheap mockery. I respect anyone who truly respects art. To me a piece is a reflection of the artist who worked on it, commissions have this trait somewhat but not as much as one made by the artists own choice rather than coin or bills.
Thanks for making this video. It actually made me look at this situation in a much more different light than before.
Even if Bowl's arguments weren't yours, you still made this video entertaining enough that I watched the whole thing, even if I was tired of this stuff because it's engaging.
I can't stress enough, thank you for making this video and show actual good arguments rather than just aggressively say "AI art bad" like many artists I've seen who talk about this stuff, even going as far as to insult the ones that disagree with them (which in my opinion, makes your credibility feel weak because of not being able to control your own emotions, which in turn could make some people disagree with you for the sake of getting into your nerves)
Anyhow, I've rambled long enough so I'll just leave it off with me wishing you to continue making more of these. Good bye!
Man now that i think about it seeing harry join that server would be absolute art with how he acts
Bowl’s performance here was magnificent. The carbon monoxide analogy put to words my own unformed thoughts about the “you can’t tell the difference” argument. I already respected him a decent amount, but my respect for him has grown vastly with this video.
Finally I had to sacrifice my sanity, my body, my well being just to understand this.
Mowgli being kinda based, NGL.
15:52 i dont think ai can betray unless specifically is programmed to do so. Hes not sentient.
Actually, the Betrayal goes in one direction, not both. If you, as a sentient being, bought a product, hoping it would help you but the product is defective, you could be betrayed by it, even if the product itself did not sold itself to you by a lie. Technically, the producer of your product would be the one betraying you but that argument can also goes for the AI, the way it was programmed, where did he searched sources, and so on and so on.
You don't actually need sentience for betrayal. You need giving hopes you cannot fulfill. You definitively need sentience of an ACTIVE betrayal though.
the pêle-mêle spinoff and sequel...
on the topic of knowing if it computer generated : it will always be a blend , a midlle ground and there is never the error that grew with teh drawing and author along the way , it always like purpose or meaning it is line for a line
Bowl was fucking great in this one. Long live our beloved alcoholic Brit.
il est pas aigri bowl, il a juste raison mdr
…Ummm. Go Bowl!
(I can’t believe I’m complimenting Bowl without any caveats. Maybe it’s because there weren’t any Frenchmen around?)
Also, there’s an interesting trend in both crypto and AI. The first big AI shills were failed Crypto shills. It’s hardly surprising that mister, “I think so freely my brain fell out” also got into AI art.
Also also, dogecoin isn’t exactly doing super hot on the whole, “having value” thing… I’d love to see them try to actually buy something with it…
Edit: this whole thing is further evidence that the concept, “ are people” has been lost for a not-insignificant segment of the population… (the photorealistic painters thing is what brought this on. They’re not directly restricted because actually making a photorealistic painting is an extremely time-consuming task, so as-needed handling is perfectly sufficient. Meanwhile AI stuff is like a firehose)
Watching Bowl in these videos is like watching Master Shake have the occasional brain blast and just casually smoking everyone in the room and it is funny every time
Proof that Bowl is on par with FC in terms of argumentative prowess, with only possibly Harry surpassing them.
I understand where Pele and Bowl come from, but a small issue I have is Bowls insistence on art being defined by emotions and depth. I think he has a point in the area of art being a human made thing, it holds value because humans put so much work into making the picture itself, and denying them the credit of being creators and the owners of many interesting ideas- however as an artist I don’t think art should have to be defined by depth or emotion, tons of pieces, famous pieces, exist simply to push the boundaries of art. And many artists are incredibly technical, they want to replicate what they see not to “tell a story” or to “communicate how they feel.” The reason I don’t like or trust AI art is because it denies the artist the right to be recognized as someone who spent decades of their life practicing and learning just to get to the point of being able to create similar things to what an AI can fairly accurately replicate.
And also on the topic of an arguement that Mowgli visited, I hate this idea that any moment a piece enters the public that it means the artist has lost their creation, I like to think of the public domain as having the ability to recreate, and yes, vandalize, something an artist has already created, but this doesn’t remove what the artist originally created from the zeitgeist. An artist losing their child happens when animation studios take your idea and change it until it nolonger feels like it belongs to you, and then release the product before anyone could even hear what the original idea even was.
Also, Faux Cares, if you see this, I went to a French immersion school and still am learning! Albeit I’m not very good… I have been considering moving to Belgium when I’m old enough. I think making jokes about the British and the French are funny, yes, but having solidarity with another people group makes me very happy, so whenever I see you acting all French I’m very charmed. Keep up the great work! -^^-
9:15 summoning Bowl in horror as a last resort to destroy them after they have shown to be irredeemable
9:55 That remids me of how studio behind ARMA3 relased s guide how to tell apart real war footage from their game.
I feel like AI art will have the same development that photography did. At first, it was rudimentary, and could not emulate the beauty created by human hands, but as technology adapts, i can gradually transform into a new form of art. The thing is, because it's a tool that everyone has access too and it has a low skill floor, the art space (that now encompases all the internet) becomes polluted with bad drawings.
It's also kinda like the survivorship bias. You don't notice the good looking AI images.
The only problem with that is, AI has no human input over the actual work created. You just type in a prompt, and the machine does all the work for you.
As an artist, writing down your idea to give to something else to tackle, isn't you creating anything, it's being lazy.
Photography HAS a human input over the actual creation. The artist has to position the camera, adjust the settings, make sure the time of day is right, choose the right lens, focus the camera, etc
The artist has complete control over the result more or less, while AI is just typing in a prompt and gambling on whether or not the robot produces something you want.
AI art will NEVER be real art
@@mr.timusproductions116these points would have been made about Photography a few decades ago. I can't bother to recreate your whole message by replacing "AI art" with "photography" and "photography" with "paintings" while also tweaking some points so they make sense, but I hope you can see my point. Art is subjective. Anything can be art if even a single person thinks it's art. An artist could shit in a can and sell it as art (which actually did happen). Acting like "being human" is the ONLY requirement is genuinely very confusing, because is that really where you draw the line? What about a Chimp that learns to paint and makes genuinely beautiful pieces? Is it not art cause it's not human? Or maybe it is, and now you can see that the starting point didn't make much sense to begin with. Long story short, I believe AI art is art, and just because you don't like it, that doesn't make it unworthy of the label. Have a good day
Photos are photos you cannot make a realistic photo of something that does not exists AI can create from scratch, maybe when they develop a camera that can snap a photo of your imagination then the comparison will make sense
@@bruschetta7711Have you ever heard of Photoshop? I can photograph a white horse, stick a narwhal's horn on it's head, and that would be a pretty realistic unicorn, which to my knowledge don't exist
@@mr.timusproductions116Typing in a prompt is human input. Besides, you only notice AI art when it's bad, but if I was a good artist and made an AI painting, and then fixed the errors that the AI generates, you wouldn't recognize it as AI generated.
YOU TELL EM BOWL, MY MAN 🎃 🎃 🎃 🎃 🎃 🎃
4:45 Tell that to Nintendo...
Actually don't... That's a horrible idea.
Yeah, I’m going to be honest. While I do use the tools myself, I will never refer to it as “art”; always as “AI generated images”. I also don’t even really see them as mine. I’ve slowly been trying to draw myself as well, though while my skills are still lacking, I use AI to generate concepts” images for my characters and such. Eventually, I’m hoping I’ll get to the point I won’t need it, but for now it’s a tool that I’ll use.
Not to mention that even while using it, I’ve experienced frustration in having to reattempt generations again and again in order to get what’s sometimes essential details to be there at all.
Oh and one final thing: I am not currently, and will not support it monetarily in the future; I’ve downloaded a personal Stable Diffusion model that runs entirely on my own device. If you really feel the need to generate images with AI, I recommend doing so as well (provided you have a powerful enough machine/good graphics card).
Though there’s a part of me that’s tempted to try and use the concepts generated by AI with my own personal skills to create something that *could* be called “art”, through the fusion of both man and machine.
Maybe. It’s just an idea as of current.
IMHO, I think like that's the best, if maybe the only good use case for AI generated art - inspiration for your own, self-made crafts. A tool; a means to an end, rather than the end itself.
@@jesse422Wish more people have this mindset, both the AI supporters and the luddites. I code for a living, and I deal with AI on a regular basis. AI is a tool, the shit they generate is (currently) subpar so using it as is, is settling with mediocrity. Nowadays, you can ask AI to generate entire programs but without direction and someone to fix it into an actual program, its not gonna work, and if it does, it will look like an ugly code salad. AI art is the same, a simple prompt is a more visual salad than it is an art, but use it to draw inspiration and eliminate repetitive work and you get proper AI art. And people discrediting AI is discrediting a major ground breaking tech for personal use. You want an art piece of your dnd character? You can get it. You want to generate a wild concept no one ever thought to drew before? You have a personal artist now. If I search up roman legionary in napoleonic gear, or a griffon with an autocannon attached, I will have to previously go comission and wait for an artist to draw it for me, and if I want more than 1 picture, I have to comission more. But now, any wild shit I think I of, I can just get it.
Fucking love bowl! His dunking on that server, giving everyone the finger, and leaving before he got banned was legendary!
I really really liked this video