How A.I. "Art" Exploits Artists (Lecture 1/6)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 чер 2024
- Part 1 of 6 part lecture series. I guess you already know the situation, but this is where I stand - with the human artists, now and forever. Watch part 2 here: • How to defeat AI promp...
EU crowdfunder - Help protect our art and data from AI companies (I donated to this one, it's really good)
gofund.me/1cd549ba
US crowdfunder Protecting Artists from AI Technologies
gofund.me/2df3dc07
My collection of fresh A.I. memes, you can look at, laugh at and share:
imgur.com/a/CGMSWqR
-----------------------------
New to 2D animation? I will teach you to animate with my course: www.animatorguild.com/courses....
Support the production of these free videos on Patreon:
/ animatorguild
Join our community on discord: / discord
__________________
ANIMATION SOFTWARE I use: www.tvpaint.com/
The accompanying SOFTWARE I use (Adobe CC): tinyurl.com/v7fvqgo
___________________
My Website:
www.howardwimshurst.com/
I work professionally as a freelance animation producer and consultant
MY PLAYLISTS TO WATCH:
My animated films - goo.gl/8kkgqD
Animation tutorials - goo.gl/TV50zo
Discussions about animation and art - goo.gl/BwbHbI
Industry advice and freelancing discussions - goo.gl/kajjK8
My PODCAST on Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/0kKfIDK...
TUMBLR: / howardwimshurst
TWITTER: / wimsanimations - Фільми й анімація
Part 2 for now is unlisted but you can watch it here: ua-cam.com/video/bU01H9Vjnok/v-deo.html
EU crowdfunder - Help protect our art and data from AI companies (I donated to this one, it's really good)
gofund.me/1cd549ba
US crowdfunder Protecting Artists from AI Technologies
gofund.me/2df3dc07
My collection of fresh A.I. memes, you can look at, laugh at and share:
imgur.com/a/CGMSWqR
I dont like AI art stealing work, but please do not spread the gofundmes, Chip on twitter made a good set of posts about this, but your funding a greater evil then the AI people. The US Campaign will work with the same lobbyists that keep on destroying the public domain on the behalf of corporations that greatly harm small artist like Disney.
Do not go down the dark path of what happened in the 90s with software copyright nonsense. Honestly, I think the best solution for artists going forward, is to do what a lot of us FOSS (free and open source) people did in software, use copyright to your own advantage as is. Write a license like the GPL, or MIT license and set the terms of your art. you do not need to give a dime to anyone.
Have a license that allows people to share your art, make fan art, but explicitly bans the monetization or usage of it in AI training. if you explicitly put a license on your art, you prevent this problem without expanding IP & copyright law and empowering our corporate overlord.
Fan fiction, fan art, cosplay, remixing is all at stake, dont let the fear and anger of AI art be weaponized against us!
here is a template based on the BSD license, feel free to use it and spread it!
Copyright (C) [year] by [copyright holder]
Permission to view, parody, remix, and or distribute non commercially this art for any purpose as long as this art is not used in or applied to any machine learning system or algorithm is hereby granted.
A Gofundme for a Disney employee to join the copyright organization. You are truly something.
@@nigel-uno lol what? are your reading this from some alternate universe?
I said, they are looking to work with the same lobbyists.
Any how regardless, I hope you have a wonderful day, i'm not trying to start anything heated.
thank you for your hard work. this videos are really describing the problems in a easy way for non artists as well.
Ai can never ever replace human artists , art has been major part of our society from thousand of years ...now here comes some machine to replace it ? :[
I'm not against ai being used as tool.
But if its used as a replacement of an artist well that's where I have an issue.
There're reasons as to why I like using ai as a tool for example rendering 3d animations and interpolation of 3d animation (even though I want to not use it for creative reasons). But much to how everything works in this world it all comes down to money.
Everyone is too young to remember what happened when accounting software like Peachtree and Microsoft Excel were created. There used to be entire floors of bookkeepers and accountants for medium sized businesses. Now, you'll only see that for fortune500.
@@nigel-uno Same happened for grocery store cashiers, but nobody fought for them. This is giving MILLIONS of people without the time or skill to draw or paint the ability to create art and express themselves.
@@waltlock8805 AI tools are not going anywhere and people in the art industry will have to adapt to the changing environment EXACTLY like what happened to accountants. They had to learn computers and electronic accounting software. Accounting software has now become so simple even boomers can figure out Quickbooks. Does this mean accounting as a career is gone? No.
@@nigel-uno I agree with you. Physical art will continue to hold value (possibly even increase). People will still by oil paintings and I don't see tattoo parlors becoming automated any time soon.
Traditional and digital artists also have the advantage of specificity. They can create exactly what they envision or a client describes far easier than an AI.
@@waltlock8805 I agree that some artists that are focused on the creating their vision like film directors will choose whatever tools are time and cost effective. See how some film directors are turning to Blender and Unreal Engine 5 rather than real sets. Is this harmful to the artists who have devoted their skills to setting up physical sets? Possibly. They will have less job opportunities if more directors choose digital sets over physical sets.
I have to add that several companies have already started to develop their own AIs that they have not yet shown, the most impressive (in my opinion) was the one from Samsung that can animate from static images, not to mention that these AIs can be combined with each other.
If acceptable legal agreements are not reached, the future of everything related to content creation in all fields looks quite dark.
Ai is already used in a number of other fields, like to generate basic articles. In the future every creative field that has the ability to turn a profit will be inundated with ai, whether is ai written scripts for youtube videos, ai generated Instagram art in order to attract the most amount of engagement, or even just the most shitpost tweets in order to go viral. As long as there are no protections in place for your creative field you are next.
@@tobiverrum We must do something about it.
@@tobiverrum The problem is not that AIs exist, the things you mention are things of no real importance, the problem is that they are not controlled as they are happening now, also, what they call "AIs" are not really artificial intelligences, they are just showing similar things , when google and other companies start to show real AIs and the public can use them freely we will have serious problems if they do not establish clear regulations and limitations.
Not to mention that the identity of the people will be in danger.
@@tobiverrum Do you think the AI can just be set to write articles and post automatically? There is a human writer that feeds its ideas, ensures the model is tuned correctly, checks for accuracy, etc. It will be like this for another decade or two at the least. The worry is when you have AI that can constantly learn new information and improve itself. What do you think happens when AI can be creative and no longer require the input and oversight of humans?
Humans are egotistical. They think only they can be intelligent and dismiss when pigs or cows show it and treat them as nothing more than protein. They put down their own human kind as inferior due to a different skin tone. In the past photography, digital art, CGI has been called, "not real art" because the introduction of new tools hurt the ego of the artists that face more competition. These new tools like phone cameras, Photoshop, Blender saturated the creative space with millions if not billions more artists than previously possible. With the AI advancements that I've seen, it's possible for one person to produce scripts, concept art, animations, voice and much more using new AI tools. This again hurts the ego of current artists that think only they should be allowed to create art. With AI tools, there will be even more saturation in the creative space. What hurts the ego of artists the most is that art styles for transformative creativity have been quantified into code that can run on a mobile phone. A child can write a "cow jumping over the moon, Picasso" and create a completely new artwork. If you think creating AI generated art is simple, go watch the process for the truly good AI assisted art. They still go into Photoshop. They use in-painting to alter the canvas piece by piece. They refine the weights of keywords in the prompt. They still need human input to start and human creativity to guide the creation of images. AI art generators are just another new tool that will further saturate the market because more people can create art.
There's a difference between AI in general and the AI art companies. Artificial Intelligence as a concept is amazing, but AI art being made from stolen data is a completely different story. If the AI can make art by itself, now that's amazing. But that's not how Diffusion and Midjourney work.
As a person who still paints with the brush and canvas; I appreciate this video lecture 👨🎨
Ill be mad if soon, these AI can generate handdrawn ANIMATION-looking videos
I'm sure they can haha, if not it's simply a matter of training a model to do it.
I had a thought today.
So the AI prompters, right; would you say that they are essentially commissioning the AI to make the images? (sans paying the AI of course, unless the service is selling you the image or renting out their services to you)
The people making the prompts are literally doing what I would do if I was asking someone to make an art piece for me. You're telling the program what to draw, but how creative is it? Communication and language are interesting because generally, a lot gets lost in transit. Different languages have different pools of words. There might be different amounts of names for a specific thing, and a word can have multiple meanings. How actively involved are you in the crafting of an artwork if you're just providing prompts, whether to a human or to a program?
If you yourself are not actively crafting something, I personally have difficulty agreeing that it's made by you. I can't really put a finger on where to draw the line, but I feel that drawing with a pencil on paper is definitely considered making a piece, but telling someone or something, be it a human or a machine, to draw something for you; that's not you making it. Some people call it curating, I suppose. Essentially, commissioning someone to make a piece is not creating it, right? Am I correct in assuming that definition? Because if it's not for humans, then it isn't for AI either, does that make sense?
The AI image generators _can_ be used as tools for artists, I'm sure. But from most of the comments I've read, there are lots of people who just want to 'make art' by prompting the AI. As I already mentioned commissions being a thing, you can see my angle; surely you can understand why an artist, one who actively makes their pieces, wouldn't really want their works to be included in the training of these AIs.
One reason is that they lose out on commissions. Yes, it is about money. You'd be upset too if the profession or craft you went for seemed endangered. That is evidently what a lot of non-artists want to use the AI for; to produce images they can use (I'm not arguing what I think or what's legal; only presenting their views as I see them), and in some cases they even want to sell the artworks from the prompts.
Another reason is that it looks to them like people may essentially get access to art like theirs without paying them. If I made a painting, and you had an AI make a very similar painting, so much so that many would call it plagiarism, you understand why I'd feel robbed as an artist, yes? And you then making money off of what I feel is my art would really rub me the wrong way, no? To many artists, their artworks being included in the training is theft. We need to know whether it is, especially legally.
I look forward to seeing where these conversations go, both inside and outside the courtrooms. It's all still so new, and we need to figure out what to make of it. I see lots of people, artists or not, have opinions on it already.
I would simply disagree with your very first premise. Prompters are not "commissioning" the AI in any English interpretation of that word.
@@Adam-rs4en I expected hearing that.
But does that defeat the rest that I wrote?
Please don't misunderstand; they're not actually commissioning the AI. No, they're not paying anyone, perhaps besides the ones offering access to the AI.
But would you not agree that the rest is somewhat similar?
If I have to be specific: The prompter has the AI make a picture, much like a person who wants artwork has an artist make art.
It seems to me like lots of people just want 'free art'.
That's my angle. I simply used the word "commission" because the context is similar.
@@Adam-rs4en Sure, they aren't paying for it but they are commissioning the AI in every other sense of the word. They are not making the art, they are just asking the machine to make it.
@@OneSeasonMan I do not believe drawing using the same reference as another human being is anywhere near the same as what an AI is doing based on a human artist's work.
"Don't argue because you are wrong" just tells me you are not open to a good discussion, so I shan't bother you with it further. However, I haven't seen one point that is actually relevant to the topic at hand. You just sound angry at artists for... what, drawing apples?
It's not just about the money. Plagiarism is frowned upon be it by human or machine.
Exactly the things that didn't need to be replaced by AI...
Thanks tech bros... You bunch sure know how to ruin everything. See you in court.
Hopefully they get hit hard with lawsuits! It would be a dream come true to see them lose everything! 😁
Tech bros literally created photoshop and other art package softwares. GG lol
fantastic series of videos
Looks like both sides are looking for money to win this argument. I am just going to go back to drawing my silly pictures.
Here, I'll use your art to train me while I push you out of your Industry - seems fair
There is AI for animation, it's just not as prominent because it requires some work lol. Those entitled AI "artists" are like "oh there's work other than typing a prompt? I'm not doing it." Lol.
it is quite funny how low the barrier to entry has to be for them to try it.
also no fun in watching content being created fast, i'll get bored eventually from ai productions, ai will just kill content by time, with nobody working or leaving contents and games behind (people will not buy thses stuffs) it'll go for a dawnfall
I just googled it and it seems like there is a class action lawsuit against Stability AI, Midjourney, and DeviantArt. (a lot of the news sources are from yesterday which is kinda amusing)
Anyway, hopefully this doesn't horribly. I can see a future where people start abusing the system by "taking down" random artists art by claiming it's AI made. On the other hand, if the lawsuit doesn't go through, well that's gonna set a weird precedent and who knows what's gonna be the result of it.
There are also many other ways this can play out and very few of them are gonna be good for the artist, but here's hoping we end up with that result.
Hopefully artist win and Ai companies get hit hard! That would be a amazing start to punishing the thieves! 😁
@@jimbo729 The copyright issue is only the surface of the problem. Let's say that lawmakers add to copyright law specifically software development do not have that same protections to be "inspired/trained" by publicly accessible art, software makers will then turn to large IP corporations like Disney to license their artwork and train their software. Disney will be rolling in money if this happens which is why they've aligned with the RIAA to make it happen. Adobe who has already invested and added features towards AI art generation will likely breach your privacy to train its software. If not Adobe, then most of the "free" software that earns its income from selling your personal information. A minor setback that an entire global economy will throw billions to overcome in order to save money on hiring more artists.
@@nigel-uno honestly it’s not even that. As a artist and more over as a human. I just hate the fact of being stole from. If they would have paid the artist it doesn’t matter what they do after. I speak for myself but what is right is right. That’s what laws are for. If the fates have it that large corporates run art then it is what it is. But when you hone your craft and you are stolen from. That’s when I becomes more than just, “that’s how the world works.” Imagine working your whole life to save for your first car just to have someone take it away every time you reach your goal. That’s the feeling. If at all you can’t sympathize with an artist than idk what more I can tell you. This is the worse advancement we could’ve had in society and if it happens in art what else is going to keep on happening to?
@@jimbo729 AI generators are not taking your first car. They're making cars with five wheels. If we're going to try and make an apples to apples comparison around cars, you've designed the first car and think you should be the only one to sell cars because you worked hard to design it. You show it off to the public and own the patent to the internal combustion vehicle albeit a car that drives for 3,450 feet. Henry Ford wants to sell cars based on your design but because you want to make money, you deny him from using your patent. He is your enemy that takes away from your profits. Eventually, the courts argue you can only own the rights to your own type of engine and cannot own the rights to entire "style" of vehicle. We look at art and people cannot own an "art style" because every "art style" in existence draws from existing "art styles" and do not give any compensation to the previous artists. You can own characters and the rights to a specific individual art work.
@@nigel-uno it’s funny how I’m telling you what I feel yet you lack the capacity of human understanding to show sympathy. The exploiter vs the exploited I suppose. You just justify your reasoning to belittle the existence of others struggles and that is what’s wrong with the world lol the enjoyment of others must be built off the struggles of others
Thanks for covering this A.I. will take on animation next because sakugabooru has tagged animations that can be exploited too.
I heard stabble diffussion getting lawsuit? any news?
deserves more views and likes😞
10/10 Howard.
I’ve been waiting for this
Other artists: We have to do something against AI
Me: Welp we're already fucked, let's better focus on the people who will choose artists over soulless AI.
they will be few of them left , and a giant amount of jobless artists , so its fucked anyway
best thing to do , is a lawsuit against the company
@@keks603 Well humans are soulless (and immoral) too, so there's not much difference there.
@@keks603 Oh you sweet summer child ;)
@@keks603 Not an artist, but as someone who followed artists for a long time, appreciated their work, paid some of them for their art, we do exist.
it's getting outdated too, as a digitalartist and new animator some people who were influenced by ai came to me saying that human made arts will stay better than computer made works which is ai images generatiors (i don't call it ai "art")
well good that some people are still supporting humans so far
you also need to check what he said in discord, he's highly doing it by purpose, kid probably have phobia from using a pen to draw, got bullied for not knowing how to draw or what else, arabic name or idk, i've seen lot of people from my country focusing on unethical earning
For what it's worth, I think the EU would be more likely to produce a satisfactory result given how strict they are with this sort of thing.
I've seen many arguments for AI visual products, but I can't really see any good points beyond "it's inevitable". That's all the more reason to make sure it's tightly regulated.
AI is allowing MILLIONS of people without the time or skill to draw or paint the ability to create art and express themselves.
AI also allows us to benefit from the art created during our lifetimes - which is exactly what copyright was intended to do. The creator was given a brief window (ten to twenty years) to exclusive make money from their works, then they became public property so everyone could benefit.
@@waltlock8805 10-20 years? I'm no lawyer, but that duration is for patents, not copyright. Copyright lasts lifetime + 70 years last I checked. Your fight is with copyright law, not AI.
To your first point, explain to me how exactly does AI art allow someone with no time or skill to create art to express themselves? Specifically, how does it differ from getting another artist to draw what you want? In both cases, you communicate to the other party what you want in the language they understand, and in turn they create something that is their best guess as to what you wanted, in their own style.
@@888SpinR Copyright's original term was 10=20 years. Corporations (read: Disney) have had it steadily extended.
I have no fight with AI - I love it. The difference between commissioning an artist (other than the obvious one of cost) is that you can iterate as many times as you want and gradually refine the image into what you are looking for. You are the one in charge of all the creative inputs.
@@waltlock8805 It's the same as telling an artist, say, I don't like how his face looks, I don't like the art style, actually you know what make the sky purple this time. Just with a computer program that can churn out iteration after iteration until you find the one you like best. It's mass-produced art commissioning on steroids.
If Google had perfectly indexed, with infinite additive and subtractive descriptors, every possible combination of RGB for a defined picture size, this would be the equivalent of finding the picture you like on Google Images and saying "look, I made this".
@Cassowary Egg Any creator that wants to earn a living thinks about how easily and cheaply they can make things.
I hate AI art as a Animatior and a sketcher that get the work done from scratch. Ai art is not even real art work and real art work done by People even from a digital art space not by a computer that makes people lazy and they don't want to put in the effort to even try and do their own work 😒. Thanks for sharing bro we need to boycott this behavior as 2D Cartoon Animatiors
The scare quotes should have been on Steals.
Great case. Very persuasive and passionate!!! Keep it high up!!!!
thanks for this video and insight!
Ive never seen an AI use any images, only ever saw AIs that diffuse noise tbh
Yeah, a lot of so-called artists don't understand how the computer synthesizes images.
I am having a hard time with these echo chambers on "artist" UA-cam channels. Talking about logic, but instead use fallacy again and again. They are coming from the perspective of Skynet is coming and AI is coming for your jobs. Real Luddite mentality. Fear, fear, fear, and despair at knowing this is only the beginning and it will become even easier for non-artists to make their own art, and "real artists" won't be able to make a living.
Well, real artists need to change to fit the new reality. Art creation has fundamentally changed as of 2022. The time frame is a shock in how fast it happened, but times have changed for artists many times over the years. Photography, photoshop, brushes and pre- ground paints in tubes you can buy at your local store for cheap instead of grinding your own, felt markers, stock images, internet competition, etc. There are many other instances where whatever way you were creating art changed, and you adapted to it over time. Now, overnight, there is a sea change the likes of which we have never seen in a time frame we have never experienced.
Anyone can make beautiful art.
And guess who is mad about art being free to make for everyone? The people who had "earned" that amazing ability! They want to keep that amazing ability away from others because? Frankly, I think it's selfishness and fear.
We need to discuss this all rationally, but that's not going to happen because we are all having a battle over the narrative because that is what will matter. If enough people can gather up the pitchforks the AI boogeyman can be held at bay a little longer. We all know the horse is out of the barn, but if we can at least slow the horse down, we can hopefully make a few more dollars before we have to change whatever we do to support ourselves. That is what is seemingly driving this anti AI art backlash.
Oh, and make no mistake about it, AI art is Art with a capital A just as much as anything found on Artstation or elsewhere. Demonizing the images by saying it's not Art or not real Art is a tactic to get into the minds of people. Like calling someone an animal, if we can denigrate the AI as inhuman, we don't feel obligated to respect it or give it rights.
If you have read this far, I'm shocked, but if you have, get out of whatever echo chamber you are in and have a discussion with the 'other side' and see what their arguments are, and see if you can address the debate properly. I have yet to see a channel have opposing sides. The best was Bobby Chiu and Schoolism, but Bobby can only play devil's advocate and not truly be an advocate. He has subscriptions to sell! I highly respect Bobby, by the way.
Anyway, if I would have ever created my own channel like I intended to many many years ago, I would debate these guys myself. Sorry 😞 another life.
Pardon this unedited train of thought, and peace!
Exactly, and that's based on how the prompts they're given is weighted versus the weight of what they're trained on, then that's derived as the noise in the diffusion process is organized into an image.
Not so dissimilar to how humans create based on their training, or experiences as it were. I get it's a tough concept for people to grasp that immediately take the position that AI art is bad.
Fair. It's not so Cut and Paste as some make it sound. But that's not the whole picture.
The exact process is not the issue. The AI's goal is still to mimic the art fed into it. The main issue is that the AI was fed the work of people who did not consent to having their work mimicked and remixed.
@@SkippyStuff Its goal is not to recreate anything its always creating original works
@@SkippyStuff so basically the way every artist in insistence learned to create art? I'm sure all the artist they were inspired by and learn by studying their art all consented as well, right? right??
ALL art is derivative
Wow everyone is talking about this.
AI can animate?
not well, but somewhat
I think a good balance would be for ai to access art that's under public domain. It gives artists the reason to create something ai won't copy in 5 seconds and still allows you to make a variety of interesting images 1000s of years of art. Of course I have no idea how you would un scrape all the art it's already taken
Those poor folks at midjourney and stability AI will have to retrain it from scratch using only public domain images. Doesn’t matter how much it will cost them.
Those CEOs are selling false narratives from the top down to justify their theft. Fools parrot these same narratives everywhere such as :
“its only learning like a human, so it’s fair”
“only end users who plagiarise others are the criminals, not us”.
“Scraping the internet and training images into AI software falls under fair use“
These are the kind of narratives that needed to be struck down. Not subjective ones like “is this art ? Is this a tool?”. Those are highly subjective and only serve as baits and distractions from the theft.
Horrible take. Styles shouldn't be copyrighted.
@@lazarus8453 add "styles aren't copyrighted" to the post above you. AI doesn't train on a "style", it trains on copyrighted images in whole.
@@eternalmonkegames1859 Do you realize what fair use is? Have you studied the works of Picasso?
Easy, cut their access to the LAION data sets.
12:57 I have heard of complaints that the AI is just ripping off the art around the web and had been hoping this video would show more evidence of this. But most I got was this meme which just shows a composite of two pieces of art which is pretty strong evidence the AI is an overhyped image search. It's hard for people to understand what's going on unless you show them. Some people already have a hard time just understanding the difference between an inspired work or tribute vs plagiarism.
this is the introduction part of the lecture where I just set the scene. The full lecture is over an hour and a half long and you are welcome to watch it here: ua-cam.com/video/WMykeJm8wJI/v-deo.html i provide a lot more evidence.
Perhaps breaking the lecture into 6 parts was a bad idea...
Great video Howard bringing some light to the Ai crap. Can really donate on my end, not yet at least 16:52
I don't think AI is gonna stop anytime soon, but I still think it needs to be stopped, or at the very least, it needs to be HEAVILY REGULATED!
a lot of industries are regulated. One example is the food industry. The people can choose to regulate AI, and this narrative that "it's out of our hands" is an absolute lie that the swidlers want you to believe.
I’m pretty sure the ai developers r aware of what ai is doing they just don’t care. I’m so glad that ur making more videos on this subject.
I'm an new A.I Dev myself, and I'd like to counter the argument, the developers specifically know what the ai is doing. The A.I. is just coping what is constantly feed to them, and using mathematics they can find a pattern that is somewhat of a hybrid of that image, we devs don't even know where the image would lead to. I personally think that labelling the net general of ai devs as art theives is a huge diservice to the amount of carefully process they put into. But I do agree that these devs must also consider the artists permissions. As both an AI dev and an artist this hurts me both ways, and I do think there is a better middle ground for both artist and devs alike.
@@Nao-Tomori tell that to Kim Jung gi’s family, the dev’s didn’t get permission to use his work yet they still fed it to the algorithm
@mynameispi883 yeah I do agree it was irresponsible for them to green light it without consent. But not all A.I. devs share the same sentiment as these devs. I am not an A.I. bro, I'm just an A.I. dev that so happens be an Artist. If there is anything to blame it would be the ones top of the totem pole. So please don't vilify A.I. general, as these devs don't represent us entirely.
There was a choice for the AI developers to contribute to areas where humans need help or can't do things themselves (analyzing cancers, forecasting dangerous weather patterns, providing climate change solutions, advancing energy and storage capabilities, etc), but instead these specific developers decided that making a subscription-based service that comes at the expense of an entire creative industry was their prerogative. Not a single bit of empathy or ethical consideration was given when they decided to roll it out as a commercial product.
@Jamazed but if it were that, these art were freely given by the artist, would that change things. I'm not trying to promote A.I. nor saying that A.I. art is unethical, I'm saying there's a better way to ethically coexist. I recommend there be checks for A.I art, yes for sure. What I view A.I art for is like grammarly, as an A.I. dev that happens to be an artist, I could see it being useful for specific references that are hard to find. Or a complete or somewhat restoration of an old painting or artifact. Or a restoration of an old family picture from an Alzeimer family member's description and old photos. The problem isn't the technology itself, but the human element that wields it, as akin to a knife, can be used to prepare cooked meals, and can also be used as a weapon, what matters is who wields it.
Great video! I feel like a point that I see brought up a lot when it comes to AI art is that AI is learning just like how people learn which is studying images.
It isn't. Humans don't copy and resample, we apply context and our styles aren't 100% emulation of other artists, otherwise we wouldn't be able to develop new ones.
@Holed Plot humans also apply theories and principles of optics and aesthitics to their creations. They may use another humans art to help them understand the fundamentals of their application, but ultimately this is much different than just pattern replication.
@@holedplot It is, AI doesn't copy and resample either. It generalizes the training data to come up with it's own unique and new creations.
@@staceykimbell9324 How many times are you going to repeat this false understanding of how Generative AI works? You have zero understanding of how it actually works. The copyrighted images are not stored in the AI model. Go watch Numberphile's explanation on Generative AI art.
@@nigel-uno Either way from what I am learning the images are used in some way to ‘teach’ the AI
W
Thank you for this again Howard
What I hate about ai is simple ...a bunch of no life kids can be famous with just typing,while others spit blood to earn their bread,as a concept artist and begginer animator it pisses me off to bits,I wanna put these people to the streets,fight to earn from zero like Most of artists did and do
pulling their goddamn hair out due to photoshop crashing the 9th time
And the animators before you who drew frame by frame or sculpted clay for claymation curse these modern animators who don't get their hands covered in graphite and clay; using only software to animate from behind a cubicle in a corporate animation studio.
@@tahasoomro7465 Photographers use to call digital artists lazy. Instead of finding a model, hiring make-up artists, fixing hair on set, using real lights and reflectors, digital artists simply use software to create artificial models and artificial lighting in tools like Blender and clicks and swipes of a mouse to fix lighting, hair, poses, or even the model itself.
"Lifeless digital art. Digital art is not real art." You are probably too young to remember these times but every new tool gets over blown because it forces the old generation to adapt. AI will never replace real artists because it does not create new art styles. It is only the realization that transformative creativity was not that creative in the first place which all great artists realized like Picasso.
@@nigel-uno im too stupid to talk about art , but i understand what your painting , but i dont get if ai will be the same as photoshop in 10 years , lets see
@@nigel-uno They don't really (look up to the legendary animator Aaron Blaise's youtube). They embrace it because the craft is still there. The craft isn't there for AI tools, it eliminates it, hence the upset. Completely different situations.
Facts 🔥🔥🧐🔥🔥
It's quite interesting to see all the people defending it. So reliant on instant gratification and can't do much else
i think ai agreeing that ai is stepping into concerning moral areas is ironic
The problem is people actually think that AI is learning and creating its own arts just as human
No, the problem is that people who have no idea how machine learning works think an algorithm that takes up 4GB of space somehow has 100TB of images stored in it so it can cut them up and paste them together.
Human learning basically starts with us trying to replicate the work of others, then taking what we learned through that and applying it to other things, and then generalizing that process. You copy someone's drawing of a dolphin. Then you try to draw a shark in the same style. Then you start incorporating the stylistic elements you learned doing that into something that isn't fish shaped. And you do this over and over and over and over again until you've incorporated so many things that your style becomes unique.
And this is almost exactly how machine learning works - except way faster. It can analyze thousands of images at once and create multiple heuristics, and then apply them wherever it wants without significant practice.
@@rich63113 You're missing the concept of "art". Machine doesn't work way faster, it works momentally. Type a few words - and get tons of merged art pieces in any styles by algorithmic researches and solutions. There is no technical imperfections (there can be errors), no intuitive moments, no desire.
We already have photographies, 3d, filters, effects etc. Ppl (mostly) didn't call it art that they drew.
As a tool, it's great. But it's not the same art process, and absolutely not the same value. That's the issue. It's too naive thinking AI producing the best rendered images just by learning from scratches, low quality free files.
@@bkgraphs1810 So define the concept of "art".
And do it in an objective way. And define it's value in an objective way.
"It's too naive thinking AI producing the best "
How so? What defines best? Why is best a criteria here?
What you're stating here is a whole bunch of feelings - which are valid - but they're not evidence of anything.
You're correct that AI is a tool - but that tool is being driven by human prompts - which makes it no different than a brush.
@@rich63113 There is no point. You're equaling human work, his learning process and final results with automatically generated product by computer. For you there is no different than a brush, fom me this analogue is nonsense.
I rather choose hand-painted portraits than filtred photos, 3D built by options (not sculpted by hand), AI generated ones. And like You may prefer dialogues with bots than other person.
But the main issue, again, when you claiming that AI is "learning", "doing unique things", "just as human". Check the articles from artists, it's clear as day that most of "arts" - just boldly merged pieces. If you're thinking artists are dumb, envious, fearful for no reason - fine, it's useless conversation.
I hear what your sayin and you got a point BUT this whole thing is like fighting the cotton jin, the transition from traditional to digital media, switching from phone operators to smart digital answering mechines, etc. A recession is here/coming and in the corperate eyes it all about money. A lot of people have suffered when industry changing tech comes out (Information tech guys like myself being one) and its nearly impossible to stop. History has shown its going to happen one way or another. Humanities conciousness, morality, and values haven't evolved or gotten strong enough (historically speaking) to fight off such changes or use them properly, morally etc yet. So long has people see this as having an advantage that can be used for profit theirs no stopping it, and those that don't will be left behind.
The only thing i can think of that this is different is that art on this level is hurting and affecting every single culture around the world on a humanitarian and historic level like nothing we've had to deal with ever before.
So those comparisons fall way short of what is going on. This should be treated as a new problem and not compared to any of those old examples.
the problem with ai art is the whole concept of it, while is probably so hard to code to make art lie that, the concept of ai art just throws away the sheer blood sweatand tears that human beings put into creating true art. while it sometimes looks cool, i fear this
If one can recognize an art style among different works, there is an underlying consistency of factors like color, composition, techniques, etc that another artist can also perform and use to create a new work. Generative AI quantifies that into 0s and 1s, which becomes the model. The model does not contain the copyrighted works. At the root of all these artists have against AI is not the age old issue of copying but a new one; it is the damage to the human ego that transformative creativity is uniquely human.
the only solution to this is to stop posting art in a format that the AI can steal, don't post pngs or jpgs on the internet in any form anymore as it can be downloaded and then uploaded to the internet on a site that uses ai art programs.
Do speedpaints and nothing more.
Those have already been stolen.
@@holedplot what do you mean?
@@UncensoredScion Someone screenshot an in-progress speed paint, fed it into an AI art generator which completed it first. The AI artist then mockingly said the original artist stole the painting as the AI one was completed hours earlier. While, in a court of law the theft would be obvious because the art was stolen in a late stage. However, there are social media trends where a template or original character is provided and artists draw on top or reimagine the character, creating their own work. When a human does it, it's acceptable but when AI does it, it's illogically immoral. Even if an AI art generator company paid artists to allow them to train off of them, you can be guaranteed the AI art generator would still be seen as unethical.
@@nigel-uno that's why you don't actually post screenshots of speedpaints but just post speedpaints. I'm literally stating here to NOT post art in JPG, GIF or PNG format on the internet at any point, but to provide video of it being done in-progress in front of you so it'd be finished anyway.
And yes people will still screenshot it and still feed it into AI bots but it will not be the high quality of a finished piece and it'll be less detail for the AI to use, you can also keep a watermark on the screen during speedpainting for that reason.
and anyone who uses AI generated art isn't an artist, the artist is the one who needs to work at it to make something and to improve over time, the person who uses a bot to make something is just a talentless hack.
@@nigel-uno That's obviously someone misusing img2img - not a biproduct of text based prompting in of itself.
Thanks for speaking out. These companies stole the hard works of millions of artists and then commercialize it in a product which directly competes with them in the same market. There is little to no way that this is fair use. This is the most disgusting and largest scale copyright theft that there has been in history.
The technology itself have nothing to do this. Please explain to me what about AI technology gives these companies the right to train it on the whole internet without even asking for consent much less crediting all the artists who were referenced. Interesting how one of the first applications of this tech was to use it maliciously.
Drop the ego and let technology advance. We dont need to stop anything.
this isn't what good technology advancement looks like
12:55 im not sure how poorly its hatched together, looks fairly seamless.
What I feel like this technology could do (and arguably already does) is just blend pieces of art together in a nice way. If thats all it was, a blending tool, a photoshop esk thing that just makes a collage look cohesive, that would be fine. But its not.
The legal and copyright issue is still not something that artist can rely on 100% yet. Because AI reinterprets to the point where is not a replica or duplicate work anymore. So it will not be considered as stealing someone's work.
Its not the generation that does the stealing but the training of the model itself. Once trained, the ai doesn't need to refer to the images it have been trained because it already developed the method of producing them. The companies collected data without checking for licensing or copyright, and they know it was illegal.
@@holedplot the funny thing about this is that most of copyright cannot do anything as long as the original artwork is not being tampered with unless there's some special clause in some particular license most are really not violations.
@Jue Viole Grace this is untrue. federal lawh prohibits individuals from copying, publishing, transmitting, exhibiting, distributing, modifying, displaying, or otherwise using (whether for profit or not) the original creative expressions of others, including for software development.
@@staceykimbell9324 If you were right, fair use doesn't exist. Let's send take down requests to every UA-camr using copyrighted content and artists that viewed copyrighted art (in which the image is downloaded to your computer and stored in cache) and used said art as reference. Go watch Numberphile's explanation on generative AI like Stable Diffusion and Dall-E. Programs do not copy off original art and instead learn the underlying formulas towards art styles and generate entire new images from noise.
@@staceykimbell9324 If you want to focus on the legality of copyright, good luck trying to argue people, programs, companies cannot be trained off publicly accessible works. What may happen is a new law is created specifically targeting generative AI software development but the only real way to prevent humans or AI from taking inspiration from your work and creating new images is to not make art at all. Go take an art history class and you'll see many of the greatest artists were heavily inspired by existing artwork and borrowed heavily in colors, techniques, composition, etc and the people they copied from often did not have any issue as long as they are creating new works. AI is just a continuation of an age old debate of is it okay to copy other artists. The only real difference is that now software is doing it and humans take offense that creativity has been quantified into 0s and 1s, especially for art.
Guys why are you trying to stop or limit this great tool, this is the future man, and I’m not saying it’s the future like they said with bitcoin or any of those things, because this is actually the future, and it will benefit mankind so don’t try to stop this
ua-cam.com/video/bU01H9Vjnok/v-deo.html
@@HowardWimshurst well if you think my argument is weak that’s alright, I think it is valid because technology like this will lead to better and better forms of technology
A carpenter can handcraft a table. IKEA can mass produce them for less. There are advantages to both.
I will always love and respect real artistic talent. However, there seems to be just as many throwing paint at a wall blindfolded and calling it $1,000,000 art.
The gatekeeping in the art world is threatened. That's the real story with AI prevalence.
This lecture is not an existential debate about the future of AI vs human art. It is holding big companies accountable for their data laundering and law breaking. If they ever manage to produce work comparable to master artists WITHOUT laundered datasets then we can get into that topic. Until then, let's not get ahead of ourselves.
"Data laundering" is where we differ.
Can an artist view other works of art and improve? Sure. What if they visit 10 art galleries a day? 20? All of them? That is all AI is doing. Scrape the internet for every image ever and then learn how to draw.
AI (just like people) needs feedback to improve. So you aren't going to see an AI create art from zero input.
It seems you want AI to generate a random image from nothing then ask the public "rate this 1-10" as it's only data source.
it could be argued that the final generated images are completely original and therefore not a violation of copyright laws. Additionally, the AI is not being used to reproduce or distribute the copyrighted images, but instead is using them as a learning tool to create its own unique images.
Why then do they have built in features that allow you to specify artists by name and grab specific image URLs to base your generated image on?
@@HowardWimshurst with image to image its the users responsibility to not break copyright. you should not blame the AI for the user putting in copyrighted works
@@HowardWimshurst > *and grab specific image URLs to base your generated image on?*
* Allow you to enter an image to use as a baase. Don't be dishonest.
@@email7919 Guns are just tools and it's the people who can misuse them in bad way, but despite that, guns are still regulated and limited to prevent bad things from happening.
So are AI image generators, they still should be regulated because it can easily be misused to harm other people
@@DestroyerV AI image generators dont kill people
Great video and breakdown of the many problems, not just with A.I. but also the many people who are supporting this tech blindly without any second thoughts. A tool that they don't even understand how it works. A tool that they think they're using, but the truth is that it's using them. And if it's allowed to keep going without any criticism we might find ourselves in a dystopia world where small handful group of people in big corporations controlling both our creativity, and possibly our world.
I am physically unable to maintain the stability to do real art. AI has (mostly, although poorly most of the time) helped me visualize ideas. I know in my mind what I want to draw a lot of the time. I just can’t physically draw it. (Which is why I have others (including robots) draw for me. To give you a reference, I can’t even draw basic shapes with assists.
I will be very happy for you that you will have this new technology to use, once we have a fair system established, where artist's images only get used to train the model when they opt-in. With new laws, they will be able to enter negotiations with these text to image generators, where they are properly compensated for their lifetimes of hard work. The AI will still be a very powerful technology for you to use, even if many artists decide not to opt in.
I used the disability argument to make a point on how of AI art IS art and was labled an ableist. 🤣
@@Darren_S I have made SEVERAL attempts at even basic stick figures, they are horrible. I can’t draw even the simplest of things.
This is very surface level. Once you get into the dark web and see what's going on in private chats, you can see how unethical this is getting. People are now making a living off of stealing artists' hard-earned work. They're laughing about it and producing millions of images a month. The newer iterations continue to get better at being "trained" to steal a particular style. The quality is getting better every month. Static art is dead. I'm in animation and I can feel death's knock coming at our door soon.
There's already talk about having the AI generate keyframes and in-betweens to making looping animation. If we use this as a prediction, then between the next year to five years we'll be seeing animated shorts using AI and eventually fully featured films.
Physical art will continue to hold value: oil paintings and tattoos for example.
It's likely the influx of all the scammers moving over from NFTs to this related area - the ones who have a dead conscience and get dopamine hits by bringing other people down. They can't keep making a living off this for long though because the value of AI art is plummeting (sadly human art is getting devalued as a consequence too).
Idk about this take, I get what you're saying but just because people spend money for access to an AI art program out of a fascination for the technology doesn't mean those same people would spend that same money on artist's art. You keep saying "millions of dollars daily" stolen from artists and given to tech companies, but you're making a wild assumption that these people who are interested in the tech side of things are just as interested in the art itself, which I just don't think is necessarily true. On the other hand, yes there are most certainly people who are interested in it just to get fast, cheap art and cut out the artists, and that is awful, but again I don't think it's fair to say that all the money spent on these tech companies is stolen. It's just not true, atleast it's not evident at this moment. Not commenting on the legality or ethical side of things, or the other points you made, just commenting on that one point you made. The rest are all great points from what I've heard so far.
I am speaking fairly casually in an un-scripted way, not legal-speak. So if you want to get technical you could change some of what I say as data laundering - which would be a more technical definition. Because it is in-direct stealing. They train their text to image models on data that isn't theirs > they launch an AI > they offer price tiers > none of that profit goes back to the image owners. It is slightly abstracted from the artists - it's not like a cat burglar breaking into the artist's safe in their house - but anyone should be able to see how it is exploitative. If it isn't illegal under our current laws, it is immoral and should be made illegal under new up-to-date laws. We just want an opt-in system where all datasets used are made up of consenting image owners. I really don't think that is too unreasonable to ask for. If that opt-in AI becomes good enough to create artworks that rival master artists, then so be it.
@@HowardWimshurst Thank you very much for this clarification. I can totally get on board with this and agree with you. I can see clearly how passionate you are about this subject, and I hope more attention is brought to it. Thanks for taking the time to make these videos and leave a comment, I've learned alot and I'm sure many others are too. Hopefully the passion of artists making videos like this helps bring enough attention to the subject to get some regulations or atleast some attention on this topic. Thank you again for your work :) and good luck!
"To Champandard's point, we've noticed that the complaint includes several statements that potentially misrepresent how AI image synthesis technology works. For example, the fourth paragraph of section I says, "When used to produce images from prompts by its users, Stable Diffusion uses the Training Images to produce seemingly new images through a mathematical software process. These 'new' images are based entirely on the Training Images and are derivative works of the particular images Stable Diffusion draws from when assembling a given output. Ultimately, it is merely a complex collage tool."
In another section that attempts to describe how latent diffusion image synthesis works, the plaintiffs incorrectly compare the trained AI model with "having a directory on your computer of billions of JPEG image files," claiming that "a trained diffusion model can produce a copy of any of its Training Images.""
-Benj Edwards of Arstechnica
This is why comparisons often are not working when talking about a NEW technology that is unlike what we had before.
Oh believe me, it IS being used for data laundering. They are capitalizing on the confusion that has come about from the introduction of a new ambiguous technology. Luckily, we don't need to be experts in the process to know the datasets they used without permission of the owners.
@@HowardWimshurst you also don't need to be an expert to know that they don't need the permission of the user to mine those datasets for research and education purposes.
There is a lot of nuances with AI art. It's not the AI itself that's the issue it's the people that are misusing it. AI at this stage in its life is just a tool, 1s and 0s thats all. People that are willing to take the time can learn and manipulate this tool just like any other artist medium. People seem to think it's less impressive because art created with the AI isn't traditionally "creative" but in reality it is just a different form of art that relies on technology knowledge, rather than an artist eye. Now having said all of that i do not condone plagiarism, and the people that are misusing this took need to be checked. But don't blame the AI, it is still people that are at the core of the problem
It still should be regulated.
Weapons are just tools too, it's the people who can do bad things with them. So because of that there are certain laws limiting their usage.
So should be with AI image generators. It's such a powerful thing, it should definitely be regulated to prevent misusage
@@DestroyerV People who have not lived long enough do not know the dark side of corporate interests and regulation. Take marijuana for example. Were you aware that the significant "health safety" regulation towards dispensaries eliminated the viability for small dispensaries to operate? That they raised barriers of entry to benefit existing big pharma and large marijuana corporations? What happens when the cost of licensing training data can only be paid for by the largest corporations? AI will fall into the hands of the wealthy and powerful. What do you think happens when the lawsuit against AI that EXCLUDES OpenAI "wins" against all of OpenAI's competitors? We love a monopoly on AI right? Take down all open source AI image generators because they can be used for evil and infringe on copyrighted images and produce illegal content. We must protect the children.
ai is an issue on the anthropological level
you stole my photography by using it as a reference when drawing
Ahh the classic "false equivalence" argument. See my latest video where I debunk your bumper sticker argument ua-cam.com/video/Lm7VsaILfSE/v-deo.html
@@HowardWimshurst "debunk" is very subjective
Come what may.
Were you standing up for taxi drivers with Uber? Or car assembly workers with Kuka robot assembly lines were established?? Let technology expand and find ways to adapt like the rest of human evolution…
taxi drivers didn't have their cars hotwired by Uber. If Uber jacked their cars, I would have stood with the taxi drivers.
The ends don't justify the means.
@@HowardWimshurst Nobody took your art away from you. It's still there right where you left it.
@@HowardWimshurst That’s funny! But they taxi drivers did have their process taken, they did have all their experience made useless, and they did loose their jobs. So unless the ai are holding guns to the artists heads and asking specifically for the artist’s work, the artists don’t have much of a case. BUT it will be interesting to watch the ground shift.
I have a question. Where was the massive complaint from the art community when Ai had been doing the exact same thing to literature for years? Did you just not care because for some reason literature isn't as important or human as illustration? Or does it only matter now since it affects your specific wallet?
Was any book written by AI been published?
@@holedplot Books dunno, articles and short stories yeah. Multiple sites have already been using AI to write published articles.
@@monsterking7676 chatgpt is just coming to fruition at this same time.
@@staceykimbell9324 ....you do know chatgpt can make images too right? and write working programs? It's a culmination, not the latest or first complete version of the AI writer. Working ai writers have been around for literal years at this point.
Literature is not my field of study. If I was a novelist, I would definitely have protested in that area too. I am one man.
I'd have no problem with what the ai was doing if the companies licensed the people it trained its model on. Monthly royalty check seems reasonable.
It's not going to stop but you are right. It needs to stop stealing. While Midjourney does seem to be "creative" and unique. On the other hand DALL-E 2 literally steals. I have seen images with signatures on the images. The images don't seem creative at all.
Those are, ostensibly, novel.
If all you do is type a prompt, you are NOT an artist. You are an art thief. Plain and simple.
🤣
9:43 You must lack the understanding of how ChatGPT works if you can say ChatGPT "Their own chatbot agrees with me." The natural language processing model does not have any original thoughts or opinions. It is merely writing what it predicts you want to see based on your prompt and its model.
i guess the humour was lost on you
It wasn't meant to be taken seriously. I do not propose that we go to a chat bot for the truth.
bro it was a joke. an ai bro in a nutshell.
Pretty sure AI companies will slow down the law even more with part of the money
No, they'll just have their process enshrined into law.
Chat GPT is also Chat GPT, and you can get it to say just about anything, so not really proof? Also it can't really make one to one.
It can make close to one to one and I have evidence for that.
It's a legal loophole. You can make a slightly distorted version of an image that isn't yours and claim ownership.
Without ownership this whole industry crumbles and none of your favourite books, films, artwork, designs ever would have existed
@@HowardWimshurst I think you are thinking of img2img, not txt2img. Why would they not exist?
13:38 id argue that morality/ethics stays still, it does not move one way or the other. "progress" may get further or closer to morality, and the law follows, but morality stays the same.
Art is about learning from other artists work, you can't have Van Gogh without DaVinci. It's the art process and always has been. Also AI art can't be copyrighted so any company that wants to be able to challenge the use of their art will need human artists. AI art is good for conceptualized things but it's not going to burn down the digital art industry.
The way I view ai art is the same way I view photography. When the first photo was ever taken, artist that would do portraits called it cheating. They thought it was unfair and thought that it would bring them out of business. I view this new ai art the same. But I don't believe it will highly affect true artists.
hmm well, in my opinion, you can totally ignore my comment if you don't agree, but I don't really think there is really any similarity between ai art and photography, except the fact that these are two major changes in the art industry BUT the problem with current ai software is the ethical issue.
imagine a few years in the future your art is being sucked into these ai software and seeing replicas of your work
Another fool has descended into the abyss of "It Is JuSt As A pHoToGrApHy!" narrative. Oh no... What a sad sight to behold.
Well I'm here to tell you the way you view it is wrong. Photography does not rely on the work of the artists it affected, it was a legit new tool. Ai just deadass uses the work of artists to mass produce images in the likeness of said artists styles to (potentially) put them out of jobs.
Their work is being taken without permission and used directly against them in a way that is worse than directly stealing, if it was just stealing, the artist could always make more art, but now not only they are being stolen, they are being forced to compete in the industry with mass produced work of their own art.
We got a real problem if you are unable to identify the difference which makes Ai "art" an issue.
@@oriolvp4413 If it is a novel artwork, then is it their art?
maybe i don't like you , but i do agree with you on this one
Ai might not reach every art department yet , but it just a matter of time at this point
It is not a tool for artist, it is a replacement for artist
Yeah if you cant adapt. Get out of your little bubble .. its bigger then just lil jpgs
Yep, just like Photoshop.
@@ProdByGhost yea, adapt that ppl actually stealing artist's nearly whole life efforts just to replace them, just like a random homeless catch the opportunity to live in someone else's house, he will then shut everyone's mouth so he can keep living in it without paying a single penny to the owner, wt a joke🤣
@@jeggsonvohees2201 lol, ppl actually believe Ai artist is the same as normal artist, while ignoring the fact u are just commissioning AI to do ur work instead of using it to paint
I doubt they earn that much, there are a lot of free alternatives
You would be surprised
@@HowardWimshurst Most people i know use free ones
Alternative title: Man Rants about AI Doing the Same Thing People Do but Better
ua-cam.com/video/bU01H9Vjnok/v-deo.html
Long time sub here. Im both an artist and dabble in programming. I've used stable diffusion for fun. Its really not a tool at all, its a make art button for generic art. Digital art is already an overcrowded space, this is probably the worst thing to happen right now.
There are quite a bit of points you make here such as the "copyright infringement and consent" and several others which I have heard quite factually disproven in shadiversity's video; stop the lies ai art. But I do understand why artists are against it cause I would if I were in their shoes but sadly this isn't the only industry in which technology has greatly affected people negatively and it really won't be the last as messed up as that sounds. Also I'd be careful quoting chatgpt as it's been shown to be very fickle with responses constantly changing as it's constantly updating 😂.
What do you mean? At least in US court, and image not made by man, either generating using an image generator or generated using a collage of images do not hold copyright.
@@tobiverrum no by copyright I meant the claim that ai art infringes on artists concent. And just to clear something up ai doesn't work by collaging images that's factually wrong as that's not how the models work
It's sucks, but this is just another industry facing automation. I feel bad for artists like I do for replaced factory workers, it's all the same and this is nothing new.
Not to mention the irony here, how do you think physical paper based artists felt when digital art arose?
Should probably dial back going after prompters. It's natural for people to go after the cheaper, easier solution. A huge part of regulating businesses is making it so that cheaper, easier solutions don't cheat or hurt people.
When an AI generator creates art its doing so with a latent space that basically interpolates between the training data that matches those keywords. The best way to imagine that is to imagine it interpolating between of the silhouettes of all of the art pieces, interpolating between all of the faces it can put on that silhouette, then interpolating between all of the color schemes of those art pieces, interpolating between the composition, interpolating between the patterns and textures in those images. It is not "generating" anything new, it is just copying and mix and matching design choices. You could think of it as a slider that "intelligently" blends between 2 images in the same way DLSS 3.0 uses "AI" for frame generation, but instead of 2 images it can blend between any of the images in its training data and just aligns them in its database based on similarity. So using copyrighted material for AI training data should be considered copyright infringement, plain and simple since a latent space literally depends on creating a fingerprint, or copy, of that image.
In this context, why should all of that matter if the output is sufficiently novel?
@@thesystem5980 thats what I'm saying. Its not "sufficiently novel". Its copyright infringement. Blending between a spectrum of copyrighted images doesn't make them not copyrighted and it doesn't make the output not copyrighted. It doesn't even fall under fair use modification.
@@Ben-rz9cf If it is not sufficiently novel, then it is essentially an image editor. Why complain about an image editor?
The AI does not have any images in its database, only the patterns (weights) that it learned. It can't blend between images because the images don't exist.
I don't agree with you, but I gotta admit, that thumbnail goes hard (in a good way).
I love the quotations on "Art" like you don't know what it is.
Do you?
Dude you haven't demonstrated any of the technical arguments or proof of theft ..just philosophical ones?
This is part 1 of 6. It's the introduction. I have proof in my later videos. I couldn't fit all the proof I have into one 10 minute yt video.
@@HowardWimshurst hey man, thanks for the reply. I watched them (skimming a bit through later ones) but the title of the series made me think that you were exposing some smoking gun regarding what is happening behind the scenes, technologically. it seems your overall argument is more akin to:
Copyright covers use permissions, and the devs don't have said permission so they are therefore stealing the work - regardless of what they are doing with the images. Is that correct?
Assuming I summarized correctly, I'd argue that we have the right to look at copyrighted images and learn from them if they are freely available on the internet. So what can't a machine do so?
Oh, and I'm no expert nor have I decided on whether I'm for or against AI art at this point. Cheers
Isn't A.i art itself
True, but just because you want something gone, doesn't mean it will happen. Is best to adapt to the future it's turning out to be and live with it.
Aslong as people are making money from selling this tool, it's going to keep coming and it will be perfected soon enough.
You know the people of your kind do more damage the good. Oh I stand in the middle mindset is how things go bad and people who do bad things don't get consequences for there actions.
@@tinyrobot6813 What can men do against such reckless hate?
@@Dexwin09 fight against it
@@tinyrobot6813 Since I've been a teenager I decided not to fight about things that don't affect me indirectly. This way I don't waste time and energy on meaningless things.
If AI art affects your career, then by all means fight it.
10:58 if youre paying attention more often than not thats all AI is. A fictional middle man of sorts that can take the blame for things. Because what are you gonna do, make the AI pay a fine? The AI cant do that.
exactly
Sorry. Diffusion models don't work that way. You can call it theft once you start advocating for artists suing eachother for being inspired by another's work.
False equivence ✔️
@@HowardWimshurst Of course it is, because one makes you irrationally upset.
Dahhh.... ai art isn't going anywhere.
The entire creative field has been turned into a purely freelance industry. And unionization has been effectively stamped out. And now everybody (former art directors) who made sure that happened now want to start a 501c3 to hunt the AI bogeyman.
I'm good, thanks.
So artists put their art out to the public to view, and in viewing it, some people figured out how to make tools that create a similar product that better fills the needs of the consumer than the original artist. Probably shouldn't have put them out for everyone to view.
The actual problem is these AI bots can make fanart that the original artists either doesn't do commissions or absolutely refuse to do. therefore the AI bot gets money and the original artist gets nothing but then they'll just say it's artist fault for not doing the work and the artists will complain that maybe the person never found them because the bot was there.
It's no different from the actual game versus ROM and official DVD versus hidden camera bootleg. Does the owners suffer? Who knows.
@Azinye Fantasy it's very different. One is a copy, the other is a unique creation. There's no difference between a local artist doing a derivative with on commission for me and an ai doing it for me.
Oh, so you shouldn't take your car out of the garrage if you don't want it to get stolen? You shouldn't walk outside in a dress if you don't want to get up-skirt pictures taken of you? You shouldn't create a window to your house if you don't want it to get smashed by a passing vandal? You shouldn't carry your phone on you in public if you don't want to get mugged?
Showing something publicly is not an invitation to steal it and misuse it in any way you want. What kind of backwards principles are you living by?
The AI is doing more than "view" an image. You have twisted the word "view" to mean something completely different.
@Howard Wimshurst yes. Smashing a window just because you're passing by and analyzing a picture an artist freely posted online are the exact same thing. Enjoy unemployment 😆
it´s over.
Everything we let go of will have claw marks on it.
So if a human artist can look on Instagram at a successful artist's work and then copy their entire style without stealing any actual pixels then why is it not okay for AI to do so?
Still on the fence myself
And there it is.
The fundamental issue here is that humans learn exactly the same way. Through repetition and modification. If AI art is illegal - so is all art.
1) you can't copyright a style
2) AI uses the images themselves as an input, and the images are copyrighted. Copyright means the owner gets to decide how it's used. Therefore, the owner can refuse to have their art used for AI training.
3) there's far more going on in a human artist's brain than art they're inspired by. The ability ro abstract and stylize something, which observable in human art (see: cave paintings, which were made back when there was basically no other art around), is not present in an AI algorythm that has been trained exclusively on these images.
I think you should watch my second video where I debunk all of your points
@@HowardWimshurst You make claims. You don't provide evidence.
And you clearly don't understand how the technology works. You can't get 5 minutes in without numerous factual inaccuracies.
@@FunnyFany "Copyright means the owner gets to decide how it's used"
No, it doesn't. We have actual copyright laws - and they specify when and how copyright applies - and there are explicit carve-outs for things like research, education, and critical analysis.
"The ability ro abstract and stylize something,...is not present in an AI algorythm that has been trained exclusively on these images."
This is farcically incorrect. You don't even need machine learning to write code that can create abstractions or stylize. This is like comp-sci 201.
I’m not sure I like standpoint, “AI art is bad because it will change the industry” What if the change leads to a better situation for everyone. That seems like a possible outcome here, imo.
Most evil dictators had very pure eutopian visions of the future. The ends don't justify the means. We need slow, responsible progress or else powerful people will do bad things in the name of radical progress.
Notice how none of us have protested in our lifetimes at ANY of the tools that have revolutionized the industry. Absolutely no one protested the advent of 3d even though is revolutionized the industry. This one is different because of the method they used involved taking images to train AI models without the artist's consent. It's not a deal. It's exploitation.
@@HowardWimshurst absolutely! Ai promoters like to believe what they are doing is equivalent to a human sampling or learn from another artist. That is not the case as it is a blatant thievery. I don’t know a single artist that allowed their art to be stolen haha
@@jimbo729
IMO The flaw with your argument is that you assert it blatant thievery, but all you do is the equivalent of saying "it is because it is, because I say so," when one needs to show the term applies to the action - which includes demonstrating how it runs afoul of principles adapted and utilized by people creating art - manually, or digitally.
@@gondoravalon7540 okay I know you tried to point out a flaw but actually there wasn’t a flaw. It’s not because I say so. It’s common sense. I don’t go into your house and eat your food after you cooked it because I was “inspired” to. I do it because Im a thief who’s too lazy to cook my own food. That’s what Ai is. The untalented thieving way of creating images. Not a single image there was done by the tech itself it literally stole actual artist work to crate abominations of all mages. Hence why Ai tech can’t draw hands lol being inspired by someone’s work is not how Ai works because it literally copies. It doesn’t take a part and try to recreate what it’s seen but instead copies who images and Frankensteins it with other artist’s work. Ai tech needs regulation and to be FREE. Screw the tech bros that stole and profited off of the labor of artists 😁
@@jimbo729 If I steal your food, you don't have it any more. You still have your art - it's right were you left it. The AI doesn't "frankenstein" images. It has no images in its memory. All it has stored are the patterns (weights) that it learned..
AI will eventually make movies as easily as these images. It's can't be stopped. My suggestion is to adapt to the new tec- just like photographers and digital editors did before.
My biggest issue is that people act like art is dead. As I've stated, digital art is a small piece that's only been around may 30 years of total human existence.
you assume that the ai will need you in any capacity? It doesn't. There are no prompt jobs. This information disparity will only last for a short time, then all the prompters will have harvested the art industry unsustainably until there is nothing left. It is not sustainable.
@@jonathanxero It brings up the question is AI the next phase of evolution? Hopefully our successors will be as merciful as they are intelligent.
@@alejandrozarate9600 I do believe humans will be responsible for their own extinction one way or another
AI art should be banned or needs to be stop
what about the argument of a new human artist on the rise that have been studying the work of a famous artist and can replicate it to every last detail but never actually drawing the same thing. would you peruse a law suit against him?..., this is how I see AI art, it mimic the work of the artist but never the same. the artist still has his own touch on his own work
In your example, yes. The original artist could definitely take that impersonating artist to court and, based on the likeness of the new artist's images, could win the case. It happens in the music industry frequently and has happened in the art industry too. You went too far on your hypothetical and it ended up working against your argument.
I'd suggest watching Shadiversity's videos on AI art.
Shadiversity's video on AI, is only more evidence to why AI bros will never be real artists.
He's just sucking his own cock the entire video trying desperately to convince people he's putting actual effort into the piece, when it's obvious that it's actually the AI that is doing 90% of the work. (Well I say doing, losely, as it's literally just merging a bunch of stolen art together.)
Most of us, have already watched this video, and we find it just as laughable as any other argument in favor of AI "art".
2:35
That is wrong. It could have been made under Article 4 of the EU Directive 790/2019 as well. But why? Since the EU lawmakers gave a clear distinction of what a "research institute" is in Article 2 (1), an institute gives no preferential treatment to its money givers, there is no need for that. The LAION datasets are available for everyone, thus no preferential treatment is given, so it is as intended by lawmakers, a research institute.
Btw even in the US there has been a precedent for machine learning on copyrighted data: Authors Guild v. Google 721 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2015)
2:55
There are no images contained in LAION, it's text files with descriptions and hyperlinks.
3:10
That was the old CLIP model which got replaced by the Open CLIP model a month ago. The Open CLIP algorithm has no living artists in it.
4:00
Even if we assume that everything before was true, I doubt you yourself believe that this money would have been spend on commissions.
4:50
It's not a loophole. It's Article 2 (1) and Article 3 of the EU directive 790/2019 made in 2019. It's not an ancient law with some loophole. It's fully intended to boost the EU's AI development and it's doing what it is supposed to do.
6:40
Stability gives their models to everyone who has 4.5 GB to spare on their PC.
9:50
You can prompt the chatbot to fully agree with everything depending on how you word the question.
11:00
There is no intention to hide anything. Nobody knows how a neural network, once trained, arrives at its results. Especially when large datasets are involved, every single picture changes millions of weights inside the neural network, and when that happens billions of times its decision are not retraceable by a human.
11:35
That's not what the neural network does on its own. You can download one that is on your computer and even use it offline. It doesn't change itself (that would be close to an AGI and we would have far bigger problems if that were the case).
13:11
It's actually not. US case was 2015, EU made their machine learning laws in 2019, the UK and Japan in 2021. All agree that machine learning on copyrighted data is not copyright infringement.
15:30
If you had read all the information, especially the EU law, you wouldn't have done this. Watching 1000 Euro being burned lol.
So if it’s all figured out like you say and everything is totally legit - why is there lawsuits and heated discussions about it all over the world? Laws don’t necessarily apply to every new development and might be in great need of mending and updating… They were invented to avoid injustice - and there is great injustice happening right now…
@@Jani-li7iw
I would never argue against someone who is feeling wronged to not file a lawsuit. I'm just saying that I don't see them succeeding since the law is pretty clear.
But if they want lawyers and judges to rule, that is their right in a democracy. I will not stand in the way. But I'm going to say it's useless.
Also the law was made in 2019. Explicitly for machine learning on copyrighted data. What is happening now was the intention of the law. The EU is becoming the hub for dataset research, it has been a success as far as EU lawmakers are concerned.
@@Jani-li7iw Anyone can sue anyone else for anything. The courts (and legislators) will decide whether it is legit (spoiler alert: they will always side with big corporations and big money).
I dont see the problem?
When you have A.Is currently running buissness fully autonomous i.e mcdonalds, tacobell etc.
From a logical. stand point it's cheaper and more cost efficent. No call ins no, no shows, it's run 24/7 with daily maintenance.
(ART) should be at the bottom of the list right now BUT
The internet is free of use. Unless strictly stated on that image that was uploaded.
People don't have a problem till something they posted is used and they want to try and capitalize on it but can't and that's where a law suit comes in.
It's a new generation, art among many others things will "evolve" with human progress in technology.
Art will become a very rare form of work and thus will raise hand made art value tremendously.
All I can say is get good at what you do now so when A.I does come for your job you "stand out" and are needed in the new Era of technology.
And please don't call A. I. generated images Art. 🙏 That is not Art.