@@lL338 AI art still slips through sometimes. I'm not sure exactly how the filter works, but it isn't perfect. It also isn't default-on, so if you don't go messing with your settings before browsing you still get buried under piles of AI slop.
I have nothing but respect for Fur affinity at this point They were one of the only few that stood their ground with human artists (ironic isn't it) from the get go
I suspect FurAffinity's stance will be temporary. In 5 years, avoiding AI would be seen like drawing without layers in Photoshop. Non-generative AI is already half of selection tools in Photoshop and nobody noticed it.
saw an AI art account selling their images for upwards of 300 USD once, and yet the people who will defend that are the first ones to rail on artists who charge 300 for an illustration they actually took the time to make with their own hands.
first of all, if you're only charging 300 for an illustration, we have other things to discuss, second, I just barely sold an 18x24 photo quality print of an AI image that I spent over a week creating with my hands on my Wacom Cintiq pro 32" tablet, sold for $250. No I didn't just type in a sentence. I mounted the print onto wood and brushed it with lacquer so it had the glossy texture of a painting. He knew he was buying an AI image but an image based on an original drawing by me and enhanced with AI, mounted and included hanging mechanism on back. with printing and wood cost with hanger was about 30 bucks. but selling at 250 for a quality image that size, numbered and mounted and unique, by an actual artist, was a steal. So much so, that he gave me 400 when I dropped it off. Now, should I just stop using AI when it is literally making me money and I made using creativity and a lot of effort using my hands and drawing ability? Ain't lyin' kids. I have pics
As an artist, one of the most infuriating aspects of AI Art is that the AI prompters are joining art communities (especially DeviantART), calling themselves artists, and expecting they'll be welcomed as equals. A single user often uploads hundreds of images per day, which buries the handmade art that obviously takes more time to create. They go out of their way to obfuscate that the art is AI-generated by using misleading tags, which makes it difficult to avoid and sometimes difficult to identify. Some human artists have been attacked with accusations that their art was AI, and they had to upload WIPs to prove themselves. It's all so bizarre.
I have seen AI ''artist'' upload their AI-generated picture and the dude proceeds to upload the ''sketch'' which is just the same picture but in black and white with lower opacity. I fucking lol-ed, he was piled on by everyone real quick.
Yeah, honestly I've been posting timelapses of a lot of my art just to avoid getting possibly accused of being AI, like the fact that I feel like I have to prove I'm human doing things with my own human hands sounds insane
With Inkblot art's tiny userbase I'm surprised to see a user I follow in the wild, though I share the sentiment. Saw AI generated adoptables the other day on DA with no minimum asking price.
Kind of alarming how fast it improved, isn't it? It's actually legitimately scary, like in 1-2 years you could forge 100% real looking fake evidence of super heinous crimes to get someone in trouble
@@DMHR100 banana stitched to a wall? You mean that piece called "The Comedian" that caused such outrage its price got inflated into the millions? I wonder what joke this "Comedian" was telling.
Let's also not forget how AI has also ruined the textual part of the Internet. In case of art, at least it's still possible to find art made by people. For now.
Then so did digital art itself. So did photography. I wonder what the marble statue artists did when some new art fad began. You know what the portrait painters did when the camera came out? They bought a camera... That same argument is made over and over for every new art form. And no one cares except a small handful of luddites.
Hey Vaush, i dont comment ever. Im a Dungeon Master and an artist and have caught people feeding the art i draw for the games I run into AI generators. Its frustrating watching my art commissions loose clients because everyone is generating art for their DnD characters. It hurts so much as a writer and artist. I had an argument with someone who thought using a reference image to draw was the same thing as using AI.
@Nobddy there isn't anywhere near enough of a market for "fine art" to include all of the artists that are getting shafted by AI slop and AI theft. If AI art does become the dominant force for small-scale art use in this kind of illustration, for every hand-drawn artist who gets to sell for thousands a pop in the future there'll be a thousand living under AI hell and having to entirely quit art as a profession.
to be fair, if they asked you to use your art as a reference and then used it to create more art.... they were completely honest. as someone that uses ai art daily and also commissions artists, i can tell you that it's time to have a style and build a reputation for being easy to work with; something that ai isn't
@@onjulraz754 reference means to learn, not toothpaste it. You also commission thats also good because now this is yours but did you pay for the artstyle that artist created over years of practice.
hating AI is like very common bro, that's not based that's going with the majority opinion. Like just try posting AI anywhere and watch the hate roll in.
@@criss_x that’s true, but not many people are as vocal about it. And a LOT of normies just flat out use it without knowing anything. We had one of the ppl giving a presentation at my school start praising ai art, unshockingly everyone was pissed at him. Except the fact that a decent chunk of people weren’t at all bothered. Why do you think AI is already inbreeding with itself? Because so many people use it
There is no hope for you. You made a harsh financial decision and you will not succeed unless you implement AI into your workflow. Because if you don't, the industry will just hire someone else who will.
@@canadianturtle7240 um well not if they are a gallery artist or someone who makes pottery, or courtroom sketch artist (those people make bank), or a sculptor, or calligrapher, or they do etsy, or teach art, sell at comiccon, or street vendor, art restoration, museum curator... a million other things, look AI is an amazing tool but it is not replacing art, it doesn't even make art it generates images. you can use those images to create art but anyone who calls themselves an artist when they are only an image generator is just fooling themselves.
if a machine _could_ think/learn then that's the a.i.'s art, it would belong to it, not us. it would then be another being's art, not our art and not a product of a tool. it would go from a (pseudo) a.i. using stolen art and stealing our vocation, to us taking credit for the (true) a.i's artwork. it's a lose lose. the hypothetical where the a.i. is a true artist is one where we have a robot art slave, which would be immoral.
To call it the AI's art you'd have to 1) explain what labour is being applied, and 2) explain how AI (basically statistics software) can independently own something. Labour and ownership as we understand them are intimately connected to physical, mortal concerns like food and physical danger -- as dry and abstract as leftist theory makes them seem. They may be the wrong frameworks for defending the rights of an imagined conscious-like-us AI.
@@fruitygarlic3601In my view we'd either need to develop a transhuman/posthuman framework ( to accommodate beings as advanced or greater than us) Or expand upon like, animal ethics maybe? Just as how an ox is a beast of burden we may end up developing an 'AI of burden' where abusing it, however that might manifest, is considered a societal faux pas like abusing an ox, despite neither the AI or ox being considered 'human' enough for human rights.
Exactly. So long as the "AI" in "AI art" is not real AI, the "art" in "AI art" is not real art. If these images were created by an actual AI, rather than the machine learning algorythms that weve been calling "AI", I would have no problem with them. Because at that point, that is a piece of work created by a conscious being who meant to create it the way it is, that is art.
The thing is for some applications it is. Like say a pen and paper character or moster you just want to have a image for in your campaign. I do think AI art has a place there.
I tried to make it make a candy cake forest once. Simple classic candy land aesthetics. It just gave me woods with candy canes in it at random places. it would've been easier to just draw it.
@@waltercapa5265 Probably because the AI results were nothing like what they were going for and anyone with an artistic bone in their body wouldn't be satisfied with that.
We should stop calling it AI art, as it is not art. Ai images is more appropriate. Art requires meaning and intent behind the construction of the piece, and there is not meaning or intent behind AI images.
There is though. The person writing the prompt and selecting an image has intent and is looking for specific meaning. Sure this is far less than when an artist makes every stroke deliberately but it is still present. Ironically this is the exact sort of argument people have used to call things like photography worthless and not art. You might want to look at art history.
@XMysticHerox dumbass thinks the person putting in the prompts has any real control over what the final image looks like. You can get to look a certain way, but nothing about the final piece, no single brush stroke or line with have been done with any intent whatsoever because ai is incapable of putting meaning or intent into those acts. Also you're the one comparing AI "art" to photography, not me. I never once said that photography wasn't art, because it is. They are different arguments, not the same type of thing used to disqualify phorgraphy because photography has a lot of fine input from the user, everything from what you take the picture of to what angle you use. What lens you're using or colorspace. Everything is a choice. There is no choice about an individual aspect in AI images because computers don't make choices.
Literally what is the point of being so pedantic. Everyone knows what one means when they say “AI art”. (Also art clearly doesn’t have a cut and dry definition. In my opinion anything and everything can be art to some people. I think nature is art. Food is art. Software is art. Living beings are art. Poop is art.)
As an artist, I always giggle when I hear AI art self destructing. I have no issue with people using it for things like profile pictures or prompts to make characters, but it’s entertaining to see something so awful self destruct. I wonder if anyone has done ai art NFTS 🤔
Oh you better BELIEVE there are AI art NFTs. You're telling me you can generate a thousand images around a theme without putting in any effort whatsoever *and* they aren't obviously built from a template? Yeah, THAT market has welcomed the "innovation" with open arms.
I feel that A.I. art is a weirdly social good in this specific context. People think about crazy stuff to make and just maybe it gets some people engaged in their Imagination more even if it's this goofy weird tool that does it.
My take on AI Art is simple: Don't try to profit off of generated material. If you want to generate an image for private usage, say a DnD character token for a campaign with you and your friends, that's fine. My issue is when people try to pass it off as real art and try to monetize it online.
I agree with this however take it one step farther, i have no issues with the idea of a computer generatong art, my problem with ai art always has been that companies treated it as an opt out rather than an opt in, most artists whos content was used in training the ai where not consulted nor gave permission for it to be used, if they only fed it classical art where the artist is long dead or if they only fed it works from artists who gave full consent on the matter i would have no issues withai creating art
AI image generation is not even a tool for these people. It can be used for early design iteration and stuff like that, but not one of the people crying "it's a tool!" In the chat actually use it for that. They just use it to generate big tiddy orc hentai or whatever
@@ThingsAreGettingTooSpicy It's a skill issue because I can find like, over a THOUSAND images of big tiddy orc hentai by just typing "orc" into rule34 xxx, or paheal, or finding the monster girl tag on pixiv and setting it to R18. Reinventing the wheel when you didn't need to isn't solving a problem, it's being stupid and wasting effort.
I do AI research and work for a living and I don't see AI "art" replacing human art. It is absolutely a statistical process with "learning" being defined statistically as well as programmatically. However, I just still just see this as more of the same issues with tools - they can absolutely cause a net harm on society, but it's about responsible usage and response. The low effort flood has been obnoxious and means a new cat and mouse race has begun. A big chunk of the issue is the implementation by places like Google and Bing.
True! As an artist who's getting a degree in AI, I think we should address these problems properly instead of having a blind, irrational hatred for it, otherwise we're no better than most conservatives.
Yeah. Dynamite is also a "tool", and they began stuffing it into bombs and killing people with it. Some technologies shouldn't be permitted. There's no fucking way the tool that allows us to fabricate an image of anyone, doing anything, anywhere, won't lead to more harm than good.
As an artist, ai sends me into existential depression spirals on the reg. I just don't get the end goal with ultra tech people. Are we suppose to end up static, fed procedurally generated food and entertainment by robots while we grow obese in chairs?
Im not a techbro but im pro-AI. Im also an artist kinda, i write on Royal Road. Im terrible but i have fun. My ideal endgoal for the future of humanity is one where no one has to do anything but breathe. By that i dont mean "will do" but really just "has to". I want a world where every action you take is entirely voluntary and even someone who decides to do nothing but breathing can have a good and fun life. In a future where AI can make all art i can have the exact kind of stories i like generated, and when i want to read something written by a human ill be able to do that too. I wouldnt stop writing in that future because i like writing. People who stop making art cause they cant sell it arent really into art, imo, and i wont miss them when they stop creating. I can see the short term problems with AI art becoming more commonplace, but i never cared about the short term. The ends justify the means. Its a rule as old as time. The better and longer lasting the ends, the worse the means can be. But i dont expect anyone to agree with me. Just giving my w cents.
@@WerWer-gz5kk i respect where you're coming from, and generally agree with technology hopefully giving us freedom in the future. I guess the rub is that I just personally have a distaste for the idea of machine generated art and story. It seems masturbatory to me, having these customized algorithmically generated experiences. When you read a novel, you communicate with the writer. You make contact with a sliver of that writer's thoughts. The same goes for any form of art that you enjoy. Buy algorithmic content cuts out the contact with a fellow individual. It turns human experience in to a statistical gray crowd sourced paste. Also, drawing from all past recorded human art, machine generated content essentially leverages past artists against future artists. Why commision a current working artist when you can just amalgamate something aggregated from all art history. It seems to me this all leads to less incentive for people creating original art from their own life experience, with their own hand. It seems like it's more than just another new tool. It goes beyond that, it's fully generative.
Chat gpt can't actually mimic artists very well. A few months ago I decided to check out chat gpt's capabilities because I saw a bunch of videos talking about how it was going to become a threat to real authors and song writers. To test if it was really capable copying musicians song writing styles I proceeded to ask it to generate lyrics for a song in this artist style or that artists style, but what I noticed is that all of its outputs were really similar and the only thing it did do to make each artist unique; was say "I'm _____" artist, before going off in some generic style of lyrics that the artist would have never wrote. To be fair I was using a lot of underground political rappers like Sabac Red, but I also tried Led Zeppelin, and a couple of different classic rock artists too, and none of it even remotely resembled their styles and themes. Instead of political rap for example it just went off in generic sexism, and gangsterism. Which those political rappers find abhorrent in real life. It's classic rock styles were all generic too, and also did the thing where it name dropped the artist, before it dumped it's generic turd lyrics all over my screen. Based on that I don't really see chat gpt as a threat to real artists, though maybe it's gotten more sophisticated since then.
I wish vouch had mentioned also that grabbing a work of art in someone's style, someone who's still alive, effectively kills off their future development as an artist. I mean like if an artist cannibalizes their own work, then their work is frozen forever, they become a fossil
I was looking for a reference of two cardinal birds and Google images gave me ai art and I could only tell because the markings on the birds were wrong 😭😭 really upset me because the birds’ poses were perfect
I don't care about the philosophy of it all: what is art, what is beauty, whatever. What I _do_ care about is that, if allowed, corpos are gonna use AI tools to create an infinite amount of free stock ... stuff, from little cartoon drawings for AI-written listicles that serve no purpose other than SEO and clickbait to every photo ever on most websites that want to sell you goods or services. It's a nightmare scenario for several different types of artists.
It's funny watching people turn on code bros as a person who works in STEM, because we literally have had the same attitude towards those people for a decade now
Stem people always hate on each other's fields but the hate for code bros is something special and the better justified one, it makes the hate towards engineers look like teasing
AI "art" is a tool that requires careful and highly specific use to not have catastrophic effects that has been handed over to our very worst who only care about their short term personal gain at *all* costs and have no empathy to those not in their social club because they called dibs first and ignored the artists affected the most
THANK you, I get where Vaush is coming from here but he's extremely aggressive about this and is throwing nuance out the window. AI tech IS just a new tool, in the same exact way a gun is a tool. We've got a gun violence problem, but that's a problem with humans managing ourselves. Guns don't get up and shoot people themselves, they're inanimate. But they're extremely easy to get ahold of and the societal danger they pose is almost unparalleled, they're essentially an accelerant for the worst societal issues. Same with AI image generation, nothing wrong with it but it's a major accelerant for existing issues. I don't think it's unreasonable to say society needs to learn to manage our worst impulses and fix our worst problems, and AI image generation isn't a problem in a vacuum, it's a THING, just a thing being used by the worst of us to cause a lot of harm very quickly.
It isn't a tool at all. There are AI tools, but the AI generative art in question is very unlikely to ever be used as one. Tools in art don't do the project for you.
@@dinodare1605 But tools do automate a lot of things that artists take for granted. It sounds ridiculous, but it illustrates a good point: how does digital art meaningfully not get caught in your category of “doing the work for you”? Many of the brush tools that exist in common illustration software are just automated versions of techniques that required careful practice and time for non-digital artists. Does their existence as a pre-built tool detract from the artistic meaning in using them?
@@letustalk Complex brushes still take work to use. Some art is higher effort than other art, and that should be taken into account when judging a work... But it's still work regardless. AI art is NO work.
@@dinodare1605 I'm kind of curious, what do you think about AI art, where the human makes sketches by hand using their own creativity and skills and the AI infers the sketch? For example, you make your own sketch of the beach, and the AI "fills in" the rest? The way this usually gets realized is that you type a prompt ahead of time, and as you sketch, you get to see a small preview of what the AI thinks you want, so you, as a human, can nudge it however you want and get an artwork, you wanted or at least very close to that.
No, genetic algorithms learning to 'walk' a 3D model is not generative AI because it actually self-trains via brute force in a simulated environment. It's a closed system, no internet connection required. I wish people stop pretending Miyazaki was reacting to like Midjourney or something.
Please do more anti-AI art segments, your level of despise for AIbros is exactly how i feel rn. And F these weirdos in the chat trying to gaslight you about this. Also I agree on your take here about capitalism. I was arguing with my communist friend exactly that the other day.
@@TheEndsJustifyTheMemes Oh, it's gonna go back in. Oversaturation and lack of new matter and shit-tier spam and Glaze and AI filling other AI datasets will cause the whole thing to crumble. Won't be long before all the good art gets password-locked in secretboxes and all the AI has is sabotage pieces to feed on.
@@TheEndsJustifyTheMemes Don't bother replying to these types, they, including Vaush, have no idea what they are talking about, nor what the people in the generative AI community think, they are just projecting what they feel about whats happening and as such you can never get through to them. Take for example they believe that AI cannibalism is an actual issue and not just a theory currently (anyone who disbeleives me on this, go ahead an look for a paper with definitve proof that this is happening now, you wont find one, what you will find instead is people saying that there is a "possibility" that it can occour one day and eventually "possibly" lead to the degredation of models), which also completely discounts the fact that well made generative ai works are indistinguishable from human input, and thus training on it would likely not hurt the model at all. It also doesn't take into account the fact that you can look at the metadata for images that are simply lazily generated by an AI and tell that it was indeed AI generated and thus exclude it from your dataset if you so choose. I say all that to say that sImilar to what happened with photography, and digital art they will just have to come around on their own over time.
@@DuckinMyHat You don't know that for sure though. Who knows, by 2045 love from an AGI placed inside a sophisticated android body would be indistinguishable from love from a human that we experience in 2023. After all, the human body and its inner workings are nothing more than complex machines in a biological framework controlled by a brain that's just an even more complex supercomputer made up of carbon atoms as opposed to silicon ones.
AI Art is like the Dollar Store. It syphons off creativity and makes it harder to previal in a difficult endever (if you want to sustain yourself from it).
@@GrumpDog Sorry True. it did. A lot of people in supporting industries lost their lievlyhoods. I remeber growing up with arts and crafts stores within walking distance, now there are about a dozen boutique retail stores left. My Ex-Wife was trained in construction drawing - as one of five supporting jobs in an architects office. Today it's one job to do five support functions. I think the mistake I made comes more from calling it Art. When I use Midjourney to make an image for a slide deck, I replaced a stock foto for something more meaningful in that context that I previously had to brief and source a graphic designer for. There'll always be disruption with new tools, etc. In my small business sourcing an artist is a considerable investment and I consider it more a branding move and would always rate it as a quality move from a partner to do so (like, paying living wages, etc.). Sorry for rambling, I am not even making myself clear. Cheers and have a happy new year!
As both a creative and a systems engineer, I half agree with Vaush, in that the overall ai art environment is evolving in a detrimental way But, That doesn't mean there isn't a new technology behind this that could be used in more interesting ways, with more control for the artist, the problem is capitalism corrupting the whole thing instead of it being a free tech in the hands of creatives and engineers, without the stealing and profiting
@@danb4759 If you simplify things like this, your phrase can be applied to any art form. What is the Mona Lisa if not "just" an image? What is the Godfather if not "just" a sequence of images? What is No. 5 if not "just" a picture of a random bunch of paint on a board? Art is and always has been subjective, those who attribute meaning to art are human beings. I think what scares artist most about AI is that now Art is not an exclusively human attribute. This happens whenever a new way of making art emerges. When the photography emerged, the painters said the painting would end. When the computer came along and technologies for digital art emerged, painters said it wasn't "real art" because it was done on a computer. Now, the same thing, but not just done with the computer, but by the computer.
Missed the mark on saying you have no control because you just enter text. ControlNET is a year old now and completely flips that around. We are feeding neural networks as inputs instead of text now. These neural networks represent things like pose, depth, lighting, composition, color palettes, more abstract things like references, etc. and talk in the language of neural networks to the base model like stable diffusion. I used to say it's not a tool because it does all the work for you and you're just requesting a comission, but you now have more control than you do using a brush in many ways. You can literally control each individual strand on someone's head with complete intention. Saying it can't learn because it isn't human is just a nonsequitor. That's what machine learning does, it uses a model of cortical neurons to learn without being human. Simply asserting it doesn't is unscientific, and the conflation of learning with theft is really at the core of all of this. If you have a picture of a balloon in the dataset, it can't reproduce your balloon. It doesn't have a copy of the data to do that. All it got from your balloon was 0.000000000001% extra confirmation of the fact that balloons are generally shiny and round, so it can use that concept to generate it's own new balloon in a new context. This is why the model is 5GB (5 billion bytes) despite being trained on over 5 billion images. If it were keeping a copy of each image in the weights, it would only have 1 byte per image to do so. Not enough to store a single pixel.
I think it should be required by law to (invisibly or visibly on first glance) watermark everything that is made by AI, idk if it's possible but also make the watermark non-removable? I think this could work for image and audio generation, text would be a bit trickier.
Detection won't work (likely technically impossible, as it's requires detection to be smarter than generative model). Making watermarks mandatory legally won't work (open models will never do that). We're doomed to drown in the flood of AI.
This whole AI art proselytizing is just an extension of the public as a whole's hatred of artists and/or artistic process Like when some tech bros try to make out artists as elitists or speak the virtues of democratising the creative process, it comes across as deeply vindictive
AI should be used as an assistant for art. Making it easier to plot out shading, texture correction, light source tools, line weight correction, etc. AI has its place, but it cannot legally be allowed to make its own materials. Edit: I meant to say that ai shouldn't be allowed to SAMPLE others' work. Again, I genuinely think it has its place, just not being allowed to "generate" art by itself wholesale. If I had tools to help with shading, color theory, etc, I'd use them.
The problem with that premise is asking the Tech-bros that went to tech precisely looking for a quick golden parachute, to have artists sensitive, and respect to the artistic process That's the definition of an oxymoron
Making the distinction over what the machine "learning" system is able to say or produce as a regulation is more difficult than configuring the models to output binary slop that can be fed into jpeg or png compression. There's a critical center of political, economic and social incentives that are enabling models to be grown (*not* trained or taught) for the purpose of severely commodifying visual media.
Thank you vaush, after trying to get the message of how unethical ai art is through to some within your discord and getting responses from people such as the response "all artists are either rich or stupid" (which is a quote that came from one of your discord mods in response to me btw...) I had began losing hope. Lot of shit bags in your discord but I'm happy to see you consistently pushing against them. Its crazy how dogmatic and incapable of critical thinking these tech bro's are.
It's also being presented as a problem with AI for some reason. It was a dataset made by literally pulling all the images it could find from the internet. Humans put that up there. That is on us. That they didn't try hard enough to clean that crap up is a technical flaw that can (and has almost immediately) been solved.
@@ThingsAreGettingTooSpicy yes the solution will be to have a few thousand bangladeshis spend months looking at the sickest crap in the dataset for $3 a day relying on mass collection of data IS a problem with ai, or at least an aspect of it to be aware of it's a limitation of the technology t. i make ai applications for a living
I’m also tired of everything being labeled as “AI”…even for all these AI art pieces, there is nothing “artificially intelligent” about their creation. It’s just optimization algorithms that have been around for decades, albeit put together in a new way…the issue is that people see “AI” and actually think there is some type of learning or something going on; there isn’t. There’s as much learning going on as using “goal seek” in excel
Interesting how you bring up goal seek in Excel. I've noticed that Goal Seek can have trouble with certain kinds of functions. For instance x^2 + 6*x + 9 = 0, which has a repeated solution of x = -3. Of course, this one has no issues, because it's pretty easy to iterate -3 as the answer. But when it isn't an easy-to-iterate solution, goal seek can get stuck when trying to solve for repeated roots. So any time you hear someone saying "what's the point of learning math, when computers do it for us?", this is it. It's to know how to anticipate the limitations of technology, and be able to set up your problem so it is practical for the computer to solve.
I share vaush's DM pain. I searched for a cool fairy thing for a feywild excursion, but google and deviantart spewed back 80% amorphous AI slop; even artstation had this problem, though not as bad.
Could i give it a shot for you I also am a fellow DM, as well as an artist urrently im working on a new monster manual book where ive hand drawn the monsters i set the stats and the lore ...
@andrewchristopherson2475 dude, that's so sick! What a huge project to undertake on your own! Really hope you're proud of it by the timr you're finished, bc that's DOPE
@yoyohayli thank you its coming along ...if you like you can check out some of my stuff i made for a line of apparel. Like id really like to help others make merch for them to sell or do what ever with
@@Colddirector A big shout out to pixiv, if you can either ask it in japanese or romaji or figure out what words will get picked up by the tag translation and rescue you. Its ability to exclude AI compositions is great
AI generation should be looked at for what it is: a toy. A funny, versatile toy, but it's ultimately a plaything. It's not even a tool, tools have uses. I'll sometimes dick around with AI image generators to see what I can get them to spit out, or a text generator if I'm feeling bored and want to run a dumb little adventure game or something, but pretending it's anymore more than that is delusional.
You don’t understand the implication. Technology scales. I’m sure people who saw the first cars thought it was ridiculous and impractical…now look at our society.
@@casualuser5527 No, I understand the implication, I just think the implication is false in this scenario. Think of any other revolutionary technology in history, when did that start copying itself and getting worse? The problem AI is encountering is that needs human material to work with so it can be effective, and it needs an absolutely astronomical amount of it. So the only way to make a more effective AI model is to pull more data, but AI models are now pulling data from other AI content, which is making the results progressively worse. A rocket can't really take off if it cannibalizes it's engine halfway to orbit.
@@kendallsmith2538 So what if the technology isn’t sustainable? Cars and a plurality of other human-ingenuities aren’t sustainable. But we still use them until the rope’s end and when that’s finished we innovate a new way to maintain our comfort. See gas cars to electric cars-or coal plants to solar panels.
Good take. I'm a professional artist for over 30 years, I've used every new tool that came up, except I'm never going to use AI. Because as you say it's NOT just a tool.
@@vipcypr8368 Not really. I've never run into this context where I've NEEDED a professional-tier photo for free. So many AI apologists say this like it's normal, it isn't... What is the average person "needing" that for, their profile picture?
@@dinodare1605 Not an average person. Owners of small companies that cannot afford to make professional photos or graphics. For me it's just the way of saving couple hundreds of dollars on vector graphics since i can generate my own.
it's like techno bros have a vendetta against artists for no reason. It's a constant attack. All they do is a new attempt to steal from creatives. why do they try so hard to always screw artists in particular? can't they choose a different demographic for once?
I love how every time vaush says "so called AI is not intelligent, it is not conscious, and therefore it cannot create art" and dozens of morons pipe up in the chat "what if AI got so advanced that it developed consciousness? What then?" As if that wasn't directly answered in the original statement
Except vaush's definition is wrong in of itself. Because the a.i is the tool, it cant not produce without human intervention. The human produces said art through the a.i, it's intelligence doesnt hold a factor towards the resulting work's constitution as art.
It’s weird the lengths men will go to crank their hogs all over poorly drawn big tiddy hourglass figure girls that vaguely resemble some fictional character they’ve developed an unhealthy romantic obsession with
Then there's also the question why would we even want conscious AI in the first place though. Isn't that almost the same shit as cloning? Wth are you creating this for? There is enough bs going already, why do tech bros always have to insert themselves to make it even worse?
@NobddyWell that would make the ppl who use AI Art not the artist then. It would further expose their actual role. The commissioner. Thing is since the "AI" doesn't talk back or chime in with its own ideas (like a person) it deludes ppl to think they actually did something.
Reminder that the relationship of creativity of someone to AI is the same as one person to another relative to the person searching for art. They never created it either way and are instead imprinting their own notions onto what they see in the work others. Its the same with nature. Nature has no will. Just commenting to be contrarian.
I would recommend Hero Forge for anyone who wants to design there own characters for d&d, its a Miniature Creator and is super easy to use, you can just take a screenshot of your character for personal use, or if you really like your character, you can order the miniature or buy the file that will let you 3d print it!
Very this! Also it has like 5 billion options now so if you're not careful assembling a character take alot of time, but it's a very, very useful tool for universal character creation.
@@wisdomsoptional Its also useful for creating basically a mannequin of a character you would then like to refine by drawing it yourself to asking another artist to do, you might even find one willing to do it for free, there are plenty out there who love drawing for its own sake and will do free requests (if youre not a jerk to them) and making a mini on heroforge can be a great way to make a specific reference piece to work from
I'm also going to point out, the people who most love AI art, and a collection of people who love, LOVE to show off AI art, are reactionaries who use it to churn out their propaganda. I will admit, I do use AI image generation to just, like, make titties or whatever, but I don't pretend I actually made jack shit. I plugged in tags, and got an image. I did exactly as much creation as I would've with a image board search. I didn't do shit. I also at best only share my art with like, three other people who won't distribute it. However, there is a group of people who will try to use AI art to make like, their idealized shit, and it's hilarious commentary where they'll make some startlingly fetishy 'ideal society' images.
you can make a machine to knit and have it knit. You can't have a machine crotchet because it's too complicated for a machine to do so practically. You can make a knitting stitch that looks like crotchet but it is still knitting. Art can only be done by humans, a machine can only imitate.
Another problem to list off in the roster is that it displaces a lot of people in a paid work space. It's the 1st money saving thing any project would use. Never mind kind of covered that.
I didnt think there was anything that could turn me into a religious zealot, but the spiritual fervor and hatred I feel about AI art has done that lmao. I don't think I've ever hated anything intrinsically as much as this. Idk how it could happen but I think it would be incredibly funny if he debated Shadiversity on this
Fortunately as a fine arts major I have basically spent years of education learning the words “it’s subjective” over and over again, because art has become less about what the work communicates and more about people’s conversation about art. It’s why hacks can ductape a banana to a fucking wall and it becomes front page news. Just like everything else that once had heart and passion art too has simply been industrialized for the egos of the top percent.
None of those arguments are particularly compelling as why AI art is bad the first point you makes no sense: self selecting and feeding off its own prompts and deviating more and more what does that even have anything to do with it sounds like a user issue. The sampling argument is bull because that's exactly what artists do today, they look at art others have done and they use that and parts of it as inspiration for their own pieces nothing is done in a vacuum. No meaningful control over the output that is what the prompt is for that is your control it will get better with time you can individually adjust neuron values if you want in the not too distant future again a poor argument that really doesn't have any bearing.
As someone who was improving at 3d animation and cg rendering as a hobby the rise of AI genuinely killed the hobby for me. It's hard to stay motivated to design something for days or weeks that AI can generate in seconds.
It's kind of funny that every important art movement of the last century has pretty much started with everyone saying, "that's not real art". Dada wasn't real art. Pollock was something any 4 year old could do. Warhol just told his workers what to screen print. These debates aren't really all that new.
@@aaronsmith1474Because the history of art is made by humans? Movements for and against social changes and political climates. Are you demented to believe a for profit tool spearheaded by ppl who hate artists is going down as a legendary chapter in art history? All it is will be to represent the sickness of 21st Century: The death of meaning. It's shooting yourself in the foot bc AI isn't just influencing visual artists in capitalism. Practically it will make everything bland and soul crushing.
As an artist, I do agree that ai image generators have the potential to be designed and used in ways that are both ethical (not stealing human made art) as well as creatively transformative. The problem is that every one of these ai's are being developed, marketed, and fronted by the scummiest techbros and corporations in the industry, who neither understand nor care about what makes art socially or culturally valuable. If any group of people is going to find a way to use this tech in ways that are both ethical as well as artistic, it's going to be ARTISTS, not the people currently peddling it.
How Computer Programing Works: Garbage in, garbage out. A.I. art, doubly so. Edit: however, the "tool" part of AI-generated art is still up for debate this early, but the way i see it, it can prolly get your inspiration juices flowing by looking at them and saying, "i can do better than that!" this is useful for an actual artist who has trained for years if not decades as an artist. mundies, on the other hand, can't tell the difference between real art and diluted trash, if not a literal black screen. Joe Murray, creator of Rocko's Modern Life, can attest to that, i believe.
I really wish I was better at drawing, but instead of turning to AI, I went into other arts that are more intuitive to me, and I feel like these so called "AI artists" should do the same, or if they don't want to, they should do like the rests of us and practice until they get good.
If you think AI art is a replacement for real Art, get an AI to write a 200 page book and read it, you'll soon learn why you're wrong. If you don't want to, you implicitly already understand.
"It's just a tool" "This crowbar I used to break into this building is just a tool. I used it for what it is capable of being used for, and because it is 'just a tool' that makes it ok" "this knife is just a tool... "
Except the argument isnt that those tools (including a.i) shouldnt have rules and regulations. It's the denial that a.i is a tool, when that is indeed what it is. The safety or danger of a tool doesnt denote it from being one.
@darryljack6612 except the initial argument, is the moral absolution for the use of a tool in the actions they're used for because they were used in the way it was made to be. The argument is aligning that just because it is a tool, does not mean the action committed using the tool is acceptable.
How is that the argument when "its just a tool" is used to nullofy Vaush's argument that the replacement of artists in A.I. art will lead to bad outcomes? @darryljack6612
@@flaskhjertako Except the tool's use is dictated by the individual users. What vaush and the people above are doing are generalizing the use of said tool, instead of acknowledging the diversity of it's use and users. This line of argument works with a gun, because a gun has no other primary purpose besides causing damage and or harm. As opposed to a knife, a crowbar, and or an a.i program.
If you actually wanted to make an ai image generator that was good you would hire a bunch of artists to make art based on prompts and feed that into the model.
You're never gonna get that going at scale. Training transformer models requires MASSIVE datasets. We can just succumb that there are inherent limitations and find a role for what they cand do and expect incremental progress. That's all we can do.
@@nahuel3433 I mean if I wanted good images of dragons I would prefer a model that had been exclusively trained on curated artworks of dragons rather than every image on the internet.
The problem with transformer models is that it is all statistics. Each individual pixel and the sum of their parts are correlated with word arrangement and word choice. You need metric tons of data for that, since all it is doing is learning to emulate what it already saw. All that AI art often comes from a 6GB file with statistical weights. Each seed slightly adjusts these weights to create a new image. It's incredible from a pure machine learning perspective and is similiar to how our brain actually works biologically, however the AI model learns once and then never again, while our brain learns and readjusts all it's neural nets to maximize efficient energy usage and constantly creates new neural connections as we grow older. If you pay attention, the AI models have no idea about perspective and 3d. Not because this incredible machinery is stupid, but rather because we have 2 eyes to create and perceive depth, which AI models don't have. We are probabilistic biological machines that evolved over time. Artists themselves have either talent (born with neural networks that are easier to train for visual stimuli) or they work hard and their brain readjusts over time. If you want an actually good AI image generator, you need a machine that understands what it means to be human. That includes giving it two eyes for depth perception, a mouth, ears, nose, ways to feel the surroundings, emotion regulators etc, essentially what we have. We can subconciously tell which artistic pieces are AI art, because art always contains character in the brush strokes or the paint strokes in every miniscule detail. Our hands are unstable, our emphasis on certain aspects can contort and defy physical laws etc. All our flaws is what makes human art unique to humans. A machine will not be able to replicate true human ingenuity or even reality accurately enough to produce coherent systems. Just ask the new Midjourney model to create a spaceship interior. The excellent human artist will understand that buttons are for pressing and holograms are to be looked at and that wires lead somewhere and have a use, AI has no conception of that. To create a true AI artist, you need to create a mechanical replica of us (Which I don't recommend, since what you want is something that can do everything). Even the most advanced models barely understand hands, because they see hands with only one eye, which removes all depth from our complex hand structure that contorts and twists unlike any of our other body parts. Hiring a bunch of artists with the current in use machine learning algorithms and models is useless. They barely listen to your prompt, so what is the point of blindly relying on the machine that was given low quality training data? And I love automation and AI, even AI art, but this stuff isn't replacing actual artists at the top of their game anytime soon. Most of these companies are incredibly lazy and don't want to pay anything at all. It's also a double edged sword for artists, because Adobe paid and have their own AI model now. These articles are usually hit pieces to make corporate closed source AI models the norm, while dismantling free open source AI software, even though both replace corporate artists either way. Like, these articles aren't against the closed source models from Adobe and Nvidia. They are especially designed for the sole purpose of shutting down free models which can be trained and used on home computers. Then all profits go to the corporations. Vaush and many of his fans and within the artistic community have no idea what they are actually advocating for when they pull up these articles, since this has nothing to do with being anti-AI. AI and robotics are replacing millions of workers right now. From coders to translators to writers, all of it requires an overhaul of the monetary system. This is the point where we have to evolve as a global species. Art is fundamentally created by us being unable to fully comprehend reality and our bias for certain concepts and emotions. Simply don't support corporations that use or employ AI art. I think AI art is beautiful and originated from a beautiful machine and shows beauty in statistics, but I am not paying money for AI art... ever. Human art has its own unique flavor and its own strengths that can't be found in AI. Especially given that humans tend to have consistent styles and gradual improvement over time. Human art is simply worth more, not less. The data pool is also already infected with AI art, and AI learning from AI makes results worse, not better. Yeah, that's basically it. I like AI and AI art, but human art is vastly superior, especially from master-artists.
@@andrewgreenwood9068 Sure but that doesn't make it good again. It still has all the inherent issues vaush talked about here on how there is a lack of an intentional human communication by the art I suppose in your dream AI the image you generate wouldn't be also fed back to the AI and it'd be just for you. So for personal use sure it'd be a decent image spitter. But that's about it.
I think alot of real artists are pretentious, pretending like their average piece of art work is some grand labor which they've their soul into, and then will charge like $100 dollar for a tiefling with antlers and a frock coat but the AI tech fetishism is fucking awful in of itself because it's derivative and doesn't offer anything original.
Whoa, whoa okay, I'm sure I'm going to agree with the rest of the video, but I just got to 1:42. Vaush really needs to know what he's talking about if he is going to make effective arguments. At least for Stable Diffusion and Dall-E, they run on generative models, which are basically a bunch of probability functions that work together to arrive at a range of likelihoods of an input value mapping to different output values. This requires hundreds of thousands of GPU hours on modern GPUs to build. Additionally the models are trained using massive datasets of images that need to be manually tagged with text keys (which is where the stolen art comes from. ALSO this often done by underpayed and coerced workers in poor countries, which really doesn't get talked about enough). Once the model is trained, that's it. New images don't get automatically added to the dataset or trained into the existing model. A new version needs to be released to do so. The program does not automatically adapt and learn from new images posted online like Vaush is implying. He is almost certainly thinking of reinforcement learning, like you've probably seen on UA-cam videos of 'evolving AI', and confusing the two, very different, processes. For both Dall-e and Stable, there are ways to basically add a filtering layer on top of the core model with new datasets. If anyone has heard about the Waifu Diffusion project, that's what's going on there. But again, that dataset needs to be manually constructed and trained. It's not an automatic process that is always adapting, and it doesn't affect the core model. That is of course not to say that in the future, as new images are added to the dataset and new models are trained and released, there won't be a saturation of that dataset that is AI art, and then you will have what he is talking about. But that's not how it is right now, and he should probably understand that so the AI bros can't cope their way out of what he is saying.
The one time I seriously tried to make something using an A.I. art program was to create my DnD character. It was on a friends computer and I spent half an hour trying to give her clothes. The more clothes it tried to render the worse it got at everything else. It only was coherent when they were basically naked, it was utterly useless.
The only valid argument for AI art is that it can be used to assist large teams in avoiding crunch. There is a lot of freedom that could be provided to visual asset teams if they could feed their own style into a generator and have it do fill work that AI could handle. From CGI in big budget studios to black and white manga.... the crunch has only gotten worse and worse and it is legitimately making the artists we love unhealthy and killing them. I feel there is definitely some form of middle ground where AI generative work CAN be done ethically and provide a great benefit to the forms of entertainment we love by simply helping them do their work in healthier ways as opposed to taking their jobs from them.
That is wishful thinking and it's treating the symptom rather than the disease. Because if with AI you can make work faster and reach the unrealistic production schedules easier. Then that just means you can do your production schedule even MORE brutal (since you hit the previous one just fine) and the artists will still have to crunch, but producing more (and probably NOT being paid more)
@@Sera-F1nn Not toward art, but toward artists themselves. It's spearheaded by people who DGAF if someone's entire income is coming from working in the art industry, be it as commission artists, or animators, or background artists, or designers... They just want something cheaper to exploit that won't go and demand a break to sleep or the ability to be able to afford rent on three jobs.
@nahuel3433 Okay but I don't see you proposing an alternative solution to the problem i just stated so I couldn't care less whether it's the symptom, the disease, the chicken or the God damned egg for that matter. You are describing an escalating grind that is already happening and already accelerating as it is, so there is hardly any reason to be concerned that it will "cause" that to happen. It's already the business model and has been for a long time, take the solution and give these people a break instead of expecting them to die just so you can make 50 bucks as an artist on furaffinity or deviantart or some shit.
I'll keep drawing and making stuff even if AI art is everywhere. I'm not letting this get me down. Creating is a human experience that brings me joy, and I'm not letting tech losers ruin that for me.
12:50 Vaushs definition of "Art" is to narrow as the term has been used in different ways. Some alternative definitions are 1. As a display of skill and hard work, like Martial art, the art of cooking, the art of creating glasses. It is used to elevate the process as something profound and worth of value. 2. As a display of high quality like Musik, Pictures, Videos, even a chair you enjoy without thinking about their "message". It is used as a promisse that if you enjoy a particular thing, this product will be of highest quality to your enjoyment. 3. As a display of beauty, as many describe something build but beautifull as art. You could even describe the mountains as work of art if you believe god created them. Those definitions are legit, constantly used ones that don't get as deep as Vaushs definition, and that is ok. You don't need to go down the rabbit hole if you don't care for the message of the artist. Most don't care. Which explains why many people, are so hostile towards modern, abstract art as those go against the their hold definition.
More like AI art is a tool for artists the same way power drills are a tool for a carpenter. You realize 99% of artists already use AI assisted art in software programs like photoshop right?
@@teslacuil1437 Generative AI art is also a tool, it makes art more accessible and easy to learn for those that don't have the skills. My point is the distinction you make is arbitrary and irrational. A tool is a tool. Do you think if you went back in time and brought Da Vinci to modern day and showed him computers with programs that let you undo mistakes, create layers, make micro adjustments automatically, shade for you, let you swap and replace etc... that he would consider you an artist? No, he'd probably call you a witch and say you have no artistic skill because a machine is doing all the work for you. "You don't even have to clean your brushes, buy the paint, measure your strokes, this isn't real art!!!!" etc... What is and isn't "real art" changes constantly over time and technology will continue to make art much easier and accessible and less skillful, cry harder gatekeeper
@@lordlubu3029 "Generative AI art is also a tool, it makes art more accessible and easy to learn for those that don't have the skills" It is not a tool for artists, you debunked yourself in like the first line lmao. A tool is a tool, but they can be tools for different people. You're a tool.
It's kind of upsetting hearing a number of artists, even here talking about how they've approached ai art with a productive intent or treating it like a skill. As if there is preassure now to use this, like adopting ai art is somehow neccesary to be an artist now.
Why isn't it okay to experiment with new technologies / learn new skills without the expectation that you will have to use said technologies and tools?
This sounds like a problem with capitalism more than with AI art. The luddites didn't destroy knitting machines because they were afraid of the march of technology, they did it because capitalists were going to throw them out on the streets to starve.
There is a pressure. You are not getting hired to big mobile games now as a 2D artist. You have to be AI savvy 2D artist to even apply and attach your portfolio.
I think you could make an art piece where an RNG selects a color, a robot randomly splatters that paint on a canvas, and the process repeats a random number of times. Then, the artist's input is selecting the most evocative splatter patterns. You could then argue if it's art, and if/how this differs (or doesn't) from selecting an AI generated image. And through the discussion it evokes, the act of calling the canvas art will itself become art.
People feel they're entitled to art and shouldn't have to build any artistic skill or commission someone who's honed their craft. It's infuriating as a writer, too, because I've had to work hard just for my stories to appear in magazines, yet people think they're owed good writing without having to develop their own skills or pay a writer for it.
The thing is, I dont think art requires skill to be art. A lot of dadaism requires very little skill, specifically because its trying to ask those questions about art. What art does need is intent, conscious decisions, and that is not something you can get from an algorythm.
This. And the worst thing about it is that all art takes is sitting down, grabbing a piece of paper and a pencil, and making something. As the above person said, it really doesn't take skill. Skill is for people wanting to get better at drawing things correctly. It takes effort, but it isn't some magical "talent" you have or don't have (which is what the AI Bros think). They cry "accessibility" and "gate keeping" and "Left out" to the point where they think a pencil will burn them if they dare touch one. They're so afraid of a wooden stick, it'd be funny if it wasn't so sad.
I hate AI "art" culture or whatever, what it's doing to artists (me included) is terrible and i appreciate Vaush taking the time to cover this, but I might add that AI procedural generation Can be a tool, but it is not designed with that in mind! I've seen a few artist using it in a very selective or conceptualist manner that is way more involved and deliberate, but holy shit is it not the main demographic for this "tool"
AI "art" is strictly a "I actively choose to disrespect and devalue artists" problem Its a jealousy and spite problem, these people actively dislike and just want to lessen the value of art and artists, they want to prevent them from having livable careers and from being valued in society maybe theyre jealous because theyre not creative themselves, or maybe theyve been personally wounded by an artist, dunno but ultimately their core philosophy and motivation is "I want to harm artists"
100000% this. It's pure envy. They're incapable of producing art, because they're tech bros. Incurious, unimaginative pieces of shit. They can't bear to think that some people are capable of making meaningful things, and so they saw in AI the way they could bring artists down with them.
AI art commissions are such a huge scam, and lowkey, anyone who knowingly gets them kinda deserves their money stolen. Like when you commission an actual artist, you might have access to the exact programs or even irl tools they have (know plenty of people and i am an artist who use free programs), but you're paying them because you dont have the skills needed to draw like they do. With AI art, theres no skill difference between you and the person using the AI program except maybe they know how to word the prompt better, but thats not really a high bar. You could even skip that by asking a chatbot how to word stuff for a AI prompter. Commissioning an AI artists to do your AI art for you is like, next level lazy. It's like if you paid someone to cook for you, and you watch as they just go to mcdonalds and you still accept that as their own cooking.
I kinda figured the whole A.I. thing to be more of a toy than a tool, myself. Played around with it once. Went to a random A.I. art work generator and typed in something like "spaceman with ray-gun fights giant ant". Spaceman had way too many arms. I think that just about satisfied my curiosity.
holy shit his question at the end about whats worse death of people or art, thats legit befuddling. like death sucks but human progress, art, US as a species gone like that. ugh
The most I can hope to come out of all this is that traditional and clearly human created artwork gets a boost in popularity. Maybe hand painted portraits become a thing again among the rich. That’d be cool
I use Adobe's AI tools primarily for cleanup. Fill in hair that is thin, remove objects, background fleshout, etc. if you try to get it do anything specific, it usually falls flat.
I've dabbled. I've been very disappointed with the results. AI art has a huge problem with composition. Form and space has to be created, not emulated. I can see AI art being useful for iterating or mocking-up ideas (e.g., memes), but it'll always struggle to create anything valuable.
The only appeal of AI art is the output. Therefore, it's clear the intentions of the people who defend AI either want pictures instantly or think all art is just the end product. It's selfish in a way, they think the only value in art is them looking at it. Real art takes many things but I think the most important is enjoyment. Artists create because they love creating. AI people type things in a search bar because they only like consuming.
Most people have a superficial relationship to art, they like how it looks and that's usually as deep as it gets but its human. Artists see it differently because they are the ones making the art, obviously.
Well that is most peoples relationship with art whether you like it or not. Someone looking for some images for their latest pen and paper campaign rarely care about the process. Neither do most authors who want some illustrations and book covers. I am not sure what you think is selfish about that.
@@XMysticHerox I agree with you and want to add the same is true for music and performances in general. No one cares about the hours of practice or the countless rehearsals you sat through. People only care about the final performance, the big show. That's what they paid to see, so that's all they really care about. And that's fine. Most people, myself included most of the time, only care about the final result. This isn't a radical idea and I believe it's the most common position on the topic.
These are always welcome and needed as they keep trying to replace us and normies contribute. All they are gonna get is normie mediocre bad art. I stopped posting online but not stopped making art because human artist thieves were enough to beal with but normies using ai is just far worse imo
If you don't know yet, Glaze is a thing (it's a program that screws up the AI parsing of your art with something near-indetectable to the human eye but that makes it look like, say, the Mona Lisa or a Rembrandt to the AI and helps fuck up their dataset). In case you ever consider posting online again or have friends who still post their art online and you want to throw a few rocks into the AI's food to break its robot teeth with.
Unpopular opinion here. If an artist has a big enough portfolio, he can literally train his own AI model off his own art that he created through out the year, so the AI would produce pieces only in his own style. And the said artist can continue to refine and evolve his AI model to further build on to his own style. This was not a hypothetical by the way, I personally do know artists who are doing this exact thing. I think artistic creativity still very well exist in this particular usage.
AI art is hilarious. You can just hear the cogs turning as its trying to piece together what art actually is and the existential crisis it's having trying to understand it.
The part about humans preferring hand crafted goods reminded me of another video (I think by Unlearning Economics?) about planned obsolescence. One of the points hit on was about how we grow attached to objects we use for a long time due to the history they develop, and how the ability to repair them (personally or with assistance) enhances that sentimentality/meaning.
I love not artists trying to tell artists what art is as if art is made FOR the not artists. I think a lot of people don't get that artists don't give a fuck about you enjoying the art as much as THEM enjoying the art. You enjoying it is nice, it pays bills. But it's not why artists do what we do lol. We do it FOR the process of creating the art. AI completely circumvents the entire process of MAKING the art and in that case no artist is going to look at that and say "that's the same as what I do" lol. A software engineer isn't an artist because they create operating systems. lol.
You dont even have to be a good artist to realize this stuff. I'm a mediocre artist at best, but if youve at all dabbled in any kind of art form, this should be immediately obvious. What makes something art isnt the end product, its the process in which it was made and the intentional decisions that went into it. I do want to slightly disagree though in that I do think there can be art in software programming, but the art then would be the program itself and the way it operates, not the plagiarism blobs it shits out.
You can still make art. No one is taking that away from you. Also why isn’t software art? You either have a very narrow sense of what art can be or just want to gatekeep the word “art” for some reason..?
I came across a discussion about ai art popping up in search results earlier, and the most interesting thing of that discussion was searching for hand references will give you some amount of distorted ai hands as a "reference".
I remember you people having the same complaint when synths were invented. "it's not real music". Artbros are those same people. "it's not real art" people have never been correct in history.
@@shrub8644 This notion of “black-box” is incorrect. It isn’t magic. Thousands of scientist understand exactly how the fundamental principles work. The only thing “black-box” is the emergent behavior exposed when scaling systems. And further, people would still say the same things about synths. A “black-box” with little user-input, no reference for ombre, inflection, idiosyncrasies, etc.. Moreover, who cares? Since when was user-input the metric? If that’s the case we should all go back to the stone-age where everything required “maximal user-input.” At every step, between portrait to photo, traditional to digital art, human-centered to ai-assisted, there have always been people so insistent to stay stuck in the past.
Literally doesn't matter to my point whatsoever. What I mean is that the person who types a few words to the generator doesn't know exactly what comes out and it requires very little decision-making and communication of emotion from them, unlike playing a synth for example. Being better at typing a few words insn't very impressive or a skill that takes much effort.@@casualuser5527
I think photography is the best example. People said the exact same thing. There is no intent behind pressing a button etc. There is intent. A human writes a prompt and selects and image. I would agree there is far more intent in a painting that had every brushstroke deliberately made sure.
I want to see how corporations function if AI generated art is not afforded any copywright protection if they insist on using them. Immortal legal entiries can lock up coprwrights forever.
they need to make legislation so that the only AI images I see online are ones of John Wick in a Domino's or something
Big tiddy anime elf girls that mimic the art styles of existing artists 😠
John Wick ordering Domino’s 🤤
im ok with absurd humor ai art
People don't even realize how much AI is already out there. It's all over Facebook now. Pinterest is probably half AI art now.
AI shitposts are the only good AI art
Gumbo Slice > John Wick
I'm glad some sites have removed AI art, Particularly sites for artists
pixiv basically added an ai-filter, in order to not get smothered in ai art
@gertjanvandamme2068
That's actually impressive?
@@lL338 AI art still slips through sometimes. I'm not sure exactly how the filter works, but it isn't perfect. It also isn't default-on, so if you don't go messing with your settings before browsing you still get buried under piles of AI slop.
I have nothing but respect for Fur affinity at this point
They were one of the only few that stood their ground with human artists (ironic isn't it) from the get go
I suspect FurAffinity's stance will be temporary. In 5 years, avoiding AI would be seen like drawing without layers in Photoshop. Non-generative AI is already half of selection tools in Photoshop and nobody noticed it.
saw an AI art account selling their images for upwards of 300 USD once, and yet the people who will defend that are the first ones to rail on artists who charge 300 for an illustration they actually took the time to make with their own hands.
No one is buying from either. I’m sorry other peoples choices make you mad, fascist.
Or maybe both are fine. If people want to buy it for $300, let them
The funny thing is any1 can use them images FREE. Put em on t shirts mugs etc. Cant copyright AI Art.
first of all, if you're only charging 300 for an illustration, we have other things to discuss, second, I just barely sold an 18x24 photo quality print of an AI image that I spent over a week creating with my hands on my Wacom Cintiq pro 32" tablet, sold for $250. No I didn't just type in a sentence. I mounted the print onto wood and brushed it with lacquer so it had the glossy texture of a painting. He knew he was buying an AI image but an image based on an original drawing by me and enhanced with AI, mounted and included hanging mechanism on back. with printing and wood cost with hanger was about 30 bucks. but selling at 250 for a quality image that size, numbered and mounted and unique, by an actual artist, was a steal. So much so, that he gave me 400 when I dropped it off. Now, should I just stop using AI when it is literally making me money and I made using creativity and a lot of effort using my hands and drawing ability? Ain't lyin' kids. I have pics
@@Brandon82967 letting people buy something and deciding whether or not it’s detrimental are two different things.
As an artist, one of the most infuriating aspects of AI Art is that the AI prompters are joining art communities (especially DeviantART), calling themselves artists, and expecting they'll be welcomed as equals. A single user often uploads hundreds of images per day, which buries the handmade art that obviously takes more time to create. They go out of their way to obfuscate that the art is AI-generated by using misleading tags, which makes it difficult to avoid and sometimes difficult to identify. Some human artists have been attacked with accusations that their art was AI, and they had to upload WIPs to prove themselves. It's all so bizarre.
I have seen AI ''artist'' upload their AI-generated picture and the dude proceeds to upload the ''sketch'' which is just the same picture but in black and white with lower opacity. I fucking lol-ed, he was piled on by everyone real quick.
Yeah DeviantArt had a whole epidemic last year! Now they specify which works are made with AI tools which is good.
Yeah, honestly I've been posting timelapses of a lot of my art just to avoid getting possibly accused of being AI, like the fact that I feel like I have to prove I'm human doing things with my own human hands sounds insane
With Inkblot art's tiny userbase I'm surprised to see a user I follow in the wild, though I share the sentiment. Saw AI generated adoptables the other day on DA with no minimum asking price.
There are common denominators to AI plagiarisms. Thing is there is no real informative work to help normies identify them at first glance.
I miss when AI art was a jumbled mess that looked like you were having a stroke.
I miss that phase of AI art so much. It was like glimpsing at the dreams of a computer.
Yeah when it was just a little baby, now its growing into a scary monster...
Its called the pixelated fliters from gimp. There like two of them that make that shit.
Kind of alarming how fast it improved, isn't it? It's actually legitimately scary, like in 1-2 years you could forge 100% real looking fake evidence of super heinous crimes to get someone in trouble
AI images like that have already been used as propaganda in the Israel Gaza conflict going on right now. @@Anthony-zm2nq
This has been a problem for a while now, and I've been talking about how it's ruining the catalog of art to look at.
Pinterest became unusable
I basically refuse to go back there until someone makes an extention to block all ai made art
@@DMHR100 banana stitched to a wall? You mean that piece called "The Comedian" that caused such outrage its price got inflated into the millions? I wonder what joke this "Comedian" was telling.
@@DMHR100yet another dishonest excuse by a techbro who can't think
Let's also not forget how AI has also ruined the textual part of the Internet. In case of art, at least it's still possible to find art made by people. For now.
Then so did digital art itself. So did photography. I wonder what the marble statue artists did when some new art fad began.
You know what the portrait painters did when the camera came out? They bought a camera...
That same argument is made over and over for every new art form. And no one cares except a small handful of luddites.
Hey Vaush, i dont comment ever. Im a Dungeon Master and an artist and have caught people feeding the art i draw for the games I run into AI generators. Its frustrating watching my art commissions loose clients because everyone is generating art for their DnD characters. It hurts so much as a writer and artist. I had an argument with someone who thought using a reference image to draw was the same thing as using AI.
@Nobddy there isn't anywhere near enough of a market for "fine art" to include all of the artists that are getting shafted by AI slop and AI theft. If AI art does become the dominant force for small-scale art use in this kind of illustration, for every hand-drawn artist who gets to sell for thousands a pop in the future there'll be a thousand living under AI hell and having to entirely quit art as a profession.
to be fair, if they asked you to use your art as a reference and then used it to create more art.... they were completely honest. as someone that uses ai art daily and also commissions artists, i can tell you that it's time to have a style and build a reputation for being easy to work with; something that ai isn't
@@onjulraz754 reference means to learn, not toothpaste it. You also commission thats also good because now this is yours but did you pay for the artstyle that artist created over years of practice.
@@besanayan5717 Non-answer right here.
Yeah, it's sad. I used to do character portraits for my DnD groups for free, but now most of them just use AI generated images.
Artist going to school for art here:
Vaush you’re the most based person I’ve seen on this issue and it honestly gives me some hope.
I feel that.
hating AI is like very common bro, that's not based that's going with the majority opinion. Like just try posting AI anywhere and watch the hate roll in.
@@criss_x that’s true, but not many people are as vocal about it. And a LOT of normies just flat out use it without knowing anything.
We had one of the ppl giving a presentation at my school start praising ai art, unshockingly everyone was pissed at him. Except the fact that a decent chunk of people weren’t at all bothered.
Why do you think AI is already inbreeding with itself? Because so many people use it
There is no hope for you. You made a harsh financial decision and you will not succeed unless you implement AI into your workflow. Because if you don't, the industry will just hire someone else who will.
@@canadianturtle7240 um well not if they are a gallery artist or someone who makes pottery, or courtroom sketch artist (those people make bank), or a sculptor, or calligrapher, or they do etsy, or teach art, sell at comiccon, or street vendor, art restoration, museum curator... a million other things, look AI is an amazing tool but it is not replacing art, it doesn't even make art it generates images. you can use those images to create art but anyone who calls themselves an artist when they are only an image generator is just fooling themselves.
One of the guys in my D&D campaign AI generated tokens for the players. I stuck to my principles and stole art from Blizzard instead of small artists.
And we salute you sir
Based
Get ducked blizzard.
This is the way
if a machine _could_ think/learn then that's the a.i.'s art, it would belong to it, not us. it would then be another being's art, not our art and not a product of a tool. it would go from a (pseudo) a.i. using stolen art and stealing our vocation, to us taking credit for the (true) a.i's artwork. it's a lose lose. the hypothetical where the a.i. is a true artist is one where we have a robot art slave, which would be immoral.
To call it the AI's art you'd have to 1) explain what labour is being applied, and 2) explain how AI (basically statistics software) can independently own something. Labour and ownership as we understand them are intimately connected to physical, mortal concerns like food and physical danger -- as dry and abstract as leftist theory makes them seem. They may be the wrong frameworks for defending the rights of an imagined conscious-like-us AI.
@@fruitygarlic3601In my view we'd either need to develop a transhuman/posthuman framework ( to accommodate beings as advanced or greater than us)
Or expand upon like, animal ethics maybe? Just as how an ox is a beast of burden we may end up developing an 'AI of burden' where abusing it, however that might manifest, is considered a societal faux pas like abusing an ox, despite neither the AI or ox being considered 'human' enough for human rights.
@@chatboss000 that's ridiculous. we know that animals are conscious and still do not give them property rights... be a little more pragmatic
@@onjulraz754 we do give animal property rights tho, just not all of them
Exactly.
So long as the "AI" in "AI art" is not real AI, the "art" in "AI art" is not real art.
If these images were created by an actual AI, rather than the machine learning algorythms that weve been calling "AI", I would have no problem with them.
Because at that point, that is a piece of work created by a conscious being who meant to create it the way it is, that is art.
_"A.I. Art"_ is what happens when you see "art" as "content".
exactly
People do kinda realize that "AI art" and corporate "art" are basically as soulless and easy to despise
True shit
The thing is for some applications it is. Like say a pen and paper character or moster you just want to have a image for in your campaign. I do think AI art has a place there.
Not really, no.
i'm an artist, i've literally tried to get in to ai art and given up because it isn't equivalent AT ALL to the process of art-making
I tried to make it make a candy cake forest once. Simple classic candy land aesthetics. It just gave me woods with candy canes in it at random places.
it would've been easier to just draw it.
I guess you have to incorporate it to your process. Of course an artist won't just give it prompts and post the results.
@@waltercapa5265 Probably because the AI results were nothing like what they were going for and anyone with an artistic bone in their body wouldn't be satisfied with that.
yeah, best that you give up... learning curves aren't for everyone... especially people that consider themselves "artists"
same
We should stop calling it AI art, as it is not art. Ai images is more appropriate. Art requires meaning and intent behind the construction of the piece, and there is not meaning or intent behind AI images.
There is though. The person writing the prompt and selecting an image has intent and is looking for specific meaning. Sure this is far less than when an artist makes every stroke deliberately but it is still present.
Ironically this is the exact sort of argument people have used to call things like photography worthless and not art. You might want to look at art history.
@XMysticHerox dumbass thinks the person putting in the prompts has any real control over what the final image looks like. You can get to look a certain way, but nothing about the final piece, no single brush stroke or line with have been done with any intent whatsoever because ai is incapable of putting meaning or intent into those acts.
Also you're the one comparing AI "art" to photography, not me. I never once said that photography wasn't art, because it is. They are different arguments, not the same type of thing used to disqualify phorgraphy because photography has a lot of fine input from the user, everything from what you take the picture of to what angle you use. What lens you're using or colorspace. Everything is a choice. There is no choice about an individual aspect in AI images because computers don't make choices.
Literally what is the point of being so pedantic. Everyone knows what one means when they say “AI art”.
(Also art clearly doesn’t have a cut and dry definition. In my opinion anything and everything can be art to some people. I think nature is art. Food is art. Software is art. Living beings are art. Poop is art.)
As an artist, I always giggle when I hear AI art self destructing.
I have no issue with people using it for things like profile pictures or prompts to make characters, but it’s entertaining to see something so awful self destruct.
I wonder if anyone has done ai art NFTS 🤔
Oh you better BELIEVE there are AI art NFTs. You're telling me you can generate a thousand images around a theme without putting in any effort whatsoever *and* they aren't obviously built from a template? Yeah, THAT market has welcomed the "innovation" with open arms.
Most NFTs ARE AI generated images.
AI literally went down the habsburg route
I feel that A.I. art is a weirdly social good in this specific context. People think about crazy stuff to make and just maybe it gets some people engaged in their Imagination more even if it's this goofy weird tool that does it.
@@zerodollarbird Is that a modern thing, because the first wave was not AI at all but a procedural generation process.
My take on AI Art is simple: Don't try to profit off of generated material. If you want to generate an image for private usage, say a DnD character token for a campaign with you and your friends, that's fine. My issue is when people try to pass it off as real art and try to monetize it online.
I agree with this however take it one step farther, i have no issues with the idea of a computer generatong art, my problem with ai art always has been that companies treated it as an opt out rather than an opt in, most artists whos content was used in training the ai where not consulted nor gave permission for it to be used, if they only fed it classical art where the artist is long dead or if they only fed it works from artists who gave full consent on the matter i would have no issues withai creating art
AI image generation is not even a tool for these people. It can be used for early design iteration and stuff like that, but not one of the people crying "it's a tool!" In the chat actually use it for that. They just use it to generate big tiddy orc hentai or whatever
That's what tools are for. They make a task easier. The task can be creating a real piece of art, but it can also be just jerking off.
That's not a use case/problem being solved by a tool?
@@ThingsAreGettingTooSpicy It's a skill issue because I can find like, over a THOUSAND images of big tiddy orc hentai by just typing "orc" into rule34 xxx, or paheal, or finding the monster girl tag on pixiv and setting it to R18.
Reinventing the wheel when you didn't need to isn't solving a problem, it's being stupid and wasting effort.
Wait. Using it for generating big tiddy orc hentai might be one of its few good uses. Don’t stop cooking early.
"They just use it to generate big tiddy orc hentai or whatever"
Sounds based.
I do AI research and work for a living and I don't see AI "art" replacing human art. It is absolutely a statistical process with "learning" being defined statistically as well as programmatically. However, I just still just see this as more of the same issues with tools - they can absolutely cause a net harm on society, but it's about responsible usage and response. The low effort flood has been obnoxious and means a new cat and mouse race has begun. A big chunk of the issue is the implementation by places like Google and Bing.
True! As an artist who's getting a degree in AI, I think we should address these problems properly instead of having a blind, irrational hatred for it, otherwise we're no better than most conservatives.
@@enio9477 What kind of degree if you don't mind me asking? None of this existed when I went to school.
Pretty sure artificial intelligence has been around since the 80s and the 70s and also the '90s. So when were you from@@danielmorton9956
Yeah. Dynamite is also a "tool", and they began stuffing it into bombs and killing people with it. Some technologies shouldn't be permitted. There's no fucking way the tool that allows us to fabricate an image of anyone, doing anything, anywhere, won't lead to more harm than good.
As an artist, ai sends me into existential depression spirals on the reg. I just don't get the end goal with ultra tech people. Are we suppose to end up static, fed procedurally generated food and entertainment by robots while we grow obese in chairs?
Im not a techbro but im pro-AI. Im also an artist kinda, i write on Royal Road. Im terrible but i have fun.
My ideal endgoal for the future of humanity is one where no one has to do anything but breathe. By that i dont mean "will do" but really just "has to".
I want a world where every action you take is entirely voluntary and even someone who decides to do nothing but breathing can have a good and fun life.
In a future where AI can make all art i can have the exact kind of stories i like generated, and when i want to read something written by a human ill be able to do that too.
I wouldnt stop writing in that future because i like writing. People who stop making art cause they cant sell it arent really into art, imo, and i wont miss them when they stop creating.
I can see the short term problems with AI art becoming more commonplace, but i never cared about the short term. The ends justify the means. Its a rule as old as time. The better and longer lasting the ends, the worse the means can be.
But i dont expect anyone to agree with me. Just giving my w cents.
@@WerWer-gz5kk i respect where you're coming from, and generally agree with technology hopefully giving us freedom in the future.
I guess the rub is that I just personally have a distaste for the idea of machine generated art and story. It seems masturbatory to me, having these customized algorithmically generated experiences. When you read a novel, you communicate with the writer. You make contact with a sliver of that writer's thoughts. The same goes for any form of art that you enjoy. Buy algorithmic content cuts out the contact with a fellow individual. It turns human experience in to a statistical gray crowd sourced paste.
Also, drawing from all past recorded human art, machine generated content essentially leverages past artists against future artists. Why commision a current working artist when you can just amalgamate something aggregated from all art history.
It seems to me this all leads to less incentive for people creating original art from their own life experience, with their own hand. It seems like it's more than just another new tool. It goes beyond that, it's fully generative.
A huge part of internet that I used to enjoy now is dead thanks to AI
Chat gpt can't actually mimic artists very well. A few months ago I decided to check out chat gpt's capabilities because I saw a bunch of videos talking about how it was going to become a threat to real authors and song writers. To test if it was really capable copying musicians song writing styles I proceeded to ask it to generate lyrics for a song in this artist style or that artists style, but what I noticed is that all of its outputs were really similar and the only thing it did do to make each artist unique; was say "I'm _____" artist, before going off in some generic style of lyrics that the artist would have never wrote. To be fair I was using a lot of underground political rappers like Sabac Red, but I also tried Led Zeppelin, and a couple of different classic rock artists too, and none of it even remotely resembled their styles and themes. Instead of political rap for example it just went off in generic sexism, and gangsterism. Which those political rappers find abhorrent in real life. It's classic rock styles were all generic too, and also did the thing where it name dropped the artist, before it dumped it's generic turd lyrics all over my screen. Based on that I don't really see chat gpt as a threat to real artists, though maybe it's gotten more sophisticated since then.
Hey, I was looking for some new music and checked out Sabac Red off your comment. Do you have any other recommendations?
I wish vouch had mentioned also that grabbing a work of art in someone's style, someone who's still alive, effectively kills off their future development as an artist. I mean like if an artist cannibalizes their own work, then their work is frozen forever, they become a fossil
I was looking for a reference of two cardinal birds and Google images gave me ai art and I could only tell because the markings on the birds were wrong 😭😭 really upset me because the birds’ poses were perfect
Audubon is having to develop their anti-AI countermeasures to avoid people putting fake birds into their photography competition too.
I don't care about the philosophy of it all: what is art, what is beauty, whatever. What I _do_ care about is that, if allowed, corpos are gonna use AI tools to create an infinite amount of free stock ... stuff, from little cartoon drawings for AI-written listicles that serve no purpose other than SEO and clickbait to every photo ever on most websites that want to sell you goods or services. It's a nightmare scenario for several different types of artists.
Patent trolls will also be able to generate millions of "art pieces" to wide-cast for copyright infringement
It's funny watching people turn on code bros as a person who works in STEM, because we literally have had the same attitude towards those people for a decade now
What field in stem out of curiosity? For me at least the computational branch of research is indispensable.
Stem people always hate on each other's fields but the hate for code bros is something special and the better justified one, it makes the hate towards engineers look like teasing
AI "art" is a tool that requires careful and highly specific use to not have catastrophic effects that has been handed over to our very worst who only care about their short term personal gain at *all* costs and have no empathy to those not in their social club because they called dibs first and ignored the artists affected the most
THANK you, I get where Vaush is coming from here but he's extremely aggressive about this and is throwing nuance out the window. AI tech IS just a new tool, in the same exact way a gun is a tool. We've got a gun violence problem, but that's a problem with humans managing ourselves. Guns don't get up and shoot people themselves, they're inanimate. But they're extremely easy to get ahold of and the societal danger they pose is almost unparalleled, they're essentially an accelerant for the worst societal issues. Same with AI image generation, nothing wrong with it but it's a major accelerant for existing issues. I don't think it's unreasonable to say society needs to learn to manage our worst impulses and fix our worst problems, and AI image generation isn't a problem in a vacuum, it's a THING, just a thing being used by the worst of us to cause a lot of harm very quickly.
It isn't a tool at all. There are AI tools, but the AI generative art in question is very unlikely to ever be used as one. Tools in art don't do the project for you.
@@dinodare1605 But tools do automate a lot of things that artists take for granted. It sounds ridiculous, but it illustrates a good point: how does digital art meaningfully not get caught in your category of “doing the work for you”? Many of the brush tools that exist in common illustration software are just automated versions of techniques that required careful practice and time for non-digital artists. Does their existence as a pre-built tool detract from the artistic meaning in using them?
@@letustalk
Complex brushes still take work to use. Some art is higher effort than other art, and that should be taken into account when judging a work... But it's still work regardless.
AI art is NO work.
@@dinodare1605 I'm kind of curious, what do you think about AI art, where the human makes sketches by hand using their own creativity and skills and the AI infers the sketch? For example, you make your own sketch of the beach, and the AI "fills in" the rest? The way this usually gets realized is that you type a prompt ahead of time, and as you sketch, you get to see a small preview of what the AI thinks you want, so you, as a human, can nudge it however you want and get an artwork, you wanted or at least very close to that.
I believe Hayao Miyazaki already pointed out what's wrong with it.
Whad he say?
No, genetic algorithms learning to 'walk' a 3D model is not generative AI because it actually self-trains via brute force in a simulated environment. It's a closed system, no internet connection required.
I wish people stop pretending Miyazaki was reacting to like Midjourney or something.
"I deeply believe this is offensive to the very concept of life itself"
Chat literally went down the list of default AI defenses.
It's always that one list, so tiring.
Please do more anti-AI art segments, your level of despise for AIbros is exactly how i feel rn. And F these weirdos in the chat trying to gaslight you about this. Also I agree on your take here about capitalism. I was arguing with my communist friend exactly that the other day.
I pray for your mental health 10 years from now as that genie ain't never going back in the lamp. Good luck.
@@TheEndsJustifyTheMemes Oh, it's gonna go back in. Oversaturation and lack of new matter and shit-tier spam and Glaze and AI filling other AI datasets will cause the whole thing to crumble. Won't be long before all the good art gets password-locked in secretboxes and all the AI has is sabotage pieces to feed on.
@@TheEndsJustifyTheMemesYour AI wife will never be able to love you back
@@TheEndsJustifyTheMemes Don't bother replying to these types, they, including Vaush, have no idea what they are talking about, nor what the people in the generative AI community think, they are just projecting what they feel about whats happening and as such you can never get through to them. Take for example they believe that AI cannibalism is an actual issue and not just a theory currently (anyone who disbeleives me on this, go ahead an look for a paper with definitve proof that this is happening now, you wont find one, what you will find instead is people saying that there is a "possibility" that it can occour one day and eventually "possibly" lead to the degredation of models), which also completely discounts the fact that well made generative ai works are indistinguishable from human input, and thus training on it would likely not hurt the model at all. It also doesn't take into account the fact that you can look at the metadata for images that are simply lazily generated by an AI and tell that it was indeed AI generated and thus exclude it from your dataset if you so choose.
I say all that to say that sImilar to what happened with photography, and digital art they will just have to come around on their own over time.
@@DuckinMyHat You don't know that for sure though. Who knows, by 2045 love from an AGI placed inside a sophisticated android body would be indistinguishable from love from a human that we experience in 2023.
After all, the human body and its inner workings are nothing more than complex machines in a biological framework controlled by a brain that's just an even more complex supercomputer made up of carbon atoms as opposed to silicon ones.
I still draw with pencils, damn.
@Nobddy If I scan them and put them into a public collection, sure. But they're so much more valuable as gifts for friends instead of empty clicks.
@Nobddy I get that, though I think Vaush makes a good point - artificial art serves a purpose, like food from a vending machine.
AI Art is like the Dollar Store. It syphons off creativity and makes it harder to previal in a difficult endever (if you want to sustain yourself from it).
False. Just like digital art didn't do that, even tho I remember people making the same claim in the 90s.
@@GrumpDog Sorry True. it did. A lot of people in supporting industries lost their lievlyhoods. I remeber growing up with arts and crafts stores within walking distance, now there are about a dozen boutique retail stores left. My Ex-Wife was trained in construction drawing - as one of five supporting jobs in an architects office. Today it's one job to do five support functions. I think the mistake I made comes more from calling it Art. When I use Midjourney to make an image for a slide deck, I replaced a stock foto for something more meaningful in that context that I previously had to brief and source a graphic designer for. There'll always be disruption with new tools, etc. In my small business sourcing an artist is a considerable investment and I consider it more a branding move and would always rate it as a quality move from a partner to do so (like, paying living wages, etc.). Sorry for rambling, I am not even making myself clear. Cheers and have a happy new year!
As both a creative and a systems engineer, I half agree with Vaush, in that the overall ai art environment is evolving in a detrimental way
But,
That doesn't mean there isn't a new technology behind this that could be used in more interesting ways, with more control for the artist, the problem is capitalism corrupting the whole thing instead of it being a free tech in the hands of creatives and engineers, without the stealing and profiting
"AI art is getting worse" is the new "Jesus is coming back." People keep saying it's going to happen, in the meantime it just gets better and better.
It is not really "art" it is just an image
@@danb4759 You can say the same for any other tipe of art.
@@SenhorDoTempo42 can you elaborate?
@@danb4759
If you simplify things like this, your phrase can be applied to any art form. What is the Mona Lisa if not "just" an image? What is the Godfather if not "just" a sequence of images? What is No. 5 if not "just" a picture of a random bunch of paint on a board?
Art is and always has been subjective, those who attribute meaning to art are human beings. I think what scares artist most about AI is that now Art is not an exclusively human attribute.
This happens whenever a new way of making art emerges. When the photography emerged, the painters said the painting would end. When the computer came along and technologies for digital art emerged, painters said it wasn't "real art" because it was done on a computer. Now, the same thing, but not just done with the computer, but by the computer.
I will. *Literally,* never stop shitting on AI art and it's defenders, especially on rEdDiT.
have fun wasting your time as the world moves on
@@onjulraz754 Yeah he got everyone's timbers shivered lmao they better watch out.
@@onjulraz754 Oh oh Scary! SHiver mE tIBMerS.
Oh no, they converted the JPEGs into PDF files!!
Missed the mark on saying you have no control because you just enter text. ControlNET is a year old now and completely flips that around. We are feeding neural networks as inputs instead of text now. These neural networks represent things like pose, depth, lighting, composition, color palettes, more abstract things like references, etc. and talk in the language of neural networks to the base model like stable diffusion.
I used to say it's not a tool because it does all the work for you and you're just requesting a comission, but you now have more control than you do using a brush in many ways. You can literally control each individual strand on someone's head with complete intention.
Saying it can't learn because it isn't human is just a nonsequitor. That's what machine learning does, it uses a model of cortical neurons to learn without being human. Simply asserting it doesn't is unscientific, and the conflation of learning with theft is really at the core of all of this.
If you have a picture of a balloon in the dataset, it can't reproduce your balloon. It doesn't have a copy of the data to do that. All it got from your balloon was 0.000000000001% extra confirmation of the fact that balloons are generally shiny and round, so it can use that concept to generate it's own new balloon in a new context.
This is why the model is 5GB (5 billion bytes) despite being trained on over 5 billion images. If it were keeping a copy of each image in the weights, it would only have 1 byte per image to do so. Not enough to store a single pixel.
We definitely need an AI filter
I wonder when OpenAI will sell google an AI tool to filter AI generated content
Make it a legal requirement for it to be tagged AI automatically so we can apply a negative filter and get rid of that shit.
I think it should be required by law to (invisibly or visibly on first glance) watermark everything that is made by AI, idk if it's possible but also make the watermark non-removable? I think this could work for image and audio generation, text would be a bit trickier.
@@mlodko8854 In terms of image generation, stable diffusion already implements an invisible watermark
Detection won't work (likely technically impossible, as it's requires detection to be smarter than generative model). Making watermarks mandatory legally won't work (open models will never do that). We're doomed to drown in the flood of AI.
This whole AI art proselytizing is just an extension of the public as a whole's hatred of artists and/or artistic process
Like when some tech bros try to make out artists as elitists or speak the virtues of democratising the creative process, it comes across as deeply vindictive
What’s with the persecution complex? People don’t hate artists and the artistic process
@@simoneidson21 They really do. It's envy.
It truly is
AI should be used as an assistant for art. Making it easier to plot out shading, texture correction, light source tools, line weight correction, etc. AI has its place, but it cannot legally be allowed to make its own materials.
Edit: I meant to say that ai shouldn't be allowed to SAMPLE others' work. Again, I genuinely think it has its place, just not being allowed to "generate" art by itself wholesale. If I had tools to help with shading, color theory, etc, I'd use them.
The problem with that premise is asking the Tech-bros that went to tech precisely looking for a quick golden parachute, to have artists sensitive, and respect to the artistic process
That's the definition of an oxymoron
Making the distinction over what the machine "learning" system is able to say or produce as a regulation is more difficult than configuring the models to output binary slop that can be fed into jpeg or png compression. There's a critical center of political, economic and social incentives that are enabling models to be grown (*not* trained or taught) for the purpose of severely commodifying visual media.
or to show spongebob smoking some weed
It isn't making it's own material THAT'S THE PROBLEM. And when it does make it's own material it collapses in on itself, which is funny af.
AI shouldn't be used*
FTFY
Thank you vaush, after trying to get the message of how unethical ai art is through to some within your discord and getting responses from people such as the response "all artists are either rich or stupid" (which is a quote that came from one of your discord mods in response to me btw...) I had began losing hope. Lot of shit bags in your discord but I'm happy to see you consistently pushing against them. Its crazy how dogmatic and incapable of critical thinking these tech bro's are.
ugh the car thing is NOWHERE NEAR as the AI thing ACTUALLY containing the gross crime things
It's also being presented as a problem with AI for some reason. It was a dataset made by literally pulling all the images it could find from the internet. Humans put that up there. That is on us. That they didn't try hard enough to clean that crap up is a technical flaw that can (and has almost immediately) been solved.
@@ThingsAreGettingTooSpicy
yes
the solution will be to have a few thousand bangladeshis spend months looking at the sickest crap in the dataset for $3 a day
relying on mass collection of data IS a problem with ai, or at least an aspect of it to be aware of
it's a limitation of the technology
t. i make ai applications for a living
I’m also tired of everything being labeled as “AI”…even for all these AI art pieces, there is nothing “artificially intelligent” about their creation. It’s just optimization algorithms that have been around for decades, albeit put together in a new way…the issue is that people see “AI” and actually think there is some type of learning or something going on; there isn’t. There’s as much learning going on as using “goal seek” in excel
It's more like artificial imitation than anything else.
Interesting how you bring up goal seek in Excel. I've noticed that Goal Seek can have trouble with certain kinds of functions. For instance x^2 + 6*x + 9 = 0, which has a repeated solution of x = -3. Of course, this one has no issues, because it's pretty easy to iterate -3 as the answer. But when it isn't an easy-to-iterate solution, goal seek can get stuck when trying to solve for repeated roots.
So any time you hear someone saying "what's the point of learning math, when computers do it for us?", this is it. It's to know how to anticipate the limitations of technology, and be able to set up your problem so it is practical for the computer to solve.
I share vaush's DM pain. I searched for a cool fairy thing for a feywild excursion, but google and deviantart spewed back 80% amorphous AI slop; even artstation had this problem, though not as bad.
Some sites allow you to filter out AI art at least.
Could i give it a shot for you I also am a fellow DM, as well as an artist urrently im working on a new monster manual book where ive hand drawn the monsters i set the stats and the lore ...
@andrewchristopherson2475 dude, that's so sick! What a huge project to undertake on your own! Really hope you're proud of it by the timr you're finished, bc that's DOPE
@yoyohayli thank you its coming along ...if you like you can check out some of my stuff i made for a line of apparel. Like id really like to help others make merch for them to sell or do what ever with
@@Colddirector A big shout out to pixiv, if you can either ask it in japanese or romaji or figure out what words will get picked up by the tag translation and rescue you. Its ability to exclude AI compositions is great
AI generation should be looked at for what it is: a toy. A funny, versatile toy, but it's ultimately a plaything. It's not even a tool, tools have uses. I'll sometimes dick around with AI image generators to see what I can get them to spit out, or a text generator if I'm feeling bored and want to run a dumb little adventure game or something, but pretending it's anymore more than that is delusional.
You don’t understand the implication. Technology scales. I’m sure people who saw the first cars thought it was ridiculous and impractical…now look at our society.
@@casualuser5527 No, I understand the implication, I just think the implication is false in this scenario. Think of any other revolutionary technology in history, when did that start copying itself and getting worse? The problem AI is encountering is that needs human material to work with so it can be effective, and it needs an absolutely astronomical amount of it. So the only way to make a more effective AI model is to pull more data, but AI models are now pulling data from other AI content, which is making the results progressively worse.
A rocket can't really take off if it cannibalizes it's engine halfway to orbit.
@@kendallsmith2538 So what if the technology isn’t sustainable? Cars and a plurality of other human-ingenuities aren’t sustainable. But we still use them until the rope’s end and when that’s finished we innovate a new way to maintain our comfort. See gas cars to electric cars-or coal plants to solar panels.
Good take. I'm a professional artist for over 30 years, I've used every new tool that came up, except I'm never going to use AI. Because as you say it's NOT just a tool.
For you it isn't. For people with no skill it is amazing tool to not pay for professionals
@@vipcypr8368
Not really. I've never run into this context where I've NEEDED a professional-tier photo for free. So many AI apologists say this like it's normal, it isn't... What is the average person "needing" that for, their profile picture?
@@dinodare1605 Not an average person. Owners of small companies that cannot afford to make professional photos or graphics. For me it's just the way of saving couple hundreds of dollars on vector graphics since i can generate my own.
it's like techno bros have a vendetta against artists for no reason. It's a constant attack. All they do is a new attempt to steal from creatives. why do they try so hard to always screw artists in particular? can't they choose a different demographic for once?
I love how every time vaush says "so called AI is not intelligent, it is not conscious, and therefore it cannot create art" and dozens of morons pipe up in the chat "what if AI got so advanced that it developed consciousness? What then?" As if that wasn't directly answered in the original statement
Except vaush's definition is wrong in of itself. Because the a.i is the tool, it cant not produce without human intervention. The human produces said art through the a.i, it's intelligence doesnt hold a factor towards the resulting work's constitution as art.
It’s weird the lengths men will go to crank their hogs all over poorly drawn big tiddy hourglass figure girls that vaguely resemble some fictional character they’ve developed an unhealthy romantic obsession with
Then there's also the question why would we even want conscious AI in the first place though. Isn't that almost the same shit as cloning? Wth are you creating this for? There is enough bs going already, why do tech bros always have to insert themselves to make it even worse?
consciousness is an illusion.
@NobddyWell that would make the ppl who use AI Art not the artist then. It would further expose their actual role. The commissioner. Thing is since the "AI" doesn't talk back or chime in with its own ideas (like a person) it deludes ppl to think they actually did something.
Artists: This will destroy our profession.
Musicians: First time?
Reminder that the relationship of creativity of someone to AI is the same as one person to another relative to the person searching for art. They never created it either way and are instead imprinting their own notions onto what they see in the work others. Its the same with nature. Nature has no will.
Just commenting to be contrarian.
I would recommend Hero Forge for anyone who wants to design there own characters for d&d, its a Miniature Creator and is super easy to use, you can just take a screenshot of your character for personal use, or if you really like your character, you can order the miniature or buy the file that will let you 3d print it!
Based hero forge enjoyer!
Hero forge is great but it's style isn't necessarily for everyone!
Very this! Also it has like 5 billion options now so if you're not careful assembling a character take alot of time, but it's a very, very useful tool for universal character creation.
@@wisdomsoptional Its also useful for creating basically a mannequin of a character you would then like to refine by drawing it yourself to asking another artist to do, you might even find one willing to do it for free, there are plenty out there who love drawing for its own sake and will do free requests (if youre not a jerk to them) and making a mini on heroforge can be a great way to make a specific reference piece to work from
@@wisdomsoptional theyve added a new face customizer recently so the style is much more flexible now
I'm also going to point out, the people who most love AI art, and a collection of people who love, LOVE to show off AI art, are reactionaries who use it to churn out their propaganda.
I will admit, I do use AI image generation to just, like, make titties or whatever, but I don't pretend I actually made jack shit. I plugged in tags, and got an image. I did exactly as much creation as I would've with a image board search. I didn't do shit. I also at best only share my art with like, three other people who won't distribute it.
However, there is a group of people who will try to use AI art to make like, their idealized shit, and it's hilarious commentary where they'll make some startlingly fetishy 'ideal society' images.
you can make a machine to knit and have it knit. You can't have a machine crotchet because it's too complicated for a machine to do so practically. You can make a knitting stitch that looks like crotchet but it is still knitting. Art can only be done by humans, a machine can only imitate.
Another problem to list off in the roster is that it displaces a lot of people in a paid work space. It's the 1st money saving thing any project would use.
Never mind kind of covered that.
I didnt think there was anything that could turn me into a religious zealot, but the spiritual fervor and hatred I feel about AI art has done that lmao. I don't think I've ever hated anything intrinsically as much as this.
Idk how it could happen but I think it would be incredibly funny if he debated Shadiversity on this
Amem brother, amem
so much yes, now i want this
AI art will be the thing that incites the Butlerian Jihad
This is not the W you think it is.
@@APaleDot Not really a W or L I'm just expressing how I feel
Fortunately as a fine arts major I have basically spent years of education learning the words “it’s subjective” over and over again, because art has become less about what the work communicates and more about people’s conversation about art. It’s why hacks can ductape a banana to a fucking wall and it becomes front page news. Just like everything else that once had heart and passion art too has simply been industrialized for the egos of the top percent.
"A.I. Art Is Getting Worse" makes zero sense, it's actually getting a lot better.
None of those arguments are particularly compelling as why AI art is bad the first point you makes no sense: self selecting and feeding off its own prompts and deviating more and more what does that even have anything to do with it sounds like a user issue.
The sampling argument is bull because that's exactly what artists do today, they look at art others have done and they use that and parts of it as inspiration for their own pieces nothing is done in a vacuum.
No meaningful control over the output that is what the prompt is for that is your control it will get better with time you can individually adjust neuron values if you want in the not too distant future again a poor argument that really doesn't have any bearing.
As someone who was improving at 3d animation and cg rendering as a hobby the rise of AI genuinely killed the hobby for me. It's hard to stay motivated to design something for days or weeks that AI can generate in seconds.
I'm really sorry to hear this, but I understand.
Until you try to create some extremely unique projects ,then you will realize how useless AI mostly are .
It's kind of funny that every important art movement of the last century has pretty much started with everyone saying, "that's not real art". Dada wasn't real art. Pollock was something any 4 year old could do. Warhol just told his workers what to screen print. These debates aren't really all that new.
100% true, it's like the people who are so passionately arguing against AI art never once touched an Art History textbook
yeah the only difference is this time the antis are correct
@@koumorichinpo4326 history has show that the antis have always been wrong. Same here.
@@aaronsmith1474Because the history of art is made by humans? Movements for and against social changes and political climates. Are you demented to believe a for profit tool spearheaded by ppl who hate artists is going down as a legendary chapter in art history? All it is will be to represent the sickness of 21st Century: The death of meaning. It's shooting yourself in the foot bc AI isn't just influencing visual artists in capitalism. Practically it will make everything bland and soul crushing.
@@koumorichinpo4326 Good luck.
As an artist, I do agree that ai image generators have the potential to be designed and used in ways that are both ethical (not stealing human made art) as well as creatively transformative. The problem is that every one of these ai's are being developed, marketed, and fronted by the scummiest techbros and corporations in the industry, who neither understand nor care about what makes art socially or culturally valuable. If any group of people is going to find a way to use this tech in ways that are both ethical as well as artistic, it's going to be ARTISTS, not the people currently peddling it.
How Computer Programing Works: Garbage in, garbage out. A.I. art, doubly so.
Edit: however, the "tool" part of AI-generated art is still up for debate this early, but the way i see it, it can prolly get your inspiration juices flowing by looking at them and saying, "i can do better than that!" this is useful for an actual artist who has trained for years if not decades as an artist. mundies, on the other hand, can't tell the difference between real art and diluted trash, if not a literal black screen. Joe Murray, creator of Rocko's Modern Life, can attest to that, i believe.
the guy that mocks essentialism becomes an essentialism guru as soon as it is something he actually cares about
many such cases
If only you could think more and cope less.
I really wish I was better at drawing, but instead of turning to AI, I went into other arts that are more intuitive to me, and I feel like these so called "AI artists" should do the same, or if they don't want to, they should do like the rests of us and practice until they get good.
If you think AI art is a replacement for real Art, get an AI to write a 200 page book and read it, you'll soon learn why you're wrong. If you don't want to, you implicitly already understand.
"It's just a tool"
"This crowbar I used to break into this building is just a tool. I used it for what it is capable of being used for, and because it is 'just a tool' that makes it ok"
"this knife is just a tool... "
I love that, so simple and effective
Except the argument isnt that those tools (including a.i) shouldnt have rules and regulations. It's the denial that a.i is a tool, when that is indeed what it is. The safety or danger of a tool doesnt denote it from being one.
@darryljack6612 except the initial argument, is the moral absolution for the use of a tool in the actions they're used for because they were used in the way it was made to be. The argument is aligning that just because it is a tool, does not mean the action committed using the tool is acceptable.
How is that the argument when "its just a tool" is used to nullofy Vaush's argument that the replacement of artists in A.I. art will lead to bad outcomes?
@darryljack6612
@@flaskhjertako Except the tool's use is dictated by the individual users. What vaush and the people above are doing are generalizing the use of said tool, instead of acknowledging the diversity of it's use and users. This line of argument works with a gun, because a gun has no other primary purpose besides causing damage and or harm. As opposed to a knife, a crowbar, and or an a.i program.
If you actually wanted to make an ai image generator that was good you would hire a bunch of artists to make art based on prompts and feed that into the model.
It'd be more ethical for sure but not "good".
You're never gonna get that going at scale. Training transformer models requires MASSIVE datasets. We can just succumb that there are inherent limitations and find a role for what they cand do and expect incremental progress. That's all we can do.
@@nahuel3433 I mean if I wanted good images of dragons I would prefer a model that had been exclusively trained on curated artworks of dragons rather than every image on the internet.
The problem with transformer models is that it is all statistics. Each individual pixel and the sum of their parts are correlated with word arrangement and word choice. You need metric tons of data for that, since all it is doing is learning to emulate what it already saw.
All that AI art often comes from a 6GB file with statistical weights. Each seed slightly adjusts these weights to create a new image. It's incredible from a pure machine learning perspective and is similiar to how our brain actually works biologically, however the AI model learns once and then never again, while our brain learns and readjusts all it's neural nets to maximize efficient energy usage and constantly creates new neural connections as we grow older.
If you pay attention, the AI models have no idea about perspective and 3d. Not because this incredible machinery is stupid, but rather because we have 2 eyes to create and perceive depth, which AI models don't have.
We are probabilistic biological machines that evolved over time. Artists themselves have either talent (born with neural networks that are easier to train for visual stimuli) or they work hard and their brain readjusts over time.
If you want an actually good AI image generator, you need a machine that understands what it means to be human. That includes giving it two eyes for depth perception, a mouth, ears, nose, ways to feel the surroundings, emotion regulators etc, essentially what we have.
We can subconciously tell which artistic pieces are AI art, because art always contains character in the brush strokes or the paint strokes in every miniscule detail. Our hands are unstable, our emphasis on certain aspects can contort and defy physical laws etc.
All our flaws is what makes human art unique to humans. A machine will not be able to replicate true human ingenuity or even reality accurately enough to produce coherent systems. Just ask the new Midjourney model to create a spaceship interior. The excellent human artist will understand that buttons are for pressing and holograms are to be looked at and that wires lead somewhere and have a use, AI has no conception of that.
To create a true AI artist, you need to create a mechanical replica of us (Which I don't recommend, since what you want is something that can do everything).
Even the most advanced models barely understand hands, because they see hands with only one eye, which removes all depth from our complex hand structure that contorts and twists unlike any of our other body parts.
Hiring a bunch of artists with the current in use machine learning algorithms and models is useless. They barely listen to your prompt, so what is the point of blindly relying on the machine that was given low quality training data?
And I love automation and AI, even AI art, but this stuff isn't replacing actual artists at the top of their game anytime soon. Most of these companies are incredibly lazy and don't want to pay anything at all.
It's also a double edged sword for artists, because Adobe paid and have their own AI model now. These articles are usually hit pieces to make corporate closed source AI models the norm, while dismantling free open source AI software, even though both replace corporate artists either way.
Like, these articles aren't against the closed source models from Adobe and Nvidia. They are especially designed for the sole purpose of shutting down free models which can be trained and used on home computers. Then all profits go to the corporations.
Vaush and many of his fans and within the artistic community have no idea what they are actually advocating for when they pull up these articles, since this has nothing to do with being anti-AI.
AI and robotics are replacing millions of workers right now. From coders to translators to writers, all of it requires an overhaul of the monetary system. This is the point where we have to evolve as a global species.
Art is fundamentally created by us being unable to fully comprehend reality and our bias for certain concepts and emotions.
Simply don't support corporations that use or employ AI art. I think AI art is beautiful and originated from a beautiful machine and shows beauty in statistics, but I am not paying money for AI art... ever. Human art has its own unique flavor and its own strengths that can't be found in AI. Especially given that humans tend to have consistent styles and gradual improvement over time. Human art is simply worth more, not less.
The data pool is also already infected with AI art, and AI learning from AI makes results worse, not better.
Yeah, that's basically it. I like AI and AI art, but human art is vastly superior, especially from master-artists.
@@andrewgreenwood9068 Sure but that doesn't make it good again.
It still has all the inherent issues vaush talked about here on how there is a lack of an intentional human communication by the art
I suppose in your dream AI the image you generate wouldn't be also fed back to the AI and it'd be just for you. So for personal use sure it'd be a decent image spitter. But that's about it.
I think alot of real artists are pretentious, pretending like their average piece of art work is some grand labor which they've their soul into, and then will charge like $100 dollar for a tiefling with antlers and a frock coat but the AI tech fetishism is fucking awful in of itself because it's derivative and doesn't offer anything original.
Whoa, whoa okay, I'm sure I'm going to agree with the rest of the video, but I just got to 1:42. Vaush really needs to know what he's talking about if he is going to make effective arguments.
At least for Stable Diffusion and Dall-E, they run on generative models, which are basically a bunch of probability functions that work together to arrive at a range of likelihoods of an input value mapping to different output values. This requires hundreds of thousands of GPU hours on modern GPUs to build. Additionally the models are trained using massive datasets of images that need to be manually tagged with text keys (which is where the stolen art comes from. ALSO this often done by underpayed and coerced workers in poor countries, which really doesn't get talked about enough). Once the model is trained, that's it. New images don't get automatically added to the dataset or trained into the existing model. A new version needs to be released to do so. The program does not automatically adapt and learn from new images posted online like Vaush is implying. He is almost certainly thinking of reinforcement learning, like you've probably seen on UA-cam videos of 'evolving AI', and confusing the two, very different, processes.
For both Dall-e and Stable, there are ways to basically add a filtering layer on top of the core model with new datasets. If anyone has heard about the Waifu Diffusion project, that's what's going on there. But again, that dataset needs to be manually constructed and trained. It's not an automatic process that is always adapting, and it doesn't affect the core model.
That is of course not to say that in the future, as new images are added to the dataset and new models are trained and released, there won't be a saturation of that dataset that is AI art, and then you will have what he is talking about. But that's not how it is right now, and he should probably understand that so the AI bros can't cope their way out of what he is saying.
As a artist I don't give a fuck about ai art or people that call themselves artists. I draw for fun
The one time I seriously tried to make something using an A.I. art program was to create my DnD character. It was on a friends computer and I spent half an hour trying to give her clothes. The more clothes it tried to render the worse it got at everything else. It only was coherent when they were basically naked, it was utterly useless.
The only valid argument for AI art is that it can be used to assist large teams in avoiding crunch. There is a lot of freedom that could be provided to visual asset teams if they could feed their own style into a generator and have it do fill work that AI could handle.
From CGI in big budget studios to black and white manga.... the crunch has only gotten worse and worse and it is legitimately making the artists we love unhealthy and killing them.
I feel there is definitely some form of middle ground where AI generative work CAN be done ethically and provide a great benefit to the forms of entertainment we love by simply helping them do their work in healthier ways as opposed to taking their jobs from them.
That is wishful thinking and it's treating the symptom rather than the disease.
Because if with AI you can make work faster and reach the unrealistic production schedules easier. Then that just means you can do your production schedule even MORE brutal (since you hit the previous one just fine) and the artists will still have to crunch, but producing more (and probably NOT being paid more)
This could never be reached because the technology itself is spearheaded by contempt towards art.
@@Sera-F1nn Not toward art, but toward artists themselves. It's spearheaded by people who DGAF if someone's entire income is coming from working in the art industry, be it as commission artists, or animators, or background artists, or designers...
They just want something cheaper to exploit that won't go and demand a break to sleep or the ability to be able to afford rent on three jobs.
@Kidomaru222 That is a delusional and overly defensive viewpoint to have. That kind of mentality is what CREATES contempt though.
@nahuel3433 Okay but I don't see you proposing an alternative solution to the problem i just stated so I couldn't care less whether it's the symptom, the disease, the chicken or the God damned egg for that matter.
You are describing an escalating grind that is already happening and already accelerating as it is, so there is hardly any reason to be concerned that it will "cause" that to happen. It's already the business model and has been for a long time, take the solution and give these people a break instead of expecting them to die just so you can make 50 bucks as an artist on furaffinity or deviantart or some shit.
STOP. CALLING IT. AI ART.
They are ai generated images. It is *not* art.
nah, too many syllables.
I'll keep drawing and making stuff even if AI art is everywhere. I'm not letting this get me down. Creating is a human experience that brings me joy, and I'm not letting tech losers ruin that for me.
12:50 Vaushs definition of "Art" is to narrow as the term has been used in different ways. Some alternative definitions are
1. As a display of skill and hard work, like Martial art, the art of cooking, the art of creating glasses. It is used to elevate the process as something profound and worth of value.
2. As a display of high quality like Musik, Pictures, Videos, even a chair you enjoy without thinking about their "message". It is used as a promisse that if you enjoy a particular thing, this product will be of highest quality to your enjoyment.
3. As a display of beauty, as many describe something build but beautifull as art. You could even describe the mountains as work of art if you believe god created them.
Those definitions are legit, constantly used ones that don't get as deep as Vaushs definition, and that is ok. You don't need to go down the rabbit hole if you don't care for the message of the artist. Most don't care. Which explains why many people, are so hostile towards modern, abstract art as those go against the their hold definition.
Remember, folks - *AI art cannot be copyrighted any more than a picture taken by a monkey.*
Arstation has some amazing art, btw...
AI art is a tool for artists in the same way that a future machine that makes flavored nutrient cubes is a tool for a chef
More like AI art is a tool for artists the same way power drills are a tool for a carpenter. You realize 99% of artists already use AI assisted art in software programs like photoshop right?
@@lordlubu3029 We are talking about generative ai art. You are just using semantics to try and deflect the argument.
@@teslacuil1437 Generative AI art is also a tool, it makes art more accessible and easy to learn for those that don't have the skills. My point is the distinction you make is arbitrary and irrational. A tool is a tool. Do you think if you went back in time and brought Da Vinci to modern day and showed him computers with programs that let you undo mistakes, create layers, make micro adjustments automatically, shade for you, let you swap and replace etc... that he would consider you an artist? No, he'd probably call you a witch and say you have no artistic skill because a machine is doing all the work for you. "You don't even have to clean your brushes, buy the paint, measure your strokes, this isn't real art!!!!" etc... What is and isn't "real art" changes constantly over time and technology will continue to make art much easier and accessible and less skillful, cry harder gatekeeper
@@lordlubu3029 "Generative AI art is also a tool, it makes art more accessible and easy to learn for those that don't have the skills"
It is not a tool for artists, you debunked yourself in like the first line lmao.
A tool is a tool, but they can be tools for different people. You're a tool.
Well machine made flavour cubes have been a thing for a while.
if people like it then everything else is immaterial. It exists and will be widely used. Seethe more.
It's kind of upsetting hearing a number of artists, even here talking about how they've approached ai art with a productive intent or treating it like a skill.
As if there is preassure now to use this, like adopting ai art is somehow neccesary to be an artist now.
Why isn't it okay to experiment with new technologies / learn new skills without the expectation that you will have to use said technologies and tools?
how many artists do you know are making money with non-digital art? you DO have to move with the times if you want to be successful
It's about staying competitive to have enough money for food. Telling people to starve in the name of ideals isn't productive.
This sounds like a problem with capitalism more than with AI art. The luddites didn't destroy knitting machines because they were afraid of the march of technology, they did it because capitalists were going to throw them out on the streets to starve.
There is a pressure. You are not getting hired to big mobile games now as a 2D artist. You have to be AI savvy 2D artist to even apply and attach your portfolio.
I think you could make an art piece where an RNG selects a color, a robot randomly splatters that paint on a canvas, and the process repeats a random number of times. Then, the artist's input is selecting the most evocative splatter patterns. You could then argue if it's art, and if/how this differs (or doesn't) from selecting an AI generated image. And through the discussion it evokes, the act of calling the canvas art will itself become art.
People feel they're entitled to art and shouldn't have to build any artistic skill or commission someone who's honed their craft. It's infuriating as a writer, too, because I've had to work hard just for my stories to appear in magazines, yet people think they're owed good writing without having to develop their own skills or pay a writer for it.
The thing is, I dont think art requires skill to be art.
A lot of dadaism requires very little skill, specifically because its trying to ask those questions about art.
What art does need is intent, conscious decisions, and that is not something you can get from an algorythm.
This. And the worst thing about it is that all art takes is sitting down, grabbing a piece of paper and a pencil, and making something. As the above person said, it really doesn't take skill. Skill is for people wanting to get better at drawing things correctly. It takes effort, but it isn't some magical "talent" you have or don't have (which is what the AI Bros think). They cry "accessibility" and "gate keeping" and "Left out" to the point where they think a pencil will burn them if they dare touch one. They're so afraid of a wooden stick, it'd be funny if it wasn't so sad.
I hate AI "art" culture or whatever, what it's doing to artists (me included) is terrible and i appreciate Vaush taking the time to cover this, but I might add that AI procedural generation Can be a tool, but it is not designed with that in mind! I've seen a few artist using it in a very selective or conceptualist manner that is way more involved and deliberate, but holy shit is it not the main demographic for this "tool"
Forget media literacy, AI bros are showing us that there is a portion of humanity that cant even grasp the concept of intention and its appalling.
AI "art" is strictly a "I actively choose to disrespect and devalue artists" problem
Its a jealousy and spite problem, these people actively dislike and just want to lessen the value of art and artists, they want to prevent them from having livable careers and from being valued in society
maybe theyre jealous because theyre not creative themselves, or maybe theyve been personally wounded by an artist, dunno
but ultimately their core philosophy and motivation is "I want to harm artists"
100000% this. It's pure envy. They're incapable of producing art, because they're tech bros. Incurious, unimaginative pieces of shit. They can't bear to think that some people are capable of making meaningful things, and so they saw in AI the way they could bring artists down with them.
Fairly unhelpful generalization there, but I know better than to try voicing dissent in this particular comment section.
@@kohai-kun9261 Im not trying to be helpful
Im expressing contempt
@@CaptainPrincess I appreciate your honesty
@@CaptainPrincess based
AI art commissions are such a huge scam, and lowkey, anyone who knowingly gets them kinda deserves their money stolen. Like when you commission an actual artist, you might have access to the exact programs or even irl tools they have (know plenty of people and i am an artist who use free programs), but you're paying them because you dont have the skills needed to draw like they do. With AI art, theres no skill difference between you and the person using the AI program except maybe they know how to word the prompt better, but thats not really a high bar. You could even skip that by asking a chatbot how to word stuff for a AI prompter. Commissioning an AI artists to do your AI art for you is like, next level lazy.
It's like if you paid someone to cook for you, and you watch as they just go to mcdonalds and you still accept that as their own cooking.
I kinda figured the whole A.I. thing to be more of a toy than a tool, myself. Played around with it once. Went to a random A.I. art work generator and typed in something like "spaceman with ray-gun fights giant ant". Spaceman had way too many arms. I think that just about satisfied my curiosity.
I will always support the artist, to heck with robots and those who consort with the robot race.
holy shit his question at the end about whats worse death of people or art, thats legit befuddling. like death sucks but human progress, art, US as a species gone like that. ugh
The most I can hope to come out of all this is that traditional and clearly human created artwork gets a boost in popularity. Maybe hand painted portraits become a thing again among the rich. That’d be cool
the rich can diaf
Hearing him rant about AI Art makes me happy. (Cause I am a real artist and I love my craft)
I use Adobe's AI tools primarily for cleanup. Fill in hair that is thin, remove objects, background fleshout, etc. if you try to get it do anything specific, it usually falls flat.
I've dabbled. I've been very disappointed with the results. AI art has a huge problem with composition. Form and space has to be created, not emulated.
I can see AI art being useful for iterating or mocking-up ideas (e.g., memes), but it'll always struggle to create anything valuable.
Most useful thing I’ve ever used it for is as a party game with my super weird family, and this was absolutely a riot.
Same. It took me hours to generate something I could have just knocked out on pencil and paper in a couple minutes.
The only appeal of AI art is the output. Therefore, it's clear the intentions of the people who defend AI either want pictures instantly or think all art is just the end product. It's selfish in a way, they think the only value in art is them looking at it.
Real art takes many things but I think the most important is enjoyment. Artists create because they love creating. AI people type things in a search bar because they only like consuming.
Most people have a superficial relationship to art, they like how it looks and that's usually as deep as it gets but its human. Artists see it differently because they are the ones making the art, obviously.
Well that is most peoples relationship with art whether you like it or not. Someone looking for some images for their latest pen and paper campaign rarely care about the process. Neither do most authors who want some illustrations and book covers. I am not sure what you think is selfish about that.
@@XMysticHerox I agree with you and want to add the same is true for music and performances in general. No one cares about the hours of practice or the countless rehearsals you sat through. People only care about the final performance, the big show. That's what they paid to see, so that's all they really care about. And that's fine. Most people, myself included most of the time, only care about the final result. This isn't a radical idea and I believe it's the most common position on the topic.
At this point Vaush just sounds like Pulaski from TNG, incessantly screeching that Data isn't 'real'.
These are always welcome and needed as they keep trying to replace us and normies contribute. All they are gonna get is normie mediocre bad art. I stopped posting online but not stopped making art because human artist thieves were enough to beal with but normies using ai is just far worse imo
If you don't know yet, Glaze is a thing (it's a program that screws up the AI parsing of your art with something near-indetectable to the human eye but that makes it look like, say, the Mona Lisa or a Rembrandt to the AI and helps fuck up their dataset).
In case you ever consider posting online again or have friends who still post their art online and you want to throw a few rocks into the AI's food to break its robot teeth with.
Is Glaze a new thing? I've heard these claims before, it's always broken within a week.
Thank you for sticking up for creatives.
Unpopular opinion here. If an artist has a big enough portfolio, he can literally train his own AI model off his own art that he created through out the year, so the AI would produce pieces only in his own style. And the said artist can continue to refine and evolve his AI model to further build on to his own style. This was not a hypothetical by the way, I personally do know artists who are doing this exact thing. I think artistic creativity still very well exist in this particular usage.
AI art is hilarious. You can just hear the cogs turning as its trying to piece together what art actually is and the existential crisis it's having trying to understand it.
The part about humans preferring hand crafted goods reminded me of another video (I think by Unlearning Economics?) about planned obsolescence. One of the points hit on was about how we grow attached to objects we use for a long time due to the history they develop, and how the ability to repair them (personally or with assistance) enhances that sentimentality/meaning.
I love not artists trying to tell artists what art is as if art is made FOR the not artists. I think a lot of people don't get that artists don't give a fuck about you enjoying the art as much as THEM enjoying the art. You enjoying it is nice, it pays bills. But it's not why artists do what we do lol. We do it FOR the process of creating the art. AI completely circumvents the entire process of MAKING the art and in that case no artist is going to look at that and say "that's the same as what I do" lol. A software engineer isn't an artist because they create operating systems. lol.
You dont even have to be a good artist to realize this stuff.
I'm a mediocre artist at best, but if youve at all dabbled in any kind of art form, this should be immediately obvious.
What makes something art isnt the end product, its the process in which it was made and the intentional decisions that went into it.
I do want to slightly disagree though in that I do think there can be art in software programming, but the art then would be the program itself and the way it operates, not the plagiarism blobs it shits out.
You can still make art. No one is taking that away from you.
Also why isn’t software art? You either have a very narrow sense of what art can be or just want to gatekeep the word “art” for some reason..?
@@atmike this isn’t even worth responding to. You’re not engaging with the criticisms at all lol.
I came across a discussion about ai art popping up in search results earlier, and the most interesting thing of that discussion was searching for hand references will give you some amount of distorted ai hands as a "reference".
I remember you people having the same complaint when synths were invented. "it's not real music". Artbros are those same people.
"it's not real art" people have never been correct in history.
People make music using synths. Image generators are black boxes that generate images without much input from the user.
@@shrub8644 This notion of “black-box” is incorrect. It isn’t magic. Thousands of scientist understand exactly how the fundamental principles work. The only thing “black-box” is the emergent behavior exposed when scaling systems.
And further, people would still say the same things about synths. A “black-box” with little user-input, no reference for ombre, inflection, idiosyncrasies, etc.. Moreover, who cares? Since when was user-input the metric? If that’s the case we should all go back to the stone-age where everything required “maximal user-input.”
At every step, between portrait to photo, traditional to digital art, human-centered to ai-assisted, there have always been people so insistent to stay stuck in the past.
@@shrub8644 just because artbros don't understand it, doesn't mean no one does
Literally doesn't matter to my point whatsoever. What I mean is that the person who types a few words to the generator doesn't know exactly what comes out and it requires very little decision-making and communication of emotion from them, unlike playing a synth for example. Being better at typing a few words insn't very impressive or a skill that takes much effort.@@casualuser5527
I think photography is the best example. People said the exact same thing. There is no intent behind pressing a button etc.
There is intent. A human writes a prompt and selects and image. I would agree there is far more intent in a painting that had every brushstroke deliberately made sure.
I want to see how corporations function if AI generated art is not afforded any copywright protection if they insist on using them. Immortal legal entiries can lock up coprwrights forever.