AI Art is the Symptom NOT the Problem
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 лют 2023
- SPACESHIPS: shop.mrjakeparker.com/collect...
Master your craft and make more art with SVSlearn.com: bit.ly/3w2BZ1E
Want an inspirational thought for artists in you inbox on Friday? Sign up for my Friday NEWSLETTER here: www.mrjakeparker.com/newsletter
Support the channel by getting something from the shop: shop.mrjakeparker.com/
JOIN MY PATREON! Patrons get early access to videos, process posts, and a bunch of other stuff:
/ jakeparker
I do a podcast! 3 Point Perspective Podcast: www.svslearn.com/3pointperspe...
My list of art tools and materials that I use: mrjakeparker.com/tools
My art books!
shop.mrjakeparker.com/collect...
Website: mrjakeparker.com
Twitter: / mrjakeparker
Instagram: / jakeparker
Music and Sound Effects from Epidemic Sound
Here's some relevant links:
Art Station Protest: www.artstation.com/search?sort_by=date&query=NO%20to%20AI%20Art
That Article on the the AI Lawsuit: www.theverge.com/2023/1/16/23557098/generative-ai-art-copyright-legal-lawsuit-stable-diffusion-midjourney-deviantart
Pinterest's Earnings Report: investor.pinterestinc.com/press-releases/press-releases-details/2023/Pinterest-Announces-Fourth-Quarter-and-Full-Year-2022-Results/default.aspx#:~:text=SAN%20FRANCISCO%2D%2D(BUSINESS%20WIRE,over%20year%20to%20%242%2C803%20million.
Seth Godin's Podcast: play.acast.com/s/akimbo/industries
And buy my book! shop.mrjakeparker.com/
I still have a bit of a hard time wrapping my head around the notion of it being “stolen art”. Primarily because if you or I wanted to train on these images, we could. We can learn to draw from these images and paint something derivative or transformative, but it’s the end result that gets scrutinized, not the method. Suddenly we build a machine that does the same thing we are allowed to do, albeit in a slightly different but more efficient way, and suddenly it’s theft? I dunno, I feel like this correlates more to a photographer who takes photos in a city. He doesn’t get permission from the many architects, those images are in a public space and the subjects are used in a transformative work. Likewise, I think the AI itself would be considered “Transformative”.
That’s not to say I don’t think there should be efforts made to prevent full on industrialization, but I think people are blowing things out of proportion, just as they did with most other disruptive technologies. The art of woodworking didn’t die with the factory chair or table, it became a little more niche, sure, but people still appreciate work done by human hands. The same held true for the photograph. People said the exact same things we say now about AI. “Who is going to want a portrait or a landscape painting if a photograph can capture the same image better in an instant?” Turned out, people still appreciated something made by human hands. Skeptics claimed photographs were real art. Of course, that is no longer the case today. Sure you COULD just snap a button over and over and hope for the best, but you get the best and most meaningful results when you put the work in. Same holds true for AI art. It’s not just prompts, although prompts are a big part of it. You can arrange a composition just as you like it with a series of prompts with the right words, the refine it by changing some dials. I see it as just one more extension of the artist. As long as the image is close to what’s in the artist’s head, I think they get idea idea across (seldom does even a true artist ever match what was initially in their head completely).
Boo hoo hoo
@@k.t.5405you vote for children being shot in schools, shut up
Something like 80% of the art on social media has the same "kinda disney" "kinda anime" "precious moments" "glamour portrait" look to it, and AI art does that look almost perfectly, especially in portrait form.
@@moonchild2190 my opinion (I guess) is that we are not talking about young or neophyte art, the generic style requires a lot of skill. But perhaps so many artists should not have been striving for that same homogenized look that AI does so well.
@@empyreanvole The reason ai does it well is because its the most common type of art fed into it. Ai simply does the most Least common denominator art. Its causality. There was no way to predict it.
@@hepzibah4573 Fair enough.. I DO hope that this acts as a call for people to start moving away from trying to look the same though. If you have a unique look, if you lean into your own style.. the AI can't follow you.
@@empyreanvole People literally make models of specific styles in a matter of an hour or less. It replicates all the details. This is only the beginning, sadly, and it already can take whatever style thrown at it.
@@okeeguguru one thing it really can’t do is an intangible quality called storytelling. I’m acknowledging the styles it can replicate are impressive, but I still see this as a call to make art less generic.
Thank you for talking about this. The problem is how hyper commercialized & how the industry standards have actually ruined art & process of making art. The technology is good because we always need to advance our methods & learn, but I always feel the need to have art done within the day even at my own expense. It's frustrating that big industry wants me to be a machine when I'm just a person. And I'm happy to create 💖
What are you talking about '' learning '' tho?
The entire point of ai art is to replace humans altogether.
That's why it's marketed as '' look at these finished UNEDITED illustrations ''...
It's not and was never meant as a tool for artists to help artists, it was meant as a replacement.
So what exactly does it have to do with learning?
It's just meant to replace the process entirely and replace artists.
@@jag764 Don’t let it replace you. If you’re an artist, and love to create art, no computer or machine can ever replace that.
Making
art
for
Agreed. I am an artist as well. I did study for a Bsc Computer Science an built websites right out of college and when SquareSpace came about it was the best thing. Because I didn’t have to do simple websites anymore or customise them fast for high margins.
But the real kicker is that the amount of people interested in customized sites with fancy stuff increase - because they wanted something different - which costs way more because of time to develop.
When I see these AI works, I see the same thing happening, a rise in demand of people wanting illustrations, paintings on canvas and sculptures and such because they want something diff, which ultimately drives up prices too
Yup! I use tons of AI art in conceprual projects n when i get the funds i hire actual artists.
@@jamesesparza6893 What ai programs do you use? I'm curious
@@jiminici3351 for ease of use theres midjourney, its great for newcomers to AI if thats what youre looking for but theres always something new every other week so who knows what might be the most approachable AI a month from now.
Right, the irony here is that AI art has, in many ways, resuscitated analog art.
Artists are very open-minded people. AI art could've been welcomed with open arms if the people pushing AI tech had any respect for artists at all. They wanted to fight us, they hate us. It's a shame, it didn't have to be like this. Oh well.
Not all of us, but there are many who do feel that way, unfortunately. Some of us only use public domain artists and are fighting for better regulation. Sadly, when we post about it we either get ignored or we get hate from both sides 😢 social media only seems to boost trolls.
@@sodakhanart Thank you for fighting for better regulation. Since the start, that's all artists have asked for
@@kupotenshi omg that’s the first time an artist responded nicely to me saying this ❤️ thanks so much i really appreciate it and hope we can find a middle ground 🙃
Maybe artists being the fragile insecure snowflakes they art perceived whatever the AI tech people did as hostile.
@@lorenzomizushal3980 🥱
I can only repeat myself over and over:
Kater to the people that value your work and the effort you put into it.
Not the ones that would replace you with a cheaper version any time
You've got to know that finding that audience is much easier said than done, right?
Most people making a living from art aren't running super successful Patreons that allow them to make the work they really want to. They're doing commissions and freelance illustration. The exact thing that AI is going to completely erase.
This is just an argument for the elite of the elite to remain artists, while everyone else just has to accept that AI has essentially made them surplus to requirements.
So you are saying nowadays it’s either becoming social media famous or a big UA-camr, which in any time only a very small amount of artists with enough luck will succeed. There used to be so many more options before ai.
@@CampingAFK Correct!!!!
@@CampingAFK Eh, I doubt that, even in the age of AI. There really are people who value your work, and even if AI art can make good looking art, it's not going to create art that actually made sense. People would find you either to make actual art for them or to guide the AI art generator for a specific output and then refine it to actually be good looking and with some coherent form and sense.
In regards to our options, you can still find communities that can actually appreciate and pay for your art, AI generated or not. It's all in the matter of your skills as an artist.
@@Cernunnnos Honestly, the opposite would probably happen. The lawsuit could go terribly to the point that only corpos have access to any and all AI, as well as a monopoly on copyright such that style is now copyright enforceable and any fanart or any art made in a specific style, AI or not, would them be open for lawsuits.
Thus putting a lot of artists out of work and making sure that only corporations and artists with a lot of power have full control over all art manufactured, with or without AI. And there would be no art outside of it without their explicit permission and fee.
Yep. _All_ of this. I've had debates with artists who don't truly understand the threat of industrialized art, which actually predates the Internet (I'm old). We need to fight back. The points you outlined are very good, but the masses won't be able effect change with this without a collective driver. To that end, my company is developing a creator-driven OS/platform to combat this problem. We're scheduled for release ~Q3 of this year. Because you have a great handle on this issue and the remedies which fall directly in line with our goals, I'll contact you privately with details when our platform is complete, just to get your feedback. Talk to you then 👍
do u have any social media
i wanna see what will u do
what exactly is your platform offering to combat AI?
@@Joyboy9776 Please see my reply to Moon Child above. Also, I dig your name (fellow One Piece fan).
@@hepzibah4573 What do all of the companies producing A.I. have in common? They're all essentially removing people from the equation, to varying degrees. And as the A.I. titans (e.g. Microsoft, Google, Apple, Meta, etc.) battle it out, they trample on us creators/developers while using us to drive up their revenue. It’s perverse.
Our platform/creator-OS will do the exact opposite: *put creators front and center, empowering them to band together in building the very tools that can supplant those of the giants.* And that also means that they’ll be able to better drive and benefit from A.I. instead of being victimized through it.
Sorry that all sounds like a freakin’ ad. 😑However, what drove my 20 years of R&D on this project is just that: my focus on creators, having started out, myself, as a developer for FX studios and as an artist and having worked professionally as a "design specialist" for over a decade prior. BTW, "design specialist" was the title that tech corp chose to elevate artists to the level of scientists and engineers 🤷♂
Anyway, in a nutshell, this platform is designed to allow creators to band together, which is diametrically opposed to what’s driving A.I. today. I can’t post much more than that until our official announcement, but you can sub to me. I hadn’t posted any videos, but I will post the video announcement when it’s approved. Thanx for asking 👍
@@yapdog If you replied to Moon Child.. then your reply got eaten by UA-cam. :(
What I get from the video is embrace the change without giving up art and "your art", I agree with.
Art has changed a lot during the years, think watch a Tom and Jerry cartoon, there's many artists involved, the musing was made by classic music bands, the cartoons were drawn and the backgrounds where like paintings, the character animations were very smart and powerful, filled with emotion. Now you see any modern cartoon and it is made with a digital software by making some frames and let software do the in-betweens, music? if there's any at all is pure simple, software generated crap, everything looks the same. Why? Because nowadays industry demands quick batches of comics to be released together quickly and that is what is consumed, so this kind of change already happened, just not as huge as with AI.
As you say, I think the best people can do is to educate, know how the technology works, there are many artist that think their images are downloaded and stored in some hard drive and used in a kind of composition or mash-up and that is not the way it works.
The technology is accessible kind of easily to anyone, and hence anyone can grab any images from the internet and process them to produce similar images using AI. So the problem is not the technology, but the people who use the technology incorrectly. Banning AI doesn´t solve anything, anyone can still study an artist and learn to produce something similar, it has being done for years but requires more art knowledge, AI does it faster and without requiring the art knowledge and that is the biggest change.
Artists still can produce something new, new styles, new concepts, AI cannot do that, AI's only produce on what they were trained on and the input from whoever wants to use it.
One thing I agree should be done sooner than better is a way to specify which images can be used by AI training or not besides the current intellectual property laws.
This is the best “take” on AI art I’ve yet heard, but of course that’s because I completely agree. 😎 That excellent Godin quote makes me think of the great french sociologist Jaques Ellul, who called industrialization’s pursuit of efficiency above all else “technique” and “the technical society.”
“It is easy to boast of victory over ancient oppression, but what if victory has been gained at the price of an even greater subjection to the forces of the artificial necessity of the technical society which has come to dominate our lives?”
― Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society
I think humanity is in more desperate need of hospitality and human connection than ever before, due to the effects “technique” has had on our lives. This is an opportunity for artists and other creatives to imagine environments to facilitate such! 😊
Honestly I blame social media for this kind of problem. We would benefit far more if the internet was split up into micro communities where people in said communities socialized better, rather than having massive conglomerates of people being able to exploit each other with complete anonymity.
Jacques Ellul is genius. I'm rereading Propaganda this week.
Yeah repeat that when you stop selling your "art".
Instant gratification is what AI art is feeding. Everyone can draw but some draw better than others. AI allows those with lofty aspirations to get the results they want with minimal effort.
What you call "instant gratification", I call "rapid development".
When I bought my first ebike I thought it was to make bicycling easier. Instead I learned I just go faster, and get more done in the same amount of time.
@@jtjames79 nah, ai isn't ebike, its a motorcycle
@@jefinathariwirza6578 it's not even a motorcycle, it's closer to a fkcn teleport.
Not the "results they want" but the "results they *think* they want", because otherwise and deep down, they don't really care about understanding art or its logic, they are just getting hooked into the dopamine of genius that the sudden empowerment via AI is bringing to many.
@Indigo Rodent There's always the image-prompt for AI, which gives a lot more control than text-prompt.
I had this exact thought that completely changed my view on ai art and mad me less apprehensive. When you think of who is benefits and who will be replaced, everything becomes clearer
When art become a content no wonder it gets industrialized and automated for mass production
I've been so annoyed by the discourse around AI art, it's been so reductive. I'm glad we finally got a nuanced take from someone with influence in this space
I learn the AI bot have been using photo on medical records and mugshots. I admit I don't like the AI bot, but people want to put rules and restrictions on it. I think there should be a watermark of the name of the program when it a generates artwork and list of reference on the work/photo in the description. I also think artist should get paid per work if they uploaded their artwork to the AI bot, so it would level out the fairness. As a mix media artist, I will keep making art and not give up! 🖒
@King of Assholes That's a tricky one.
@@kingofassholes4348 There is an active and ongoing argument over exactly that point. There are good fair use arguments in favor of fan art, and good copyright arguments against fan art. The matter is mostly decided on a case-by-case basis, as indeed most copyright issues are. Some artists will tolerate or even encourage fan art as long as it is strictly for personal use and no money is ever involved. Some artists believe they made their money off the original work and don't worry about fan art even when it is monetized. Some have a spectrum of what they'll tolerate before they either take down fan art or demand a royalty on it. Others tolerate no derivative works based on their art at all. All of those positions are legally legitimate. Ultimately, it's up to the copyright holder to decide how they want to enforce their rights.
But make no mistake - fan artists get away with a lot, and it is all at the grace and tolerance of the artists who may change their minds at any time.
The big difference between fan art and AI scraping, however, is that the fans credit the original creators. Being fans, they let everyone know who they are copying or spinning off from. The AI generators just take everything at random and never inform the owners of the images they use. Artists can find agreement with their fan artists. We can't do that with the automated theft of AI.
@@jenfries6417 Thank you! 👍
@King of Assholes not only that. If they used their knowledge to describe their art, they should compensate to their school teacher who taught them how to describe things.
@@jenfries6417 "But make no mistake - fan artists get away with a lot, and it is all at the grace and tolerance of the artists who may change their minds at any time."
This is the exact reason why AI is popular and why AI will win.
No one will support creators which are now in charge and changig the rules any time for their own benefits.
If fan arts are giving them glory and money they "tolerate" it, if they took the glory away, they will try to destroy it.
No one wants to be hostage of the mood of this so called "creator".
Just ordered your spaceship book. Really looking forward to cracking it open.
I really like the timing of the music and the "flips" used to tell the video essay! That is really great and makes the video a lot more fun to look at.
Your video reminded me of a phrase from the movie world: First learn to make $1 cakes, make hundreds of them and sell them. When you master the technique, then make a fancy $50 cake, which will go to a more specialized market. The problem is, when we start doing art, we want to make the $50 cake, instead of starting simple and making money from there.
In the past, paper was the tool of the poor. Rich artists used digital tools. Today paper is a certificate of authenticity before AI..
The problem is.. there is a lot of 1$ cakes and no one buys them
Great video! The food industry analogy at the end is impactful. I question the "adapt or die" scenario. I believe in "negative inspiration" - "if thou, knowing good, behold evil, how great is that evil" and the like. Accordingly I avoid gore, traumatizing , grotesque, and imagery that makes a mockery of life. The use of image generators requires the suffering through of so many BAD outputs - I think it's okay to take the Miyazaki and Del Toro road and avoid it altogether.
as a small time animator myself i have problem with flash/puppet animation. i usually draw my animation by hand using a cheap viekk tablet. but a lot of people now using puppet animation where they draw the characters once. and then to animate they just have to drag the body, head, arms etc using the mouse. while i draw everything from body to feet each frame and color it again each frame which is time consuming. :( but i now have an idea how to compete with the puppet animator. it was experimental but still.
I also make short animations. It's something youtube algorithm doesn't treat very well, since youtube cares mainly about how long video is, not about how much effort went into each second of it - simply put, it treats art as content.
Frame by frame animation is more expressive and usually stuns people with how amazing every detail is. There are things you can't achieve without frame-by-frame animation, or at least without implementing it into the final animation (nowadays used in combination with 3D; if you have parts that can be tweened without loosing the quality, do so, it's a time saver, tweening can also be quite nervewracking but it's still faster then drawing everything by hand). How people value this can be seen in how people reacted to the new Lion king movie. The old version is cartoonish but colorful and expressive, it has personality, something the hyperrealistic film lacks.
@@raineterni2219 ikr. i wish there were a platform like this but focuses on animation instead for flexing vloggers and stuff. newground is good but i think we cant make profit out of it.
@gajieruproduction8653 Hmmmm you give me 💡
Yep, it's not the tech but the people behind it and the fact that the whole point that many use the tool is for quick cheap art with put care to the artist nor the fact that it will continue to scan our art (even with education, just look at fashion) and flood our feeds which defeats the purpose of posting for exposure
It's quite a complex subject that I can see from both that of a company and also an artist myself.
If course, as a company, you want to pay out as little as you possibly can but also by getting the best work possible.
If you don't produce good results then people won't use your company and often good results cost, unless you allow such companies to take advantage if you.
One reason why you need to know both your good points and bad so that you can improve.
That only comes with being honest with yourself.
Companies will however still need people to use these tools and those who can get the best out of them, although they will require fewer people to do so.
If you watch the making of Jurassic Park, you see that Phil Tippett, who was more of a stop motion animator, was afraid in some ways of what computers were able to do, fearing it would put him out of a job.
However, he learned that both could be combined because he could pose the model in different positions and tge computer could interpolate between each one, even adding motion blur if needed.
Not to mention of course adding the CG skin etc.
A movie director, the owners of a magazine or book are each going to imagine in their minds what they want to see in their product and a computer isn't going to produce the right one right away, just as we artists often don't.
Yes, there are already A.I tools that can change specific things that you point out to it but it still needs a human to tell it what it needs to do or create, the prompt.
As an artist, you can use it to spark an idea, to take whatever it gives and add to it, change things.
It might create a beautiful scene but not look as you wish it to in your mind.
That's what makes you different and special.
You have a unique ability, you have your own style and if you look at A.I, even though they can in a sense, mimic many styles, they still tend to have their own.
Just look at A.I images and you will see that if you really look, they still have a style to them, no matter tge subject or styles they incorporate.
A difference between you and them is and always will be only ever one of you.
Your unique style and personality is something they don't have.
I like this thing you said: "It might create a beautiful scene but not look as you wish it to in your mind. That's what makes you different and special."
@strangelaw6384 Thank you and I believe that to be true.
An artist will have their own uniqueness that they give to an image because they each have unique life experiences.
Those experiences, whether we see it or not, play a big part in the art and style we create.
I fir example love drawing people, especially females.
Not because of the reasons many would think, although I am of course still human, but because of the beauty of a form.
In fact, even ugliness can have a strange beauty quality to it but that depends on how you choose to show it.
An artist can take an idea, play around with it until they discover something they like and have a feel for, something that sits right with them but A.I doesn't do this.
It can create some wonderful amazing images but the idea starts from the mind of the human who prompts it, it can't come up with its own ideas unless some randomness is used as to the things it might select as a subject.
Even then, the image would look rather random and make no sense.
@@08wolfeyes I agree with everything you said. Though, I do have a toe on the "AI artist's" side: the increase of popularity and "promises" of ai art generators brought in a lot of non-artists who have no training nor experience in the creative process. They click a button, say "these looks cool", and dump them all onto an instagram account. The idea that they can inject their own experiences into (even just) the process of selecting what to post, let alone "taking an idea, play around with it until they discover something they like and have a feel for", doesn't even occur to them as necessary. They are like children playing with sand.
To seasoned artists, the need for this refinement process and constant search for uniqueness and identity is instinctive. It's what kept us on our path. These "AI artists", on the other hand, seems to me like novices rather than malicious greedy force. They've only just started playing with this new toy. They haven't been exposed to enough art to know when is composition and color good or bad.
Regulations are necessary. That's for sure. Companies need to be instilled of the idea that taking the cheap industrial route entails social punishment. That's for sure. But I also think that artists need to raise the bar on the level of creativity to teach these "AI artists" a lesson.
@@08wolfeyes Also, here are some weaknesses of AI art generator, for anyone who's interested:
1) Dynamic poses with exaggerated perspectives. The only way to maybe do this with SD is Controlnet, which is not available in Midjourney.
2) Original characters. SD is super bad at consistency. Especially where outrageous costume designs and original architectures are involved.
3) Warped camera effects like fisheye.
4) Semantically foreign subjects. If you can't describe it with words, you can't put it in a prompt.
5) Story-telling. Not that SD can't do it, but a piece of art can only tell a story if the artist wills it so. And from what I've seen, most "AI artists" aren't experienced enough with the creative process to be able to do that yet.
@strangelaw6384 I agree on most of those points although I believe that consistency is something now solved, at least from what I understand having seen some videos.
Maybe some of those things will be solved in time.
I feel that experience knowledge and understanding, not to mention the many years that an artist spends learning is very important to the creative process.
It seems to me that although A.I art can be beautiful, it is some ways like creating a collage, bits and pieces of different things and sticking them in an image.
The only way it seems to come up with something coherent is because the person using it prompts the idea.
I feel before A.I can reach greater heights, we need to understand more about ourselves and where ideas come from, what inspires us to create the images we wish to see and that maybe others may also enjoy.
While we have a great understanding of ourselves as it is and hoe the brain works, there is still so much to learn and A.I will never be as we are until we do understand the brain completely.
Lots of much-needed encouragement AND practical, actionable advice to be found here. Great video Jake!
The coolest idea that I heard in relation to this is a law people in Europe have talked about. That is to make art made by the usage of AI uncopyrightable. So if for example a game company fires all their artists and replaces them with AI it's ok but all the assets that AI creates will be free to be used by anyone for any reason.
I think this is the direction people should take this issue. Make AI something that you can't make money from.
To that goal I think people should support FLOSS AI tools and discourage corporate ones. Make it so the tech is available to all people so that no one can charge for access to it.
This way the tech will at least be used for the benefit of people rather than for profit.
It gets complicated when there are artists that make hybrid works. It's not just "I generate or I paint it myself." If I use AI but my art has sufficient human input as well, I would like it to be copyrighted.
I think it's wrong to instantly associate AI art as a simple generation. The tech is growing and offering many tools that can be used to improve results. People not following it because they don't want anything to do with it are falling behind with an obsolete perspective of what an artist can achieve with this tool. I've already seen companies hiring AI artists/prompt engineers, because executives are realizing it's not something they can do from one day to another.
The mass hysteria/hate around generative AI is kinda making people fall into misconceptions of the tech which end up being the basis of their claims, pretty much what happens with every controversial topic, like the Covid vaccines.
@@PirateWolf09 You shouldn't even think of copyright as something a individual can effectively do. With that in mind I would err on the side of strictness. To avoid loopholes. But in any case it's for smarter people to figure out.
Now I do think there is a lot of potential things this tech could to in relation to being a tool that helps artists make art. But from what I've seen currently we are over focused on whole image generation. I personally would really appreciate if it could suggest background colors or give compositional advice in real time. Or give critiques of finished works.
@@DisplayLine6.13.9 at least the Stable Diffusion UI from Automatic1111 has several extensions with different functions, some of which are aesthetic scorers that rates your images. All work by the community.
My point is, I think it's unfair thinking on making AI art uncopyrighteable (as it is right now), because there are many ways to use it. For example, generate the base and paint over it adding your personal touch. Or making the sketch and composition yourself and letting the AI paint it. Both of which can already be done. Actually most of AI art requires post processing in image editors by the user's hand, because it rarely gets things 100% as you want. I don't agree at all work made with GenAI doesn't have human input, people pretend like it knows what you wanna make from it and magically do it on it's own when you push the generate button. Firing artists and replace them with AI is not even viable. Unless it's a small project that doesn't focus much in quality.
@@PirateWolf09 Well that's nice, I might check it out.
Like if you want to be philosophical about it. If you make a line work and you use tech that basically takes the efforts of the art community, the works it has in it's data set.
To colorize your line work. Does the art community not share ownership over it the same way as if you gave it to a different artist to colorize?
And if brushing away some fragments is enough to claim a work as your own. Can I take a AI image posted by someone else who didn't bother to do that post processing. Brush away some disconnected hair and repost the image as my own?
@@DisplayLine6.13.9 depends on how transformative it is. Taking something already generated/painted by someone else and let's say, putting a mustache on it, shouldn't be enough to claim it as yours since the concept is essentially the same. Thing is, what you generate with an AI is original, even though it's trained with existing artwork, generations are made from random noise and from there AI applies learned patterns. Calling it copying or stealing in my opinion is a stretch, if I took your artwork and liquify it to the point it's unrecognizable to make something new, I think calling it theft would be a bit ridiculous. You can make something really creative and make a reverse search of that image, you'll find no image that is substancially similar to that one you generated, unless you deliberately generate something similar to an existing artwork. But you can also grab Photoshop and apply a filter on an existing artwork. You can practically use anything to copy artwork, shouldn't mean we should penalize everything done with that tool.
This was so clearly explained. Thank you so much for putting this one together. This really helps me understand the whole machine.
Jake, this was fantastic. The thoughts expressed, the cut of the scenes, and the comics/illustrations. Such a great video!
I like to put my two cent on every video I watch. So Hope this help you on the alg.
Industrialized comes in diferent form. When they come for clothes, they where shops about doing suit that fit you perfectly. Then Industrial comes an offer a cheaper experiences for a not so fit suit. On comic art, there is this "manga" where they industrialized how the character develop goes (a group of people with a distintive tic lets say). Reason why many mangas do not get an anime version of them (goes from paper to tv).
This is one of the few truly insightful videos I've seen on this hot topic. A couple things: 1) I'm really hoping the AI art boom revitalizes interest and value in actual physical art...paintings, photographic prints, etc. Happily, those things haven't ever really disappeared, but I've watched over the past few decades, a subtle shift in perception as things have moved onto screens, where we naturally talk about "images" rather than paintings, prints, etc....i.e., the image contained in and embodied by the physical artwork (if that even exists) gets the most attention (and consequent value)...not the art object itself, which a lot of times is kinda thought of as secondary, or even to some degree, as a leftover byproduct of its mass-distributed "real life". Seeing this flip even just a little bit would really make my world. The real value of a painting is only partly the "image" it depicts...it's also because there's only and will ever only be ONE. 2) Seth Godin consistently rocks HARD...highly recommended for all creatives.
Look at the recent resurgence of retro shopping and retro video essays, on retro games, retro music, people now willing to pay for tape cassettes and records old and new, lofi hip-hop and lofi house music made deliberately in an analogue mode, photography with celluloid over a digital screen. There will definitely be a resurgence in pure physical art, just a matter of when, but as real artists with real skills becomes a rarity, i would presume that's when they'll become a scarcity thus can charge a higher price.
Great takes, and I also see how industrialization has created this insane hype over AI that it can’t deliver on. Let’s not forget why and for whom we make art 👍
Great message Jake! I love the idea that culture may eventually be able to use automation to free up enough time to start refocusing on mastery. There will be a lot of growing pains along the way. Keep making great content and great art!
Thank you for having an actual discussion about this. Sadly some industry professionals have been brushing it off as “it’s just a toy, don’t worry about it”.
It is just a tool at the end of the day, a tool that will need regulation and guidelines for people to not exploit.
@@jackhawk8997 The economic system underlying the entire issue is also just a tool at the end of the day. We could just change it to one that doesn't encourage & reward exploitation, rather than patting ourselves on the back for putting band aids on a cancer patient.
@@jackhawk8997 Exactly, it's for the best that we have limits to implement as soon as possible before any irreversible damages
@@NicaeAlgon Agreed
First a theater with a concert. Then an LP 33rpm player and a stereo, then a walkman, and finally an MP3 you can carry in a cell phone. We are in the theater era.
This is probably the most objective video I've ever seen on the subject. Thanks Jake! I share this opinion, because when an artist paints on, say, canvas, he just can't make production cheaper, because paints, his time, it all affects the cost, but in CG these boundaries are blurred. CG artists themselves have devalued their work over the last 20 years to the point of impossibility. I'm horrified when a client comes to me and asks me to do an illustration for $200, it's a whole illustration, I'll work on it for a week or maybe more, and for him it could be a few cab rides. That's why I left this field and am doing other things, I only draw with natural materials now because it's not depreciated as much as I think it is. When you paint with your hands and paints - people understand what they're paying for, they understand that they're the only ones who have this work. But the stock industry devalued it all a long time ago and I honestly don't understand why people get so upset about AI, but have completely ignored the unhealthy competition between similar artists all along.
This gave me some much needed hope as a struggling artist. Thank you.
Thank you for doing this, I think it's a realistic BUT optimistic take on the whole situation.
This is a great video, Jake. Well thought out, well executed, and I like the music you've started adding to videos. In the last 3PP episode you mentioned not being great at video (in reference to kickstarter), but I think you're actually quite good and getting better. Thanks for addressing this issue, I think it's really important for folks to be educated on this because like you said, it isn't going away.
Your section showcasing the pros and cons are pretty much what resonates with the viewpoints from many viewpoints of artists who have been vocal and my views too. On a theoretical level, we can see its benefits, but we know that when it is applied to our current situation with the creatives industry, it falls flat because it isn't human driven anymore, it's machine driven and one that has zero safety net for many industries with extreme potential to collapse them.
Great video Jake! I really dig your take on this.
I do not admire traditional methods so much for the human signs of weakness, but rather because I can have the freedom to walk directly towards my destination, without the need to coax reluctant and limited machines to take me even to the right direction.
Perfection! You got to the real bottom line. Thank you so much!! This is so encouraging and educational.
The last line, Jake. Wow. You always hit the mark. Great work! This is one of the best take out there regarding this AI art issue.
I heard a lot of AI enthusiasts saying this is democratising art, but the reality is it is industrialising and automating it. And I agree with you that this is just the continuation of a process that`s been going on for decades. I tried it out myself now, in certain areas it will quickly replace artists. These lawsuits are pretty much hopeless, and if for some weird reason they get thru, think about the consequences. That would question the fair use system, and it could end up on the chopping block.
I do agree with all of this, though it is note worthy about a very specific point about "democratizing art", since it was based on the idea that Stable Diffusion was released under the open source license, meaning that literally anyone can use it and improve/modify on it without the permission of the one who created the tech, which is Stability AI.
The idea was simple: if it was released to the public for all to use, then the companies wouldn't even bother trying to monetize the actual tech itself since you can literally get it for free instead of paying a fee upfront to use this kind of a disruptive tech or having to suffer some micro-transaction hell to actually use it. Meaning that anyone can improve on the code and create better art on their own terms without any company or industry controlling them and their usage.
Now of course this opens a can of worms when everyone can actually use it, and there are people who are in fact trying to set limits to this, including the license itself, but for the most part, the idea is that it equalizes the playing field to the point that anyone in the public can make art, not just those who have spent time and money to actually learn and produce pieces of art.
That doesn't mean that your efforts as an artist is useless, in fact it's going to be worth more since you are able to discern, guide, and use AI art in a manner that would produce better results than a regular person with no skills would, since you are able to spot the mistakes, fix some issues with regards to generation, or even just straight up create a better product with the AI generation as reference.
In regards to the lawsuit, I have a weird hunch about it all from the research I have done. I do support the lawsuit, and quite frankly those companies have to pay for the violations they have made like taking private data for training, using other pieces of art without permission, etc. But something tells me that the people who are pursuing said lawsuit are not as good mannered as they let out to be.
People that use ai art are not artists, though. How can it democratize a way of life and brain chemistry. Being an artist comes with a lot of other things besides just pooping out pictures like a.i. art does. Taking out the artistic process removes the artist. That's like saying premade frozen foods will democratize cooking. They take already created ingredients and recipes by chef artists, replaces them with the cheapest alternative version, most of the food prep is done in a factory, and packaged for shelf live and convince. The user sticks the food in the microwave and heats it up. Is he on par with the greatest chief? All you have done is removed the chief.
@@irenewyvern I'm talking about the tech itself, not art. Art itself is still up to us to create, and quite frankly, the definition of both art and artists is extremely subjective. That said, you are still in control of what you want to put in your art.
I can still perform my artistic process, use AI to help me, and still create works that are of my own. It is not a problem if you do not take the artist out of the equation, because if you do, well you are now going to have good looking crap. A really good looking crap that may or may not align with your vision and is all over the place with regards to colors, shading, anatomy, etc.
And I am speaking this as a digital and traditional artist since before AI art was a thing.
@@treesea6843 A lot of reasons honestly, but primarily in the case of art, because of elitism. The idea that you can create all those fantastical and colorful pieces of art through dedication, skill, and time, kinda rubbed some artists the wrong way when they think that they are above everyone else simply because they have this kind of a skillset. Add unto that the rich pay them lavishly for it mainly as a storage for their monetary value regardless of skill, and the sense of entitlement just got stuck with artists ever since.
Not all artist are like that, but those who are at the top of their game are more likely to have that trait.
I believe Art was already democratised. AI makes art Socialised IMO. Not sure if that’s a good or bad thing.
A brilliant take on this issue. More than ever I've been recalling Walter Benjamin's work, The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, the industrialization of the art process has been going on since the Industrial Revolution, AI, is one more symptom of this process that wants the process to be faster, cheaper and bigger. With AI in it's pure form, the artist is removed from the creation of the final product, deciding if it can be or not be considered art is up for debate. But does it matter for the industrial need of this products if the final object is art or not? It most definitely doesn't. But it will definitely matter to other public and institutions. In the end, AI is not just an attack on art creators, but to a lot of service provider jobs. The machines taking our jobs would be good news if we didn't live in a capitalist system, but that's not the case. In the end the only option is to adapt, and keep doing art, keep creating, because industrialization cannot substitute what only you can provide.
I agree with several things you said regarding AI, especially that now the technology is now here it isn't going away. I'm not a fan of text to image, but there are more options being added to the technology that I do think are useful, such as it coloring your line art, or further developing a rough sketch you've made. I use prefer using those features since it's building off something I've created and speeding up some part of the process for me, like exploring different color schemes/lighting.
Now imagine that burgerking also offered the most nutritional food, served beautifully, nourished your body and you ate in a beautiful setting, like a restaurant. The only 'humanity' missing is the server (which will likely be the promt-specialist in this scenario). I think we're a little fooked... 😓
Great video! Also tip for artists to keep going:
It is really important to remember that initial feeling or sentiment who inspired us to learn painting, music, writing etc.. That wonder of putting ideas to a creative use and experimentation. Something as that child-like curiosity that we remember but struggle to take back.
We started for pure will of creation and the pleasure of it, and it kinda kills the experience minding about a finished product as fast and easy as possible. Where's the pleasure in that?
It will prevent and limit the artist from having the cool triggering of ideas amidst process that can further inspire them to modify or create even more material in the future.
It will be tricky to make a living in a industrialised art world that outsources as much as it can, but i'm hopeful we'll figure out ways to do so.
Awesome video and thoughts as always, Jake! Thank you for posting this!
Good video. But here's the thing:
IP law is...a *very* poisoned well, in my opinion. Insulin copyright hoarding is the biggest example, but Disney continuing to extend the copyright on Mickey Mouse, the horrible IP-squatting widow who went after a car building channel for making an "Eleanor" build, the RIAA in all its vileness, etc.
Someone being able to make a "me too" derivative work might mean that the original has a little less value.
But an IP troll might mean that the very act of creating something might be worse than having done nothing at all.
IP law has vastly overstepped any well-intentioned original purposes, in my opinion, and is probably responsible for a tremendous deal of suffering at this point.
As for AI:
An AI model isn't trying to take someone's art to resell it without their consent. The AI doesn't care about Little Jimmy's picture of a stuffed pony. The AI simply wants to know what a pony is, and what a stuffed animal is. If Little Jimmy calls his drawing a picture of a stuffed pony, well, the AI will say "okay, I see your example of a stuffed pony. Thank you for better helping me understand what a stuffed pony is". And of course, the AI doesn't even see it as a picture--it sees it as RGB 0-255 layers, if I'm not mistaken.
So, I believe the Thanos meme applies:
"You took everything from me."
"I don't even know who you are..."
Even beyond that, it just means that image-generating firms need to take one more step to hire imitation artists if the original doesn't want his or her work vacuumed up by AI. Say someone like SamDoesArt would have a legal claim to remove all his images from every AI generator. Those companies might then hire Bob to draw images in the style of SamDoesArt, and then train their AI on Bob's images, maybe even associating the SamDoesArt tag to them as well. It'd just be a case of IP laundering more than anything else, since ultimately, what is it being copyrighted? Brush strokes? Pixels? A piece of music can have discrete sequences of notes copyrighted. A picture? Much more nebulous IMO.
Furthermore, regarding compensation:
Does Google compensate everyone on the web for having listed their websites? Of course not. Does UA-cam compensate every creator? Of course not. Etc. And I'm not even sure that an image-generating AI would even know which of its images get more use than another. That is, the mathematical expression that fits a straight line through some data has no knowledge of the data used to estimate its coefficients, once the coefficients are estimated. That is, say you regressed SAT math scores on age, parental income, student GPA, etc.--a prediction wouldn't say "well, these five points were closest" (though there *are* some non-parametric algorithms that might remember all of their data, such as K-nearest-neighbors). So while the idea of compensating individual artists might sound good at first, it just may not be logistically feasible.
I love whenever you post new videos about AI art. You seemed to be one of the first people to not only take this topic seriously, but actually give constructive guidance. I really appreciate it!! Thank you
Before AI ARt, my dream was to become a digital art tutor. However, it seems that AI ART will be commercialized before I work as a tutor. I don't know if this is something to be happy about. It becomes clear that things have become easier, and technological advances may deprive others of their right to pursue happiness. Developers need to know. Just like their intellectual curiosity, there are many people who started with motivation in other jobs. I hope that AI will replace developers in the distant future. Everyone will lose their jobs and eat government snacks. Or we could end up with a world where only a few rich people get married and only a few survive. Some people shed tears and the world changes.
@Moon Child fighting this battle is your delaying the inevitable. Convenience trumps it all historically. You can ban AI in your country, the companies will move to another country or find loopholes. Capitalism will eat us all, we need to change the system, not try to contain it. I am a programmer, has been for the last 7 years. They will replace us, we developers always try to automate the work we ourselves do, this is just the next logical step.
@@Puerco-Potter All we need is one well timed Solar Flare and all AI programs would be useless. >:]
Only the weak will die out. Like the video said "adapt or DIE"
@@AlottaBoulchit that's wishful thinking
@@Puerco-Potter The odds may be low but never zero >:]
Great video! Your thoughts on AI art and Industrialized art were awesome, but I also enjoyed the handmade notes and drawings you filmed to accompany them. It added a really neat, creative, and personal touch! ^_^
awesome video! love the ending with the food analogy !!!
Thank you Jake for caring for your fellow artists and educating us.
it dont copy images it learns the noise of an image that is tagged with words, you can do whatever you want but you cant replicate any real art/image with the AI model,the image that it generates will always look different in many ways, like the images that artist use for "inspiration2 from other artist.The thing artist fear is simple, all the mediocre and bad artist will lose their job or at least their income because of ai. thats their fault for not train the skills to be an pro.What they dont have this skills ? than they should do an other job for money and just do art as an hobby. But these artist mostly think everybody should see them as gifted and woth the money they want for their art. This arrogant personalities will push them faster out of their "income" as they can react. SDXL right now makes 80% of the time very very good art and the community is training it in real time via votes. It can even make totally new styles by mixing and "dreaming" that you cant find in the internet.
You want to know how far an AI is away to make ANY brain skill better as an human ? here lifearchitect.ai/agi/
A well thought out and balanced look at this issue, thanks for putting this together.
Brilliantly put Jake, thanks for this video. I have had so many artist friends/colleagues distance themselves from me and others over this issue. It's kind of saddening to watch creative people turn on each other over a philosophical difference i think. Like you say there is no stopping technological progress. But that doesn't mean technology is ruling the dominion of art ethically either. i know artists that are using this technology alongside more traditional artistic/image making skills, to good effect. It's like the apex of the "selling out" discourse of the arts. I'm glad i focused on the hand skills the way i did, but it's entirely plausible I over looked technological assistance when it was under my nose too. Best of luck with the new book. Thanks again
You really put this situation into perspective. Not a lot of people have been successful at that. Makes me a bit less worried about my future creative endeavors.
Awesome video! I needed this! Thanks!!! (I can't help thinking bout Frank Herbert's ingenious take on the subject of "thinking machines"...)😁
People are still believing (somehow, history and AI companies behavior should make it obvious otherwise) that you just need to "adapt" and become an AI "artist" or "prompt crafter" as they try to sell now.
But these same companies are just building another dataset with all these "free work" of prompts and results to also automate this part of the "AI". They wanna sell (or are just paid to create, let's be honest about who puts money into these companies) the full package to the industry, not something that still needs a "middleman".
Awesome insights, Jake! Thanks for putting this together.
Regulation is a very bad idea. The reason for this is in the U.S. corporations hold more power over government and the actual form regulations take than the people do. Every time a regulation has been introduced for anything in the U.S. the people lose the advantage of the technology, but corporations are handed a monopoly on it. Remember when there was the huge push to regulate drones, and the images we were shown on social media were military drones? The regulation that was passed restricted small business startups from using drones commercially and established loop holes for large corporations to use them unfettered. Meanwhile there was no change to the operation of military drones. This is nothing new, drug regulations originally created to prevent an opioid crises in the 1920s resulted in the doctors who were handed control of prescriptions creating an epidemic while generating huge costs for healthcare to the people. The emission regulations of the clean air act increased "safe" CO2 emissions to prevent NOx, and even with climate change they have never repealed those laws that increase CO2 emissions which were pushed by the oil industry. I will go on. The Payola laws that prevented small radio stations from spinning each others records and forcing radio stations to use program directors and record charts built from record sales ensured that small artists and studios were forced out of the music industry allowing the large studios to form monopolies. AI regulations would involve congress consulting with large respected technology corporations and building legislation based on their recommendations. Their recommendations will be self serving and ensure they have a monopoly on the technology. Behind the scenes their lobbyists will push our representatives to cater to the desires of large corporations.
Jake absolutely love your art!
It would be great to see you do an adventure with a character like Jack Kirby's KAMANDI THE LAST BOY ON EARTH. Your imagination and art style are absolutely perfect for that character. In your hands, Kamandi and the cast of characters you would create for him to encounter would be very cool and exciting.
I supported the Kickstarter, and I love my copy of Kepler's Spaceships!
I love the Mickey D's comparison. That's the best analogy I've heard and you got me excited to go make art!
We , as artists, also need to remember that art is not synonymous with pretty pictures. Art is when a person takes a medium and makes something with it that expands on the boundaries of that dimension. I have a video on my website called "what is art" if that interests anyone.
I am prone to agree with you that the increased need in production and pipeline (combined with money people kinda limiting actual free creativity in designs), there was clear demand for a tool to increase the output.
Thank you so much! We need more people talk about it. I have similar thoughts, the whole week. I really like the clear and awesome points and suggestions you did here! GREAT STUFF!
Finally, a reasonable take on this issue. I definitely agree with you on the 'adapt or die' thing. Artists always have new tools coming out for them to use and learn about and nothing's wrong with that. What -is- a problem is what you said: big companies taking art without consent to make product via AI generators. Corporate America's been ripping creatives off since forever; how many things can you think of that a fan has made that's become popular and that ends up being ripped off and made by the copyright-holding company? An example would be Disney-themed hair bows. Those were huge on Etsy and then Disney straight copied those to mass-produce and sell. How many times have big companies gotten free work from artists through holding contests for t-shirt designs or prints, and the fine print says even if you lose, the submission you sent is theirs to keep? Hot Topic runs contests like that all the time. With AI generators now existing, Corporate America now gets a new way of exploiting artists. That's what we need to be vigilant about. We needn't fight other artists if they use AI generators and/or support them existing.
Thanks for educating me on this topic. I am a fan of art and it is good to know the challenges IA poses. I checked out Sarah Webb and her webcomic Kochab.
The advice at the end will only hurt the smaller companies making it free and open. That is a terrible idea.
reminds me of casey neistat's stuff! love that style with the topic of art, keep going!
Love you, brother. Keep fighting the good fight.
So well said: art is always about personal expression of who we are, plus how well we can produce and deliver meaningful results! In today’s technology we are bombarded with images that overload our receptors both sight and intuitive systems! When I see an image that moves me and pleases my senses I am satisfied in ways I can’t really describe: the artist has met a human need, conveyed a special priceless message! From cave drawings to our times it is best served human to human!
It was an awesome video Jake! You analyzed this new AI trend in the best way possible. Thanks!
"The devices themselves condition the users to employ each other the way they employ machines.” ― Frank Herbert, God Emperor of Dune.
Thanks for this - I was trying to explain this to a friend the other day but this video explains it better.
Everything I do I make sure to be in the top ten percent. That keeps me worry free. Excellent video Jake, like always
thank you so much for the video!! this has been so good to hear, a great take on the whole debate!! fast food or slow food... great comparison^^
Sincerely, this is the best take on AI imagery I’ve found thus far. Thanks for creating such an intelligent and nuanced piece.
Wow, thank you!
I'm really not in the least convinced that what AI does can be considered stealing. From a legal perspective, you could make a case that it's breaking copyright, yes. But copyright is completely and utterly broken to start. Copyright doesn't serve artists or art, it serves industry and the industry's ability to control and own art.
Creating art is by its very nature a process of taking other people's art, our life experiences, everything, throwing it all together into a sort of inspiration reservoir, and then using your own personal creativity to create something new. If I want to draw a tree, I'm going to reference my understanding of what a tree is. I've seen a lot of trees in my life, and I have an idea of how they're shaped, how they have branches, etc. If I wanted to draw a tree without using any references at all, it would be literally impossible, because I'd have no basis from which to understand what a tree even is.
Now, I can look at copyrighted artworks, and then create my own art inspired by it. Even if it's noticeable, we don't consider that theft, because enough is changed and there's enough of an individuality to the piece. I could also take a copyrighted artwork and trace it exactly, and that would be considered theft, even if I technically created it myself. The problem isn't that I saw the artwork and studied how it was made. The problem was that I copied it.
AI is the same as this, except that it has a cumulative memory of all the images its seen magnitudes greater than a human's could ever be. Now, AI can be used to create original concepts, and it can be used to take inspiration from specific artworks, because it's seen so many. But AI's superlative memory also means that, if instructed, it can reproduce specific artists and artworks to impressive effect.
But the AI isn't stealing from that artist any more than we're stealing when we view and study an artist's work. The AI doesn't physically hold the image in its memory, it doesn't reference a copy of it. Like us, it builds an internal understanding of the concepts and qualities. The thief isn't the AI, it's the human who instructs the AI to replicate copyrighted art, and then proceeds to try to monetize it.
Good video. I gave it a like, but I have some small corrections. We have seen examples of technologies of superior efficiency being ignored, and replaced with less efficient ones. Examples include trains, as well as nuclear energy. Which are sad things to be replaced, thanks to being better then personal cars, or coals, but are evidence of it being possible to stop technologies from being adopted.
Love your video and your reflexion on that subject. I though of one invention that I think public reaction stop in our recent past... I'm thinking about the Google glasses. Maybe I don't see any but they exist in some form somewhere. Nevertheless, great subject on your part as usual. Thanks!
It was a great video. We cannot stop these innovations. Better is to corporate with the new age innovations and on the other hand try to better understand ourselves because that is what society needs from us.
Can you do a video of you redrawing one of your old pieces of art from school. So that we can see how you’ve advanced etc? And can you talk about things that have inspired you and what made you get better. Thanks. (BTW, big fan and I love your books!)
thanks for the video! I agree on most points and I would like to try AI myself, to implement it in my workflow! My question at the moment is: can we do it without supporting companies who have trained their models on non ethically acquired images? I don't want to use midjourney or stable diffusion, because I simply don't want to support the way they have been developed. Any other options out there?
Thank you for this video! You really put the issue into the correct perspective! I am an artist and I enjoy AI renders. I enjoy seeing how folks have created interesting things like those "___ as an 80s Dark Fantasy" or "____ as a sitcom" compilations. They might not be "artists" but those folks still set up something creative that can trigger inspiration for greater things. I think AI has the potential to add to creativity.
Thank you for the nuanced take! These things are worth saying and repeating.
I wonder what's your opinion, though, on the copyright term and the ethics of it? I feel that if copyright hasn't been misused and the term remained around 14-28 years, there wouldn't be a conflict: the accumulated public domain would be enough to train competent AIs without legal trickery. I feel this always needs to be said when talking about ethical datasets, otherwise the argument is one-sided.
This is an awesome video congrats! And love the intriguing music (probably from a stock market place lol)
I get what you're saying. I wonder if the industrial part comes more from the production of "media" rather than "art"? For a long time the popular experience of art has been through media products that hire artists to produce some kind of artistic/stylistic coherence within large-scale collaborative projects like movies, video games, or series of illustrated books. These kinds of projects tend to be managed by people who may or may not be artists, while numerous artists become subordinates within the project and exercise their art under "direction.". Now AI joins the ranks of subordinates and also expands the ranks of managers by facilitating production by smaller teams of hobbyists and semi-pros. I am not sure that this ultimately affects the artists, because the "manager" of the AI is ultimately indulging a pleasant delusion about creating "art." The sheer volume of this stuff will force a rethinking, or at least a minute segmentation, of the artistic qualities people expect. This might even be facilitated by the participation of more people in artistic decision-making, since they will at least have become aware of the elements of style and quality by making decisions similar to the ones that artists make. Current art education is deficient in this and not participative/appealing enough to motivate continued or deep learning and interest. I don't know if this is enough to counterbalance the replacement of artists by AIs in certain roles, but this was never artistic production anyway. Artists are looking to express a unique vision. Consumers of art are looking to identify themselves with a vision by possessing its icons. The artists can always find a place if they keep this in mind.
This is an interesting perspective. Thank you for sharing.
This is an amazing video, but I also want to say that the book is amazing. I really enjoyed reading it, and it also inspires me when I am working on my own art.
Problem is companies will embrace it as it's quick n cheap with clean results. The masses will embrace it cause they can and it's fun. None see or care what artists feel. For us it's often more about creating the art than the actual end result.
They don't care for the time it takes the develop the talent and skill ... They don't care for the passion.
So now us artist will have the passion but no longer be able to make a career or living doing what we love. Now it will just be a past time hobby.
Unless ... We give society value to art "made by human"
eventually companies will eliminate themselves as the tools get better and simpler to use, this means that anyone will be able to create anything, and they will have to compete with millions of individual's creations.
Excellent points and perspective thanks!!
this is actually pretty hopeful!. thanks for putting up a great video
I have been saying this, AI image generator is much like invention of car. Big step forward for humanity, but only if it is kept under control.
Can you imagine if cars went public before traffic law were passed? Nobody would dare walk the street.
Right now we need laws that benefit both parties instead of one sided siphon of Artist by the AI company.
It is good to see someone with the same view on this subject. There is no stopping AI technology, the only thing we can do is to adapt and keep it under control.
I don´t know how I missed this video months ago, but it´s really great! One of my favorite so far in discussing AI on art.
One could get more political and delve deeper into the symptom and in my opinion the answer is: Modern Feudal Capitalism, the system core is: "profit or disappear", so the very fundamental structure is amoral and unethical on it´s base level, otherwise you cannot profit, quite simple once you think about it.
Hey Jake, im a writer and an artist L, but when I am working there are some odd habits that I do such as sir with my legs up on a post by my desk and prefer to hand write everything (the same for art) are there any odd habits you do when working?
7:20 done done and done.
Thanks for sharing, truly something worth discussing here and now.
The invention of the printing press, photography etc also had huge impacts on artists.
I'm not artist myself but I wanted to be a filmmaker and creative writer someday, but I cannot deny the fact that AI has kinda ease my writer's block after I feed my ideas to the prompt and gave me what I wanted.
But I'm scared that it could somehow block my dream job of becoming either those two because of AI especially they're already tackling video soon and probably even editing. But thankfully that AI doesn't have the ability to do storytelling by its own without any human interaction, at least for now.
And I hope that I'm truly wrong about this weird and current phobia I have on AI technology of wiping out hundreds, thousands or even millions of jobs and livelihoods away by a bunch of greedy industries.
But in a personal level, I believe that AI could be a wonderful tool similar to searching on Google about ideas or questions in your head that can you make your job easier and efficiently but it still needed to be regulated for better or for worse and even the betterment for all.
This is probably the freshest take I've seen on AI (or IA in this case) yet. I definitely agree with being cool with AI if it does follows the guidelines you laid out.
Solid. Video. Feeds the brain and eases the anxiety. Burger analogy is 👌