I think the elitism being referred to is not regarding artists in general (not at all) but about the profit driven gallery/auction system that mainly benefits few artists. Look up the video titled “Adam Ruins Art” for more on that. Also see The Art Assignment’s video titled “Art is Pretentious”. I think it’s that idea being conflated with something else by some. Whatever that is, I don’t know.
The one that gets me the most is the idea that AI learns like humans do. Which is so blatantly untrue it's unreal. AI certainly can't learn like a human without: - understanding proper form/anatomy - understanding/conceptualization of 3d space (including perspective) - understanding of lighting and hue - imagination and the ability to conceptualize new ideas/build off of old ones And so on. All these are things humans learn through interaction with a 3d world; what does an AI have? A bunch of pixels. That is literally it. That's ignoring the part where human brains are fundamentally different to computers of any kind, but ya know. P.S. machines have long been capable of mass producing statues for home decoration, but nobody calls them artists. All the "AI bros" did was randomize the final design within a few parameters. Impressive from a coding perspective, but not art for the same reason the machine isn't an artist.
Exactly. And from a human standpoint, humans are more than knowledge? And what is knowledge? Compartmentalization of information and reframing it as knowledge is reductive isn’t it?
I would have said something very different on the topic of art and disabilities: I have a painting by a blind woman in my house (which looks indistinguishable from a painting by a seeing person mind you). I also have a painting by a guy who's head literally got caved in: he's lost all short term memory. I also have a painting by a girl with alopecia which she suffers severe social anxiety from. First all, the fact that people with disabilities, both physical and mental, including a total lack of visual sight, can make art by themselves with their own mind/body makes this argument that disabled people need ai extremely insulting. There are blind painters who can paint better than seeing people: No one has any excuse. Second, I've bought paintings made by disabled people, I've actually been giving real patronage to disabled artists and appreciating their work for years but suddenly all these people who didn't give a damn about anyone with disabilities before are all the sudden acting like they care because they think they can use disabled people as a shield. Give me a break, these people are scumbags.
Wow that’s so well articulated, and I hope more people read your thoughts. As an art teacher, I’ve witnessed the joy artmaking brings to all ability levels, and the result is always pure bliss for those who would be considered differently abled. It’s important to empower everyone to make art without disempowering others for your own misconceptions about creativity, right?
@@TheArtMentor also theres some disabled artists like myself who because of their disability can only really make a living for themselves through art careers :/ i got a bit worried about not being able to be financially independent cause of this
Exactly what I was thinking! I have a set of glazed clay tableware from an artist who sculpts with his feet due to disability. Creativity might also show in the way you overcome your bodily limitations to produce something beautiful. Saying that art is 'ableist' is like saying sports is 'ableist', disregarding all the amazing human archievements of the paralympics.
People will say that it's not about money because Stable Diffusion is free and open source. The answer to that: SD is a piece of marketing sample that only those people can run who have proper hardware, but people who don't have that need to pay someone for computing power. Also, they need the marketing for their other products. Also, AI companies don't need to spend on marketing when a community around their product is doing it for them. Always remember... if something from any company is for free, there's a hidden motive behind it! If anyone thinks that there are exceptions, please convince me about it! edit: grammar
This is both right and wrong, just running Stable Diffusion can be done on an 8GB video card, which almost all gaming computers have nowadays. Stuff like training it to draw specific people or objects or styles *can in theory* be done on 8GB, but 16GB will work. For actually training a model I have no idea what the minimum is, but more is better since it makes it faster to go through huge datasets, but obviously the only way to have a large dataset is by stealing without permission so that shouldn't be needed. All this is comparable to doing 3d rendering as a hobbyist, where ideally you'd probably have at least 32GB for really big renders, but still is possible to do to some degree on 8GB. That said, there's plenty of people using it as a way to earn money by selling it as a service or training their own "better models". And I do think it's likely releasing it for free helps them market themselves, though I don't know what they're selling or who they're affiliated with.
I think you missed a few points in this video 😅 and really, there’s absolutely no market for ai generated images outside of influencers who already had an audience prior to ai images. Who’s getting rich off ai art other than the developers? 🤷♂️
I love the argument of "democratizing art" when we have thousands of free tutorials on YT, reality to look at and anyone can pick up a pen and sheet and paper, or free software like Krita and just start drawing, whereas with AI, you either need to use one very specific site and web environment of a company with dodgy ethics, or buy a 500 bucks GPU that could handle local generation, and in neither of those cases can you customize the black box you use. If anything, AI art is LESS democratic than digital/traditional art
@@TheArtMentor Well, yes, partially. I think the motivation of the people creating AI as a means to democratize is just either hypocrisy or - more often - just having no clue about art. As for users, it's not always lack of effort. Sometimes, it's just lack of time. funny story: A few months back, I used AI to create a piece of an OC of mine bc I had a full time job and a thesis to write among other things so I couldnt spend 20+ hours on a drawing. Recently, (after I finished my thesis), I redid it by hand from scratch and then showed people both versions without telling them how it was made. (most ppl preferred my hand drawn^^)
10:42 - Funny thing is, the recent ruling regarding the AI comicbook "Zarya of the Dawn" pretty much solidified the statement that AI art can't be copyrighted (something we've all been talking for a while, but now it's official) so my question is - how can the AI company even transfer the ownership of that image if they don't own the copyright to it? Makes no sense legally since right now AI image has the same copyright as a public domain work. It's literally the same as if it was me trying to sell you ownership of "Alice in Wonderland" xD But it sure is funny to see all AI bros falling for that lie and then claiming that the AI artwork is theirs or that they were the ones that made it. Reality is about to hit hard some people.
Yeah I saw that! Hilarious, and totally foreseeable, isn’t it? How can someone claim ownership when there’s no labor for it, right? Your dreams don’t work for you if you don’t work for your dreams
I wish we could get away from calling it AI art altogether. It's not art, and it's not intelligent. It's just artificial. I prefer to think of "AI" as meaning algorithmic images.
Yeah both are misnomers, aren’t they? Outside of calling it that for recognition, I don’t call anything generated art. In fact I’m making a video about how it isn’t art based on proof and research. How does that sound?
@@TheArtMentor its hard to exactly prove anything here. neural networks work by virtual connections of nodes. each node has a weight value that controls how likely it is to send a signal to the next node which controls the flow of logic to reach the end result . the flow of logic is very hard to read and predict as a result because you are just looking at millions of not trillions of abstract numbers that dont mean anything to the average human, and even worse is that most of the computing is probability based which makes it even harder to predict accurately. in fact the only real advancements we have made in A.I have been better processing power and better training methods and designs for that system. so A.I could be intentionally stealing or actually producing art from scratch and we could not prove either of them without fully understanding the flow of logic. i am not saying you should be giving up but just understand that a.i is incredibly abstract so its hard to proove things like that with hard core evidence. but instead you can prove your point with philosophy. there is no denying that A.I programs are programs that run on computers. programs that can run infinitely and copied on other computers. even if A.I Learns and creates art exactly like humans, its still a computer program. a human could watch a movie but their memory is not powerful enough to remember every detail like an A.I could. and it cannot connect to some kind of USB port to copy the memories of the movie to a computer to re produce it. the fact that A.I programs can do such a thing already makes them very close to copy machines rather then humans learning to make art. which can be a soft form of copyright infringement . training an a.i on specific content means training a computer exactly how to exactly copy that content with no mercy . also VERY important point against a.i : reproducibility. even the most skilled artists cant produce the same thing twice given the same prompt . they will always slightly differ between their attempts and exact copies require tracing their own work. even 3D Modelers like myself cant do that despite high precision 3D programs. an A.I on the other hand can reproduce the same thing or things endlessly and exactly the same way every time. which is another reason that A.I training could be copyright infringement . whichever path you choose.. PLEASE DONT ACT LIKE VEGANS. we all know how annoying vegans have become and how much we hate them. their ideas and philosophy are valid and make sense. but because they act like arrogant and annoying people and practically bully others for not sharing their belifs they completely RUINED their message and as a result nobody takes them seriosuly anymore. i suggest you also tell your audience not to "vegonise" their message. also be patient.. its only a matter of time ! once a company like disney or WB notices that people are using A.I to produce their intellectual properties. they will attack A.I companies with the force of GOD and shut them down. or create new legal regulations to prevent A.I abuse from becoming mainstream
I see your points, and you’re right, eventually corporate America will most likely decimate the current ai models for copyright infringement. However, the moral basis of the current ai models are just objectively amoral when presented with the points in this and my other videos, isn’t it? Doesn’t it defy basic human rights? That’s definitely an immutable fact. And as I began this video, ai art is objectively an interesting idea that I don’t oppose. But fighting for an ethical version is worthwhile, isn’t it?
But isnt this what a normal artist does... just faster? like the only form of art that isnt based on other works is outsider art, but all art revolves arround making the same idea but with your own twist, you can say that AI doesnt add new things to the table, but is just a matter of months.
@@nmhjjp I'm not sure you get what I'm saying. Commercialization of anything usually ends up destroying what passionate people created. The suits sideline creative expression in favor of profits and the product dies a slow death. Take video games with micro transactions or phase four of the MCU for example. That's what happens when bussiness men remove the artist from the art. This is literally replacing them with a fucking machine, lol. It's going to bomb hard. People will not connect with it and search out real human art that reflects their humanity back at them. That's kind of the entire point. It's about the human condition. Think of video game graphics, they keep getting better but it doesn't matter if the game play is bad and the writing is shit. People just get bored and go back to pubg because it's got soul. People will get bored with ai art in time. It's just new and flashy right now.
loved this video. Only thing though, is there are lots of artist with disabilities that turn to art. And some artist become disable to improper posture, hand strain but continue drawing. The disability is defiantly a hurdle but it does not make are unattainable. I mean if people can draw when they were born blind, or use their feet when they have lost their arms. The real hurdel and barrier is what we believe or limitations are (that and not every art piece has to be hyper realism adjacent)
This 👆totally agree. I’m also an art teacher, and I serve students of all ability levels. The gratification that students who are differently abled get from make their artwork is intense. They love it, and it’s special bc they do it themselves. People get this misconstrued with an excuse to use ai instead, don’t they?
I heard multiple times people claiming that AI can be the only way for a disabled person to make art which is 99% not true at all, in fact this narrative involves actively looking down at the people who can't do any other form of art and deeming all their other effort to be inherently inferior. For those who are indeed not able to do any other form it's still not an excuse to let tech giants do whatever they want with whatever data they can put their hands on. I do want anyone who wants to make art to be able to, and I really hope that future AI tools that don't prey on the works of others will let them do that, even with a bigger autonomy over their works than what current tech is capable of. There's this awful idea among some people that artists hate AI because they don't want anyone to be able to make art, while the art community is one of the most welcoming and helpful environments I've ever seen. Just as an example: a person I really love, Aaron Blaise who does art streams on youtube gives out advice to any newcomers and answers overly-asked beginner questions every single time just to help those who are starting out.
Yeah that’s so true, it’s actually a dehumanizing and degrading outlook rather than a humanistic and empathetic one, isn’t it? Sometimes giving people what is worthwhile isn’t easy but is meaningful
Yes, as you said, AI developers are very good at manipulation. This is another thing I noticed in relation to this statement by AI developers: "Everything in the universe already exists". Which is a reference to their trying to steal from everywhere because they follow this logic: "well, I'm not stealing it from the fucking Artist, because this thing wasn't created by the fucking Artist in the first place, because this thing already exists in the universe." . So basically I'm not stealing from an Artist, I'm just taking what already exists in the Universe from where the Artists actually took it in the first place, they took it from the Universe. So yeah, the greedy bastards aren't even so much programmers in the first place, they're more marketers, actually, bad ones.
Just the action of SCRAPPING EVERY DATA without consent (Artworks, Profile pics, Videos, Voice.. .remember ANYTHING on the NET is DATA) and feeding it to their current "blender/washing machine is such horrible practice (AND THEY ARE PROFITING FROM IT) and now releasing that tech and shifting the responsibility to the "end user" to avoid the incoming lawsuits is such a heinous move on their end. The problem has escalated more than the current issues real artists face as well. Got to thank the massive Art channels & Personalities who mindlessly promote using the current models without further research on how these work and promoting it to their fan base as well( I wont mention names) And with the capitalistic society we have, will compound the problem. But there is a larger issue at hand.
AI Deepfakes, AI prOn bullying abuse ( the list goes on!) is now spreading on the net. Misinformation/Disinformation, gotta thank certain peeps at Silicon Valley for this. There is such amount of faked AI videos circulating over the net. While the urge to become violent and hostile to the users of the tech is tempting, to anyone reading this, please try to contain the urge to lash out, but instead, explain on how dangerous using the current AI models are instead. We must inform them on a civil manner so they can fully understand and see the real culprits for this mess. That way we can move as a society and steer the development of the technology( unfortunately as MUCH as I want it to disappear) it is here to stay.
Amen to that! That’s why I make my content, so does that resonate with you? I don’t whine or rant, I always try to present the facts, informed opinions, and opinions by art/educational authorities on this subject. No crying on this channel lol
@@TheArtMentor I watched your video twice and think all your points are interesting and something to reflect on. I am wondering what you are trying to accomplish. Is your goal the suppression of AI in general or just in the art sphere? Are you trying to persuade the users of the software to stop? Are you trying to promote ethics to a group who would prefer profit and who have no qualms seeing you or me queue in the unemployment line? Are you trying to incite a rebellion led by disgruntled artists? Are you just venting to anyone who will listen (I listened and found your video interesting enough to watch a second time). Good luck with your crusade!
Can I say how much I appreciate you asking that question? My objective is always to empower artists. I’m opposed to any bullying or dismissive or intimidation tactics that make artists quit what they love doing. On a bigger picture, it’s to encourage artists to believe in themselves, their authentic selves, which I try to convey through my professional career, experience teaching and mentoring artists, doctoral research within art education, and interest in behavioral science
As you said "democratization of art" is propaganda. First of all Art is a craft and anyone can do it if that anyone first dedicates his life to learning Art and then yes he can do Art. But as it stands now "anyone can make Art" because of the democratization of art is just theft, not democratization of Art. This statement is intended to imply to AI artists that they are on the side of good and they are fighting for a righteous cause while they are simply stealing material created by Artists, Writers, musicians and they "train" their algorithms on these stolen materials (in which case you understand "training" is another word for stealing). So yes, Open AI and the other AI developers are just greedy bastards with dirty hands.
This is great thanks, subscribed. Honestly ive been saying for a while this is a dead end street for AI "artists." As the public gets educated more and more the sizzle of AI will wear off & the "artists" that create it will be lose interest.
Thanks so much for your support! 😊 I hope you enjoy the rest of my content as well! So I. Whole heartedly agree, and in fact, I’m making a video soon about why I think ai art will be dead within the next two years. What do you think of that? 😮 your reasons are some of my thoughts for that as well
Thanks I’m glad you think so! Please share it with someone you think it’ll help so that we can remove these lies from popular chatter, you know what I mean? It’s just gone too far for too long hasn’t it? What points did you think were the most important for artists or ai users?
@@TheArtMentor Pretty much everything here is important for people to hear. I dont think is too late to, if you mean if it went too long to combat these programs. At this point, opposition to these programs is also shared by several other big channels, like Illuminaughty and Jim Sterling, among others. Even John Oliver mentioned the risks and the ethical problems in a recent segment. The lawsuits have also started.
I agree, there’s still plenty of room for resistance and education on the dangers of ai. The fact that it’s becoming mainstream knowledge is promising, and more lawsuits are inevitable right?
I agree with everything EXCEPT that I DO hate AI generated images and would hate them even if they were ethically created. I think the technology will set back the advancement of human creativity and understanding. I think that if it become hugely widespread, we will lose generations of artists and it will create decades, if not centuries of stagnation in human creativity.
I agree, and may I clarify? I moreso mean artists wouldn’t care as much with an ethically sourced and compensated dataset bc it wouldn’t ever be able to make anything like what we currently see. It would be terrible, and absolutely no threat nor able to follow a direction. Therefore, not impeding on development and true creativity. How’s that?
This video deserve more views.The problem isn't AI Art. The problem is how the tech is used. And the other part that you point out, which is the main part. The marketing and propaganda on this tech just reveals how immoral it is. Maximizing profit isn't as bad as trying to lure opportunist into using and investing in the tech unethically and immoral.
I’m glad that you also see those truths! It’s all a mask isn’t it? All of the hype and ai propaganda is just hiding it’s malicious intent and immorality, right?
Nice work quoting the great Paulo Freire there friend! I am with you 100%. Currently there is no ethical or unharmful use of AI and it should be HEAVILY regulated. Plus artists, specially beginners, should stay away from it since it is a crippling practice. Thanks for the words of wisdom! Keep up the great work!
I’m glad you picked up on that reference! Most people don’t, but his wisdom is well applied here, isn’t it? Let’s especially talk about how bad this would be for up and coming young artists who won’t want to learn anything, right? Just a cop out with this and no real growth
@@TheArtMentor precisely! AI is harmful overall, specially for young artists who should be focusing on expanding their knowledge and sensitivity. When AI generated images are the norm (and that day will unfortunately come), human sensibility will be gold. So Artist’s shouldn’t buy into the delusion that they will somehow hop in the AI train and become “prompt masters”. That will not be a thing. P.S. I am from Brasil and we take a lot of pride from the fact that our smart boy Paulo Freire is celebrated worldwide! Cudos to you for correctly applying Mai’s wisdom to your reflection!
Oh great to have the pleasure to speak to you about this subject then! I’ve read many of Freire’s texts and he’s a huge influence on me as an educator too. For artists, let’s not lose sight of our potential and fall into the trap of fetishizing technology like a human-made god, right?
@@TheArtMentor the pleasure is mine! As an educator I am also heavily influenced by Paulo Freire, which is why I consider works such as what you do on UA-cam of the outmost importance, not only for artists. About not losing sight of our potential, I am 100% with you on that. Plus I strongly believe it is a fight worthy fighting - and spreading. Thanks again for carrying the torch so high up. Cheers my friend!
Ai art tech is nice if I can train it with real life photos or videos and my own art, and if it can replicate me or do things I can use to improve, Im all for it.
@@TheArtMentor The whole talk, really. I see the points echoed in unexpected places, now. The regular consumer out there is definitely on our side. I was just checking out 'r lotr', for example and the regulars on there are absolutely sick of ai art and are about to ban it.
@@TheArtMentor The part when you talked about the ethics. I feel that in the advancement of technology people forget about the ethics of how it will be used. Also, how we must think of humanity. I think AI art is an example of a problem that we will be dealing with in various forms for the next few decades. The clash of ethics and technology will be discussed a lot going forward.
1:01 NO. I would not be on board with the current ....ckers who upload AI everywhere. The fact that someone with 0 xp just floods any art site with the filth of what I have seen is disgusting. We are talking about hentAI, fat porn, child porn, and most users do 30 image a day.
@@TheArtMentor Some are "only" disturbing. Half of it is disgusting. The part where I am concerned is that you are an ACTUAL artist, and I am drawing weapons. I am mediocre. I am worried for Deviantart. It supported mediocre and beginner artists. It literally has it's own AI that the owners made for sale. When Artstation turned pitch black with "no AI", posts, Deviantart started "yes AI" posts. And I started harrassing EVERY. SINGLE ONE OF THEM (whom the filter cold not cut out... or commercialized their garbage...) You and your kind are safe. Anything below you is literally gone.
I don’t think it’s so bleak as you describe, especially if you work to become constantly better okay? Before ai was a threat, this was always the case with budget cuts or just better artists. Stay strong okay?
You got me on the marketing campaign can say they been successful,🤣🤣🤣I can totally see that in university, they are more focus on teach marketing than actual music, weird isn't it? but guess this is what happen when the university is just focusing on creating robot artist for Media like BBC for example.
so, what about when they say (or something along the lines of) "by you utilizing art platforms (like DA) to publish your artworks (for free) that your technically giving them permission to you use your works anyways for AI.
Oh that’s a huge lie too, don’t you think? No artist ever agreed to that, as those platforms snuck that into their user agreements before ai image generation was ever well known. It’s exploitation, or at least the start, isn’t it?
All points were really good but especially to me was the one about Pablo Picasso. We humans use work from others so we can improve and learn from each other. Aspiring engineers can teach themselves using works from other engineers Aspiring doctors can teach themselves using works from other doctors. This can be applied to artists too as we need visual reference and information in order so we can grow. People use works from each to grow and learn. Ai uses it to make these companies rich. The Ai does this as it is just a product. In order for a business to be successful, you need to provide a product/service. The Ai is the product and the people using it are consumers and hell sometimes the people using it are the products cuz it’s making the company more powerful. And it’s been achieved by taking work from actual creative workers so it isn’t inspiration, it’s theft on a mass scale to harm many workers. So obviously Pablo meant use ideas from other people to become successful as an artist and put your own spin on it but it isn’t theft cuz no harm is being done to that original creator since I’m not as good as them and don’t have much experience as them, but with an Ai since it has revised billions of images flawlessly, it is a threat to many creative workers out there, even if you are extremely good. I hope this wee essay made sense lol.
Very well said 👌and the deeper meaning too is how do we take ideas and innovate them through OUR own lives experiences. That unique world perspective actually shapes art, and it’s not formulaic, right?
@@TheArtMentor Yeah exactly m. That’s what makes art yours. You put all the work in and you try and find more ideas to add to it to make it more better. For Ai, you are just commissioning a vending machine and hoping something you wish will come out cuz you have no control over it.
2:22 Maybe everyone is born an artist, but only a select few are born TRUE artists. The art world is a behemoth of mediocrity that previously could not be seen because internet was not a thing.
@@TheArtMentor I already wasted 20+ years of my life on this, it's not a prophecy, but history. When internet was not a thing, you could only compare yourself to amateurs you knew in person. But with the internet a tsunami of millions you suddenly stumbled upon, and you realize you were just another tiny mediocre seaweed. It's better to burn all your drawings in a fireplace and eat all your pencils in caesar salad.
@haitaelpastor976 yet the internet brought a wealth of knowledge and free information for all artists. Why blame the internet instead of acknowledging that you struggled with negative comparison and that made you think you couldn’t be better?
@@TheArtMentor I don't really blame the internet... If anything, I'm thankful. It finally took me out of my delusion (which in fact was also fueled by others) and made me face the cold hard mediocre reality.
@haitaelpastor976 not sure why you’re happy putting yourself down and reinforcing limiting beliefs about your potential. I’m sincerely sorry to hear that. Not everyone believes that tho, and those people will go on to accomplish their dreams instead of making excuses
That's all you got from this, and that justifies the exploitation and unethical practices to develop image generators? Also how about the fact that 99% of ai images are flawed and devoid of practical fundamentals?
Which of these lies have you heard the most? Which one do you object to the most?
I think the elitism being referred to is not regarding artists in general (not at all) but about the profit driven gallery/auction system that mainly benefits few artists. Look up the video titled “Adam Ruins Art” for more on that. Also see The Art Assignment’s video titled “Art is Pretentious”. I think it’s that idea being conflated with something else by some. Whatever that is, I don’t know.
The one that gets me the most is the idea that AI learns like humans do. Which is so blatantly untrue it's unreal. AI certainly can't learn like a human without:
- understanding proper form/anatomy
- understanding/conceptualization of 3d space (including perspective)
- understanding of lighting and hue
- imagination and the ability to conceptualize new ideas/build off of old ones
And so on. All these are things humans learn through interaction with a 3d world; what does an AI have? A bunch of pixels. That is literally it.
That's ignoring the part where human brains are fundamentally different to computers of any kind, but ya know.
P.S. machines have long been capable of mass producing statues for home decoration, but nobody calls them artists. All the "AI bros" did was randomize the final design within a few parameters. Impressive from a coding perspective, but not art for the same reason the machine isn't an artist.
Exactly. And from a human standpoint, humans are more than knowledge? And what is knowledge? Compartmentalization of information and reframing it as knowledge is reductive isn’t it?
@@TheArtMentor knowledge only goes so far. understanding knowledge, requires subjectivity-something software doesn’t possess. it has no sense of self.
So true, and that’s exactly why ai will always be inferior to true artists 💪
I would have said something very different on the topic of art and disabilities: I have a painting by a blind woman in my house (which looks indistinguishable from a painting by a seeing person mind you). I also have a painting by a guy who's head literally got caved in: he's lost all short term memory. I also have a painting by a girl with alopecia which she suffers severe social anxiety from. First all, the fact that people with disabilities, both physical and mental, including a total lack of visual sight, can make art by themselves with their own mind/body makes this argument that disabled people need ai extremely insulting. There are blind painters who can paint better than seeing people: No one has any excuse. Second, I've bought paintings made by disabled people, I've actually been giving real patronage to disabled artists and appreciating their work for years but suddenly all these people who didn't give a damn about anyone with disabilities before are all the sudden acting like they care because they think they can use disabled people as a shield. Give me a break, these people are scumbags.
Wow that’s so well articulated, and I hope more people read your thoughts. As an art teacher, I’ve witnessed the joy artmaking brings to all ability levels, and the result is always pure bliss for those who would be considered differently abled. It’s important to empower everyone to make art without disempowering others for your own misconceptions about creativity, right?
@@TheArtMentor also theres some disabled artists like myself who because of their disability can only really make a living for themselves through art careers :/ i got a bit worried about not being able to be financially independent cause of this
You’re amazing. Can I just say that?
Exactly what I was thinking! I have a set of glazed clay tableware from an artist who sculpts with his feet due to disability. Creativity might also show in the way you overcome your bodily limitations to produce something beautiful. Saying that art is 'ableist' is like saying sports is 'ableist', disregarding all the amazing human archievements of the paralympics.
It’s just propaganda to enable poor business practices when companies call art gatekeeping, elitist, or ableist
People will say that it's not about money because Stable Diffusion is free and open source.
The answer to that: SD is a piece of marketing sample that only those people can run who have proper hardware, but people who don't have that need to pay someone for computing power. Also, they need the marketing for their other products. Also, AI companies don't need to spend on marketing when a community around their product is doing it for them.
Always remember... if something from any company is for free, there's a hidden motive behind it! If anyone thinks that there are exceptions, please convince me about it!
edit: grammar
This is both right and wrong, just running Stable Diffusion can be done on an 8GB video card, which almost all gaming computers have nowadays. Stuff like training it to draw specific people or objects or styles *can in theory* be done on 8GB, but 16GB will work. For actually training a model I have no idea what the minimum is, but more is better since it makes it faster to go through huge datasets, but obviously the only way to have a large dataset is by stealing without permission so that shouldn't be needed. All this is comparable to doing 3d rendering as a hobbyist, where ideally you'd probably have at least 32GB for really big renders, but still is possible to do to some degree on 8GB.
That said, there's plenty of people using it as a way to earn money by selling it as a service or training their own "better models". And I do think it's likely releasing it for free helps them market themselves, though I don't know what they're selling or who they're affiliated with.
I think you missed a few points in this video 😅 and really, there’s absolutely no market for ai generated images outside of influencers who already had an audience prior to ai images. Who’s getting rich off ai art other than the developers? 🤷♂️
All too true! 🙌 it was never about dispersing art for free, it’s always about the money. Always the money. Right?
I love the argument of "democratizing art" when we have thousands of free tutorials on YT, reality to look at and anyone can pick up a pen and sheet and paper, or free software like Krita and just start drawing, whereas with AI, you either need to use one very specific site and web environment of a company with dodgy ethics, or buy a 500 bucks GPU that could handle local generation, and in neither of those cases can you customize the black box you use.
If anything, AI art is LESS democratic than digital/traditional art
exactly! How open is the art community, and who REALLY just didn't want to put forth effort and learn? it's such a cop-out, isn't it?
@@TheArtMentor Well, yes, partially. I think the motivation of the people creating AI as a means to democratize is just either hypocrisy or - more often - just having no clue about art. As for users, it's not always lack of effort. Sometimes, it's just lack of time.
funny story: A few months back, I used AI to create a piece of an OC of mine bc I had a full time job and a thesis to write among other things so I couldnt spend 20+ hours on a drawing. Recently, (after I finished my thesis), I redid it by hand from scratch and then showed people both versions without telling them how it was made. (most ppl preferred my hand drawn^^)
10:42 - Funny thing is, the recent ruling regarding the AI comicbook "Zarya of the Dawn" pretty much solidified the statement that AI art can't be copyrighted (something we've all been talking for a while, but now it's official) so my question is - how can the AI company even transfer the ownership of that image if they don't own the copyright to it? Makes no sense legally since right now AI image has the same copyright as a public domain work. It's literally the same as if it was me trying to sell you ownership of "Alice in Wonderland" xD But it sure is funny to see all AI bros falling for that lie and then claiming that the AI artwork is theirs or that they were the ones that made it. Reality is about to hit hard some people.
Yeah I saw that! Hilarious, and totally foreseeable, isn’t it? How can someone claim ownership when there’s no labor for it, right? Your dreams don’t work for you if you don’t work for your dreams
@@TheArtMentor they are delusional.
Very much so
I wish we could get away from calling it AI art altogether. It's not art, and it's not intelligent. It's just artificial. I prefer to think of "AI" as meaning algorithmic images.
Yeah both are misnomers, aren’t they? Outside of calling it that for recognition, I don’t call anything generated art. In fact I’m making a video about how it isn’t art based on proof and research. How does that sound?
call them synthetic images. thats is a proper name for them
Absolutely. Ai can only make images over art. What would you think about a future video proving how ai can’t make art?
@@TheArtMentor its hard to exactly prove anything here. neural networks work by virtual connections of nodes. each node has a weight value that controls how likely it is to send a signal to the next node which controls the flow of logic to reach the end result . the flow of logic is very hard to read and predict as a result because you are just looking at millions of not trillions of abstract numbers that dont mean anything to the average human, and even worse is that most of the computing is probability based which makes it even harder to predict accurately. in fact the only real advancements we have made in A.I have been better processing power and better training methods and designs for that system. so A.I could be intentionally stealing or actually producing art from scratch and we could not prove either of them without fully understanding the flow of logic. i am not saying you should be giving up but just understand that a.i is incredibly abstract so its hard to proove things like that with hard core evidence.
but instead you can prove your point with philosophy. there is no denying that A.I programs are programs that run on computers. programs that can run infinitely and copied on other computers. even if A.I Learns and creates art exactly like humans, its still a computer program. a human could watch a movie but their memory is not powerful enough to remember every detail like an A.I could. and it cannot connect to some kind of USB port to copy the memories of the movie to a computer to re produce it. the fact that A.I programs can do such a thing already makes them very close to copy machines rather then humans learning to make art. which can be a soft form of copyright infringement . training an a.i on specific content means training a computer exactly how to exactly copy that content with no mercy . also VERY important point against a.i : reproducibility. even the most skilled artists cant produce the same thing twice given the same prompt . they will always slightly differ between their attempts and exact copies require tracing their own work. even 3D Modelers like myself cant do that despite high precision 3D programs. an A.I on the other hand can reproduce the same thing or things endlessly and exactly the same way every time. which is another reason that A.I training could be copyright infringement .
whichever path you choose.. PLEASE DONT ACT LIKE VEGANS. we all know how annoying vegans have become and how much we hate them. their ideas and philosophy are valid and make sense. but because they act like arrogant and annoying people and practically bully others for not sharing their belifs they completely RUINED their message and as a result nobody takes them seriosuly anymore.
i suggest you also tell your audience not to "vegonise" their message.
also be patient.. its only a matter of time ! once a company like disney or WB notices that people are using A.I to produce their intellectual properties. they will attack A.I companies with the force of GOD and shut them down. or create new legal regulations to prevent A.I abuse from becoming mainstream
I see your points, and you’re right, eventually corporate America will most likely decimate the current ai models for copyright infringement. However, the moral basis of the current ai models are just objectively amoral when presented with the points in this and my other videos, isn’t it? Doesn’t it defy basic human rights? That’s definitely an immutable fact. And as I began this video, ai art is objectively an interesting idea that I don’t oppose. But fighting for an ethical version is worthwhile, isn’t it?
Taking the artist out of the art is like taking the chief out of the kitchen. You'll going to end up eating a lot fast food.
I’ve made that analogy before too, have you seen that in my other videos on ai art?
But isnt this what a normal artist does... just faster? like the only form of art that isnt based on other works is outsider art, but all art revolves arround making the same idea but with your own twist, you can say that AI doesnt add new things to the table, but is just a matter of months.
@@TheArtMentor Nope, just thought it up myself. Great minds think a like I guess.
@@nmhjjp I'm not sure you get what I'm saying. Commercialization of anything usually ends up destroying what passionate people created. The suits sideline creative expression in favor of profits and the product dies a slow death. Take video games with micro transactions or phase four of the MCU for example. That's what happens when bussiness men remove the artist from the art. This is literally replacing them with a fucking machine, lol. It's going to bomb hard. People will not connect with it and search out real human art that reflects their humanity back at them. That's kind of the entire point. It's about the human condition. Think of video game graphics, they keep getting better but it doesn't matter if the game play is bad and the writing is shit. People just get bored and go back to pubg because it's got soul. People will get bored with ai art in time. It's just new and flashy right now.
Did you watch the video? 😅 I addressed that false claim and similar ones
loved this video. Only thing though, is there are lots of artist with disabilities that turn to art. And some artist become disable to improper posture, hand strain but continue drawing. The disability is defiantly a hurdle but it does not make are unattainable.
I mean if people can draw when they were born blind, or use their feet when they have lost their arms. The real hurdel and barrier is what we believe or limitations are (that and not every art piece has to be hyper realism adjacent)
This 👆totally agree. I’m also an art teacher, and I serve students of all ability levels. The gratification that students who are differently abled get from make their artwork is intense. They love it, and it’s special bc they do it themselves. People get this misconstrued with an excuse to use ai instead, don’t they?
I heard multiple times people claiming that AI can be the only way for a disabled person to make art which is 99% not true at all, in fact this narrative involves actively looking down at the people who can't do any other form of art and deeming all their other effort to be inherently inferior.
For those who are indeed not able to do any other form it's still not an excuse to let tech giants do whatever they want with whatever data they can put their hands on. I do want anyone who wants to make art to be able to, and I really hope that future AI tools that don't prey on the works of others will let them do that, even with a bigger autonomy over their works than what current tech is capable of.
There's this awful idea among some people that artists hate AI because they don't want anyone to be able to make art, while the art community is one of the most welcoming and helpful environments I've ever seen. Just as an example: a person I really love, Aaron Blaise who does art streams on youtube gives out advice to any newcomers and answers overly-asked beginner questions every single time just to help those who are starting out.
Yeah that’s so true, it’s actually a dehumanizing and degrading outlook rather than a humanistic and empathetic one, isn’t it? Sometimes giving people what is worthwhile isn’t easy but is meaningful
Yes, as you said, AI developers are very good at manipulation. This is another thing I noticed in relation to this statement by AI developers: "Everything in the universe already exists". Which is a reference to their trying to steal from everywhere because they follow this logic: "well, I'm not stealing it from the fucking Artist, because this thing wasn't created by the fucking Artist in the first place, because this thing already exists in the universe." . So basically I'm not stealing from an Artist, I'm just taking what already exists in the Universe from where the Artists actually took it in the first place, they took it from the Universe.
So yeah, the greedy bastards aren't even so much programmers in the first place, they're more marketers, actually, bad ones.
They're terrific at manipulation, aren't they? It's not even AI, but that's an exciting and taboo title for it, isn't it?
@@TheArtMentor
Yeah, it's not AI
But I really hope you are right and AI goes away
Just the action of SCRAPPING EVERY DATA without consent (Artworks, Profile pics, Videos, Voice..
.remember ANYTHING on the NET is DATA) and feeding it to their current "blender/washing machine is such
horrible practice (AND THEY ARE PROFITING FROM IT) and now releasing that tech and shifting the responsibility
to the "end user" to avoid the incoming lawsuits is such a heinous move on their end.
The problem has escalated more than the current issues real artists face as well. Got to thank the massive
Art channels & Personalities who mindlessly promote using the current models without further research on how
these work and promoting it to their fan base as well( I wont mention names) And with the capitalistic society
we have, will compound the problem.
But there is a larger issue at hand.
AI Deepfakes, AI prOn bullying abuse ( the list goes on!) is now spreading on the net. Misinformation/Disinformation,
gotta thank certain peeps at Silicon Valley for this. There is such amount of faked AI videos circulating over the net.
While the urge to become violent and hostile to the users of the tech is tempting, to anyone reading this, please
try to contain the urge to lash out, but instead, explain on how dangerous using the current AI models are instead.
We must inform them on a civil manner so they can fully understand and see the real culprits for this mess. That way
we can move as a society and steer the development of the technology( unfortunately as MUCH as I want it to disappear) it
is here to stay.
Amen to that! That’s why I make my content, so does that resonate with you? I don’t whine or rant, I always try to present the facts, informed opinions, and opinions by art/educational authorities on this subject. No crying on this channel lol
I truly admire your passion and fire in this video. You bring up some interesting and thought provoking points.
Thanks! What points did you find to be the most important to you?
@@TheArtMentor I watched your video twice and think all your points are interesting and something to reflect on. I am wondering what you are trying to accomplish. Is your goal the suppression of AI in general or just in the art sphere? Are you trying to persuade the users of the software to stop? Are you trying to promote ethics to a group who would prefer profit and who have no qualms seeing you or me queue in the unemployment line? Are you trying to incite a rebellion led by disgruntled artists? Are you just venting to anyone who will listen (I listened and found your video interesting enough to watch a second time). Good luck with your crusade!
Can I say how much I appreciate you asking that question? My objective is always to empower artists. I’m opposed to any bullying or dismissive or intimidation tactics that make artists quit what they love doing. On a bigger picture, it’s to encourage artists to believe in themselves, their authentic selves, which I try to convey through my professional career, experience teaching and mentoring artists, doctoral research within art education, and interest in behavioral science
just imagine shoplifting and got away by saying im an artist
Exactly! Now imagine a whole store being ransacked and that’s what we have now, isn’t it?
As you said "democratization of art" is propaganda. First of all Art is a craft and anyone can do it if that anyone first dedicates his life to learning Art and then yes he can do Art.
But as it stands now "anyone can make Art" because of the democratization of art is just theft, not democratization of Art. This statement is intended to imply to AI artists that they are on the side of good and they are fighting for a righteous cause while they are simply stealing material created by Artists, Writers, musicians and they "train" their algorithms on these stolen materials (in which case you understand "training" is another word for stealing).
So yes, Open AI and the other AI developers are just greedy bastards with dirty hands.
precisely! it's a false banner of righteousness, isn't it? And who oppressed them again?
This is great thanks, subscribed. Honestly ive been saying for a while this is a dead end street for AI "artists." As the public gets educated more and more the sizzle of AI will wear off & the "artists" that create it will be lose interest.
Thanks so much for your support! 😊 I hope you enjoy the rest of my content as well! So I. Whole heartedly agree, and in fact, I’m making a video soon about why I think ai art will be dead within the next two years. What do you think of that? 😮 your reasons are some of my thoughts for that as well
@@TheArtMentor I am looking VERY forward to that particular vid!
I’ll let you know when it’s coming out!
DEMOCRACY: equal opportunity.
Communism: equality of outcome.
AI bros are communists.
Wow that’s a bold claim, and I agree with the spirit. Equal opportunity comes with necessary sacrifice and hard work, right?
Come to think of it, you're right! How the tables have turned lol
Lol pretty interesting analogy huh?
@TheArtMentor for sure!
"The great artists steal" idea that Ai-bros have, prove how little they know of art
Yeah and they misquote Picasso don’t they? Lol
AI "artists" do however (now) hate artists!
So true! Have you seen my other video featuring all of the nasty comments they leave?
@@TheArtMentor I watch all your stuff buddy you''re preaching the good word.
Thanks I appreciate your support!
exactly as i have always said. it's not the tool i hate. it's the way it's being used and trained.
That’s how we all feel isn’t it? It’s unethical and immoral
@@TheArtMentor yup everyone but the ai bros XDD.
Too true haha
Great video.
It needs to go viral.
Thanks I’m glad you think so! Please share it with someone you think it’ll help so that we can remove these lies from popular chatter, you know what I mean? It’s just gone too far for too long hasn’t it?
What points did you think were the most important for artists or ai users?
@@TheArtMentor Pretty much everything here is important for people to hear.
I dont think is too late to, if you mean if it went too long to combat these programs. At this point, opposition to these programs is also shared by several other big channels, like Illuminaughty and Jim Sterling, among others. Even John Oliver mentioned the risks and the ethical problems in a recent segment. The lawsuits have also started.
I agree, there’s still plenty of room for resistance and education on the dangers of ai. The fact that it’s becoming mainstream knowledge is promising, and more lawsuits are inevitable right?
Man, I adore your speech. 👏👏👏
I’m just spilling the truth haha 💪 what we’re your highlights from this?
I agree with everything EXCEPT that I DO hate AI generated images and would hate them even if they were ethically created. I think the technology will set back the advancement of human creativity and understanding. I think that if it become hugely widespread, we will lose generations of artists and it will create decades, if not centuries of stagnation in human creativity.
I agree, and may I clarify? I moreso mean artists wouldn’t care as much with an ethically sourced and compensated dataset bc it wouldn’t ever be able to make anything like what we currently see. It would be terrible, and absolutely no threat nor able to follow a direction. Therefore, not impeding on development and true creativity. How’s that?
This video deserve more views.The problem isn't AI Art. The problem is how the tech is used.
And the other part that you point out, which is the main part.
The marketing and propaganda on this tech just reveals how immoral it is.
Maximizing profit isn't as bad as trying to lure opportunist into using and investing in the tech unethically and immoral.
I’m glad that you also see those truths! It’s all a mask isn’t it? All of the hype and ai propaganda is just hiding it’s malicious intent and immorality, right?
Nice work quoting the great Paulo Freire there friend!
I am with you 100%. Currently there is no ethical or unharmful use of AI and it should be HEAVILY regulated. Plus artists, specially beginners, should stay away from it since it is a crippling practice.
Thanks for the words of wisdom! Keep up the great work!
I’m glad you picked up on that reference! Most people don’t, but his wisdom is well applied here, isn’t it? Let’s especially talk about how bad this would be for up and coming young artists who won’t want to learn anything, right? Just a cop out with this and no real growth
@@TheArtMentor precisely! AI is harmful overall, specially for young artists who should be focusing on expanding their knowledge and sensitivity. When AI generated images are the norm (and that day will unfortunately come), human sensibility will be gold. So Artist’s shouldn’t buy into the delusion that they will somehow hop in the AI train and become “prompt masters”. That will not be a thing.
P.S. I am from Brasil and we take a lot of pride from the fact that our smart boy Paulo Freire is celebrated worldwide! Cudos to you for correctly applying Mai’s wisdom to your reflection!
Oh great to have the pleasure to speak to you about this subject then! I’ve read many of Freire’s texts and he’s a huge influence on me as an educator too.
For artists, let’s not lose sight of our potential and fall into the trap of fetishizing technology like a human-made god, right?
@@TheArtMentor the pleasure is mine! As an educator I am also heavily influenced by Paulo Freire, which is why I consider works such as what you do on UA-cam of the outmost importance, not only for artists.
About not losing sight of our potential, I am 100% with you on that. Plus I strongly believe it is a fight worthy fighting - and spreading.
Thanks again for carrying the torch so high up.
Cheers my friend!
Keep it touch too, my friend! Thanks for your support 💪
Ai art tech is nice if I can train it with real life photos or videos and my own art, and if it can replicate me or do things I can use to improve, Im all for it.
Yeah if it could only use my own art without the rest of the pirated database, I’d be fine with it. But not as efficient or possible without that push
Stop defending AI art. it’s lazy. No talent required
Amen to that 🙌 it’s the absence of learning, right?
Misspelled title?
Which part?
@@TheArtMentor His instead of this?
Yeah I did that on purpose since the guy in the thumbnail is also the one spreading the most propaganda. That’s Eman
@@TheArtMentor Ah, I see! Sorry for the unintentional gaslighting attempt! :D
No problem at all 🙃 I jumped right on that when I saw your comment haha I was checking every word lol. Yeah Eman is the real gaslighter here
Another superb talk and also a stunning artwork.
Thanks so much! What parts did you enjoy the most in this?
@@TheArtMentor The whole talk, really. I see the points echoed in unexpected places, now. The regular consumer out there is definitely on our side. I was just checking out 'r lotr', for example and the regulars on there are absolutely sick of ai art and are about to ban it.
All regular peopl out there are basically saying the same thing: "It was cool at first, but after seeing a bunch of it, it's just annoying spam, now".
People want and are only interested in human made artwork. The thought of machines trying to compete or imitate humans is rather revolting isn’t it?
Omg yes especially when scrolling through social media right??
Yo that’s me bornasazombie is me
Oh yeah? Where were you brought up in this?
@@TheArtMentor 8:05 but I was going back and forth on my opinions at the time
So how do you feel now?
@@TheArtMentor ai bad
Happy to hear you’ve been enlightened 😂 what made you solidify your opinion?
Only people who don't practise art by pure lazyness can appreciate AI...everybody can learn, art is not elitist...
yeah and how harmful is that perspective for art or anything? Who kept anyone from making more art?
@@TheArtMentor It's just an urban ledgend "ART = TALENT".
And this stupid pig abuse of it.
Exactly. People are great at gatekeeping themselves more than anyone else
emad ... aka h(emad) 🤔
HELL YEAH!
Oh yeah! 🙌 what did you enjoy about this video?
@@TheArtMentor The part when you talked about the ethics. I feel that in the advancement of technology people forget about the ethics of how it will be used. Also, how we must think of humanity. I think AI art is an example of a problem that we will be dealing with in various forms for the next few decades. The clash of ethics and technology will be discussed a lot going forward.
1:01 NO. I would not be on board with the current ....ckers who upload AI everywhere. The fact that someone with 0 xp just floods any art site with the filth of what I have seen is disgusting. We are talking about hentAI, fat porn, child porn, and most users do 30 image a day.
It’s visual vomit isn’t it? An uncurated blast of ai generations that are flawed and even disturbing
@@TheArtMentor Some are "only" disturbing. Half of it is disgusting.
The part where I am concerned is that you are an ACTUAL artist, and I am drawing weapons. I am mediocre. I am worried for Deviantart. It supported mediocre and beginner artists. It literally has it's own AI that the owners made for sale. When Artstation turned pitch black with "no AI", posts, Deviantart started "yes AI" posts. And I started harrassing EVERY. SINGLE ONE OF THEM (whom the filter cold not cut out... or commercialized their garbage...)
You and your kind are safe. Anything below you is literally gone.
I don’t think it’s so bleak as you describe, especially if you work to become constantly better okay? Before ai was a threat, this was always the case with budget cuts or just better artists. Stay strong okay?
You got me on the marketing campaign can say they been successful,🤣🤣🤣I can totally see that in university, they are more focus on teach marketing than actual music, weird isn't it? but guess this is what happen when the university is just focusing on creating robot artist for Media like BBC for example.
typical attempts at devaluing and deskilling humanities, isn't it?
so, what about when they say (or something along the lines of) "by you utilizing art platforms (like DA) to publish your artworks (for free) that your technically giving them permission to you use your works anyways for AI.
Oh that’s a huge lie too, don’t you think? No artist ever agreed to that, as those platforms snuck that into their user agreements before ai image generation was ever well known. It’s exploitation, or at least the start, isn’t it?
true
Glad you agree 😁 which part are you referring to?
@@TheArtMentor
the part of it being unethical and how research had a clear ethical guideline to how that datasets should be used .
The art mentor doing god’s work as usual.
I’m flattered by your divine opinion of me 😂 what points did you think were most important in this video?
All points were really good but especially to me was the one about Pablo Picasso. We humans use work from others so we can improve and learn from each other.
Aspiring engineers can teach themselves using works from other engineers
Aspiring doctors can teach themselves using works from other doctors.
This can be applied to artists too as we need visual reference and information in order so we can grow.
People use works from each to grow and learn. Ai uses it to make these companies rich. The Ai does this as it is just a product. In order for a business to be successful, you need to provide a product/service. The Ai is the product and the people using it are consumers and hell sometimes the people using it are the products cuz it’s making the company more powerful. And it’s been achieved by taking work from actual creative workers so it isn’t inspiration, it’s theft on a mass scale to harm many workers.
So obviously Pablo meant use ideas from other people to become successful as an artist and put your own spin on it but it isn’t theft cuz no harm is being done to that original creator since I’m not as good as them and don’t have much experience as them, but with an Ai since it has revised billions of images flawlessly, it is a threat to many creative workers out there, even if you are extremely good. I hope this wee essay made sense lol.
Very well said 👌and the deeper meaning too is how do we take ideas and innovate them through OUR own lives experiences. That unique world perspective actually shapes art, and it’s not formulaic, right?
@@TheArtMentor Yeah exactly m. That’s what makes art yours. You put all the work in and you try and find more ideas to add to it to make it more better. For Ai, you are just commissioning a vending machine and hoping something you wish will come out cuz you have no control over it.
That lack of control aspect makes it hard for ai users to accept, doesn’t it? I always see them battle hard against that idea
2:22 Maybe everyone is born an artist, but only a select few are born TRUE artists. The art world is a behemoth of mediocrity that previously could not be seen because internet was not a thing.
You hear that’s just your own excuse and philosophy, don’t you? That’s a self-fulfilling prophecy so it’s okay to give up and accept it easier
@@TheArtMentor I already wasted 20+ years of my life on this, it's not a prophecy, but history.
When internet was not a thing, you could only compare yourself to amateurs you knew in person. But with the internet a tsunami of millions you suddenly stumbled upon, and you realize you were just another tiny mediocre seaweed.
It's better to burn all your drawings in a fireplace and eat all your pencils in caesar salad.
@haitaelpastor976 yet the internet brought a wealth of knowledge and free information for all artists. Why blame the internet instead of acknowledging that you struggled with negative comparison and that made you think you couldn’t be better?
@@TheArtMentor I don't really blame the internet... If anything, I'm thankful. It finally took me out of my delusion (which in fact was also fueled by others) and made me face the cold hard mediocre reality.
@haitaelpastor976 not sure why you’re happy putting yourself down and reinforcing limiting beliefs about your potential. I’m sincerely sorry to hear that. Not everyone believes that tho, and those people will go on to accomplish their dreams instead of making excuses
Ai art is nothing more than a modern chrome for searching references
That's all you got from this, and that justifies the exploitation and unethical practices to develop image generators? Also how about the fact that 99% of ai images are flawed and devoid of practical fundamentals?