Why are Artists So TERRIFIED of AI Art? Is It Even REAL Art? || SPEEDPAINT + COMMENTARY
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- SOURCES:
- arxiv.org/pdf/...
- towardsdatasci...
- blogs.scientif...
- theconversatio...
- / is-ai-art-real-art
- nightcafe.stud...
ENTER JULY’S CONTEST HERE: duchesscelesti...
Shoutout to @Fxllxng Official for today's audio editing and music! Go check his stuff out here: open.spotify.c...
And check out his new album here: • Ladder
______________________
PATREON: / duchesscelestia
KO-FI: ko-fi.com/cele...
DISCORD: / discord
STORE: www.etsy.com/c...
CARRD: duchesscelesti... - Розваги
Sometimes I wonder what old artists like rennaissance painters and comic strip artists would think of this stuff.
Well they adapt the good artist know how adapt to changes, always happen.(What i say here are not my words, THIS IT'S A SHITTY CHANGE AND DESTROYER OF TRUE VALUE)
@@mateomartinez8863 *this* change is crappy
@@kittygirl0872 exactly this change is creepy and crappy. AI is not only a threat to artists, it's a threat to humanity.
They'd probably hate it.
At least the renaissance painters probably would. It'd run directly counter to their focus on humanity and her capability and skill.
@@mateomartinez8863 not true, stop this fashion of the change, the difference is cleaster clear, you can't say such a bullshit and pretend is true, is like saying photos can be artistic, so portrait artist aren't good cause they aren't adapting and still not becoming photographer, i love drawing, and using AI for me is nonsense, i'm not saying you can't make art with that, but saying good artist adapt and change in this sense is idiotic.
Another day another slay and good take I’ve seen people who use ai art and pretend it’s their own art 💀💀💀
Like at least credit the app you're using 💀
@@adrianthethey ikrr
Honestly tho, I'm surprised by how cool the art the ai can create is
@@adrianthethey yeah the people who went through the coding and then make the art look good do need credit as well
@@EriIsTired yesss, coders are so cool (I'm decent at coding, but I have no motivation for it, so I could never use it for big things)
I'm not scared of scammers passing off AI generated art as real, I'm scared of the counter Celestia has for this claim. I'm scared of hours of my work being demeaned and thrown out the window on the off chance that someone, somehow, recreated my art with an AI generator. I'm scared of being called a faker and having my reputation ruined all because technology overstepped it's boundaries. I spent 7 years of my life perfecting my skills, and art is ALL I know. I'm scared that some bot will come in and take that all away from me, and there will be nothing I can do, because few seem to even take artists and their concerns seriously.
Same, especially when capitalism kinda already threaten workers with such ideas like that. Like "Ur job is easy and a robot is going to replace you soon" type of threat. I worked hard to try to perfect my craft so there's a lot of personal takes into the pieces I create, and the idea of being replaced by a robot who was just created yesterday and can already do things you can do if not faster and more efficient is not only terrifying but it's also soul crushing.
Edit: Also wanted to add, it's also the equivalent of being beaten while you're already down, cause people who aren't artists themselves already don't value art as they should.
This
Would this problem not be solved if you showed your lineart/sketch/progress in some way of the piece? After all, an AI generated piece will always be finished without any steps before that. Meanwhile, artists will have their progress to show, they can show the different layers they used, their tools etc.
I hope this helps soothen your mind a little.
Yeah, but this is why I keep all of my original files (or if it was started traditionally, I just keep the paper/sketchbook)
Don't worry, A.I will never get your art slot in this world. I am not speaking in a thousand years worth of technological progress, but in your lifetime it will not happen. What will probably happen is: another tool for you to use will open up. Just like photography hasn't killed painters or how film hasn't killed photographers, it's just another tool we will learn to use.
Also, as much as we feed the A.I with input, we can never feed it with our feelings. You have so much advantage than it, it's like being worried of a dog stealing your GF.
I think its a good alternative for backgrounds.
I mostly use stock images(completely free like pexels) and blur them, but these might be a limimited on some specific subject.
Since these arent used as the main content only the mood matters.
Yea especially when it comes to specific vibes instead of scrolling for hours I can add one bit here, another there, and have a solid custom reference to use for the background
I'm paraphrasing this from another comment I saw before, but digital artists aren't afraid of AI replacing them, they are afraid that people think that there is nothing special about digital art as an expressive art form. If there was an AI that artificially made music on par with the top artists today, people probably still wouldn't like it simply because they know there is no expression behind it. For the most part, that is not the case for digital art.
If they're worried about digital art being hollow, they were in the wrong field and making art for the wrong reasons.
@@ultimamage3 Who are you to tell someone they are making art for the wrong reasons?
@@ultimamage3 it's not just worries, it will become literally hollow cause it's just made by a program lol
Firstly AI music already exists and it is quite popular not as popular as actual talented producers and singers, but it is growing as the ai is improving.
Secondly, this thing has happened uncountable times, like with the photography and digital art take over, where people thought real canvas, handrawn art would die out. This is just another cycle and it's not only happening in art and art isn't even recieving the worst of it.
AI art by words or ai converting simple art into realistic is definitely not a negative in general. You can't make everyone happy that can never happen, I also don't see people complaining about how languages make coding easier allowing more people to code making it difficult for previous gen coders to be less desirable.
Noone will complain about anything which makes their life easier, the only people being affected negative are the minority. I think it is good that I will have to pay less to be able to generate any kind of art I would like for whatever I need. It is bad that people will get demotivated and lose jobs potentially but again that is the cycle of life that we currently live in.
I bet noone here would complain if they got robots who instantly fixed their pipelines or instantly fixed any tech problems they run into without having to book or wait for days for a response or something like that. Those are potential jobs also being lost aswell.
@@granathd All this is correct, but it's not the point I'm trying to make. Art is a form of expression, and artists create art as a way to express their thoughts and feelings through unique mediums. What artists are troubled by is that people many times see art at face value. "This one looks nice." " This one's really detailed." Those qualities of art are essential for sure, but the focus may get taken away from why the artist made the art in the first place. AI generated art is the ultimate embodiment of expressionless art. There's no thoughts, no feelings behind "why" the AI decided to make an art piece. Someone litterally threw some keywords into a machine and see what it spits out, then only talks about how cool the results are. It's impressive for sure, but it's also a bit disturbing for artists when they hear people say that they will be replaced by these. Obviously, they won't be replaced, but it hurts to know their art is often held to the same value as the "art" of an AI.
AI cannot steal the soul of an artist. Your original creations have your soul imbedded into them, I truly believe that. You get a certain feeling when you witness real, good art, that's intangible
It is true, but ordinary people don't give a damn about the soul of an artist.
@@yesman1743 not all people actually believe that such thing as soul even exists. Like, your emotions - is it soul? Or just your hormones affecting your brain?
I doubt AI can ever fully replace art, its extremely complicated, holding many nuances and levels of depth I don't think a robot can ever truly grasp, but you honestly never know what these things are capable of💀
that thought is terrifying.
Job markets don't really care about people,they just want to get the job done. So if they can replace living people with needs with something that needs an update once in a while,they absolutely will. I'm pretty sure that only the top percent of artists with their already established styles will survive,anybody that's still in the process of learning or want to learn has just been made obsolete.
That scene from the incredibles movie keeps playing in the back of my mind in this situation.
Which scene?
@@TheUltimateMachineGod You know the one where syndrome says when "everyone's super no one will be" and also when Mr.incredible presumes that he killed off real heroes so he could pretend to be one.
I feel that using AI art as references will be really useful since it’ll allow artists to make their own references that they need because a lot of the time artists can’t find the exact references that they need for their art
Honestly I like the way the ai creates backgrounds and I'm definitely going to photobash them into references for complicated backgrounds. I already do it and ai will actually make it easier to come up with more specific things and styles instead of scrolling through Google photos for an hour
I understand this, but graphic designers, and animaters are already under payd, work in bad conditions, overwhealmed, mistreated, and work in long hours by companies so they could pay rant, and the only things they can do, is to hope it gets better, or quit. This maybe help, but it will just worse the already bad situation.
@@Alexandraadftxr7052 background artists ate a different section of them. Also ai can't do specific perspectives or consistent backgrounds that connect together
@@Alexandraadftxr7052 for many of these artists, it’s likely their employer will change (somewhat likely for the better honestly) to companies that are making the ai for this art. It’s hard to say where it will go but artists should be prepared to make the most of it. This technology is not moral or immoral, it depends on how it is used.
I used some AI generators recently and I think it's more promising as an art reference than anything else. Although I'm not an artist to the extent that I would be if I practiced, I did take the time to consider the tool as art references more than anything else and was interested in what references would be produced with my key words. The images being produced aren't that great, but if I need something to look at to make sure my art looks better than without a reference, I think there's a lot of promise here as I've already stated.
However, I do believe as a creator that fears are justified. We don't know what impact this will have on art going forward and I cannot make an accurate estimate of this. It could steal jobs, ruin lives, etc, but this being said, you can always prove that your art style is your art style. All you need is the confidence to pull it off and the right tools. This doesn't mean your life can't be ruined by AI making art in the future, but again, we don't know the impact right now.
Everyone's fears and concerns are justified. I'm not going to say anyone's feelings on this topic aren't valid. I'm unable to speak for the art community as a whole. I'm just someone that has created art in the past and could in the future.
But, this conversation is about artists. I can only imagine what I'll feel when a similar conversation happens in regards to writers.
i personally think it’s real art because- Who Cares? even if the artist behind the image is an a machine just combining a bunch of images, it’s still an original piece and honestly, it’s unique. it can be considered art because the people who coded it has made something that can create an image when provided a prompt. even if it’s not like using paint, or digitally drawing it, it’s (an oversimplification, but) a machine version of photobashing.
I agree.
And in my opinion, You can even compare A.I art to memes in a way.
A.I generates multiple pictures and make an art piece out of them. For memes, you usually take a scene from a movie, find a picture or a gif online, then use your artistic mind to make a unique joke out of it.
It's not art. Because one there is nothing behind it. Two graphic designers, and animaters are already under payd, work in bad conditions, overwhealmed, mistreated, and work in long hours so they could live. This AI that you, and other call an artist just will worse the already bad situation.
When money will no longer go to artists and instead all of it to corporations while artists like Celestia lose out on future opportunities, will you still say, "Who cares?"
@@pronoun171 We're not talking about corporations. And people are allowed to have opinion.
@@Alexandraadftxr7052 And what if they weren't under paid? It's still art. Art is a unique word for millions of type of things.
This probably doesn’t really directly relate to the problem addressed in the video but this topic made me remember that one story in ep 24-28 in the webcomic, ‘if ai ruled the world’ where it shows that people have prejudice against art created by ai ( art as in music in the context of the webcomic because they were playing the piano ) compared to art from a human because it’s not “real art”. I like how the creator shows the different view points of the two sides, please check it out!
There are other stories in the webcomic too and I think they are interesting, especially the main story.
AI can only mimic what they have been programmed to do, I don't think it'll ever hold a candle to a skilled artist's work
Current generation AI models can already rarely make good pieces of art that I would grade as skilled artist level. This is pretty conditional on type of art though. What is really exciting, is what will happen in 5 or 10 years. Midjourney and Dalle2 are both only a few months old and are already 5x as good as the models shown in the video (wombo and nightcafe), Imagen and Parti, both by Google, are benchmarked to be even better. There will always be a place for human artists but this new AI generative art shouldn't be so easily dismissed, especially at this speed of development.
quit lying to yourself
@@nobodycares607 Lol just saying a company will like a highly skilled and experienced artist over AI any day
@@TherealChainsawmaniac for now maybe
@DragonicBladex Even if it did reach that level, you can't sell that art mostly because of the lawsuits that will ensue and companies will never take that risk, in a lot of countries there's laws in place to protect artist's as well as Unions and other measures to battle against these AI bro's
I think your concern being mainly focused on how humans will abuse AI Art is valid. When this first began, I searched around the internet and found an “Artist VS AI art” video where they payed an artist to create art from the same prompt that they put into an AI. In almost every case the human was able to create a more specific, accurate, and uniquely stylized art piece…however the number of times the purchaser was scammed (either because the art they received was stolen, or because they never received any art at all) was nearly 50%. And that will only get worse as AI art becomes closer and closer to human artwork. - I also wanted to bring up another issue you didn’t touch on, which is the art theft of the AI itself. Many of the training images were taken from artists without their consent-and without those images the AI couldn’t do what it does nor improve at the rate it is improving. And yet the AI companies are profiting off their AI generators (Ex. The one you used only allowed you to test it for free 5 times, then you had to pay). This basically amounts to the companies profiting off the art of real artists who never saw any compensation. That’s one of my biggest concerns before I can accept AI art as a tool. There’s even multiple lawsuits about it happening right now-including from companies like Getty Images. Now obviously there are fair use laws and such, but I’m not trying to say that the art the AI PRODUCES is stolen/too close to the original, merely that the data they needed to create and improve their AI WAS. And that those stolen pieces deserve compensation for helping to create these AI generators. Whether my opinions will be reflected by the court cases, who knows, but it simply feels unjust to me as it stands.
IMO, the problem with this is that consumers aren't going to have two options (Human or AI Generated). They will stumble upon a piece, like it, and buy it. Once AI is everywhere (spoiler alert: It already is) this will lead to an oversaturation in the market and the value of art itself will diminish to nearly nothing.
artist adapted when digital art first became a thing and we will adapt again. The current AI programs are mind blowing with what they can do, but its not always going to be the case and they are limited by the info in the available databases, which are huge but not always going to have what it needs. when we get to use the AI programs that are more able to actually design/illustrate/paint an idea by actually thinking we are screwed
I think the subject of "is AI art real art" is a hornits nest.
If we say it's not real art becouse the program can't be creative and just creats it's art based on alredy existing art, than we also have to ask ourselfe if we human even abide to that high standard of "creativity". Becouse let's be real, we creat art based on all kind of things. Our suroundings, other humans, emotions, objects, and yes, especially based on other art. So is a realism artist who draws portraits, by these standars, truly creative? Is a manga artist who bases his locations on existing citys creative? Is a character designer who takes inspiration from clothing trends creative? Is ANYONE creative? Or are we actually closer to the AI as we want to aknowledge: creating things based on other things that alredy exist?
People feared when photoshop arrived. Now it's a tool. People who animated in 2D feared 3D. People who had the 2D experience have more success in being hired than people who only worked in 3D.
It's more so the change that people fear, but humans always adapted to change.
so true. Thats why artists should use AI as a tool and not to fear or feel bad about themselves.
@@HCforLife1 the fear is that the tool can outshine its user
When you're no longer "a carpenter", but simply "the guy who has the hammer", you are obsolete.
Why would anyone hire an artist if they could type up whatever they wanted to get instant, free results?
That is what I fear.
This reminds me of the machines creating stories and music in the book 1984. It’s pretty scary to think that AI is getting so good it’s dystopian.
I feel like it's the best way to find the perfect reference for your backgrounds. I would use this a TON. I find the endless choices one of its best features. I might actually use it to find backgrounds that semi resemble what I think. However, I wouldn't use them as a FINAL design. I would use them for lighting reference. While AI can find *many MANY** things to use for art, I'm the only one who *truly* knows what I want to see as the final product. Therefore, I'd design my own backgrounds, but using the AI as a reference ONLY.
I dunno, seeing ai art much better and more creative than I could ever do and it's so discouraging
What about signatures on art? Are we safe if we do that(edit) and animation
People do claim ai art as theirs, people on art discord servers are always getting banned for claiming ai work as their own and trying to sell it
At the end of the day this is life, you worth adapt yourself to the situation or disappear.
Ok ok, forget the art convo for a second, you know why AI art terrifies ME? Because the way the system works, we cannot comprehensively trace the line of data that lead it to the end result. It's a completely tangled string of telephone. Anyone ever heard of Loab?? (don't look it up if you can't handle disturbing imagery). _Why_ did the program make that, why does it _keep_ making it? What the fresh fuck was put into that line of code to CONTINUOUSLY birth this digital hell demon???
You beat me to this topic! I’m also making a video on this topic soon lol. I agree it’s not a replacement but a resource.
GANs have been obsoleted by diffusion models. Though they were very impressive at the time, we have moved on.
Oh hi Celestia I just started watching you I think 3 or 4 days ago and I wish I watched you sooner I just love your vids! :)
AI in art should be used as a means not as an end
I really liked all your talking points here! The debate around AI art has gotten so toxic, its nice to see a level headed breakdown of the pros and cons.
I think this is some valid reasons to be worried, and to be sure, there are gonna be people who will use AI art instead of commissioning things, and that'll certainly change the market, but as someone who has fun using Dall-E to generate art for custom Magic cards - a hobby I wouldn't have the funds to do with commissions - its far from perfect, and hasn't stopped me from commissioning art for things like my channel, or D&D characters.
AI art isn't perfect. Its good when I just wanna throw vibes into the universe and get something back, and the tools to refine it are there and are cool, but it dosn't beat commissioning an actual artist... and I'm dubious that it ever will. Its getting better all the time, sure... but my phone only ever notices I'm saying 'okay google' to activate voice commands whenever I'm distinctly NOT trying to activate voice commands. Its been years since other automation services like self-checkout lines and automated phone systems were implemented, but they havn't gotten far enough to actually replace humans.
Plus, the US courts have already ruled that AI generated art is not valid for copyright, since it needs to have been made by a human in order to qualify as a work that can be protected - which leaves a lot of issues for using it in a professional capacity. Like, even without the legal implications, saying your project is composed of AI art is like bragging that you're using stock photos - it aint that impressive. But if you're using AI art, you don't OWN it. NOBODY can own it. So people can just take that art and use it themselves as well. Its essentially public domain, not YOURS. Plus then you have to worry about the possibility that the AI will spit out a piece that is a bit too similar to one of the images it referenced... and that original artist will see that and sue for plagiarism. Its a bit dubious on how much legal standing there is with that claim, but I think the smart thing would be not to wade into that legal grey area to begin with.
Which leads to another moral dilemma that I think is valid to have disagreements on: Is all AI art plagiarism, given the artists of the pieces it uses as its database didn't consent to have their art included? Personally, since AIs give pretty different results most of the time, I'd say no, since its not trying to replace the original work, and I think falls a bit more under the purview of fair use/remixing - you couldn't sue someone for using your art as a reference for theirs, unless its literally a 1-to-1 copy after all, and its dubious that anything would be different just because a robot is the one doing the referencing and not a human. But I understand actual artists having a different view on that since its so much more personally connected to them.
TLDR: I think the outrage over AI art is overblown, but there are some legitimate moral and ethical questions out there that I understand people having, and you do a great job summarizing it all! I enjoy seeing actual artists opinions on this, since as a person whos not that artistically inclined, it feels I don't have as much stake in arguing in AI's favor.
i personally think ai art is nothing to fear because ai art might try their best but us actual artist will always be better
effectively ai arts good but we are better
Wait this is actually so cool! I’ve messed around in night cafe a bit and it’s really fun and interesting to see what the ai creates. Not only that but I think it’s a great tool for artists to use for references, it’s basically the same as searching for a reference online, you can just be a lot more specific. I think it’s a great way to find inspiration and references for more specific things :]
I despise AI art.
Its just.... The mind set of an artist. They way we can bring our brain to life, the wonderful feeling of breathing life to your imagination. They way there is so much diversity in our communities, anything and everything can exist thanks to us and our creativity and all the things we create. We are free in our imagination, we have so much fun creating our little worlds.
And AI art could take away all of it. All our talents, our dreams, our hobbies, our growth, our creations, our burning passion, all that we want to do in this world, thrown away like worthless garbage. Our life shattered and our hopes and dreams destroyed. All because of some stupid robot.
And oh my gosh! I cannot wait until I never can draw or express my creativity again. I cannot wait until my talents and passion are completely useless. I can't wait to watch my dreams get shattered right in front of me. I can't wait to live a terrible life working in an office because a robot ruined everything for me.
AI art needs to go. Now.
Disco Diffusion is free without a waitlist
Well traditional art still exist, digital art didn't replace it right? it's just an option.
The crux of the argument is that currently, these AI generation programs are using artwork without consent and compensation of the artist. Period.
Art organizations like concept art portfolio sites are allowing AI prompters to post alongside actual concept and 3d artists who are looking for JOBS. Portfolio sites are being scraped for artwork and then the generated images are posted to these same sites.
Every image used is currently without the consent of the artist. Artists both small and advanced in career have said how heartbreaking it is.
People are currently using these programs to create replicas of real, living artists' work, and selling it.
Perhaps this video needs an update.
Anime/manga style character artists are going to be in a rough time soon. Especially the ones that make a living doing lewds of existing characters...
"Machines will replace human workers"
Human workers: *become machine operators *
I for one think AI art seems like a very useful tool and not much more
So the prompt engineer is the artist and the prompt engineer should claim ownership over the copyright of the pictures created with AI, and say that they have created the piece using very a very advanced tool that cut production times a thousandfold
I agree with the fact that AI art can be used as a tool for real art. But I also agree that it's scary how it could evolve and potentially take over real artists. However, by that standard, is it morally wrong to use AI art as a tool to help make real art that is otherwise difficult for some artists to make? like backgrounds?
There are a million fanfic writers who have no intention of ever making money or working in the writing field. They do it simply for the love of it. Their art is also being challenged, but you don't hear them bitching and crying about it? Why is that?
23:39
what if someone where to use it as a ref or smth for a background?
I don't think AI can replace artists but maybe when we all become digital then maybe there's a chance?? Lol. But yeah, I think scammers are more of a problem then actual ai takeover.
Question: Are the ai completely generating the art? because if they aren't, then the pieces of these drawings come from actual artists, and would it be ok for ai to just take pieces of somebody's art?
"A culling is at hand human..a culling"- CABAL
As someone who is extremely anti ai art and digital archiving, and as an artist who fears a 'digital dark age', I find this absolutely disgusting. I fully hope if capitalism ever tries to use ai art, or people try to start mass selling it, artists will rise up against it. It can never replace art made by people, and it can never replace people as a whole.
Plus, it uses art made by genuine artists to piece the 'art' together- In some images you can even see regenerated watermarks. Gross.
I do not agree with you, and though I agree with some of your opinions, this one was absolutely not it.
I wish to banish away jobs that use ai, I genuinely think they are not valid.
It's vile.
@@tinnedteainsyrup8943 factory workers had to go through it you didn't care then why should anyone care now
Sorry I didn't specify, things like language jobs that have been taken by ai, and left people working in the translation industry, not factory jobs.
it’s already replacing us now
With the amount of people willing to spend hours to make art to harass others with I'm sure there are even more willing to think of words to describe it & get an Ai to make which would probably not take hours at least some have censorship on what you can type but not all I thought about this whenever I first saw a video on using an Ai to generate images
In my opinion most people wouldn't sacrifice the inspiration and emotion of real artists over the soulless appeal of a literal robot. Just my insight though.
Are you ever listened to AI generated music? It's something but is completly a mess without points to score strong emotions. It will be good to create elevator music - or other meida. Good for netflix shows with imdb score around 5 for sure.
AIs don't "consult a database of images" when creating an image; for the large majority of common methods, the computer running the AI doesn't even have to have ever had any of the training images in it and doesn't need an internet connection, the AI has already learned how to draw.
but can it recreate a image that was in it's database?
@@samankucher5117 Only very common ones like the Mona Lisa, but even then, it's usually not an exact copy, but a new version draw from scratch with small errors/variations, just like would happen with a skilled human trying to draw something from memory.
@@tiagotiagot
ok ... that is plagiarism and it is a copyright infringement if it's even close enough reproduction.
@@samankucher5117 You don't see Disney going after every artist that remembers what Mickey Mouse looks like...
@@tiagotiagot
try selling 200 copies of it's art and see if they come after you.
I just cant understand people using “ai and artist” together.. this just dont feel right
Great points were made in this video! I have discussed this with some artist friends who are excited about AI art. to quote one of them "why shy away from new tech when you can piggyback off it and make it your 8itch?" another said that it takes him 9hours or so to generate ai art that he likes using 3 (or 4) AI generator and even then he has to clean things up. He also said that in the future people will get used to ai art and will get tired of it. Once that happens, another art renaissance will happen where people appreciate human made art more.
I'm a webcomic artist and I thought about using AI for backgrounds to help speed up the process, but honestly it's not really ideal to use since it's hard to recreate specific images, specially if I want it to match my style. In this case, I think that industries will just use AI as visual aids for thumbnails and designs. I'm also planning to use it to just give me ideas of architectures and monster designs since that's something i often struggle with.
I also think ai art can be very helpful for people wanting to commission their favourite artists. Like, how many commissioners are out there who has a vision of their character or world, but cant doodle it. They can just type it in the ai art and give it to the artist and say "please give it this look and feel with this composition". AI has trouble generating characters that actually look... right lol sometimes if you write a prompt of a scene, it will just show the silhouette in the art work.
Also, don't worry about the AI using your artstyle, specially if you're a small artist lol I'm pretty sure the devs feed them artstyles from well known people. You'd have to be an industry giant for them to use your works to teach their AI.
Your friends obviously don’t understand it will eventually replace them along with all artist and destroy creative jobs as a whole..eventually replace human creativity and purpose.Short sighted people is our downfall.
Honestly? I see AI art as understanding why the color blue doesn't work somewhere and artists might become editors as ai isn't perfect.
Yes it cuts down the work but there's always something wrong? needs tweaking?
If it does go mainstream example: midjourney is something I absolutely love for art prompts and using the ai generated stuff as reference
I see ai as a tool for artists, Clients will go "this but" and then want changes to be made.
It cuts the work load in half but theres always work to do.
Art as a job will probably shift in 20+ years just as how tattoo printers can only do so much of a good job someone has to put art into the tattoo machine just so.
At least there might be a huge over haul on art? Copy right and all that.
There might be laws that state an ai can't use your free to use base without crediting you or there ends up being restrictions on the images they can pull from like photo bucket or some other stock image thing.
making a market where artists sell the use of their art to ai people so they can turn out art work with that and make royalties.
Any number of things could be use to draw the ruler and monetize this.
of course then theres "your art style looks too close to my art style" maybe in a few years we wont even need artists, artists will use ai's and be paid to go "yep this looks good" or draw lines between the distinction of styles of art and conceptualize what that 'aesthetic' is to be called so programmers can make the ai understand that.
If AI-made art isn't art, then is a monkey, dog, or horse-made art project, not art simply because it wasn't human-made? (just something to think about.)
My biggest fear is the fact that people won’t want to commission me anymore if these ai generators become more and more mainstream and more available to the public. Because for a lot of people who commission artists, they often don’t think “wow, I love the composition of this piece! Look at all the work that went into it!” Instead; they think “wow, it looks cool!”. Which in most cases isn’t a bad thing. But if those same people apply that mindset to what they create with AI, why would they need to commission artists anymore? They can instead just create exactly what they want with a program. And that’s what scares me.
But why is that bad? You're essentially saying that you want everyone who has a cool idea to be forced to pay you to make it for them. That seems to be coming from a place of selfishness more than anything else, wanting everyone to have to rely on you and pay you just to be able to illustrate the ideas that they already have. And you're right, the amount of work that goes into it is irrelevant for most people if its a commission. The type of art that ends up in art galleries is normally respected for its difficulty in creativity, but if someone commissions you for something it's probably because they had an idea for a design but aren't good at drawing. They're commissioning you because they can't illustrate what they're seeing in their own mind.
Let's use a different example. Let's say we were living in a world where most people didn't know how to type and someone had an idea for a story. This individual isn't capable of writing, but you have the necessary skills and education to be capable of transcribing what they say. You're able to write down other people's stories and get paid to because they themselves aren't capable of writing. But suddenly, speech to text technology comes out and now they're able to talk into a microphone and the computer turns their words into text, and they are no longer forced to rely on you to get their ideas on to the screen. Is there somehow something wrong with them using that technology, and is the existence of that technology bad? If so, why? And if not then why is art any different?
@@zman948 Obviously I don’t want to gatekeep people’s creativity. But the thing is, in a few years, who’s to say that technology this advanced (programs like midjourney) won’t be available to the general public? If that happens, then there will be a significant decrease in commissions for ALL artists. Some of which survive off of commissions. It’s just a terrifying thought that the thing you love doing most in the entire world won’t matter to people. That it won’t be possible for you to have a career in something you’re so passionate about because people don’t need you anymore. This isn’t coming from a place of selfishness. It’s coming from a place of fear for my future, which I already feel enough of considering how saturated the art market is. I’ve spent my whole life creating art with the intentions of someday having a career in art. Specifically, I want to be an art teacher. But once again, I feel that if this technology becomes available to everyone, then there will be nothing for me. My art will once again just be seen as silly doodles and a “nice hobby”.
Tell me, in the example you gave, what happens to me, the person who has dedicated a portion of their life to learn their craft to be able to help people turn their ideas into reality? The person who has educated themself for years SPECIFICALLY so they can create things for people? What will I do? How will I make a living? Sure, people don’t have to rely on me anymore, which might be good for them. But what was wrong with relying on me in the first place? And what if I relied on them relying on me?
@@zman948This analogy doesn't work. If you were just to write down what the person says for them, that involves no creativity on your part. But creating drawings is different, in most cases you have to come up with the composition, color pallete, how to translate what they want into your style of art, etc.
A better analogy would be if you were a writer for commission, people come to you with an idea of what they want ("I want a fantasy story about a 12 year old boy named...") and you have to write the rest of the story based on the description, but one day a story making ai comes out and does the exact same thing you do, but for way cheaper.
If you don't value the time and effort that the writer put into perfecting their craft, then you'd go with the ai. Which (in my opinion) is bad.
If you don't want to commission artists to make what you want, learn how to draw.
I don't see this as any different than photography. People hire photographers to photograph their weddings, but people also hire painters to sit at and paint their ceremony. It's not a replacement, it's just an addition resource for consumers.
@@emilycreamer1307 that may be true, but that doesn’t change the fact that the market for commissioning artists will go down significantly. Even if it’s not replaced all the way, it will still practically be cut in half
I’ve always hated AI art. It’s helped me a lot in referencing scenes for my comic, but that’s only referencing. If I can take hours making something, whereas a computer can make the same thing in less than a minute, why does my career have any meaning? Why is my art worth anything? It’s a question I’ve been thinking of for a few months.
I just don’t get how everyone thinks like this. You can’t tell a bot to create your OC like you do with commissions. You also can’t tell a bot to change the hand just a little bit so it fits better.
All in all a bot may be able to create landscapes or vague characters or maybe in the future even good characters but nothing will come close to an actual commission or a persons very own art style.
There’s nothing to worry about really. :)
@@polarbearart There’s nothing to worry about re- RELEASE THE HYPNODRONES
Your questions are worth asking. If you can’t find an answer for why your art is worth anything then it probably isn’t of any worth to you. But the same can be said for better artists: if wlop can make better art than I can in a very small portion of the time, is my art worth anything. The answer for me is yes because I enjoy it and so do people around me. But to the market it’s worth very little.
@@polarbearart I wouldn't say never, take a look at OpenAI 's codex demo, it's an AI that writes code, in their demo, they use it to make a simple game by starting with nothing and giving it commands like "make a circle" "make it blue" "a bit smaller", OpenAI is also the commay behind DALLE2, so if they were set on researching the ability to make fine image adjustments, I believe we would be able to tell it to "change the hand just a little bit so it fits better" and it spits out a dozen slightly changed hands for you to pick. Research in this area moves insanely fast and if a big company takes a crack at a problem, it will probably have an initial solution in two years and a perfected result in 5.
@@polarbearart also the distinction beetwen true art(human made) and AI art will always be clear to anybody. chess player can't compete with AI, still people who watch chess matches, watch chess players not AI.
I think it's... tricky. To say "it's far away from now" does not bode well because technology's development is moving exponentially so what isn't possible today could be very possible in 20, 10, 5, or next year. You can't control that, and once you've opened that pandora's box, there's no going back. I'm a millenial and I have still met classical graphic designers who were trained on drawing all signage by hand, they're not of retirement age and many have lost their jobs to "AI" tools already such as text box tools. Sure, they didn't learn the new tools, but nobody offered to train them, either, they just walked into work and received a pink slip and suddenly the industry has no need for their skills.
So, while I am curious about the utility of these tools, I lean towards being fearful of them, because what seems like a long way away from you might be a hell of a lot closer than you realized. AI replacement, or even just jobs exclusively for the people who modify the AI algorithms, could be coming before you turn 30. And *then* what will you do for the rest of your life? Contrary to popular belief on the internet, you're not dead at 30, you're not even midlife. Can you start over so soon into your career? Can you abandon painting in colors for coding? I think the risk-reward is way out of balance, the risk is way deeper and more impactful than the reward.
tl;dr, I'm not concerned about the definition and platform of AI art, art always has infinite room to exist, I'm afraid all of the centralizing corporate money will go there and thousands more artists will go unemployed as a workforce. If we had a UBI system or weren't under capitalism, I would not be concerned at all.
I was kind of hoping the replacement of all jobs with ai would be less staggered as to promote a UBI for everyone at roughly the same time, but it kind of sucks that artists were targeted this early.
Im 18 and had taken my art practice seriously for a year and a half and was planning to potentially develop it into a full scale career, but what really demotivated me from making art this last couple of weeks is when I heard abt AI art. After watching all the vids of what the technology can do to create images really made me think twice about pursuing art seriously. idk what to do 😢
same here but i am 100% sure there will still be a huge community for human made art, new market, new appeal , new trends and so on. AI itself will have imperfection and limitation. Yes, there will be last demand for artists but then again who knows right?? I want to work as a full time artist too but it's good to have a backup plan and your art practice wont go to waste bc like how i say , there will still be a niche for us even if cooperates dont care anymore. Maybe doing art can be your side job or so, not the best but with these techs what else can we do but our best yea? My English is 2nd language so i hope u can understand well.
Your work will always be more valuable by the fact that you're making it. Does the sky at sunset demotivate you? Do the mountains in the morning? Let it inspire you instead
Back in the day, to create a logo for a corporation you’d need to draw it by hand, now you can fill a circular marquee with colour and slap an appropriate typeface beneath, so why aren’t all corporate logos just circles…
am late, but AI generated art has been thing for years in developer community.. It just surfaced now, don't take ai generated ai and claim its ours. You have to reference creator of the code. But there's nothing wrong using as reference.
Also, share a bit less online and hold onto more of your own work, create some scarcity in the future
I'm sorry that this is long. You've been warned.
AI will eventually become more efficient and it will take less manpower to create the desired results, which equals to more profit so most will adapt it.
My fear is the generations that will not pursue an art's education because it is pointless since AI exists.
AI art will further lower the demand for art programs across the world. Kids won't even dream of becoming artists, they will simply give a prompt to an AI.
I like the vid, but the 10 years from now AI is what I am worried about. This is not NFTs, AI is capitalism's final form, human free low cost labor.
That's not how capitalism's final form. You know what's gonna happen if you use 0 cost labor? Your product will devalue and the market will fix itself.
Also, why would you think no one will want to do art? No human being, alive or dead, can beat a modern A.I in chess, but there are thousands of people still playing it, even competitively.
The thing is: in next 1-5 years entry illustration jobs will going to go away. You can see this today with midjourney - it can create already usable art - the quality most people need to spend more than 10 years of grind. The new artists will need to: change the career direction. Use AI as a baseline for ideas, style and so on. It is better to use AI and use the design as a baseline for your artwork - add details and so on. Then stay hardcore against. People who will not get on the AI art train will going to regret it. And I am telling this as the former illustrator and actual programmer. People always de-valuated art as it is opinionated. They will devalue entry quality very quickly. Next 5 years will be transition period. Artists will as always be people of ideas. And market will change indeed. You can see this already - and wait few months - it will explode to the level that most artist opposing using AI will be deeply depressed. It will change the industry as the photography - or digital art. Another chapter - you can adapt or be desposable.
@@randomdeliveryguy finally some sense, these guy talk like if a print image is the same as the original piece of art.
@@HCforLife1 wrong, nothing that big is gonna happen.
@@HCforLife1 will happen only for some specifical are like videogame and similar, where art is relatively not art.
I dont think ai generated art will ever fully replace human artists. Theres so many niches in many aspects of creating art that cannot be replicated by an ai like character design, consept art, realism, animation, story boards, vector art, comission art of a real human/pet etc and just physical paintings, the list could go on.
Ai replacing us is a scary thought for sure and people will absolutely abuse the fact anyone can use ai art generators, wheter its people who use it and claim they created whatever was generated or people who simply trace absolutely everything and again reclaim its their original creation when in fact it wont be.
Lets not blame the tool, blame the people abusing it.
Also ai generators themselves are art, but they simply create imitations of art. Someone created that ai and made it work and thats increndible, they absolutely deserve any money they can get if people want to use the generated images in any commercial use
I agree with you that AI won't ever fully replace human artists, but AI will be convincingly doing all of the examples you listed within 5-10 years.
(Possibly with the exception of physical painting, but that can be effected using canvas printing services or cheap artists in asia that take your digital art and reproduce it on canvas )
In terms of commercial use or 'claiming the art', I view it the same way as an author using a ghost writer. Whether you credit them is up to you and what agreement you have with them.
MidJourney, for example, gives you full rights to the images (possibly except NFTs) if you're on the right plan, so at that point you're free to make your own decisions on what you feel is the right thing to do.
Dall e, on the other hand, forces you to credit them everywhere you post a piece, even if you just used inpainting to fix a small blemish on an image.
This. This is the opinion that I have with what I figured out about all this. It's so easy to fall into that trap of being afraid of a machine doing something that you can do, but the only way for it to do that to such a degree is if we created an actual brain in a computer.
I've seen plenty of Twitter posts making fun of AI generation because it simply can't grasp context in a sufficient enough manner to produce the right picture. Salmon in a river? It thinks there should be fillets in water. Alien robot? It puts an alien in a tin can suit.
It has no full understanding of how art works to be able to produce what is actually desired. When someone wants an ai picture, they want an *idea.* A close enough. That's not commissioning, and I don't see how it compares to losing out purchasing one just from an errant AI generation.
Crucially though it doesn't need to fully replace human artist to make a lot of human artists obsolete. It will seriously undercut the market for low budget commission work. Cases where the client never expected perfection in the first place. And even if you're making art as a hobby just to gain experience, your work will likely get drowned in an ocean of AI generated art online. Good luck getting useful feedback unless you're already really good, or willing to do weird niche pieces that no AI knows how to do decently yet. It will just become much harder to make money as an artist unless you've already made a name for yourself.
10 years ago AI art was nothing but comical twisted smudges which barely even resembled what they were supposed to. These learning based models have only recently breached the threshold for viability, and they're still pretty janky to use. In another 10 years it may be borderline impossible to compete against free open source models as a no-name artist outside of the most bizarre niches. By then getting an AI to do it may just be the default for budget art, if only because it's way faster.
Now that mid-journey v5 is already here, this comment aged like a milk
@@udaykadam5455 ikr. i have lost all hope in these 8 months.
The problem is that graphic designers, and animaters are already under payd, work in bad conditions, overwhealmed by long working hours, and mistreated, by companies. I want to work with animation, but this, and the fackt that even a movement that was created to help, and spread awarenes about that animaters are not robots, and that the industry's bad treatment of them didn't help screars, and angers me. Even before this my only hope was indi animated, and games. The only company, or studio I can see myself work for is the studio that made Cuphead (I forget they name), because one of the reasons why they spent 4 years working on the DLC is because of the well being of the emplyies. If the indi industry don't surviv, then my only hope is making webb comics, and self publishing a book with my illustrations, or to become a housewife, because outside of drawing I'm not really good at anything. (Sorry for the grammar, and spelling mistakes, English is not my first language.)
Paid*
Overwhelmed*
Fact*
Awareness*
Animators*
Scares*
Their*
Employees*
Survive*
Learn how to use these new tools properly, or start finding a new job.
@@zakuro8532 I can't really do that. I already have my high school degree, and plus like I said I have a learning defenetly that I was born with, and it's posably can be qalafied as a disabelity. I mean I had an official paper that made me band from studing math, and or anything about my grammer.
Don’t panic. Just adapt and use these tools correctly. You’ll be fine love. It’ll be fine. Plus, we’re not the only creative job that is in danger with AI. This is a topic that is effecting many industries. Let’s just wait and see what happens.
Let me tell you something.. Ai generation was BIG part of what you've described. This techonolgy has been part of it for.. over 10 years. In fact Ai generated art actually comes from such development!
This is litreally nothing new at all.. Do not worry about it.
I imagine it’s gonna be the same with NFTs, lots of outrage, then when everyone realizes it’s not going anywhere, they abandon ship. I think we should worry about the chuckleheads who still pretend that digital art isn’t real despite not being able to tell the different between a traditional one. As well as dealing with the pseudo-outrage of people tracing when they’re being super transparent and say, “Oh yeah, I traced the pose during the OG sketch”
Except this is already going somewhere. Fine art is sort of safe because people are paying for a story often. But most people can’t afford to pay much for illustration and the ai art will look as good/cool to non-artists and see a lower cost (as the work load) is lower. Artists will need to evolve what they do within the next few years, just as they did when the internet became mainstream and marketing will become more important if it’s your job.
I say this as someone who does art and studies ai, tech and design at university.
@@arha13 that’s just one opinion though. As it exists now, AI can’t replicate human forms or even organic looking aspects of an image without being uncanny. That might change in the future, but even if it doesn’t, people will still want to buy art, and if you’re going to an AI because “Artist charge too much,” they weren’t gonna buy anything from an artist to begin with
@@Dragmiredraws the biggest reason I buy from artists is the style of the piece looking nice. If one option is a quarter of the price and the other is slightly more organic looking, the choice is going to be the cheaper one if I don’t have disposable income (and I do buy stuff from artists atm).
Oddly enough I've seen some people use AI art to make nfts
@@Dragmiredraws With Dall-E 2.1 we are looking at the generation of photo realistic images within this year.
Im not sure which AIs you have been using but maybe use better ones?
I am probably going to drop my plans on an art career honestly. This basically turned my whole world upside down.
It will be a long time mind you, the AI can't even scratch the surface of replacing any artist right now....but in a couple decades I think we'll see art teams for games and projects being cut in half or more so; and it just being one smaller team using AI to match productivity of more people.
Then as the years go by they'll see less and less of them with jobs.
I think it is a lifetime away, but it will happen. Sure traditional art will still have value, maybe more so as less people pursue art in fact- but overall artistic jobs will become more limited than ever. People will become more and more able to communicate what is in their mind quickly and visually however which is awesome. This sucks for artists but will be better for everyone else.
So I say full steam ahead with the AI tech; but we need to do something to help artists maintain their living standards. These are people that spent decades buildiing their skills and career, they may not have another skill that they can fall back on.
Also, AI will need new imagery or it will stagnate. So there will still be SOME demand but it will grow less and less over time.
I get your decision, but keep in mind: No one is safe. The death of art is only where it starts.
Yeah. Even lawyers and engineers are being threaten. Keep it as a minor. Don’t give up. But have a back up as well.
Question: do you *enjoy* creating your own art? Ignoring your career for a moment.
I ask this because as I see it (feel free to comment on this, I would be interested to know what you think about it), the value of painting/drawing/image creation as a whole is:
1) the personal satisfaction you get from the process and end product of a piece.
2) the realisation of ideas from someone's (yours or otherwise) mind to a physical artefact.
AI art will put that 2nd value into the hands of everyone, meaning it is far more common and therefore less valuable, but the intrinsic satisfaction of each will remain the same no matter what - I definitely don't think it is a good idea if you want to live entirely off of commissions and hired work - that is practically suicide, but you should take stock of what you *can* do and what you enjoy, make an effort to keep them up and remember that Art with a capital A (the stuff you see in galleries) will still be there as it is the intention and creativity behind it that gives it value.
2 decades! Didn't even take 6 months. That's exponential growth for you.
I could see this being a good tool for making backgrounds and stuff, as long as people would be honest about it. However I know there'd be people who would use it then claim they spent hours drawing it
Art thiefs don't need to steal others artwork any more
If you think about it though, a commissioner or employer doesn't value the effort put into the art itself, just the finished piece. I do think it is very silly to care about getting approval from others by lying about the time they spent working on it, but I also feel like it doesn't affect others that much, as the existence of AI art in general is enough to reduce the monetary value of illustrative pieces. What it can't take away though, is the intrinsic satisfaction you get from making it.
If somebody creates a robot that randomly splashes paint on a wall it is considered art what the AI is doing is the same thing just the artist who created it are the people who coded it.
I would argue that the paint splashing robot is the art, not the canvases it splashed on. It's like the robot that cleans up its own oil spill. The marks of oil on the ground aren't the art. The robot and its human given personality and story are the art.
If you're talking about abstract expressionism, the fact that it was made by a human being is essential to the style itself. The whole point of art "that looks like my 5 year old painted it" is to express an emotional reality.
Of course a robot could randomly splatter paint, but that precisely defeats the purpose of that style of art.
It has already been done. There are robots and contraptions that splash paint on canvas.
@@brunoblivious thank you. Pullock would be rolling in his grave.
People seem to be paranoid that this is gonna be like how machines replaced factory workers, cashiers, and more recently delivery drivers. However, all of those jobs are so simplistic that they don't require a human. Art is different. Screwing a cap onto a soda bottle, typing numbers on a cash register, and delivering a pizza aren't the same as drawing. Artistry has so many skill sets and nuances that a robot will never be able to replicate it authentically. In terms of big industry jobs being taken away, A.I. isn't even advanced enough to write a script without grammatical errors, let alone animate an entire cartoon. At most, backgrounds may be utilized by A.I since those are static images. Actual characters who talk and move can't really be created by A.I.
AI will never be able to replace the human mind and imagination, it's just impossible
unless they figure out how to simulate the human brain which will probably happen in oh no more than about 150 years
you should research a bit on AGI - Artificial General Intelligence, and then see if this comment is still true
Yet, it does not take much imagination to mimick and reproduce in various, randomly generated formats (which is what most corporations want)
Stage 1: Denial
@@litletrickster5260 😂, i'm so questioning enrolling in a degree in Digital Art
It seems like ai art is only beneficial to artists up to a certain point, like for creating rough thumbnails or generating references. It doesn't look like many tech companies want to stop there though, they want the glory of creating the greatest at ai generated imagery machine because it hypes up investors. I kind of wish their was more regulations for these kinds of technologies, like some sort of federal agency keeping silicon valley in check. Especially during these times, with the recession/covid/other crazy stuff happening. Making an entire workforce full of millions of people lose their source of income within a couple of years, especially when there is no universal basic income, just seems like a blatant irresponsibility/misuse of power.
I'm also not really a big fan of artists' works being used for training data without their consent. There should be some sort of communication going on between these companies and the artists who they take the work from.
music producer and debatable artist here :)
while not a perfect comparison as it doesn't make something for you, i'm reminded a lot about the split opinions surrounding tools such as autotune and other vocal-correction tools in music production. there has been and always will be people who will claim to just be able to hit notes cleanly, etc, but still use the tools in secret. depending on the obviousness of the tool used to achieve it, it can be clear as day, or very hard to notice that any correction has been done at all. for the most part the vibe in the music-production community i'm a part of is that if you're asked if you can really sing like that, you tell the truth.
your point about experts being able to spot a fraud was probably one of the more comforting points in the video because - as someone who has been producing music, and yes, using vocal correction tools to varying degrees, for 12 years now - i can preeeeetty confidently tell when vocals have been toyed with even subtly. even as this tech has become way more advanced over the years, you'll still frequently get those inhuman artifacts of the process. once you know what to look (or listen) for, you'll find it a lot more.
in the case of vocal tuning, it's little unnatural wobbles as it tries to pull your note up or down a little, or fizzing of consonants, and a few other things; for AI imagery as of right now, it's anatomy, faces in particular. But even as those get improved, there's always going to be something off, and I'm fairly confident there'll always be someone who can tell. Even after my initial "wow that's incredible" moments from using various AI imagery tools, they've very quickly shifted to "yep that's definitely AI". Everyone knows this tech exists and could become a problem, and as a result everyone, especially those in the art community are gonna be on their toes, and there will be plenty of adept sleuths who will be quick to see the signs and call out frauds.
Also, finally, (wow i didn't mean to talk so much about this lol) as a musician who needs artwork for albums and songs regularly, AI is a fun option once or twice with a clear "this was made with AI to accompany this piece", but it could never replace someone making something bespoke to go with your product, and honestly the good feelings that come from supporting other creators and having other people contribute to your work in a meaningful way. i think the impressiveness of AI will soon diminish and fraudulent attempts and corporate reliance on it will soon become pretty vapid and obvious.
Let's say it's a type of Art. Modern Art, digital art, traditional art, ai art.
That's a pretty good idea
I think there is more of a fear to do with artistic industries such as graphic design, industry animation, concept artists and the like rather than individual art commissions. like for freelancers and people trying to work in the art industry. For galleries i think they will put some ai art in for the gimmick/novelty but then go back to artists because the artist and intent, message, ect. is very important in "gallery-type" art. For "social media artists" (idk if there is an actual term) who make a living on commissions, item sales (pins, posters, ect.), and patreon type funding I think a growing part of that is the "social" part of social media where people want to support an artist for their personal style and even personality.
My Comment is done on uneducated mindset but I still want to say this as I think it’s relevant.
I feel like Ai is replacing the wrong jobs.Like,you don’t see Ai replacing jobs like Game testers(It’s not fun,just imagine grinding for 10 hours on a 2min buggy,low resolution level)Garbage Collecters or Simple Fast food jobs.
Yes,these job do pay but that’s the only motive in the majority of cases.
Now what are we replacing? Writing essays,Art etc.These are higher paying jobs and are more importantly require alot of skill.
Why are we replacing jobs that people work harder to develop their skills and have higher paid?
Well,I don’t know.My only theory is Time.A very well coded Ai could complete an essay in minutes while the essayist would complete in a few hours.
Less time used = More time for other things(probably advertising )
I think by reading my opinion on Ai replacing jobs is obvious.We should be replacing jobs that no one wants to do but keeping skilled careers.
Thank you for reading all the way,I would love to discuss this more!
The problem is different areas of expertise:
AI and the Computers they run on are very good at data processing (i.e. text, image, video, sound, etc.) which makes them good at identifying and/or generating data and not good at all at physical movement. Just look at Boston robotics: while it's already impressive what they can do, having the redundancy to get unstuck/adjust to different movements due to damaged parts, etc. is even more difficult.
Also, all our existing infrastructure in the real world is unlikely to adapt to robots moving around, instead, the robots would have to adapt to walk/roll/fly in environments designed to be traversed by humans. Meanwhile, an AI that processes data just needs to exist in a PC with a steady electricity supply to do its work. A lot easier to deal with than all the edge cases of the physical world.
Also, while we find movement simple, our brain has a very large, complex, and highly refined part dedicated to it to make it so. In comparison, the parts related to abstract thought and imagination are far more recent and less defined since they had a lesser role to play in survival.
So TLDR: computers good at data processing and bad at movement. Humans good at movement bad at data processing.
@@tolbryntheix4135 Ty for telling me!
I saw dall e 2 and it's actually impressive
I mean I could mistake it for real art at first glance 0_0
However it disallows use of it for commerical purposes, and disallows people claiming it as their own too
OpenAI is just one organisation, Google, Nvidea, Microsoft are already working on it and they could be free literally. At some point there'll be a crowed-sourced model.
@@zakuro8532 check out stable diffusion
I can't imagine any scenario in which AI doesn't almost completely replace a large portion of graphic design work. Virtually every business that can replace graphic designers will replace them. They already don't want to pay artists.
Everyone I've seen who says otherwise has based their opinion on the *current* state of AI. This is like someone in 1900 saying phonographs don't sound good enough to really take off.
I'm sure things will go differently with businesses where the artwork itself is key to their success like comics, animated films, visual effects, prop and set design, etc. In those cases, I think you're exactly right and AI will be simply another tool for now.
But consider book cover designs. Most are already garbage based entirely on trends with little effort put into them. Each genre has a standard cover and virtually every book sticks to that standard. AI was made for this sort of thing. It's perfect. If the desired result is just a near copy of what's trending, why pay someone when you can press a button?
Of course trends have to start somewhere and at least for the time being, I think they'll start with human artists. Publishers promoting big name writers might still pay artists, but everyone else will press the button and the results will be nearly identical to what they would have paid a person to do.
In the same way, Larry's Refrigerator Repair Shop isn't going to pay someone to design a logo anymore. That's already happening. A big, multi-billion dollar brand might still hire designers almost as a sort of prestige thing and to push creative boundaries, but even they will use AI to save as much money as possible.
I also think people are underestimating the potential complexity of AI. I think it'll one day mimic creativity itself in a way indistinguishable from human creativity. Everyone thinks I'm nuts when I say that, but I see no reason it won't or couldn't happen. It's the exact thing they're trying to accomplish and I think they're going to succeed. Eventually, AI will not be the clay. It'll be the sculptor. I think there will come a day when nobody, not even professional artists, can consistently spot the difference between AI generated art and human artwork. And this is just the very, very beginning. Decades from now, you'll be able to just say "A bank heist comedy film set in 1960s Vienna directed by Quentin Tarantino starring Marlon Brando and Pee Wee Herman" and it'll actually happen. And it'll be a guaranteed 3 star script if you sign up for the plus package.
I can also imagine a backlash happening similar to the resurgence in popularity of vinyl records. As the world becomes more and more "fake," some portion of people will crave what they consider authenticity. I bet one day, for example, there will be comic book publishers whose whole selling point is that they don't use AI. And, like analog recordings, nobody will actually be able to tell the difference between the analog and the digital.
I think there will always be a place for high art. With some styles of art like expressionism, the fact that it was made by a human being is essential to the style itself. The stuff that "looks like my 5 year old painted it" could of course be done by AI, but the whole point is to express an emotional reality.
I think there will always be room for the human hand in art, if only for philosophical and emotional reasons.
As I said before about a backlash, perhaps we might even see a wider appreciation of "real" art that currently isn't even appreciated by a majority of people.
I'm probably being overly optimistic.
The more I think about it, the more I think artists should already be embracing and promoting a new art movement. Something like primitivism and naïve art that focuses on the philosophical virtues of human creativity and emotional expression and explicitly promotes the idea of everyone and anyone creating "serious" art with whatever talent or lack thereof they may possess.
Creating things with one's own hands satisfies an emotional need. Appreciating the efforts of a flesh and blood artist satisfies an emotional need, too, I think. Perhaps this should be the focus.
Without a concerted effort by artists and educators to promote a new philosophy to counter the AI revolution, I think we'll see AI replace not just graphic design, but human creativity itself eventually. I think there will always be people with a compulsion to use their hands to create things, but the art world can't rely on a trickle of prodigies.
All that said, I still think graphic design specifically is on the way out no matter what. Commercial art at the press of a button is just what the people with the money have always wanted.
The overwhelming feeling I have about AI is that this is just the beginning and people are vastly underestimating the effects it will have on all aspects of human experience. The entire point of a tool is that it eases or replaces human labor. The logical conclusion of technology itself is that it will render humans obsolete in every objective, measurable way. The only question is whether this will result in utopia or extinction.
tl;dr: I don't care if this is too long or if you don't read it
Problem is if you replace all jobs with machines then there's no one who can afford to buy your product. So doing that would not work unless everything was free because no one has to do work anymore or work for anything because robots do it for them. human jobs need to exist for you to have customers.
honestly I just dont get the artists that are actually defending it. choosingbeggars is bad enough in the art community, wait until we see more and we will. people will be asking for free art more because ai art can do it for free, so you should be able to do it for free too. its going to get bad.
As a musician myself, I totally understand the argument that a creation without intent and vision almost has no point, and I would even prefer lower quality art than higher quality generated art, but do people paying the bills care? No they don't, they care about results. Do the paying customers care? A very small subset. So it isn't a good argument for artists losing their jobs. It isn't like no artists will be required, there will still need to be people to do fine-tuning and touch ups of AI generated art, or even feed it the original art style to replicate, but it will still be a massively smaller number than the artists we need today.
Oooooooo Celestia uploaded while I recover! Yay! (Recovering from dental surgery and covid)
I do consider ai generated art, art to a certain point, if anything I kinda see them as lovely idea generators, so essentially a tool. But reason I'm personally afraid is as others mentioned, I'm scared of being replaced by a machine. Capitalism already threatened employees such as money managers and retail workers on how they will soon be replaced by machines and kicking people out of jobs. And that's just the taste of it, imagine being an artist and you're already not taken seriously. You spent years perfecting your craft and shed tears and sweat over getting yourself out there, only for someone to say an ai generator is going to take replace the need for artists, replace retail workers as mentioned with artists and that's pretty much how we feel with machines, except it's not an isolated feeling, it's a feeling that's added with insecurity due to not being taken seriously and pressured cause people are on high demanding you to produce quantity over your need to perfect qualities. Machines are made to make things out of nothing, fast, efficient and accurate, and to be honest, I think that takes away a lot of what is considered art, we need those mistakes and we need to appreciate the slowing down part, but due to our current times, things are made faster and it started a line of expectations of how fast a task can get done and that damages people like artists who NEEDS time for their craft. Everyone deserves to work and try to support themselves.
I understand how both feel. When you are just doing commissions, some people really love to take advantage of artist, and cheat them out of their work. Plus say if the potential commission customer knows of AI well enough , they can find even more ways to piece away value away from your work. However, it many ways , it made the the art creating process more efficient, and faster. Like being able to copy and paste , using the lasso tool to select a part of your art or image, using a fill color, and much more helps a lot. I feel that besides art, they are going to replace places, even doctors. The ÁI I mean
My real fear/anger towards AI Art is that it's developers feed it art (be in digital, traditional, photography, etc) without the permission of it's creators. The real AI art is actually an amalgamation of a bunch of people's hard work being used without permission. That infuriates me more than anything.
As for worrying.. I honestly don't. I am just SURE there will be so many people looking specifically for human-made art. There will always be ways for humans to go prove they made what they're presenting. By the time all our ways don't work, we'll have come up with more. And you just KNOW companies will boast about their certified human art, games will be separated into categories for who made them, commissioners will forego the option of cheap AI made art for the human touch of having another person hand-make something. For all this, I don't worry whatsoever that AI will completely kill off human art. I'm sure there will be an adjustment period and maybe for a while things will be rough once AI gets good enough, but I also think eventually it will settle down.
What I want though, is all these AI makers to stop feeding out things to the AIs without permission.
Something that makes me curious is the creators of the AI. I personally think that they can definitely call the AI their art, seeing as they made it themselves creatively, but what about claiming what the AI makes as their own? If they made the program that made the art (or "art" i guess) is it still theirs? Like imagine your super cool art makes some more super cool art based off of someone elses input and you call it yours. Anyways great takes as always :))
That's a weird concept, but I can see where you are coming from. Do you think a calculator is art? Or Windows itself? Anyways, you can't make a hammer and claim the product someone else made with that hammer is any% yours.
@@randomdeliveryguy sorry for butting in but, yes. a calculator is art. and no you cant claim that the chair someone built with the hammer you made is your art, but you can claim the hammer itself as your art. there are different ways to understand the word but i'd say beyond the elitist one, art is anything electively made by a person (often with intent to be the specific way it is) with purpose, on purpose. no matter what that purpose is. at least everything fitting that criteria i would consider art to some degree, and maybe more that dont fit the criteria but i cant think of anything rn. whether or not an object should have the primary identity of art, depends on its purpose and other aspects beyond just being man-made. the hammers identity as a tool takes precedence over its identity as art so its treated as a tool and not as art, but that doesn't mean it isn't technically art. and it wouldn't be wrong to treat it like that if you wanted to. lots of antique objects that were made for the sake of utility are treated more like art today than just a tool to use. it's just a matter of how you chose to see it i guess. at least that's my opinion on it.
@@superthunderstar1 That's understandable, so you probably would think anything generated by the A.I not owned by the person who made it, unless he was the actual one to introduce the inputs.
@@randomdeliveryguy yeah pretty much. i think the ai itself can be art. but not the things the ai makes. though i think the prompts themselves can count as creative writing and i guess i could accept the action of making the ai generate based on a prompt as a kind of performance art adjacent thing. but the image itself would just be an image, not a work of art i guess. tho i'm keeping my mind open so maybe my opinion could change in the future. nice golden boy pfp btw lol
AI being used as art by people is a bit like someone using Photoshop to put their grandpa on the Chrysler building in my opinion. It's still technically interesting, but doesn't really require the same skills art does in most cases.
It's also interesting that humans keep trying to compare robots to themselves, because humans and robots are nothing alike. Humans have innate responses to certain things and how we view the world will vary depending on the people we meet, the places we go, and the things that happen to us. A robot can't ever have those experiences because those things don't matter to them in the same way. It won't change and grow like we do from an experience, and gets no emotion out of it that would make it significant
HEY WAKE UP CELESTIA POSTED!!
very good take as usual :D its so hard to find genuine people educating on a topic without baisty. you don't let your own opinion take over the script and let others have room to develop and have one. :)
AI generated Art is not really Art, because art to be actual art requires creativity and the personality of the person making it, it contains a part of the soul of the author, it contains emotions and moments, AI can create impressive looking images, but it cant add any personality, cant really portrait moments precisely. AI with time will remove busy work from the art industry and will take the orders that are made just to fill spaces in walls and shit like that, not actual art, thats what I think about it. Adam Duff Lucipixul has some videos talking about this that perfectly encapsulates what I think it will be with this whole AI thing.
One thing artist can do which Ai users can’t is claim their art as their own and use perspectives/concepts. Maybe artist can adapt with ai art, but most of it is repetitive and creepy which will never make the cut for most who value it truly as they do with design, animation and other creative fields
WIth AI art there is a skill curve like anything else. The quality of what is spat out is based on the quality of the prompts supplied. Or, as coders put it, put trash in - get trash out.
It'll take at least a decade or more for AI art to trade blows with flesh and blood artists. But in the coming years we will see a boom in higher quality AI art as certain individuals get better at writing strings of prompts. And odds are, it's the AI artists that'll put in the time to master the prompts first.
But the lions share of folks won't want to put in hours to master inputs and outputs, then trawl through results till the RNG gods bless them with a good result. So there will always be a market for traditional digital artists. Because there will always be pockets, niches, and blind spots in the market no matter how good AI gets.
I'd say, no, it isn't "real art" because it's not a person who is making it. Without people true emotion isn't put into the art it's just a generated mass of colors/shapes. I use art breeder to make forests for me to gain inspiration but I actually recreat the image.
I think the main problem here is the definition of creativity not art. Like it or not, creativity is just the abstract recreation of things we've seen before. Every single piece of art is based of something that we've already seen and therfore th ai is doing a very similar thing as humans. The only difference is that the computer cannot make the alterations that are capable by the human mind. Honestly it doesn't matter whether its art or not its just another art tool.
As long as you claim it as AI art you can take credit as the artist of the concepts/prompt given. Anyway it's awesome
AI is bullshit and will destroy human creativity and purpose,especially in the long run.
I don't believe that AI will replace artists any time soon. While it can create anything from a prompt, it all looks similar, and it cannot make anything actually super specific.
Good video
Reminder:
AI art is not art.
If my work gets stolen and copied and I get copyrighted for it I WILL jump off my apartment roof.
I personally like art challenges where a generator creates an image and it's the artist's job to translate it into something that makes sense. I've actually tried it myself and I think it's a fun, creative exercise that can be shared online as long as the creator makes it clear that they are interpreting an AI created image.
There has already been someone who won an art contest submitting ai art they had almost no hand in creating. Corporations are not going to care if art is created by AI or a human...they will get their art from the quickest cheapest source . In fact , i would argue most people who buy art will not differentiate between the two in the way you do. Lastly ...after playing with a relatively basic AI art creation tool...I am not so sure it can't be said to actually be 'creating' art. I asked the AI to represent itself as an image depicting how it felt. The result frankly was terrifying . i am very afraid that we have just opened Pandora 's box...and we are wholly unprepared. It is a skip hop and jump from creating images to creating 3d images to creating 3d printed objects in the real world . Writing code for the physics of the real world is relatively simple by comparison .
Tbh I don't really mind people using it as refs but I also feel like I should be worried bc what if people turn their backs on artists and just use ai. I know it's unreasonable but... Just something I fear. I know you've covered this but I just was to type this ig
You know people say that making AI art is harder than actually drawing. Lol, sure. I made a big tiddy artwork in 5 seconds using mid journey quite easily.
Now that AI will replace artists I kinda don't feel bad anymore that I gave up on my dream to become a anime artist. I dodged a bullet. I will still make illustrations as a hobby. But at least I don't have regrets anymore.
My condolences for all the anime artists that are at the beginning and still trying to learn and take a small commission here and there. It is over for them, now they have to take a full time job in another domain not related to art and do art just in weekends.
And as for big artists, I don't think they will be affected at all, since they made a name of themselves already. They will probably use the AI and draw over it to fix the mistakes, they could make manga, make anime and who knows what they will be able to make once they find new ways to exploit the AI.
I just want to say “Thank you!” where you metioned how digital art was trashed on when it became a thing too.
A lot of the AI art bashing is /exactly/ what digital artists had to put up with in regards to “it’s not real art”.
I am personally not scared of AI art. In fact, I got three commissions because of AI art. Two of them were to take a reference the commissioner had made using AI art and make something cool for them. The third one was because they loved what I did that much that they just wanted the third. And the AI art made a great reference. I was much better able to understand what they wanted - it was character art. They did have some changes they wanted (some colour changes and, of course, not having the wonky anatomy/messed up hands).
So, I found that the AI art was a great tool in that regard. I can absolutely see how i can have its postive uses. I see it as another tool.
I do understand why a lot of artists are so apprehensive or even straight out terrified of it. And I can def see how it could be abused.