I think a "shirt of eyes" is the perfect shirt and metaphor for a conversation about generative AI, which has been looking and ingesting in all directions all at once. As someone in the creative industry, and knowing others who create art for a living, it's a fraught thing for me. On the one hand, what gen AI is, well, generating can be fascinating and fun to play with. But on the other hand, art is often devalued already. With gen AI there's a great potential to further commercialize/economic-alize the arts, reducing our everyday exposure to art and creating a feedback loop towards banality while also hurting many of those those in the creative industries who, unless they are a star, are just eking out a living and/or are overworked. Whether gen AI can be guided to create art is one thing (I think it can), but whether it begins replacing art and artists (plus compensating the artists the AI eyes were trained on) is the more salient issue right now. Thanks for the thought provoking video!
I love this, no fear mongering or outright acceptance of AI as an artistic tool, simply showing what we've seen before that resembles this debate. I'd love to see more videos like this that prefer to pose questions instead of answering them based on vague assumptions.
AI art being Art isn't the issue for me. The issue is the AI creator using copyright protected works for educational use to create the original software, witch is fair use. But they then make commercial use of that software it is not fair use, and a license is required. Thus the Ansel Adams Foundation, NY Times, and AP all taking chat GTP to court. Leverage for a license fee. You always have to sue for copyright infringement because no one ever pays when you reach out to them.
I recall a photo that a primate was the focus... The primate got a hold of the camera and effectively took a selfie. The photographer (who owned the camera) got into a legal battle over whether or not it was the photographer's work at all, since the primate took the picture. I recall that it was determined that since the photo was not taken by a human, it didn't belong to the photographer but I don't recall the rest of the ruling.
Well this is a turn up for me, trained in Art College in traditional techniques, post grad with Pop artists tutors, and teaching computer graphics and programming. The phrase " nothing is new" comes to mind then I think of the prehistoric Cave paintings , Picasso, and the other art movements which are human inventions. AI cannot exist in a vacuum it is reliant on human input.
The thing is, originality is basically an illusion. I mean it in the philosophical sense: it's certainly a thing one can experience, it's certainly a part of human reality, but it only lives and dies by human perception and interpretation. Kinda like "the arrow of time", or "free will". In reality, though, no idea is "new" and "unique" in its purest sense. Everything is some sort of derivative, because nothing can just pop into existence out of nowhere, that's not how the Universe works. Everything Is A Remix. If you find some work or idea or invention "truly original" - that means you simply don't know enough about it. And it's fine! That's part of the magic, sit back, enjoy the show. Which is why I find it a little bit ridiculous to treat ideas as private property. Which is what copyright basically is - it's a speculative construct based on illusion. The fact that it is becoming ever less enforceable, as technology marches on, is just that illusion crumbling around us.
Thank you for this video. I was expecting it to be a lot more negative, like what is expressed in many comments here. I appreciated the wider perspective, and I was unsettled but appreciated seeing how similar this discussion was to the case study from a few decades ago, but I would have liked a comparison of how that case study is also different to AI art today because in the first one there is a consenting human forming the artwork for another person, which still seems notably different to a non-human program, even if it's using human references (which, from what I can tell, was mostly if not all without human consent)
One wrinkle that you did not entertain- And I’m not advocating for one side or the other. I replayed one of your sentences three times because I kept coming to the opposite conclusion- All of those Rubens apprentices, they were “trained on” their master. As long as they were marking the work in training, had they abdicated ownership? Did they bargain this for the technique or the distinct knowledge? Were they thus allowed to paint in he stylistic legacy of Rubens, or were they able to own, at the least, their own brush strokes to make a feather or a hat or a person? It’s a pretty apt analogy. But Silicon Valley didn’t care at the time, so these questions were never litigated. …
If the person following LeWitt's instructions didn't follow them properly, would it still be considered a LeWitt artwork? If it's not the case, wouldn't there be a case for it not being a LeWitt artwork regardless of how well one follows the instructions, since one could argue here and there that the style or size of the wall, or number or appearance of lines didn't actually resemble LeWitt's method etc? If he was alive, maybe he could settle the dispute, but what of the ones created after his death? If an AI creates an artwork that didn't follow my prompt precisely, wouldn't it be subject to the same questioning regarding ownership? In my personal experience, AI frequently leaves out sections of my prompts when creating art, making something I was not expecting.
I think the closest things we have today to the artist's studio system are haute couture ateliers and architecture firms. The name on the dress or building is the designer but an entire team of specialists put the object together.
Missed opportunity to call attention to the parallels between AI art and the early attitudes towards photography as an art form. Many artists and critics alike rejected the idea that photography could be considered art for similar reasons to those people now cite to reject AI art: because photographs were “machine-made,” “instantaneous” and “derivative,” only able to mindlessly copy what already existed and to do it at a click of a button without any skill. Of course, we recognize now that photography is certainly an art form, even though derivative and uninspired photographs continue to exist in droves. More importantly, grappling with these claims about photography fundamentally changed our understanding of what art is, and I suspect the same will be true of AI art, too. Eventually. (Although lazy, derivative AI art will also probably continue to exist.)
Sounds like if AI uses it as a reference they should have to share ownership like the HOPE poster. That means if AI art is sold there should be a split pay out to every single copyrighted artwork the AI referenced, maybe by % of how much it was copied. That would be awesome for artists. Surely the AI can calculate the % of what work was copied. Generative AI *does not* do anything but *copy*. When AI is creating completely original art that’ll be cool.
That's a fair take! AI-generated art isn't considered "original" in the traditional sense since it relies on patterns, data, and algorithms rather than independent human creativity and intent. It’s more of a product of its programming and the data it’s trained on. If you have more thoughts or questions about this, I'd love to hear them!
@@Pro-kesh With our current knowledge of the brain, we cannot fairly compare both aspect. Especially when the process of making a drawing by a human is reduced to their creativity, as if an original idea appears by magic, without any mechanism to create it.
AI "art" is a form of commissioning. However, "art" creating AI is sold as a tool to help people to feel like artists. When someone has an idea and gives a description of that idea to their particular AI program, what they are doing is not so different from a commissioning art editor who tells a graphic artist: I have this book and I want you to make a cover that has these graphical elements in it, and done in the style of Mary GrandPré. Is the editor the artist, or is the person who puts in the work? Copyright law will always say that it is the graphic artist and not the commissioning editor. People have tried to sue creators for "stealing their ideas", and US courts firmly base copyright on the execution of an idea, not just its conception. In the introduction to The MIrror and the Lamp: Romantic Theory and The Critical Tradition, by M.H. Abrams, the author discusses what is art. Is it something an artist creates or says is art (à la Duchamp). Is something intrinsically art? Does something become art when an audience reads it as art? Or is it some combination of all three? I would say that art is in large part a form of communication. An AI has nothing to say, an artist does. (Currently, AI is still a stochastic parrot. Strong AI does not yet exist) An artist makes choices based on their experience, outlook, and skills. It is a personal act. An AI takes percentages of all characterteristics of all the art it has been fed, and randomly fits them together according to their commission. If the results are pleasing, it's because AIs log what art and what sort of art is seen most frequently, and uses larger percentages of that according to the programs which make it up. If lots of instances of Norman Rockwell's art is placed online, it becomes clear that Rockwell's art is something that would resonate with people. So, more instances of AI output have Rockwwellesque characteristics. AI doesn't care, it's just a collection of programs. But its makers want you to care, so that you buy more of their products. It is a form of artistic manipulation. Play on people's desires to be famous for their creativity, provide them with the gold picks, and pocket a stack load of money. This is no different than telling people they want to be admired, so they should buy makeup. It's ego foo. However, in the meantime we have less authentic art, and fewer people appreciating genuine skill and creativity.
The original artists did not consent to having their work put into these generators. Many of those artists are still alive and actively working in their artistic fields. AI is at best lazy photo manipulation and at worst a butchered attempt at theft.
I've been waiting for this topic to be tackled. To the writers, researchers, and host: well done! You did an amazing job at presenting thought-provoking unbiased factual accounts as to how this topic is not new just a new lens of which we are viewing an old topic. Undoubtedly I know I won't have to scroll far before seeing an emotionally charge post for or against AI Generative Art but I'm very happy with your portrayal of the topic in the video. Also nice set location.
Crash Course: Here's a thought provoking and nuanced take on intellectual property. It's many faceted and shows how this is a philosophical question as much as a legal one. Comments: AI aRt Isn'T ArT!
I appreciate the neutral take on this. Too often it's dogmatically biased in the "theft" direction purely for the fact it's "AI" even when there isn't even similar style, composition, lighting etc. Most people aren't even prompting things like "in the style of van gogh" anyway because they're so much more powerful than that, although it is a serious question whether a style or idea can/should be protected, and then to what degree the idea is similar. Does the van gogh estate own all "squiggly lines", or is it just a specific ineffable distribution of them that we have to trust the ruling class to describe their feelings about honestly? Cos neural networks are not going to reproduce the exact same squiggly lines, and it would be trivial to get them to generate squiggly lines outside of the van gogh distribution anyway. In your sloth kickflipping example, that's clearly different from van gogh. If a human did that, we would easily put that down as vaguely van gogh inspired and wouldn't think twice to call it fair use.
there are too many things being called artificial intelligence these days. i feel like we need better languaje to describe the overdeveloped autocomplete vs the machine that tells me the best way to get to the airport, given current traffic conditions
AI creates artwork 1000x times faster than human could do. People spamming AI arts which makes AI arts less desirable overtime. I don't want to bashing it too hard but AI art sometimes can create some fascinating fusion. But because there are lot of them, it lost a meaning.
Agreed its in the noval phase and eventually it will die down and become a VERY POWERFUL artist tool set but until then there is a lot of crap out there. BUT, the positive is the general public is getting more educated and learning to be more discerning on quality. I'll take a silver lining of public education any day
"idea creates the machine that creates the art"- Idea (prompt) is mine and author of art (ai image) is debated. But, what about the MACHINE???? Who CONTROLS the MACHINE????
Nothing that humans make is ever truely original. We dont exist in isolation. Everything that we make is built on other people's work. Every time we are exposed to something it sticks in our mind and when we make something we pull from that information even if we dont realize it. Same concept as AI
Great video, but I think you should've covered the question of capital gain. Will you be making money from your AI creation? The answer to that changes everything.
AI needs to credit artists it trained on just as much as every digital or traditional artist needs to credit every single engineer, scientist, and executive who put the labor into the tools and software they rely on to make their art.
@@geneticjen9312im not religious but just to play along with your question, I've hear people say "God must be a painter" while I was out of hikes with others.
People are also trained on other people's works. Let's say I want a picture of a turtle in an alebrije style. Most people don't know what alebrijes are but they could google it, watch some photos or illustrations and that way they would learn it. AI does the same thing.
IMHO, if someone has access to art, they should be free to learn from it. I understand that some artists might have concerns about this, and it’s important for them to ensure they are fairly compensated for their efforts. One way to address this could be by arranging payment upfront before sharing their art. This might help ease worries about others learning from their work without proper compensation. Perhaps, choosing not to post artwork online could be a considerate solution to this issue.
the best analogy for AI art I’ve seen is, “it’s like going to a diner and ordering pancakes and when they arrive saying ‘look at these pancakes I just made’”
I honestly as an artist on the side of the photographer for the case talked about for the Obama photo. If I wanted to do something like for commercial profit then I would first reach out to the original photographer and ask for a licensing agreement. Even though I may not make merchandise or commercial sell the art, or may transform it to the point that it is unrecognizable from the original reference to need a license. I want to try to licensing the references I use as much as possible in case I want to in the future use it for commercial purposes to cover any legal ground and also to help support fellow creatives that are the models and photographers. Which is also the same point why I hate AI image generation. It is using art for commercial purposes without the proper consent or licenses, I don’t care if it’s original or not, it is profiting off the works of others without properly compensating them or getting permission. This goes also for the AI text generators as well which uses licenses and authored work of hundreds of authors without permission or licensing because it is cheaper and faster to steal without permission and pay the fine for it later if they can’t pay to make the fine not exist.
I think based on art vs craft debate we can say AI art is art. After all as you pointed out a user after all thought of it and used AI as a tool. Same as Duchamp used the toilet as Fountain to present his idea
Yeah, I've never really bought into the argument that just having an idea makes you an artist. To me, it's the equivalent of making a pun and calling yourself a playright.
People don't realise how hypocritical they are when they say AI can't learn (and make its own version) from copyrighted material. That's literally how every artist on the planets learned how to be an artist
The originality of AI-generated art is a debated topic. While AI art can produce unique outputs based on patterns and data it's trained on, some argue that it lacks the true creative intent and originality that human-created art possesses. Others feel that the newness and unexpected combinations AI can create offer their own form of originality. If you have any thoughts or questions on this topic, feel free to share!
I mean, how do humans come up with "original" art? Once you've realized humans don't come up with ideas out of the blue -- and are certainly not born knowing how to make art without studying/experiencing others' art first -- and once you understand that AI models aren't just copy-pasting pixels, it becomes pretty shaky to claim human art can be original but AI art can't.
AI art tools are ultimately created and guided by human developers and artists. The prompts, curation, and artistic vision still come from humans. Additionally, AI models are trained on human-created art, synthesizing and recombining elements in novel ways. That said, the creative process is different from traditional methods, raising valid questions about authorship and originality. The debate touches on complex issues of creativity, consciousness, and the nature of art itself. Rather than a simple yes or no, it's a topic that merits thoughtful discussion and consideration of multiple viewpoints.
@@MrFilip121 I will say that while, yes, most models currently are based on human-written prompts... they don't have to be 🙂 It's fully possible -- and quite easy, in fact -- with current tech to connect an LLM up to a diffusion model, and have an AI make its own original ideas into original images/art on its own, without any human input other than the instruction "create prompts to describe original art", basically.
If AI art is not original, no human art is. All artists, with the exception of the first cave painters, have stood on the shoulders of their predecessors.
The Duchamp and Lewitt pieces seem--to me--like works that only a small subset of art experts and people with way too much money consider "art." To me, it's like knocking down a bunch of trash cans and calling the three seconds of resulting sound "music." Like AI, the forms seem to me to demean the hard work and craftsmanship of millenia of artists.
That's a flawed argument. Laziness is what would kill an industry in art or entertainment. But, people will always want more out of their work or entertainment. If there's no need for artists, why did I see a person out at the trail, painting a landscape? Why did I draw, poorly, and write for many many years? Ai won't kill art. If you want to paint, just go an paint. Nothing is stopping you.
I think it will plateau. Once people get bored of the novelty, it will go the way of ringtone websites and NFTs. Let's not forget they are not actually artificial intelligence. "AI" has just become a tech bro marketing term for any form of automation with a commercial potential.
There are plenty of artist who stole their entire style from ancient African artists. So if yall keeping tract then you already know. But now you mad that AI is stealing from you something you stole🤨
Art must come from the visceral embodied human experience. We have layers of culture to cover it up but thats the origin. A.i. art is an abomination. We will get lost in simulacra losing touch with our being.
There is a solution for this. The idea is simple: when artists get paid for their work, they should be open about where their ideas come from. It’s not about policing creativity or making things complicated-just about giving credit where it’s due and being respectful of others’ work. We want a community where inspiration flows freely, but with a nod to those who inspire us. It’s all about honesty, respect, and keeping the creative spirit alive.
you telling a program (prompt) to copy someone else's style (idea) doesn't make it your idea. you drawing straight lines on a floor vs a wall like Sol LeWitt isn't original. The issue with Shepard Fairey was he made money with it. not so much that he copied it. if you ask me conceptual artist are no different then the people who say I was gonna say that. I could have done that. people who have million dollar ideas and never act on it. and expect some kind of... (who knows) when someone else does it first. but anyone who has done anything (real) can tell you ideas are meaningless. theres a good hulk movie and bad one same idea. The courts already ruled against prompters holding any copyright. and artist are in court settling the issue of these companies stealing and using our work without permission. you also failed to mention that the copies of Albrecht Dürer aren't worth anything near the originals. thats provenance lol. If you ask me in the long run AI will have a greater effect on conceptual artist more then any other type of artist. and put an end their nonsense.
“Today, users share a staggering 14 billion images daily through social media. “ A computer trained on these images takes them and chops them into firewood. Then takes the firewood and puts it through a shredder. No completely whole images are used. When a text is requested it then takes the shredded pieces to create a complete pic. Sometimes successfully sometimes not so successfully….same as a human.
I think a "shirt of eyes" is the perfect shirt and metaphor for a conversation about generative AI, which has been looking and ingesting in all directions all at once. As someone in the creative industry, and knowing others who create art for a living, it's a fraught thing for me. On the one hand, what gen AI is, well, generating can be fascinating and fun to play with. But on the other hand, art is often devalued already. With gen AI there's a great potential to further commercialize/economic-alize the arts, reducing our everyday exposure to art and creating a feedback loop towards banality while also hurting many of those those in the creative industries who, unless they are a star, are just eking out a living and/or are overworked. Whether gen AI can be guided to create art is one thing (I think it can), but whether it begins replacing art and artists (plus compensating the artists the AI eyes were trained on) is the more salient issue right now. Thanks for the thought provoking video!
I love this, no fear mongering or outright acceptance of AI as an artistic tool, simply showing what we've seen before that resembles this debate. I'd love to see more videos like this that prefer to pose questions instead of answering them based on vague assumptions.
AI art being Art isn't the issue for me. The issue is the AI creator using copyright protected works for educational use to create the original software, witch is fair use. But they then make commercial use of that software it is not fair use, and a license is required. Thus the Ansel Adams Foundation, NY Times, and AP all taking chat GTP to court. Leverage for a license fee. You always have to sue for copyright infringement because no one ever pays when you reach out to them.
I was surprised that Andy Warhol didn't make it into the discussion of re-contextualizing art
I recall a photo that a primate was the focus... The primate got a hold of the camera and effectively took a selfie. The photographer (who owned the camera) got into a legal battle over whether or not it was the photographer's work at all, since the primate took the picture. I recall that it was determined that since the photo was not taken by a human, it didn't belong to the photographer but I don't recall the rest of the ruling.
Please never stop doing this series. It’s really terrific. Brava to all involved. 💙
Well this is a turn up for me, trained in Art College in traditional techniques, post grad with Pop artists tutors, and teaching computer graphics and programming. The phrase " nothing is new" comes to mind then I think of the prehistoric Cave paintings , Picasso, and the other art movements which are human inventions. AI cannot exist in a vacuum it is reliant on human input.
I think that anything AI generated that was trained off of publicly available art should automatically go into the public domain.
The thing is, originality is basically an illusion.
I mean it in the philosophical sense: it's certainly a thing one can experience, it's certainly a part of human reality, but it only lives and dies by human perception and interpretation. Kinda like "the arrow of time", or "free will".
In reality, though, no idea is "new" and "unique" in its purest sense. Everything is some sort of derivative, because nothing can just pop into existence out of nowhere, that's not how the Universe works. Everything Is A Remix. If you find some work or idea or invention "truly original" - that means you simply don't know enough about it. And it's fine! That's part of the magic, sit back, enjoy the show.
Which is why I find it a little bit ridiculous to treat ideas as private property. Which is what copyright basically is - it's a speculative construct based on illusion. The fact that it is becoming ever less enforceable, as technology marches on, is just that illusion crumbling around us.
Thank you for this video. I was expecting it to be a lot more negative, like what is expressed in many comments here. I appreciated the wider perspective, and I was unsettled but appreciated seeing how similar this discussion was to the case study from a few decades ago, but I would have liked a comparison of how that case study is also different to AI art today because in the first one there is a consenting human forming the artwork for another person, which still seems notably different to a non-human program, even if it's using human references (which, from what I can tell, was mostly if not all without human consent)
One wrinkle that you did not entertain-
And I’m not advocating for one side or the other. I replayed one of your sentences three times because I kept coming to the opposite conclusion-
All of those Rubens apprentices, they were “trained on” their master. As long as they were marking the work in training, had they abdicated ownership? Did they bargain this for the technique or the distinct knowledge? Were they thus allowed to paint in he stylistic legacy of Rubens, or were they able to own, at the least, their own brush strokes to make a feather or a hat or a person?
It’s a pretty apt analogy. But Silicon Valley didn’t care at the time, so these questions were never litigated. …
If the person following LeWitt's instructions didn't follow them properly, would it still be considered a LeWitt artwork? If it's not the case, wouldn't there be a case for it not being a LeWitt artwork regardless of how well one follows the instructions, since one could argue here and there that the style or size of the wall, or number or appearance of lines didn't actually resemble LeWitt's method etc? If he was alive, maybe he could settle the dispute, but what of the ones created after his death? If an AI creates an artwork that didn't follow my prompt precisely, wouldn't it be subject to the same questioning regarding ownership? In my personal experience, AI frequently leaves out sections of my prompts when creating art, making something I was not expecting.
I really like this thought experiment! +1
You should do one on romanticism, La Boheme, and decadentism.
This was a fascinating take.
0:12 is that John Green?!
Yep! AI John and Sarah 😂
I hope the artists who get their work "incorporated" receive fair compensation; otherwise it's just glorified stealing.
I think the closest things we have today to the artist's studio system are haute couture ateliers and architecture firms. The name on the dress or building is the designer but an entire team of specialists put the object together.
Informative as always.
Missed opportunity to call attention to the parallels between AI art and the early attitudes towards photography as an art form. Many artists and critics alike rejected the idea that photography could be considered art for similar reasons to those people now cite to reject AI art: because photographs were “machine-made,” “instantaneous” and “derivative,” only able to mindlessly copy what already existed and to do it at a click of a button without any skill. Of course, we recognize now that photography is certainly an art form, even though derivative and uninspired photographs continue to exist in droves. More importantly, grappling with these claims about photography fundamentally changed our understanding of what art is, and I suspect the same will be true of AI art, too. Eventually. (Although lazy, derivative AI art will also probably continue to exist.)
Sounds like if AI uses it as a reference they should have to share ownership like the HOPE poster. That means if AI art is sold there should be a split pay out to every single copyrighted artwork the AI referenced, maybe by % of how much it was copied. That would be awesome for artists. Surely the AI can calculate the % of what work was copied. Generative AI *does not* do anything but *copy*. When AI is creating completely original art that’ll be cool.
Finally. Finally someone made this video. I only feel love for this ❤
No mention of Warhol and Lynn Goldsmith? That case pretty much decided the AP/Shepard Fairey fair use question.
fantastic video- thank you!
The short answer is no
That's a fair take! AI-generated art isn't considered "original" in the traditional sense since it relies on patterns, data, and algorithms rather than independent human creativity and intent. It’s more of a product of its programming and the data it’s trained on.
If you have more thoughts or questions about this, I'd love to hear them!
And the longer answer is maybe.
@@Pro-kesh With our current knowledge of the brain, we cannot fairly compare both aspect. Especially when the process of making a drawing by a human is reduced to their creativity, as if an original idea appears by magic, without any mechanism to create it.
I have yet to encounter a piece of ai art that has moved me.
How can there be art without a soul?
AI "art" is a form of commissioning. However, "art" creating AI is sold as a tool to help people to feel like artists. When someone has an idea and gives a description of that idea to their particular AI program, what they are doing is not so different from a commissioning art editor who tells a graphic artist: I have this book and I want you to make a cover that has these graphical elements in it, and done in the style of Mary GrandPré. Is the editor the artist, or is the person who puts in the work? Copyright law will always say that it is the graphic artist and not the commissioning editor. People have tried to sue creators for "stealing their ideas", and US courts firmly base copyright on the execution of an idea, not just its conception.
In the introduction to The MIrror and the Lamp: Romantic Theory and The Critical Tradition, by M.H. Abrams, the author discusses what is art. Is it something an artist creates or says is art (à la Duchamp). Is something intrinsically art? Does something become art when an audience reads it as art? Or is it some combination of all three? I would say that art is in large part a form of communication.
An AI has nothing to say, an artist does. (Currently, AI is still a stochastic parrot. Strong AI does not yet exist) An artist makes choices based on their experience, outlook, and skills. It is a personal act. An AI takes percentages of all characterteristics of all the art it has been fed, and randomly fits them together according to their commission. If the results are pleasing, it's because AIs log what art and what sort of art is seen most frequently, and uses larger percentages of that according to the programs which make it up. If lots of instances of Norman Rockwell's art is placed online, it becomes clear that Rockwell's art is something that would resonate with people. So, more instances of AI output have Rockwwellesque characteristics.
AI doesn't care, it's just a collection of programs. But its makers want you to care, so that you buy more of their products. It is a form of artistic manipulation. Play on people's desires to be famous for their creativity, provide them with the gold picks, and pocket a stack load of money. This is no different than telling people they want to be admired, so they should buy makeup. It's ego foo. However, in the meantime we have less authentic art, and fewer people appreciating genuine skill and creativity.
The original artists did not consent to having their work put into these generators. Many of those artists are still alive and actively working in their artistic fields.
AI is at best lazy photo manipulation and at worst a butchered attempt at theft.
This is my video.
I've been waiting for this topic to be tackled. To the writers, researchers, and host: well done! You did an amazing job at presenting thought-provoking unbiased factual accounts as to how this topic is not new just a new lens of which we are viewing an old topic. Undoubtedly I know I won't have to scroll far before seeing an emotionally charge post for or against AI Generative Art but I'm very happy with your portrayal of the topic in the video. Also nice set location.
Crash Course: Here's a thought provoking and nuanced take on intellectual property. It's many faceted and shows how this is a philosophical question as much as a legal one.
Comments: AI aRt Isn'T ArT!
I appreciate the neutral take on this. Too often it's dogmatically biased in the "theft" direction purely for the fact it's "AI" even when there isn't even similar style, composition, lighting etc.
Most people aren't even prompting things like "in the style of van gogh" anyway because they're so much more powerful than that, although it is a serious question whether a style or idea can/should be protected, and then to what degree the idea is similar. Does the van gogh estate own all "squiggly lines", or is it just a specific ineffable distribution of them that we have to trust the ruling class to describe their feelings about honestly? Cos neural networks are not going to reproduce the exact same squiggly lines, and it would be trivial to get them to generate squiggly lines outside of the van gogh distribution anyway. In your sloth kickflipping example, that's clearly different from van gogh. If a human did that, we would easily put that down as vaguely van gogh inspired and wouldn't think twice to call it fair use.
I have heard so many one-side arguments over "AI art."
It's refreshing to hear a more nuanced take.
there are too many things being called artificial intelligence these days. i feel like we need better languaje to describe the overdeveloped autocomplete vs the machine that tells me the best way to get to the airport, given current traffic conditions
“Good artists copy/borrow. Great artists steal.”
-Pablo Picasso
✨No.✨
AI creates artwork 1000x times faster than human could do. People spamming AI arts which makes AI arts less desirable overtime.
I don't want to bashing it too hard but AI art sometimes can create some fascinating fusion. But because there are lot of them, it lost a meaning.
I agree, you should have to touch up and be hands on with it for it to be yours.
It's not art. Art is communication between sentient beings and ai isn't communicating anything.
Meaning is just an illusion. The universe exists without meaning. Biological life exists without meaning, evolving just because it can.
Agreed its in the noval phase and eventually it will die down and become a VERY POWERFUL artist tool set but until then there is a lot of crap out there. BUT, the positive is the general public is getting more educated and learning to be more discerning on quality. I'll take a silver lining of public education any day
Technically nothing is original. All art takes inspiration from something that came before. Everything is a remix.
"idea creates the machine that creates the art"- Idea (prompt) is mine and author of art (ai image) is debated. But, what about the MACHINE???? Who CONTROLS the MACHINE????
The company who made the machine.
Nothing that humans make is ever truely original. We dont exist in isolation. Everything that we make is built on other people's work. Every time we are exposed to something it sticks in our mind and when we make something we pull from that information even if we dont realize it. Same concept as AI
Great video, but I think you should've covered the question of capital gain. Will you be making money from your AI creation? The answer to that changes everything.
AI art is objectivly art. if someone subjectively dislikes it, that's fine, But its still art.
Are ChatGPT generated works original?
No it piggybacks of human creativity
@@exchable Define creativity.
Maybe, it depends on what your definition of original
@@exchable its not the same. One is creating at least something new the other is entirely remixing
It is trained from UA-cam. TED talks etc.
This is like the ship of theseus paradox
AI needs to credit artists it trained on just as much as every digital or traditional artist needs to credit every single engineer, scientist, and executive who put the labor into the tools and software they rely on to make their art.
If it invokes thought or feeling it is art, regardless of the method used to create.
I've seen geological structures that invoked thought and feeling. Art?
Love that.
@@geneticjen9312 Could very well be. Take the 7 natural wonders of the world.
@@geneticjen9312im not religious but just to play along with your question, I've hear people say "God must be a painter" while I was out of hikes with others.
People are also trained on other people's works. Let's say I want a picture of a turtle in an alebrije style. Most people don't know what alebrijes are but they could google it, watch some photos or illustrations and that way they would learn it.
AI does the same thing.
IMHO, if someone has access to art, they should be free to learn from it. I understand that some artists might have concerns about this, and it’s important for them to ensure they are fairly compensated for their efforts. One way to address this could be by arranging payment upfront before sharing their art. This might help ease worries about others learning from their work without proper compensation. Perhaps, choosing not to post artwork online could be a considerate solution to this issue.
Just like any other art, it is not original because its impossible to not be influenced by others and their art and the world around us
the best analogy for AI art I’ve seen is, “it’s like going to a diner and ordering pancakes and when they arrive saying ‘look at these pancakes I just made’”
I honestly as an artist on the side of the photographer for the case talked about for the Obama photo. If I wanted to do something like for commercial profit then I would first reach out to the original photographer and ask for a licensing agreement. Even though I may not make merchandise or commercial sell the art, or may transform it to the point that it is unrecognizable from the original reference to need a license. I want to try to licensing the references I use as much as possible in case I want to in the future use it for commercial purposes to cover any legal ground and also to help support fellow creatives that are the models and photographers.
Which is also the same point why I hate AI image generation. It is using art for commercial purposes without the proper consent or licenses, I don’t care if it’s original or not, it is profiting off the works of others without properly compensating them or getting permission. This goes also for the AI text generators as well which uses licenses and authored work of hundreds of authors without permission or licensing because it is cheaper and faster to steal without permission and pay the fine for it later if they can’t pay to make the fine not exist.
AI can make art but it won’t make an artist.
I think based on art vs craft debate we can say AI art is art. After all as you pointed out a user after all thought of it and used AI as a tool. Same as Duchamp used the toilet as Fountain to present his idea
Yeah, I've never really bought into the argument that just having an idea makes you an artist. To me, it's the equivalent of making a pun and calling yourself a playright.
People don't realise how hypocritical they are when they say AI can't learn (and make its own version) from copyrighted material. That's literally how every artist on the planets learned how to be an artist
No, AI generated art is NOT original. Hope this helps 👍🏽
The originality of AI-generated art is a debated topic. While AI art can produce unique outputs based on patterns and data it's trained on, some argue that it lacks the true creative intent and originality that human-created art possesses. Others feel that the newness and unexpected combinations AI can create offer their own form of originality.
If you have any thoughts or questions on this topic, feel free to share!
I mean, how do humans come up with "original" art? Once you've realized humans don't come up with ideas out of the blue -- and are certainly not born knowing how to make art without studying/experiencing others' art first -- and once you understand that AI models aren't just copy-pasting pixels, it becomes pretty shaky to claim human art can be original but AI art can't.
AI art tools are ultimately created and guided by human developers and artists. The prompts, curation, and artistic vision still come from humans. Additionally, AI models are trained on human-created art, synthesizing and recombining elements in novel ways.
That said, the creative process is different from traditional methods, raising valid questions about authorship and originality. The debate touches on complex issues of creativity, consciousness, and the nature of art itself. Rather than a simple yes or no, it's a topic that merits thoughtful discussion and consideration of multiple viewpoints.
Do you mean philosophically or legally?
@@MrFilip121 I will say that while, yes, most models currently are based on human-written prompts... they don't have to be 🙂 It's fully possible -- and quite easy, in fact -- with current tech to connect an LLM up to a diffusion model, and have an AI make its own original ideas into original images/art on its own, without any human input other than the instruction "create prompts to describe original art", basically.
If AI art is not original, no human art is. All artists, with the exception of the first cave painters, have stood on the shoulders of their predecessors.
Originality is overrated.
My problem with AI art is that its made by machines. You might as well argue anything faxed or printed is art
That can't be AI art. The sloth, skateboard, and Eiffel Tower all have the correct number of fingers.
The Duchamp and Lewitt pieces seem--to me--like works that only a small subset of art experts and people with way too much money consider "art." To me, it's like knocking down a bunch of trash cans and calling the three seconds of resulting sound "music." Like AI, the forms seem to me to demean the hard work and craftsmanship of millenia of artists.
AI will kill the creative industry. Barely any need for artists and designers anymore
That's a flawed argument. Laziness is what would kill an industry in art or entertainment. But, people will always want more out of their work or entertainment. If there's no need for artists, why did I see a person out at the trail, painting a landscape? Why did I draw, poorly, and write for many many years? Ai won't kill art. If you want to paint, just go an paint. Nothing is stopping you.
Wrong. It will absolutely, but there is still a huge need for artists and designers right now still.
I think it will plateau. Once people get bored of the novelty, it will go the way of ringtone websites and NFTs. Let's not forget they are not actually artificial intelligence. "AI" has just become a tech bro marketing term for any form of automation with a commercial potential.
Rather than arguing yes or no, has anyone seen any great art yet made with AI? And, if not, how would one do so?
@@sonicgoo1121 what do you consider “great art”?
AI "art" is theft.
Nope and it's made up value like NFTs. Art's value itself is a question of appropriation of importance.
AI should be taken to court for misusing others work
All art is derivative from something that came before just like AI art.
There are plenty of artist who stole their entire style from ancient African artists. So if yall keeping tract then you already know. But now you mad that AI is stealing from you something you stole🤨
Art must come from the visceral embodied human experience. We have layers of culture to cover it up but thats the origin. A.i. art is an abomination.
We will get lost in simulacra losing touch with our being.
There is a solution for this. The idea is simple: when artists get paid for their work, they should be open about where their ideas come from. It’s not about policing creativity or making things complicated-just about giving credit where it’s due and being respectful of others’ work. We want a community where inspiration flows freely, but with a nod to those who inspire us. It’s all about honesty, respect, and keeping the creative spirit alive.
So no, and it isnt art either
you telling a program (prompt) to copy someone else's style (idea) doesn't make it your idea. you drawing straight lines on a floor vs a wall like Sol LeWitt isn't original. The issue with Shepard Fairey was he made money with it. not so much that he copied it. if you ask me conceptual artist are no different then the people who say I was gonna say that. I could have done that. people who have million dollar ideas and never act on it. and expect some kind of... (who knows) when someone else does it first. but anyone who has done anything (real) can tell you ideas are meaningless. theres a good hulk movie and bad one same idea. The courts already ruled against prompters holding any copyright. and artist are in court settling the issue of these companies stealing and using our work without permission. you also failed to mention that the copies of Albrecht Dürer aren't worth anything near the originals. thats provenance lol. If you ask me in the long run AI will have a greater effect on conceptual artist more then any other type of artist. and put an end their nonsense.
I’m the first one to comment
“Today, users share a staggering 14 billion images daily through social media. “ A computer trained on these images takes them and chops them into firewood. Then takes the firewood and puts it through a shredder. No completely whole images are used. When a text is requested it then takes the shredded pieces to create a complete pic. Sometimes successfully sometimes not so successfully….same as a human.
Legally speaking yes