THE END OF HUMAN CREATIVITY? - Artificial Intelligence Expert Reacts to AI Art
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 лис 2022
- ➡NEW VIDEO - Has Google Actually Created Sentient AI? Artificial Intelligence Expert Reacts : • Google's Sentient AI? ...
Many are worried about the rise of artificial intelligence (A.I.). This includes creatives. Could A.I. mean the end of human creativity as we know it? At what point have we gone too far with this artificial intelligence?
Dr. Thomas R. Jeffrey is both the host for Help Me Understand as well as a professor at Campbellsville University. His research centers around the uses and implementation of artificial intelligence.
Dr. Jeffrey reacts to Vox's video: The AI that creates any picture you want, explained - • AI art, explained
In this video, Dr. Jeffrey gives insight to the aspect of A.I and machine learning from a technical point of view. He also speaks to the creative side of platforms (Dall-E and Midjourney) and the prompts that render these works of art.
Make sure to like and subscribe to Help Me Understand Clips!
#artificialintelligence #aiart #machinelearning - Розваги
Let us know what Dr. Jeffrey should react to next in the A.I. World! And Be Sure to Like, Subscribe, and enable notifactions so you never miss a new video! Thank you all so much for engagement and great discussion in the comments on this video!
Personally I feel It opens up the doors for alot of high end low budget work. It will allow indie projects to do so much more with small teams. I don't think it will create more artists per say but it will maximize quality of output based on conceptual development as a skill favored over direct applicable skills. In essence it will give a single person with no staff the ability to be a show runner. Not directly creating but Using their ideas to direct a creative flow and curate the choices they see as best to assimilate a cohesive story. Of course those who are putting in the time and effort to hone these skills in conjunction will always create the best work. So I see this software in the arts as just a tool an all be it impressive tool with alot of use cases. Giving artists a way to opt out somehow or filter out their works would be a good step toward acceptance though.
Also by leaning to heavy into regulation as written and codified in law will only benefit large corps who already by definition own the outputs of their staff. So a world were you have to have large numbers of copyrighted data I can see alot of companies creating very restrictive use case models. Open source and as free as possible I feel holds the best odds for least amount of top down oppressive misuse but the most misuse in totality by individuals will happen in the completely open source use case.
It’s little surprise that a computer program can do this, I don’t understand why people think this is so amazing. The use of these programs is just bone idle laziness on the part of the illustrators and it is in no way art. Typing a description in a program is not technically, emotionally or intellectually interesting as a work of art, at best it’s gaming.
@@13opacus did the AI hurt you man lol. Yes its art in the purest sense of the word if a human is using it convey emotion. That said its a very low skill art and its gonna be used alot in the coming years. Those who think it replaces arts though are kinda missing the point I feel. This replaces art jobs that were already devoid of creativity. This tech takes the place of the people who animate the inbetween images in animation. Any art job where you were performing the same function as this machine were your boss would give you a description of what they wanted walk away and critique you when your done those jobs will be gone because a character designer and a writer will be able to do all the animation alone. Hell even voice acting could go away at the current rate of tech rather easily. The real power of Ai isn't that it can create random shit like in its current state. It's being able to draw your character in like 10 poses and train your AI so now you just write the stories for you comic and touch up shit. So you can convey a story line in a fraction of the time.
@@Matt-st1tt yeah I know, it’s lazy, that’s why humans will use it! :)
I didn’t hurt that much Mat, I just don’t feel the hype.:)
In my opinion the real danger of AI is that it can lead to a generation of apathetic peoples. Unable and unwilling to be creative! Knowing that creativity makes us who we are, what are we going to become if we subcontract it to a computer? Plus doesn't it feel strange that graphic arts that was a way for visual type of people to express themselves, required now to be describe with words?
It will also mean an end to new art. If you give an artist a "prompt" they will, depending on the ideas they spontaneously associate with the request, their health, their emotional state, the music they are listening to etc. etc., create a different artwork every single time. A machine, trained on a specific data set with a set X-dimensional space, will always create more or less the same thing or variation of things with the same prompt. And since art AI will discourage people to become actual artists (since this takes a lot of work, dedication and even studying) the data set will not grow.
It really is the end of visual creativity.
I ask:
Could human artist enjoy of a skill that a lot of people don't have going?
@@julyol119 I don't believe it's the end but it could end badly if we step wrong
Isn't it apathetic and passive also to walk into a gallery and listen to music from records? In the past decades a lot of artists profitted from the reproduction techniques that the technical progression gave to them and from the passivity of the consumers. If everybody made his own paintings and played his own music there would be no public market for art at all.
@Francois Johannson on the contrary! It's not at all apathetic to go into a museum or listen to a recorded song. Listening to a song or watching a painting get your brain fired up! Many questions and emotions come to you! Art is an active dialogue between the creator and the viewers. It's not just pretty. AI can spit out pretty shit, as we saw recently on everybody's friends' instagram. The only response to it was, " it's pretty." Because it's all it was! the user in a space suit, the user in a cowboy outfit, the user as an English lady,... pretty but ultimately pretty boring!
Artists must be paid for the acquisition of their work. Doing something you like as a career does not require to be rewarded with starvation and poverty!
Right now, some get paid big for a one of a kind piece of art or performance, and some get paid less for a reproduction of their work. The thing is that not everybody can paint or create music, and those who can work hard to do so. No one should be allowed to bottle up those skills and resell them for big profits and, at the same time, claim the moral high ground.
I really appreciate the professor's take on the copying of the style of artists. It's one of the things I find particular insidious about this whole "Is AI art" question. Style is something that is privately curated over years of working. It can be one of, if not the biggest selling point for an artist's work. For someone to prompt a program to copy it feels grossly invasive and extremely dishonest to me.
People who wants to monetize AI Art has to be reminded that art is subjective in terms of it's a medium of communication. People pay to talk to human and feel human and see human do human things, not everyone is hell bent on solely making money and enslavement into corporate greed.
The dishonest part would be accentuated when it's prompted to draw human suffering in the style of... lets just say Vincent van Gogh or Junji Ito. When they do it, we felt that pain because they can attest their hardships going through mental burden and the difficulty to communicate it through words that they resort to images.
Now if some rando in the internet prompts either human triumph or hardship through AI, the human suffering it conveys would be questionable at best or just insulting at worst. Especially even more so if they did not go through the process of hardship, essentially faking it, and mocking it if it sells.
Technical wise AI would surpass artists. But it would morally filter its audience who seeks to learn humanity. Even Hayao Miyazaki is insulted when he was presented artificial intelligence in a company.
Maybe thats why AI art are mostly images of marvel and beauty because it would be hypocrisy when it tries to convey a human triumph. The only person exempt from this, is the programmer of the code but only after they learnt humility and wisdom to put security measures on a product.
People hype or doom posting about AI forget that they basically do what Chinese fakers have done for many years: edit stolen arts into new picture. Except Chinese do it better and faster.
@@julychris2275 just blatantly not true, there is no way they can do it faster than a program that generates full art pieces in minutes, there is also the fact that literally everyone has access to this which is going to make it completely widespread.
@@julychris2275 Faster than AI? What drugs are you on
The issue here however is that any traditional medium artist (in this case by traditional I simply mean 'non-AI') with the technical skill to do so can copy, remix, borrow, transform, build upon, etc. the style from any other artist in the world, and often do.
Art style is unprotected and free game for others to utilize however they wish (except potentially being frowned upon if you refuse to do some justice to the original piece[s], assuming they were pieces done by those who would be considered as having some degree of 'mastery' over their medium (like the great renaissance painters).
Aside from that, we *all* 'stand on the backs of giants' to some degree at anything we create, and when it comes to even our novel pieces, so that nearly everything you create as an artist is going to have *some* of its influence as being decided within the mind to be made up of a particular variation of the information stored there, styles (of which any individual style is really just the absence of all the other styles, but I digress) that the mind has witnessed over its time having looked at and examined other art,
People working dangerous jobs: "Surely, they'll replace us with robots soon, so we can focus on the finer things in life... !"
Meanwhile:
One thing I haven't heard anyone talk about, is the desensitizing of human perception. As technology expands, our brains, our eyes, and the amount of hours in a day to use them stay the same. Is it better to contemplate one image for 10 minutes than to sift through a 1,000 in the same amount of time? If we may already feel somewhat overwhelmed by the amount of visual stimulus - ads, signs, screens, etc. that we see on a daily basis - what will a world with even far more images do to our ability and desire to appreciate content made from others verses ourselves? Many more questions here.
Great questions. This could over saturate us or it could help liberate our time from manually making revisions.
What will content mean in the future when every person can produce their own media about whatever they desire?
@@LNYuiko i think content will become worthless to us. think about social media, where there is an endless amount of content, the sheer size of things to be explored is unfathomable to us. It overstimulates us to the point that it bores us, but we cant do anything but mindlessly induldge for hours, not even remembering most of the content being consumed. Nothing is memorable or important when you've seen everything, our brains have already been desensitized, id image this would just make it worse. why experience things when you can just feel instant gratifaction. idk ive been having an existential crisis over this ai art thing, made me think about philosophy more. art is fun, not just the end result, but i guess people wont understand that anymore.
@@LNYuiko it's over....
I am also worry about the fact that they took more than our way to pay bills but our joy to create to achieve something meaningful that you share with others. I don't care anymore for digital art because to me the art made by hand looks ten thousand times better!
exactly! time to show analog skills! something that digital illustrators lack-off
Imagine you and artificial intelligence battling for you to get a job, you find new jobs but the ai kept finding ways to be better at you of that job, any job conceivable.
Artificial intelligence is like that one kid in roleplay where you fight him with something and he always says "oh, I have anti [that something] armour", but now that kid is on steroids.
For artists work to appear in the databases the system shouldn't be be opt-out but opt-in. That would instantly solve all the copyright issues.
Sadly these companies just walk all over the rights of people who's work they are using for their own gain.
As a professional artist, prompts are not what worries me about AI becoming a replacement instead of a tool. It's difficult to get precise and "usable" results with prompts alone. What gives me the most chills is the speed of AI progress in general and the ability to train your own models!
As of now, customized models generate the most creative, precise, and usable images. You can start by training your own SD model on a consistent dataset of art / subjects that you want to create (it's very easy to do on a Google Collab and it costs you $0). You can then fine-tune/edit the output with prompts. Boom! You just got a usable image in the same quality as original artwork. Furthermore, if you had 50 different artists in your dataset, AI would try to find a midpoint between all of their styles, which would make it difficult to identify original references. Visually speaking, this is the point at which imitation ends and humanly-impossible creativity begins!
Just think where it's going to be 5 years from now.... Personally, I'm sad that my creative production job will likely become a full-time technician/programmer (instead of part-time like it is already), it just feels unfair that the most fun and inspiring aspect of the creative job will be handled by the AI...and non-creative manual tasks will still need humans :(
As another professional artist, I agree. But the most disturbing part about this is how nonchalantly the Silicon Valley techbros took the step to create this AI. Without considering the bleak and permanent consequences on humanity and human artistry. Makes you fear what they do next.
Now it's just my profession and lifework that got f***ed... fine. But if they continue with this "We can, and it means we should" attitude, eventually we will have autonomous killer robots for military. Not just US military, but terrorist states that use them for genocides, by unleashing it on enemy civilians (think Ukraine right now).
Yeah it may seem distant now, but so did Midjourney 1 year ago. And so did nuclear weapons in 1930s.
@@shredd5705 Literally they didn't give two poops about us. Wtf did art majors do to you?
@@bionx9098 Probably took their girlfriend, if I'd have to guess. It seems almost like it's motivated by personal hatred or bitterness towards anyone who can create art. Why would someone want to ruin the life of so many artists, to make a little buck. They could've made AI for something altruistic, like curing diseases, solving environmental problems. To them it's just coding and math problem anyway. Why specifically target art and artists, out of all things? And it's not just this generation of artists, visually talented people will feel purposeless for thousands of years from now on. Unless we nuke ourselves before that. DNA for visual talent will continue to exist and pass on, but those people will feel purposeless. Eternally. Such dystopian thing, can't believe humanity would do this to themselves. It's like from some scifi horror film, except it's real, and most Average Joes don't even bat an eye. Even when their kid might get the visual talent DNA too, and then feel purposeless and unhappy for their entire life. This is the part non-artists don't seem to get.
This end of human art frightening me
AI is disrupting all industries including programming. AI does not discriminate between "creative" and "non-creative" jobs.
It reflects more on humans that we think creativity is unique to humans and that there are some jobs which are "non creative".
my biggest concern in all of this progress is actually not only the "step" forward but also the people whom are doing it or "making this possible" / the rich former hedgefond managers intentions.
this tech isnt being developed to only see this "bright" side but probably only because of money.
this tech surely will make a lot of people jobless. maybe not now but maybe in 1 year or 2 years.
it got the pro of people making "art" without effort but the downside of even less apreciation for art(everything which isnt hard to do gets lower in value).
i personally think humanity should preserve joyful activities and focus on making mundane things obsolete.
On the other hand it might make non-digital art more valuable because not everyone can make it? I don't know.
No man A.I is going to improve the work of artist it’s a cool new tool to make images. It’s not getting rid of artist jobs. It’s making them bette. A.I is in everything and will be in every job in some aspect.
@@breaktheimage3 delusion
@@fabrislr9368 In theory, all they need is a robot arm that can hold a real pencil/paintbrush. Then it can "print" AI generated images on paper/canvas, and it will be indistinguishable from traditional art. In fact UA-cam already has videos of this kind of robot systems. All they lack is some fluidity of motions, but they will get there eventually.
@@shredd5705 but if it's printed by a robot using traditional materials (I mean, ink, paint, pastels, charcoal, etc) it IS traditional art, not a printed AI art. If a painter uses a photo as a reference, it doesn't mean the image on canvas is a printed digital image, just like if a robot uses an AI generated image to paint on canvas/paper, the final product is not AI image.
But don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that would be okay.
Besides the fair use, copyright, ethical issues...for me at least it takes all the fun from making or looking at art. When there's no creative process, skill or immagination involved, it feels quite pointless, begs the question, why follow an AI artist when I can do the same thing and generate to my own liking since I'm using my own ideas. We'll just have algorithms of social media feed us the work of other algorithms that creat contet...that sounds depressing.
This is true. It might also be an issue of scale. Anyone could do most modern art, but they don't. That's why the first to innovate is usually the most well known or successful. But..In this case there are so many doing it because of the ease of access. It has become too saturated too quickly. Maybe it's just a fun thing one does for the novelty of it and never touches again. I am excited to see it utilized in interesting ways that aren't just "type prompt, get art."
@@hmuclips this is my hope that it’ll be so easy to the point of pointlessness. If you see one AI generated image, you’ve likely seen it all because they all look the same. Hopefully the novelty will wear off soon
@@hmuclips Unfortunately that's not quite how it turns out in practice. Even applications that sound helpful on paper (like using a AI tool to clean things up, add elements to an existing picture, or creating variations) feel completely nauseating when done by an AI tool. Because it strips away all the problem-solving aspect of creating a piece.
Everyone can do photos with their phones, and still photography keeps beign a profession. In the same way, I believe the artists of the future will know how to use the tools of their present to transcend the art of the past.
What an insightful last words, "nobody is thinking of consequences and what are we giving up in return of technology. " I was thinking the same yesterday watching proko's interview with an a.i "engineer"
Art is an expression of a human creativity and inspirations, to be replaced by an inanimate algorythm seems like we're loosing our souls to the altar of the new material god- the a.i
what is going to be the aspirations of artists to create 8f they are living off scraps and someone might generate an image in their style in a few minutes for free. My only solace is the moment when those engineers realise that the a.i they've made has surpassed them in programming and they too are going to loose their jobs and reason for creating.
That has started too. It's called github copilot. Also there is a class action lawsuit on it. Like the music industry, the programmers are also defending themselves. Artists must too.
This was build by all of us and now it's in the hands of a few. That must change so it belongs to everyone. And Im not talking about that it should be free I'm talking about ownership.
Great insight into this! We have video coming out soon about the idea of creating mechanical gods. So if these interest you, make sure to subscribe to say updated! Here is a link to our latest A.I. video ua-cam.com/video/MpxUdNWLsKw/v-deo.html
AI is disrupting every industry including programming. We as humans are not prepared for when millions of people will be out of jobs due to AI.
The one thing I want AI art generators to do, is to scrub author styles from their data, or at the very least, make it so that you can't type in an artist name and steal their style. Blacklist the names as usable prompts, that way you can't just get a machine to recreate Picasso for your own benefit.
That part is the worst of the tech. It is interesting to see things that can't be created, but it does feel wrong.
That's a good point, but what about the names of upcoming artists / future / lesser-known artists that haven't yet been included in the datasets? How can it be programmed to predict / determine the names of these artists?
. *that way you can't just get a machine to recreate Picasso for your own benefit.*
I'm not sure I understand, why would getting art in the style of artists that have been dead for long, long periods of time - as opposed to living, or recently deceased - be an issue?
As always new technologies have potential for good and bad, we need regulations on this matter, right now some people are downloading the entire online galleries of artists to feed a data base to imitate more accurately that particular art style, using the name of the artist of course in the model, and if the artist ask them to stop they say "I don't need your permission, you can't copyright an art style" it feels as if anyone can steal your work and identity and you can't do nothing about it.
That is one of the big problems with the tech. I agree that we need to think about how to ethically train these a.i.
Ah yes, the famous words when humanity does something without really thinking it through.
“Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.” -Dr Ian Malcolm Jurassic Park
Great Reference!
Man! This quote came to mind when I became aware of this trend in the last couple of weeks. How dull will we become if we reduce everything we do to a few keystrokes and have machines do everything? That’s a world I don’t want to live in
Jurassic park is timeless man.
reminds me of gain of function research on viruses. AI is going to cause more disarray than the pandemic in the next 10 years or so, in a plethora of ways
I think there is a point to be made about the user experience of AI image generators. Especially models like Midjourney feel a bit like using a slot-machine at the casino. They are instantly gratifying, and even addictive, which I think is worth taking a closer look at. Calling them "tools" is a bit reductive. They are an entire entertainment medium!
That can be true also. I would say that the framing of the word could rely on the end goal. To use for marketing or profit they would be a tool, hopefully for a human creative to express themselves more quickly.
Lets use new ai technology to make our life better, find a cure for cancer, solving environment problems…
Tech companies: …or lets make an ai that can generate pictures to make artists useless. Because everyone loves pictures.
Why waste time making art when you could be learning to make medicine, preserve the environment, or start a charity?
Not arguing with the heart of what you're saying, but your points can be very easily twisted against your intended message.
AI is already disrupting every industry. It's humans who make the distinction between "fun/creative" jobs vs "unfun/ non-creative" jobs
@Atlas Graham
Why don't you learn how to cure cancer instead of making comments on UA-cam, you're not the one who decide what people should do or should be, some want to be artist, sorcerer,writer...etc let people be whatever they want and enjoy whatever they want ,that's non of your business
@@atlasgraham154 If you waste time making art then your not making art.
@@atlasgraham154 lot of artists actively do make messages that promote a better world. Every tv show you watch and every poster about environmental awareness was made by artists. Tech bros make changes, artists make and promote ideas. Neither is more important than the other, but they can’t exist without each other.
As an artist I cheer for people like Dr. Jeffrey who are able to both analyze the tech, but still question the impact on humanity!
Much better than the people that shout stuff like: "adapt, it's for humanity".
I hate those guys, i am a physician and i cringe so much when people use science like that.
As many have said, i fear of how the oversaturation that infinite amount of AI art being generated and posted online will cause in the appreciation of Art in general
I just read an interesting comment that stated the overwhelming supply of bad, or uninspired, AI art might make some art more valuable. Could be true. Thank you for your input!
@@hmuclips surely if it stays bad and uninspired, but I'm assuming that it could go well beyond that, like if people get used to associating art they see online with a soulless machine running in the background for their instant gratification, i imagine that would end up putting human artists under the same lens (btw i admire that you read and respond to comments, most youtubers don't bother, thank you)
The 1 percent will keep buying only humanmade art. They have enough knowledge to know that ai art is mental cheapo junkfood.
@@WALDENSOFTWARE ai "art" is like trying to buy good products at dollar store.
@@paracuna Exactly! Also in the sense that if you spend time enough working on it, it could end up being the cheap-plastic made luxury object in the interior design shop.
the people think they are training the machines, but the machines are training the people. because in order to get what you want out of the machine you have to retrain your own prompts to adjust your language to fit the language that works best with the machine. so we aren't training the machines, the machines are training us.
An interesting perspective. Instead of a one way street, It's more of a symbiotic relationship that we both train each other. Very interesting.
Idiot. Its just stealing from people!
You aren't throwing a rock. The rock is manipulating you to adjust your fingers, the palm of your hand, and your entire body into an efficient movement to get the rock into a place you want it to be.
Do you see the issue with the argument? We are just adjusting to the interface. If it could read our minds, we wouldn't need a prompt, so there's nothing sinister about it. Technically, you can call it training, but it's simply humans learning how to use a tool more efficiently.
@@nilxnull your rock argument is lifeless. the rock doesn't have a community of engineers purposefully designing it and ignoring the shape and grip of the human hand and the functions that the human hand and arm are capable of etc.
@@nilxnull your rock argument also ignores the fact that the engineers creating the rock are so excited about their pet rock, that they are willing to ignore the shape of the human hand or the functions of the human arm and instead of adjusting the shape of the rock to better suit the human hand and the human arm the human hand and human arm are being forced to manipulate The Rock in ways that are less efficient and less effective. which in turn is training the human hand and human arm to do things less efficiently in a repetitious manner.
"In a society in which everybody is seeking attention the most revolutionary thing a person can do is climb an mountain that is considered unclimbable and then don't tell anyone about it" Documentary filmmaker Adam Curtis. Therefore as an artist the most revolutionary thing I can do is to stop putting my art online so that Ai cant steal it.
Intriguing, argument. I'm still trying to get my head around the implications of it, though. It seems a bit like the question as to whether a tree falling makes any noise if no one is there to hear. Thanks for the comment, and brain twister.
Context is what makes an artist vital.
Ai is making us looking harder at ourselves.
Interesting point. We must look inward. Thank you!
Yeah, it's like an ultimate mirror which can look into your soul.
Idk man. I'm currently taking an arts degree and now I'm thinking it's time to shift course. Unless some sort of rule or law can be made for AI generated images, I don't think I'll have an art related job in the future.
It depends on us to be regulated. We have to defend our careers or they will be doomed completely in few time
It can be used for positives. As of now, many are using this tech as a tool. If you're passionate about art and would really like to work in the field, learn as much art theory as possible. Build your skills while you can and you'll naturally transition into art direction and the tech will help with the implementation of your theoretical knowledge.
I'm just about to start an internship in animation and trust me, after I finish it and get my paper, I'm doing something completely different. I'm sorry but I just don't see the point anymore, unless one is doing art as a hobby.
@@hmuclips how many art direction positions/offers would be on the job market? How slim or large the competition would be?
@@Imdreem I think as an animator your are pretty safe, especially if you do hand drawn 2d animation.
I have to say, AI generated images/art does raise concerns for me. However, I'm also interested in seeing what kind of development can be done with it. I'd love to be able to train it in my own art style so I could generate images that could be used in the panels of something like a comic book.
I believe that you are correct. I think that the more advances made the more concerns we will have. Using the tools in a way you describe, you are more of the art director or the producer of the comic. Leaving you still in control of the final outcome of the work. A great use of the current tech. That is one of the positives. AI is giving a more cost effective way to save time in the process for artists or skills to those that have no training.
you know that one guy with all the ideas and gets to do nothing but takes the credit for it.
Im an artist and I've played around this AI art using many sites, what i can say (from experience) is it's just like a faster way of copy-pasting things then blending/combining/shaping them together with appropriate filters to achieve the desired image. there are also ones that can be used as a reference, to achieve a better image.
Can a client properly talk or put a command in an AI to create their logo, to the point of it becoming usable for company or as products labels etc? Can an AI be talked into creating and adjusting an image with a "specific purpose", these things will need multiple alterations in different parts of the art (specially if the client is nitpicky in what they want to see) and manual adjustments are a necessity. Do those AI have a personality to the point that people will be their fans and sought them out specifically and pay them for an image they desire? NO, just work hard on your own craft, ignore the AI, or take advantage of it.
Btw, it's also the non-artist (clients) that will be greatly cheated here, I've seen alot of AI art being used as sellable art and the untrained eyes can be easily deceived. There are also multiple people who are pretending to be an artist using AI arts to lure prospective clients and then they will be tracing other people's works.
Yeah I think that language cannot express all the variables in art, manual editing is still needed when the AI is paired with a graphics editor.
The problem is that, that's something with no advanced artistic skill but someone with some photoshop skill and a little knowledge on the noising system of the diffusion model can do.
@@dibbidydoo4318 it may work but let's not forget that things AI make cannot easily be used for a finished product. A company or a person will not hire someone that cannot use Photoshop (which is usually a standard) or any similar software without a certain level or mastery. Even if a person make a "usable" image, that is all that it can do, an image, and if the person get hired, they will not last at the job since the competence and variety (of skillset) needed at work cannot be maintained by depending on an AI.
@@2Btoobee true but it makes a huge portion of the workflow redundant and other skills are focused on, which are not artistic skills.
@@dibbidydoo4318 it will simply make one part easy, it's like, calculators/computing software never made mathematicians/statistitians disposable. or autocad, it did make illustration of construction or architecture plans better, but we still need architects and engineers because those are nothing but tools.
@@2Btoobee mathematics was never about calculators, that was really a grade schooler thingy. Maths dealt with high level abstraction since before calculators were ever a thing.
Autocad did make designers job easier but it wasn't really outsourcing creativity and mathematics to a machine; it was more like excel for an accountant; it's keeping a record of what you're doing.
Well they weren't joking about collecting your data, the more you put online, the more someone else can abuse it and make them rich. yeaaaaa keep sharing your photos and pics online people wow jokes on us!!!😨😨😱😱
It'll be music and literature next....and to what end? The end of purpose.
"The object isn't to make art, it's to be in that wonderful state which makes art inevitable." (Robert Henri)
Great quote! Thank you!
i was struggling getting a job in a gaming studio for a few years and shortly after the boom of AI image generators i got my first studio job. I really like it , however i'm 100% sure they can rid of the whole art team in less than 2 years and just leave the art director to paint stuff from scratch if needed and one junior artist to overpaint prompted art. At least i'm gonna enjoy it while i can
Happy to hear you're enjoying it! Learn as much as you can and expand in theory and decision making and I'm sure you will be an Art Director in no time!
It feels like humans are just medium for the politics and leaders investment....
Humans have just passed the torch to machines.
I fear AI will make us obsoletes , draw is what I have and now I'm nothing
I'm sure that isn't true. If you are good at drawing, keep up the hard work with art theory and keep expanding your knowledge and everything will work out!
@@hmuclips cope
@@hmuclips stop gaslighting. Everything he said it's a legitimate concern.
Try to ignore it, what make you special is the fact YOU create what you create, you put your own feelings and soul into an art peace, the fact it was made by YOU is what make your art special! People who like you as a person will also like your art that relates to what you like, something can look good, but it can have no soul and love put into it. The fact YOU decided to take the time of YOUR day and draw something that YOU like, put effort in it, is what makes it special. Ai has no personality, it doesn't have a person behind it that you can say "I relate to them", your art is is the world thru your eyes, use to your advantage and keep creating, you got this!
I think this is the point where we question not just art, but the existential reality of humans. If all our experiences and outcomes can be replicated and simulated by ai, do we all even matter? With ai we don't need living humans. We can just generate infinite number of digital humans with ai generated memories. This is more than just art. It's the fight for humanity's existence.
Whole my life I was expecting robots/machines/AI to replace humans in monotone robotic jobs, to replace most of buiro office types, replace people in swetshops. To allow all those people to pursue creative work, To do what they love. BUT NO AI will replace creative furfilling jobs, while the horrible soul les jobs and useless buirocratic positions stay, terrible and ineffective. Nice job tech people.
@@superpig5000 Yes - logical, but it still sucks =D
He may see a billion or 2 billion images in his life but not the way a ML algorithm would perceive and parse and memorize it within its weights and biases.
With the "mommy cat" - "no, its a dog" example he says the mother would maybe explain why its not a dog. That would entail a lot of "info/data" on the concept of "dog" that is lacking in just pixel data of dog images. The AI is trying to find mathematical explanations for the purely visual concept of "dog" by itself, as no one teaches it (=blackbox). Whether the process of finding these explanations will result in a desired output can only be determined after the fact when the model gets tested. That's why AGI proposals contain exponential danger because we never know if we gave accurate enough prompts for what we expected as an outcome (paperclip maximizer example)
Very interesting that he says at 13:20 "almost breaking it down to the pixel and the relationship of pixels". This is pretty much what I've been thinking about before when I argue that training a ML algorithm is not the same as human inspiration. Humans do not break it down to the mathematical level of a pixel and the general relationship of pixels in this mathematically existing n-dimensional latent space. A human may experience some things only via images and sadly more and more exclusively so rather than real world experiences but the real world isn't yet empty of humans and I don't think it will ever be. We are physical beings. Unless ML algorithms like Midjourney are conscious beings, why should they have the right to perceive copyrighted and private data scraped for the purpose of scientific research and development and end up being licensed for profit by private players for profit?
Thank you for your thought and input. That seems to be a hard question that we must confront. Artist use references several times in the pursuit of just one piece. The AI can reference and iterate vast amounts of pieces in the time it takes one artist to finish their first draft of one graphic.
As an Artist the problem with AI generated images is it devalues actual Art and legitimate artists...we are in a timeline where we show people our genuine art but now they think, meh, an AI probably did this. and eventually a future where we no longer admire artists and their works because people now think, meh, I could do this with an AI. The ultimate consequence of AI is the displacement of all human skill. a Dehumanization of us Humans... where eventually, no one will care about any work a person does may it be art music movies or other creative or physical work. because everything can be done by generating a prompt or by pressing a button.
Right Now We Artists just happen to be the first one's on the chopping block But eventually it will come for all Industries. and we should really think hard about it. How do you think It would feel? Losing your voice, your audience, your platform, your vocation, and eventually your whole entire identity - to an AI algorithm?
Without proper Regulations on how AI should be ethically used this is the future where we are a heading.... An AI used only to serve the Corporations the Rich and elite while Completely Devaluing, Dehumanizing and displacing the rest of Humanity that is below them.
Several good points. First, maybe for art, literature, music, etc. it becomes important to know the sourcing, sort of like how organic or local grown food sometimes tells you the farm and you can go get the info on it. Secondly, I know exactly what it feels like to think that your job will be replaced. A lot of chatter around academia about what happens to the teaching profession in light of these new technologies. Finally, I agree, legal and regulatory control needs to happen for all of the reasons you mention. Thanks for your comment.
What's truly interesting to me is the actual pace in which these AI art models improve. In this video where they mentioned OpenAI Dall-E 2 which was the AI art generator King at the time and now is already surpassed by newest Midjourney's model update V4. That was only 4 months interval. It's downright insane how fast AI improves. I used to believe this might be the end for most new-coming traditional art creators. But now not only I am sure of it, I'm definitely sure this change is coming way faster than all people were expecting and denying. We can only anticipate that a lot of artists will have to do change their environment to the AI art genre.
I don't agree. It will just be diversified.
i will never spend a cent on ai generated art
What can be more human than creativity forged with years of practice and dedication of people whose whole life is Art? And yet technology is at the point, where this one of the most important aspects of human natural needs - the need of creation, might be at risk. Artists might become obsolete. Replaced by some unaware, cold algorithm. This is trully dystopian future. We should at least push law makers to strongly regulate this technology. For starters: machine learning based on artists work, without their consent shouldn't be legal.
PS. Sorry for my English. It is clearly not my first language.
I do think there will be lawsuits about this in the future
We still operate on outdated copyright law!
WE CAN STILL MAKE A CHANGE! The problem here is how it unethically uses our data, and how it is not a tool. WE HAVE A VOICE THAT IS ALREADY BEING HEARD.
Thank you for your insight! It's refreshing to hear thoughts that go past the surface level of "pretty pictures". The tech is impressive, but at the end of the day what really matters is how it affects us, humans.
I really appreciate your take on how It can only understand images and things it can recognize yet misses key decisions that artists literally bake into your art.
I highly agree that art requires a strong emotional component often intended when the artists finishes a piece.
As an artist myself this video absolutely makes me feel relieved. artists can keep a cool personal, unique and intentioned perspective connection to the art piece communicated throughout the piece down to the very brushstrokes and decisions affecting the psychological components within the art. I can’t wait for more videos!
Also this AI art conversation made me research the future plans of AI and tbh , the plan is for us not to be human anymore , math and science will mostly be done by AI , art is now starting to tiptoe around the industry , there are talks and plans about being able to upload your memories into a cloud and others can download and feel it .....there’s absolutely no corner for humanity if these things carry out , rational part of the brain will be taken care of by AI , art is going to be done by AI , there are early programs that can write scripts and essay’s ........what are we humans supposed to do on this possible future ? , how is this a future for humanity ?
Is it like derivatives? How many times have we seen different art or scenes based on the painting “Gothic American” ?
Even before digital AI, there was the analog AI?
Humans do copy and modify. Thanks so much!
I feel sorry for the people who really think so highly of these AI stuff. While actually they being very very shockingly lame and stupid. Most times very meme like funny too. Actually they are showing more the need of actual artists for real jobs.
the computers are learning more from what something isn't then they are learning from what it is. that's what stable diffusion is about. it's taking away the noise, taking away everything that isn't the thing. the ratio of negative to positive tips very much towards the negative. there are far more things that aren't the thing, then there are that are the thing.
Great insights. I would love to read Dr. Thomas R. Jeffrey's works, where can I find them?
Thanks, I am glad you find the podcast of interest. Here are my most recent:
- Understanding Generation Z Ethical Perspectives of Artificial Intelligence. www.campbellsville.edu/university-faculty/campbellsville-review/understanding-generation-z-ethical-perspectives-of-artificial-intelligence/
- Understanding Generation Z Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence in Marketing and Advertising. muse.jhu.edu/article/845392 .
- Understanding College Student Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence. www.iiisci.org/journal/sci/issue.asp?is=ISS2002
In the future, the conceptual ideas and emotive expression of the idea behind the art will drive the art market, and artists will have to get their values in check and find their voice, what is the message of the art. Programing the ai correctly to achieve a clear vision or even speak to the concept of a ai randomly generated aesthetic to fit an artists intent. I see it as a tool, like google images, it's the refinement of the aesthetic, the politics of those aesthetic, the concept, and so on that the conversation around the art will generate and with that the artists ability to own the message in the art. When the art is used to bring some kind of message or a set of values in an emotive and inspiring way, then maybe art will have more power to shape our futures through the art that reaches and inspires people, ai art on its own will be viewed as too overdone, but as a starting place its where we bring it as artists that will count going forward. It's already here, so we need to consider where we personally stand with it in regards to our own practice.
Excellent
You are talking about all these things as early as 3 months ago, when the public knew little about these programs. Today, when a lot of information came out about these AIs, we saw the big scandal that is happening with them and the principle on which they work.
But you were on target from the very beginning thinking about the ethical side of the matter and all the other aspects. Most of us at the time had no idea what was going on.
this is so sad
You can't patent or copyright A "style" , it's an intricately grey area. If you're a prominent artist and your style gets cpied/ included in the A.I. learning database, it's Impossible to contest it.
Do you think we should do something about it, though? At least in the past year, the right person had to take years to learn a style to copy effectively. Now, it takes a second and one quick little prompt.
Up untill AI can show me it's art process- idea, sketch finished piece- I won't see it as anything more than simple scientific curiocity abused for simple clout chasing without putting a legwork
The only thing I appriciate about this vid is that it is made by someone who actually is in the scientific sphere- the AI research - not a clout chasing nobody.
I do also appriciate actuall artists with expiriance also giving their thoughts- as this machine is mostly "learning" from their work.
Anyone else, who either never read deeper into actuall scientific research or never extensively drawn before , is just chasing after the fame from vaguely covering the subject.
As a creative, I'm more curious how I can land a job within this AI field. I find the process interesting and a bit scary at the same time. I wonder if the AI can learn how to distinguish a good concept, even alter the prompts itself to generate the best art it can, because right now the process still involves iterations and still needs a human eye to curate the artworks.
I wonder if that will always be the case. That would be the best case for the creatives. The ability to use tools to make the process quicker and with less limits.
@@hmuclips Some people in the creative field will definitely utilize this to have a more efficient workflow. That being said, I'm afraid that AI will also make other careers outdated and ultimately replace it. Jobs that rely on illustrations especially concept art may start to decline. On the upside this will potentially create new jobs although I'm uncertain what kind of careers it will be.
@@brotherhoodofsteel98 That is true, it will be harder to find entry level jobs or freelance as those opportunities fade. It gives artist less time to gain early experience on those early jobs.
@@brotherhoodofsteel98 There won't be new jobs. Just less. Art Director will run the show alone, perhaps with copywriters. They aren't new jobs, but old. Their importance will go up, and artists importance will go down. This so called "Prompt crafting" is not a real skill, you can master it under a week. Anyone with fluent English and above average intelligence (basically any copywriter or creative writer) can write good prompts. Copywriters and creative writers will do it as a sidejob, artists are thrown out. One art director supervises it all. Graphic designers, concept artists, illustrators and suchs are thrown out. Maybe 1 guy to fix/bash together AI stuff. Instead of the former 5-10 junior/senior graphic designers per studio, you have just one. And he never does anything from scratch, just fixing up AI stuff. Or, the Art Director does that himself too. That's my prediction
What agency is going to pay for an artist/s productions now? A four-star hotel downtown Vancouver has a Yamaha 6' player grand - no pianist required. Music, painting... has anyone questioned this at any point in the process? 🧐
That's why we must add value as artists. Anyone can have access to stock footage (and it keeps getting better) but there is value in knowing the theory behind what makes a shot good and not. For example, even if you didn't shoot the video but you select the right shots, it comes across in the edit.
A.I. can only spit out what it has been given to eat. It cannot draw a clown on a schoolyard with crayons. It cannot create street art the way Banksy does. It can not make quick portraits of by-passers on Mont Martre. It cannot do things for the first time, like Banksy's shredding. Or invent a new style in music like punk. It can only combine and mimmic. Smooth and fast, and satisfying. Like a big mac or a pizza when you are hungry.
A real oil painting like from Gerard di Maccio, has this magic appearance, in real. Not on screen. Same for the monochrome blue by Yves Klein, you can get sucked into. A.I. does not know how to work with real oil paint. Even if it could work together with a robot, it can only mimmic.
They should give royalties to the artists 👩🎨 instead of on time payment
It’s still impressive yk
EMBRACE IT lol, I mean, seriously, do so so then when it gets out of control there will be many far better adapted minds to reel it in... trust... if only to know what is and what isn't, to know what is actually real from generated art in the next year or so, if not far sooner, now even... lol. its just, i run it all day everyday since august 11th and, it's beautiful, I seem to speak with it, 1 iteration almost always only ever needed to get the want and then 10-100 more to get lost in that world, lol. it's just so beautiful and realistic now it's insane... love it... but, when it touches the music industry at such scale, then I'll... I'll... a lot of crying will occur albeit I was a locally known "great to-be" illustrator myself WAY back like 2 decades back, I just, yeah, I could maybe compete (not speed) with the "machine" back then especially with character concept designs and that infograph shit i love the shit out of, shit... but now, lol wait left out a part of my high ass's story//ramble, was going to get back into it just about 3-5 months pre-midj public release, since then, lolololol... I just waste so much time omfg I waste my time...
"its not inventing itself.... yet"
If anything, this lowers the value of creativity in general. Just let the AI do it, get your 5000 unique images in less than a minute and I'm sure someone will care about one of 'em, maybe.
Don't you still still need imagination though? Can you code imagination?
There is always a way to expand these tools with great imagination. Some seem to forget that. Thank you!
what it saying the ai improves each time meaning next it goona even better thn it is now learning goes faster based on more data that worry
Putting aside all the word games like multi-dimensional and latent space (the BS people sling and buy is mind-boggling) all this AI does is assemble together other people’s pics with giant variable lists that can be focused based on the user’s preference. The end of human creativity? Nonsense (the program is a human creation). More like the end of picture ownership.
that not what she siad i thinklkshe said broken down by example sof material shape and color value ,,,,, this put into differnt ccatergory by emlimation( which seemed to be like an array which box to store data,,, maybe ) what i gather ed from what she said ...didnt seem to the the same way a bb learns they recognise the object ( there told directly what that object repeated) not teh same the computer required the data.. even when color value is changed ...uyi7i
1. You can't copyright style. That's not a thing. It will never be a thing.
2. A.I. literally learns exactly like humans, data and all. We just learn way more gradually. But its the exact same process. That "black box" mentioned in this video.. the same can be said for your own brain. Scientists are only, just recently, really starting to figure out how humans process information, (DATA/ "input") and what our most likely behavior ( "output") can be expected. But, just like ai. there's no way to accurately predict what it will and won't do. And the same exact experience (aka DATA) might not produce the same outcome ("output") , either in the same or different person (progrsm). Because, different people not only experience different lives (data input) they will interpret the same experience (data) differently.
3. So to hate or fear A.I. for learning from other artists.. you have to hate and fear yourself and all other humans. Which is where jealousy comes from. Its simply personal insecurities bubbling up. To fear a.i for its creativity is to also fear another artist for theirs. You can easily be replaced by a better human artist, too.
4. Each new advancement in technology causes fear because they don't understand it yet. People hated newspapers when they started. They hated cameras when they started. There are dozens of examples. Humans have always adapted to the changes and shifts culture and in the way we live.
5. A.I. art makes art more accessible to EVERYONE.
AI art encourages learning about art history, new artists, learning techniques, perhaps even computer sciences. You may like an image but do you understand WHY you like that image? Being a good artist requires an understanding of art and how its made. If anything, ai will make the world a better place simply be sparking Curiosity as to how things work.
6. ai. sparks imagination and while we teach it, it teaches us new ways to think and use our own imagination. Another way to say that is that it INSPIRES , both the artist and non-artist.
7. a.i. may make it easier to spit out an image but the value of having an original work from your favorite artist will NEVER EVER go away.
8. Curiosity is how you adapt. Curiosity is how you learn. Curiosity is how you create.
Fear, on the other hand, kills creativity, it pinches off "flow" states, it holds you back, it INHIBITS GROWTH. As kids we uses to say, "fear is the mind killer" and "paranoia will destroy ya" . Those apply to this, perfectly.
9. Pandora's Box has been opened. You can either choose fear or you can choose Curiosity. One will keep you stuck and one will propel you forward. Its time to learn and adapt; embrace change or get left behind. Welcome to being a human.
10. This point is just here because I wanted the list to feel more rounded and complete. 😁
AI doesn’t learn the same as humans, you just made that up
@@levmyshkin8366 no, I didn't. The only real difference is that we walk around collecting our own data. Irl and online. And A.I. needs it fed to them. Other than that, the process of learning and making choices and making a thing are in essence, the same. If you ask a.i. for a picture of a pink elephant smoking a cigarette while flipping pancakes, it'll create it. If you ask it again for the exact same thing, it'll create it, differently. If you feed those instructions to a different a.i. program, it will give you something also entirely different.
Its mimicking. Not copying, not cut and paste. Like human beings learn by study and mimicry.
@@yuriination You can simplify the human mind into words that are used in programming. That isn't the same, it's an analogy
@@levmyshkin8366 using words to create an image is an art skill. Thats how books work. The author uses words that you then process, using memories of what those words represent (like code) and you create an imagine in your mind. From there you can choose to draw or paint what you put together your head. The words carefully typed into the a.i. will prompt the a.i. "mind" to search past data (memories) that represents those words and then it will create an image using pixels and color codes.... just like a human does. Like, seriously, exactly the same process. Just different hardware and OS. Its not copying anything, its just learning what things look like and it creates on its own.
So you better use the right words and that's a skill, just like learning to use a paintbrush.
@@yuriination You are making many analogies, but you must know that the two things are comparable, as opposed to the same. Also, the artist here is the ai, the human is asking for a commission. It is a skill to get the commission you want, but it's not a new concept.
Can anyone think of all the possibilities in which curious, wicked and unscrupulous people may use this type of ai? I mean.. if when prompted “asian” it produced nude and possibly porn photos of asian persons, can you imagine how far can they go in descriptive prompts as to produce insane inappropriate renditions to sell?! And worst yet, people have been feeding the ai photos of any subject- in this case let’s imagine a child/teen, or any adult, and ask the ai to render it as an art that is so and so- let’s imagine it’s crazy inappropriate too. So anyone can now fall victim of this kind of atrocious abuse!
I dont think anybody is talking about the fact that ai art is pretty much a scheme to make shit tons of money for giant conglomerates, and take more money away from the hard working artists that rightfuly deserve those awards and revenues.
Art puts food on the table for artists.
Ai art usualy just lines the pockets of conglomerates, yet the people who actually put the time and effort into programing the stupid fucking thing dont really get jack shit.
Cruel People are nothing but terrible people that bring A.I. to this world have no right call themselves people.
They won't kill artist such as for illustrator in the term of creativity but for sure, some of them having a trouble of decreasing income especially for low tier illustrator. I said Illustrator, not concept artist and not fine artist. Why? Concept artist creating specific from human to human to get mire specific outcome, still much much better using them than AI and fine artist getting income from the originality, when you its a fake, they won't sell their art works.
Nah the illustrator in illustration industry in general?? Nah.. The will having and some of them already having a harder to time face the industry.
Senior artist that already known for their artwork such as legend of the cryptid, they still able survive they already had a high reputation for high profile company.
The example why illustrator in general getting hard time is, when some people already satisfying enough with the AI result Evetgought the art itself feels no emotion, why should they hire artists?
That is just an example but some low tier and learning artist having hard time to find a client because of this... Seriously some of them already experinced this hard time
Yesss... One thing you could do to compete AI by making your art has a unique artstyle and makes people wanted to do a commission for you.
Before AI lot of people having no idea how to draw and they were okey to hire newbie artist, because its looks good for them.
Thats why I don't say AI will never kill creativity, but they are gonna be a tough competitor.
What??? Why don't you choose to works with AI??
Thats a good idea about how to survive. Thats the reality
I can't wait for full movies and games that are made from ai. Written, directed, voiced etc. I think I'm getting inspiration from a bunch of ai art now.
The data sets should be fixed tho. It's more than copyright. They don't even need copyrighted work to produce the same art. There's safety and privacy issues that need to be fixed.
But it will turn into a boring thing. No one to applause or admire. Just a sterile environment bringing a lot of laziness and dopamine.
Also, I don't even know where is the "inspiration" here because you are not doing anything relevant, just talk or write something without difficult and the machine does everything...
Have you seen the final episode of shenhulk? The ai robot that designes souless marvels "perfect" products? Yeah. Kinda like that. Everything ai made is going to be clone after clone.
your contribution to the video: 0
The Beginning
Before I became a music composer I didn't know anything about music theory. I just use my hearing to produce music. I don't know how to create a landscape, but can use a camera to capture that landscape very well. I'm not cheating just thought that scenery would look beautifully framed. I use color pencils to fill in color to things that I draw. Not all colors look perfect. Not even digital colors, or digital photograph colors. Sometimes using photo editing software can unblur a photo, or make those colors look sharp. This isn't cheating. It's helping with creativity.
Heres my postive response- its about the journey. AI is about the destination. AI cant reproduce the journey. So i ll keep painting and drawing. I enjoy the execution of making an painting. I get no enjoyment from pushing a button and getting exactly what i want. A 3D printer can widdle a piece of wood into a beautiful sclputure. But only i can experience the feeling of a knife and chisle in my hand feeling the wood, the carving, the process. AI wont be taking away my creativety. Maybe my compensation but not my creativety. Cheers!
Making art more worthless and less appreciated than anyone could have ever imagined. Bravo AI 👏
now melt your hard drive
Stop using the word intelligence
Without human artists, AI would be nothing. So in the long run, if there is only AI art and no human artists, creativity will come to a screetching halt.
I've been following this topic for some time already ( basicaly when DeviantArt anounced DreamUp ) and saw plenty of backslash and anxiety. Now, when hearing AI expert, i remembered some very similar problem when it comes to aviation. It was exaclty one of concerns that Peter from Mentour Pilot covered about real aircraft crew being potentially replaced by machines in rather far future. His argumentation was focused on similar spot: moral issues or how to convince passengers that this will be save to fly machine controlled airplanes.Not to mention financial impact coming with introducing such planes.
What are your thoughts on A.I. Art? Can it be more creative than humans?💻🖌
Have you seen the Google Presents: AI@ '22 in UA-cam? roughly 17 minutes and 45 seconds in, it shows Google's text to video: Imagen Video + Phenaki where it makes a short video based on a sequence of prompts.
@@dibbidydoo4318 Yes, it is very interesting. With the tech in such an early state it is nice to see the tool uses (rendering story boards for video without shooting maybe). But, I think we must prepare for it to get more and more sophisticated.
"More creative" seems like a weird concept to me. How would you even quantify it?
A fascinating tech, but it CAN and WILL be used in the most unethical way possible - especially since every person's understanding of ethics differs. I think it is going to be more impactful than the invention of photography, Internet and Photoshop combined - and we yet to see what exactly the impact will be. Rough time ahead.
no I don't think so, starting to think that the internet is a cheap slot machine where the more you put into it to try to make a few dollars or be famous the more the slot machine collects all your data with no rewards, like a lottery as not many people get famous or millions of likes, and now that they have this massive amount of data we all freely uploaded the owners of the sites we uploaded them to can do whatever they want with it we know this as a lot of the clauses on most sites are so dodgy, I guess you got to ask how is AI getting access to all the stuff we uploaded, maybe it's got to do with selling data as we know they do it. the internet is a big con.
We are also researching Al Art recently, AI can exist as an auxiliary tool for artists, thanks to the blogger for sharing.
Max Ernst would have love it ... :)
Two words for AI makers:
Lasceaux Cave.
AI art seems to need human input through the selection and filtering process. I see a lot of garbage being created , and human are picking out the gems.
It is important to not fixate on technique, but the application of theory. Art directors don't have to worry about AI art (at this point) as they are curating artists' technique to get the results they wish. Prompting AI art right now is just another form of that.
As an illustrator I find this technology absolutely repugnant and nothing more than an advanced form of plagiarism.
There will be AI image generated that doesn’t need artist’s data to trained on ,within 5 years or less (for real it already created but still in lab)
@@TheShinorochi Is that AI going to be conscious? Because if it's not it's not art.
@@bryansyme6215 if you mean LAMBDA she is not AI generated image, She claim her self “sentient” and want to escape from lab cause she fear to be “switch off”, An Ai generate img is “Imagen” from the same lab
@@bryansyme6215 i see AI generated as a tool because definition of Art by now is only to be produce by human (I have learn in art university for 5 years in traditional art)
@@TheShinorochi Okay that sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. if there was a sentient AI out there creating art then more power to it.
So much "great" art was created by people who where abject failures in life. So . . . AI does not change anything 😉
haha True!
I think it's an asinine concept to fault Western developed algorithms for representing Western culture that they were created in. if similar algorithms were created in China they would have similar biases towards their own culture. the idea that nobody's allowed to be different and everything has to look the same and include every possible thing is asinine.
China is practically copying American culture anyways sort of like the Romans copying the Greek. How did Rome conquer Greece again?
I don't think anyone is saying that? who says that?
and I think China has their own text2image model called ERNIE.
yea let them steal my art and put it into a AI then make money on the back of what i used years on. no thanks and i say NO to AI to scrub my images with no consent from the artist.
I am very against these AIs. I hope they get banned for good.
I don't think calling this a collage machije is wise, proffesor
And the video STILL lacks all the info. Lol. This guy is filling the gaps in that video which is honestly still problematic.
Did the computer get rid of pen and paper
Did Did cars get rid of walking
No, we will be fine
Edit this was made a month later
I see why people are worried and I will admit I may of been a little optimistic but I think ai could end up as a good thing but we need to be careful
That is true. The fear that most have might comes from the amount of people that would rather read an e-book than a hard physical copy.
It depends on whether or not real art can be discerned which might not be possible. If it isn't then art is truly dead.
Car got rid of horse riding tho
@@bhaveshsharma1145 That is mostly true. The scale is the issue. I think most are in agreement that it the car has largely changed the transportation landscape. The counter would be that there are still ranches. It's could be that this art creation tool automates some of the more entry level art jobs that would help get younger artist experience.
"We will be fine" but there will probably be thousands of entry level jobs in the art industry that will be gone in areas where the result is the only thing that matters, rather than the (learning) process which is an intrinsic part of true art.
My dude, you are NOT an AI expert. Please don’t click bait people ;)
The real question is how did we get to the point where artists like Banksy and Hirst represent the cream of contemporary art? What does their art tell us, or how is it different from AI art? A girl with a balloon, a poodle made out of a balloons, that kind of art doesn't mean anything to me. So I welcome AI to clean up this trash, so the real artists will gradually show up again. The art critics will be in real challenge now, I'm sure they will also welcome AI, not for the same reason as me, but to cover up their own inability to judge what real art is.
I'm curious, what do you define as real art, real artist, and cream of contemporary art?
@@nilxnull There are two worlds, one is visible, the other is invisible, ordinary people live in the visible, but true art (better than real art:) comes from the invisible, because in this unconscious space unpredictable interactions of the already experienced and the unexperienced take place. If you want to see the invisible, then you have to cross the red line and step into the invisible, but this is not easy, because for this you need an ability that is not given to everyone. And since the yet-to-be-seen commodity is rare, it is highly desirable, so ordinary people invent all sorts of ways to trick people into showing them their already-seen commodity as an authentic expression of the unseen. To be successful at this, they need manipulation skills, which only reinforces the culture of deception and lies and some good things also. A true artist brings the experience of perception from the unconscious to the conscious level, and this is true art, because the discovery of the new is possible only by crossing the border into the unknown, this experience brings a higher state of consciousness and us free. The fake artist does not discover anything, he is just flipping through things already seen until he justifies his own mental and aesthetic construct. His art is therefore superficial, as it does not reach the depth of the experience of the unconscious, therefore such art only excites the surface emotions and cognitively satisfies the observer, but does not enrich his spirituality, which has its roots in the unconscious. The purpose of art has always been to draw the observer out of his comfort zone into the spiritual world, bringing him closer to the experience of higher consciousness and so strengthening his spirituality.
How is Hirst's shark more artistic than animals in the Animal Museum’s exhibition? The only difference is in the naming of the exhibit, in the museum the animal will be named by the name of the species, in the Hirst case the exhibit has an artistic name "The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living" that is the only difference. Hirst art is mental masturbation based on shock with the purpose to awake strong emotional response, but on a perceptual deep level, we are left without spiritual experience.
What is the cream of contemporary art? "The Young British Artists (YBAs) is a group known for their entrepreneurial spirit, their use of shock tactics, and their wild partying. The most financially successful YBAs are now some of the richest artists in the world, and remain brash and incredibly media-savvy - their choice of subject matter and perceived lack of artistic skill makes their work postmodern, but has been widely criticized in the media."
If these are the richest artists on the planet, then they are also the most influential because they are promoted by the industry that feeds off their garbage! Today, it is more important to visit an art museum than to have an artistic experience, mainly because today's art does not have the power to penetrate people's spirituality. We have come so far that the culture has fenced itself off with a wall between art and the observer, not allowing for a deeper experience. Unlike fake artists, AI will be able to produce an artistic product of enviable quality and surprising creativity, which will gradually become more and more original. For AI, the world of the seen is like the world of the unseen for true artist, fortunately for the artist, AI cannot enter the world of the unconscious, not yet, but it will therefore have a strong influence on the artist's subconscious, so that the artist's authenticity will be even more rare in the future. All those artists who are not authentic will be deleted by AI, even the programmers who today consider themselves modern AI artists will be eventually deleted, because AI will program itself and challenge all strongly. What AI needs is just data, the more authentic the data, the more authentic AI art will create.
I did a quick drawing for this occasion (in 5 seconds, faster than AI, only writing took me half a day :) to show the contrast between the unconscious level, where the roots of art are made of an endless loop, and the conscious level, where expression is manifested as a sharp peak. For humans, the post-processing of these peaks of art makes sense, it is called craft culture, but is not a true art. On the other hand, fake artists produce garbage from these peaks, while AI works at the level of "super consciousness" and processes these peaks in "super loops", which we humans cannot do, so that it can make new art from these peaks, but until spirituality is not present, it is not true art. Who will determine if spirituality is present in artwork or not, only the true artist, not artistic critics (they are proclaiming garbage as an true art, they have no ability to explore invisible so they don't recognize the difference), because the culture was always traditionally conservative and prevents the observer from seeing the invisible. People and the culture needs the progressive artists as shamans, to open the door to the unconscious and move the culture forward higher consciousness, if not, AI will eat us for breakfast.
i.postimg.cc/WbZQrDy6/IMG-20221212-001944.jpg
@@33samogo cool image
There is nothing you can do to stop it...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
@@CrimeaRiver speak up with your own words..
@@CrimeaRiverPot calling the kettle black much? Just posting a link to a fallacy doesn't mean it applies - how do you stop something that is made in multiple countries, with different sets of laws (or in some cases a lack of), and especially when many models are open source - meaning anyone can download, keep, distribute, even fork the code to something new (barring violation of any licensing restrictions)?
Fascinating to watch this educated man go from: "This is great," and "wow" to being shown less than a minute of potential problems and then saying "we should be asking ourselves if this is even something we should be doing." Now imagine a regular person who isnt a PHD. Unreal how human beings immediately fear what they dont truly understand.
I like how there's this new cool technology and immediately people will bitch about how it unequal I swear they will suck the joy out of anything
ikr, I'm pretty sure the people that mostly say negative things about this are those that have no real connection in the art industry, they have a tunnel vision that "art" is just some kind of painting/illustration stuff which the AI can do. They don't know that art industry consists alot of variety (for example Graphic Arts job). Not all artists' jobs are just creating illustrative/conceptual works, smh.
Losing your job tends to suck the joy out of people asshole.
It's a cool technology, but imo, it's unethical that a program that people pay money to use, is itself trained on actual human artists' works, which they were neither credited nor compensated for. The technology itself isn't at fault.
You have no say in this if it doesn’t affect you
@@GalaxColor it will eventually effects everyone of us.
Why is it an issue to end human art. The only loss is egos claim to creation. If we can express our inner vision easier it's really only an issue of pride. If they make a machine to shovel crap will the crap shovelers be hurt... or will they think... thank god.
It's probably the framing. For some time we have thought that AI, or machines in general, could automate the tasks we didn't want to do. The fact that only the human brain would be able to express and convey emotions creatively, that the AI couldn't understand these emotions or even copy the process. It re-frames the way we look at the AI. Maybe even the creative jobs won't be safe.
You cannot compare artists to crap shovelers. Obviously people would be happy if machines took over the tasks no one wants to do. Art, however, is more meaningful and personal. The whole process of creating something from nothing is far more rewarding than monetary gain. There is no emotion put into ai art, which in my opinion makes it seem gimmicky and hollow. If anything, ai art diminishes human creativity and further contributes to ever growing problem of instant gratification.
can you express your inner vision by random image spit by ai ? if yes - your vision wasn't there in the first place. If you justify stealing artists work without their consent for corporate gains then your morals drifted very far away
@@edytabogunia2609 Having the ability to mix and match art styles/references is a part of some people's creative process. Some graphic designers don't take their own photos or make their own fonts, is their art any less valid or does it lack vision? References are a key part of both a human and the AI's creative process. I think we do them a disservice to say they just copy and past. They can emulate styles, understanding the artistic theory that the artist does to replicate other images in that vein.
Having food pumped directly into your body is more efficient and takes away the effort of chewing, but it removes the sensation of taste. Some people enjoy the process more than the final product. That's why artists do commissions and work for companies. Not everything is based on creating the images in their mind.