Play World of Tanks here: tanks.ly/3y4XWx1 Thank you World of Tanks for sponsoring this video. During registration use the code TANKMANIA to get for free: -7 Days Premium Account -250k credits -Premium Tank Excelsior (Tier 5) -3 rental tanks for 10 battles each: Tiger 131 (Tier 6), Cromwell B (Tier 6), and T34-85M (Tier 6) The promo code is only for new players during registration.
Artists are skilled tradesmen who use tools to produce a product - Art. I look forward to the works they can produce when they learn to master and refine these new tools.
As an artist, I don't think AI is, or ever has been the actual root of the problem. But AI has made me realize is just how little most people actually care for "art" as opposed to "pretty pictures". Your experiences, your insight, and your creativity are all entirely meaningless when at the end of the day the only thing anyone actually cares about is whether a thing is pleasant to look at.
Next you will discover people also like food that taste good but dont care about the chef. And then you will find that they like cars but dont care about the designer. And like a dress but dnt care about the brand! And holy shit they like all kinds of things but dont care about the details and story around its creation! That said people do still some times care about those things. Just not 99% of the time.
@@RasakBlood I'd like to believe that kind of blatant anti-intellectualism is.... bad. And sure, it's obviously always been a thing that's been there in every aspect of society, but when the appeal of a thing literally called "art" is, in actual practice, divorced any kind of actual artistry, the problem is a little more opaque. This mindset is precedent to why so many sci-fi influenced tech innovations are realized as dystopian nightmares. People read books and watch movies about flashy space battles and kickass robots, but neglect to pay attention that the authors almost invariably never thought those things were a future worth pursuing.
@@Not-Fuji I dont think its anti-intellectualism. I think its just how humans have always been. Unless its a personal interest. They dont really care how anything works. At the same time humans love to give meaning to things that really have none. There are so many examples of music where fans ask what the meaning of a song/sentence is and the creater shrugs and says it sounded good/cool. And yet that song could have been super meaningful to thousands of fans. I think artist infuse the creating of art with a lot of meaning. Because its meaningful to them. But the masses did not create art. They did not train for thousands of hours or build social connections and a life around it. They just enjoy it. So thats where the majority find the meaning if any in it. The result. Not the process.
@@RasakBlood I'll agree with some of that, consumers of an art piece can definitely contribute to the artistic process. Darude - Sandstorm isn't exactly a pinnacle of artistic achievement by most metrics, but it's incidental impact on popular culture makes it significant. Those kinds of things are, however, in the vast minority. The top charting songs are more often than not simply forgotten about as soon as something comes to replace it. The latest Call of Duty will be immediately abandoned upon a new release, and Marvel's superhero film of the year will supersede everything that came before into irrelevance. But while that kind of superficial interaction with the world might be described as 'human nature', that doesn't mean it's at all admirable. The end result might be seemingly inconsequential with art, but the same blissful ignorance is what lets people forget that their Hershey's chocolate bar is a product of borderline slavery, that their overreliance on cars are destroying the environment, and that they, themselves, are treated just as irreverently by those who lord over them. They'll care about a 'real' issue only until the next marketable tragedy hits the airwaves.
@@Not-Fuji There is little admirable about human nature in general. We are not as far from our ape cousins as we like to imagine. We are at our best when we resist our nature. But i think the truth is you are expecting more then is realistic from humanity there. All things considered we have made great strides compared to the past. And after the transition from fossil fuels is done we have a lot of potential to address the large issues, material issues of human needs and the environmental impact of them. But i am afraid there is little to do about human behavior. We are not going to pass your subjective bar there anytime soon.
man that one hit too close to home, I've never been too worried about ai art, I just didn't think about it much, but as an artist who's always been drawing digitally and thinking "man those people who had to draw on paper sure had a lot of patience" and realizing in the future that's how people could see what I make now? feels like I'm already getting old
@@TheMrawesomest One benefit i could see it offer is if we're changing the labor in certain parts of the world (mainly Japan's toxic work culture) is if it can cut down on excessively long hours for many in the animation industry.
Adapt and overcome. I'm also a career digital artist and I'm using AI tools quite generously in my projects. So far it has made my work more efficient, but my role in it is centuries away from being obsolete.
@@jaegermonster9549 How have you been using it as a tool exactly? Because whenever i see people talking about using it as a tool it just ends up being having it trace over a rough sketch in and artstyle that hardly resembles yours at best which isn't much better than text2img. It's less of a tool and more like a vending machine the way people have been using it. And honestly so far i don't see it as being viable as a tool.
I would think the same thing, but does every aspect of it need to be that way? Hearing about AI backgrounds in shows doesn't surprise me, as a ton of them look good as a whole, and if it was drawn, often the artist took shortcuts from the time constraints. Whether that means something to the viewer is subjective, but digital art is already used to spice up art to new subjective takes.
@cassowaryegg955 if ai art is garbage then why it won two art competitions? ua-cam.com/video/L9hlfc16qg0/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/FGYkXDDYEYc/v-deo.html
@cassowaryegg955 "zero skill" modern art well duhh its shit. BUT A.I. art took several hours to code several dollars to get the servers up and running. IS THAT ZERO SKILL TO YOU
Don't fall for the ai hype. Tech bros oversell everything. Deep learning is great tool that is game changing for many aspect of media but it is just an imitation of the work of real people. And you liturally have to feed with millions of works. Good luck imitating a new tik tok dance that only have 2 videos as training data yet... It can't be the magic button that creat all new media as currently it. They have to invent a whole new type of AI to achive that. Hope not in my lifetime.😅
This reminded me of that one time when I was going to my university with my father, he asked why I didn't brought any books with me, I told him that we don't need books or textbooks now as we can do everything on our computers. He then laughed and told me that when he was at university (1980s) his professor told the students that one day the education system will eradicate the all need for books and will replace it with digital devices, and back then this felt like a Sci Fi movie for him.
Technology is amazing. If automation does destroy capitalism and give us some form of a true socialist utopia where we can pursue our own dreams then it's a win
@@theonlythingihavetosayis9333 at the beginning of the industrial revolution, the guy who invented the steam engine thought the same thing. Reality panned out in the complete opposite direction.
@@LordDaret Very true. We choose to have homeless people and impose a rent debt (paid to various nobles) on most people for just being alive. To survive in the land of vampires, one must become a vampire. Blade Runner is on the higher end of realistic optimistic futures. But as they say; hope is for the hopeless.
there's online communities sharing and talking about AI-generated art or even creating it together as a group activity. if anything, it actually turns art into a direct social experience.
@@oxenford539 that will definitely change by 2070 or something. At a time when AI generated entertainment is more frequent than handmade stuff. I love going to pixiv for AI gen stuff, but that's because I can't get such good results myself. If I could, and _anyone_ could from the comfort of their phones or TVs, there would be no need to share
I draw a lot of comparisons to this coming shift for artists to the end of skilled craftsmen in the industrial revolution. Imagine being a skilled carpenter, you love your craft and can make the most beautiful furniture. It takes weeks, even months, to produce a full set but you sustain yourself and your family comfortably on this business. Then along comes a furniture factory, working around the clock with basic automation (machine tools) and dozens of unskilled laborers who can pump out equivalent quality furniture in days. Your skills with hand tools and slow, methodical woodwork can not compete with the endless tide of cheap chairs and you find the price you can charge drop like a stone. If you are exceptionally lucky, or famous, you can shift into the luxury market, but more likely you are just doomed and will have to abandon your profession entirely. Entire communities were destroyed this way and social upheaval was rife. By now woodworking has become just a hobby, long since relegated for something to do in your free time and not for money. Very view people care how their furniture was made, just how it looks and how cheap it is.
Great points. A problem I've seen in anti-AI stances is that there's always the implication of "hate AI so it won't advance". I think a better aim would be "Push for UBI and other social safety nets", to prepare for the inevitable high unempoyment rate as AI becomes more advanced.
@@Batmans_Pet_Goldfish there were literal riots supported by multiple craft guilds when the first looms were introduced in feudal Europe, which is where the term 'Luddite' actually came from. Lots of people cried, but those in power didn't care
The Luddite movement weren't anti-technology hicks. That was a capitalist smeer. They were skilled labourers who were disgusted that output per worker had increased but wages and conditions for workers got worse. They didn't hate the machine, mostly. They were upset about who the machine worked for. Not the worker. But the investor.
I think that AI Art is a product of our post-pandemic era, in which we demand entertainment faster and faster, to consume more and more. At least 5 years ago, it was still unthinkable that an AI could make art (it was a science fiction thing), and that even the day they replaced physical jobs would be when we were going to allow ourselves to be creative. Now it's the opposite, people see being creative as something obsolete, they want automated art to stay focused on continuing to work.
It reminds me this post I found on Reddit. "1960s: In the future robots will take away all the manual jobs so that people can have more time to themselves and be more creative. Leading to a utopia full of creativity. 2020s: Robots are now taking away the creative jobs, so now we have to focus on manual labor now" And the worst part about that is there is already robots that know how to do physical labor, so not even those jobs are safe.
@@email7919 You're not really "expressing" through AI, just like I'm not expressing through searching google images, or reposting someone's art, or commissioning an artist. Unless you're suggesting that when you're commissioning an artist, it is you who's the artist. You're only consuming computer generated images.
@@crepoosculIf I envision something in my head and have an AI make that for me with specific variables and prompt is that not expressing my vision? Is it lesser with a machine than my hand if it fits what I see with my mind’s eye? You’re just being picky on bias with strawmen, if it already existed I wouldn’t need an AI to generate it (something new) for me.
See, the part about AI not being viable for profit because of the copyright problem they're having right now provides *some* hope, but Disney has proven that any big company with enough money can easily influence copyright law so it works to their advantage. I think the fate of AI art will ultimately be decided by what the executives at media giants like Disney think about it. Will they find that they can save millions by improving AI technology themselves and changing the law in its favor to bypass the need for humans or will they be offended and trust that human artists will bring them more success and ensure that the law remains antagonistic to AI? I'm very worried that the shortsightedness and focus on cost cutting common in corporate culture will sway them in AI's direction.
Except AI art is the right direction. It is simply a matter of efficiency. Human are worse artist than AI by many measurable metrics already (speed, range, flexibility) and AI is only getting better every year. The moment computers were invented and people had no problem with them, AI became destined and its eventually superiority over man inevitable. Artist whining about losing their jobs or not being able to pay their student loans is no different than a thousand other groups who held jobs that have been made obsolete by technology. Sorry but you picked a career on the cusp of being taken over by AI, it's just bad foresight and worse luck. But trying to hold up progress just because you made a mistake is kind of selfish. Corpos and the government will eventually see the usefulness and profit of AI art and regulations will be changed. Sucks people will lose their livelihood but progress spares none.
@@nameredacted7622 sooo, what happens in your dystopia when all the jobs are taken, is just being human bad luck? Do not underestimate our innate primal fear of being dethroned from the top, humanity will always fight back and eventually might come to a conclusion where we work alongside it, or destroy it. Money is nothing more than assigning wealth to paper and metal discs. So no, I don’t think this is the end for my career path. Protesters will make sure of that trust me
It literally will lol. It's hilarious how artists think they're oh so special and magic. You aren't. You're just a machine made out of meat. You don't have some special soul, and special creative powers. AI is in it's infancy. It is only a matter of time until there are AIs better at everything than every human ever, and it will take a miniscule amount of time for that to happen compared to how long it took for humans to get as good as they have. You're a caveman, with a caveman mentality. Have fun watching everything change while you cry about it luddite.
As someone who draws in their free time, I'd rather have the actual skill to draw than have a program give the impression to people that I can. The feeling of making something with your hands is priceless. I love to draw with graphite, charcoal or colored pencil and I can actually show that I made it. Now with digital art, it will be harder to tell if a digital artist actually made that or a AI program.
I'm still a bad artist, but seeing the image start to come together after marking out the big reference points and gradually filling in the details is very satisfying.
"As someone who draws in their free time, I'd rather have the actual skill to draw than have a program give the impression to people that I can." -- Dr Micpere (The Art of Life and Ink)
As someone into Copyright Reform/Fair use advocacy, something people overlook is laws/rulings set vs AI art could impact Copyright/Fair use for human artists, opening them to lawsuits , and that a lot of corporations and lobbying groups (the same ones people worry will use AI & are doing the Internet Archive lawsuit) are actually sneakily masking as or working alongside "pro-artist" organizations to expand Copyright law and erode Fair use even in non-AI contexts/against human artists, under the guise of standing up for Artist's jobs/rights (which to be clear, I do think AI costing artists jobs is a valid concern: But many groups only pretend to care). Plus, a lot of people misunderstand how Copyright and Fair Use and how AI works: So here's my clarification on all this: First, context for other viewers who may not understand how Fair Use works (Obligatory disclaimer that IANAL and that my comment here is based on US law, for other countries it might be different) The main thing in fair use determination is if the derivative work is "transformative". This is a legal concept that basically is asking is the derivative work is putting enough of a new spin on the original in both/either a literal and abstract sense. This is an IMMENSELY complicated concept though, If something is transformative is also just one aspect of many the courts consider when weighing a fair use defense: There's also Parody claims; there's the "4 pillars" (Purpose of a work, Nature of a work, how much of a work is used, and commercial impact), which a lot of sites erroneously act like are the only parts of Fair Use; and a whole host of other things. Also, Judges can and do invent new standards or weigh certain aspects more or less: You can satisfy a lot of requirements and still be infringing, or you can satisfy very little and still be fair use....But being transformative is often a key part of it, and it's what makes rulings against AI potentially damaging to human fair use too. This video brings up the point that currently, the fact AI generated images aren't made by humans means they don't get Copyright protection. this is true (though I suspect it will change: the bar for the minimum amount of originality needed to qualify for copyright is pretty low, and the Naruto vs Slater monkey photo case may actually AID AI copyright claims, I'll clarify on this in a followup reply), but this is a SEPARATE LEGAL QUESTION from if AI/AI generated images are Fair Use or infringement as derivative works:Courts have already had cases where automated processes and scraping have won Fair Use claims. For example, the Google Books case (Look up the article "Torching the Modern-Day Library of Alexandria"). Mind you, there's a lot different between that case and what AI is doing, but the point is that being non-human doesn't disqualify a Fair Use defense. In fact, I actually think, for better or worse, AI has a rather strong claim for being transformative: The AI themselves are made by looking at thousands or even millions of images, and compares them and tags them (which humans actually do help with) to glean stuff like composition, lighting, linework etc principals tied to specific prompt terms. The AI itself does not directly contain any of the actual image it's trained on, only similarities and differences between them, and it's not an image but is code describing those trends and patterns. Imagine a text description of an artist's style: This would obviously not be infringing (and in fact, style itself isn't even covered by US copyright law). If the OUTPUT images are transformative is gonna depend: If you ask it to spit out an image of Spider-Man on a bike, then well, Spiderman is still covered by Copyright. And if you're asking the AI to specifically modify an existing image rather then to generate a new one, and you can tell what the original image is, that's probably infringing too. But if you ask it to generate a "Dinosaur in a swimming pool", then chances are the image it spits out isn't going to significantly resemble any one image the AI was trained on, and in fact, may resemble any given input image LESS then if a human artist drew the same image relative to the references they used, since a human artist is only gonna be using a few references, not thousands which dilute each other. Here's where I get to the "People are advocating for anti-AI measures which could backfire on artists" stuff. Let's assume for a second that a court case happens which establishes that a AI output image which doesn't specifically resemble any one input work, or the AI itself, is found to not be transformative. Or that "Style" is now protected by Copyright. What are the wider impacts of this? As I said, legally, there's not inherently a distinction between AI and human made art from a Transformative-ness perspective. That ruling COULD absolutely create a situation where now even real human artists can get sued for their art happening to use similar composition or lighting or style to another piece of art or from a media corporation: Imagine people being sued by Toei for making "Dragon Ball style art" that doesn't actually feature DB characters or elements. If you think this sounds crazy, look at Music copyright infringement cases. It is FREQUENT for pieces of music to face lawsuits over incidental similarity because there's only so many notes you can use (and this is ironically why Music AI are only trained on royalty free music, unlike art AI), or all the drama that happens with Content ID And this is PRECISELY what industry giants like Disney, Getty, the RIAA, MPAA, Adobe, etc want. People think these corporations are pro AI and they want to fire human artists and use AI instead (and, well, they might, I think that's a real concern) but they're actually playing both sides: They're also lobbying against AI and are suing many of them, and many of their lobbying groups and represenatives are either working alongside or are pretending to be pro artist organizations and activists, so they can push for more copyright protections and fair use limits as a way to "stop AI", but then also have more tools to go after smaller artists and creators online. You know the Concept Art Association's Anti AI fundraiser? It's working with the Copyright Alliance, which is made up of those corporations and also were behind SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, and all the other bills from the past decade that would have set up UA-cam style automatic filters on every website. The Human Artistry Campaign? Also working with a bunch of industry lobbying groups like the RIAA and Author's Guild (which is also a pro-author union, but it, the Artist's Rights Alliance, and other some orgs which are ostensibly pro-worker tend to also support industry lobbying efforts) The latter of which is also one of the groups suing the Internet Archive for lending digital books, with the IA suit being supported by the other organizations as well. I don't wanna diss people, but some major anti AI/Pro artist Social media accounts are also celebrating the Internet Archive suit, framing it as somehow being a "victory against AI", or even cases where HUMAN photographers and artists get sued and lose their Fair use defenses (I will name some names: neilturkewitz is straight up a former RIAA representive). There was also a Washpost opinion piece claiming to be "pro artist" by a musician which are likewise by industry mouthpieces who repeats the same decades old claims about the internet hurting sales and, again, advocating for even human artists like Andy Worhol to lose Fair Use cases. On the flip side, normally pro-artist groups like Creative Commons have taken the position that AI training shouldn't constitute Copyright Infringement. To be clear, it is possible that AI could be found to be Transformative, but still not Fair Use on the grounds of it's commercial disruption, which would limit AI without hurting Fair Use for human artists, but given the amount of lobbying and literal astrotrufing media corporations are already doing and their involvement with lawsuits, and how historically the courts and lawmakers have listened to them and not small artists and creators, I think it's more likely we'd all get screwed then a surgical, AI targeted ruling/law. If people really want to fight against AI in a way that's actually pro-artist and won'trisk empowering massive media corporations with expanded copyright laws that will enable them to DMCA people even more then they already do, then people should be working with the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Fight For the Future instead: Both of those organizations do a ton of pro online privacy and user created content advocacy and legal work, and have involved All of that said, here's my personal take: I think AI isn't the problem here, it's corporate power imbalances and capitalism. Nobody cares if you get an AI to make art of Goku eating a hotdog, just like how nobody cares about DBZ fanart even if it's without permission. On the flip side, people WOULD care if Disney aped the style of a smaller creator even without using AI and even if they were legally in the clear. The power imbalance between the corporate giants and small creators is what really matters, and I think people are losing sight of that. I also think that risking gutting of Fair Use or setting up this entire parallel set of IP rules for human vs AI driven art (and as the video says, that line would be murky: How much human involvement is needed for it to count as human?) just to preserve the status quo of employers vs workers is an imperfect solution, especially when automation is going to hit tons of other industries where you CAN'T keep the status quo in place like that. I think we need to move past the expectation that people need to work to make ends meet.... but we're a long away from that.
I hope your message reaches more people before a *fatal precedent* is made More importantly, the same process can happen with patent laws instead of copyright, creating patent trolls that could desolate entire industries leaving millions of ideas to rot without development - all because touching them is punishable by patent law Personally, I was against intellectual property for a long time because of years hearing small people getting impacted with its laws by large corporations. Now I am _terrified_ of what copyright can be stretched out to be due to blind outrage People already wish to expand *predatory* music industry practices - the ones that were heavily criticized for hurting small creators before - to other spheres. Imagine what robocopyright would do to programming, engineering, architecture. What it would do to *memes* It is a disaster in the making, much worse than any threat an art AI could ever pose
I think I read a historical legal document just now. The focus to the nature of copyright should really have overtaken the (occasionally petty) arguing over who owns what as it is a preexisting problem that would be easier to fix (in theory; coming up with new laws is easier than implementing them, unless you have absolute power over the reigning entity) and the AI debacle would pop up sometime down the road regardless so you may as well have prepared for it, you are supposed to advance both civically and technologically at the same time when playing a game of Sid Meier's Civilization. Thank you for bringing up the Internet Archive lawsuit.
This was an issue in the early days of photography. Painters were quite upset that these new photographers would put them all out of business, and decried the new media as soulless and unskilled. Then photographers found their own style to become a real art form. But they still put a lot of painters out of work.
I'd also disagree on that point that landscape and portrait painting went away, they're still very much alive. Photography and painting exist as two separate art forms that overlap.
Camera can't produce paintings. It can only produce photos. AI can't produce a painting, but it can produce something that is indistinguishable from a painting.
As someone who doesn't make art, what unnerves me about AI art is the ease at which it can be mass-produced. With the human artists that I follow, or UA-camrs that I support financially, I am supporting them for their art -- or what's sometimes called "content" now. I like their art, I think it is good, and I justify my parasocial attachment through my like of that art, maybe in a similar way to favorite authors before the Internet. AI has no human backing to that, but what it can do is hit many of the right notes to make art or stories. And that verisimilitude will only increase over time. And that scares me on a personal level, because if AI art fills the same niche as art now eventually you're going to get more people who are overly attached to AI programmatic generations.
Whats the difference? Also until we have sentient ai ALL ai art is created by a human. Its just a tool. The art do not create itself. It is created because a human writes down their idea for an image. Ai art just makes the creation process easier and faster. But its all still driven by a human wanting something.
This is the same concern people had about the internet, and now look where it is. They were right, it took over lives, AI will probably do the same in the future.
@@RasakBlood They don't create it, any more than a commissioner creates the art they commission. They just write down a prompt and the ai generates it. The Ai "creates" as best it can from the millions of images it has stored in its memory to mix and match data points from.
You are 100% wrong about the embracing thing, when digital artistry came around it was lambasted as not real art for quite awhile, you didn't have to prep a canvas, didn't have to mix paints, hold a brush
@@mrtimo3822but it's not doing so consciously. It can't truly move you the way human-made art can. It can only cobble together an amalgamated mimicry. If it knew every detail of my entire life, it couldn't replicate me (and who would want to?). Consciousness is more than a response to prompts based on aggregated data.
As an Elder Scrolls fan, while they’re admittedly hilarious, the rise of Dagoth Ur and other TES AI memes created by ElevenAI is kind of scary. For those who don’t know, ElevenAI allows you to take someone’s voice and adapt it so that it will say whatever you write down. Sometimes it can sound horrifically real with breaths and proper speech patterns, even emotion. What worries me is that will make voice actors completely obsolete, and maybe even cause people to lose the right to their own voices.
I'm kind of glad Stable Diffusion is currently open-source. I hope something similar happens with ElevenAI. Them trying to set up ways to "enact justice" on people who misuse their program just feels weird. The end users and laws should be solving the problem of morality and ethics, not the companies. even not-so-Open AI is proposing bans on certain GPUs in effort to claim average people shouldn't have access to domestic tools for AI generation out of an ethics argument.
And don't forget the wonderful political implications of widespread access to tools that allow literally anybody to produce near-perfect copies of someone's face and voice. What could possibly go wrong
@@AshnSilvercorp The made the A.I. in the first place. That to me in itself was a unethical choice. They all knew how much of a shitfest A.I. is yet they proceed out of hubris Imo. Ironic some call Artists having any issues is out of hubris.
@@darkzeroprojects4245 someone made the internet and it has bad parts too huh. At least an open-source A. I. tool is much less likely to collect data on you. Microsoft is going to force theirs onto your PC like they did Cortana.
My main fear is not that AI Art will become better than human art, because by definition it cannot perform the same spur of the moment decision-making and weird details that only humans can, but that it'll become "good enough" to suit the needs of mass media. This'll drive away the humanity of the primary consumption of entertainment and everything the average person will consume will just be a rehash of the same training material and prompts, mathematically sorted for maximum audience viewing retention and commercial potential. Human art will still be there, but it'll be niche and only those entrenched within the industry will be able to live off it, if even that. Maybe we'll have AI controlled drones flying around warzones, algorithmically designed to capture photos most likeley to win press awards. The human experience will be cheapened and we're all worse off for it.
This. So many people miss that whether or not AI Image & Text generation become perfect is less relevant than if they reach 'Minimum-Viable-Product' stage.
@@Deathshead419think about this for a second though, a company will lose profit if it doesn’t please the majority of people. And I’m pretty sure people are more on the side of artists than the AI coders. Call me stupid if you want, but there might be the biggest boycott in human history coming in the near future if enough people have had enough
@@pubertdefrog at the moment maybe, but given time, rebranding (Think Computer Enhanced instead of AI-made or whatever) and people will move on to the next big scandal. My main issue isn't even with the "artistic merit" but for example a company being able to pump out children's series designed to maximize toy sales or a cult being able to design billions of unique pamphlets surgically designed to deceive people into joining them. Think about how this would work with marketing, an AI is able to in a few microseconds not only able to find your exact demographic (as they can do today) but find the perfect way to appeal to you, no humans required. That's the shit that worries me.
@@Whalefire2 humanity is dumb, like insanely dumb sometimes. However, there will always be this primal fear of being left in the dust with no scraps. People will never give up on being the dominant thing on this planet, it’s just etched into our DNA
yeah that sound's kinda terrible it'll either be tasteless but looks like the exact thing or be like nutrient paste so it tastes like the food you want
I’ve already seen ads using Ai generated art and I had a “prove you’re human” thing where it was using AI generated art. Because I don’t think “people playing hockey” hold two sticks, one in each hand. It’s so creepy at this stage and there’s just something absolutely unsettling about it.
I think your comment hit the nail on the head. What bothers people so deeply about this, in my opinion, is the lifeless nature of it. Its that same old uncanny valley thing, zombies, gollums, Frankenstein's monster, mummies...lifeless things that act as if they are alive creep people out. You can see it in a lot of the images.. a lack of general understanding about the subject in the image, its composition, and for lack of a better word 'soul'. On the other hand, from experience, when its used properly by an artist in conjunction with their drawing or painting.. it doesn't have that quality because the artist breathes life into the image with their composition, color choices, their understanding. I think we just are still finding the right balance in using it as the tool it is and not just letting it go hog wild with what ever text prompts. I don't use it or think of as an image generator, but rather as a filter. In that use case, at least to me, the images no longer seem creepy. That might be my bias, as an artist, but even looking at other peoples images I can see a clear difference between something that someone visualized before they made it, and something that just popped out of the machine.
okay so I'm not the only one who's gotten ai generated captcha images. literally thought I was having an aneurism or something the other day. what the fuck is this world
@@Hyperion4K Captchas have been used for a decade to train AIs. When you were clicking on "trees" and "lights" and "boats" and "buses", they were using you as their training monkey. Tech freaks will ruin mankind. I lowkey hope the internet gets destroyed for this, and it definitely will due to the sheer amount of crimes of opportunity this crap will create.
AI will not "kill art". Art is a concept that has remolded itself over the course of generations. AI will irrevocably change art and make it impossible to return to the way things were, yes, but with all that unmatched convenience comes the sheer potential to break boundaries and create something previously thought impossible. It will require incredible talent & dedication, but it is possible for AI artists to take advantage of the technology at hand and achieve more with it. 99.99% of them won't, but at least there will be a few that do.
As a writer who can't even draw a stick figure properly, I look forward to being able to one day show what I have in my head my effectively. Preferably as a blueprint for the real artist.
As someone thatt has dylexia and cant propelly draw or make a animation this looks like a tool i could use to express my creativity as well I undestood the in and outs of art and that sometimes the hard work is part of the art, but at other it would help lot of people like me that dont know how to draw much good
I mean the movies made by Disney and other big studios already feel like AI generated movies that try to get the biggest amount of people for max profit
As someone who is dumping thousands of dollars into art school in hopes of becoming an animator under the assumption that there will always be a demand I thank you for making this video to reinforce this bit of existential dread into my life. I when I graduated high school the best ai art could do was some very abstract pieces of art and when I start college it still couldn't do faces without being extremely uncanny now its actually so good and only getting better I dread to think that within a decade of graduating everything I will have learned will have become completely obsolete.
If it's any consolation, AI is coming for all of us, not just artists and animators, it's going to affect virtually every white collar job out there whether or not we like it, and we will all have to either adjust or eat dust. What I would advise you is not to stick your head in the sand, embrace AI as a tool. People who can use it will have an edge, people who resist it for a reason or another won't fare as well.
we should start embracing the idea of learning for OURselves. Not for money not for a career but for the sheer opportunity to become better at something we value. But in the end we are humans and we need sustenance and not every one of us is ok with working a meaningless job for a corporation, so my opinion is that these upcoming decades will bring lots of social change. For better or worse
@@kirrzza7928 I and many people pursued art to improve our own craft, I’d like to make a living for something I enjoy rather than doing something I hate. If had the freedom to just do what I wanna do, I would. Maybe one day once AI takes over everything that’s just what’s left for us to do.
@@Sketchy_Dood I’m a 3D artist so I really do understand you. And I do agree with you but if we continue to make “things” with profit insensitive in mind there will always be a chance of a certain field or industry being automated not because it means less labor for us but because it means less costs for some corporation. That’s why I don’t think we should blame the technology itself but the social system in which it is being implemented.
As an addendum, all the current AI art generators ban a lot of "offensive" content from being made, so they can't be used to generate any sort of porn, erotica, gore, etc. So even if AI art becomes more commonplace, they'll likely continue to be a thriving market for human artists to produce such content. The same is true of text generation AI like Chat GPT, which tends to refuse prompts about heavy subjects in general, which keeps it from really being able to compete with most adult fiction authors, even if the algorithm itself were to improve substantially.
Fan art as well, as though most of it is(in my opinion) copyright infringement, actually _visibly_ being of a character the poster/prompter doesn't own will get into more trouble Fan art is made as more of a social thing anyway
There’s one thing that I find strange how nobody has brought this up, AI art takes photos from the internet, if people use current AI too much too fast then the AI is stuck in a catch 22 unless it stops taking images from the internet, but by doing so it also limits how much data it has. Ai art might end up destroying itself if it’s overused, and as an artist I find that hysterical. And no, they won’t sift through billions of images to find the AI art and remove it, that’s physically impossible without major errors even with todays computers (hell idk if quantum computers could do that))
Basically every model is trained on an existing database of images. There are barely any AIs that take directly from the web. Only one I can think of is craiyon but that one has bad quality
They could probably have the AI art generator put some kind of invisible "watermark" in the image's metadata to let the AI know not to use that image in its learning
@@mtallmen184 I’m pretty sure there has to be some solution to the ethical issues. On one hand you have the supporters of this tech anthropromorphizing these programs so their argument of reference works (it doesn’t, a computer is not a human and therefore does not have the same rights) But you also have these artists who burn anyone at the stake if they so dare as use it, and bully developers, some of which were trying to genuinely help artists rather than spite. TL;DR both sides are stubborn and are refusing to come to a compromise, so I’m not sure what the solution is (but I know there is one, there’s always a solution)
Yes. Humans are designed by nature (evolution, God, take your pick) to do things and to overcome struggle. Not doing so leads to a withering of both body and soul. To automate everything out of existence will lead to our decay.
@@swafflemanish In a world where there aren't external challenges forced upon us by a harsh world, we would just create challenges for ourselves. We already do this, and in fact have done it since ancient times. Why do we play games? Even most art is largely not necessary but created for the fun and enjoyment of creation. Automating everything doesn't have to result in taking away individual human freedom, which is all that we need to be able to find our own challenges and enjoyment. If done correctly, it should have the opposite effect. If you don't seek out your own challenge and you "decay" as a result, that's an issue with you that can also be potentially helped. Most people do seek out their own challenges to varying degrees by their own nature though. You're worried about nothing.
There was a few Voyager episodes, where people 'programmed' in Holo Decks. Basically walking around, and giving orders to the computer by voice commands. "No, no, more... airy,' or something. And the whole room would 'change' subtly. And they just kept doing that, until they had a whole interactive murder mystery or something. Really think that's an hopeful view of the future what this tech can allow people to create.
What you're describing basically already exist I've been doing this with gtp3 I just tell him to make the prompts for mid journey GDP 4 is even better at this thing and make the images someone also created a 360 world generator so we can make 360 pictures that you could see in VR I literally make a VR generator void room myself and I never coded a day in my life but honestly it won't be that hard also someone made a game on steam or all the characters are powered by GDP so you can just talk to her about anything we will seriously have a hollow deck by next year
This is exactly how ai art works right now. I've spent like 40-50 minutes working on a single image before, to get the absolute perfect image out of my mind onto the screen.
Yeah do that but like just before we all run out of jobs just UCA I look crazy make a bunch of f****** money bro and then go back to doing that s*** once the AI is taking over and you don't have to do a job anymore
And Phorchy, if you wanted to stick with manual art, then I won't mind at all, it's your choice. But if you really want to see if AI art is a soul-sucking machine or a tool that actually helps artists in the creation and enhancement of art, then you need to try it first and see for yourself. There are people that can help you if you are interested, including me. At the end of the day, it's your choice.
At the moment there's a problem with that in the training cost: Generating a model for something as demanding as AI art of ChatGPT requires tremendous amounts of processing power. You need to either buy hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of hardware and run it for months building up a huge power bill or - rather more practically - rent those resources from a cloud provider for less eye-watering but still very substantial sums. That's too much money invested to just give the product away. In time though, costs will come down as hardware continues to advance and more efficient algorithms are found.
When an AI creates art, it draws from its database to create something new. Humans do the same, the difference is that we call it "inspiration." What is the human brain if not a powerful computer? Are we not "natural intelligence"?
@@Anverse-14 I am not humanizing computers, quite the opposite, I am saying that humans aren't as special as we like to think. This thing called "inspiration" is just "generation" given new clothing to tell other humans your art is original.
One of the last points mentioned in the video is actually one of the main reasons I'm really not that worried about AI art as much as others are: AI art is too unpredictable and it doesn't give you that much control. With previous technological improvements in art, they're embraced not only by how much easier they make certain tasks, but by how much control they give the artist. Photography didn't just replace location/portrait paintings because of how fast it was to take a picture, but by how much control the photographer had and how fast they could make impulse decisions. Photographers could easily change the camera angle/focus/lighting/etc. in a way that would be impossible for painters to do impulsively without redoing the whole thing. Same with 3D animation and 2D. Another big one is the usual complaint with Marvel using so much CG compared to practical effects, but the main reason they do that is so they can have perfect control of how the final frame looks. Entire suits can change during post-production to match exactly what the director wanted. With AI, sure, you could theoretically do the same thing, but you won't actually be able to accurately control what those suits look like, which removes the whole benefit of using CG suits painted over practical on-set ones. You just got to hope that the AI will take your prompts and give you what you want. I think at best, AI could be useful for very fringe cases and coming up with first drafts, (I think concept art is the one industry that can truly be threatened by this) but if you're looking for a very specific result, AI is really not that helpful or practical. So long as we're referring to AI as the "write down a prompt and see what comes up," then I just don't see that changing.
Do you really think that software won’t introduce that control? Within the next year you’ll be able to talk to ChatGPT and tell it to change aspects of the image that don’t match your expectations. There are already options like in painting where you erase a section of the image and get it to regenerate that section based on a new prompt. I disagree with the assertion that in the future you’ll need to write extremely long prompts to get exactly what you’re after, the user interfaces are only going to get more user friendly.
Give it a few years. There are already A.I. tools being used inside photoshop, and there’s obviously a market for making highly flexible and controllable A.I. image generation. I think Stable Diffusion 2 already has the ability to change particular areas of an image with further text prompts. I see no reason why we won’t see “artists” writing hundreds or thousands of lines of text prompts to fine-tune an image exactly to how they want it to look. And hey if that takes thousands of hours and is a process of nontrivial mental activity then I’d call that art, or at least preface it as “machine art”.
Controlnet has largely solved this, allowing you to design a specific composition and essentially impose it on the noise to generate finished images with that composition. That and inpainting to regenerate any areas that didn't turn out right. The big limiting factor right now is for animations as AI generations tend to lack what's called temporal coherence, the ability to make one frame of animation look like the next look like the next but we're now seeing the first wave of text to video generators with better (though not great) temporal coherence.
"AI art is too unpredictable and it doesn't give you that much control." This is false even with how it works now. It's DIFFICULT to control it as of now, but if you know what you're doing you can guide it the way you want. And it doesn't even have a 'brain' yet. Once you can talk with an AI like a commissioner, and give it a fake background of example art, and even have it progress the art like an artist might, just faster, the control you have will be on par with commissioning someone. This is the future of AI art people don't seem to realize.
2074 is a laughably conservative estimate for when you'll be able to create entire movies from text prompts, i would be surprised if we didn't have it by the end of the decade (barring some kind of anti-AI revolution, AI takeover, etc. etc.)
its already happened. We did have the infinite Seinfeld show. for them to be good though.. that's gonna take lot longer. Moore's law aint what it used to be.
There’s also bound to be some barrier even quantum computers can’t solve, people tend to forget that the human mind is still VASTLY unknown, it might not even be possible to map out an entire clone of somebody. Biological life will always be more complex than mechanical life, we might not know it yet but we might find out in the next century
one day we will do away with prompts entirely, and the AI will watch your face through the front facing camera looking for signs of boredom, constantly altering the narrative to keep you clicking “next episode” forever
@@Daidan0I always mention that movie eventually. That's how society will end up where AI does everything and we just sit there and do whatever we want. We won't need to work anymore. They'll have to introduce UBI universal basic income that they give to everybody. But I guess it's good. Nobody really wants to work a nine to five job unless it's something really fun that you enjoy doing everyday. Otherwise, it's better that we just spend our time doing what we want rather than working for 80% of our lives
"I believe art should consist of two things. An artist thinking of an idea, and then using those skills to give idea form. and that second part is the most important aspects of making art."-KnowledgeHusk I do loved the AI artworks I favorite in Devinart and Pixiv, but I personally prefer traditionally made artworks (both 2D and 3D) myself. Especially drawn artworks. That is how I intend to make art myself once my I finally get my career started. "At best it could save countless hours of the most mundane parts of creating art, but at worst it could destory it entirely."- KnowledgeHusk
What scares me about AI is that creative skills like art, programming ect. will diminish in value and all we'll care about in the future is social skills. As someone who has terrible charisma and low social skills, who never made a single friend, what carried me through life was not my connections but my useful labor. In a world where a machine can replace my labor, I become completely useless to others, because I can't provide the value of being an interesting person.
The skill is literally the training of the arm and eye. Mind and passion and love is missing. Art is subjective tho, but i resent realism and hyperrealism
@@DjKryx That is ridiculous, though. Why would something requiring precision and great levels of detail be less capable of conveying the artist's emotions than something simpler?
@@sorrowinsanity bc in the end the monument of their work is to become a human photocopier. They've done what a machine can already do easily for the past 100+ years. It takes extreme patience, skill of the hands, and willpower to be able to capture sight, but they've rendered the unique half of their human brain completely useless. They have expression, they can change things up a bit and get creative but they just choose to copy down exactly what they've seen. It's like rote memorization vs. applied knowledge, what do you know vs. what can you do with this information
The problem with the AI art-photography analogy is that, while photography did inspire people to create different styles of art than realism and broaden people’s horizons, AI art can make any kind of art. There is no other style that people can go to to exert their creativity. AI art can do all styles a human can with ease, leaving all human art obsoleted. Unless we create a whole new art form that AI cannot replicate, no kind of art is safe from being totally replaced by drawing automata.
I guess it's because I'm an old-school color pencil and pencil artists but they can never seem to get my style of art exactly perfect. I mean the weird thing is that there's like a weird logic to the imperfections to the point where I can actually point out the differences. I'm thinking this will be like how walking is today vs what it was in the old days. Something that you do yourself for pleasure or just to do
For me it comes to enjoyment, anybody can type a word and let a machine do the work, but when it comes down to making it with your own bare hand and making your own vision come true that’s art, even if you manipulate the machine to do it. I still think that’s art but in a different way; but I think it ultimately comes down to the beholder and how they perceive enjoyment of the art or medium.
@@raptorskilltor4554 well for someone like me this is a medium to make cool art. I would never sell it or anything just for my enjoyment. There is now a primitive text-to-video AI. Soon almost everything will be aided by AI. Might as well enjoy the ride.
I don't have any patience anymore to participate in the AI art debate, because all it does it take a toll on my mental health. What I will say is: The idea of a future where you can ask a computer to generate all of your entertainment with no human intent behind it at all is utterly dystopic to me. I want to hear people's thoughts and share experiences with others. I want to hear YOUR experiences (random person reading this). You can't have that if all your content is specifically catered to extremely obscure and specific interests. How will we be able to talk about a cool movie? Social media algorithms have already made society worse in a lot of ways. Shoving the ethics debate behind AI completely aside, there's a big difference between a human being behind whatever technology exists in the future versus giving away all of our creativity and innovation to computers. I'm sure that there are SOME people out there who love the idea of being plugged into the matrix, but definitely not me lol.
It will also result in even more and even bigger echo chambers where people only see and hear exactly what they want to see and hear without ever having to challenge or expand their views and tastes. Art won't be an expression of creativity and humanity anymore but a manifestation of greed and capitalism. We'll just be mindless drones sedated by consumerism and we won't even realise how numb we are just like Huxley predicted. It's an utterly terrifying concept and I don't think people realise just how plausible it is.
First of all you're already in The matrix second of all you don't see any angle where there's no jobs are work so all people do is just make art basically so in fact humans are more creative now all I hear is despairing angst about but we're just going to look at stuff that's not made by humans bro I hate to tell you this AI or humans whatever they make as a reflection of humanity you're talking about them like they're soulless aliens in fact for them to make are they definitely have souls or will have souls later like all this you're saying is coming from this weird angle that technology is unnatural this is incorrect and if true you haven't been whatever you call human for quite some time a human is a hunter-gatherer do you hunt or gather and people will still give their shared experiences it just be easier to make them because we'll be using AI to make them it's a world with no money or work you'll be getting phone calls all the time from people like hey I'm trying to make a movie you want to be in my movie it's a place where everything is simply for fun we're trying to make the best movie we cannot because we want money just because we want to do that
I couldn't agree with this more! I think that AI is just the latest symptom of a modern sickness that replaces human connection with convenience. Amazon, Uber Eats, Tinder, working from home, online classes, and social media. Are we backwards luddites, or are we just feeling a need to be human?
It's weird to think though, if AI art kills real art, it will just continue to recycle the art it has already been trained on. No new styles would ever be created again.
Nothing can kill art. Art is a compulsion that people are led to create. What we really mean by something "killing art" is whether that art is profitable. Artists will still make new art and styles, but they won't be making the same money.
do you really think people would let that happen? Artists aren't gonna disappear. people need to create, they always will. There's already a new type of artist who spends their time training machines to do new things, so they can make new styles of art with the machines. I'm one of them.
No new styles? Disagree. Could be done with tweaks in learning algorithms and other techniques, some of which may not currently be perfected or known, but will be.
What if it ends up recycling art from old crappy ai that people grief the internet with, causing a sizable portion of those images to be forever in the database
With out photography we might not have any paintings by Francis Bacon. He relied heavily on it, and he's one of the greatest artist ever. Today there's no need to commission a portrait from a painter, every one has a camera in their phone. But they do. I know because, I'm a painter. A large portion of my commission work is portraiture. Art is more than aesthetics, it's a connection.
I'd use AI for ideas. For reference. Then, when I hire conceptual artists, I'll show them, "This is what I'm looking for." Sample tunes, and when I hire a composer, I'll explain, "This is the feel I'm going for." HOWEVER. I'll also add: "If you have something new, please feel free to add. I like surprises."
I think my biggest annoyance with the current batch of AI bandwagoners is their insistence that THEY made the art. I would respect AI art more if we all thought like the copyright office and agreed no one owned it and no one made it. This gets trickier with human-made art cleaned up by AI but I have no delusions that I had much responsibility for a piece I generated with a couple of sentences.
ALL ai art is prompted and commanded by a human willing its creation. And that will remain until we decide some ai is sentient and it makes art. By all logical definitions they made the art. They used a tool but they made it. No different from any other art. Just easier and faster. Well i guess the people that throw color at white canvas and call it art can compeat in the speed department.
@@RasakBlood There is a vast world of difference between someone saying "I would like some art" and the art magically appearing with no further action, thought, or involvement from them... and literally any other form of a human being "willing" art into creation. Somebody in a drive though said "I want a burger" but that doesn't make them a cook. It doesn't make them the creator of the burger. Even if an entirely automated machine prepared it, they had nothing to do with it. In an incredibly technical and pedantic sense, the person who orders the burger is "willing its creation". But it's such a stretch in order to equate someone saying "make me something" with the entity that actually makes it... it becomes an unserious argument very quickly.
Prompt people want the social clout they associate with "being an artist" without having to actually do anything. They're excited that someone created a toy that lets them push a button and be given an output which can be held up over their head. While they declare "I am now exactly the same as a person who made this themselves."
Man made art ALSO references other human made art all the time. Most writers use shorthands and tropes and ideas from works they've been inspired by in the past, there was that famous Picasso "Great artists steal" quote. Tarantino has also talked about how trying to copy one or two filmmakers makes you a hack, but copying 20-30 filmmakers makes you a true original. Much of the Top ten in music, movies, etc is full of derivative, uninspired crap that's simply well marketed and "too big to fail". I get the paranoia and anxiety about how much specialized artistic skill has been devalued in society, but frankly, this is just what's happening to all jobs in society as a whole. Almost all work is becoming devalued through optimization and automation that's necessary to provide products and services to such a large and growing global population of consumers. There's this assumption that just because a person does something traditionally, "by hand" it has more value. But that's just the IKEA effect. If you assemble a car piece by piece like they used to 100 years ago cars would be a half a million dollars. How many would you be able to sell, how many workers would you be able to hire that way??? Probably just as many if not more people would be out of work in that scenario. Look at sports, one of the fields that is probably most difficult to imagine AI ever being able to intervene in, creates such runaway spending and compensation that someone makes 30-40 times more money for shooting basketballs than you make looking for a cure for cancer. That is NOT determined by the value these jobs provide to society, as curing cancer is infinitely more important than winning an NBA championship. Humans are expensive, and the scale of NEEDS these services must provide is far too large for humans to fulfill at a reasonable cost. Almost everything humans do or make will be worthless eventually once no one wants to pay for it, and if no one has money because all these jobs are being devalued then it stands to reason that you are not going to be able to whine and complain your way out of it.
The best parallel i can think of is watches and the quartz revolution. You went from an industry based around incredibly fine precise workmanship that was uprooted to the point you can give away cheap LCD watches as a free gift. Mechanical watches still exist even at an entry level but the broad appeal just quietly died and even digital watches are dying a death when everyone has a smartphone. A bleak outlook but art won't die, likely just become a niche.
I'm genuinely both curious and terrified of what will happen when there isn't a single thing left that can't be done by a machine. Where will we work? How will we make money? Would we all be broke barely able to get food or would we have our lives completely solved without a single problem left?
Both ends of those roads lead to a distinctly hellish conclusion in that our humanity can and will be replicated. Once we reach that point, we very well could only have one passion left: to perfect the art of destruction.
Long before machines can do everything you will have the economic impact you are talking about. And then you will have millions of people that can not feed themselves. These millions of people will demand change. And so there will be change or a lot of blood. And yes in the good ending we all have all basic needs and more solved.
the people (mega corporations) using machines and AI to replace the entire workforce would be the only ones making money, and so they'd also be paying a huge amount in taxes. you then use the tax revenue to impliment a universal basic income for everyone else. everyone will just get a base income into their bank accounts each month for doing nothing. now, you could argue that why not just make all products free instead? well that's because of greed. the univeral basic income that people get would work as a limiter on how much they can take. this scenario feels pretty much inevitable.
People have enjoyed watching robots fight eachother for as long as they have existed, and actually longer. People also enjoy watching AI chess or other games. Some don't, but many do.
Something I always feel gets missed is that art isn't solely for interpretation and expression. It can serve a purpose. If a tabletop DM just wants an image to give their players, why not - it's something which they feel represents their idea well enough. While some tablecloths might be a finely woven tapestry fit to display in a museum, most people just care about something to drape over their table which looks decent enough and matched the furniture. Art can be a tool to apply, not just a form for expression.
The way I see it, I just think AI generated imagery will be branched off into a different genre entirely, and its overall relevance after the big AI boom is going to be reduced to just simple tools that artists can used to assist their original work. In my experience, AI is most useful as small tools that can assist the human in doing daily tasks, and this AI-generated media won't mean much if there is no sense or meaning to it. I believe that people will instead learn to use it as a tool rather than a replacement, because AI can really only parrot existing work.
@@abdiabdi3225 I can't speak on GI, but the inherent flaw of AI is that it's incapable of making anything truly original, so in reality all artists need to do to stand out from their AI counterparts is to have their style be unique and not generic-looking, which is surprisingly easy speaking as an amateur artist myself.
My main worry is your average person is too ignorant to care, most current movies today are essentially humans parroting the same superhero film over and over, yet people still see them. Same thing happened with 3D animation, 2D and 3D are two different forms of animation, but in US you can't get the average person to pay for an 2D animated film, because 3D is seen as "inherently better". AI can't replace human art, but the average person is too ignorant tell or care about the difference. People want fast food, not a home-made meal.
@@sillyali the problem with this is that the average consumer does not care about originality, so this is still put going to put lots and lots of artists out of work. Non artists and white collar folks are already singing the praises of AI art to each other specifically because it's generic but customizable and pretty. For many commercial uses of art, most people want functional, not necessarily original.
As an AI researcher, I disagree with your assertion that AI art doesn't require human input. Fundamentally, these models are trained and fine-tuned on human-generated media, which are then regurgitated in some new form when a prompt is given. It is not possible for an AI model to invent an entirely new genre or style of art, as it can only sample from the distribution that it learned from some previously observed data. I would argue that this is no different from human artists who create media within a predefined style. For example, the thousands of artists who draw pictures of catgirls on DeviantArt cannot claim to have invented Anime. AI generated art has not devalued the creative process in any way; it has simply demonstrated the derivative nature of 99.9% of modern art. I would go so far as to suggest that the artists who complain about tools like Stable Diffusion are not really upset at the idea of having their art stolen so much as they are at the realization of their own mediocrity.
One thing that I haven't personally seen discussed yet with A.I. generated art (or more specifically, the tech bros who want it to out-and-out replace human artists), but I can't stop thinking about is, in the far future, let's say 2300, where all art is A.I. generated, there just isn't going to be any more innovation in the art field. Today, you can't look at something created by Steve Ditko and say it's the same as a Michelangelo. Sure, they're both artists that created art, but there's a vast swath of difference in styles and methods of creation. The artform changed. But, in 2300 when all art is text-prompted compilations pulled from hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of pre-existing art, there's no innovation to be had. There's not some young, budding artist that has a style all their own that will revolutionize the art world. It will forever be the same remixes. Sure, it's a pool made with millions of samples, but it's a *stagnant* pool made with millions of samples. Naturally, in an A.I. generated art world, there will still be niches to be found. I can easily see a new niche of artists arising to fill this gap I've outlined above, where their whole job will be to simply create new art in their own style that's purely used to give the A.I. new references to pull from. Already you can see it with artists creating unique pieces to train A.I. in a way that's more ethical than just ripping art from Google Images. And of course, this all heavily depends on where in the graph we are. Are we at or very near to a plateau, and this is where A.I. generation stalls out for a few years or decades? Or are we still in the midst of climbing our way up to the peak? These are questions that can only ever be answered with hindsight, but if I had to guess... I unfortunately have to say that we're still climbing to the peak. Only time will tell.
Inevitable..? It's already here. Thousands of deviantart accounts, which get subscriptions and paid prints, are nothing but AI generated pictures of women and cartoon animal women. Ubisoft is already using AI to write dialogue in their games.
Somewhat good news regarding art AI though, they're starting to suffer from two big issues. First, too much data, as the data they are based off grows with more and more scraping of stolen images, they inevitably get a lot of conflicting data on what a thing does or doesn't mean, making the AI basically just have to guess. And second, they're having a hapsburg problem. Ai art posted online is rarely marked or indicated as such, often even with efforts made to try to hide this origin, and thus it is easily swept up by the image-scraper bots and fed back into the algorithm, flaws and all, meaning those will get excacerbated more and more as such art becomes more common, leading to, well, algorithmic inbreeding.
@@dillonblair6491 they use the art that actual artists make and the ai skews and combines the pictures with other art to make ai art. It's like stealing someone's homework, changing a few words here and there, and then submitting it saying it's completely original. The companies aren't buying the art they use they just take it.
@@DoneDragon1 You understand that's how humans make art right? Almost all human creations are derivative, you have to have a point of reference before you can create something and in other circumstances i dont think youd apply this standard. For example, Cuphead uses the style pioneered by 1930s Disney films but would you actually say it's stolen???
@Dillon Blair style/genre is what your describing, I'm talking about individual pieces of art are taken without compensation and fed to the ai programs. They are stealing a product(art) from a seller(artists)
@@DoneDragon1 Yes that's what I'm saying. People have to look at individual pieces of media and they take inspiration from it. Cupheads creators looked at pieces of 1930s media and created their game. Would you say cuphead is stolen? (Because you understand AI actually makes transformative creations right? They aren't just reposting your art)
I'm glad you brought up the case of the photographer wanting the rights to the monkey picture. To me that case sets the earliest and best precedent for any rights claim to ai generated creations. My bias can't even bring me to call it actual art so i could be just as wrong someone on the other side of argument
Based on my experience as a programmer, they way a lot of technologies progress is a bit like that old math problem where you keep traveling half the remaining distance to the destination. You get further with each iteration, but there’s always some remaining portion. AI art will probably have an element of that. The other paradigm I see a lot is that the advancement of technology allows for a more advanced end product. For example, there’s no way we could have the games and other software we have today if we still used punch cards or were writing machine language commands one at a time. It’s likely that AI art will allow some works that would have been impractical to be made. It’s hard to say what those are, though since they mostly don’t exist yet. Not saying there aren’t going to be pitfalls along the way-we’re in for a bumpy ride over the next 10-20 years, but it’s going to be interesting-I guarantee that.
An example of something impractical to make before that will become possible in the future are animations that feature detailed shading, lighting, etc. Animations are mostly flat because it would take too many hours to include more details. At some point we’ll have animated works that would’ve been infeasible for a large team to make even given several years.
17:15 The bit about the invention of cameras reminded me of something Alfred Hitchcock said in an interview. "Technical perfection can only create boredom, because it only reproduces nature. Why the hell would anyone go to a movie when they can have the real thing? So imitating nature can only lead to the death of an artform."
As an actual visual artist that's been deeply exploring AI tools for the past year, I think most people just don't understand the creative process. It requires the individual to have at least some vision of what they want, and then the vocabulary to translate that vision into the physical world, whether that be a lexicon of paints or a palette of words, there still requires, even with AI tools, a communication process at the root of it. You are trying to communicate your idea clearly. If you don't have a good idea to begin with, then it doesn't matter if you paint it yourself or if an AI tool generates it for you. It's all about the choices you make, and that's really the fundamental action of creativity. It's often this ignorance of the creative process that make non-artists think AI tools will automatically make images that other people like AND that you feel proud of, and artists think AI tools will deflate their value. If you never recognize and examine your own decision making process, then you take for granted what you're actually doing and what your actual value is. There's always been a distinction between Art and Craft, but for many people it hasn't been well defined and they conflate the two. AI tools may make certain crafts obsolete, but it surely doesn't threaten Art itself. It's not about changing the definition of Art, it's about actually understanding the definition of Art, the creative process, and what we do as artists.
Honestly, I think that a lot of the argument comes down to "how much time have you invested into creating something", but my personal opinion is that creativity isn't dependent on the time spent to hone skills or create the work itself. Does it matter if a writer pops out a book every year or spends a decade to write his next one - if they are both equally enjoyable, insightful and/or well-written? To me, art is creativity+technology. The technology part becomes easier, as it ideally should be, lowering the threshold for entry. The creativity though is all up to a human (at the moment at least). I personally think it's great that the threshold is lower. It's like this with music. A huge torrent of musicians have been able to release their music into the world, and there's so much more choice to find what exactly you want - it's amazing for me! Plus, DAW software has made it easier to record, you can just record a very hard part in multiple pieces instead of trying to do it all at once, which is again good for expressing creativity. But before, you had to learn to play for a long time, had to assemble a band and impress the gatekeepers - record labels, concert venues, distributors, etc. - to get your music out there. And finally, I think it's also important to acknowledge - and I don't mean that as an offense or devalidation in any sort of way - that all the artists, be it visual, musical or literary, have actually accumulated a sum of knowledge from a huge chunk of previous human history, thousands of years of it. We build on top of what was created before. The AI does the same, only unfortunately - and I do think this is a real issue - the people who it affects are still thankfully alive and well, and this can take away from their income. But this is a different question - of AI, automation and capitalism in its current form :)
Disclaimer: I am AI-neutral. I think Ai art in and of itself is niether god nor bad, but rather another tool that can be used in whatever way possible. I think ai art will be too "basic" and boring for me, and I think there will always be people who think the same thing. Because there are a lot of us who have interests that aren't mainstream enough to be included in a lot of these technologies. I also think even if they were included, I dont think it would hit the same way as me looking at artwork I've made and which my friends have made, especially when art is how we communicate, and not just entertainment. We usually look to art to gauge people's values and to get a new perspective on stuff, I think anything an AI would make would come out as inconsistent in those aspects. I don't think that makes AI art useless, but I do think that means that AI art isn;t a threat to human art because these are two different niches that don't need to cross eachother. The problem to me is when AI bros decide to be haughty abt it LOL. As photos are a different experience from seeing its subject in person and as artwork is a different experience from photos --- all of these also being different from when we talk to eachother directly --- AI art is a different experience from human art. And yes part of that fundamental difference is the mere knowledge of what is or isnt Ai or human, but think of it as AI being a filter or middle man in between the messages between someones vision and the person receiving an artwork. Like you talked about the "death" of realistic paintings or paintings based on real places but.. people still do that, people still look for that. People still do cell animation, people even make flipbooks and some even on regular ass paper. People still paint on cave walls, people still make graffiti. Hell people also pay for all of these things! These are impulses which cannot be sated by a mere image, we like doing things we will find things to do. I also think a major concern with AI art isn't copyright infringement or artists losing jobs, we're already the butt of the joke when it comes to jobs guys! But rather that people will use AI art (or lets be more realistic, deep fakes) as part of identity theft whether that's by putting other peoples personas into works or copying the style of an artist and claiming to be that artist.
I'm honestly with you on the realistic paintings part. I think he was onto something up until the point where he started being like "It will replace us all and nobody will make art the same way anymore." Like... people definitely do still do photorealism, and photography didn't drive painters out of business. If anything, the shift from realism to the abstract was much more of a cultural thing around the turn of the 20th century than anything to do with cameras. Same thing here - just because AI art exists doesn't mean that people will all just... give up doing art. Nor does it somehow make the fact they could make something so beautiful any less wonderful.
@@lesigh3410 I agree too, but I think the video's point about that is that it would be hard to tell what's made by AI and what isn't in the first place.
@@lesigh3410but, as the tech improves, how then? How does one distinguish a sufficiently good generated artpiece from one that does not use such services. And what stops a bad actor from simply deciding to pass the artwork off as original?
That ending was quite a rollercoaster. From optimism, back to pessimistic realism. What should I take away from this video? Seriously, just accept defeat?
@@TheGamernews1 if those are my only options I'd rather die maintaining my beliefs than survive under something that goes against everything I stand for
kind of realize its here, and how its used in the mainstream is the next debate. Is it going to stay a shovelware dumping novelty that it is right now or is it gonna become a tool to connect stuff together?
A lot of the problems AI art presents could be mitigated if artists had a better support network that made it easier to focus on their passion without having to worry about rent or food
This is going to put artists out of work. And unlike people who worked in mines, this is putting people out of work with their passions. I mean maybe there are some people who passionately work in mines and that’s all they’ve ever wanted to do with their lives. But there are a lot of people who don’t and only do that because they don’t have the money, resources, or time to pursue their passions. No one is an artist because they were “forced to” or because they had limited options. Art is already a frowned upon profession that the only people who pursue it are the people who want to.
Depending on the clientele you'll still artists get work due to detailed orders or requests and specific art style i.e: Furry Art. AI has specific styles that isn't always the one people want.
Correction on the monkey case, the court never ruled that the monkey owned the image, Peta just kept suing the photographer so he gave up and said the monkey owned the image
As an artist, want to say, that main thing about art is idea, and advanced and more conscious AI will help skip the boring part and fokus on idea! It's great! Everyone can be an artist without 15 years of practice, just make their ideas come to life! And if your opinion is that nothing must change, or people will lose jobs... well... if nothing would change, we would never improve, we would stuck in 1800's, when same thing happened, but with workers of factories, you can't stop time
Are you really an artist though by just typing a few words? I'd say no. Not any more than being able to use chat gpt makes me a writer. And on "if nothing would change, we would never improve" and "you can't stop time." I think this reflects a mindset that there is nothing to be done so just give up. Not all change is good though, nor is change beyond control. We have, and will continue to weed out things seen as unethical. Asbestos used to be seen as a wonder material and now it's not. We used to allow hard drugs in tooth medicine, now we don't. We used to have children work in factories and now we don't. The future isn't just about accepting every new thing. We make the future. How it is regulated is in our hands. To act as though we can't change it is to treat the march of time as an uncontrollable beast which we must allow to trample us, rather than a series of decisions ultimately made by people.
@@chocolizard678 so now if I have a cool idea, I can type it and make ot happen in few seconds... And this is bad? Why? Just because you're uneasy with AI drawing? Fine, don't use AI drawing, don't commit the "personal ingenuity" fallacy, that being "I don't understand [something], therefore [something] is bad/doesn't exist", here's some examples"I don't understand evolution, therefore evolution doesn't exist", "I don't understand midjorney and chatGPT, therefore they're bad!"
@@chocolizard678 my genuine point is that all the same arguments were used in the industrial revolution, from our XXI century point we kinda got used to all of those technologies and think that's how it should be, but now another change and you are acting just like those workers, don't repeat the mistakes of the past
This whole conversation kinda ignores the main point of art, which is to create and to express the inner world in a physical medium. Art is not just content to be consumed, is a conversation of human emotion. Humans CRAVE to create for more than just money, we want to express ourselves and leave a mark.
While I agree that this argument is a little too much focused on monetary gain, I think the arguments that 'art must have humanity behind it' is partially including that as well. I assume when people talk about how the art process is profitable and meaningful, they are also taking into account that the artists aren't just profiting, but also enjoying it and using it as a means of social expression. And that, if it's impossible to tell whether or not an AI made the artwork, it would also conflict. Imagine being genuinely fooled to believe an AI piece was genuine, only to leave disappointed that there was nobody on the other side to talk to...
I think like how the camera made realistic depictions as art redundant it will simply make things like digital art eye candy art without a higher meaning redundant. People are just going to actually have a motivation for their art beyond pretty picture and probably turn to post-modern styles. The famous artists of the future are going to be people like Banksy not the millionth VFX artist
Thank you, there’s a reason why that guy’s art in the DA competition was suspected of being machine generated, because it looked like everything else. I haven’t seen anything come close to truly emulate someone like Beksinski or Giger despite how distinct their styles are, because it’s actually not that simple. A shit ton of human artists have tried and failed and it always ends up looking to clean and sanitized and far more palatable compared to their work.
At 17:40, it's worth pointing out that this WAS the way some people used photography, but the whole way photography evolved was PRECISELY to exactly avoid just doing 'paintings but I can't paint'. Same reason most digital artists develop their own digital style instead of using a watercolor filter or brush: if you're interested in actual artistry, you want your medium to have its own dignity and identity. And as you said, it is objectively true that photography did kinda ruin traditional art! Also, here's an interesting event, when the matter of copyright came up, courts decided that photographs deserved copyright because the human act of selecting each setting, angle, and the fact itself of coming up to a IRL subject constituted a creative act. Personally I'm not convinced this applies to simply prompting AI, as almost every prompt could as easily be generated by a Markov chain seeded by GMT time or RNG - same way that security camera footage is not art but Interstellar is, despite being technically the same medium. You could use the AI medium in a truly artistic way, I'm convinced you can. But current AI art is much closer to security camera footage, or those autogenerated avatar icons based on a hash of your user ID. Either way, all of this could simply be solved by labeling art properly... which is the way ALL ARTISTS have always done it: digital photography, cellulose photography, oil on canvas, digital painting on Gimp. But tellingly enough, AI users very often don't want to to let people know about 'Midjourney in Photoshop'.
One of my biggest existential fears about AI generated art is that should it proliferate to a certain threshold, it’s quite likely that any corporation or other group of people with the proper motivation could start a push to view human made art as obsolete or at the very least not worthwhile, thus delegitimizing creative self expression’s value as a whole. And if self expression doesn’t mean much in the eyes of the greater populace, what will replace it as a source of meaningful contribution to the community?
Isn't already? How much of the general population actually looks at art on the regular? For most of the people I know, the only time we actually look at art is when it's intertwined in other mediums like books or movies. Art is honestly supplementary to most people.
@@RE_Mastar I can and do argue that everything is art, I can appreciate the artistic value in my keyboard and fan... and I should, those are items designed, to be pleasant and functional, and they fulfil their purposes quite excellently. But aside from that I was going to say essentially the same thing, with a snarky side of "get a job?". Not to be an asshole or anything.. I love art.... but... perhaps just poor phrasing. I consider the sentence 'self expression as a contribution to the community' ... to be like an insult to my ears and the very concept of the human condition. Your self expression, is for you, not me, not anyone else. If you are good at what you do, great. If you have people who appreciate your art, great. I am not at the point of considering art a public service, perhaps outside of soviet era living complexes and the desire to reinvent those places for the people who have to endure them. Even then a council would probably pay, one probably wouldn't do it for free, etc. Not sure that counts as 'self expression'. It just sounds hyper... narcissistic. In concept. 'Self expression =/= greater good'. Apologies, I'll be replaced as well.
@@RE_Mastar Twitter, DeviantArt, Tumblr, and other social media platforms have art by itself everywhere if your algorithm is tuned to it. I look at art on social media all the time, and so do most of my friends.
I don't agree on the idea that AI will destroy art. Like you mentioned, the photograph reduced the amount of people doing realistic paintings, because it was far easier to just take a picture then to painstakingly paint the scenery. The job market for realistic paintings shrunk dramatically, however, realism is by no means dead, even today. Not many can make a job out of realism anymore, but there are plenty of people who choose to make realistic paintings simply because they want to. I believe the same will happen with AI generated art. The market for human made art will shrink dramatically, but there are plenty who will choose to create simply because they want to. There are still blacksmiths who practice their craft the traditional way despite there being more efficient methods available. However, as a mainstream job, many artists will likely have to retool into a different industry entirely. It's incredibly sad, but I believe doing art for arts sake will survive.
Well, that's the problem though. Artists want to do art for a living they don't want to have to squeeze it in between working a regular labor intensive job, raising a family, and tending their home provided they even have enough time and energy to do art after all that.
@@Guy-cb1oh Even currently, there aren't very many stable jobs in art. My sister is an artist and she has only really been able to do it as a hobby. It's incredibly sad. My hope is that perhaps one day, our lives will not be consumed by our work and there will be more time to dedicate to hobbies and interests. That seems like an unlikely future though. The only more unlikely future is the one where AI research is stopped and things continue as normal. AI art is already here, and we just have to make the best of it.
I was born with a complete lack of artistic skills. I cannot even draw a straight line. Of course, I can practice but at the same time, my friends used to draw beautiful images without any training. I am an artistic person. I love to create but I didn't have the skills to do it in painting. Finally, I can make it. I am happy. It's a little bit like being angry at a person with a calculator, while you were born with the ability to make amazing calculations in your head. It's a great equalizer.
Government officials were asking the CEO of TikTok if the app could access Wi-Fi. The legality of AI will be in a grey zone for a while. I do like AI art in the aspect that it can help artists make things faster. Or as a way to get inspiration.
As someone who makes digital art, I usually use Topaz Gigapixel AI to enhance the art I already spent the time to create, and I've even used EbSynth as a way to speed up the finishing touches on animations, so yes you are right when you say that AI can be used as a tool to make your art look better, but should not be used as a form of cheating in order for some people to claim credibility for artwork that was generated by a sentence that they put into an algorithm.
Eliminating opportunities for art as a career is incredibly sad and terrifying; I don’t want to minimize that. But something that’s brought me a bit of comfort as an artist is realizing that, as a kid, when I’d tell people, “I want to be an artist when I grow up!” I never thought about making money-I just wanted to make art. At some point in my artistic journey though, it seems that “becoming an artist” started to be more about my financial compensation than it was about actually just doing what I love to do. And that makes sense. As we get older, money becomes more important. But to then go on and conclude that AI art will someday render artists obsolete would be totally untrue. Even if AI art absolutely destroys the art industry, nothing can stop you from making art. It may not be as financially viable as it is now, but if making non-AI art brings you joy, then it’s absolutely worth doing. Art will live for as long as humans feel the need to express. Not super reassuring in the face of all the AI craziness and job loss, but it helps me to cope a bit.
Great point! On that note, I'd like to add that I was never able to draw well, but I sometimes get ideas and thoughts I'd like to express in visual form - and I just can't. Plus, I don't have a very vivid visual imagination. For me, AI art is a way to put what I want to see in front of me and maybe share this with someone. I do absolutely understand the strife of artists, but on the other hand, this is a way for many more people like me to express ourselves. Besides, AI is coming for all of us at one point or another, we'll all be out of a job :)
But if I can’t make money off my art. Then I have to get a job at McDonalds to make money and survive. And that’ll take away the time I’d rather spend working on art. Saying “who cares if you lose your job? You can keep doing it as a hobby” is not hopeful at all.
Yup, personal use is fine! It’s just money and incentivizing a lifestyle has been a driving factor enabling artists to pursue it as a main function to do and feel fulfilled from. AI Art is something that the economy doesn’t need.
Yeah, the industrial revolution killed the artisans and woodworkers - but those former occupations still exist as hobbies, they are much rarer of course, but some people pursue them very passionately, which really is Beautiful imo. This also applies to retro photography and photorealistic painting. I don't see Art (as in, creations YOU spent time on and give certain Value to) disappearing any time soon. The process of Creation just seems like an endemic part of any sapient being
As a human artist we take inspiration from everything we see. And I find myself accidentally re-creating others works to where it's hard for me to tell if I made an original piece or was just heavily inspired by someone else. I don't see how AI art is any different from a human taking inspiration from other copyrighted works.
as long as the person has any idea of what they want and it's an actual idea I don't really mind AI art because a lot of people currently want new laws without realising the companies pushing this want to kill the small artists.
The downfall of beauty is inevitable with AI. There is not one instance of something aesthetic being automated where we didn’t stop caring for it. We don’t care about photorealism in photography anymore, now that calligraphy is automated, our mails are reduced to function, now that carpets, Iace, stitching is automated, all of them lost their aesthetics
Thank you for not making weird and illogical straw-man arguments so many artists do, because I am a music artist and it gets frustrating seeing picture artists scream and shout about "mUh wOrk gEttIng stOlEn!1!" when in the music industry, leitmotifs (taking little bits and pieces from other musicians and making a mix of it) ARE LITERALLY EVERYWHERE. Apparently, to a picture artist, just taking SOME aspects of their work at all is "stEAlIng!1!". Another thing I commend is accepting that photography killed real landscape art as an art-form, because lo and behold, picture artists who draw loves to say that it isn't the same or that "the industrialization didn't kill businesses" when many art-forms such as hat-making LITERALLY DIED and you're telling me photography DIDN'T KILL real world art? LMAO Anyway, I'm ranting here, but my point is that while I agree with artists that AI will kill art, saying photography is "art" because it required "human input" is f*cking stupid, photographers are NOT ARTISTS, they are literally the same as AI "artists" and I will die on that hill.
I think this isn't comparable to the past with photography, most (if not all) Ai art steals to recreate a mash of existing art based on a given prompt, photography didn't steal anything it didn't take anyone's creations because it simply captures a moment in life these 2 things are entirely different and not comparable, people still draw real life today by eye simply because it is satisfying to do, the art Charles Baudelaire loved didn't cease to exist, it never has. Ai 'art' and Photography are not comparable for they are far different from each other, the same way you cannot compare digital artists respecting people who used cel to animate to your future scenario, these are completely different things, I think this time is the time where laws have to protect artists, what is all our copyright for if not to protect us from exactly this? I cannot help but see Ai art as just simply massive art theft, to me that's all it is, without us it would be nothing, it cannot make anything new only things that already exist, yes they are different but are they actually new? I wouldn't say so.
Im not an artist, so my opinion doesn't really matter, but i don't necessarily think ai art will kill art. If you think about things like cuphead being cell animated despite it being much easier to digitally animate a 2D platformer, it become apparent that there will still be a market for what existed before. People still buy (and paint) landscapes, and probably always will. Thats not to say that ai art is necessarily good or wont have a negative outcome for art as a whole.
Play World of Tanks here: tanks.ly/3y4XWx1
Thank you World of Tanks for sponsoring this video.
During registration use the code TANKMANIA to get for free:
-7 Days Premium Account
-250k credits
-Premium Tank Excelsior (Tier 5)
-3 rental tanks for 10 battles each: Tiger 131 (Tier 6), Cromwell B (Tier 6), and T34-85M (Tier 6)
The promo code is only for new players during registration.
Fantastic video
super predatory game 👎
Remember when this channel was about Geography?
Artists are skilled tradesmen who use tools to produce a product - Art.
I look forward to the works they can produce when they learn to master and refine these new tools.
I hope your sardonic seal got their approval.
As an artist, I don't think AI is, or ever has been the actual root of the problem. But AI has made me realize is just how little most people actually care for "art" as opposed to "pretty pictures". Your experiences, your insight, and your creativity are all entirely meaningless when at the end of the day the only thing anyone actually cares about is whether a thing is pleasant to look at.
Next you will discover people also like food that taste good but dont care about the chef. And then you will find that they like cars but dont care about the designer. And like a dress but dnt care about the brand! And holy shit they like all kinds of things but dont care about the details and story around its creation! That said people do still some times care about those things. Just not 99% of the time.
@@RasakBlood I'd like to believe that kind of blatant anti-intellectualism is.... bad. And sure, it's obviously always been a thing that's been there in every aspect of society, but when the appeal of a thing literally called "art" is, in actual practice, divorced any kind of actual artistry, the problem is a little more opaque. This mindset is precedent to why so many sci-fi influenced tech innovations are realized as dystopian nightmares. People read books and watch movies about flashy space battles and kickass robots, but neglect to pay attention that the authors almost invariably never thought those things were a future worth pursuing.
@@Not-Fuji I dont think its anti-intellectualism. I think its just how humans have always been. Unless its a personal interest. They dont really care how anything works. At the same time humans love to give meaning to things that really have none. There are so many examples of music where fans ask what the meaning of a song/sentence is and the creater shrugs and says it sounded good/cool. And yet that song could have been super meaningful to thousands of fans. I think artist infuse the creating of art with a lot of meaning. Because its meaningful to them. But the masses did not create art. They did not train for thousands of hours or build social connections and a life around it. They just enjoy it. So thats where the majority find the meaning if any in it. The result. Not the process.
@@RasakBlood I'll agree with some of that, consumers of an art piece can definitely contribute to the artistic process. Darude - Sandstorm isn't exactly a pinnacle of artistic achievement by most metrics, but it's incidental impact on popular culture makes it significant. Those kinds of things are, however, in the vast minority. The top charting songs are more often than not simply forgotten about as soon as something comes to replace it. The latest Call of Duty will be immediately abandoned upon a new release, and Marvel's superhero film of the year will supersede everything that came before into irrelevance.
But while that kind of superficial interaction with the world might be described as 'human nature', that doesn't mean it's at all admirable. The end result might be seemingly inconsequential with art, but the same blissful ignorance is what lets people forget that their Hershey's chocolate bar is a product of borderline slavery, that their overreliance on cars are destroying the environment, and that they, themselves, are treated just as irreverently by those who lord over them. They'll care about a 'real' issue only until the next marketable tragedy hits the airwaves.
@@Not-Fuji There is little admirable about human nature in general. We are not as far from our ape cousins as we like to imagine. We are at our best when we resist our nature. But i think the truth is you are expecting more then is realistic from humanity there. All things considered we have made great strides compared to the past. And after the transition from fossil fuels is done we have a lot of potential to address the large issues, material issues of human needs and the environmental impact of them. But i am afraid there is little to do about human behavior. We are not going to pass your subjective bar there anytime soon.
man that one hit too close to home, I've never been too worried about ai art, I just didn't think about it much, but as an artist who's always been drawing digitally and thinking "man those people who had to draw on paper sure had a lot of patience" and realizing in the future that's how people could see what I make now? feels like I'm already getting old
@@TheMrawesomest One benefit i could see it offer is if we're changing the labor in certain parts of the world (mainly Japan's toxic work culture) is if it can cut down on excessively long hours for many in the animation industry.
Adapt and overcome. I'm also a career digital artist and I'm using AI tools quite generously in my projects. So far it has made my work more efficient, but my role in it is centuries away from being obsolete.
@@jaegermonster9549 How have you been using it as a tool exactly? Because whenever i see people talking about using it as a tool it just ends up being having it trace over a rough sketch in and artstyle that hardly resembles yours at best which isn't much better than text2img. It's less of a tool and more like a vending machine the way people have been using it. And honestly so far i don't see it as being viable as a tool.
I would think the same thing, but does every aspect of it need to be that way? Hearing about AI backgrounds in shows doesn't surprise me, as a ton of them look good as a whole, and if it was drawn, often the artist took shortcuts from the time constraints.
Whether that means something to the viewer is subjective, but digital art is already used to spice up art to new subjective takes.
@@Abel-Alvarez or replace them entirely. Then they're out of a job because they couldn't keep up with the quantity that AI can provide.
Ah sweet! AI-made horrors beyond my comprehension!
Then you mustn't be very smart
Even better: AI-Generated Fantasies I can Comprehend! 😃
@@slimboarder.o7 🤓
Skill issue
Sounds like a skill issue, I can comprehend these horrors just fine.
Finally, something to make corpo art even more souless.
sadly... it will look prettier.
JESUS i hate corpo art so much... and ONLY good thingwith the AI takeover will be making it look way more lively
so is a banana taped into a wall is "soul" to you people?
@cassowaryegg955 if ai art is garbage then why it won two art competitions?
ua-cam.com/video/L9hlfc16qg0/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/FGYkXDDYEYc/v-deo.html
@cassowaryegg955 "zero skill" modern art well duhh its shit. BUT A.I. art took several hours to code several dollars to get the servers up and running. IS THAT ZERO SKILL TO YOU
Damn
I was panicking about AI art months ago, but even if this stuff is inevitable, I won't allow this to stop me from being an artist in general.
Don't fall for the ai hype. Tech bros oversell everything. Deep learning is great tool that is game changing for many aspect of media but it is just an imitation of the work of real people. And you liturally have to feed with millions of works. Good luck imitating a new tik tok dance that only have 2 videos as training data yet...
It can't be the magic button that creat all new media as currently it. They have to invent a whole new type of AI to achive that. Hope not in my lifetime.😅
@@katokianimation I agree and hopefully not in mine either
Godspeed!
@@katokianimation did you just call tik tok dances art?
@@tonnentonie2767 no, i called them media
This reminded me of that one time when I was going to my university with my father, he asked why I didn't brought any books with me, I told him that we don't need books or textbooks now as we can do everything on our computers. He then laughed and told me that when he was at university (1980s) his professor told the students that one day the education system will eradicate the all need for books and will replace it with digital devices, and back then this felt like a Sci Fi movie for him.
Technology is amazing. If automation does destroy capitalism and give us some form of a true socialist utopia where we can pursue our own dreams then it's a win
@@theonlythingihavetosayis9333 If we could be one of the last generations required to work, that would be amazing.
@The only thing i have to say is not going to happen, commie
@@theonlythingihavetosayis9333 at the beginning of the industrial revolution, the guy who invented the steam engine thought the same thing. Reality panned out in the complete opposite direction.
@@LordDaret Very true. We choose to have homeless people and impose a rent debt (paid to various nobles) on most people for just being alive. To survive in the land of vampires, one must become a vampire.
Blade Runner is on the higher end of realistic optimistic futures. But as they say; hope is for the hopeless.
My biggest fear is that art is going to be so customized, we won't appreciate art together anymore. Everyone will just be in their own bubble.
there's online communities sharing and talking about AI-generated art or even creating it together as a group activity. if anything, it actually turns art into a direct social experience.
This is a much bigger threat and I have no idea what it will mean for society.
People have a basic built in need to share information. I doubt AI art is any different.
Like... what social media has... already created?
@@oxenford539 that will definitely change by 2070 or something. At a time when AI generated entertainment is more frequent than handmade stuff.
I love going to pixiv for AI gen stuff, but that's because I can't get such good results myself. If I could, and _anyone_ could from the comfort of their phones or TVs, there would be no need to share
I draw a lot of comparisons to this coming shift for artists to the end of skilled craftsmen in the industrial revolution. Imagine being a skilled carpenter, you love your craft and can make the most beautiful furniture. It takes weeks, even months, to produce a full set but you sustain yourself and your family comfortably on this business. Then along comes a furniture factory, working around the clock with basic automation (machine tools) and dozens of unskilled laborers who can pump out equivalent quality furniture in days. Your skills with hand tools and slow, methodical woodwork can not compete with the endless tide of cheap chairs and you find the price you can charge drop like a stone. If you are exceptionally lucky, or famous, you can shift into the luxury market, but more likely you are just doomed and will have to abandon your profession entirely. Entire communities were destroyed this way and social upheaval was rife. By now woodworking has become just a hobby, long since relegated for something to do in your free time and not for money. Very view people care how their furniture was made, just how it looks and how cheap it is.
No one cried for the carpenters.
@Valer and no one else.
Great points. A problem I've seen in anti-AI stances is that there's always the implication of "hate AI so it won't advance". I think a better aim would be "Push for UBI and other social safety nets", to prepare for the inevitable high unempoyment rate as AI becomes more advanced.
@@Batmans_Pet_Goldfish there were literal riots supported by multiple craft guilds when the first looms were introduced in feudal Europe, which is where the term 'Luddite' actually came from. Lots of people cried, but those in power didn't care
The Luddite movement weren't anti-technology hicks. That was a capitalist smeer.
They were skilled labourers who were disgusted that output per worker had increased but wages and conditions for workers got worse.
They didn't hate the machine, mostly. They were upset about who the machine worked for. Not the worker. But the investor.
I think that AI Art is a product of our post-pandemic era, in which we demand entertainment faster and faster, to consume more and more. At least 5 years ago, it was still unthinkable that an AI could make art (it was a science fiction thing), and that even the day they replaced physical jobs would be when we were going to allow ourselves to be creative. Now it's the opposite, people see being creative as something obsolete, they want automated art to stay focused on continuing to work.
The pandemic is(mostly) over, but to see such a lasting scar it's impacted on the world is frightening.
i just wish they got AI to do jobs before they got it to do art
It reminds me this post I found on Reddit.
"1960s: In the future robots will take away all the manual jobs so that people can have more time to themselves and be more creative. Leading to a utopia full of creativity.
2020s: Robots are now taking away the creative jobs, so now we have to focus on manual labor now"
And the worst part about that is there is already robots that know how to do physical labor, so not even those jobs are safe.
No matter what happens, never underestimate the eternal human drive for self-expression.
Yep
Well said, it’s important that YOU created something by yourself, that it’s YOUR mind that made such a wonderful piece of art/music/code/etc.
It's not like ai is gonna use itself
@@email7919 You're not really "expressing" through AI, just like I'm not expressing through searching google images, or reposting someone's art, or commissioning an artist. Unless you're suggesting that when you're commissioning an artist, it is you who's the artist. You're only consuming computer generated images.
@@crepoosculIf I envision something in my head and have an AI make that for me with specific variables and prompt is that not expressing my vision? Is it lesser with a machine than my hand if it fits what I see with my mind’s eye? You’re just being picky on bias with strawmen, if it already existed I wouldn’t need an AI to generate it (something new) for me.
See, the part about AI not being viable for profit because of the copyright problem they're having right now provides *some* hope, but Disney has proven that any big company with enough money can easily influence copyright law so it works to their advantage. I think the fate of AI art will ultimately be decided by what the executives at media giants like Disney think about it. Will they find that they can save millions by improving AI technology themselves and changing the law in its favor to bypass the need for humans or will they be offended and trust that human artists will bring them more success and ensure that the law remains antagonistic to AI?
I'm very worried that the shortsightedness and focus on cost cutting common in corporate culture will sway them in AI's direction.
The one time where Disney could play the good guy and benefit people
Except AI art is the right direction. It is simply a matter of efficiency. Human are worse artist than AI by many measurable metrics already (speed, range, flexibility) and AI is only getting better every year.
The moment computers were invented and people had no problem with them, AI became destined and its eventually superiority over man inevitable. Artist whining about losing their jobs or not being able to pay their student loans is no different than a thousand other groups who held jobs that have been made obsolete by technology. Sorry but you picked a career on the cusp of being taken over by AI, it's just bad foresight and worse luck. But trying to hold up progress just because you made a mistake is kind of selfish.
Corpos and the government will eventually see the usefulness and profit of AI art and regulations will be changed. Sucks people will lose their livelihood but progress spares none.
@@nameredacted7622 sooo, what happens in your dystopia when all the jobs are taken, is just being human bad luck?
Do not underestimate our innate primal fear of being dethroned from the top, humanity will always fight back and eventually might come to a conclusion where we work alongside it, or destroy it. Money is nothing more than assigning wealth to paper and metal discs.
So no, I don’t think this is the end for my career path. Protesters will make sure of that trust me
What is needed is more general AI that can generate original content from fewer examples.
As a voiceover artist, I’ve started putting disclaimers my voice cannnot be used by ai
I think that the part that scares me the most was when you say "In time, nobody cared"
Scary stuff dude...
There are already a lot of people who don't care and the worst crowd are the people who don't care and bully people (Artists) who do care
The AI will never have "happy accidents"
The smile on face when we get mistake, fuck it! It look cool tho! left it there
AI's hilarious misunderstandings about what to real humans would've been common sense have been the best part so far.
@@dfcx1 So many promotes outright ignored
It literally will lol. It's hilarious how artists think they're oh so special and magic. You aren't. You're just a machine made out of meat. You don't have some special soul, and special creative powers. AI is in it's infancy. It is only a matter of time until there are AIs better at everything than every human ever, and it will take a miniscule amount of time for that to happen compared to how long it took for humans to get as good as they have. You're a caveman, with a caveman mentality. Have fun watching everything change while you cry about it luddite.
As someone who draws in their free time, I'd rather have the actual skill to draw than have a program give the impression to people that I can. The feeling of making something with your hands is priceless. I love to draw with graphite, charcoal or colored pencil and I can actually show that I made it. Now with digital art, it will be harder to tell if a digital artist actually made that or a AI program.
I'm still a bad artist, but seeing the image start to come together after marking out the big reference points and gradually filling in the details is very satisfying.
"As someone who draws in their free time, I'd rather have the actual skill to draw than have a program give the impression to people that I can." -- Dr Micpere (The Art of Life and Ink)
As someone into Copyright Reform/Fair use advocacy, something people overlook is laws/rulings set vs AI art could impact Copyright/Fair use for human artists, opening them to lawsuits , and that a lot of corporations and lobbying groups (the same ones people worry will use AI & are doing the Internet Archive lawsuit) are actually sneakily masking as or working alongside "pro-artist" organizations to expand Copyright law and erode Fair use even in non-AI contexts/against human artists, under the guise of standing up for Artist's jobs/rights (which to be clear, I do think AI costing artists jobs is a valid concern: But many groups only pretend to care). Plus, a lot of people misunderstand how Copyright and Fair Use and how AI works: So here's my clarification on all this:
First, context for other viewers who may not understand how Fair Use works (Obligatory disclaimer that IANAL and that my comment here is based on US law, for other countries it might be different) The main thing in fair use determination is if the derivative work is "transformative". This is a legal concept that basically is asking is the derivative work is putting enough of a new spin on the original in both/either a literal and abstract sense. This is an IMMENSELY complicated concept though, If something is transformative is also just one aspect of many the courts consider when weighing a fair use defense: There's also Parody claims; there's the "4 pillars" (Purpose of a work, Nature of a work, how much of a work is used, and commercial impact), which a lot of sites erroneously act like are the only parts of Fair Use; and a whole host of other things. Also, Judges can and do invent new standards or weigh certain aspects more or less: You can satisfy a lot of requirements and still be infringing, or you can satisfy very little and still be fair use....But being transformative is often a key part of it, and it's what makes rulings against AI potentially damaging to human fair use too.
This video brings up the point that currently, the fact AI generated images aren't made by humans means they don't get Copyright protection. this is true (though I suspect it will change: the bar for the minimum amount of originality needed to qualify for copyright is pretty low, and the Naruto vs Slater monkey photo case may actually AID AI copyright claims, I'll clarify on this in a followup reply), but this is a SEPARATE LEGAL QUESTION from if AI/AI generated images are Fair Use or infringement as derivative works:Courts have already had cases where automated processes and scraping have won Fair Use claims. For example, the Google Books case (Look up the article "Torching the Modern-Day Library of Alexandria"). Mind you, there's a lot different between that case and what AI is doing, but the point is that being non-human doesn't disqualify a Fair Use defense.
In fact, I actually think, for better or worse, AI has a rather strong claim for being transformative: The AI themselves are made by looking at thousands or even millions of images, and compares them and tags them (which humans actually do help with) to glean stuff like composition, lighting, linework etc principals tied to specific prompt terms. The AI itself does not directly contain any of the actual image it's trained on, only similarities and differences between them, and it's not an image but is code describing those trends and patterns. Imagine a text description of an artist's style: This would obviously not be infringing (and in fact, style itself isn't even covered by US copyright law). If the OUTPUT images are transformative is gonna depend: If you ask it to spit out an image of Spider-Man on a bike, then well, Spiderman is still covered by Copyright. And if you're asking the AI to specifically modify an existing image rather then to generate a new one, and you can tell what the original image is, that's probably infringing too. But if you ask it to generate a "Dinosaur in a swimming pool", then chances are the image it spits out isn't going to significantly resemble any one image the AI was trained on, and in fact, may resemble any given input image LESS then if a human artist drew the same image relative to the references they used, since a human artist is only gonna be using a few references, not thousands which dilute each other.
Here's where I get to the "People are advocating for anti-AI measures which could backfire on artists" stuff. Let's assume for a second that a court case happens which establishes that a AI output image which doesn't specifically resemble any one input work, or the AI itself, is found to not be transformative. Or that "Style" is now protected by Copyright. What are the wider impacts of this? As I said, legally, there's not inherently a distinction between AI and human made art from a Transformative-ness perspective. That ruling COULD absolutely create a situation where now even real human artists can get sued for their art happening to use similar composition or lighting or style to another piece of art or from a media corporation: Imagine people being sued by Toei for making "Dragon Ball style art" that doesn't actually feature DB characters or elements. If you think this sounds crazy, look at Music copyright infringement cases. It is FREQUENT for pieces of music to face lawsuits over incidental similarity because there's only so many notes you can use (and this is ironically why Music AI are only trained on royalty free music, unlike art AI), or all the drama that happens with Content ID
And this is PRECISELY what industry giants like Disney, Getty, the RIAA, MPAA, Adobe, etc want. People think these corporations are pro AI and they want to fire human artists and use AI instead (and, well, they might, I think that's a real concern) but they're actually playing both sides: They're also lobbying against AI and are suing many of them, and many of their lobbying groups and represenatives are either working alongside or are pretending to be pro artist organizations and activists, so they can push for more copyright protections and fair use limits as a way to "stop AI", but then also have more tools to go after smaller artists and creators online. You know the Concept Art Association's Anti AI fundraiser? It's working with the Copyright Alliance, which is made up of those corporations and also were behind SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, and all the other bills from the past decade that would have set up UA-cam style automatic filters on every website. The Human Artistry Campaign? Also working with a bunch of industry lobbying groups like the RIAA and Author's Guild (which is also a pro-author union, but it, the Artist's Rights Alliance, and other some orgs which are ostensibly pro-worker tend to also support industry lobbying efforts) The latter of which is also one of the groups suing the Internet Archive for lending digital books, with the IA suit being supported by the other organizations as well.
I don't wanna diss people, but some major anti AI/Pro artist Social media accounts are also celebrating the Internet Archive suit, framing it as somehow being a "victory against AI", or even cases where HUMAN photographers and artists get sued and lose their Fair use defenses (I will name some names: neilturkewitz is straight up a former RIAA representive). There was also a Washpost opinion piece claiming to be "pro artist" by a musician which are likewise by industry mouthpieces who repeats the same decades old claims about the internet hurting sales and, again, advocating for even human artists like Andy Worhol to lose Fair Use cases. On the flip side, normally pro-artist groups like Creative Commons have taken the position that AI training shouldn't constitute Copyright Infringement.
To be clear, it is possible that AI could be found to be Transformative, but still not Fair Use on the grounds of it's commercial disruption, which would limit AI without hurting Fair Use for human artists, but given the amount of lobbying and literal astrotrufing media corporations are already doing and their involvement with lawsuits, and how historically the courts and lawmakers have listened to them and not small artists and creators, I think it's more likely we'd all get screwed then a surgical, AI targeted ruling/law.
If people really want to fight against AI in a way that's actually pro-artist and won'trisk empowering massive media corporations with expanded copyright laws that will enable them to DMCA people even more then they already do, then people should be working with the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Fight For the Future instead: Both of those organizations do a ton of pro online privacy and user created content advocacy and legal work, and have involved
All of that said, here's my personal take: I think AI isn't the problem here, it's corporate power imbalances and capitalism. Nobody cares if you get an AI to make art of Goku eating a hotdog, just like how nobody cares about DBZ fanart even if it's without permission. On the flip side, people WOULD care if Disney aped the style of a smaller creator even without using AI and even if they were legally in the clear. The power imbalance between the corporate giants and small creators is what really matters, and I think people are losing sight of that. I also think that risking gutting of Fair Use or setting up this entire parallel set of IP rules for human vs AI driven art (and as the video says, that line would be murky: How much human involvement is needed for it to count as human?) just to preserve the status quo of employers vs workers is an imperfect solution, especially when automation is going to hit tons of other industries where you CAN'T keep the status quo in place like that. I think we need to move past the expectation that people need to work to make ends meet.... but we're a long away from that.
I hope your message reaches more people before a *fatal precedent* is made
More importantly, the same process can happen with patent laws instead of copyright, creating patent trolls that could desolate entire industries leaving millions of ideas to rot without development - all because touching them is punishable by patent law
Personally, I was against intellectual property for a long time because of years hearing small people getting impacted with its laws by large corporations. Now I am _terrified_ of what copyright can be stretched out to be due to blind outrage
People already wish to expand *predatory* music industry practices - the ones that were heavily criticized for hurting small creators before - to other spheres. Imagine what robocopyright would do to programming, engineering, architecture. What it would do to *memes*
It is a disaster in the making, much worse than any threat an art AI could ever pose
I think I read a historical legal document just now.
The focus to the nature of copyright should really have overtaken the (occasionally petty) arguing over who owns what as it is a preexisting problem that would be easier to fix (in theory; coming up with new laws is easier than implementing them, unless you have absolute power over the reigning entity) and the AI debacle would pop up sometime down the road regardless so you may as well have prepared for it, you are supposed to advance both civically and technologically at the same time when playing a game of Sid Meier's Civilization.
Thank you for bringing up the Internet Archive lawsuit.
this comment need to reach more ears (or i guess eyes)
No one gonna read all that
i will save your comment on my obsidian. brillant analysis, and if they dmca you i will have those words with me.
Thing is, Photographers never snapped a picture and declared "this is a painting"
But did they call it art?
This was an issue in the early days of photography. Painters were quite upset that these new photographers would put them all out of business, and decried the new media as soulless and unskilled. Then photographers found their own style to become a real art form. But they still put a lot of painters out of work.
@@vylbird8014 I'd argue those painters put themselves out of work.
I'd also disagree on that point that landscape and portrait painting went away, they're still very much alive.
Photography and painting exist as two separate art forms that overlap.
Camera can't produce paintings. It can only produce photos.
AI can't produce a painting, but it can produce something that is indistinguishable from a painting.
As someone who doesn't make art, what unnerves me about AI art is the ease at which it can be mass-produced. With the human artists that I follow, or UA-camrs that I support financially, I am supporting them for their art -- or what's sometimes called "content" now. I like their art, I think it is good, and I justify my parasocial attachment through my like of that art, maybe in a similar way to favorite authors before the Internet.
AI has no human backing to that, but what it can do is hit many of the right notes to make art or stories. And that verisimilitude will only increase over time. And that scares me on a personal level, because if AI art fills the same niche as art now eventually you're going to get more people who are overly attached to AI programmatic generations.
Whats the difference? Also until we have sentient ai ALL ai art is created by a human. Its just a tool. The art do not create itself. It is created because a human writes down their idea for an image. Ai art just makes the creation process easier and faster. But its all still driven by a human wanting something.
@@RasakBlood the AI can’t make your exact idea in your head reality, if that was true then art would be WAY easier
This is the same concern people had about the internet, and now look where it is. They were right, it took over lives, AI will probably do the same in the future.
@@RasakBlood They don't create it, any more than a commissioner creates the art they commission. They just write down a prompt and the ai generates it. The Ai "creates" as best it can from the millions of images it has stored in its memory to mix and match data points from.
You are 100% wrong about the embracing thing, when digital artistry came around it was lambasted as not real art for quite awhile, you didn't have to prep a canvas, didn't have to mix paints, hold a brush
I don’t care if an AI can make art faster than me, it’ll never live the experience that led to the art in the first place
Unlike a human's work, it also is not communicating anything. and is not really art if there's no conscious being on the other side.
It can mimic your life. Give it time.
@@mrtimo3822 I'm sure it will, but in the end even if it mimics the real me, it'll never get the chance to actually be the REAL me
@@mrtimo3822but it's not doing so consciously. It can't truly move you the way human-made art can. It can only cobble together an amalgamated mimicry. If it knew every detail of my entire life, it couldn't replicate me (and who would want to?). Consciousness is more than a response to prompts based on aggregated data.
Neither will anyone looking at the art.
As an Elder Scrolls fan, while they’re admittedly hilarious, the rise of Dagoth Ur and other TES AI memes created by ElevenAI is kind of scary.
For those who don’t know, ElevenAI allows you to take someone’s voice and adapt it so that it will say whatever you write down. Sometimes it can sound horrifically real with breaths and proper speech patterns, even emotion. What worries me is that will make voice actors completely obsolete, and maybe even cause people to lose the right to their own voices.
I'm kind of glad Stable Diffusion is currently open-source. I hope something similar happens with ElevenAI.
Them trying to set up ways to "enact justice" on people who misuse their program just feels weird. The end users and laws should be solving the problem of morality and ethics, not the companies.
even not-so-Open AI is proposing bans on certain GPUs in effort to claim average people shouldn't have access to domestic tools for AI generation out of an ethics argument.
And don't forget the wonderful political implications of widespread access to tools that allow literally anybody to produce near-perfect copies of someone's face and voice. What could possibly go wrong
@@AshnSilvercorp The made the A.I. in the first place.
That to me in itself was a unethical choice.
They all knew how much of a shitfest A.I. is yet they proceed out of hubris Imo.
Ironic some call Artists having any issues is out of hubris.
@@darkzeroprojects4245 someone made the internet and it has bad parts too huh. At least an open-source A. I. tool is much less likely to collect data on you. Microsoft is going to force theirs onto your PC like they did Cortana.
lmfaooo 🤡🤓
My main fear is not that AI Art will become better than human art, because by definition it cannot perform the same spur of the moment decision-making and weird details that only humans can, but that it'll become "good enough" to suit the needs of mass media. This'll drive away the humanity of the primary consumption of entertainment and everything the average person will consume will just be a rehash of the same training material and prompts, mathematically sorted for maximum audience viewing retention and commercial potential. Human art will still be there, but it'll be niche and only those entrenched within the industry will be able to live off it, if even that. Maybe we'll have AI controlled drones flying around warzones, algorithmically designed to capture photos most likeley to win press awards. The human experience will be cheapened and we're all worse off for it.
This. So many people miss that whether or not AI Image & Text generation become perfect is less relevant than if they reach 'Minimum-Viable-Product' stage.
@@Deathshead419think about this for a second though, a company will lose profit if it doesn’t please the majority of people. And I’m pretty sure people are more on the side of artists than the AI coders.
Call me stupid if you want, but there might be the biggest boycott in human history coming in the near future if enough people have had enough
We're all better off of it tho
@@pubertdefrog at the moment maybe, but given time, rebranding (Think Computer Enhanced instead of AI-made or whatever) and people will move on to the next big scandal. My main issue isn't even with the "artistic merit" but for example a company being able to pump out children's series designed to maximize toy sales or a cult being able to design billions of unique pamphlets surgically designed to deceive people into joining them. Think about how this would work with marketing, an AI is able to in a few microseconds not only able to find your exact demographic (as they can do today) but find the perfect way to appeal to you, no humans required. That's the shit that worries me.
@@Whalefire2 humanity is dumb, like insanely dumb sometimes.
However, there will always be this primal fear of being left in the dust with no scraps. People will never give up on being the dominant thing on this planet, it’s just etched into our DNA
I'm still waiting on A.I.-generated food…
Like recipes?
Holographic Meatloaf, my favorite!
yeah that sound's kinda terrible it'll either be tasteless but looks like the exact thing or be like nutrient paste so it tastes like the food you want
honestly, if food replicators replace actual cooking, we'll probably need AI to invent new recipes
Big Mac jello is what meat bags prefer to ingest . Beep beep boop
I’ve already seen ads using Ai generated art and I had a “prove you’re human” thing where it was using AI generated art. Because I don’t think “people playing hockey” hold two sticks, one in each hand.
It’s so creepy at this stage and there’s just something absolutely unsettling about it.
I think your comment hit the nail on the head. What bothers people so deeply about this, in my opinion, is the lifeless nature of it. Its that same old uncanny valley thing, zombies, gollums, Frankenstein's monster, mummies...lifeless things that act as if they are alive creep people out. You can see it in a lot of the images.. a lack of general understanding about the subject in the image, its composition, and for lack of a better word 'soul'.
On the other hand, from experience, when its used properly by an artist in conjunction with their drawing or painting.. it doesn't have that quality because the artist breathes life into the image with their composition, color choices, their understanding. I think we just are still finding the right balance in using it as the tool it is and not just letting it go hog wild with what ever text prompts. I don't use it or think of as an image generator, but rather as a filter. In that use case, at least to me, the images no longer seem creepy. That might be my bias, as an artist, but even looking at other peoples images I can see a clear difference between something that someone visualized before they made it, and something that just popped out of the machine.
okay so I'm not the only one who's gotten ai generated captcha images. literally thought I was having an aneurism or something the other day. what the fuck is this world
@@Hyperion4K Haven't captchas always been used to train AIs?
@@jellyfingers4518 all version of captcha are beside recaptcha to m'y knowledge
@@Hyperion4K Captchas have been used for a decade to train AIs. When you were clicking on "trees" and "lights" and "boats" and "buses", they were using you as their training monkey. Tech freaks will ruin mankind. I lowkey hope the internet gets destroyed for this, and it definitely will due to the sheer amount of crimes of opportunity this crap will create.
AI will not "kill art". Art is a concept that has remolded itself over the course of generations. AI will irrevocably change art and make it impossible to return to the way things were, yes, but with all that unmatched convenience comes the sheer potential to break boundaries and create something previously thought impossible. It will require incredible talent & dedication, but it is possible for AI artists to take advantage of the technology at hand and achieve more with it. 99.99% of them won't, but at least there will be a few that do.
As a writer who can't even draw a stick figure properly, I look forward to being able to one day show what I have in my head my effectively.
Preferably as a blueprint for the real artist.
As someone thatt has dylexia and cant propelly draw or make a animation this looks like a tool i could use to express my creativity as well
I undestood the in and outs of art and that sometimes the hard work is part of the art, but at other it would help lot of people like me that dont know how to draw much good
I’m in the same boat
As a fellow writter, yes, I get that feeling. I hope painters can ask for a story that matches their own creations
I mean the movies made by Disney and other big studios already feel like AI generated movies that try to get the biggest amount of people for max profit
Warner Brothers already uses AI to calculate the most profitable casting choices
We have to use AI to see if stuff is AI generated
They have already used AI voices for Luke and Vader in their Star Wars shows.
You shouldn't watch big movies to get good movies these days. We need a place to view smaller films.
As someone who is dumping thousands of dollars into art school in hopes of becoming an animator under the assumption that there will always be a demand I thank you for making this video to reinforce this bit of existential dread into my life. I when I graduated high school the best ai art could do was some very abstract pieces of art and when I start college it still couldn't do faces without being extremely uncanny now its actually so good and only getting better I dread to think that within a decade of graduating everything I will have learned will have become completely obsolete.
If it's any consolation, AI is coming for all of us, not just artists and animators, it's going to affect virtually every white collar job out there whether or not we like it, and we will all have to either adjust or eat dust. What I would advise you is not to stick your head in the sand, embrace AI as a tool. People who can use it will have an edge, people who resist it for a reason or another won't fare as well.
we should start embracing the idea of learning for OURselves. Not for money not for a career but for the sheer opportunity to become better at something we value. But in the end we are humans and we need sustenance and not every one of us is ok with working a meaningless job for a corporation, so my opinion is that these upcoming decades will bring lots of social change. For better or worse
I’m in the same boat, really hope I don’t get shafted by some bot
@@kirrzza7928 I and many people pursued art to improve our own craft, I’d like to make a living for something I enjoy rather than doing something I hate. If had the freedom to just do what I wanna do, I would. Maybe one day once AI takes over everything that’s just what’s left for us to do.
@@Sketchy_Dood I’m a 3D artist so I really do understand you. And I do agree with you but if we continue to make “things” with profit insensitive in mind there will always be a chance of a certain field or industry being automated not because it means less labor for us but because it means less costs for some corporation. That’s why I don’t think we should blame the technology itself but the social system in which it is being implemented.
its like people ignored every scifi book/movie that was every created lol
Oh i don't think they've ignored them, i think they've just straight up been using them as a guideline.
WALL-E Dystopia, lesgo!
Yeah, because they are books, fiction, not scientific writings that are worth listening to
@@DjKryx Ah, yes. "Fiction has never contributed anything to society. It does not inspire empathy, innovation, or reflect on culture at all. /s"
@@DjKryx fiction is definitely worth listening to. You should take it with a large bucket of salt of course but fiction had many lessons to teach.
As an addendum, all the current AI art generators ban a lot of "offensive" content from being made, so they can't be used to generate any sort of porn, erotica, gore, etc. So even if AI art becomes more commonplace, they'll likely continue to be a thriving market for human artists to produce such content. The same is true of text generation AI like Chat GPT, which tends to refuse prompts about heavy subjects in general, which keeps it from really being able to compete with most adult fiction authors, even if the algorithm itself were to improve substantially.
Fan art as well, as though most of it is(in my opinion) copyright infringement, actually _visibly_ being of a character the poster/prompter doesn't own will get into more trouble
Fan art is made as more of a social thing anyway
There’s one thing that I find strange how nobody has brought this up,
AI art takes photos from the internet, if people use current AI too much too fast then the AI is stuck in a catch 22 unless it stops taking images from the internet, but by doing so it also limits how much data it has.
Ai art might end up destroying itself if it’s overused, and as an artist I find that hysterical.
And no, they won’t sift through billions of images to find the AI art and remove it, that’s physically impossible without major errors even with todays computers (hell idk if quantum computers could do that))
"god has a sense of humor, alright."
Basically every model is trained on an existing database of images. There are barely any AIs that take directly from the web. Only one I can think of is craiyon but that one has bad quality
They could probably have the AI art generator put some kind of invisible "watermark" in the image's metadata to let the AI know not to use that image in its learning
@@mtallmen184 I’m pretty sure there has to be some solution to the ethical issues.
On one hand you have the supporters of this tech anthropromorphizing these programs so their argument of reference works (it doesn’t, a computer is not a human and therefore does not have the same rights)
But you also have these artists who burn anyone at the stake if they so dare as use it, and bully developers, some of which were trying to genuinely help artists rather than spite.
TL;DR both sides are stubborn and are refusing to come to a compromise, so I’m not sure what the solution is (but I know there is one, there’s always a solution)
a lot of AI art images are built with invisible watermarks and tags that tell it to not use it as training data, so that likely wont happen.
Shit reminds me of wall E. How everything is automated and humans are there just to consume, never to do anything
Yes. Humans are designed by nature (evolution, God, take your pick) to do things and to overcome struggle. Not doing so leads to a withering of both body and soul. To automate everything out of existence will lead to our decay.
@@swafflemanish In a world where there aren't external challenges forced upon us by a harsh world, we would just create challenges for ourselves. We already do this, and in fact have done it since ancient times. Why do we play games? Even most art is largely not necessary but created for the fun and enjoyment of creation. Automating everything doesn't have to result in taking away individual human freedom, which is all that we need to be able to find our own challenges and enjoyment. If done correctly, it should have the opposite effect. If you don't seek out your own challenge and you "decay" as a result, that's an issue with you that can also be potentially helped. Most people do seek out their own challenges to varying degrees by their own nature though. You're worried about nothing.
There was a few Voyager episodes, where people 'programmed' in Holo Decks. Basically walking around, and giving orders to the computer by voice commands.
"No, no, more... airy,' or something. And the whole room would 'change' subtly. And they just kept doing that, until they had a whole interactive murder mystery or something.
Really think that's an hopeful view of the future what this tech can allow people to create.
What you're describing basically already exist I've been doing this with gtp3 I just tell him to make the prompts for mid journey GDP 4 is even better at this thing and make the images someone also created a 360 world generator so we can make 360 pictures that you could see in VR I literally make a VR generator void room myself and I never coded a day in my life but honestly it won't be that hard also someone made a game on steam or all the characters are powered by GDP so you can just talk to her about anything we will seriously have a hollow deck by next year
This is exactly how ai art works right now. I've spent like 40-50 minutes working on a single image before, to get the absolute perfect image out of my mind onto the screen.
@@gerdaleta Are you aware of the existence of periods?
@@DeathlyDavid lol
The good thing about the Federation is that they were post-scarcity. Hope we get that not long after holodecks or the VR-equivalent.
I'm just gonna stick with shaping my creations the old fashioned way.
Yeah do that but like just before we all run out of jobs just UCA I look crazy make a bunch of f****** money bro and then go back to doing that s*** once the AI is taking over and you don't have to do a job anymore
Blender or hammer and chisel?
@@gerdaleta What in the living hell is this garbled mess of words?
And Phorchy, if you wanted to stick with manual art, then I won't mind at all, it's your choice. But if you really want to see if AI art is a soul-sucking machine or a tool that actually helps artists in the creation and enhancement of art, then you need to try it first and see for yourself. There are people that can help you if you are interested, including me.
At the end of the day, it's your choice.
@@elijaheumags5060 lmfao it's software to make art
I believe AI art is God's punishment for the fact that most artists on Twitter are really annoying.
I think AI Art should absolutely be open source, because stealing drawings from artists and then not even allowing the artists to use it is stupid.
At the moment there's a problem with that in the training cost: Generating a model for something as demanding as AI art of ChatGPT requires tremendous amounts of processing power. You need to either buy hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of hardware and run it for months building up a huge power bill or - rather more practically - rent those resources from a cloud provider for less eye-watering but still very substantial sums. That's too much money invested to just give the product away. In time though, costs will come down as hardware continues to advance and more efficient algorithms are found.
When an AI creates art, it draws from its database to create something new. Humans do the same, the difference is that we call it "inspiration." What is the human brain if not a powerful computer? Are we not "natural intelligence"?
@@the11382 No, that's generation. Inspiration don't exist for computers as this stage, so don't try to humanize it now.
@@Anverse-14 I am not humanizing computers, quite the opposite, I am saying that humans aren't as special as we like to think. This thing called "inspiration" is just "generation" given new clothing to tell other humans your art is original.
@@the11382 never heard something opposite could also be wrong.
One of the last points mentioned in the video is actually one of the main reasons I'm really not that worried about AI art as much as others are: AI art is too unpredictable and it doesn't give you that much control.
With previous technological improvements in art, they're embraced not only by how much easier they make certain tasks, but by how much control they give the artist. Photography didn't just replace location/portrait paintings because of how fast it was to take a picture, but by how much control the photographer had and how fast they could make impulse decisions. Photographers could easily change the camera angle/focus/lighting/etc. in a way that would be impossible for painters to do impulsively without redoing the whole thing. Same with 3D animation and 2D. Another big one is the usual complaint with Marvel using so much CG compared to practical effects, but the main reason they do that is so they can have perfect control of how the final frame looks. Entire suits can change during post-production to match exactly what the director wanted. With AI, sure, you could theoretically do the same thing, but you won't actually be able to accurately control what those suits look like, which removes the whole benefit of using CG suits painted over practical on-set ones. You just got to hope that the AI will take your prompts and give you what you want.
I think at best, AI could be useful for very fringe cases and coming up with first drafts, (I think concept art is the one industry that can truly be threatened by this) but if you're looking for a very specific result, AI is really not that helpful or practical. So long as we're referring to AI as the "write down a prompt and see what comes up," then I just don't see that changing.
Do you really think that software won’t introduce that control? Within the next year you’ll be able to talk to ChatGPT and tell it to change aspects of the image that don’t match your expectations. There are already options like in painting where you erase a section of the image and get it to regenerate that section based on a new prompt. I disagree with the assertion that in the future you’ll need to write extremely long prompts to get exactly what you’re after, the user interfaces are only going to get more user friendly.
Give it a few years. There are already A.I. tools being used inside photoshop, and there’s obviously a market for making highly flexible and controllable A.I. image generation. I think Stable Diffusion 2 already has the ability to change particular areas of an image with further text prompts. I see no reason why we won’t see “artists” writing hundreds or thousands of lines of text prompts to fine-tune an image exactly to how they want it to look. And hey if that takes thousands of hours and is a process of nontrivial mental activity then I’d call that art, or at least preface it as “machine art”.
Controlnet has largely solved this, allowing you to design a specific composition and essentially impose it on the noise to generate finished images with that composition. That and inpainting to regenerate any areas that didn't turn out right. The big limiting factor right now is for animations as AI generations tend to lack what's called temporal coherence, the ability to make one frame of animation look like the next look like the next but we're now seeing the first wave of text to video generators with better (though not great) temporal coherence.
*Writes multiple paragraphs about how AI will never overcome an issue it'll overcome in like, a year*
"AI art is too unpredictable and it doesn't give you that much control."
This is false even with how it works now. It's DIFFICULT to control it as of now, but if you know what you're doing you can guide it the way you want. And it doesn't even have a 'brain' yet. Once you can talk with an AI like a commissioner, and give it a fake background of example art, and even have it progress the art like an artist might, just faster, the control you have will be on par with commissioning someone.
This is the future of AI art people don't seem to realize.
2074 is a laughably conservative estimate for when you'll be able to create entire movies from text prompts, i would be surprised if we didn't have it by the end of the decade (barring some kind of anti-AI revolution, AI takeover, etc. etc.)
its already happened. We did have the infinite Seinfeld show. for them to be good though.. that's gonna take lot longer. Moore's law aint what it used to be.
There’s also bound to be some barrier even quantum computers can’t solve,
people tend to forget that the human mind is still VASTLY unknown, it might not even be possible to map out an entire clone of somebody.
Biological life will always be more complex than mechanical life, we might not know it yet but we might find out in the next century
Well it's definetly possible to a small extent
I believe it's just a reference to cyberpunk media. Not a direct timeline of how events will unfold
one day we will do away with prompts entirely, and the AI will watch your face through the front facing camera looking for signs of boredom, constantly altering the narrative to keep you clicking “next episode” forever
Hey that's actually a pretty good idea!😮
@@kayEnt3rtainm3nt it's not. Just look at the movie walle.
@@Daidan0 How does that comparison apply here?
@@Daidan0I always mention that movie eventually. That's how society will end up where AI does everything and we just sit there and do whatever we want. We won't need to work anymore. They'll have to introduce UBI universal basic income that they give to everybody. But I guess it's good. Nobody really wants to work a nine to five job unless it's something really fun that you enjoy doing everyday. Otherwise, it's better that we just spend our time doing what we want rather than working for 80% of our lives
"I believe art should consist of two things. An artist thinking of an idea, and then using those skills to give idea form. and that second part is the most important aspects of making art."-KnowledgeHusk
I do loved the AI artworks I favorite in Devinart and Pixiv, but I personally prefer traditionally made artworks (both 2D and 3D) myself. Especially drawn artworks. That is how I intend to make art myself once my I finally get my career started.
"At best it could save countless hours of the most mundane parts of creating art, but at worst it could destory it entirely."- KnowledgeHusk
What scares me about AI is that creative skills like art, programming ect. will diminish in value and all we'll care about in the future is social skills.
As someone who has terrible charisma and low social skills, who never made a single friend, what carried me through life was not my connections but my useful labor.
In a world where a machine can replace my labor, I become completely useless to others, because I can't provide the value of being an interesting person.
I feel you dawg
Word
Word. I pretty much feel for you guy.
Same dude
Well fuck
18:45 idk. I quite like hyper realistic paintings. I think the skill gone into it to make it look almost like a photo is really cool.
The skill is literally the training of the arm and eye. Mind and passion and love is missing. Art is subjective tho, but i resent realism and hyperrealism
@@DjKryx That is ridiculous, though. Why would something requiring precision and great levels of detail be less capable of conveying the artist's emotions than something simpler?
@@DjKryx we seem to have polar opposite opinions because i absolutely hate abstract are and most modern art
@@sorrowinsanity bc in the end the monument of their work is to become a human photocopier. They've done what a machine can already do easily for the past 100+ years. It takes extreme patience, skill of the hands, and willpower to be able to capture sight, but they've rendered the unique half of their human brain completely useless. They have expression, they can change things up a bit and get creative but they just choose to copy down exactly what they've seen. It's like rote memorization vs. applied knowledge, what do you know vs. what can you do with this information
And we couldn't have AI do the boring paperwork instead.
Don't worry paper work will get automated too.
@@tod5404 then what will we soon do? Sit down and just do nothing? Sounds so fucking engrossing and Riveting for me.
More legislation needs to happen. Unfortunately most of the people who write laws still haven't figured out how to use email.
Wonder what kind of legislation would be worth pursuing.
Non-tech people giving their opinions on tech regulations will inevitably lead to another cryptography export ban-type situation
The problem with the AI art-photography analogy is that, while photography did inspire people to create different styles of art than realism and broaden people’s horizons, AI art can make any kind of art. There is no other style that people can go to to exert their creativity. AI art can do all styles a human can with ease, leaving all human art obsoleted. Unless we create a whole new art form that AI cannot replicate, no kind of art is safe from being totally replaced by drawing automata.
That's what I was thinking. Photorealism is just a genre, not a medium. Also that photorealism still has a demand, but that's besides the point.
I guess it's because I'm an old-school color pencil and pencil artists but they can never seem to get my style of art exactly perfect.
I mean the weird thing is that there's like a weird logic to the imperfections to the point where I can actually point out the differences.
I'm thinking this will be like how walking is today vs what it was in the old days. Something that you do yourself for pleasure or just to do
It can’t replicate it now, but this is the worst it will ever be. It’s scary to think this is the start point. I’m cautiously optimistic for it tho.
What do you mean Walking? we haven't got the Wall.E chairs yet.
For me it comes to enjoyment, anybody can type a word and let a machine do the work, but when it comes down to making it with your own bare hand and making your own vision come true that’s art, even if you manipulate the machine to do it. I still think that’s art but in a different way; but I think it ultimately comes down to the beholder and how they perceive enjoyment of the art or medium.
@@raptorskilltor4554 well for someone like me this is a medium to make cool art. I would never sell it or anything just for my enjoyment. There is now a primitive text-to-video AI. Soon almost everything will be aided by AI. Might as well enjoy the ride.
Did you use stable diffusion?
Also how much pictures of your arts dis you give it ?
I don't have any patience anymore to participate in the AI art debate, because all it does it take a toll on my mental health. What I will say is: The idea of a future where you can ask a computer to generate all of your entertainment with no human intent behind it at all is utterly dystopic to me. I want to hear people's thoughts and share experiences with others. I want to hear YOUR experiences (random person reading this). You can't have that if all your content is specifically catered to extremely obscure and specific interests. How will we be able to talk about a cool movie? Social media algorithms have already made society worse in a lot of ways. Shoving the ethics debate behind AI completely aside, there's a big difference between a human being behind whatever technology exists in the future versus giving away all of our creativity and innovation to computers. I'm sure that there are SOME people out there who love the idea of being plugged into the matrix, but definitely not me lol.
It will also result in even more and even bigger echo chambers where people only see and hear exactly what they want to see and hear without ever having to challenge or expand their views and tastes. Art won't be an expression of creativity and humanity anymore but a manifestation of greed and capitalism. We'll just be mindless drones sedated by consumerism and we won't even realise how numb we are just like Huxley predicted. It's an utterly terrifying concept and I don't think people realise just how plausible it is.
First of all you're already in The matrix second of all you don't see any angle where there's no jobs are work so all people do is just make art basically so in fact humans are more creative now all I hear is despairing angst about but we're just going to look at stuff that's not made by humans bro I hate to tell you this AI or humans whatever they make as a reflection of humanity you're talking about them like they're soulless aliens in fact for them to make are they definitely have souls or will have souls later like all this you're saying is coming from this weird angle that technology is unnatural this is incorrect and if true you haven't been whatever you call human for quite some time a human is a hunter-gatherer do you hunt or gather and people will still give their shared experiences it just be easier to make them because we'll be using AI to make them it's a world with no money or work you'll be getting phone calls all the time from people like hey I'm trying to make a movie you want to be in my movie it's a place where everything is simply for fun we're trying to make the best movie we cannot because we want money just because we want to do that
I couldn't agree with this more! I think that AI is just the latest symptom of a modern sickness that replaces human connection with convenience. Amazon, Uber Eats, Tinder, working from home, online classes, and social media. Are we backwards luddites, or are we just feeling a need to be human?
@@bigkspicy8257 People forget... the Luddites had a point
@@elgatto3133they however decided to attack the means of production themselves rather than the foundation that created it in the first place
It's weird to think though, if AI art kills real art, it will just continue to recycle the art it has already been trained on. No new styles would ever be created again.
Nothing can kill art. Art is a compulsion that people are led to create. What we really mean by something "killing art" is whether that art is profitable. Artists will still make new art and styles, but they won't be making the same money.
do you really think people would let that happen? Artists aren't gonna disappear. people need to create, they always will. There's already a new type of artist who spends their time training machines to do new things, so they can make new styles of art with the machines. I'm one of them.
No new styles? Disagree. Could be done with tweaks in learning algorithms and other techniques, some of which may not currently be perfected or known, but will be.
What if it ends up recycling art from old crappy ai that people grief the internet with, causing a sizable portion of those images to be forever in the database
New styles will be created through prompts
With out photography we might not have any paintings by Francis Bacon. He relied heavily on it, and he's one of the greatest artist ever. Today there's no need to commission a portrait from a painter, every one has a camera in their phone. But they do. I know because, I'm a painter. A large portion of my commission work is portraiture. Art is more than aesthetics, it's a connection.
I'd use AI for ideas. For reference. Then, when I hire conceptual artists, I'll show them, "This is what I'm looking for." Sample tunes, and when I hire a composer, I'll explain, "This is the feel I'm going for."
HOWEVER. I'll also add: "If you have something new, please feel free to add. I like surprises."
Me too. It's part of why I love ChatGPT, but hate AI 'art'.
I also agree on your point about different art mediums. Traditional painters and traditional animators still exists and their craft is expensive.
It's the difference between Pixar and Studio Ghibli.
I think my biggest annoyance with the current batch of AI bandwagoners is their insistence that THEY made the art. I would respect AI art more if we all thought like the copyright office and agreed no one owned it and no one made it. This gets trickier with human-made art cleaned up by AI but I have no delusions that I had much responsibility for a piece I generated with a couple of sentences.
ALL ai art is prompted and commanded by a human willing its creation. And that will remain until we decide some ai is sentient and it makes art. By all logical definitions they made the art. They used a tool but they made it. No different from any other art. Just easier and faster. Well i guess the people that throw color at white canvas and call it art can compeat in the speed department.
Could not have said it better myself!
@@RasakBlood There is a vast world of difference between someone saying "I would like some art" and the art magically appearing with no further action, thought, or involvement from them... and literally any other form of a human being "willing" art into creation.
Somebody in a drive though said "I want a burger" but that doesn't make them a cook. It doesn't make them the creator of the burger. Even if an entirely automated machine prepared it, they had nothing to do with it. In an incredibly technical and pedantic sense, the person who orders the burger is "willing its creation". But it's such a stretch in order to equate someone saying "make me something" with the entity that actually makes it... it becomes an unserious argument very quickly.
@@RasakBlood No. Using AI to do art and saying you did, is like going on Google, searching for an image and downloading it. You did nothing.
Prompt people want the social clout they associate with "being an artist" without having to actually do anything. They're excited that someone created a toy that lets them push a button and be given an output which can be held up over their head. While they declare "I am now exactly the same as a person who made this themselves."
Man made art ALSO references other human made art all the time. Most writers use shorthands and tropes and ideas from works they've been inspired by in the past, there was that famous Picasso "Great artists steal" quote. Tarantino has also talked about how trying to copy one or two filmmakers makes you a hack, but copying 20-30 filmmakers makes you a true original.
Much of the Top ten in music, movies, etc is full of derivative, uninspired crap that's simply well marketed and "too big to fail".
I get the paranoia and anxiety about how much specialized artistic skill has been devalued in society, but frankly, this is just what's happening to all jobs in society as a whole. Almost all work is becoming devalued through optimization and automation that's necessary to provide products and services to such a large and growing global population of consumers.
There's this assumption that just because a person does something traditionally, "by hand" it has more value. But that's just the IKEA effect. If you assemble a car piece by piece like they used to 100 years ago cars would be a half a million dollars. How many would you be able to sell, how many workers would you be able to hire that way??? Probably just as many if not more people would be out of work in that scenario.
Look at sports, one of the fields that is probably most difficult to imagine AI ever being able to intervene in, creates such runaway spending and compensation that someone makes 30-40 times more money for shooting basketballs than you make looking for a cure for cancer. That is NOT determined by the value these jobs provide to society, as curing cancer is infinitely more important than winning an NBA championship.
Humans are expensive, and the scale of NEEDS these services must provide is far too large for humans to fulfill at a reasonable cost.
Almost everything humans do or make will be worthless eventually once no one wants to pay for it, and if no one has money because all these jobs are being devalued then it stands to reason that you are not going to be able to whine and complain your way out of it.
The best parallel i can think of is watches and the quartz revolution. You went from an industry based around incredibly fine precise workmanship that was uprooted to the point you can give away cheap LCD watches as a free gift. Mechanical watches still exist even at an entry level but the broad appeal just quietly died and even digital watches are dying a death when everyone has a smartphone. A bleak outlook but art won't die, likely just become a niche.
I'm genuinely both curious and terrified of what will happen when there isn't a single thing left that can't be done by a machine. Where will we work? How will we make money? Would we all be broke barely able to get food or would we have our lives completely solved without a single problem left?
Both ends of those roads lead to a distinctly hellish conclusion in that our humanity can and will be replicated. Once we reach that point, we very well could only have one passion left: to perfect the art of destruction.
Long before machines can do everything you will have the economic impact you are talking about. And then you will have millions of people that can not feed themselves. These millions of people will demand change. And so there will be change or a lot of blood. And yes in the good ending we all have all basic needs and more solved.
the people (mega corporations) using machines and AI to replace the entire workforce would be the only ones making money, and so they'd also be paying a huge amount in taxes. you then use the tax revenue to impliment a universal basic income for everyone else. everyone will just get a base income into their bank accounts each month for doing nothing. now, you could argue that why not just make all products free instead? well that's because of greed. the univeral basic income that people get would work as a limiter on how much they can take. this scenario feels pretty much inevitable.
Optimistically, UBI. Have you basic needs met, so you can concentrate on, painting or something.
Ai art is like watching robots compete in sport championships.
Well, we have motorsports. So, yeah.
@@bltzcstrnxi don't remember hearing about AI driven motorsport though.
People have enjoyed watching robots fight eachother for as long as they have existed, and actually longer. People also enjoy watching AI chess or other games. Some don't, but many do.
Something I always feel gets missed is that art isn't solely for interpretation and expression. It can serve a purpose. If a tabletop DM just wants an image to give their players, why not - it's something which they feel represents their idea well enough. While some tablecloths might be a finely woven tapestry fit to display in a museum, most people just care about something to drape over their table which looks decent enough and matched the furniture. Art can be a tool to apply, not just a form for expression.
The way I see it, I just think AI generated imagery will be branched off into a different genre entirely, and its overall relevance after the big AI boom is going to be reduced to just simple tools that artists can used to assist their original work. In my experience, AI is most useful as small tools that can assist the human in doing daily tasks, and this AI-generated media won't mean much if there is no sense or meaning to it. I believe that people will instead learn to use it as a tool rather than a replacement, because AI can really only parrot existing work.
that's now with AI but not whenever GI comes out or heck if current AI expands further.
@@abdiabdi3225 I can't speak on GI, but the inherent flaw of AI is that it's incapable of making anything truly original, so in reality all artists need to do to stand out from their AI counterparts is to have their style be unique and not generic-looking, which is surprisingly easy speaking as an amateur artist myself.
My main worry is your average person is too ignorant to care, most current movies today are essentially humans parroting the same superhero film over and over, yet people still see them. Same thing happened with 3D animation, 2D and 3D are two different forms of animation, but in US you can't get the average person to pay for an 2D animated film, because 3D is seen as "inherently better". AI can't replace human art, but the average person is too ignorant tell or care about the difference. People want fast food, not a home-made meal.
@@sillyali the problem with this is that the average consumer does not care about originality, so this is still put going to put lots and lots of artists out of work. Non artists and white collar folks are already singing the praises of AI art to each other specifically because it's generic but customizable and pretty. For many commercial uses of art, most people want functional, not necessarily original.
@@radiokunio3738actually less and less are liking the whole parroting
As an AI researcher, I disagree with your assertion that AI art doesn't require human input. Fundamentally, these models are trained and fine-tuned on human-generated media, which are then regurgitated in some new form when a prompt is given. It is not possible for an AI model to invent an entirely new genre or style of art, as it can only sample from the distribution that it learned from some previously observed data. I would argue that this is no different from human artists who create media within a predefined style. For example, the thousands of artists who draw pictures of catgirls on DeviantArt cannot claim to have invented Anime. AI generated art has not devalued the creative process in any way; it has simply demonstrated the derivative nature of 99.9% of modern art. I would go so far as to suggest that the artists who complain about tools like Stable Diffusion are not really upset at the idea of having their art stolen so much as they are at the realization of their own mediocrity.
One thing that I haven't personally seen discussed yet with A.I. generated art (or more specifically, the tech bros who want it to out-and-out replace human artists), but I can't stop thinking about is, in the far future, let's say 2300, where all art is A.I. generated, there just isn't going to be any more innovation in the art field. Today, you can't look at something created by Steve Ditko and say it's the same as a Michelangelo. Sure, they're both artists that created art, but there's a vast swath of difference in styles and methods of creation. The artform changed. But, in 2300 when all art is text-prompted compilations pulled from hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of pre-existing art, there's no innovation to be had. There's not some young, budding artist that has a style all their own that will revolutionize the art world. It will forever be the same remixes. Sure, it's a pool made with millions of samples, but it's a *stagnant* pool made with millions of samples.
Naturally, in an A.I. generated art world, there will still be niches to be found. I can easily see a new niche of artists arising to fill this gap I've outlined above, where their whole job will be to simply create new art in their own style that's purely used to give the A.I. new references to pull from. Already you can see it with artists creating unique pieces to train A.I. in a way that's more ethical than just ripping art from Google Images.
And of course, this all heavily depends on where in the graph we are. Are we at or very near to a plateau, and this is where A.I. generation stalls out for a few years or decades? Or are we still in the midst of climbing our way up to the peak? These are questions that can only ever be answered with hindsight, but if I had to guess... I unfortunately have to say that we're still climbing to the peak. Only time will tell.
Don't worry, by 2300 we've probably gone back to cave paintings and wood carvings.
@@Jorqell in a best case scenario
It always bothered me that nobody cared when AI was just doing writing, like writers aren't artists or something. :v
i would unironically watch pizzatastic, and the sequel
The thing about progress is that you can get in front of it and either lead it or be lead by it - or - you can get run over by it.
Inevitable..? It's already here. Thousands of deviantart accounts, which get subscriptions and paid prints, are nothing but AI generated pictures of women and cartoon animal women. Ubisoft is already using AI to write dialogue in their games.
Actually scratch that last comment, Ubisoft doesn't even produce any art, they produce products.
all they do is flood the art tags, its spam, its not art. Its ruining online searches and none of it worths shit or has any artistic value or merit
@@j.2512 speak for yourself, Some of that ai art its better than the shit some artist post lol
anything that is infinitally producible will inevitably become infinitally devalued
You summarized the issue so well, especially the parallel with Charles Baudelaire
I love the assumption that we'll always have power and that we'll never be cast back into the darkness.
Based solar flare wipes out all electronics. I can't wait.
This. The US electrical grid is a shambles and once it’s down it may take decades to get running again.
Somewhat good news regarding art AI though, they're starting to suffer from two big issues.
First, too much data, as the data they are based off grows with more and more scraping of stolen images, they inevitably get a lot of conflicting data on what a thing does or doesn't mean, making the AI basically just have to guess.
And second, they're having a hapsburg problem. Ai art posted online is rarely marked or indicated as such, often even with efforts made to try to hide this origin, and thus it is easily swept up by the image-scraper bots and fed back into the algorithm, flaws and all, meaning those will get excacerbated more and more as such art becomes more common, leading to, well, algorithmic inbreeding.
My biggest concern is that they aren't crediting the artists. That's all I need to know to know that they are in it for greedy reasons
For what? The ai made it not them
@@dillonblair6491 they use the art that actual artists make and the ai skews and combines the pictures with other art to make ai art. It's like stealing someone's homework, changing a few words here and there, and then submitting it saying it's completely original. The companies aren't buying the art they use they just take it.
@@DoneDragon1
You understand that's how humans make art right? Almost all human creations are derivative, you have to have a point of reference before you can create something and in other circumstances i dont think youd apply this standard.
For example, Cuphead uses the style pioneered by 1930s Disney films but would you actually say it's stolen???
@Dillon Blair style/genre is what your describing, I'm talking about individual pieces of art are taken without compensation and fed to the ai programs. They are stealing a product(art) from a seller(artists)
@@DoneDragon1
Yes that's what I'm saying. People have to look at individual pieces of media and they take inspiration from it. Cupheads creators looked at pieces of 1930s media and created their game. Would you say cuphead is stolen?
(Because you understand AI actually makes transformative creations right? They aren't just reposting your art)
>Orson Welles voicing Kermit
the future is freaking dope after all
Well He already voiced a Transformer
@@lamecasuelas2 UNICRON THE PLANET EATER!!!
I'm glad you brought up the case of the photographer wanting the rights to the monkey picture. To me that case sets the earliest and best precedent for any rights claim to ai generated creations. My bias can't even bring me to call it actual art so i could be just as wrong someone on the other side of argument
Based on my experience as a programmer, they way a lot of technologies progress is a bit like that old math problem where you keep traveling half the remaining distance to the destination. You get further with each iteration, but there’s always some remaining portion. AI art will probably have an element of that.
The other paradigm I see a lot is that the advancement of technology allows for a more advanced end product. For example, there’s no way we could have the games and other software we have today if we still used punch cards or were writing machine language commands one at a time. It’s likely that AI art will allow some works that would have been impractical to be made. It’s hard to say what those are, though since they mostly don’t exist yet.
Not saying there aren’t going to be pitfalls along the way-we’re in for a bumpy ride over the next 10-20 years, but it’s going to be interesting-I guarantee that.
An example of something impractical to make before that will become possible in the future are animations that feature detailed shading, lighting, etc. Animations are mostly flat because it would take too many hours to include more details.
At some point we’ll have animated works that would’ve been infeasible for a large team to make even given several years.
17:15 The bit about the invention of cameras reminded me of something Alfred Hitchcock said in an interview.
"Technical perfection can only create boredom, because it only reproduces nature. Why the hell would anyone go to a movie when they can have the real thing? So imitating nature can only lead to the death of an artform."
As an actual visual artist that's been deeply exploring AI tools for the past year, I think most people just don't understand the creative process. It requires the individual to have at least some vision of what they want, and then the vocabulary to translate that vision into the physical world, whether that be a lexicon of paints or a palette of words, there still requires, even with AI tools, a communication process at the root of it. You are trying to communicate your idea clearly. If you don't have a good idea to begin with, then it doesn't matter if you paint it yourself or if an AI tool generates it for you.
It's all about the choices you make, and that's really the fundamental action of creativity.
It's often this ignorance of the creative process that make non-artists think AI tools will automatically make images that other people like AND that you feel proud of, and artists think AI tools will deflate their value. If you never recognize and examine your own decision making process, then you take for granted what you're actually doing and what your actual value is.
There's always been a distinction between Art and Craft, but for many people it hasn't been well defined and they conflate the two. AI tools may make certain crafts obsolete, but it surely doesn't threaten Art itself. It's not about changing the definition of Art, it's about actually understanding the definition of Art, the creative process, and what we do as artists.
Art is human, AI “art” is only decoration.
True and good.
Tell that to the ad men.
Honestly, I think that a lot of the argument comes down to "how much time have you invested into creating something", but my personal opinion is that creativity isn't dependent on the time spent to hone skills or create the work itself. Does it matter if a writer pops out a book every year or spends a decade to write his next one - if they are both equally enjoyable, insightful and/or well-written? To me, art is creativity+technology. The technology part becomes easier, as it ideally should be, lowering the threshold for entry. The creativity though is all up to a human (at the moment at least).
I personally think it's great that the threshold is lower. It's like this with music. A huge torrent of musicians have been able to release their music into the world, and there's so much more choice to find what exactly you want - it's amazing for me! Plus, DAW software has made it easier to record, you can just record a very hard part in multiple pieces instead of trying to do it all at once, which is again good for expressing creativity. But before, you had to learn to play for a long time, had to assemble a band and impress the gatekeepers - record labels, concert venues, distributors, etc. - to get your music out there.
And finally, I think it's also important to acknowledge - and I don't mean that as an offense or devalidation in any sort of way - that all the artists, be it visual, musical or literary, have actually accumulated a sum of knowledge from a huge chunk of previous human history, thousands of years of it. We build on top of what was created before. The AI does the same, only unfortunately - and I do think this is a real issue - the people who it affects are still thankfully alive and well, and this can take away from their income. But this is a different question - of AI, automation and capitalism in its current form :)
"These AI works could not have existed without human art to directly reference." Okay, but that's also true of like 99% of human art.
I’m sick of seeing people calling this ‘AI *art*’, it’s not an art, but generated content.
The most unrealistic part of that opening is Netflix still being around by 2074
Disclaimer: I am AI-neutral. I think Ai art in and of itself is niether god nor bad, but rather another tool that can be used in whatever way possible.
I think ai art will be too "basic" and boring for me, and I think there will always be people who think the same thing. Because there are a lot of us who have interests that aren't mainstream enough to be included in a lot of these technologies. I also think even if they were included, I dont think it would hit the same way as me looking at artwork I've made and which my friends have made, especially when art is how we communicate, and not just entertainment. We usually look to art to gauge people's values and to get a new perspective on stuff, I think anything an AI would make would come out as inconsistent in those aspects.
I don't think that makes AI art useless, but I do think that means that AI art isn;t a threat to human art because these are two different niches that don't need to cross eachother. The problem to me is when AI bros decide to be haughty abt it LOL.
As photos are a different experience from seeing its subject in person and as artwork is a different experience from photos --- all of these also being different from when we talk to eachother directly --- AI art is a different experience from human art. And yes part of that fundamental difference is the mere knowledge of what is or isnt Ai or human, but think of it as AI being a filter or middle man in between the messages between someones vision and the person receiving an artwork.
Like you talked about the "death" of realistic paintings or paintings based on real places but.. people still do that, people still look for that. People still do cell animation, people even make flipbooks and some even on regular ass paper. People still paint on cave walls, people still make graffiti. Hell people also pay for all of these things! These are impulses which cannot be sated by a mere image, we like doing things we will find things to do.
I also think a major concern with AI art isn't copyright infringement or artists losing jobs, we're already the butt of the joke when it comes to jobs guys! But rather that people will use AI art (or lets be more realistic, deep fakes) as part of identity theft whether that's by putting other peoples personas into works or copying the style of an artist and claiming to be that artist.
I'm honestly with you on the realistic paintings part. I think he was onto something up until the point where he started being like "It will replace us all and nobody will make art the same way anymore." Like... people definitely do still do photorealism, and photography didn't drive painters out of business. If anything, the shift from realism to the abstract was much more of a cultural thing around the turn of the 20th century than anything to do with cameras.
Same thing here - just because AI art exists doesn't mean that people will all just... give up doing art. Nor does it somehow make the fact they could make something so beautiful any less wonderful.
@@lesigh3410 I agree too, but I think the video's point about that is that it would be hard to tell what's made by AI and what isn't in the first place.
@BinglesP true, but that said, laws are getting put in place about that
@@lesigh3410but, as the tech improves, how then?
How does one distinguish a sufficiently good generated artpiece from one that does not use such services.
And what stops a bad actor from simply deciding to pass the artwork off as original?
@@fishyfishyfishy500akabs8 That's a question to ask lawmakers, not me lmao
That ending was quite a rollercoaster. From optimism, back to pessimistic realism. What should I take away from this video? Seriously, just accept defeat?
Adapt or become obsolete.
@@TheGamernews1 if those are my only options I'd rather die maintaining my beliefs than survive under something that goes against everything I stand for
kind of realize its here, and how its used in the mainstream is the next debate.
Is it going to stay a shovelware dumping novelty that it is right now or
is it gonna become a tool to connect stuff together?
@@RedShadowAMV Why does it go against everything you stand for? Why can't AI be a tool you use to aid your work?
A lot of the problems AI art presents could be mitigated if artists had a better support network that made it easier to focus on their passion without having to worry about rent or food
This is going to put artists out of work. And unlike people who worked in mines, this is putting people out of work with their passions.
I mean maybe there are some people who passionately work in mines and that’s all they’ve ever wanted to do with their lives. But there are a lot of people who don’t and only do that because they don’t have the money, resources, or time to pursue their passions.
No one is an artist because they were “forced to” or because they had limited options. Art is already a frowned upon profession that the only people who pursue it are the people who want to.
Depending on the clientele you'll still artists get work due to detailed orders or requests and specific art style i.e: Furry Art. AI has specific styles that isn't always the one people want.
Correction on the monkey case, the court never ruled that the monkey owned the image, Peta just kept suing the photographer so he gave up and said the monkey owned the image
9:49
Third world, accustomed to piracy at industrial scales: YOU CAN *OWN* IMAGES?
As an artist, want to say, that main thing about art is idea, and advanced and more conscious AI will help skip the boring part and fokus on idea! It's great! Everyone can be an artist without 15 years of practice, just make their ideas come to life! And if your opinion is that nothing must change, or people will lose jobs... well... if nothing would change, we would never improve, we would stuck in 1800's, when same thing happened, but with workers of factories, you can't stop time
Are you really an artist though by just typing a few words? I'd say no. Not any more than being able to use chat gpt makes me a writer.
And on "if nothing would change, we would never improve" and "you can't stop time." I think this reflects a mindset that there is nothing to be done so just give up. Not all change is good though, nor is change beyond control. We have, and will continue to weed out things seen as unethical. Asbestos used to be seen as a wonder material and now it's not. We used to allow hard drugs in tooth medicine, now we don't. We used to have children work in factories and now we don't. The future isn't just about accepting every new thing. We make the future. How it is regulated is in our hands. To act as though we can't change it is to treat the march of time as an uncontrollable beast which we must allow to trample us, rather than a series of decisions ultimately made by people.
@@chocolizard678 it's basically "stop changing world! I want my 80's back!"
@@chocolizard678 so now if I have a cool idea, I can type it and make ot happen in few seconds... And this is bad? Why? Just because you're uneasy with AI drawing? Fine, don't use AI drawing, don't commit the "personal ingenuity" fallacy, that being "I don't understand [something], therefore [something] is bad/doesn't exist", here's some examples"I don't understand evolution, therefore evolution doesn't exist", "I don't understand midjorney and chatGPT, therefore they're bad!"
@@chocolizard678 my genuine point is that all the same arguments were used in the industrial revolution, from our XXI century point we kinda got used to all of those technologies and think that's how it should be, but now another change and you are acting just like those workers, don't repeat the mistakes of the past
This whole conversation kinda ignores the main point of art, which is to create and to express the inner world in a physical medium. Art is not just content to be consumed, is a conversation of human emotion. Humans CRAVE to create for more than just money, we want to express ourselves and leave a mark.
While I agree that this argument is a little too much focused on monetary gain, I think the arguments that 'art must have humanity behind it' is partially including that as well. I assume when people talk about how the art process is profitable and meaningful, they are also taking into account that the artists aren't just profiting, but also enjoying it and using it as a means of social expression.
And that, if it's impossible to tell whether or not an AI made the artwork, it would also conflict. Imagine being genuinely fooled to believe an AI piece was genuine, only to leave disappointed that there was nobody on the other side to talk to...
I think like how the camera made realistic depictions as art redundant it will simply make things like digital art eye candy art without a higher meaning redundant. People are just going to actually have a motivation for their art beyond pretty picture and probably turn to post-modern styles. The famous artists of the future are going to be people like Banksy not the millionth VFX artist
Another way to put it is that AI won't kill Art but it will eradicate Illustration
Thank you, there’s a reason why that guy’s art in the DA competition was suspected of being machine generated, because it looked like everything else. I haven’t seen anything come close to truly emulate someone like Beksinski or Giger despite how distinct their styles are, because it’s actually not that simple. A shit ton of human artists have tried and failed and it always ends up looking to clean and sanitized and far more palatable compared to their work.
At 17:40, it's worth pointing out that this WAS the way some people used photography, but the whole way photography evolved was PRECISELY to exactly avoid just doing 'paintings but I can't paint'. Same reason most digital artists develop their own digital style instead of using a watercolor filter or brush: if you're interested in actual artistry, you want your medium to have its own dignity and identity. And as you said, it is objectively true that photography did kinda ruin traditional art!
Also, here's an interesting event, when the matter of copyright came up, courts decided that photographs deserved copyright because the human act of selecting each setting, angle, and the fact itself of coming up to a IRL subject constituted a creative act. Personally I'm not convinced this applies to simply prompting AI, as almost every prompt could as easily be generated by a Markov chain seeded by GMT time or RNG - same way that security camera footage is not art but Interstellar is, despite being technically the same medium.
You could use the AI medium in a truly artistic way, I'm convinced you can. But current AI art is much closer to security camera footage, or those autogenerated avatar icons based on a hash of your user ID.
Either way, all of this could simply be solved by labeling art properly... which is the way ALL ARTISTS have always done it: digital photography, cellulose photography, oil on canvas, digital painting on Gimp. But tellingly enough, AI users very often don't want to to let people know about 'Midjourney in Photoshop'.
One of my biggest existential fears about AI generated art is that should it proliferate to a certain threshold, it’s quite likely that any corporation or other group of people with the proper motivation could start a push to view human made art as obsolete or at the very least not worthwhile, thus delegitimizing creative self expression’s value as a whole. And if self expression doesn’t mean much in the eyes of the greater populace, what will replace it as a source of meaningful contribution to the community?
Diffusion based art is still human made
Isn't already? How much of the general population actually looks at art on the regular? For most of the people I know, the only time we actually look at art is when it's intertwined in other mediums like books or movies. Art is honestly supplementary to most people.
@@RE_Mastar I can and do argue that everything is art, I can appreciate the artistic value in my keyboard and fan... and I should, those are items designed, to be pleasant and functional, and they fulfil their purposes quite excellently.
But aside from that I was going to say essentially the same thing, with a snarky side of "get a job?".
Not to be an asshole or anything.. I love art.... but... perhaps just poor phrasing. I consider the sentence 'self expression as a contribution to the community' ... to be like an insult to my ears and the very concept of the human condition.
Your self expression, is for you, not me, not anyone else. If you are good at what you do, great. If you have people who appreciate your art, great.
I am not at the point of considering art a public service, perhaps outside of soviet era living complexes and the desire to reinvent those places for the people who have to endure them.
Even then a council would probably pay, one probably wouldn't do it for free, etc.
Not sure that counts as 'self expression'. It just sounds hyper... narcissistic. In concept. 'Self expression =/= greater good'.
Apologies, I'll be replaced as well.
@@RE_Mastar Twitter, DeviantArt, Tumblr, and other social media platforms have art by itself everywhere if your algorithm is tuned to it. I look at art on social media all the time, and so do most of my friends.
I don't agree on the idea that AI will destroy art. Like you mentioned, the photograph reduced the amount of people doing realistic paintings, because it was far easier to just take a picture then to painstakingly paint the scenery. The job market for realistic paintings shrunk dramatically, however, realism is by no means dead, even today. Not many can make a job out of realism anymore, but there are plenty of people who choose to make realistic paintings simply because they want to. I believe the same will happen with AI generated art. The market for human made art will shrink dramatically, but there are plenty who will choose to create simply because they want to. There are still blacksmiths who practice their craft the traditional way despite there being more efficient methods available. However, as a mainstream job, many artists will likely have to retool into a different industry entirely. It's incredibly sad, but I believe doing art for arts sake will survive.
Well, that's the problem though. Artists want to do art for a living they don't want to have to squeeze it in between working a regular labor intensive job, raising a family, and tending their home provided they even have enough time and energy to do art after all that.
@@Guy-cb1oh Even currently, there aren't very many stable jobs in art. My sister is an artist and she has only really been able to do it as a hobby. It's incredibly sad. My hope is that perhaps one day, our lives will not be consumed by our work and there will be more time to dedicate to hobbies and interests. That seems like an unlikely future though. The only more unlikely future is the one where AI research is stopped and things continue as normal. AI art is already here, and we just have to make the best of it.
I was born with a complete lack of artistic skills. I cannot even draw a straight line. Of course, I can practice but at the same time, my friends used to draw beautiful images without any training. I am an artistic person. I love to create but I didn't have the skills to do it in painting. Finally, I can make it. I am happy. It's a little bit like being angry at a person with a calculator, while you were born with the ability to make amazing calculations in your head. It's a great equalizer.
Government officials were asking the CEO of TikTok if the app could access Wi-Fi. The legality of AI will be in a grey zone for a while. I do like AI art in the aspect that it can help artists make things faster. Or as a way to get inspiration.
As someone who makes digital art, I usually use Topaz Gigapixel AI to enhance the art I already spent the time to create, and I've even used EbSynth as a way to speed up the finishing touches on animations, so yes you are right when you say that AI can be used as a tool to make your art look better, but should not be used as a form of cheating in order for some people to claim credibility for artwork that was generated by a sentence that they put into an algorithm.
Eliminating opportunities for art as a career is incredibly sad and terrifying; I don’t want to minimize that. But something that’s brought me a bit of comfort as an artist is realizing that, as a kid, when I’d tell people, “I want to be an artist when I grow up!” I never thought about making money-I just wanted to make art. At some point in my artistic journey though, it seems that “becoming an artist” started to be more about my financial compensation than it was about actually just doing what I love to do. And that makes sense. As we get older, money becomes more important. But to then go on and conclude that AI art will someday render artists obsolete would be totally untrue. Even if AI art absolutely destroys the art industry, nothing can stop you from making art. It may not be as financially viable as it is now, but if making non-AI art brings you joy, then it’s absolutely worth doing. Art will live for as long as humans feel the need to express. Not super reassuring in the face of all the AI craziness and job loss, but it helps me to cope a bit.
Great point! On that note, I'd like to add that I was never able to draw well, but I sometimes get ideas and thoughts I'd like to express in visual form - and I just can't. Plus, I don't have a very vivid visual imagination. For me, AI art is a way to put what I want to see in front of me and maybe share this with someone. I do absolutely understand the strife of artists, but on the other hand, this is a way for many more people like me to express ourselves.
Besides, AI is coming for all of us at one point or another, we'll all be out of a job :)
But if I can’t make money off my art. Then I have to get a job at McDonalds to make money and survive. And that’ll take away the time I’d rather spend working on art.
Saying “who cares if you lose your job? You can keep doing it as a hobby” is not hopeful at all.
Yup, personal use is fine! It’s just money and incentivizing a lifestyle has been a driving factor enabling artists to pursue it as a main function to do and feel fulfilled from. AI Art is something that the economy doesn’t need.
Yeah, the industrial revolution killed the artisans and woodworkers - but those former occupations still exist as hobbies, they are much rarer of course, but some people pursue them very passionately, which really is Beautiful imo. This also applies to retro photography and photorealistic painting. I don't see Art (as in, creations YOU spent time on and give certain Value to) disappearing any time soon. The process of Creation just seems like an endemic part of any sapient being
As a human artist we take inspiration from everything we see. And I find myself accidentally re-creating others works to where it's hard for me to tell if I made an original piece or was just heavily inspired by someone else. I don't see how AI art is any different from a human taking inspiration from other copyrighted works.
as long as the person has any idea of what they want and it's an actual idea I don't really mind AI art because a lot of people currently want new laws without realising the companies pushing this want to kill the small artists.
The downfall of beauty is inevitable with AI. There is not one instance of something aesthetic being automated where we didn’t stop caring for it. We don’t care about photorealism in photography anymore, now that calligraphy is automated, our mails are reduced to function, now that carpets, Iace, stitching is automated, all of them lost their aesthetics
Thank you for not making weird and illogical straw-man arguments so many artists do, because I am a music artist and it gets frustrating seeing picture artists scream and shout about "mUh wOrk gEttIng stOlEn!1!" when in the music industry, leitmotifs (taking little bits and pieces from other musicians and making a mix of it) ARE LITERALLY EVERYWHERE. Apparently, to a picture artist, just taking SOME aspects of their work at all is "stEAlIng!1!".
Another thing I commend is accepting that photography killed real landscape art as an art-form, because lo and behold, picture artists who draw loves to say that it isn't the same or that "the industrialization didn't kill businesses" when many art-forms such as hat-making LITERALLY DIED and you're telling me photography DIDN'T KILL real world art? LMAO
Anyway, I'm ranting here, but my point is that while I agree with artists that AI will kill art, saying photography is "art" because it required "human input" is f*cking stupid, photographers are NOT ARTISTS, they are literally the same as AI "artists" and I will die on that hill.
AI job apocalypse is also inevitable
So does the UBI
@@establishmentOttoman315 in theory, but will our government actually go through with it?
@@priestesslucy3299 Just like everyone dealing with it, they have to too
I think this isn't comparable to the past with photography, most (if not all) Ai art steals to recreate a mash of existing art based on a given prompt, photography didn't steal anything it didn't take anyone's creations because it simply captures a moment in life these 2 things are entirely different and not comparable, people still draw real life today by eye simply because it is satisfying to do, the art Charles Baudelaire loved didn't cease to exist, it never has.
Ai 'art' and Photography are not comparable for they are far different from each other, the same way you cannot compare digital artists respecting people who used cel to animate to your future scenario, these are completely different things, I think this time is the time where laws have to protect artists, what is all our copyright for if not to protect us from exactly this? I cannot help but see Ai art as just simply massive art theft, to me that's all it is, without us it would be nothing, it cannot make anything new only things that already exist, yes they are different but are they actually new? I wouldn't say so.
AI can't even draw fingers let alone takeover the world
Im not an artist, so my opinion doesn't really matter, but i don't necessarily think ai art will kill art. If you think about things like cuphead being cell animated despite it being much easier to digitally animate a 2D platformer, it become apparent that there will still be a market for what existed before. People still buy (and paint) landscapes, and probably always will. Thats not to say that ai art is necessarily good or wont have a negative outcome for art as a whole.