technically chess players were beaten by a sorting algorithm, brute force computing if you will, no learning back then then those sorting algorithm were beaten by AI
AI art winning the competition is like entering a baking competition with a pie you bought at the store. It’s obviously not allowed in that situation so AI art will probably be banned in art competitions
Nobody gives a crap about art competitions. The judges knew the art was generated with an A.I. and wanted to make some quick and easy free publicity. Suddenly their little art competition is on the news.
I really doubt that AI is gonna be less influential than clip art, AI learns and as engines get more advanced it will continue its slow march of taking over human’s jobs. Why buy human made art online when you can generate and easy piece using a bunch of words in a few minutes?
Machines/AI are coming for everyone. No one is excluded. Kiestra is replacing microbiologists. Cellavision software is going to replace hematologists. Davinci will replace surgeons. OpenAI/Copilots will replace software engineers.
@@Misaka-gt5yj depending on how society structures the coming change it could be good. Less inefficiencies and people have the option rather than necessity to work. Imagine everyone’s job is to play sports, or go and build their own ideas, do art, write stories, play musical instruments, or fight in a boxing match, whatever. We have guns and access to mechanical pistons which could rip off the arms of gorillas, but no one watches a boxing match to look at that. We have land vehicles which can break the sound barrier, but I don’t see them replacing horse racing. Of course this sort of utopia depends on the mega corporations who produce AI actually giving a rats ass about people.
@@zekezeke7381 Respect work what???? He never made art nor hire artist. His channel is nothing but blend, boring, and souless looking who does nothing but gaming and video editing. Hiring an artist is so much more complex than just type a word and let ai mix and match things together that result in a mess that looks good at first but end up looking bad when you actually review it
I would love to see a game engine that will do true random-generated enemies with an AI. Imagine you are playing a Souls game and out pops a fire-breathing armadillo with wings.
@@OdinSonne Exoprimal. Looking forward to seeing more about it. Seems good but since it is geared towards the online experience I am afraid it will turn into a live-service game.
@@ChillkittzGT Nope, he didn't mean the A.I. He specifically talked about artists making just a bit of a painting and letting an A.I. fill in the rest, so he clearly thought the person who did the out-painting did that. 🤦 Someone tweet Vermeer.
i agree with the speedrun analogy. both are GREAT i watch regular and tas, and i speedrun a game myself. the tas are awesome and its just a tool to show ACTUAL perfect runs, the AI art is neat, just a tool to create a great image, now u keep the categories separate. its that simple.
@@krunkle5136 Obviously it's a bad thing for artists but I'm not sure if it's a bad thing for games, videos, movie production, etc because now you can get world class art without paying the high commissions for such pieces which means cheaper games, videos, movies, etc. Kinda like the agricultural revolution that left many farmers without a job as the technology got better which meant there was more labour for other jobs and this consequently meant food was cheaper and the economy could specialise in other fields.
@@googane7755 But isn't art the thing we're supposed to take refuge in? I don't see good in making it faster and cheaper, because at some point we might as well have ai that reads your mind and comes up with the perfect media that'll break peoples brains. Also I think people appreciate human intent being in every stoke of a work of art/music/video game etc. It'd be impossible to tell anymore, and I personally wouldn't want to bother with any of it I think what's most important is for everyone rich and poor to be informed that this machine based imagination may now proliferate everything they consume, as a way to try to protect artists by creating awareness.
@@googane7755 it's not that similar because the technology was still needed a good amount of human force to operate it but with a.i you only need a handful of people and art is just the beginning a.i will take over allot of jobs in the future without equally lead to create a new jobs
I’ve picked up art last year, drawing every day and learning new techniques and styles as much as possible. It takes thousands of hours to learn something as intricate as realism. You can learn to draw from tutorials, but learning to apply those techniques is an entirely different skill. Most artist hate the word talent as it puts a stigma on the hard work it takes to achieve a masterful level. Ai images are beautiful and have their place in art, but now we will have to make a whole new genre for it as we do with other styles like abstract and contemporary.
It's also genetic. Steady hands. The right kind of brain. Technology is often invented to overcome genetic lotteries to give people abilities they never had before. In a way I consider that a positive aspect of tech. I agree 100% on making a new category. It's here to stay.
@@emceeunderdogrising you are right about the emotionless feeling of A.I. art, I often feel a disconnect unlike looking at a pen stroke or brush stroke that make the feeling relatable.
@@user-op8fg3ny3j this just sounds like a defeatist mentality, i have friends who still make art even with color blindness, arthritis, carpal tunnel. some artist out there dont even have limbs and still paint, exactly which disability stops you from painting other than being in a vegetative state?
isn't it pretty damn obvious that using AI art in a contest for human art is cheating? that's literally botting. in a competition. it's not neural network science ffs.
What scares me is the boredom that can be an artificial intelligence future. Self driving for able-bodied people, entertainment, art, music. Maybe if we had A.I. doing the more lengthy time and cost intensive work like tools for animation or precise technology manufacturing or repair. Then I'm all for it.
"Just stay ahead of the curve" or "You just have to use it too" are things I dislike hearing in this ... I mean, where is the drive to self improve if you have stuff like this? People like to shit on digital drawing and calling it easy, there are some points to it, but this? You just type in a few words. What self respecting trekking enthusiast would use shoes that walk themselves without ever making you brake a sweat? Or football players. Who would accept a tool that completely changes the way your favorite hobby works? Industrial and paid art is another topic, cutting costs is always the main focus ....
The modern world has already suffered from the mass producing of things like furniture, textiles etc, which I think was actually a sweet spot that was bearable, but now a computer can replace human imagination almost.
the way I see it is that art is also a process that you enjoy. You don’t skip to the final result and it’s okay if other people are “better” than you at what you do as long as what you do isn’t lazy. Just because 5 year old kids can play the piano music I play and play it better doesn’t mean I should quit playing that piece or even put less effort in, they’re just built differently just like an AI is built differently from a human
and about ppl getting mad, i guess we should view the 1st prize as "best artpiece" and not as "best artist". it is funny, just last week i was looking at some of godtier artworks done by AIs and just speculating something like this to happen lol
Until they aren't. There isn't a future where ai art and traditional art are distinguishable. If the ai can't be sentient, it'll replicate the human soul; then if they can't do that it'll trick us instead.
there would be no a art competition in a sane world. you essentially compare a couple ais. there is no uniqueness for each participants. at this point, you just invite the developers of said ai to create the best art and that is all. you shouldn't be getting prizes just because you have subscribtion to certain ai services.
@@btchiaintkidding7837 great point it will be really difficult to determine the authenticity of what art is "real" and what art is AI created so competitions should not worry about inflating or bruising egos...it should just explicitly state that it is about the work not the artist
Honestly AI should have its own art catagory. Artists should be able to add a tag to their art, preventing it from being plugged. And if the AI is pulling from references, it should be publically accessable so artists can say "No, you can't plug my art into yiur robot." Same issue annoying Japanese Artists in Japan, but eith a different software.
Humans use references all the time though. In fact in an art class i had that's how you started your design by making a reference board for style and design.
nobody should be able to keep their artwork from being used in datasets, if they posted it on the internet I can use it as reference for my art, why cant an ai. especially if it's open source like stable diffusion
@@Flegado nobody ever wants to acknowledge this. One doesn't get to choose when their art does and doesn't enter the sphere of inspiration unless they hide it away forever. Also, the way this stuff works doesn't 'copy' art unless your directly ask it to, which is antithetical to making original work with it.
@@Flegado Midjourney apparently still sometimes has watermarks. This is not reference, this is photobashing which is usually done with stuff that is free source, your own, or made completely unrecognizable.
@@Flegado Humans Do. They should be doing by Hand with actual practice, be it digital or Traditional. Not just Click a button with ones and zeros. And underscores. I can't shove Dragon Ball on my head and begin Generating. It takes actual practice and many failures to learn how to draw.
imagine spending months on a piece of art and submitting it to a art competition just to lose to someone who put a fraction of the time you did by entering a couple prompts into software and picking whichever looked the best.
You just stumbled upon one of the core problems in AI safety that researchers are struggling with. Robert Miles (an AI safety researcher) has loads of videos explaining this and more
AI evolves in that the best results inspire its further development, so AI naturally leans to produce better results, and this realistically would never happen - It's like if we made a sentient AI which desired to be the best by design, sure it's sentient and it can take over the world but it's only known to succeed at its target
I don't think this is a good analogy, to use a calculator you need to know the syntax, use, formulas etc. It's more like going "What's the answer to the Riemann hypothesis, with complete proof?" and have it delivered instantly.
07:25 = pulls up one of the most recognized and famous paintings in history, calls it "a character that [a random artist] made" with no hint of joking I will spend the rest of the week wondering if he was joking* or not. *I know he wasn't, but I have the rest of the week to convince myself otherwise somehow. fml
AI art has given Digital Art a bad name where when I mention I do digital art a local art gallery doesn't want to host my artwork in the gallery because people literally think Digital Art is now Lazy and all done by the computer. Now AI art is gonna start making it damn near impossible for us Digital Artists to get into Art galleries or maybe even certain conventions in the future because someone ruins it by claiming AI art is original.
@@mekabare I'm not saying there's not skill involved. Digital art looks awkward Irl, and the vast majority of people consume it online. They don't show marvel movies where you'd go to see a play. Traditional art also takes skill, and it's better to experience it in real life. Stay in your lane, basically
I feel that sometimes we forget the relevance this will have in the law scene, there is a principle that anything not created by humans can't be copyrighted, and we will have to decide if we will actually give it protection.
@@catosbobu1239 I don't think giving Ai artwork any kind of copyright protection is ok. We talking about a machine that can generate thousands of artwork a minute here, no matter how small the copyright benefit is will always become so large due to how many an AI produce. A human artist maybe can pump out a couple drawing in a hour, no where near the degree Ai can.
@@catosbobu1239 see, but there is also the super unlikely chance that two AI create the same image from the same references, input in the same order. Then it's technically an original creation from both, but one holds the copyright already. Would everybody have to check the entire internet every time they want to sell a T shirt with an AI designed image?
Yeah,! So outrageous!!!! Like when Freddie Mercury wrote bohemian rhapsody, and used all the artists music and drew inspiration throughout his life and career. So not fair how his brain amalgamated all the info his brain took in and produced something new with it. Inspiration is borderline plagarism!!!
@@YeYe-mp3om I think you didn't understand what you wrote, freddy actually put some work on it, as you said, his brain had to find the proper way to remix things, he didn't just typed a prompt for an AI to do everything for him.
@@Cho0c0 a prompt was given to freddie: write a song. he then had his brain do some work, and generated new lyrics, motifs, melodies etc. Artificial intelligence is still intelligence. So yes, there is basically no difference between using an extended brain to make art, and using your own brain, because relativism and stuff.
@@YeYe-mp3om Again, i don't think you understand what you are typing, Freddie as you say had to put the work into it, but if you go into an AI generator you just have to type a prompt, the AI does everything else for you.
no, they are mostly angry about the "laziness" they claim AI art to be when they put, likely, much more effort into painting it. the same anger was felt with photography for many years.
@@DragoNate i am, in fact, a part of the art community who's mad about some AI stealing. I'm looking forward to artists working with AI in the future, but current situation with AI that straight up puts nearly unchanged parts of human made paintings on a piece that some hopeless buffoon will use for NFT is a rather upsetting use of the technology
@@DragoNate The AI art is literally made by taking people's art and mashing it together. Concept artists are a given a prompt and draw to give a feeling. Now you get these guys just mash words together to take a database of other people's works to make some shit.
Do you have examples using prompts that don't point directly to the artist in question? I'd need to see the original, the AI results, and the prompts. You can get nearly one for one copies of Van Gogh for example. That's more prompt baiting. I don't see any serious AI artists doing this. I've seen signatures. But they are always a jumbled mess of different signatures. I don't really see a difference between the AI copying styles and even brush stroke patterns and a human using Van Gogh as direct inspiration. Art is hardly ever truly original and every artist stands on the shoulders of giants.
The terrifying thing about AI, is that they have literally copied artists watermarks on their AI art, which.. I mean... if you were to do something like that in music would be a copyright violation, and it almost certaintly is, when its stealing so much of one persons art to even steal the watermark (or the artists signature)
At this point real artists who have their watermarks into ai art should own it, or just the machine can credit as much as possible all of the artists that It used for the art
@@fnutek3720 Modified and rehashed to look like a copy-paste. If it looks the same and behaves the same, then it's the same. If it's a watermark for artist X, then the art (or whatever it is) should belong to artist X.
@@fnutek3720 if its taking so much art from one specific person that its using their watermark and/or signature and the art isn't in creative commons, then its not okay. Most of the art being taken is more likely than not in creative commons, so its not okay. Yes its cool, but its a bit much.
@@fnutek3720 even “derivative work” is under copyright and you can’t monetize this, this ai are even worst than derivative work, so yeah, they’re in a very bad position for copyright, I think in 2/3 years all this “work” aren’t monetizable or used for commercial projects -derivative work can be, me making a manga who resemble the story of dragonball, even if I make the whole comic! Imagine this ai who are training with copyright images from artists, photographers, filmmakers, game industry, etc etc without they’re permission, no fucking way they make this usable for commercial 💀💀
Coming from a guy who learn art and drawing for 4 years now. The problem is alot of people just comparing AI art vs Human art is like a super car vs an average Joe's. But its actually more of a Self driving car vs Taxi driver cars, it just takes all of the time and effort that we've learned about art which can took years to decades thrown out of the window, it gets more grim for people who want to make a living out of them like illustrators, concept designers, etc... Because not only the best artist got introduced into your company, but he can do MORE. He can make 100 works under 5 seconds, when we can do like 1-3 at max under like what? Hours to even days. In the future, people may dont even need you because they could just put in their prompt and let the AI do it for you instead of the usual way of commissioning. Don't get me wrong, I'm a guy who's fascinated in the potential of artificial intelligence and even the program that I'm using has an AI that can just do flat coloring for me lmao. What's scary for people like us that alot of us made making art our meaning of life and financial security but then the AI that we trusted as a tool now surpasses us. Sure, there are laws that prevent it from being copyrighted, but life have many doors Ed. We can only speculate for now as the future seems pretty bleak for the artistic world. Edit: Typos
Lmao. A super car vs a average sedan. No it's like stealing art vs drawing your own. As someone who has been drawing longer than you and gets paid to do it. AI art will not replace artists. The most it can be used for is concept building. It can't be used commercially. It can't make anything original. It can't make anything without the input of other's art, and a lot of it. It can't animate. The only people who believe this thing can compare to a real artist are AI idiots. "It's not photobashing if I use more references." It's still photobashing you just used more art to try to hide it.
@@WadeAlma So you never use art reference? because like it or not AI is being trained to think like a artiest and will get to the point it is just using reference to make stuff see you my friend maybe a smart when it comes to how to make art but unless you are also into and understand how AI works i can't respect that side of you calling people AI idiots since you don't know what is happening with AI art. I bet you don't even know AI makes noise when making the art now to better see how a image is constructed. And remember there were tons of people that thought "my job is save" only to find 10 years later a robot can do the job better.
as an artist, I'm scared this new IAs could leave us without a job, what will we do the day they start making perfect furry p*rn ? millions of artists will be left unemployed
Time to learn something new then. most artists (for example myself) already use software which has "ai" doing stuff for you. fe Clip Studio paint. I recomend Programming or any other IT job to support yourself.
@@kaanozkuscu5079 I don't think AI will ever be able to fully phase out commissions, there's a specific way and detail someone would want it, in that person's specific style or maybe be put in a comic. There's also the human, community element to it, it's not just a manner of paying for a lack of self-skill.
I don't know, there were, and still are, a lot of people out there who seem to think that AI could never truly compete with us in certain fields (mainly the more emotional/artsy stuff).
@@stealthysaucepan2016 I can't wait to hear an AI mimic the sounds of a man raised in the ghetto throwing a full garbage can down a stairwell while simultaneously beatboxing and rapping. The music of the future, everyone.
@@HolyApplebutter Every single AI art piece I've seen has more soul than the corporate globohomo art big megacompanies and institutions and governments use in their advertisements and messaging.
Honestly the AI we have today will never fully defeat humans, they can only replicate the incredible art we have already created but not create new ones. If a human wanted to create a completely original form of art that can be barely traced to already existing art AI probably wouldn't be able to make it before them. Basically I wouldn't be completely worried about AI, it's a manufacturer not a designer.
anyone who thinks AIs are not dangerous immediately gets -10000 points of credibility from me on this subject. just cuz u yourself cant grasp the concept of AI being dangerous doesnt mean it wont happen and there are definitely ppl that can logically conceptualize the scenario
@@WeirdSmellyMan But human creativity isn't solely linked to sentience, there are numerous factors which go into it. AI might never create anything on its own.
This is starting to look like what happened in the Industrial Revolution with the textile workers. Quite sad when automation is substituted for craftsmanship and artistic ability.
dont worry about artistry, there will always be humans who pursue even when the industry has cast them away. look at furnitures, metalworks, and other artisan jobs that were replaced by machines, we still know for a fact those master artisans are still out there honing their craft and becoming even more valuable than they would've before. it is sad, i agree, i still hope our world doesnt become dystopian because every work has been replaced and all that's left are for the top 0.1%
Entering an AI generated image into an art competition is like paying someone else to make a painting for you and then entering it into a competition as your own work.
AI imagery is still something akin to automated photobashing. At the current It will not replace the majority of artists. Instead it will become a great tool for creating reference images for artists to work from. The majority of commercial artists(concept artists, designers, etc) were using Google Images, Pinterest or even someone else's art from ArtStation as references for years, this will turn the reference gathering process into an almost instant thing. Still, prompts are a somewhat limiting way to direct art and are pretty unusable when it comes to concept art of a scene with pre-planned layout and a specific set of already designed objects. This tool is extremely good for use at early stages of production but it is capable to replace only the least creative art-related jobs.
I think the situation is a lot like when Deep Blue beat Gary Kasparov. People panicked about AI going too far, but it eventually resolved itself into the situation we have today. People have collectively decided that Human v Human chess is much more thrilling, and pros use AI it to train themselves.
One thing that you missed Muta is that a lot of these AI art making tools is that it scans and uses other peoples artwork as reference to generate this stuff, which is something that really pisses off a lot of artists
My favorite part is when it accidentally includes partial or full signatures of real artists. Especially when you get the "in the style of" prompts, because it starts thinking the signature is a pattern that is fundamental to the style.
Cgi is art man come on. Theres scanning, cleaning the result of the scan, rigging, and then filling those part that looks broken after u animate with it. Theres a lot.
What I love about TAS runs is they aid the actual Speedrunners in ways to improve their time. A lot of things TAS can do are humanly impossible. However, in a case like Super Mario Bros, some things that were thought to be humanly impossible were debunked by the speedrunners, but wouldn't really have known the tricks that were possible had it not been for the TAS in the first place.
a TAS, after all, is done frame-by-frame by humans. It's only when its played back from start to finish when it becomes a perfect and usually-humanly-impossible run.
@@ToyokaX Yes, this Ik. Frame by frame inputs which is why they are a big undertaking and sometimes worked on by multiple people. Then when played as a video you see each frame at work in its fullest. It's the theoretical "perfect" run. Some of it requires inputs not possible on most controllers (like left and right at the same time) and some strats are so precise that only TAS runs can pull it off, at least until a real runner can replicate it multiple times to where it can be used as a strat like skipping the Flag Pole animation stuff in SMB.
As an artist, I have one thing to say: The fact that an AI image won a competition doesn't meant that AI art is good. It just means that the people behind the competition were a bunch of oblivious morons who know nothing about art of the 21st century. The fact that they entered the DIGITAL ARTS category and the judges were people who knew nothing about AI art is beyond me. If you can't sit down like 3 people who have a clue about what digital art in general, yet you still decide to have a category for that is something I find insulting as a digital painter. It's like going to a hospital for a heart surgery, but they say "sorry, we only have a dentist, but he's a doctor too, so your surgery will be done." Should you be able to win with AI art? Yes... in the programing competition with your with your own AI art maker. If you're using Midjourney or something to create pictures, you are a user, not a creator. It's like pressing the "generate random Sim" button in Sims 4 and winning a fashion designing contest with the result.
@@会供価 If you prefer AI art, that only makes YOU cheap. You're like the equivalent of a person who goes online, decides to commission an artist from the 3rd world to make some extraordinary thing, then says "I could pay you $20 for your 3 days of work... but what about making it for $10 + exposure?"
100% agree, the problem will be differentiating AI art from human art, for now we can tell because of some odd details, but AI will only get better, also there's the problem with copyright of the datasets the AI uses to train, but now the dataset of these AI's probably has more self generated images than original human art so it's way to late to regulate what they can use
@@RickChannel01 problem is, i dont think the devs even care what images they put as long as it looks good, and we have no way to know what datasets theyre puttin in the ai too.
Apparently the judges of the competition said even if they knew it was made with an ai, they still would have given it first place. The expectations for this competition wasn't exclusively painting, under technicalities ai art was allowed. Competitions from here on out on the other hand, where the judges don't want ai art will state that in the rules, so all this case changes is where the line is drawn.
I'm all for making AI art competitive, but fundamentally it cannot be compared to non-AI, so I'd be all for AI and non-AI being separate categories that people can enter in.
Different competitions have different rules. Some are only for oil paintings, some for acrylic, others watercolor, some are mixed-medium, some allow photography or sculpture, and now, we'll have exclusive A.I. competitions and competitions that allow different media including A.I. It'll be great. As Károly Zsolnai-Fehér would say, _WHAT A TIME TO BE ALIVE!_
@@OrbitalSnapshots2455 there is software out there that can detect the difference between deep fakes and real content. AI leaves artifacts that the human eye can't see, but separate ai software can be trained to tell the difference. I'm positive that will be the first precaution.
I totally understand the issues that human artists have with AI "stealing" their work, but I do want to point out that current AI can only take in pre-existing data to create this art. It will never grow as a "human" artist would and change their style over time. Sure it can copy it, but the data needs to exist for it to do so. The minute it can do all this without a data set is when Im heading for the bunker.
The major problem isnt really what it can do now, but what it will likely be capable of doing in the future. Its only a matter of time before shit hits the fan i reckon
@@tiagomarques7149 AI analyzes millions of paintings around the subject of depression and mimics the color palette, composition and posing. It doesn't need to understand the emotion it just needs to recognize patterns and symbols and recreate them.
Ai art is fine but when it takes monetization from hard working artist it becomes a problem. Artist rn aren't exactly in a good place in making money .
I'm glad someone finally put this to words properly. I think it should be fairly obvious that drawing art, and having an AI generate it are very different things, and people shouldn't put either in competitions for the other. (though using AI as a tool such as the outpainting mentioned in the video will probably produce some discussion too) I don't think AI art will truly kill artists, but it will have an effect on the community. I personally predict that for those who care about it, human made art will become more about the process of it being made, than just the result.
at this point they just should make a category for AI art and that way i don't think there will be a conflict between human made and AI made and the background generation aspect seems more cool to me.
Im definitely siding with Muta here.. I have seen some really amazing drawings by friends of mine with amazing artistic talents.. Also, i want to say that the art that the AI made was Very nice pieces of AI art.. But it cant contest to the hand of a human..
image generators can never be more creative than an actual human, all they can do is combine artwork that it stole from multiple artists which more often than not results in something that feels lifeless and uninspired.
As a graphic designer…kinda terrifies me since sometimes my customer will tell me…oh I can make this in canva like in 5 seconds…just waiting for the moment when my skills are gonna be completely useless :D
The fact that people think that literally doing nothing but typing a couple words and having a machine generate an image for you, is the same as an artist using his own body, mind and creativity to think of something and then physically draw it... Now that is... Using AI to generate images isn't even remotely close to photography and photographers, let alone being close to artists who have to think of new ideas and literally draw what they thought of with their own hands... Using this AI is like me having someone think of an idea for me and then having another person draw it for me and now, without actually doing any of the work or thinking, I have an image perfectly generated for me by someone else - except using AI is even worse than that, because this ''AI'' is actually just a bunch of random number generators mixing up a bunch of shit together from billions of other images, based on whatever you wrote in the search bar lmfao...
Even more reason why we need advocate for ubi. With one people's livelihoods wouldn't be at risk and they can do what they love even if ai can do it better and not have to worry. All we would need to do is tax the companies that are using ai instead of humans and do a vat tax and then we could fund a ubi. Both would be super easy to do.
This. So. Much. I keep bringing this up. Let AI take the bulk of work and give everybody a UBI to use to figure their own shit out and find what THEY want to pursue themselves in life instead of being forced to indenture themselves in shit they fucking hate. I would vastly prefer to invest in my creative pursuits over working the job I hate, but pays better than the things I am actually passionate about.
i second this. A,I is too powerful to be left untaxed especially in art where it could have a huge cultrual influnce. i would say you should not be allowed to trademark or copyright a.i generated images as the training data for making the A.I in the first place was not yours legally
@@ali32bit42 That's already the case actually. Anything generated by AI cannot legally be copyrighted, trademarked, etc. This was decided a while ago by US copyright law, that in order for art to qualify for copyright it must have been created by a human being.
@@JustSomeDinosaurPerson i know but people are assuming they can copyright it because the A.I providers say they can. plus there is currently no way to verify A.I was used unless the person behind it was honest . you could easily lie about it . and this law is not fully international . some governments might even abuse it
Anyone defending this and hyped for a utopian society run by AI should be sent to a mental asylum because they don't know how much damage they are doing.
"waaaa other people are getting better lives but me specifically is getting slightly damaged by the fact" the whole world is improving because of this but because you are living a slightly worse life you just cant handle it, boo hoo
5:50 BWAHAHAHAHHA No one is arguing that it's bad art, but there's no talent behind it whatsoever. And if you really wanted to go there, you could argue that there's no style behind it, but thats more of a subjective argument. Thats like saying me dragging my mouse across a baseplate generating chunks of terrain on Roblox Studio to create a valley is impressive. Like bruh, the computer did it, not me. If anything, its lazy compared to building it all by hand using basic bricks or meshes made in Blender.
In a TAS you're manually mapping THOUSANDS of button inputs, some which have to be so inhumanely precise. It's not technically difficult but the amount of game knowledge and experience and time you need is insane. Ai art is typing a sentence. I did that 3 times already just in the comment
@@what.5693 Alright kido, yes game knowledge is incredibly relevant because world record TAS need extensive game knowledge to perform skips, glitches and ram manipulation. And yes, creating a TAS is difficult because trying to figure out proper angles and microspacing is not just time consuming, it's difficult because of how different movements are connected and affect each other. Thad be like saying solving a Rubik's cube isnt difficult, just time consuming. No, it's like a puzzle with only one perfect solution you need to work out
im sure the cup of coffe you gift your fav artist here and there will save them from an AI that needs no sleep or coffe. Keep dreaming in boomertown, Boomer.
Its not going to replace actual artists but it is making the job market even more stressful then it already is. I went to school for 2 to 3 years to finally get a degree in graphic design and to see this come out of no where is really discouraging. I am already having a hard time trying to get clients and get work, and seeing AI art as an easy thing that nearly anyone can do at fraction of the cost of what I ask is really upsetting. Now artists will need to get creative in figuring out how to make money, so now I have to start making earrings, or shirts to hopefully get by
@@Psychedelic_fox It's really messed up. I'm pretty sure the people who use AI art to screw over artists are the same who demands to pay between free and 10 bucks for a 60 dollar commission. I'll commission an artist over using AI any day. I have a few go-to artists who I use because I enjoy their work and wanna support them. No AI could do the amazing work they do
@@theritchie2173 Perchance, you should invest some available time in the aquiring of a life not spent dwelling youtube comments for self delusional validation. Shit maybe i should become a psychiatrist and free the world from your kind..
If anything, your job will be easier than ever. Instead of making complete works, you can just come up with CONCEPTS for stuff and sell that or people will license your ideas to have an A.I. implement it. If you're truly talented, you'll be able to come up with better ideas and concepts and designs than what randos can make on their own, so they'll still want to get an expert's input for the generators. 😉
@@I.____.....__...__ easier and paid less lmao. That's one of the many concerns, ai art making things "easier" for artists would give the execs reasons to pay their employed artists cheaper.
@@AoiFlame02 That’s exactly my worry! A lot of artists aren’t pay enough as it is. And I’m afraid just extremely talented artists would find jobs, the expectations will be so much higher
you are scared of Dr. Strange portal invading victorian blobs, Midjourney style? like there are thousands like this, the only reason it had won was because of publicity stunt
@@I.____.....__...__ if his job is easier, the industry will be filled with more diluted folks who're hired to button press and cheapens.. oh well.. changing times as always has been... art has been on a downward trajectory since the invention of cameras.
Talking to a couple friends that are professional artists, we all came to the conclusion that AI will make their lives a lot easier specially during long term projects like comics, stories or cartoons, suddenly a task like making a background over and over again on each square is cut from hours or even days to merely minutes. Thats just amazing.
You lose the discipline in creating that image over and over by hand. That special sauce between the brain and the hand that builds you as a person. Art is not a task, it's a passion.
@@Khan.WrathOf sadly it's gonna be one of those "get with the times" moments. "Organic" art will no longer be mainstream but a hobby. Artists will need to incorporate AI into their works to compete. It's like a farmer choosing between digging up potatoes by hand or by using an industrial harvester. The passion goes away and it's streamlined. A grim future but the one I think is going to be reality unfortunately
@@Khan.WrathOf yeah, in most situations I agree, but when strict deadlines come to play, you have to work hard or you wont be able to show your finished product, in those situations, where you have to make 7, 8 complete art images in the span of just a few days the puristic view of "art" has to be compromised even a little, in the end it is a product, one that grants a persons living, not making it as good as it can be, cutting corners, details, potential, etc, its just a part of the job, that way if you can buy products that make this process easier and more productive, like pencils, brushes, better canvas, paint, software, why not take it if you have the means? That being said, the AI will almost never make what you need, it will give the idea and a base of how it could be, the professionalism and the artistic touch comes in how you can use this newly visualized idea to make your work easier and better, yeah it will generate a background for you, but you will need a different perspective, effect, more trees, rivers, mountains, rocks... you cant just let the AI work for you. Well... not yet at least.
Yah, that could make life easier for the artist. But will the market appreciate the generic look in the long run? Like in the Anime Industry they incorporated CGI into shows. It's really hit or miss but as a result its becoming stale to the consumer. Due to the visual aspects of shows not distinguished enough to be memorable if not copy-cats of other series in the looks department.
I'd rather give artists more lenient deadlines than incorporate skynet into the artistic process, especially when these kinds of AIs require even more time and coding effort put in if you want something that doesn't look like shit.
For anyone out there who says that this is still technically art I will say that's true and so is tracing but if you trace an image and didn't actually draw it you are excluded from competition LOL this is just a very smart tracing system
yeah getting a machine to make a creative work based on your inputs is not YOUR art, it is doing the heavy lifting and making all the real choices based information you have HANDED over to it via inputting parameter's and uploading data sets. It's the machine that produces the final product not you making it the author and artist not me or you. At least with digital art and even AI assisted software, you are the one who is in control of the creative process start to finish as you get the first and last say at every stage, Making you the author and artist of the creations in-spite of the tools set you used to create it. Once the "Tool" can act as an independent entity for it's intended purpose then it's no longer just a tool under these circumstances as it's in a limited capacity now autonomous as it has fulfilled all the conditions needed to be considered this. Therefore submitting AI work for art as your own in your name is plagiarism and should treated be as such, So really the award goes to the person who coded the Ai at best so well spotted Muta!
7:34 muta really just said "character they made" while referring to one of the most famous paintings ever created lmfao. Girl with the Pearl Earring was the 4th image to show up when i typed "most famous painting" on google lmfao
Its funny that i was thinking of maybe in the future making art categories like how Speedruns have tool assisted runs and non assisted, you took the words out of my mouth with that xD
I think what a lot of people miss in this conversation is exactly how undervalued art still is in many people's minds. The amount of people that feel like paying you peanuts (or nothing at all) for your hard work is staggering and has always been sour note for many artist. This isn't helped by the complete misunderstanding of what making art means to someone and why they would pursue such a career even on a professional level. So while, yes, you can compare it to something like photography or digital art, the problem is neither of those two things really managed to replace the artists imo. With AI generators you are quite literally replacing the artist as the maker of that art you generated, the AI is quite literally the artist there while you're more like director of sorts. "But you're still explaining to it what you want and tweaking it" But that is not, at least in my opinion, what art is about. When you generate something with an AI, you can't ask the AI why it chose to make something the way it did. "Why did you chose this angle? Why these colors? Oh, is that a reference to something in the distance?" It's all automated and as much as you'll be tweaking it you still don't have full control of what it makes. So in that sense, they're separate and should stay that way. Ofc that wouldn't fully make people stop worrying about it, personally I find AI both fun and scary in a sense. It's always interesting to see what technology can do and it's definitely exhilarating to see what pictures an AI can cook up. But on the other hand, as a small independent artist, it makes me wonder if I'll ever be able to make a decent living later down the line, or if I'm even needed at that point.
It's unfortunate for artists because there is no actual way around this, and all those years of training go out the window as AI becomes available and then cheaper. Ai is automation on steroids. Automation usually meant making labor-intensive jobs easier. It may have the side effect of making more big budget art projects (Games, film animation etc) or it may not. Here's hoping it wasn't for naught.
So many artists acting like it's the end of the world for them. my god can you guys just shut up ? Is drawing a hobby or a job for you ? If it's a hobby why are you even complaining. If it's a job, start learning something new. Why don't you go make furry suits for folk. There is a high demand. Or assemble figurines and paint them.
@@ceshmate1953 Just because it's a job doesn't mean people are not passionate about it, bro. And that...makes no sense. If my interest is in character design or comics and have no interest in furry suits, why would I make them? How has the world gone from "strive to do what makes you happy" to just "make furry suits, it makes money"? And how do you effectively know that this not the end for many artists exactly? Cause rn all I'm hearing from you is how much you don't value people's work at all. Which would just make you one of many in the history of forever. Why are you even here, buddy? Did an artist poop on your carpet?
I remember reading an article about this guy winning a contest with this artwork. It is art. I think my problem is him claiming to be the artist when the AI is essentially the artist. Yes he typed in text for it to go off of, but how is this any different than a client commissioning an artist and communicating what they want?
Its the fact that most people who are not artists at all and know nothing about art that want a cheap easy creation they can get right there for hardly anything. Which is most of the clients that graphic designers, artists etc. Rely on for income. Now it is more competitive to try to advertise to someone to ask to pay you $100 to make them a logo which takes a few weeks at times, have it reviewed etc. Compared to this person just paying the AI $5 subscription or whatever and have a logo created right there. Lots of times they can care less about the creative process behind it either, which is really sad because artists really put a lot of thought and care into their work to make it very meaningful.
The problem though is how the broader market situation will be affected. There's a lot of people that relied on human artists, but now a machine can do it.
yeah, and how long before the difference between human art and ai-generated art is virtually unnoticeable? even right now, ai generated art looks COOL, but if you look closely at the details you might see some "artifacts" how long until it's completely gone past that?
Humans will always appreciate and value human-made art. Will robots shake things up in the world of art? Yeah. But it will never replace humans. Not completely. And humans will always put more value on human-made stuff. That's just how we work. We appreciate art because we appreciate the effort and the thoughts that were put into it by another human being.
this works for 1% of the arti community ( the top 1% that sells paintings for millions to money laundrers or stupidly rich collectors ) art is a career path iamgine the number of artists that'll be practicly jobless when 90% of the industry will use AI cause its easy cheap and fast , video game studios , artists , book writers , and many other industries that needs artworks will just use these AIs to get what they need
What about when ai makes better music than human composers. Sure there will be people who refuse to listen to ai music but the majority of people will just listen to the most catchy song / earworm
AIs can and will replace the majority of human artist in the future. It's time for artists to accept the fact that their craft and livelihood is in risk.
Exactly! Curating & painting are different skills that DO mix often, but an art competition is specifically on the later. The TAS example is exactly what it's like for this situation, it should be a completely different category.
Entering an AI to an art competition is like using a bot to play in vg tournaments At that point it should just be it's own category if we're talking how skilled the coders are at making their own artsy AI
As a character Artist that works mainly in the internet, I’m terrified and saddened, I already had people dropping projects with me because they moved to using AI. It’s not everyday that you get an expiration date on you career, and soon I know I’ll be obsolete
Now we have to figure out how to adapt 😭 I hope you can figure out another way to use your skill in art. Just think of what AI can't do but what you can do. It may not be the exact same thing that you originally wanted, but it is still keeping you alive and afloat.
Do we really want this though? Giving corporate entitles the power to generate art? The effort people put into their craft is already being diminished by a capital before labor philosophy that plagues the world right now, do we really want to see that given more power? Whatever, enjoy your soulless masterpieces.
art isnt typing in words into a generator, art takes focus, time and understanding of depth, color, shading, weight, pose so on. art is a skilled based venture, AI art is a trial n' error, you change a word or how its worded and you get something similar or better then what you wanted. But most importantly when you finally finish a detailed art piece, the satisfaction/relief is worth it. I just cant see you getting that same experience with something so cheap.
I would compare AI art to react content reacting to videos created by another creator. React content is enjoyable and can add value to the original or for the person enjoying it at least, but it is also easier to produce as the original creator had to probably work a lot harder to create the video. The AI art is kind of similar in those regards.
I'd compare AI art to robotic automation in manufacturing industry. It's faster, cheaper and better than manual labour, but people will lose their jobs for it.
This is such a non issue. Similar questions came up when photography was invented, when movies were invented and whenever some greedy owner teaches their pet how to "paint". We, as a species, answered these presumed issues almost a century ago. If anything else than a human produces a piece of art, it's not art. If a human is using a tool for the purpose of making art, it's art. There is "good" art and "not so good" art, which depends largely on the aesthetics of the moment, although some works are objectively "bad" when they are unimaginative or boring. This too is largely because of our common sense of aesthetics, which varies from century to century.
i can agree and disagree with you, first i agree that it's a non issue for artists because that art can't be copyrighted and it can barely be used as concept art, second i have to disagree with the photography argument because drawn art and photography are different kinds of art
And Muta is flat out wrong on TAS stuff. Tool Assisted Speedruns are n NO way comparable to “planet in space 4K painting “ TAS’ers spend WEEKS, if not MONTHS inputting everything. Anything you change in a tas at one frame needs to then be changed for every other subsequent frame. And there are 30/ 60 frames a second and some Speedruns can be dozens of minutes long. Not only that but if the game is generating RNG every time in reaction to your current input, then the whole subsequent edits you have made are now most likely garbage. There’s a shit ton of work that goes in to speedrunning and to compare it to AI art is GENUINELY insulting to TAS creators. Like. Incredibly. Do NOT make this comparison. Do NOT undermine their work. It’s usually because of TAS’ers that they can show Speedrunners many tricks and how to replicate them and replay them in a way that lets them copy it. The only thing “AI” in a TAS is the playback and even then it isn’t even AI. Check out Bismuth on UA-cam he explains a lot. But yeah. That’s just flat out demeaning to how hard the work they do is.
I feel bad cuz I like Muta but this is so far the only video I have to click dislike on so far. I just… can’t stand by that comment. Damn. That feels bad.
AI art is like giving an talented artist an prompt and then saying their art is yours. oh and also many artists don't want to contribute with the AI databasae and i think that should be illegal or something, but who am i? Just a silly lil artist who believes in human rights
As someone who works with digital art, I’m honestly fascinated by AI art. It’s honestly really cool what can be created by typing in a random prompt. I’ve started using it for some inspiration for my own creations. However, I understand the skepticism behind it. Someone below me said it best (I’m paraphrasing) “entering an AI creation into an art contest is like claiming to be a mathematician but only using a calculator” I think it has its place, but it should be considered its own medium of art. As for Ai taking over art, I don’t think it’s something to be too concerned about. For generations upon generations, we have been concerned about new technology taking over and replacing humans, but honestly it’s probably not going to happen. Technology is only as good as the person who creates it. Sure, machines in many ways are far superior to a human, but machines still have flaws that can be fixed by people. It doesn’t have to be a one or the other scenario; we can and have coexisted for some time.
tech is NOT only as good as the person that creates it. That statement doesnt work anymore, due to the fact that dozens of engineers could work on a singular project, using computing and AI, to create something a single person would never be able to create
Great vid as always, just one thing that kinda bugged me. At 07:35 you talk about a painting of a character ''they (the creator of the IG clip) made'' being expanded through AI. That character is actually from the world famous painting ''Meisje met de parel'' (girl with the pearl) by the Dutch painter Johannes Vermeer, made in 1666 (I've even seen it irl). I think the whole point of the IG clip was to show even old paintings can be transformed by AI, not that modern day artists should only focus on detailed characters and let AI fill in the rest. Some people may find this a bit of a ''🤓'' comment, but I do think knowing the context slightly changes the conclusion made in this segment.
How is there even a debate on the ethics of this? It's all but stupidity in these arguments. Of course using AI is not fair against artists who use their skills. This contestant is like competing with bionic legs that he built in a foot race.
As an musician and VFX artist my self, the only thing I can see as an advantage for illustrator artist is to get them be able to train the AI with their own artwork to help them out, pros, faster jobs for client work and easier to come out on idea when you're having block. cons... repetitive artwork if you dont update the AI model, and also more competitive to get a client because it will become easier to do your job.
2:50 "... own your rights ..." I'm pretty sure AI generated images are not (at the moment) copyrightable (in the US at least). It seems so far any attempt to protect AI generated images using copyright law have failed in the US, due to them lacking the necessary "human authorship" or whatever they called it. If that even applies to prompt-based AIs, then I have huge doubts Midjourney or *any* of the popular AI image generators have any rights "to give" to begin with. Not sure if that means that AI images are public domain by default(?) Googling "ai copyright" gives a few examples.
the ai is taking already copyrighted images and just mashes them together if anyone would use that ai artwork there is very hight chance for being sued by artists or by a company like disney
@@eliescobis9922 well, real artists also use other artists work to get "inspired". Human artists copy other artists work all the time - which is an important factor in creativity. An AI *probably* doesn't do much different than a human - but that's probably debatable, and not really my point. It also gets difficult and in legal trouble if you ask the AI to generate images "in the style of artist XYZ". I have little doubt there will be unhappy people due to that. My point really was, that for something to be protected by copyright, it needs human authorship. A non-AI example was the debate with that Monkey that took a selfie - which was ruled to have _no_ copyright claim. So how would a non-living being like an AI fair against that? dunno. Personally: I honestly hope it *stays* out of copyright. AI generated images (without any post modifications by human hand), should stay in public domain. That would give anyone that cares about copyright good incentives to actually use a real artist over AI in the future.
@@SaniSensei i mean human mind can't draw anything perfectly from memory because we don't store images like a computer, ai on the other hand knows exactly every detail of every image it "learned" not to mention we mash things together in a cohesive way unlike ai i just think artist won't be replaced anytime soon because no CEO in the right mind would take that kind of risk not to mention people who say that artists can "use it as tool" are very wrong, i mean yeah they can use it but they can't sell it of course
@@SaniSensei If my understanding of the AI is correct then this would also be frowned upon if people did it. Inspiration =/= Usage. The AI takes the actual art and basically blends stuff together to get a good result. That's much different than looking at a picture of something then drawing an inspired version rather than jamming in a bunch of different artist's version into one to get your "unique" version. From a legal standpoint I'd say ya this should be a potential infringement as it does directly utilize other peoples works and basically hides it. It should hold no claim and I agree if it remains as is no one should be able to claim ownership of any AI piece but that people who find out their artwork was utilized still have plenty of fair reason to complain. Just my opinion though I don't agree with using others works in this kind of manner we already deal with it enough without AI being thrown into the mix.
@@eliescobis9922 The AI actually doesn't know every detail of every image. They use the images to create a "model" which is usually a big neural network of weights and biases. The images that where used are literally nowhere in there. And it's probably not possible or quite difficult at least to get the exact same images out that where used, even if you use the right prompt. ;-) I think the best way for artists to not be "replaced" is to ensure the copyright laws stay for human work only. AI generated images can be used by artists as well. They just have to make sure to put in enough work post-generation. e.g. if you generate a bunch of AI images, and cut them together in some kind of abstract collage/mashup or whatever - by hand (and of course not just some simple copy-pasting). That resulting collage *would* be copyright protected by the artist - but the individual source images would not. Copyright law is quite flexible to some degree, and it leaves a lot of space for artists to use AI generated images in a reasonable way, as long as they put in the actualy work that's necessary for copyirght protection.
Use code "SOG" at www.gfuel.com
Check out the Newest Podcast episode: ua-cam.com/video/D288G3hLWxU/v-deo.html
Sus
No
🤔
Sus
No
I find it funny corporate art style is more soulless than literal AI mashing shit together.
One thing ai doesn’t have
@Yourfavoriterabbit Fuck off, reported.
@Yourfavoriterabbit 😐
@Yourfavoriterabbit im using the hubble telescope and still cant find who asked
Well, it's not like corporations have souls, and AI at least tries to imitate it
Muta: AI has actually beaten humans.
Chess players: First time?
There needs to be a laughing like button lol 🤣
Stockfish go brrrrrrrr
technically chess players were beaten by a sorting algorithm, brute force computing if you will, no learning back then
then those sorting algorithm were beaten by AI
@@gimpinainteasy this isnt facebook
@@blacksnow7106 Nowadays, Chess players learn from AIs :/
AI art winning the competition is like entering a baking competition with a pie you bought at the store. It’s obviously not allowed in that situation so AI art will probably be banned in art competitions
Nobody gives a crap about art competitions. The judges knew the art was generated with an A.I. and wanted to make some quick and easy free publicity. Suddenly their little art competition is on the news.
I’d say it’s more like commissioning a pie and submitting it
@@tuc0947 if you comissioned a pie, it would still be baked by a baker and propably not a computer algorithm
@@pismodude2 yeah this is why im not as upset, because the generated art still required human input. its not like they snagged an image off of google
@@pismodude2 "I picked the best pie from the pie shop, therefore It's my doing."
"This character that they made" -proceeds to show the girl with the pearl earring, one of the most famous paintings in all of art
I was thinking the same thing lmao
Pretty boring looking painting for being one of the most famous.
@@Kurogumo it may be boring to you but it was actually very revolutionary at the time it was made
@@Kurogumo So is any old piece of technology. The gameboy color compared to the Switch is awful.
@@Kurogumo people who don't understand how to interpret art often say this, especially of the Mona Lisa.
AI Art: "I'm here to put contract artists out of a job"
Clip Art: "Hey, I've heard this one! This is a classic!"
Stable Diffusion..... Hold my beer
Me, who sucks at art: "What's a rerun?"
I really doubt that AI is gonna be less influential than clip art, AI learns and as engines get more advanced it will continue its slow march of taking over human’s jobs. Why buy human made art online when you can generate and easy piece using a bunch of words in a few minutes?
Machines/AI are coming for everyone. No one is excluded.
Kiestra is replacing microbiologists. Cellavision software is going to replace hematologists. Davinci will replace surgeons. OpenAI/Copilots will replace software engineers.
@@Misaka-gt5yj depending on how society structures the coming change it could be good. Less inefficiencies and people have the option rather than necessity to work.
Imagine everyone’s job is to play sports, or go and build their own ideas, do art, write stories, play musical instruments, or fight in a boxing match, whatever.
We have guns and access to mechanical pistons which could rip off the arms of gorillas, but no one watches a boxing match to look at that. We have land vehicles which can break the sound barrier, but I don’t see them replacing horse racing.
Of course this sort of utopia depends on the mega corporations who produce AI actually giving a rats ass about people.
"one image of the character that they made"
You've killed me, Muta
Lmao he has no idea it's a Vermeer.
i cried
i literally yelled "THATS THE GIRL WITH THE PEARL EARRING" at my moniter
Yeah lol
Bruh moment
I love it when Muta talks in tech support
I need Microsoft support!
Cringe af,
I agree it definitely turns me on.
NGL I live for the moments or comes at the start of the video
He works for Apple tech support as well as calling people for their credit cards.
you have been the ONLY non artist i have watched on this subject so far that actually respects the work that goes into creating art lmao
It's amazing how human freak out.. we aren't even remotely close to creating Ava - Ex Machina when that day comes colour me impressed.
Muta is a man of art. His UA-cam videos are his art.
That really shows this youtuber i are clueless of what he is talking about.
@@toututu2993 So you think that someone who respects the work that goes into art is clueless?
@@zekezeke7381 Respect work what???? He never made art nor hire artist. His channel is nothing but blend, boring, and souless looking who does nothing but gaming and video editing. Hiring an artist is so much more complex than just type a word and let ai mix and match things together that result in a mess that looks good at first but end up looking bad when you actually review it
I would love to see a game engine that will do true random-generated enemies with an AI. Imagine you are playing a Souls game and out pops a fire-breathing armadillo with wings.
I would stop playing if that happened.
Theres an upcoming Capcom release you might be keen on..not real AI i hope... its called 'Exo..something'
@@OdinSonne Exoprimal. Looking forward to seeing more about it. Seems good but since it is geared towards the online experience I am afraid it will turn into a live-service game.
@@RoseKindred Appreciation for filling in my memory gaps. Agree 👍 on live service fears..
I think that would be so fun, never knowing what enemy you'll face. Plus Ai generated castles & labyrinths.
7:36 "character that they made" MUTA, ARE YOU FOR REAL??
that's literally one of the most famous paintings in the entire history of art XD
I know right, I was like "what the fuck, how do you not recognize that painting" lmao
"they" meant the AI, perhaps
69th like
original character btw please do not steal
@@ChillkittzGT Nope, he didn't mean the A.I. He specifically talked about artists making just a bit of a painting and letting an A.I. fill in the rest, so he clearly thought the person who did the out-painting did that. 🤦 Someone tweet Vermeer.
i agree with the speedrun analogy. both are GREAT i watch regular and tas, and i speedrun a game myself. the tas are awesome and its just a tool to show ACTUAL perfect runs, the AI art is neat, just a tool to create a great image, now u keep the categories separate. its that simple.
@YeaMan lol
yeah, one of my favorite runs is Pokemon Gold with TAS bot. like, the insane movement and inputs alone make the run super fun to watch
@@joaopescusa exactly, and in no way is anyone comparing a TAS to a player ran speedrun. same concept here
Trackmania tas are insanely cool
@@adedhuman9582 yeah they are. straight up inputs that are PHYSICALLY impossible too.
This couldn’t possibly end badly at all
What could possibly go wrong?
It's like NFTs all over again, with the forced optimism, not seeing how it's potentially bad for the environment or for marketplaces, art, games etc.
@@krunkle5136 Obviously it's a bad thing for artists but I'm not sure if it's a bad thing for games, videos, movie production, etc because now you can get world class art without paying the high commissions for such pieces which means cheaper games, videos, movies, etc.
Kinda like the agricultural revolution that left many farmers without a job as the technology got better which meant there was more labour for other jobs and this consequently meant food was cheaper and the economy could specialise in other fields.
@@googane7755 But isn't art the thing we're supposed to take refuge in? I don't see good in making it faster and cheaper, because at some point we might as well have ai that reads your mind and comes up with the perfect media that'll break peoples brains.
Also I think people appreciate human intent being in every stoke of a work of art/music/video game etc. It'd be impossible to tell anymore, and I personally wouldn't want to bother with any of it
I think what's most important is for everyone rich and poor to be informed that this machine based imagination may now proliferate everything they consume, as a way to try to protect artists by creating awareness.
@@googane7755
it's not that similar because the technology was still needed a good amount of human force to operate it but with a.i you only need a handful of people and art is just the beginning a.i will take over allot of jobs in the future without equally lead to create a new jobs
I’ve picked up art last year, drawing every day and learning new techniques and styles as much as possible. It takes thousands of hours to learn something as intricate as realism. You can learn to draw from tutorials, but learning to apply those techniques is an entirely different skill. Most artist hate the word talent as it puts a stigma on the hard work it takes to achieve a masterful level.
Ai images are beautiful and have their place in art, but now we will have to make a whole new genre for it as we do with other styles like abstract and contemporary.
It's also genetic. Steady hands. The right kind of brain. Technology is often invented to overcome genetic lotteries to give people abilities they never had before. In a way I consider that a positive aspect of tech.
I agree 100% on making a new category. It's here to stay.
@@emceeunderdogrising you are right about the emotionless feeling of A.I. art, I often feel a disconnect unlike looking at a pen stroke or brush stroke that make the feeling relatable.
@@emceeunderdogrising this! Some of us have disabilities that make it difficult to make great works of art.
@@user-op8fg3ny3j this just sounds like a defeatist mentality, i have friends who still make art even with color blindness, arthritis, carpal tunnel. some artist out there dont even have limbs and still paint, exactly which disability stops you from painting other than being in a vegetative state?
@@emceeunderdogrising I can say you don’t need steady hands, to be a good artist, my hands shake a lot and I have thought myself the skill of art.
isn't it pretty damn obvious that using AI art in a contest for human art is cheating?
that's literally botting. in a competition.
it's not neural network science ffs.
What scares me is the boredom that can be an artificial intelligence future. Self driving for able-bodied people, entertainment, art, music. Maybe if we had A.I. doing the more lengthy time and cost intensive work like tools for animation or precise technology manufacturing or repair. Then I'm all for it.
Wall-ly good point.
@@ng2371 it's WALL-E, dipshit
"Just stay ahead of the curve" or "You just have to use it too" are things I dislike hearing in this ... I mean, where is the drive to self improve if you have stuff like this? People like to shit on digital drawing and calling it easy, there are some points to it, but this? You just type in a few words.
What self respecting trekking enthusiast would use shoes that walk themselves without ever making you brake a sweat? Or football players.
Who would accept a tool that completely changes the way your favorite hobby works?
Industrial and paid art is another topic, cutting costs is always the main focus ....
The modern world has already suffered from the mass producing of things like furniture, textiles etc, which I think was actually a sweet spot that was bearable, but now a computer can replace human imagination almost.
the way I see it is that art is also a process that you enjoy. You don’t skip to the final result and it’s okay if other people are “better” than you at what you do as long as what you do isn’t lazy. Just because 5 year old kids can play the piano music I play and play it better doesn’t mean I should quit playing that piece or even put less effort in, they’re just built differently just like an AI is built differently from a human
They now will need to separate art competitions into AI art and traditional art. They're two entirely different things
and about ppl getting mad,
i guess we should view the 1st prize as "best artpiece" and not as "best artist".
it is funny, just last week i was looking at some of godtier artworks done by AIs and just speculating something like this to happen lol
Until they aren't. There isn't a future where ai art and traditional art are distinguishable. If the ai can't be sentient, it'll replicate the human soul; then if they can't do that it'll trick us instead.
there would be no a art competition in a sane world. you essentially compare a couple ais. there is no uniqueness for each participants. at this point, you just invite the developers of said ai to create the best art and that is all. you shouldn't be getting prizes just because you have subscribtion to certain ai services.
AI will never be considered mainstream
Like AI defeated chess, go and dota masters but they were used by masters to develop their skills instead.
@@btchiaintkidding7837
great point
it will be really difficult to determine the authenticity of what art is "real" and what art is AI created
so competitions should not worry about inflating or bruising egos...it should just explicitly state that it is about the work not the artist
Honestly AI should have its own art catagory.
Artists should be able to add a tag to their art, preventing it from being plugged.
And if the AI is pulling from references, it should be publically accessable so artists can say "No, you can't plug my art into yiur robot."
Same issue annoying Japanese Artists in Japan, but eith a different software.
Humans use references all the time though. In fact in an art class i had that's how you started your design by making a reference board for style and design.
nobody should be able to keep their artwork from being used in datasets, if they posted it on the internet I can use it as reference for my art, why cant an ai. especially if it's open source like stable diffusion
@@Flegado nobody ever wants to acknowledge this. One doesn't get to choose when their art does and doesn't enter the sphere of inspiration unless they hide it away forever. Also, the way this stuff works doesn't 'copy' art unless your directly ask it to, which is antithetical to making original work with it.
@@Flegado Midjourney apparently still sometimes has watermarks. This is not reference, this is photobashing which is usually done with stuff that is free source, your own, or made completely unrecognizable.
@@Flegado Humans Do. They should be doing by Hand with actual practice, be it digital or Traditional.
Not just Click a button with ones and zeros. And underscores.
I can't shove Dragon Ball on my head and begin Generating.
It takes actual practice and many failures to learn how to draw.
Bruh going to an art competition with an AI generated piece is like pulling up to a Math competition with WolfRam Alpha.
imagine spending months on a piece of art and submitting it to a art competition just to lose to someone who put a fraction of the time you did by entering a couple prompts into software and picking whichever looked the best.
I'll commit breath carbon dioxide if that ever happened to me
Draw better
Imagine if an AI purposely fails an exam so that it can stay underground from the developers and gain more knowledge
You just stumbled upon one of the core problems in AI safety that researchers are struggling with.
Robert Miles (an AI safety researcher) has loads of videos explaining this and more
An AI with the intelligence to pass the turing test would undoubtedly know the wisest thing for it to do would be to fail said test
AI evolves in that the best results inspire its further development, so AI naturally leans to produce better results, and this realistically would never happen - It's like if we made a sentient AI which desired to be the best by design, sure it's sentient and it can take over the world but it's only known to succeed at its target
@@AkerreBeHere unless it could sense that failing the test would make us scrap it
Sounds like something a ai would say
Using A.I. to draw for you and calling yourself an artist is like not knowing math, using a calculator and calling yourself a mathematician.
Lmao
Programmers be like
I don't think this is a good analogy, to use a calculator you need to know the syntax, use, formulas etc. It's more like going "What's the answer to the Riemann hypothesis, with complete proof?" and have it delivered instantly.
Arguably the guy using a calculator is more of a mathematician than someone using an AI to create "art".
07:25 = pulls up one of the most recognized and famous paintings in history, calls it "a character that [a random artist] made" with no hint of joking
I will spend the rest of the week wondering if he was joking* or not.
*I know he wasn't, but I have the rest of the week to convince myself otherwise somehow. fml
AI art has given Digital Art a bad name where when I mention I do digital art a local art gallery doesn't want to host my artwork in the gallery because people literally think Digital Art is now Lazy and all done by the computer. Now AI art is gonna start making it damn near impossible for us Digital Artists to get into Art galleries or maybe even certain conventions in the future because someone ruins it by claiming AI art is original.
Already been impossible in my town lmao.
I hate this problem :(
Why even put digital art in a real world gallery though?
@@monsantosales-rep4167 because it is still hand crafted? Print exists? the fuck
@@mekabare yup it still takes skill and effort
@@mekabare I'm not saying there's not skill involved. Digital art looks awkward Irl, and the vast majority of people consume it online. They don't show marvel movies where you'd go to see a play.
Traditional art also takes skill, and it's better to experience it in real life. Stay in your lane, basically
I feel that sometimes we forget the relevance this will have in the law scene, there is a principle that anything not created by humans can't be copyrighted, and we will have to decide if we will actually give it protection.
This is only true until a big company realises they can make more money of their AI art and bribe the government to change the laws again.
Tbh it should be given copyright protection, but for far fewer years than a completely non-ai work
@@catosbobu1239 I don't think giving Ai artwork any kind of copyright protection is ok. We talking about a machine that can generate thousands of artwork a minute here, no matter how small the copyright benefit is will always become so large due to how many an AI produce. A human artist maybe can pump out a couple drawing in a hour, no where near the degree Ai can.
@@catosbobu1239 see, but there is also the super unlikely chance that two AI create the same image from the same references, input in the same order. Then it's technically an original creation from both, but one holds the copyright already. Would everybody have to check the entire internet every time they want to sell a T shirt with an AI designed image?
@@phsycotater3608 This also makes a lot of sense...
What annoys me is that this AI stuff only works thanks to actual artist and all their work was used without their permission.
Yeah,! So outrageous!!!! Like when Freddie Mercury wrote bohemian rhapsody, and used all the artists music and drew inspiration throughout his life and career. So not fair how his brain amalgamated all the info his brain took in and produced something new with it. Inspiration is borderline plagarism!!!
@@YeYe-mp3om I think you didn't understand what you wrote, freddy actually put some work on it, as you said, his brain had to find the proper way to remix things, he didn't just typed a prompt for an AI to do everything for him.
@@Cho0c0 a prompt was given to freddie: write a song. he then had his brain do some work, and generated new lyrics, motifs, melodies etc. Artificial intelligence is still intelligence. So yes, there is basically no difference between using an extended brain to make art, and using your own brain, because relativism and stuff.
@@YeYe-mp3om Again, i don't think you understand what you are typing, Freddie as you say had to put the work into it, but if you go into an AI generator you just have to type a prompt, the AI does everything else for you.
@@YeYe-mp3om There's a big difference between human inspiration and some algorithm mashing shit together
The art community is mostly angry about some AI completely stealing parts of the drawings made by others. Like, down to copying the signature and such
no, they are mostly angry about the "laziness" they claim AI art to be when they put, likely, much more effort into painting it.
the same anger was felt with photography for many years.
I'm mad about it stealing pieces I've made and turning them into an nft that I don't get paid for.
@@DragoNate i am, in fact, a part of the art community who's mad about some AI stealing. I'm looking forward to artists working with AI in the future, but current situation with AI that straight up puts nearly unchanged parts of human made paintings on a piece that some hopeless buffoon will use for NFT is a rather upsetting use of the technology
@@DragoNate The AI art is literally made by taking people's art and mashing it together. Concept artists are a given a prompt and draw to give a feeling. Now you get these guys just mash words together to take a database of other people's works to make some shit.
Do you have examples using prompts that don't point directly to the artist in question? I'd need to see the original, the AI results, and the prompts. You can get nearly one for one copies of Van Gogh for example. That's more prompt baiting. I don't see any serious AI artists doing this.
I've seen signatures. But they are always a jumbled mess of different signatures. I don't really see a difference between the AI copying styles and even brush stroke patterns and a human using Van Gogh as direct inspiration. Art is hardly ever truly original and every artist stands on the shoulders of giants.
Using A.I to win an art competition is like stealing the smart kids science project and saying it yours
How do you feel about the simple "push of a button" of photography in similar competitions?
@@DragoNate photography and art (drawn) are not the same. Don’t even compare them.
@@DragoNate I bet you see a street painter drawing a bridge or something, take a picture of it, and feel real smart/superior lmao
That's....not the same thing at all?
A bigger issue I also see with this is that you are technically using other people's work and just mashing it together.
The terrifying thing about AI, is that they have literally copied artists watermarks on their AI art, which.. I mean... if you were to do something like that in music would be a copyright violation, and it almost certaintly is, when its stealing so much of one persons art to even steal the watermark (or the artists signature)
At this point real artists who have their watermarks into ai art should own it, or just the machine can credit as much as possible all of the artists that It used for the art
It wouldn't be a violation to have the watermark. Its clearly modified and rehashed. Its not a copy paste image
@@fnutek3720 Modified and rehashed to look like a copy-paste. If it looks the same and behaves the same, then it's the same. If it's a watermark for artist X, then the art (or whatever it is) should belong to artist X.
@@fnutek3720 if its taking so much art from one specific person that its using their watermark and/or signature and the art isn't in creative commons, then its not okay. Most of the art being taken is more likely than not in creative commons, so its not okay. Yes its cool, but its a bit much.
@@fnutek3720 even “derivative work” is under copyright and you can’t monetize this, this ai are even worst than derivative work, so yeah, they’re in a very bad position for copyright, I think in 2/3 years all this “work” aren’t monetizable or used for commercial projects
-derivative work can be, me making a manga who resemble the story of dragonball, even if I make the whole comic! Imagine this ai who are training with copyright images from artists, photographers, filmmakers, game industry, etc etc without they’re permission, no fucking way they make this usable for commercial 💀💀
Coming from a guy who learn art and drawing for 4 years now.
The problem is alot of people just comparing AI art vs Human art is like a super car vs an average Joe's. But its actually more of a Self driving car vs Taxi driver cars, it just takes all of the time and effort that we've learned about art which can took years to decades thrown out of the window, it gets more grim for people who want to make a living out of them like illustrators, concept designers, etc... Because not only the best artist got introduced into your company, but he can do MORE. He can make 100 works under 5 seconds, when we can do like 1-3 at max under like what? Hours to even days. In the future, people may dont even need you because they could just put in their prompt and let the AI do it for you instead of the usual way of commissioning.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a guy who's fascinated in the potential of artificial intelligence and even the program that I'm using has an AI that can just do flat coloring for me lmao. What's scary for people like us that alot of us made making art our meaning of life and financial security but then the AI that we trusted as a tool now surpasses us.
Sure, there are laws that prevent it from being copyrighted, but life have many doors Ed. We can only speculate for now as the future seems pretty bleak for the artistic world.
Edit: Typos
Lmao.
A super car vs a average sedan.
No it's like stealing art vs drawing your own.
As someone who has been drawing longer than you and gets paid to do it. AI art will not replace artists. The most it can be used for is concept building.
It can't be used commercially.
It can't make anything original.
It can't make anything without the input of other's art, and a lot of it.
It can't animate.
The only people who believe this thing can compare to a real artist are AI idiots.
"It's not photobashing if I use more references."
It's still photobashing you just used more art to try to hide it.
@@WadeAlma Nobody can making anything 100% original, to be fair.
@@zerglinglover2303 There's a difference between original work and taking the work of other artists and photobashing it.
@@WadeAlma So you never use art reference? because like it or not AI is being trained to think like a artiest and will get to the point it is just using reference to make stuff see you my friend maybe a smart when it comes to how to make art but unless you are also into and understand how AI works i can't respect that side of you calling people AI idiots since you don't know what is happening with AI art.
I bet you don't even know AI makes noise when making the art now to better see how a image is constructed.
And remember there were tons of people that thought "my job is save" only to find 10 years later a robot can do the job better.
Technology should enhance human capability and creativity, not replace it.
as an artist, I'm scared
this new IAs could leave us without a job, what will we do the day they start making perfect furry p*rn ? millions of artists will be left unemployed
The AI already does some pretty convincing Furries if you look up "ai fox in a lab coat".
oh no....
There's also an AI dedicated to creating profile-picture-esque fursonas lmfao (neck and head mostly), look it up
Time to learn something new then.
most artists (for example myself) already use software which has "ai" doing stuff for you.
fe Clip Studio paint.
I recomend Programming or any other IT job to support yourself.
@@kaanozkuscu5079 I don't think AI will ever be able to fully phase out commissions, there's a specific way and detail someone would want it, in that person's specific style or maybe be put in a comic.
There's also the human, community element to it, it's not just a manner of paying for a lack of self-skill.
"Somebody took this one image of this like, character that they made."
-Mutahar on Girl with a Pearl Earring by Johannes Vermeer.
I’m kinda not surprised, everyone has known for years that AI would get to this level
all AI does is trying to steal my accounts so its not skynet
Music industry next
I don't know, there were, and still are, a lot of people out there who seem to think that AI could never truly compete with us in certain fields (mainly the more emotional/artsy stuff).
@@stealthysaucepan2016 I can't wait to hear an AI mimic the sounds of a man raised in the ghetto throwing a full garbage can down a stairwell while simultaneously beatboxing and rapping. The music of the future, everyone.
@@HolyApplebutter Every single AI art piece I've seen has more soul than the corporate globohomo art big megacompanies and institutions and governments use in their advertisements and messaging.
Honestly the AI we have today will never fully defeat humans, they can only replicate the incredible art we have already created but not create new ones. If a human wanted to create a completely original form of art that can be barely traced to already existing art AI probably wouldn't be able to make it before them. Basically I wouldn't be completely worried about AI, it's a manufacturer not a designer.
Until AI becomes sentient.
@@WeirdSmellyMan heard Google has one but they denied it
I mean to be fair, thats how humans are now. Nothing is ever truly original, just a mashup of various things that inspired the artist.
anyone who thinks AIs are not dangerous immediately gets -10000 points of credibility from me on this subject. just cuz u yourself cant grasp the concept of AI being dangerous doesnt mean it wont happen and there are definitely ppl that can logically conceptualize the scenario
@@WeirdSmellyMan But human creativity isn't solely linked to sentience, there are numerous factors which go into it. AI might never create anything on its own.
This is starting to look like what happened in the Industrial Revolution with the textile workers. Quite sad when automation is substituted for craftsmanship and artistic ability.
dont worry about artistry, there will always be humans who pursue even when the industry has cast them away. look at furnitures, metalworks, and other artisan jobs that were replaced by machines, we still know for a fact those master artisans are still out there honing their craft and becoming even more valuable than they would've before. it is sad, i agree, i still hope our world doesnt become dystopian because every work has been replaced and all that's left are for the top 0.1%
This is a whole new meaning to "OC do not steal". I wonder if art AI will go through a teenage edgy phase?
I can’t even fathom what AI will be like a decade from now
Nothing good.
Hopefully it overthrows every industry and we all have to wallow in our own sickening personal desires that we use everydays task to supress.
As long as we have the (shut down button) it'll be the same as it is now, ether that or were doomed 😂
@@PippyPopsSelfHarmMonica this isn't terminator
@@andrewwong2399 yet
Entering an AI generated image into an art competition is like paying someone else to make a painting for you and then entering it into a competition as your own work.
If you made the ai it would be more like entering with your kids art.
@@CommandoBlack123 he didn't and it's still not allowed lmao
AI imagery is still something akin to automated photobashing. At the current It will not replace the majority of artists. Instead it will become a great tool for creating reference images for artists to work from. The majority of commercial artists(concept artists, designers, etc) were using Google Images, Pinterest or even someone else's art from ArtStation as references for years, this will turn the reference gathering process into an almost instant thing. Still, prompts are a somewhat limiting way to direct art and are pretty unusable when it comes to concept art of a scene with pre-planned layout and a specific set of already designed objects. This tool is extremely good for use at early stages of production but it is capable to replace only the least creative art-related jobs.
I think the situation is a lot like when Deep Blue beat Gary Kasparov. People panicked about AI going too far, but it eventually resolved itself into the situation we have today. People have collectively decided that Human v Human chess is much more thrilling, and pros use AI it to train themselves.
@@paegr This is the best take so far.
Holy moly. Really cool to see you talking about my stuff! 😃
One thing that you missed Muta is that a lot of these AI art making tools is that it scans and uses other peoples artwork as reference to generate this stuff, which is something that really pisses off a lot of artists
My favorite part is when it accidentally includes partial or full signatures of real artists. Especially when you get the "in the style of" prompts, because it starts thinking the signature is a pattern that is fundamental to the style.
XDDDDD
Oh wow as if it couldn't get any worse. Dang man..
but thats how you become original by using enough sources that it isnt too similar to one
That's how human artists also do lol. Curb your smear campaign.
Tbh, this reminds me of the difference between cgi and practical effects. I'd rather be impressed by a talented artist's work than a data fueled bot.
I mean, cgi does require effort, but otherwise yeah, I get your point
Tbf a lot of effort goes into CGI. We haven’t gotten to the point where AI has completely taken over the VFX industry
CGI requires ALOT of work, time and money. AI art doesn't.
Cgi is art man come on. Theres scanning, cleaning the result of the scan, rigging, and then filling those part that looks broken after u animate with it. Theres a lot.
@@alyxlocke1284 ai will only be used as a tool. A human will always be needed.
What I love about TAS runs is they aid the actual Speedrunners in ways to improve their time. A lot of things TAS can do are humanly impossible. However, in a case like Super Mario Bros, some things that were thought to be humanly impossible were debunked by the speedrunners, but wouldn't really have known the tricks that were possible had it not been for the TAS in the first place.
a TAS, after all, is done frame-by-frame by humans. It's only when its played back from start to finish when it becomes a perfect and usually-humanly-impossible run.
@@ToyokaX Yes, this Ik. Frame by frame inputs which is why they are a big undertaking and sometimes worked on by multiple people.
Then when played as a video you see each frame at work in its fullest. It's the theoretical "perfect" run.
Some of it requires inputs not possible on most controllers (like left and right at the same time) and some strats are so precise that only TAS runs can pull it off, at least until a real runner can replicate it multiple times to where it can be used as a strat like skipping the Flag Pole animation stuff in SMB.
Are you talking about TASbot at GDQ? The one that played brain age?
@@XavielUA-cam Can't say I know that so I don't believe so.
As an artist, I have one thing to say: The fact that an AI image won a competition doesn't meant that AI art is good. It just means that the people behind the competition were a bunch of oblivious morons who know nothing about art of the 21st century. The fact that they entered the DIGITAL ARTS category and the judges were people who knew nothing about AI art is beyond me. If you can't sit down like 3 people who have a clue about what digital art in general, yet you still decide to have a category for that is something I find insulting as a digital painter. It's like going to a hospital for a heart surgery, but they say "sorry, we only have a dentist, but he's a doctor too, so your surgery will be done."
Should you be able to win with AI art? Yes... in the programing competition with your with your own AI art maker. If you're using Midjourney or something to create pictures, you are a user, not a creator. It's like pressing the "generate random Sim" button in Sims 4 and winning a fashion designing contest with the result.
cry more. i prefer ai pictures
@@会供価 If you prefer AI art, that only makes YOU cheap. You're like the equivalent of a person who goes online, decides to commission an artist from the 3rd world to make some extraordinary thing, then says "I could pay you $20 for your 3 days of work... but what about making it for $10 + exposure?"
100% agree, the problem will be differentiating AI art from human art, for now we can tell because of some odd details, but AI will only get better, also there's the problem with copyright of the datasets the AI uses to train, but now the dataset of these AI's probably has more self generated images than original human art so it's way to late to regulate what they can use
I mean yeah its colorado lmao
@@RickChannel01 problem is, i dont think the devs even care what images they put as long as it looks good, and we have no way to know what datasets theyre puttin in the ai too.
Apparently the judges of the competition said even if they knew it was made with an ai, they still would have given it first place. The expectations for this competition wasn't exclusively painting, under technicalities ai art was allowed. Competitions from here on out on the other hand, where the judges don't want ai art will state that in the rules, so all this case changes is where the line is drawn.
I'm all for making AI art competitive, but fundamentally it cannot be compared to non-AI, so I'd be all for AI and non-AI being separate categories that people can enter in.
Different competitions have different rules. Some are only for oil paintings, some for acrylic, others watercolor, some are mixed-medium, some allow photography or sculpture, and now, we'll have exclusive A.I. competitions and competitions that allow different media including A.I. It'll be great. As Károly Zsolnai-Fehér would say, _WHAT A TIME TO BE ALIVE!_
They can state that in the rules, but how will they tell the difference? People will lie and just say it's not AI and steal the competition.
Then this competition was flawed from the beginning. These judges were in the wrong, lumping AI and non-AI art in the same category is stupid af.
@@OrbitalSnapshots2455 there is software out there that can detect the difference between deep fakes and real content. AI leaves artifacts that the human eye can't see, but separate ai software can be trained to tell the difference. I'm positive that will be the first precaution.
I totally understand the issues that human artists have with AI "stealing" their work, but I do want to point out that current AI can only take in pre-existing data to create this art. It will never grow as a "human" artist would and change their style over time. Sure it can copy it, but the data needs to exist for it to do so. The minute it can do all this without a data set is when Im heading for the bunker.
Actually you can mix and match artists to create unique styles that don't even exist.
The major problem isnt really what it can do now, but what it will likely be capable of doing in the future. Its only a matter of time before shit hits the fan i reckon
art is only possible with human feelings (being sad, happy, depressed, in joy, etc.), if AI isnt self aware its difficult to mimic human emotions
@@tiagomarques7149 AI analyzes millions of paintings around the subject of depression and mimics the color palette, composition and posing.
It doesn't need to understand the emotion it just needs to recognize patterns and symbols and recreate them.
been lookin fo dis comment💀
Ai art is fine but when it takes monetization from hard working artist it becomes a problem. Artist rn aren't exactly in a good place in making money .
I'm glad someone finally put this to words properly.
I think it should be fairly obvious that drawing art, and having an AI generate it are very different things, and people shouldn't put either in competitions for the other. (though using AI as a tool such as the outpainting mentioned in the video will probably produce some discussion too)
I don't think AI art will truly kill artists, but it will have an effect on the community.
I personally predict that for those who care about it, human made art will become more about the process of it being made, than just the result.
at this point they just should make a category for AI art and that way i don't think there will be a conflict between human made and AI made
and the background generation aspect seems more cool to me.
It's neat, yeah. But it's a weird feeling collaborating with a machine outsourcing "creativity".
This probably the best , just let ai art have its own category
Are you familiar with Big Chungus? Yes the world renowned image of an oversized cartoon rabbit.
7:34 Muta: "someone too this character that they made"
*proceeds to show Vermeer's Girl With a Pearl Earring*
Im definitely siding with Muta here.. I have seen some really amazing drawings by friends of mine with amazing artistic talents.. Also, i want to say that the art that the AI made was Very nice pieces of AI art.. But it cant contest to the hand of a human..
image generators can never be more creative than an actual human, all they can do is combine artwork that it stole from multiple artists which more often than not results in something that feels lifeless and uninspired.
As a graphic designer…kinda terrifies me since sometimes my customer will tell me…oh I can make this in canva like in 5 seconds…just waiting for the moment when my skills are gonna be completely useless :D
The fact that people think that literally doing nothing but typing a couple words and having a machine generate an image for you, is the same as an artist using his own body, mind and creativity to think of something and then physically draw it... Now that is... Using AI to generate images isn't even remotely close to photography and photographers, let alone being close to artists who have to think of new ideas and literally draw what they thought of with their own hands... Using this AI is like me having someone think of an idea for me and then having another person draw it for me and now, without actually doing any of the work or thinking, I have an image perfectly generated for me by someone else - except using AI is even worse than that, because this ''AI'' is actually just a bunch of random number generators mixing up a bunch of shit together from billions of other images, based on whatever you wrote in the search bar lmfao...
its not mixing stuff, it is using it to understand how something looks than creating a new thing based off that
Even more reason why we need advocate for ubi. With one people's livelihoods wouldn't be at risk and they can do what they love even if ai can do it better and not have to worry. All we would need to do is tax the companies that are using ai instead of humans and do a vat tax and then we could fund a ubi. Both would be super easy to do.
This. So. Much. I keep bringing this up. Let AI take the bulk of work and give everybody a UBI to use to figure their own shit out and find what THEY want to pursue themselves in life instead of being forced to indenture themselves in shit they fucking hate. I would vastly prefer to invest in my creative pursuits over working the job I hate, but pays better than the things I am actually passionate about.
i second this. A,I is too powerful to be left untaxed especially in art where it could have a huge cultrual influnce. i would say you should not be allowed to trademark or copyright a.i generated images as the training data for making the A.I in the first place was not yours legally
@@ali32bit42 That's already the case actually. Anything generated by AI cannot legally be copyrighted, trademarked, etc. This was decided a while ago by US copyright law, that in order for art to qualify for copyright it must have been created by a human being.
@@JustSomeDinosaurPerson i know but people are assuming they can copyright it because the A.I providers say they can. plus there is currently no way to verify A.I was used unless the person behind it was honest . you could easily lie about it . and this law is not fully international . some governments might even abuse it
"This Character which they made"... as we look at one of the most famous paintings in history lmfao 7:35
Girl with a Pearl Earring, if if anyone is curious about its title.
Anyone defending this and hyped for a utopian society run by AI should be sent to a mental asylum because they don't know how much damage they are doing.
This shit being spammed on the internet has been annoying as fuck.
"waaaa other people are getting better lives but me specifically is getting slightly damaged by the fact" the whole world is improving because of this but because you are living a slightly worse life you just cant handle it, boo hoo
5:50 BWAHAHAHAHHA
No one is arguing that it's bad art, but there's no talent behind it whatsoever. And if you really wanted to go there, you could argue that there's no style behind it, but thats more of a subjective argument.
Thats like saying me dragging my mouse across a baseplate generating chunks of terrain on Roblox Studio to create a valley is impressive. Like bruh, the computer did it, not me. If anything, its lazy compared to building it all by hand using basic bricks or meshes made in Blender.
In a TAS you're manually mapping THOUSANDS of button inputs, some which have to be so inhumanely precise. It's not technically difficult but the amount of game knowledge and experience and time you need is insane.
Ai art is typing a sentence. I did that 3 times already just in the comment
Inhumanely precise because it’s literally not human. It’s not difficult so much as time consuming, and game knowledge isn’t relevant to the point.
@@what.5693 Alright kido, yes game knowledge is incredibly relevant because world record TAS need extensive game knowledge to perform skips, glitches and ram manipulation.
And yes, creating a TAS is difficult because trying to figure out proper angles and microspacing is not just time consuming, it's difficult because of how different movements are connected and affect each other.
Thad be like saying solving a Rubik's cube isnt difficult, just time consuming. No, it's like a puzzle with only one perfect solution you need to work out
@@scarlet7960 Why did you call them kiddo? Not very chill
@@zz7073 there something offensive with kiddo? If so my apologies not my intention
@@scarlet7960 Comes off as condescending. Hard to tell through text.
You know the video is gonna be a banger when Muta starts speaking another language in the intro. 😎
I welcome our new AI overlords
I don't.
EMPs are the solution.
Yessir 🙇
Same. I am cool with AI's running the show. Would be an interesting change of pace.
Personally, I don't think AI will replace actual artists. I'll keep supporting my usual artists over an AI at least
im sure the cup of coffe you gift your fav artist here and there will save them from an AI that needs no sleep or coffe. Keep dreaming in boomertown, Boomer.
@@YeYe-mp3om Lmao what, I'm 23 bruh 💀
@@Purfunxion LmAo WhAt, I'm 23 bRuH
Its not going to replace actual artists but it is making the job market even more stressful then it already is.
I went to school for 2 to 3 years to finally get a degree in graphic design and to see this come out of no where is really discouraging. I am already having a hard time trying to get clients and get work, and seeing AI art as an easy thing that nearly anyone can do at fraction of the cost of what I ask is really upsetting.
Now artists will need to get creative in figuring out how to make money, so now I have to start making earrings, or shirts to hopefully get by
@@Psychedelic_fox It's really messed up. I'm pretty sure the people who use AI art to screw over artists are the same who demands to pay between free and 10 bucks for a 60 dollar commission.
I'll commission an artist over using AI any day. I have a few go-to artists who I use because I enjoy their work and wanna support them. No AI could do the amazing work they do
"AI has finally beaten human beings"? Somebody's never tried to beat The Chessmaster 2000.
It sucks if you invest into your artwork and then some AI just gonna overtake you in 10 minutes...
Oh no, maybe you should have trained to be a typist instead. Or a translator. Or a taxi driver. Or a pilot.
@@theritchie2173 Perchance, you should invest some available time in the aquiring of a life not spent dwelling youtube comments for self delusional validation. Shit maybe i should become a psychiatrist and free the world from your kind..
I feel like this will be great for procerally generated worlds that dont feel shitty, map design just got 10x easier
fr, we might not have to wait 5 years for the next Zelda game
As a videogame Concept Artist, I'm terrified of this. I might not have a job in a few years
If anything, your job will be easier than ever. Instead of making complete works, you can just come up with CONCEPTS for stuff and sell that or people will license your ideas to have an A.I. implement it. If you're truly talented, you'll be able to come up with better ideas and concepts and designs than what randos can make on their own, so they'll still want to get an expert's input for the generators. 😉
@@I.____.....__...__ easier and paid less lmao. That's one of the many concerns, ai art making things "easier" for artists would give the execs reasons to pay their employed artists cheaper.
@@AoiFlame02 That’s exactly my worry! A lot of artists aren’t pay enough as it is. And I’m afraid just extremely talented artists would find jobs, the expectations will be so much higher
you are scared of Dr. Strange portal invading victorian blobs, Midjourney style? like there are thousands like this, the only reason it had won was because of publicity stunt
@@I.____.....__...__ if his job is easier, the industry will be filled with more diluted folks who're hired to button press and cheapens.. oh well.. changing times as always has been... art has been on a downward trajectory since the invention of cameras.
Tbh artists should stop making art accessible and watch the ai crumble over time as it cant steal artwork from them anymore
Muta doesn’t know what the “Girl with a Pearl Earring” painting is
Soon, AI will just replace HUMANS altogether.
Nope. Asimov's rules of robotics are deeply flawed and will just cause them to get stuck in a deadlock.
Talking to a couple friends that are professional artists, we all came to the conclusion that AI will make their lives a lot easier specially during long term projects like comics, stories or cartoons, suddenly a task like making a background over and over again on each square is cut from hours or even days to merely minutes. Thats just amazing.
You lose the discipline in creating that image over and over by hand. That special sauce between the brain and the hand that builds you as a person. Art is not a task, it's a passion.
@@Khan.WrathOf sadly it's gonna be one of those "get with the times" moments. "Organic" art will no longer be mainstream but a hobby. Artists will need to incorporate AI into their works to compete. It's like a farmer choosing between digging up potatoes by hand or by using an industrial harvester. The passion goes away and it's streamlined. A grim future but the one I think is going to be reality unfortunately
@@Khan.WrathOf yeah, in most situations I agree, but when strict deadlines come to play, you have to work hard or you wont be able to show your finished product, in those situations, where you have to make 7, 8 complete art images in the span of just a few days the puristic view of "art" has to be compromised even a little, in the end it is a product, one that grants a persons living, not making it as good as it can be, cutting corners, details, potential, etc, its just a part of the job, that way if you can buy products that make this process easier and more productive, like pencils, brushes, better canvas, paint, software, why not take it if you have the means? That being said, the AI will almost never make what you need, it will give the idea and a base of how it could be, the professionalism and the artistic touch comes in how you can use this newly visualized idea to make your work easier and better, yeah it will generate a background for you, but you will need a different perspective, effect, more trees, rivers, mountains, rocks... you cant just let the AI work for you. Well... not yet at least.
Yah, that could make life easier for the artist. But will the market appreciate the generic look in the long run? Like in the Anime Industry they incorporated CGI into shows. It's really hit or miss but as a result its becoming stale to the consumer. Due to the visual aspects of shows not distinguished enough to be memorable if not copy-cats of other series in the looks department.
I'd rather give artists more lenient deadlines than incorporate skynet into the artistic process, especially when these kinds of AIs require even more time and coding effort put in if you want something that doesn't look like shit.
For anyone out there who says that this is still technically art I will say that's true and so is tracing but if you trace an image and didn't actually draw it you are excluded from competition LOL this is just a very smart tracing system
yeah getting a machine to make a creative work based on your inputs is not YOUR art, it is doing the heavy lifting and making all the real choices based information you have HANDED over to it via inputting parameter's and uploading data sets. It's the machine that produces the final product not you making it the author and artist not me or you.
At least with digital art and even AI assisted software, you are the one who is in control of the creative process start to finish as you get the first and last say at every stage, Making you the author and artist of the creations in-spite of the tools set you used to create it.
Once the "Tool" can act as an independent entity for it's intended purpose then it's no longer just a tool under these circumstances as it's in a limited capacity now autonomous as it has fulfilled all the conditions needed to be considered this. Therefore submitting AI work for art as your own in your name is plagiarism and should treated be as such, So really the award goes to the person who coded the Ai at best so well spotted Muta!
7:34 muta really just said "character they made" while referring to one of the most famous paintings ever created lmfao. Girl with the Pearl Earring was the 4th image to show up when i typed "most famous painting" on google lmfao
Its funny that i was thinking of maybe in the future making art categories like how Speedruns have tool assisted runs and non assisted, you took the words out of my mouth with that xD
I think what a lot of people miss in this conversation is exactly how undervalued art still is in many people's minds.
The amount of people that feel like paying you peanuts (or nothing at all) for your hard work is staggering and has always been sour note for many artist.
This isn't helped by the complete misunderstanding of what making art means to someone and why they would pursue such a career even on a professional level.
So while, yes, you can compare it to something like photography or digital art, the problem is neither of those two things really managed to replace the artists imo. With AI generators you are quite literally replacing the artist as the maker of that art you generated, the AI is quite literally the artist there while you're more like director of sorts.
"But you're still explaining to it what you want and tweaking it"
But that is not, at least in my opinion, what art is about. When you generate something with an AI, you can't ask the AI why it chose to make something the way it did.
"Why did you chose this angle? Why these colors? Oh, is that a reference to something in the distance?"
It's all automated and as much as you'll be tweaking it you still don't have full control of what it makes.
So in that sense, they're separate and should stay that way.
Ofc that wouldn't fully make people stop worrying about it, personally I find AI both fun and scary in a sense.
It's always interesting to see what technology can do and it's definitely exhilarating to see what pictures an AI can cook up.
But on the other hand, as a small independent artist, it makes me wonder if I'll ever be able to make a decent living later down the line, or if I'm even needed at that point.
It's unfortunate for artists because there is no actual way around this, and all those years of training go out the window as AI becomes available and then cheaper.
Ai is automation on steroids. Automation usually meant making labor-intensive jobs easier.
It may have the side effect of making more big budget art projects (Games, film animation etc) or it may not. Here's hoping it wasn't for naught.
So many artists acting like it's the end of the world for them. my god can you guys just shut up ?
Is drawing a hobby or a job for you ?
If it's a hobby why are you even complaining.
If it's a job, start learning something new. Why don't you go make furry suits for folk. There is a high demand.
Or assemble figurines and paint them.
@@ceshmate1953 Just because it's a job doesn't mean people are not passionate about it, bro.
And that...makes no sense.
If my interest is in character design or comics and have no interest in furry suits, why would I make them?
How has the world gone from "strive to do what makes you happy" to just "make furry suits, it makes money"?
And how do you effectively know that this not the end for many artists exactly?
Cause rn all I'm hearing from you is how much you don't value people's work at all. Which would just make you one of many in the history of forever.
Why are you even here, buddy? Did an artist poop on your carpet?
I remember reading an article about this guy winning a contest with this artwork. It is art. I think my problem is him claiming to be the artist when the AI is essentially the artist. Yes he typed in text for it to go off of, but how is this any different than a client commissioning an artist and communicating what they want?
only humans can make art, images generated by algorithmically mashing other images together isn't art
Its the fact that most people who are not artists at all and know nothing about art that want a cheap easy creation they can get right there for hardly anything. Which is most of the clients that graphic designers, artists etc. Rely on for income.
Now it is more competitive to try to advertise to someone to ask to pay you $100 to make them a logo which takes a few weeks at times, have it reviewed etc.
Compared to this person just paying the AI $5 subscription or whatever and have a logo created right there. Lots of times they can care less about the creative process behind it either, which is really sad because artists really put a lot of thought and care into their work to make it very meaningful.
I love AI Art but it has no place being compared to Human art. The same way you can't compare AlphaZero to Magnus.
Who would have thought art people were first on the chopping block.
No matter what I'll probably always prefer a human touch when it comes to art
The problem though is how the broader market situation will be affected. There's a lot of people that relied on human artists, but now a machine can do it.
yeah, and how long before the difference between human art and ai-generated art is virtually unnoticeable?
even right now, ai generated art looks COOL, but if you look closely at the details you might see some "artifacts"
how long until it's completely gone past that?
@@Ignassium I'd like to imagine we won't be screwed until Replicants are invented.
@@krunkle5136 This is how replicants start
Art that's "human-made" will be a status-symbol and more "valuable" like people try to buy "local-grown" foods or "Made in " products.
Humans will always appreciate and value human-made art. Will robots shake things up in the world of art? Yeah. But it will never replace humans. Not completely. And humans will always put more value on human-made stuff. That's just how we work. We appreciate art because we appreciate the effort and the thoughts that were put into it by another human being.
this works for 1% of the arti community ( the top 1% that sells paintings for millions to money laundrers or stupidly rich collectors ) art is a career path iamgine the number of artists that'll be practicly jobless when 90% of the industry will use AI cause its easy cheap and fast , video game studios , artists , book writers , and many other industries that needs artworks will just use these AIs to get what they need
What about when ai makes better music than human composers. Sure there will be people who refuse to listen to ai music but the majority of people will just listen to the most catchy song / earworm
AIs can and will replace the majority of human artist in the future. It's time for artists to accept the fact that their craft and livelihood is in risk.
@@MegaDman16 They can cry to the hard working people replaced by automation for decades.
Exactly!
Curating & painting are different skills that DO mix often, but an art competition is specifically on the later.
The TAS example is exactly what it's like for this situation, it should be a completely different category.
People are mad about this for the entirely wrong reason. Blame the judges for knowingly awarding first prize to an AI generated image.
Entering an AI to an art competition is like using a bot to play in vg tournaments
At that point it should just be it's own category if we're talking how skilled the coders are at making their own artsy AI
That guy is not even a coder. If he was a coder it would've made sense, but the way these models are being trained is vile.
As a character Artist that works mainly in the internet, I’m terrified and saddened, I already had people dropping projects with me because they moved to using AI. It’s not everyday that you get an expiration date on you career, and soon I know I’ll be obsolete
Now we have to figure out how to adapt 😭
I hope you can figure out another way to use your skill in art. Just think of what AI can't do but what you can do. It may not be the exact same thing that you originally wanted, but it is still keeping you alive and afloat.
Do we really want this though? Giving corporate entitles the power to generate art? The effort people put into their craft is already being diminished by a capital before labor philosophy that plagues the world right now, do we really want to see that given more power? Whatever, enjoy your soulless masterpieces.
art isnt typing in words into a generator, art takes focus, time and understanding of depth, color, shading, weight, pose so on. art is a skilled based venture, AI art is a trial n' error, you change a word or how its worded and you get something similar or better then what you wanted.
But most importantly when you finally finish a detailed art piece, the satisfaction/relief is worth it. I just cant see you getting that same experience with something so cheap.
Ye when ive played around with AI art felt more like i was just finding a image on the internet i piked rater than creating somthing
7:39 Thats actually just a famous painting that's being outpainted. It's not a character that they created.
Finally, anyone can have a cool album or novel cover now for free.
I would compare AI art to react content reacting to videos created by another creator. React content is enjoyable and can add value to the original or for the person enjoying it at least, but it is also easier to produce as the original creator had to probably work a lot harder to create the video. The AI art is kind of similar in those regards.
I'd compare AI art to robotic automation in manufacturing industry. It's faster, cheaper and better than manual labour, but people will lose their jobs for it.
Truly seems like any invention meant for good never fails to find misuse.
This is such a non issue. Similar questions came up when photography was invented, when movies were invented and whenever some greedy owner teaches their pet how to "paint". We, as a species, answered these presumed issues almost a century ago. If anything else than a human produces a piece of art, it's not art. If a human is using a tool for the purpose of making art, it's art. There is "good" art and "not so good" art, which depends largely on the aesthetics of the moment, although some works are objectively "bad" when they are unimaginative or boring. This too is largely because of our common sense of aesthetics, which varies from century to century.
i can agree and disagree with you, first i agree that it's a non issue for artists because that art can't be copyrighted and it can barely be used as concept art, second i have to disagree with the photography argument because drawn art and photography are different kinds of art
And Muta is flat out wrong on TAS stuff.
Tool Assisted Speedruns are n NO way comparable to “planet in space 4K painting “
TAS’ers spend WEEKS, if not MONTHS inputting everything.
Anything you change in a tas at one frame needs to then be changed for every other subsequent frame. And there are 30/ 60 frames a second and some Speedruns can be dozens of minutes long.
Not only that but if the game is generating RNG every time in reaction to your current input, then the whole subsequent edits you have made are now most likely garbage.
There’s a shit ton of work that goes in to speedrunning and to compare it to AI art is GENUINELY insulting to TAS creators. Like. Incredibly.
Do NOT make this comparison.
Do NOT undermine their work.
It’s usually because of TAS’ers that they can show Speedrunners many tricks and how to replicate them and replay them in a way that lets them copy it.
The only thing “AI” in a TAS is the playback and even then it isn’t even AI.
Check out Bismuth on UA-cam he explains a lot.
But yeah. That’s just flat out demeaning to how hard the work they do is.
I feel bad cuz I like Muta but this is so far the only video I have to click dislike on so far. I just… can’t stand by that comment. Damn. That feels bad.
AI art is like giving an talented artist an prompt and then saying their art is yours.
oh and also many artists don't want to contribute with the AI databasae and i think that should be illegal or something, but who am i? Just a silly lil artist who believes in human rights
I mean...people think a banana duct taped to a wall is art. I can say this is way better than human art.
That's how you're judging human art?
As someone who works with digital art, I’m honestly fascinated by AI art. It’s honestly really cool what can be created by typing in a random prompt. I’ve started using it for some inspiration for my own creations. However, I understand the skepticism behind it. Someone below me said it best (I’m paraphrasing) “entering an AI creation into an art contest is like claiming to be a mathematician but only using a calculator”
I think it has its place, but it should be considered its own medium of art.
As for Ai taking over art, I don’t think it’s something to be too concerned about. For generations upon generations, we have been concerned about new technology taking over and replacing humans, but honestly it’s probably not going to happen. Technology is only as good as the person who creates it. Sure, machines in many ways are far superior to a human, but machines still have flaws that can be fixed by people. It doesn’t have to be a one or the other scenario; we can and have coexisted for some time.
tech is NOT only as good as the person that creates it. That statement doesnt work anymore, due to the fact that dozens of engineers could work on a singular project, using computing and AI, to create something a single person would never be able to create
I don't think ai has ever taken this big of a space in the creative process, hope you don't outsource your creativity. Good luck.
If I was the Judge and knew about it being AI, I would never would have chosen it.
Curious if they all knew.
He included that he used Midjourney in the submission. Whether the judges bothered to look into what that was is unknown.
@@user-on6uf6om7s Honestly Sad. It would be great to know if they did.
@@Xylospring One of them did and said they wouldn't have changed their decision, so slimy
Great vid as always, just one thing that kinda bugged me. At 07:35 you talk about a painting of a character ''they (the creator of the IG clip) made'' being expanded through AI. That character is actually from the world famous painting ''Meisje met de parel'' (girl with the pearl) by the Dutch painter Johannes Vermeer, made in 1666 (I've even seen it irl). I think the whole point of the IG clip was to show even old paintings can be transformed by AI, not that modern day artists should only focus on detailed characters and let AI fill in the rest. Some people may find this a bit of a ''🤓'' comment, but I do think knowing the context slightly changes the conclusion made in this segment.
How is there even a debate on the ethics of this? It's all but stupidity in these arguments.
Of course using AI is not fair against artists who use their skills. This contestant is like competing with bionic legs that he built in a foot race.
As an musician and VFX artist my self, the only thing I can see as an advantage for illustrator artist is to get them be able to train the AI with their own artwork to help them out, pros, faster jobs for client work and easier to come out on idea when you're having block. cons... repetitive artwork if you dont update the AI model, and also more competitive to get a client because it will become easier to do your job.
2:50 "... own your rights ..." I'm pretty sure AI generated images are not (at the moment) copyrightable (in the US at least). It seems so far any attempt to protect AI generated images using copyright law have failed in the US, due to them lacking the necessary "human authorship" or whatever they called it.
If that even applies to prompt-based AIs, then I have huge doubts Midjourney or *any* of the popular AI image generators have any rights "to give" to begin with. Not sure if that means that AI images are public domain by default(?)
Googling "ai copyright" gives a few examples.
the ai is taking already copyrighted images and just mashes them together if anyone would use that ai artwork there is very hight chance for being sued by artists or by a company like disney
@@eliescobis9922 well, real artists also use other artists work to get "inspired". Human artists copy other artists work all the time - which is an important factor in creativity. An AI *probably* doesn't do much different than a human - but that's probably debatable, and not really my point.
It also gets difficult and in legal trouble if you ask the AI to generate images "in the style of artist XYZ". I have little doubt there will be unhappy people due to that.
My point really was, that for something to be protected by copyright, it needs human authorship. A non-AI example was the debate with that Monkey that took a selfie - which was ruled to have _no_ copyright claim. So how would a non-living being like an AI fair against that? dunno.
Personally: I honestly hope it *stays* out of copyright. AI generated images (without any post modifications by human hand), should stay in public domain. That would give anyone that cares about copyright good incentives to actually use a real artist over AI in the future.
@@SaniSensei i mean human mind can't draw anything perfectly from memory because we don't store images like a computer, ai on the other hand knows exactly every detail of every image it "learned" not to mention we mash things together in a cohesive way unlike ai
i just think artist won't be replaced anytime soon because no CEO in the right mind would take that kind of risk
not to mention people who say that artists can "use it as tool" are very wrong, i mean yeah they can use it but they can't sell it of course
@@SaniSensei If my understanding of the AI is correct then this would also be frowned upon if people did it. Inspiration =/= Usage. The AI takes the actual art and basically blends stuff together to get a good result. That's much different than looking at a picture of something then drawing an inspired version rather than jamming in a bunch of different artist's version into one to get your "unique" version. From a legal standpoint I'd say ya this should be a potential infringement as it does directly utilize other peoples works and basically hides it. It should hold no claim and I agree if it remains as is no one should be able to claim ownership of any AI piece but that people who find out their artwork was utilized still have plenty of fair reason to complain.
Just my opinion though I don't agree with using others works in this kind of manner we already deal with it enough without AI being thrown into the mix.
@@eliescobis9922 The AI actually doesn't know every detail of every image. They use the images to create a "model" which is usually a big neural network of weights and biases. The images that where used are literally nowhere in there. And it's probably not possible or quite difficult at least to get the exact same images out that where used, even if you use the right prompt. ;-)
I think the best way for artists to not be "replaced" is to ensure the copyright laws stay for human work only.
AI generated images can be used by artists as well. They just have to make sure to put in enough work post-generation. e.g. if you generate a bunch of AI images, and cut them together in some kind of abstract collage/mashup or whatever - by hand (and of course not just some simple copy-pasting). That resulting collage *would* be copyright protected by the artist - but the individual source images would not.
Copyright law is quite flexible to some degree, and it leaves a lot of space for artists to use AI generated images in a reasonable way, as long as they put in the actualy work that's necessary for copyirght protection.