A bad painting, by someone struggling to learn how to paint, is infinitely more interesting, to me at least, than the most superficially gorgeous AI image. It is a glimpse into another human's consciousness (and unconsciousness) call it soul, if you like, at a moment in time. With AI, there is no consciousness, no soul. There is no "there" there. We are hurtling rapidly into an era where fakery will prevail. Fake photos, fake videos, fake writing, fake art, fake music and on and on. God help us...
"Is AI art 'real' art?" is a shallow question. The real questions right now are, "Does art matter at all?" and if it does, "Do artists deserve to make a living wage from their work?" The answer to both is yes. Art is not just the uber-rich bidding on Monet paintings and invisible sculptures; art is the stories we tell and how we tell them from everything to paintings we look at to the books we read to the clothes we wear to the films we watch. If we surrender that to an algorithm, we have a bleak cultural future ahead of us. AI can only generate the common denominator of billions of works that were stolen for training data without consent. If the world deems that acceptable I can't stop them, but they'll regret it in 10 years...
Wrong. Artists use the tools available in their time. Djs weren't considered real artists because they don't really play a musical instrument. Today DJs are accepted as composer and musician. The creative idea is what counts...
Love the video. Look, I don't want to change your mind, but there are some misunderstanding about AI. The way you talk about AI sounds like trying to say that a piece of coal is limited because it only can create art if an artist take it and draw. The current incarnation of AI doesn't have intention? Anyone can give it intention. Doesn't have purpose? Anyone can give it purpose. The difference is the set of skills used to create art. Maybe you can apply the same set of skills the current art uses, maybe you need a new set of skills, the technology is yet too young to know for sure. What I'm trying to say is: ai is not a dead end because people can use it as a tool to improve their on creation, therefore, until people are using like that, it will improve.
I think that’s the key: ‘if people…’. If used as a tool it will maybe generate a new genre. If used as a pretty image-maker, maybe not so much. As I said, I’m not pessimistic. We’ll see how it goes. Thanks
And how do you reconcile that with the fact that the only way AI can function at all is by the non-consensual scraping of billions of artists works to train their models? Even if AI could be a usable tool, there is no current incarnation of it that does not exist solely on exploitation and theft.
@@JonNeimeister this is a long topic to discuss, but I will try to summarize it. The first step is how the technology was developed in the first place. It was a research to produce a open source non-profitble software. By German law (where this kind of research is made) you can ask for permission from various sources, like social midia, to collect information they need to make the research possible. The social midia, therefore, ask for permission to the user in their terms of services to collect and use the information of any and all data produce by the user, that include information of any image people post in social midia. The research of this technology could use, actually, the data from the images (not the images themselves) to not only create the software, but the base model as well, if they are open source non-profitble, of course. Legally speaking, the artists that consented their images data to their social midia also consented their data to research. Second place, is how this technology works. AI that uses the diffusion process analyzes, conceptualizes subjects, and creates nodes (what is like concepts in the human brain), those nodes don't have, actually, any images at all, only the interpretation of all the images the machine analyzed. Therefore, any time the software receive a request of a tree (for example) it tries to create a tree from noise based on the node of "trees". So the AI doesn't have to storage, copy or mix any existing image. There is a discussion if you could or not train the AI with copyright images is legal or not, but, how AI only analyzes the images (not use as a product), is kinda difficulty to point a precise part of the copyright law to justify the infringement. And is kinda fishy because anyone can analyzes a images as reference, if the copyright infringement is applicable to the AI, isn't applicable to anyone else? I always try to avoid going too deep on this discussion because, right now, there a lot of attrition and I apologize if something I said sounds offensive, I just want to clarify some points.
@@caryonplays9024 I understand how the tech works, but it is all legal loopholes and just because it's "technically legal" doesn't make it ethical. The fact is these models could not function without the work of artists, they used that work to build their product without consent or payment. If you applied that to literally any other industry people would call it theft, because it is theft. Copyright laws don't cover this properly because the technology is so new, but that still doesn't make it ethical.
@@JonNeimeister but doesn't make it illegal. The point I was trying to explain was, if you sign a contract which the law doesn't cover, then you saying you don't know what you signed for, doesn't invalidate the contract. if you apply it into any other industry the contract will prevail. It's at least naive thinking the contract is invalid because it's unfair. So artists that consented data, consented research. And it's not a product, it's research. To development of new technology have restrict laws to what you can and cannot do. They only could collect that data is they are following these laws. The law demands they only use this data for open source non-profitble research, and, to be fair, they did. The technology is open to anyone and they can never use it to profit. But anyone can use it as a base to create a product to profit (cannot sell the base model itself though). This is how the technology industry works, probably the only place I can say isn't theft with 100% sure. Legally speaking a part, I tried to explain how the technology works because is way to similar to the process human do when the try to learn from others. The AI analyzes the images, like humans do, figures out what is on the picture, like humans do, feed their neural network with the information, like humans do, and (when requested) try to create similar patterns, like humans do. The only difference is the efficient of how much it can produce. But, if we stop technology because some area of expertise became more accessible, we should have electric, cars, cellphone and the tech we are using to discuss this topic. If we call
It's certainly not dying and is advancing on a constant basis, how can I convince someone that the sky is blue? Ai art is a medium used by humans, it's not separate from us.
A bad painting, by someone struggling to learn how to paint, is infinitely more interesting, to me at least, than the most superficially gorgeous AI image. It is a glimpse into another human's consciousness (and unconsciousness) call it soul, if you like, at a moment in time. With AI, there is no consciousness, no soul. There is no "there" there. We are hurtling rapidly into an era where fakery will prevail. Fake photos, fake videos, fake writing, fake art, fake music and on and on. God help us...
The truly authentic will become more prized, I hope.
"Is AI art 'real' art?" is a shallow question. The real questions right now are, "Does art matter at all?" and if it does, "Do artists deserve to make a living wage from their work?"
The answer to both is yes. Art is not just the uber-rich bidding on Monet paintings and invisible sculptures; art is the stories we tell and how we tell them from everything to paintings we look at to the books we read to the clothes we wear to the films we watch. If we surrender that to an algorithm, we have a bleak cultural future ahead of us. AI can only generate the common denominator of billions of works that were stolen for training data without consent. If the world deems that acceptable I can't stop them, but they'll regret it in 10 years...
A very good point!
Wrong. Artists use the tools available in their time. Djs weren't considered real artists because they don't really play a musical instrument. Today DJs are accepted as composer and musician. The creative idea is what counts...
The thing that I like the most about generative A.I. is the absolute lack of pretentiousness.
peak of anti intellectualism
Consume and don't think.
AI is quantum banality and cliche.
Why?
You know those mass produced paintings hanging in the motel room? Might as well us AI art for that, it might be an improvement.
Love the video. Look, I don't want to change your mind, but there are some misunderstanding about AI. The way you talk about AI sounds like trying to say that a piece of coal is limited because it only can create art if an artist take it and draw. The current incarnation of AI doesn't have intention? Anyone can give it intention. Doesn't have purpose? Anyone can give it purpose. The difference is the set of skills used to create art. Maybe you can apply the same set of skills the current art uses, maybe you need a new set of skills, the technology is yet too young to know for sure. What I'm trying to say is: ai is not a dead end because people can use it as a tool to improve their on creation, therefore, until people are using like that, it will improve.
I think that’s the key: ‘if people…’. If used as a tool it will maybe generate a new genre. If used as a pretty image-maker, maybe not so much. As I said, I’m not pessimistic. We’ll see how it goes. Thanks
And how do you reconcile that with the fact that the only way AI can function at all is by the non-consensual scraping of billions of artists works to train their models? Even if AI could be a usable tool, there is no current incarnation of it that does not exist solely on exploitation and theft.
@@JonNeimeister this is a long topic to discuss, but I will try to summarize it.
The first step is how the technology was developed in the first place. It was a research to produce a open source non-profitble software. By German law (where this kind of research is made) you can ask for permission from various sources, like social midia, to collect information they need to make the research possible. The social midia, therefore, ask for permission to the user in their terms of services to collect and use the information of any and all data produce by the user, that include information of any image people post in social midia. The research of this technology could use, actually, the data from the images (not the images themselves) to not only create the software, but the base model as well, if they are open source non-profitble, of course. Legally speaking, the artists that consented their images data to their social midia also consented their data to research.
Second place, is how this technology works. AI that uses the diffusion process analyzes, conceptualizes subjects, and creates nodes (what is like concepts in the human brain), those nodes don't have, actually, any images at all, only the interpretation of all the images the machine analyzed. Therefore, any time the software receive a request of a tree (for example) it tries to create a tree from noise based on the node of "trees". So the AI doesn't have to storage, copy or mix any existing image. There is a discussion if you could or not train the AI with copyright images is legal or not, but, how AI only analyzes the images (not use as a product), is kinda difficulty to point a precise part of the copyright law to justify the infringement. And is kinda fishy because anyone can analyzes a images as reference, if the copyright infringement is applicable to the AI, isn't applicable to anyone else?
I always try to avoid going too deep on this discussion because, right now, there a lot of attrition and I apologize if something I said sounds offensive, I just want to clarify some points.
@@caryonplays9024 I understand how the tech works, but it is all legal loopholes and just because it's "technically legal" doesn't make it ethical. The fact is these models could not function without the work of artists, they used that work to build their product without consent or payment. If you applied that to literally any other industry people would call it theft, because it is theft. Copyright laws don't cover this properly because the technology is so new, but that still doesn't make it ethical.
@@JonNeimeister but doesn't make it illegal. The point I was trying to explain was, if you sign a contract which the law doesn't cover, then you saying you don't know what you signed for, doesn't invalidate the contract. if you apply it into any other industry the contract will prevail. It's at least naive thinking the contract is invalid because it's unfair. So artists that consented data, consented research.
And it's not a product, it's research. To development of new technology have restrict laws to what you can and cannot do. They only could collect that data is they are following these laws. The law demands they only use this data for open source non-profitble research, and, to be fair, they did. The technology is open to anyone and they can never use it to profit. But anyone can use it as a base to create a product to profit (cannot sell the base model itself though). This is how the technology industry works, probably the only place I can say isn't theft with 100% sure.
Legally speaking a part, I tried to explain how the technology works because is way to similar to the process human do when the try to learn from others. The AI analyzes the images, like humans do, figures out what is on the picture, like humans do, feed their neural network with the information, like humans do, and (when requested) try to create similar patterns, like humans do. The only difference is the efficient of how much it can produce. But, if we stop technology because some area of expertise became more accessible, we should have electric, cars, cellphone and the tech we are using to discuss this topic. If we call
AI art? - better call it copying on purpose
Got that right.
Best test for AI is to train it solely on real life photographs or images that are not paintings or the such.
Let it make a painting.
It's certainly not dying and is advancing on a constant basis, how can I convince someone that the sky is blue? Ai art is a medium used by humans, it's not separate from us.
Overly complicated and excessive. Ai is simply a tool.