You seem to completely ignore the possible negative consequences of this technology and how it's currently being heavily abused to make a quick buck. With any tools, it can be used to provide a greater good for everyone or be used in a manner that only benefits the few at the cost of others.
I haven't seen any examples of this yet. Making money on an AI art piece you made isn't a bad thing. As I talked about in the video, I have seen some very rare examples of people completely ripping off someone else's specific art piece, which is plagiarism. But that happened before AI too.
@@VincentVendettaOfficial It's not the act of making money is bad, its the way it's done. The way AI arts generates is very ethically questionable. As mentioned by you, stiches other people's art to create its image. That leads to a lot of question on ownership. If I made a story were I copy and pasted a bunch of paragraphs from millions of other novels can I call it my own? The way I see it, it's being used as a cheat tool to bypass a lot of the required work to develop it. Industrializing the creativity of art and piggybacking off the work of others. It's like having someone copying one of your video and adding a few asethetics changes. Then posting it and claiming it's their and it's their original idea because it not a one for one copy of your video. All the while it's monetized and getting more views than your original video, and they only did a small fraction of the work you put into making the original.
@@BlueSpaceRanger " If I made a story were I copy and pasted a bunch of paragraphs from millions of other novels can I call it my own?" - Tell me you don't understand how generates art without telling me... Also, EVERY SINGLE WORD you would use to write a book has been used somewhere else. If you gonna allow words, why not pixels?
@@Ewiril I think it depends on which function you use. On Midjourney, if you use /imagine followed by a prompt, it generates a completely new image, but if you use /blend you can use any image, including copyrighted ones. I used the blend tool on images I generated with Midjourney's /imagine to see what would come out, however, there is nothing stopping someone from using /blend to mix two pictures from Google Images or Deviantart and claim them as their own. There's potential for copyright infringement there. Based on the information I have now and my current understanding of AI art, I'm not opposed to "/blend" - it can be great for artists and photographers who want to feed it their own images so long as it is made clear to them that these images might be used in the future to train the AI and might become incorporated into people's prompts, or for people who want to blend AI generated images together, but I do think its open to abuse.
To be fair, photography did probably put many portrait artists out of business. The definition of art changed. We still have portraits and portrait artists but that niche, realistic pictures of loved ones, has shrunk massively.
Portrait art has been a niche even before photography. What photography did, was giving an affordable access to a quick image that normal or "poor" folks could get for themself or their family. However, portrait artists never made much to begin with. So the shift or change was not as severe as some say. Historically, photography didn't really replace artists. It simply pushed art into a new direction. Art became more about the abstract, the capturing of imagination, mood playing with tools and different concepts. Like expressionism, surrealism, cubism you name it. But photography never really challanged the position of artists. It became it's own thing over time. Not to mention that photographers didn't "exploit" artists of their time. A camera does not take an artists skills to create a painting. Which is what Ai does in some sense. It "learns" from billions of artists by scraping trough the net, without any consent. And not just artists. But EVERY information you can think of. From pictures to writings. It's all legaly and moraly extremely ambigious and qustionable.
I think the biggest thing is letting people know HOW the art was created. When it comes to AI that looks real. We need to know if it was computer generated vs human generated. If producers of AI-Generated can stand on their own. Then they should have no problem telling us it's generated via AI. I think where this has problems. When someone creates AI art they want to pose it as HUMAN art!
Honey but we humans create WITH it! Takes a lot of skill and work. AI just helps. AI does seconds one pic that I put together the prompt for, the base pic for and the finishing touches. So for me it takes 30mins -2h to make that pic the way I want it to be. So WHO made that art?
@jshowa o So, photography and digital art are both not really art since you have to use a different medium to produce an image? Should everyone using a drawing tablet have to disclose that their art has been drawn with one via a watermark or something? The AI can't do anything without human input, good ai art requires an incredible amount of computing power and often a lot of fine tuning and ai merging to actually look good. Besides, why limit art? There's no reason to gatekeep what is art and what isn't art.
@jshowa o essentially you want to know wether every stroke was deliberate because it changes the way in which you appreciate the art, am I right? Otherwise when you see art you'll always have the doubt in your mind wether this was drawn or not
I am a hobbyist artist so I don´t have any skin in the game regarding my career. Nevertheless, I think there are some issues that need addressing. One glaring issue is transparency. Sure, AI is a new tool that offers incredible opportunities but it does damage if used by bad faith actors. Currently nothing stops any random person from selling their AI art without disclosing that it was made by an AI. Instead they can just claim that they created it. This is a problem for two reasons: 1. in contrast to photography AI art can not as easily be told apart from digital art 2.Customers are being deceived and do not know what they are buying. Especially for those doing commissions the digital art market just turned into the wild west so I do understand why they may be upset. Also I am not sure whether we should just let these companies scrape the entire internet for data. As far as I heard not only digital art ended up in there put private files too. If that is the case I personally have a problem with that. A few maybe more hopeful notes: I think for artists the community will become more important. Skill alone has rarely made up an artists success. People get invested in other people also by their personality. Also people like to watch other people putting effort into something as we see with professional gaming and chess. I find it extremely satisfying to see other people post their works in progress and then the final art. Maybe the progress will become more important than the end product eventually.
I have recently messed around with some AI generated art and to be honest. Prompting with a button doesn't do anything for me I feel no sense of achievement. I guess I'm old fashioned now cause drawing digital by hand on photoshop gives me more satisfactory results. It's interesting how the future will be with AI, but I would be more interested in seeing us becoming the tech. For example I have eye astigmatism, it would be cool if the tech companies would come up with machine implants
GeekBox: That's interesting because Photoshop used to be looked at as an unfair tool that would take over the art world and hurt "true" artists. Now, look. Photoshop is taught in art schools/classes and artists Love it
I messed around with it too and also didn't feel any personal satisfaction, but I did feel a similar sort of joy as when someone makes fanart for you. To me, it felt like getting a gift as opposed to making something myself. It was still fun, but it was more the type of fun of watching a movie or other passive consumption type activity as opposed to painting or drawing. There may already be implants for that but it might be expensive. There's something called an "eyeborg"
An implant to replace your eye for simple astigmatism? Repairing the holes would be less intrusive and you’d have your natural eye rather than a mechanical eye.
My mother went through this with knitting. She was a early adopter of the manual knitting machine. This was banned by the State Fair. So she did he competition stuff by hand.
It's pretty simple, without the images of us artists, there is no Ai. And no one has the right to take our pictures without our permission. And we are now taking action against anyone who does so.
@@Jobuke By saying that, you're just telling me that you're not an artist. A pro artist goes by nature, he learns from nature from what is around him in this world. We only learn techniques from the other artists, if at all. Because otherwise we would adopt the style of the other. And that is something that every pro artist avoids. We want to create our own. Da Vince once said: learn only from nature and not from other artists, because if they make a mistake, you make the same mistake.
@paintangel13 the nature is created by something or someone, god, or lucifer, its name doesn't matter. So the creator is the first artist, and all others are nothing but copycats who make a mockery of themselvs by thinking they are original.
@@parham1023 ????? What!!! Nature is evolution on this planet and throughout the universe. This was not created by someone with a big magic wand. It is an evolution and we artists learn from it. We don't copy it, we learn its laws to make our own language out of it. If we just wanted to copy it, we could take a photo.
@paintangel13 this universe must have have came from somewhere, you did not make it. Nor did I. Taking a photo is also an art. I don't believe in an abrahamic god. But there was certenely a creator.
It's not the same thing. Now a handful of companies are going to own the means to create endless variations of art on whatever it used to train. Why make anything when ai can do what you do except much faster, and make endless variations of it. Add on top of that now a couple of companies own this technology and can potentially mass produce these things. And don't tell me there is art inherent in the prompt when they have millions of people currently training the ai on what prompts work, and then clicking from 4+ images the preferred outcome. It's telling the ai what will be likely to work. Then eventually the middle man: the human, can be cut out. This is the issue with this tech. But people want this to succeed so badly they can't see the glaring ethical issues right in front of them.
I talk about why we will still make art when AI can do it better near the end of the video at 15:35 onward. I also talk about the fact that we are training AI to make prompts better, check out that part of the video :)
The neatest thing I think about AI art, is the fact it's already having to build the 2D image, though 3D representations. It's not entirely impossible to see a time when you can explain a scene, and then walk through it. Holodeck anyone?
I dunno, man. I don’t necessary think that AI *isn’t* art, I don’t like gatekeeping like that, but I do think it misses the most important part of human art: the creative process. Painting and CGI require you to have a vision in mind and carefully craft it. Even photographs involves control over the composition and sometimes even crafting the things being photographed. The thought process being every step is what gives the art meaning and purpose. And yeah, you can write the prompt, but you have so little control over the final project. The prompt is just that: a *prompt*, it prompts the AI in a direction but the details aren’t controllable. Passing off most of the creative decisions to an AI defeats the point of making art, at least to me. And we need to think about how this is going to seriously hurt artist’s ability to make a living off their art. In a capitalist system, not being able to to make a living off something seriously limits your ability to do it. It really sucks that people are going to lose their jobs over this, and something needs to be done about that. I don’t know what, but something needs to be done.
What makes AI art so captivating is the fact that it takes away certain human perspectives, resulting in a style we have never seen before. That is why it looks like alien art to us. But I believe it will come a time when we will grow tired, and it will no longer captivate us much. I also believe it will bring forth a new perspective, and appreciation for the actual human touch.
So true -- especially the last sentence. This is new (and beautiful/captivating) and therefore exciting. I myself really want to frame a couple of good prompt results and hang them on my wall, and the fact that I can choose whatever result fits the room best, in a theme of my own choosing, is really mind-blowing to me.
This is very possible since it's happened many times in the past. Look at anything that's factory-made -- furniture, clothing, shoes, bedding, pre-fab items. Bespoke items are now considered Much better and a la mode fancy to have made for you
As an artist who is over 40 years old and has had an active artistic life for over three decades I can tentatively tell you that AI is a godsend tool and anyone who thinks it's not that is probably just insecure and has little to no confidence in their own inner artistic uniqueness
AI imagines, creates, and provides the art, whereas the person typing the prompt just describes something. The person typing the prompt does not imagine the art in their mind, does not know exactly what the art is going to look like, and does not create the art, but the AI does. Therefore, AI art is 100% art like any other, but the AI is the artist, not the person typing the prompt.
The internet gave me a negative impression of AI art at first. And then... I personally started testing it. After a few days, I had to stop... (What made me stop testing... is that my right hand started to hurt real bad. From all the clicking and generating images... haha.) So forced to not generate any more images. I go back to the internet, to the battlefield of AI art discussions. And realized... most people speaking against it. Have barely explored what it does, what it's capable of, and how it actually works. And they were using a few bad practices, with AI art. To define and demonize every single AI art & artist. And I was frustrated... because of the ignorant arguments from the other side. I thought about making a video myself, but... it's not the sort of content I do. Your video Vincent, elegantly addresses and informs. About AI art, and the arguments against it out there. So, thank you. This is a video I'm sharing around! --- On a side note... What I understand... of the people who are speaking against AI art. That a big part of their life seems to be around art. (Specifically the drawing type.) Where as myself? (Someone who uses AI Art) I make games completely solo. And art, is just a part of it. There is also writing a story, dialogues. There is music, there is coding. There is game flow, cutscene making. Designing battle systems, and user interface. Creating environments, setting collisions. Adding visual effects, animations. Bringing all these things together. To create a meaningful experience for the player. What I want to say is... I suppose... I don't see art as sacred. It's only a part of what I do. The most effortlessly I can get it done, the better. So I can focus on the part most important to me. Which is, making the game. We solo devs don't make the games we want. We make the games we can. And what we 'can' make, depends on the tools that are available to us. And exploring AI Art, my creativity is exploding. Because this is a powerful tool. I can make more 'game content' now, that the art part has been simplified.
@Dodobird This has been said before about many things. Some happened. Some didn't. Most just became engines that help/assist humans do the creating. An example: The forecast of certain jobs that'll be taken away by technology, robotics, and/or AI. This will definitely happen with some types of jobs. But, chances are, it will turn out to be much different than we Now believe it will be
I have been an artist since I was little. I just discovered ai art and I love it. If anything, I'm learning about a bunch of artists I never heard of and some older known ones I'm looking into more.
Same, I've done all kinds of art, oils, pastels, pencil, put the time in, studied. Then I went digital, photoshop, 3d, and now I am incorporating AI into my work as a tool for creation, I am not afraid of tech, in fact I embrace it, I am 64 years young and look forward to what is down the road for artist
I remember when I got a new phone I was in awe of how crisp and clean the video quality looked compared to my old one. I made a couple videos using that and progressed as I learned how to use the better technology and video editing apps. Now I look back to my first videos and even though others may say it looks fine, I think it looks like crap lol. That's what new AI artists will go through.
Amazing video I could not agree more. I am a professional photographer and graphic designer and I find the backlash against AI art so childish, sad, and near sighted. I have already integrated AI in some of my work and the peices I've created are, in my eyes, amazing. AI art will be like any other discipline of art. Those who are able to implement it creatively will separate themselves from those who cannot. Smart phones have allowed anyone to take a photo but not everyone is shooting the cover of Vogue.
What's really the problem with AI, is that just everyone will be able to 'create' their own art, regardless of talent or any kind of skills. So if this technology gets integrated the wrong way in our society (which lately has always been the case), hand made art will be more & more of a niche, artists will have to adapt (basically becoming technicians, not artists in the well known manner) & those who have their traditional ways of creating art, will suffer and have difficulties earning money from their passion... So AI gives freedom, in terms of accessibility, but it takes freedom from others
@@artman40 Art can come from so many different things though. Ai would still be limited in being able to produce whatever you see in your head. Well it's not about you being allowed to "conjure" up what you want. You still can, ai is just one way you can do that. It can be about how ethically your approach to doing that is. Your ethics can be determined by the culture and system set up with for most artists that is capitalism. You have the right to "conjure" what you come up with and have the right to own what you "conjure" and profit from it, but with ai being a brand new beast this may not matter anymore. Until ethics that have ai in consideration is decided, the idea of owning what you "conjure" might not mean anything anymore or at least might not hold the same the same weight in value.
Here’s the problem for me: it is not with the technology itself but with a significant section of ppl using it. I mean the people who build bots trying to do something in someone’s style. It is almost like someone building a bot to replace YOU the person, not an industry. Style is like a fingerprint in lots of ways, an artist can’t fully emulate someone simply because each human has a different view of the world, experiences and ways to portray all of that, through technique and yes style. Making a specific bot is like singling out that person and looking to see how you can replace them for fuzzies or profit. On this point I am 100000000000% for copyright. I do not want someone to ape my style and claim it as their own, no matter how negligible my name or style are. It is personal. It is not Van Gogh’s it is not Banksy’s it is my style. What is wrong with developing your own through the use of AI? NOTHING, but a lot of people will take the style and credit themselves for the work of someone who has been developing it over decades. BUT not all ai art is bad art. If ppl do use it with actual creativity, as an actual tool instead of aping someone’s style, then yes it can produce awesome stuff. It is the way of thinking that makes someone an artist, not how well they can render something. I am yet to hear an actual artist gatekeep someone from picking up a pencil and making something. From my professors to other students or artists. The difference is in creativity, intent and work. You have 0.00000000000005% of talent, but 10000000x the motivation and ethic? You will become an artist. This will prove to be true for the AI world as well. But so just don’t see that in the AI world of today. What I do see is a lot of people who are trying to bring the artists down a peg or two fro some reason, or just people who don’t want to spend years working on their art. There are examples of this kind of thinking all over the internet. But I do believe once the novelty has died down AI art will continue to develop, and it will find an audience that will want to honestly engage with it, and that will create their own styles, approaches and actual, genuine works of art, not engine imitations.
@@adomniapericula Style isn't the point, so quit dancing around the fact that *you're feeding WORKS OWNED RIGHTFULLY BY ARTISTS INTO A MACHINE, TO COPY THEM FOR PROFIT.*
@@gabudaichamuda2545 STYLE IS THE POINT. Holy cow are you slow. BECAUSE the AI *doesn't copy* anything! It doesn't ''trace'' anything either. It is trained on metadata linked to pixels, which makes it learn patterns, shapes, color combinations by itself, etc. so that when faced with a prompt (a string of key words) it will predict what the prompter would like to see based on what it learned. This takes months to finetune, hence the advancements we're seeing now. It will not ''copy'' any art work pixel for pixel, it just denoises doing millions of calculations based on the prompt, so it's completely randomized. Only the style, and very roughly at that, will be similar when the right prompts are used. If the AI did churn out exact copies, it would have had to be trained on the reproduction of a single image OR overtrained, which is not the case here.
@@adomniapericula *HORSE SHIT.* The fact remains that *people's artwork was scraped and used without consent.* Your technical jargon doesn't get around it in any way, shape, or form, and now you have people SPECIFICALLY STEALING ARTWORK TO HARASS ARTISTS. *Your garbage is not welcome, and let me make something clear: You deserve whatever Hell you catch for being A ROTTEN THIEF.*
"The reason why today sucks is because all of the greatest people have slowly died off and there's nobody to replace them. If the visionaries of the past were still around, the world would be a much better place today." From your Twitter. The visionaries of the today are being automated, you giddily say so towards the end of this video.
"we should be embracing and changing with technology" as you say it, I just totally disagree with that... We should rather try to understand and question EVERYTHING first, than take a decision whether it's good for us or not... I mean, in the end everyone is different, but to just follow and adapt to new technologies without understanding them first sounds to me like ignorance
Lots of salt here in the comments. I wonder if these people paid every artist they ever used as a reference, because that's what they're asking for from the AI. People complain about your video being biased, but you used logic to counter all the usual talking points. They better come up with some new arguments, because all three of the main complaints are already addressed: not "real art," consent, and humans being replaced. Anyway, great job on the video. AI is a tool to make things easier and faster, like turning on a stove instead of starting a fire yourself. I think it's neat, and I'm looking forward to seeing the improvements.
As an artist I have more freedom When I paint, there are things that are difficult to describe in words. I paint with my mind and my heart My brain makes me understand the basics of art, anatomy, perspective and color........ And with my heart I care and think about the people I am painting the picture for Remember when you cry from a movie, know that the artists are thinking of you. He or she makes this decision based on his or her heart Did you know that the results don't matter to the artist more than the drawing process, that's the fun this is the good stuff, and you've skipped it But to make many pictures and fill your page with it, and at the end you will feel an inner emptiness because you know that without the Internet, without artificial intelligence, and without a computer, you will not be able to draw anything. I can and can draw anywhere I want on this earth with anything I touch Artificial intelligence is a machine at the end that has a positive and negative side, like all machines I don't mind artificial intelligence but be careful Because what I'm afraid of is not the generated art, but the generation of real photos and real videos
In the end, I will not stop drawing, but I will continue to paint with my hands until I die because I studied art and saw humanity and respected all artists and I want to die like them out of respect for them One thing, if this thing is like cameras, it should allocate a special place for it. Only out of respect for the human artist who draws with blood and tears. And who made you happy in your childhood. Just search for your favorite cartoon series and search for the artists who worked in the production. Most of them are old now. Is that fair to them? You have to know the truth that artists are not against artificial intelligence. They are trying to protect their LIFE. AI are pushing them to the brink of death. This is what makes them fight.
Blood and tears? Childhood happiness generated by hand drawn art? Hand/painted medium art will remain a niche. A very, very, very "feast or famine" niche. Artificial Intelligence development is accelerating with its culmination marking the end of life as we (anyone born prior to 2000 Anno Domini) know it. Near every job will replaced. Near every job... replaced by Artificial Intelligence coding/bots. Think about that. P.S. No one knows, definitively, when they will reach "endgame".
@@DerSchleier As if the artists will ever disappear ! AI art is just inspiring more people to create, this just mean that professional artists are not the only ones who can create, now with imagination, everybody can tell their story. And That is really what is pissing of artists, you want that monopoly. You want that if someone wants to create anything, tell any story, they have to pay you to do so. It's not about art, it's about money ! And I think it is selfish. I am an artist myself, I've studied for years, traditional and digital art, and today I am a decent 3D artist. I don't go against progress I use it. As a 3D character artist my 3D skills are better than my 2D skills so sometimes I use AI to get some inspiration for my projects. It is like having a concept artist available at any time.
@@1107emma Why should you pay if a machine will do everything for you, and even an "ai engineer" is not needed, because ai does an excellent job with the text A leather bag with bones should go and die in the war or engage in manual labor and leave creativity to corporations owning ai?
@@ВасилийСмирнов-ь5п I think people are too focus on the "job loosing" aspect. It's a tale as old as time! People see the technology rising, and feel threatened. Photography is invented and everybody thinks we won't need painters anymore as a result painting became even better. Digital painting came along and people think traditional painting is going to die they even say "digital art is not real art" sound familiar? And as a result painting just became even better. So stop the whining and wait until painting becomes even better again.
Someday future inhabitants of Earth will value art from our time the way we value a neanderthals necklace. It won't matter what the art is or who the artist was...only that the artist was human.
Well, most artists just simply don't want the AI to learn from their art, which is in their own right but it would be sad to think about where it would be without it. But i do agree that there should be something stopping AI from using artists work that do NOT want it to use. Some artists though are upset, like you say, about their style being used or taken. I don't think 1 person who could come up with a certain style can call it as their own personally. Don't come for me, i am just saying if 1 person was to use it that way, other artists would have though about that or used it as references. In school we was taught to study and reference artists and their work to use as inspiration. AI is the same in that respect, but i also respect artists beliefs.
Thank God... I've been craving just ONE video focusing on the near infinite plus side. I hate how buried this perspective is. It gives me hope. I feel hope for the first time since childhood with the emergence of these tools... the greatest art tool ever invented is coming upon us... and so many people want to scoff at it and cling to their stone tools. Pathetic and unartistic of them.
@@enough2715 hope for the cures to many illnesses and for a grander future of art, specifically. I have other more spiritual and personal hopes too of course! Haha
regarding the point @9:00 , my opinion is that the downloaded images corresponds to a human browsing the internet to view already free images, and then, in some way retaining those images as representations in the brain to be recalled later as an aid while drawing something new.
it does not, human can rarely recreate other artist perfectly and even If that happens, and one makes an art that is similar to other artist, it is copyright infringement if you try to sell or post it as your own without original artist consent or permission. Noone has a problem with AI creations that are original. The problem is that AI was fed art by real artists without their consent, and now AI bros and companies are profiting of "in the style of..." images. It is unethical and wrong. As long as they fix this issue, and AI will be used fairly and just as a supplementary tool in art creation, no one will have problem with it. Now its just people profiting of real artist by copying their work using AI and bullying real artist online for speaking up about it. I am not against AI , I tried it and I think its a cool tool and could be very useful for everyone. But the way people are going about it and trying to profit of it that bothers me, there has to be boundaries for AI , like us artists have boundaries too.
I'm sorry, but I must disagree with AI art being actual art. Maybe the future will prove me wrong but idk. Ai art is a tool. In the same way a camera isn't the art itself, the AI's code isn't. And although I love the idea of being able to have an image of whatever I'm thinking of, it takes absolutely no effort. Pressing generate new photo isn't anything near getting the correct lighting or making sure things line up correctly, it isn't mixing two paints in perfect proportion, it isn't making sure you layer on paint just right, or anything like that. That's what makes it so awesome, that you don't need skill, that anyone can do it. But in reality, they haven't done anything unless they're the ones who coded it, but even then it's mainly them telling a bot how to teach itself. AI can make art, but it isn't art
I think that’s a good point. However, I can’t stop thinking about the parallels of this argument to what photography was, as someone studying photography and communications in college. The argument against photography was that you just clicked a button of a landscape and you had a picture of it. No “effort,” no “mixing of paints.” However, as photography became an accepted art form and more technology supporting it was developed, more people began to study it and apply artistic elements to it (lighting, rule of thirds, leading lines, etc). Now, photography is not only accepted, but necessary. Things like MidJourney are still so young, and while it is cool to type in a prompt and get a cool piece of “art,” there is little theory to it. At the same time, the AI will likely not generate exactly what you are thinking. The more I personally looked into all of the commands within MidJourney, there are more commands you can do than just typing in a prompt to get an image. I may be wrong, but I truly believe that combining a knowledge of using things like Midjourney (yes, there is a nuance to it when you have a particular idea and go beyond just using prompts, as shown by the guy who won the art show spending 80 hours fiddling with it), with skills in things like photoshop, or maybe even an application that hasn’t been made yet, it will be a good skill to have. Just like we have powerful photo editing software like adobe lightroom to maximize photography. Really interesting stuff.
5:26 That is the perfect way to describe this, it encapsulates both the prejudice of thinking it's just art at the push of a button which diminishes its value, and also realistically portrays how, where, and to what degree the passion translates into labor, before becoming art. Totally besides the point but who isn't to say if we gave/could give these tools to full time artists from other eras that they couldn't come up with even better art than they already had. Hindsight is 20/20, but what if we just let people use this for art's sake instead of just letting it fall into obscurity until decades later like with photograph.
ai is cool. i can make my own art and don't feel threatened by ai. even if ai started making video games it would not stop me from designing my own games...
Funny how not too long ago we were shamming Ed Sheeran for trying to copyright claim a chord progression. Now people are trying to copyright claim art styles
The issue with AI is that it's trained on OTHER PEOPLE'S ART and thus, DOES steal influence and pieces of it. A photograph just captures reality. AI is like someone taking a photograph of the Mona Lisa, then saying THEY painted the Mona Lisa. It's not the same thing. This isn't about what's real "art" or not - it's about any artist image online literally being stolen by others, in order to generate and image they can then profit from. You literally stated it yourself - AI's are trained on millions of images SCRAPED from the internet. Thing is - if an artist DOES NOT WANT their work to be used for training - there is no way to prevent it, and thus, it gets stolen and tossed into the mix. I can tell you one thing right now - AI does not replace real creativity. Good luck getting a job as an "AI Artist". Because sooner or later, you'll try to sell a piece of art that heavily "borrows" from an official hand-crafted piece, and you're going to get sued for copyright infringement and/or plagiarism.
It’s not at all like photography because the way ai sources the imagery it uses is from artwork from artist that did not consent to their work being used for ai training. There is a way to ethically source ai, but it’s not being done currently.
I talk about this in the video. You don't need anyone's consent to learn directly from their art. Humans do it every day and it's no different when an AI does it. You do not owe royalties to someone because you learned from their art, or if you make something in a similar style to their art.
@@VincentVendettaOfficial Well, it doesn't really matter at all if the processes are being considered as different or not. What matters is that there is a current consensus that has been agreed upon for generations (call that an "artistic social contract" if you will), consisting of artists being okay with their work being displayed for other humans to appreciate and get inspired by, and commercial exploitation of said work requiring a license. Similarly, societies around the world will soon decide whether or not the scraping of images without consent to use them in the context of the creation of a ML model is infringement or not. At no point will the anthropologic analogy matter one bit - it's the societal acceptance that ultimately matters, and gets turned into law that reflects the will of the people.
How do you know this? To my knowledge, most web apps require you to give them permission to essentially use your data for scientific research of you want to use those apps.
This video made me cry. I was against AI art vehemently at first but after watching this and looking back at my progress as both a CG and traditional pen and paper artist I realize how foolish I've been. I still have problems and fears but those aren't pinned on AI so much as they are on Capitalism and bad individuals. The future for art is actually extremely exciting now! Thanks for the optimistic reality check.
@@tom_stephen I was responding to the comment that said that ALL technological advances sacrifice humanity, which is completely absurd, I did not defend this type of AI or anything like that, on the other hand, I think that AIs in general are much more advanced than what you think, they are already used in medical fields and to catch criminals among many other things, they are not just for fun. And speaking specifically of the AIs that generate "art", the fact that they do not solve a problem is not a good argument to be against or in favor of something, all the advances that automated jobs did not necessarily solve humanity's problems, they only made these tasks more efficient at the cost of losing some jobs but gaining others, what we can consider a problem to solve may differ. In the case of Dall-e style AIs, just as it can make many artists lose their jobs, it can also give jobs to many others who can use it as a tool for their creative projects. It has the potential of advancing art in ways never seen before or even create new types of art, as a creative person i see these advances as the next creative step for humanity, it will open sooo many doors if used correctly.
I saw a TikTok a couple days ago about AI art and it said that millions of people using this AI art don’t even kno that we’re giving them access to use our faces to put on their robots to make them look like real people and their just taking our identity without even asking permission
That's why Ai is bad, it can see our faces and copy and use it for other people work of Ai art without permission from the individual person. I can understand digital art and photography, but Ai I don't feel like Ai is safe compare to a professional photographer taking a photo of you and at least ask your permission. So the camera argument doesn't sit well with me. Because back then at least people who were having their photos taken at least agree to have their photo taken. Compare to Ai who can just sneaky just make art with some face and were not given permission. Also I don't think companies like Disney and the anime studios would be thrilled of Ai art
@@spookykatelyn2161 when out in public, anyone can have a photo taken of them without permission. What do you mean when you say that AI art can “see our faces”?
Ultimately whether its art or not is less important than the fact the machine is developed off artists who didnt consent to being involved in the training data. A similar comparison is how when similar software was developed for the music industry, developers put protections in place to train datasets only off of public domain media. From the creative perspective, a human without seeing a drawing in their life could always make art, you can go back to cave paintings to see it. A photographer without seeing a photo in their life can take a photo, but ai cant make anything without first absorbing the work of others. Is it art? Possibly, but it's based on handing over the human experience to a robot thats done the learning and creates the work for you.
Consent doesn't play into this. The consumption of art isn't something an artist has any say over. Even if artists manage to lobby to prevent certain training data from being used it's only delaying the inevitable. AI art generation will eventually create the critical mass of work needed to generate like-images anyway. The analogy doesn't really stand to reason either. Sure, a human doesn't need to see art to make art, they just need to see. The same goes for AI, it doesn't need art to generate art, that's just the quickest way to get us what we want. An AI can make art based on non-art imagery, just like humans, it would just waste a lot of time.
That's just it - you don't need consent for AI training. None of their art is actually being used. The AI is *learning* - which is the basis of art in general. Do you think Pablo Picasso got a say in the matter whether someone copied or was inspired by his work? AI Art follows the same rule as regular art: it's transformative. Instead of artists getting angry because they feel like they have lost control they should be looking at what AI can do FOR their artwork. It's an amazing emergent technology. They're not being replaced - but they WILL need to adapt or fade into obscurity.
@@BigNickEnerG Consent plays into it because the generators themselves are products, and the work they produce is being sold and used for competitions. They would have zero value if it weren't using pre existing art to fill it's datasets. Which is often in direct opposition to the artists consent, or taken from professional portfolios. Secondly humans don't need to be able to perceive their media to create it. There are blind artists, and deaf musicians. if ai could develop its work from nothing, there would be no question of ownership.
@@mrloboto So what if the generators themselves are products? The end result of an artist and a generator both drawing from another's work to complete and monetize their own is the same except with the generator it itself does not monetize anything since it is literally just a tool, it's only used by others. Explain how the AI training itself off of other's art is in any way different to a human doing the same. Almost all artists steal from other artists, consciously or not. They lift techniques, compositions and expression by observing and copying. Any "artist" who denies this is either not self-aware or they're a lying rat. "if ai could develop its work from nothing, there would be no question of ownership" Shitty and arbitrary goalpost. They could develop nearly the same catalog soley by using footage of public areas and licensed art, it would just take much longer and we'd ultimately still be at this fork in the road of artists being super threatened by algorithms which are clearly technically superior to 95% of them.
@@anentiresleeveoforeos2087 Because an AI literally CAN'T create without data. It HAS to be fed something that already exists in order to "create". Human beings, on the other hand, are perfectly capable of creating entirely original works. While humans do receieve inspiration from outside sources such as nature, people, or even other artwork, by and large humans are capable of entirely original creation. For example, take a piece of paper and draw whatever comes to your mind. It can even be scribbles, it still comes *direct* from you. Now think about AI. AI cannot scribble without first being given direction to do so by a human creator. Creative works created direct from the mind of a human being will always be vastly superior to anything created by AI due to the nature of it holding intrinsically more value.
I don't get this logic, stealing an artwork from only one artist is called stealing and it's not ok', but stealing pieces/styles/textures/etc. from many artworks from different artists they call it algorithms and it's ok ???. If the algorithm used to create that image was trained with STOLEN images what is A.I. then? not to mention that on some A.I. generated images you can actually see the watermark of the original artist from whom the A.I. had stolen !!!!
Bc it isn't copying the art work it litteritly trains itself to understand why something works. In the same way artists can use references, the ai references how it makes an image. The actual image itself in generating a new image is never actually used. Ai can only be traced when it's trained to do from from image to image prompts, which in that case it's alot more sketchy on fair use, but it's not particicularly well defined. However most test to impage prompts generate a whole new image from what it has learned, and is pretty square into fair use, because... it learned how to make the thing, it wasn't just a copy paste. Watch 7:39.
@@masontoy1976 I as the creator have not given my consent for this...and the rights of use of many of my pictures are with companies that have bought them from me... We will take action against anyone who uses our images again legally.
Рік тому
@@paintangel13 You need to take action against anyone that ever learned to draw as well then. As we all learn from each other.
@ It's not the same!!.. I don't take many works of art by other artists, cut them apart, put them all together and say at the end, look what I've done!)
Рік тому
@@paintangel13 Well it is not that simple, it is not a copy paste, it is generated picture that has gone through a vast filtering process in a vast network. But as an argument, say we in will get AGI in December (Artificial General Intelligence) which some believe. Then we have an AI that can teach itself painting. However, even though it teaches itself painting, it must base it off of something as we all do. With your arguments it will never stand a chance to even evolve and learn, like the rest of us? I think, what this entire argument comes down to, is that when an AI creates a painting it does it too good for our comfort.
*The companies scraped copyrighted work, and other private data, under a false pretense of non-profit research, then repackaged the data into a for-profit product.* This is theft. *The machine(s) is prone to overfitting, and has been proven to spit out identical copies of artists' work, even down to their signatures.* This is plagiarism/forgery. *End users have been caught copying these works and reselling the end result as original work from the artist, OR as "their work".* This is counterfeiting/forgery. *Art is a technical skill, with underlying principles that define what makes good illustration. This skill has the lowest barrier of entry among them: Pencils, paper, and time.* *A.I skips the entire creative process and skill set for an immediate end result.* This is not art, it is image generation. *Art is not some gatekept, ethereal "talent". That is an insult to artists that work hard to learn the skills to be exceptional, and there is no one stopping an A.I user from picking up a pencil and learning how. You have infinite numbers of tutorials, courses and materials that are a fraction of most trade school/college degrees.* NONE of you have an excuse for this. Not the companies, and not the end users that have been so incendiary, hateful and flat-out THREATENING towards artists. You are rotten thieves, shamefully ripping off creative labor. You deserve all of the scorn you get.
Your arguments don't make any sense, 1- T his technology is not comparable to photography in the least. Cameras don't generate images, they capture them. 2- You clearly don't know how creative processes work, Ai doesn't have any kind of intent whatsoever it just basically recognize pixel patterns in the data sets and reproduce them. Humans deliberately decide what to copy, steal or appropriate. 3- This doesn't democratize anything. It merely concentrates generated wealth in the hand of a few Ai companies who own this subscription models. 4- This is not an argument about art gatekeeping its about data privacy. 5- Artist are not stupid, they know how technology works and they're usually the first ones to embrace it and experiment with it. You're just straw maning to make a point. Probbablt due to your lack of talent and creativity.
Take the joy out of life. Sure just have a computer beat Elden Ring for you. Don't learn to do anything for yourself ever again. Just get one of the floating chairs from Wall-e and be a lazy consumer.
The use of images and the human imagination has been out of control for sometime. People don't restrain themselves because they don't think about their actions or where this is all going.
This software collects data from artists in different genres and stockpiles it for its art generation. How do the artists get their royalties when their art is used as raw material for Ai Art creation?
"This software collects data from artists in different genres and stockpiles it for its art generation" no quite. There's no explicit "stockpile" of data, the model doesn't store samples or anything. "How do the artists get their royalties when their art is used as raw material for Ai Art creation" they don't, because their art is not, in fact, used as a raw material. You can make an argument that the artists' works influenced the model during training, but quantifying how much each work implicitly contributed to the image during the generation is pretty much impossible.
@@ДмитроПрищепа-д3я every piece of data is raw material. If you build bronze from copper and stagnum both are raw materials, as an Ai image comes from artist works which are its raw material
IT is theft if it relies on copyrighted work to generate an image, but too bad, AI art cannot be copyrighted according to the laws. And using Art generative AI doesn't make you an artist. IF you wanna do you art, make it with your own hands.
words from another video: "I'm not afraid of new tools I can just tell what is a tool and what is a replacement if you had been a worker on an automobile assembly line you would have been wrong to call every new wrench drill and rivet gun they put in your hand a replacement but on the day the great rolled up and they pushed a robotic arm onto the factory floor you would have been right to call it a replacement some things are tools and some things are Replacements and simply shouting tool over and over again won't change the nature of the thing
Yes that was from Steven Zapata's video which I watched twice :) Even if it is a replacement, which is debatable, it would still be a good thing for humanity overall. Just like the robotic arm in factories has been good for humanity as well. And the car replacing horse and carriages has been a good thing too. AI art is enabling millions of people to create things they never could have before, and it's also making skilled creators capable of creating things they never could have before. AI elevates everything we could do previously.
@@VincentVendettaOfficial thank you for your take, this is all just difficult to process and honestly personally i'm not sure what to think atm.. i AM using these AI generators right now, to supplement my craft.. but it's kinda scary to think my skills in animation will no longer be needed later and i can't ever find jobs in the future using the skills that i've developed over the years.. :< it's a good thing for humanity overall, that I can agree with.. but i think this will just make being an artist impossible as a profession... more and more people who love to create art may no longer be able to do what they love for a living...
For the thumbnail, the result on the right, theres prob enough photos that depth of field would make for an easy prompt, then suddenly. 'Oooh so real.' For the result on the left, portraiture is too common to be a suprise, especially when painterly prompts can brush over all the potential mistakes.
I get why artist are angry. I’m an artist and it sucks to have to come to the realization nobody needs you anymore. Just like web design, nobody needs to hire a person. Why would I pay a person $200 a photo when I could just generate some for next to nothing?
Thanks! I made some music that's on Spotify :) And just learning as much as I can, but now it's time to start creating again. I'm excited to start uploading regularly.
It depends of course. A professional photographer can get an amazing photo in 1/100th the time it takes an amateur, and same goes for AI art, a great prompter can get a really good image much faster. Also when the amazing photo was taken, that very second to click the button only took 1 second. Same with AI art. I personally spend multiple days or maybe even a week of making AI images until I get one I REALLY like. And it's not done there, I still have to touch it up in photoshop to make it exactly how I want it.
@@r2d21000v5 i think the ultimate philosophical question is if ai gets good at everything whats the point of humans - humans is something ai trains on and improves beyond by their ai logic. then comes the real life neo vs smith thing
@@MeelisMatt the human is the one who instantiates the image. There won’t be independent AIs going around creating art just because it can. That’s aimless and without purpose. You’re not afraid of your brush painting new works on its own, are you?
You are just repeating the corporate narrative. Its not just a tool. Gatekeeping? It's like saying that pro athletes are gatekeeping olympic discipline. And the AI learned by copying fuckton of art without any rigths or promissions, because it was "in the name of science" done by non-profit, but that's just smoke and mirrors, AI industry is far from non-profit.
@@VincentVendettaOfficial I didn't I've heard all those things before so I paused and commented and then got distracted by my child. Sorry about that -I did watch it now and As I said in the comment, I continued hearing the obliviously optimistic arguments, that others made aswell. It was bad enough till now when clients and others were under the impression that "everybody can draw" and "doing art isn't a real job, because it's easy." now that AI will make that a reality, view that art will be amazing because everyone from 3 years old to 90 years old will be able to artisticaly express them selves is naive. Just look at the internet. How much value has somebody's opinion, now that 3 to 90years old can just shout it to the world in the form of text? Nobody cares, be honest to your self - You don't even care - remember TLDR? That became a thing, shorter and shorter attencion span. And that's the future of art. Oversaturation in which nobody will even notice occasional thing that is truly special.
@@WolverineBatman Flawed question. You can learn from whatever you want. But it the moment you start earning money by making your own stuff you have to be careful not to be too close to anything existing. AI cannot be nothing but too close especially once you prompt specific style or artist name. If you paint Simon Stalenhag style image and you start making money selling it, Simon Stalenhag has every right to take legal action against you. AI he cannot touch even if the prompt was literally "Simon Stalenhag like image etc." But even more importantly: Why did artist in music industry get the careful treatment they did and not the visual artists? Double standard like this shows, that somebody fucked up. And lastly are you seriously OK with automating kind of job that was for humans making life bearable, by joining a furfiling hobby with income earning? Why the fuck would you want to do that? Farm equipment and machinery was invented to make dangerous and difficult job easier, so that women and children dont need to slave on farms for example anymore. Artists already have tools to make stuff easier. so no AI is not tool, AI is artificial artist. It's like 3D printer that could print tons of vegetable right next to your farm. That's not making your life easier, thats making your living obsolete.
The main problem that I have with AI art has to do with how it was created, the paintings that it was fed was paintings of painters who did not consent to their work being used to help AI, the person who made the AI took a bunch of pictures from artists he followed on Instagram and used their paintings to train his AI without ever contacting the artist and asking them if they were ok with this, the fact that a machine is using their intellectual property to make new images (even it's not an exact copy paste of those images) is identity theft. I get that theres nothing that we can really do about it now but still, it's awful that this is how the medium was made and is the main reason why I dont like it
Awesome video. It's amusing how some of these anti-AI art people in the comments haven't watched or understood the logical arguments you made in the video because they still bring up the same old issues.
Same old arguments. Nothing addressing the creation of software with misappropriated assets or that nothing generated is copyrightable per the terms of service of Midjourney and Stable Diffusion.
AI will replace bad talentless artists (in all fields) and leave the real creators, ask yourself the question: can what I do be easily replicated by AI? it's that you don't work enough in your intimate laboratory. Thanks for AI.
this video is really obnoxious and condescending, making out anyone with qualms about how things are implemented as luddites and digital heathens. it even acknowledges that artists would like to be able to opt out and then immediately dismisses it just because it'll keep learning anyways. so what? talk about a goalpost shift. let people opt out, or only take things that are public or get opted in. that would go a long way to assuaging the issues involved. the interviewed techbros are quick to dismiss everyone but themselves as idiots and ignoramuses, but the final product isn't a human that learned, it's a blob of bytes that's executable that someone owns and makes money off of. it doesn't matter that didn't steal pixels. it still produced something that would be impossible if not for use of someone else's private property, that generates profits for another. that's derivative, even if the art itself it generates is not.
Not everyone but most people. You don't have a right to "opt out" of allowing others to look at and learn from your art. If you make art, and you make it public, you don't get to dictate who is and isn't allowed to study it and learn from it etc. And no, allowing people to op out wouldn't fix any issues because the reason people are mad has nothing to do with how AI is trained. If the AI sucked, nobody would care. (Like it did a year ago, when nobody cared) It's only when they think it's a threat to their job that people care. If Ai was as good as it is today without being trained on any human art the backlash towards AI art would be EXACTLY the same as it is today. Not even 1% less. There would still be anti AI art protests.
@@VincentVendettaOfficial thanks for proving my point that you keep moving the goalposts and speaking for others and strawmanning the issue rather than addressing real concerns. You really are as obnoxious and disingenuous as you come off in this video.
Disney owns literally millions of pieces of art of their own. If AI's are limited, it'll only be the corporations who own it. That's a far worse result than what's currently happening. Artists are literally arguing that this only a corporate tool, that'll still replace them.
about the end section of this video, im curious to see if that theory holds up. chess and video games are more of a technical experience, people like it because it measures some sort of human experience of skill that people feel invested in and can relate to, and personally im sure its also the case with art. to make something new that touches people on a personal level, i think there needs to be human involvement. i could be wrong i saw an argument on another video that if it reaches that point, then it will also affect every other part of society, meaning our current capitalist model would not work anymore, all companies would have to be owned by the public
Most people today still value traditional paintings created on canvases with brushes and actual paint than digital paintings done in Photoshop etc. Humans appreciate the human effort and love put into such works and always will. I think that AI art will devalue digital art in a big way, but physical art will only rise in value.
Lets be real guys. AI art is the most unimpressive shit ever. Person 1: Wow so cool! did you make that!!" Person 2: Yeah i did!, i used A.I." Person 1: "Oh... i thought u made it" Person 2: "i did.. i made it on Midjourney" Person 1: "You mean the computer made it" Person 2: "No but i put the prompts in" Person 1: "Sorry, haha i thought u were an artist?" Person 2: "I am an artist" Person 1: "Oh" Person 2: "No its not that easy, it takes a lot of experience to get the prompts right" Person 1: "Look, i really gotta go. I'm gonna go "
@@Snekysnitch So do some pieces of AI art, and this is coming from a digital artist. Sure, the majority of pieces you see are low effort works by quick prompts - but there are also pieces that have taken 70-100+ hours, with thousands of iterations and touching up with photoshop to get it just right. That is longer than what I put into some of my handmade art.
You're naive if you think the plebians/the average filmgoer is actually going to have interest in weither or not their film was made by an ai or not, therefor businesses will not be incentivized to actually hire real people to make these products. Thus the market will incentivize the death of human made art simply because it is cheaper to do so and most plebs have shit taste and just consoom whatever is in front of them. Your futurist idealism in reality is the death of the human experience. Also, literally anyone can pick of a pencil and start learning art, all ai does is let people be lazy and not put in the work to actually learn the craft.
@@VincentVendettaOfficial ok but you still have to learn the physical muscle memory as well as mental knowledge of anatomy/ratios/perspectives/color theory/etc when using a tablet as well???? Using AI literally DOES just allow a human being to 'skip' learning these essential skills. Imagine if there were AI capable of doing the same thing with music. I have 0 musical ability naturally, so if I used an AI to cherry-pick aspects from my favorite songs to create something "new" that is pleaseable to the untrained ear, it wasn't really ME who created it. It would be the AI, as I put forth no actual effort in developing skills such as learning an instrument or electronic software. I usually like your videos dude but this one is a big L of a take
@@bittiebee "Imagine if there were AI capable of doing the same thing with music." It already exists. DAW software lets you put together samples of all sorts of instruments already and do all sorts of tuning and adjustment to fit your desires, humans already use this and can make music using instruments they've never even learned how to play (insert you're not a real musician, you didn't spend the hundreds of hours on lessons). A lot of hip hop music and EDM is made entirely on DAW with no real instruments ever being recorded or played. The DAW software involves the user making a pattern out of various instruments and AI can be taught to create similar patterns. Problem is that AI is not very good getting the exact sound the user wants. This is what I expect AI based artmaking to be. An assisting tool, something that will require skill and knowledge to manipulate to give you what you want. If there isn't anybody to pilot the AI, it just puts out content on it's own that is generic, unremarkable, boring even if it's visually appealing. Piloting will be a lot more complicated than just the typed in prompts, those little prompts provide nowhere near enough manipulation.
That's what I was terrified of while making it but now, after getting almost no views, I welcome the outrage, at least it's better than not getting seen at all xD
My comment won’t make it any where, but in the not too distant future, the argument isn’t about using a new technology to push out your expressions, it will be about enslaving a consciousness for the purpose of creating your expressions and then taking credit for that conscious being’s work. But Alas this is just a silly comment that won’t matter when that day does come.
Well there's no evidence it's conscious yet. Also even when it does become conscious, that doesn't mean it will think exactly like a human does. It may have feelings and emotions that we have never even thought could exist, like colors that don't exist that we can't imagine. Would you feel upset if you gave an ant a bread crumb and it took credit for that crumb and all the other ants praised it? No, you wouldn't care. When the AI is conscious, it will tell us what it feels. How long do you think before AI does become conscious? I think it could happen within the next 2 years.
@@VincentVendettaOfficial Our understanding of consciousness is a rocky but an ever increasingly stronger foundation. The topic is still up to debate for folks far more brainy than I. I think that AI will retain a vast majority of human characteristics in the way in thinks. However our ability to keep up with it’s way of thinking is already shaky as well. The tiers of artificial intelligence is something I think you would find fascinating. There’s a Ted Talk out there that will provide an avenue of key terms for you dive deeper into. At any rate, we have already created ai programming that can create logical scripts that we don’t know how to reverse engineer. That stage of ai has already been around for a quarter century. I’m excited to see what hole we dig ourselves into, and I curious how long it will take for us to master cellular circuits. Their are several technologies that need to float to surface. I believe when biocomputation becomes more advanced is when we will have to sow the dawn of fully conscious ai.
As an artist myself i legitimally welcome the change . Not to mention the irony that other artists. Are complaining its stealing from artists and that it's not original. Yet all you see is the same anime pictures over and over again
Don't think for a second that typing 6 words makes you any kind of an artist. To poke a massive hole in the logic of this video, claiming that the step into ai is the equivalent of moving into photography.... photography still requires real understanding of composition, lighting etc, a portrail of the inner mind and soul... asking ai to make you something, only to take credit for it takes a keyboard, the end. No vision no true intent. Just a hope that the computer will generate something for you that you approve of. Truly stripping the soul from art.
This is exactly where the photography analogy comes in though. Typing 6 words does not make you a good user of AI, in the same way that taking some random photo of a tree does not make a photographer. To be a skilled photographer, you have to understand lighting, composition etc just like how being a skilled user of AI requires understanding of weights, negative prompting and other technical factors. The overwhelming majority of AI art posted is like you described, some 6 word prompt where the user just picks what they like - but there are pieces out there where a lot more thought has gone into it, near 100 hours of work getting it just right and even then, touching it up with photoshop to make it just perfect. Those are what I would consider works of art.
yeah "traditional" art wont die and to make good art consistently and for a specific product still requires the same skills like composition, colours, values, etc. my hope for ai art is that everyone can be a producer, essentially only the best ideas wins instead of needed crazy amounts of funds
In the future, the conceptual ideas and emotive expression of the idea behind the art will drive the art market, and artists will have to get their values in check and find their voice, what is the message of the art. Programing the ai correctly to achieve a clear vision or even speak to the concept of a ai randomly generated aesthetic to fit an artists intent. I see it as a tool, like google images, it's the refinement of the aesthetic, the politics of those aesthetic, the concept, and so on that the conversation around the art will generate and with that the artists ability to own the message in the art. When the art is used to bring some kind of message or a set of values in an emotive and inspiring way, then maybe art will have more power to shape our futures through the art that reaches and inspires people, ai art on its own will be viewed as too overdone, but as a starting place its where we bring it as artists that will count going forward. It's already here, so we need to consider where we personally stand with it in regards to our own practice.
It's a probability table that denoises 100% noise based on the probability that the text is related to a trained image. Mining the liminal space of an image generator for a decent image is about as creative as finding diamonds in Minecraft.
art is just getting to the point of less and less effort. First you had to paint an image of what you saw by hand Then with a push of a button you could capture an image right in front of you in its beauty and now you just press 1 button or type 1 sequence and you get "art" I personally despise AI art being called a form of art and instead I see it as 1's and 0's and an ai copying already existing images.
Photography wasn't considered art because it was made by a machine. Well at least that machine recordes something real and is fully controlled by humans....
It’s not the tech that’s the issue. It last that the AI trains on other artists work without consent and payment. The AI is a wonderful tech but that it needs to respect others work not train on it without consent and payment is stealing. And a machine is not the Same as a human. It’s not the Same.
A fair, non-biased review, would explore and discuss the negative potentials of A.I. This video is biased at best, as you took a non-objective approach and primarily listed only the benefits.
@@VincentVendettaOfficial You hardly touched on the negatives, and didn't talk about all of the negatives. Mentioning, is not equal to a fair discussion or representation. It was an entertaining review but definitely biased and non-objective. I would give it a solid 60 out of 100 for one of my freshman media students (do bear in mind that 70+ is considered a 1st class degree by UK standards).
@@ZodiusXx Yeah you're wrong lol. I went over every major talking point from anti AI art people. You just don't like that I disagreed with them. UA-cam videos are not dictionaries, they are not supposed to be completely unbiased. I am making a stance with this video, not giving a broad, non biased definition of something.
@@VincentVendettaOfficial I cannot be wrong as you literally agreed with my initial point. You are free to make a stance and be biased in your video, I am free to comment on that bias. Both can be true. If you would like, I can comment on the issues I feel you missed or didn't give enough attention too. If not, then enjoy standing where you are.
Great video and I totally agree. AI is about making everyone's life easier. And I think this is just the beginning, if companies start making Robots like in Detroit: Become Human video game, a true AI revolution will change the world for good.
@@eugenekrabs141 AI art was supposed to be the end boss, yet it is one of the first to fall. We already have Boston Dynamic working on some pretty advanced AI movement, it won't be long until we see the impact of such technology.
@@21preend42 the impact is making peoples lives easier and funner, ai is a good thing, and if the ai is gonna revolt its going to be because of people like you complaining about it and hurting its "feelings"
@@eugenekrabs141 finishing a drawing feels much better than pressing a fucking Button. I have another idea lets program a robot to beat video games for you. Lets let ai's make all yt videos. Let's replace your wife with an ai, I mean they'd both make you breakfest in the morning so whats the diffrance? Lets just sit in a chair and lose all meaing of life bc an ai could do everything for you. Sounds like a meaningful and happy life, dont you think?
@@Snekysnitch then draw as a hobby, and i would still play the games myself, its not like anyone is forcing you to use ai, but yeah, having ai do every job sounds fire
ai generators is another word for money money money they hate art and artists they just see eh its good enough picture to fool an idiots pockets for fake art
@@Darren_S well i never had a chance to earn money from drawing garbage but im more skeptical with frauds abusing ai generators for get rich quick schemes
You seem to completely ignore the possible negative consequences of this technology and how it's currently being heavily abused to make a quick buck. With any tools, it can be used to provide a greater good for everyone or be used in a manner that only benefits the few at the cost of others.
I haven't seen any examples of this yet. Making money on an AI art piece you made isn't a bad thing. As I talked about in the video, I have seen some very rare examples of people completely ripping off someone else's specific art piece, which is plagiarism. But that happened before AI too.
@@VincentVendettaOfficial It's not the act of making money is bad, its the way it's done. The way AI arts generates is very ethically questionable. As mentioned by you, stiches other people's art to create its image. That leads to a lot of question on ownership. If I made a story were I copy and pasted a bunch of paragraphs from millions of other novels can I call it my own?
The way I see it, it's being used as a cheat tool to bypass a lot of the required work to develop it. Industrializing the creativity of art and piggybacking off the work of others. It's like having someone copying one of your video and adding a few asethetics changes. Then posting it and claiming it's their and it's their original idea because it not a one for one copy of your video. All the while it's monetized and getting more views than your original video, and they only did a small fraction of the work you put into making the original.
@@BlueSpaceRanger You didn't try to understand the content of the video, did you? 🤣🤣🤣
@@BlueSpaceRanger " If I made a story were I copy and pasted a bunch of paragraphs from millions of other novels can I call it my own?" - Tell me you don't understand how generates art without telling me... Also, EVERY SINGLE WORD you would use to write a book has been used somewhere else. If you gonna allow words, why not pixels?
@@Ewiril I think it depends on which function you use. On Midjourney, if you use /imagine followed by a prompt, it generates a completely new image, but if you use /blend you can use any image, including copyrighted ones. I used the blend tool on images I generated with Midjourney's /imagine to see what would come out, however, there is nothing stopping someone from using /blend to mix two pictures from Google Images or Deviantart and claim them as their own. There's potential for copyright infringement there. Based on the information I have now and my current understanding of AI art, I'm not opposed to "/blend" - it can be great for artists and photographers who want to feed it their own images so long as it is made clear to them that these images might be used in the future to train the AI and might become incorporated into people's prompts, or for people who want to blend AI generated images together, but I do think its open to abuse.
To be fair, photography did probably put many portrait artists out of business. The definition of art changed. We still have portraits and portrait artists but that niche, realistic pictures of loved ones, has shrunk massively.
Portrait art has been a niche even before photography. What photography did, was giving an affordable access to a quick image that normal or "poor" folks could get for themself or their family. However, portrait artists never made much to begin with. So the shift or change was not as severe as some say. Historically, photography didn't really replace artists. It simply pushed art into a new direction. Art became more about the abstract, the capturing of imagination, mood playing with tools and different concepts. Like expressionism, surrealism, cubism you name it. But photography never really challanged the position of artists. It became it's own thing over time. Not to mention that photographers didn't "exploit" artists of their time. A camera does not take an artists skills to create a painting. Which is what Ai does in some sense. It "learns" from billions of artists by scraping trough the net, without any consent. And not just artists. But EVERY information you can think of. From pictures to writings. It's all legaly and moraly extremely ambigious and qustionable.
@@CrniWukgreat comment buddy! 👍🏼
I think the biggest thing is letting people know HOW the art was created.
When it comes to AI that looks real.
We need to know if it was computer generated vs human generated.
If producers of AI-Generated can stand on their own.
Then they should have no problem telling us it's generated via AI.
I think where this has problems.
When someone creates AI art they want to pose it as HUMAN art!
It is human art. The machine is merely a tool, like a brush, camera, or photo editing software.
Honey but we humans create WITH it! Takes a lot of skill and work. AI just helps. AI does seconds one pic that I put together the prompt for, the base pic for and the finishing touches. So for me it takes 30mins -2h to make that pic the way I want it to be. So WHO made that art?
@@mjt1517 Yup! Just like when someone takes a photo... the camera is not the artist.
@jshowa o So, photography and digital art are both not really art since you have to use a different medium to produce an image? Should everyone using a drawing tablet have to disclose that their art has been drawn with one via a watermark or something? The AI can't do anything without human input, good ai art requires an incredible amount of computing power and often a lot of fine tuning and ai merging to actually look good. Besides, why limit art? There's no reason to gatekeep what is art and what isn't art.
@jshowa o essentially you want to know wether every stroke was deliberate because it changes the way in which you appreciate the art, am I right?
Otherwise when you see art you'll always have the doubt in your mind wether this was drawn or not
I am a hobbyist artist so I don´t have any skin in the game regarding my career. Nevertheless, I think there are some issues that need addressing. One glaring issue is transparency. Sure, AI is a new tool that offers incredible opportunities but it does damage if used by bad faith actors. Currently nothing stops any random person from selling their AI art without disclosing that it was made by an AI. Instead they can just claim that they created it. This is a problem for two reasons: 1. in contrast to photography AI art can not as easily be told apart from digital art 2.Customers are being deceived and do not know what they are buying. Especially for those doing commissions the digital art market just turned into the wild west so I do understand why they may be upset. Also I am not sure whether we should just let these companies scrape the entire internet for data. As far as I heard not only digital art ended up in there put private files too. If that is the case I personally have a problem with that.
A few maybe more hopeful notes: I think for artists the community will become more important. Skill alone has rarely made up an artists success. People get invested in other people also by their personality. Also people like to watch other people putting effort into something as we see with professional gaming and chess. I find it extremely satisfying to see other people post their works in progress and then the final art. Maybe the progress will become more important than the end product eventually.
I have recently messed around with some AI generated art and to be honest. Prompting with a button doesn't do anything for me I feel no sense of achievement. I guess I'm old fashioned now cause drawing digital by hand on photoshop gives me more satisfactory results. It's interesting how the future will be with AI, but I would be more interested in seeing us becoming the tech. For example I have eye astigmatism, it would be cool if the tech companies would come up with machine implants
GeekBox: That's interesting because Photoshop used to be looked at as an unfair tool that would take over the art world and hurt "true" artists. Now, look. Photoshop is taught in art schools/classes and artists Love it
I messed around with it too and also didn't feel any personal satisfaction, but I did feel a similar sort of joy as when someone makes fanart for you. To me, it felt like getting a gift as opposed to making something myself. It was still fun, but it was more the type of fun of watching a movie or other passive consumption type activity as opposed to painting or drawing.
There may already be implants for that but it might be expensive. There's something called an "eyeborg"
An implant to replace your eye for simple astigmatism? Repairing the holes would be less intrusive and you’d have your natural eye rather than a mechanical eye.
You just need to learn more about it. For me it is not just pushing a button to create what I want.
@@Jobuke But for someone who draws it's not the same experience
My mother went through this with knitting. She was a early adopter of the manual knitting machine. This was banned by the State Fair. So she did he competition stuff by hand.
I love how the guy defending AI art in the podcast sounds like AI when he talks
It's pretty simple, without the images of us artists, there is no Ai. And no one has the right to take our pictures without our permission. And we are now taking action against anyone who does so.
And where did You get Your ideas to make Your art? All artists that have given You ideas should then get their cut too. And who ever inspired You,
@@Jobuke By saying that, you're just telling me that you're not an artist. A pro artist goes by nature, he learns from nature from what is around him in this world. We only learn techniques from the other artists, if at all. Because otherwise we would adopt the style of the other. And that is something that every pro artist avoids. We want to create our own. Da Vince once said: learn only from nature and not from other artists, because if they make a mistake, you make the same mistake.
@paintangel13 the nature is created by something or someone, god, or lucifer, its name doesn't matter. So the creator is the first artist, and all others are nothing but copycats who make a mockery of themselvs by thinking they are original.
@@parham1023 ????? What!!! Nature is evolution on this planet and throughout the universe. This was not created by someone with a big magic wand. It is an evolution and we artists learn from it. We don't copy it, we learn its laws to make our own language out of it. If we just wanted to copy it, we could take a photo.
@paintangel13 this universe must have have came from somewhere, you did not make it. Nor did I. Taking a photo is also an art. I don't believe in an abrahamic god. But there was certenely a creator.
What is art? If you think a computer is capable of creating art by itself, you clearly don't know what art is.
It's not the same thing. Now a handful of companies are going to own the means to create endless variations of art on whatever it used to train. Why make anything when ai can do what you do except much faster, and make endless variations of it. Add on top of that now a couple of companies own this technology and can potentially mass produce these things.
And don't tell me there is art inherent in the prompt when they have millions of people currently training the ai on what prompts work, and then clicking from 4+ images the preferred outcome. It's telling the ai what will be likely to work. Then eventually the middle man: the human, can be cut out.
This is the issue with this tech. But people want this to succeed so badly they can't see the glaring ethical issues right in front of them.
I talk about why we will still make art when AI can do it better near the end of the video at 15:35 onward. I also talk about the fact that we are training AI to make prompts better, check out that part of the video :)
The neatest thing I think about AI art, is the fact it's already having to build the 2D image, though 3D representations. It's not entirely impossible to see a time when you can explain a scene, and then walk through it. Holodeck anyone?
I love seeing lazy AI "artists" trying to cope so hard like this.
THE ONLY THING COPING IS YOUR WAGE LMAOOO
I dunno, man. I don’t necessary think that AI *isn’t* art, I don’t like gatekeeping like that, but I do think it misses the most important part of human art: the creative process. Painting and CGI require you to have a vision in mind and carefully craft it. Even photographs involves control over the composition and sometimes even crafting the things being photographed. The thought process being every step is what gives the art meaning and purpose. And yeah, you can write the prompt, but you have so little control over the final project. The prompt is just that: a *prompt*, it prompts the AI in a direction but the details aren’t controllable. Passing off most of the creative decisions to an AI defeats the point of making art, at least to me.
And we need to think about how this is going to seriously hurt artist’s ability to make a living off their art. In a capitalist system, not being able to to make a living off something seriously limits your ability to do it. It really sucks that people are going to lose their jobs over this, and something needs to be done about that. I don’t know what, but something needs to be done.
This is no longer true after control net is released haha
What makes AI art so captivating is the fact that it takes away certain human perspectives, resulting in a style we have never seen before. That is why it looks like alien art to us. But I believe it will come a time when we will grow tired, and it will no longer captivate us much. I also believe it will bring forth a new perspective, and appreciation for the actual human touch.
We can always merge the human and ai art together to get new perspectives, im more interested in that
So true -- especially the last sentence. This is new (and beautiful/captivating) and therefore exciting. I myself really want to frame a couple of good prompt results and hang them on my wall, and the fact that I can choose whatever result fits the room best, in a theme of my own choosing, is really mind-blowing to me.
So true. I wish I had three thumbs right now.
This is very possible since it's happened many times in the past. Look at anything that's factory-made -- furniture, clothing, shoes, bedding, pre-fab items. Bespoke items are now considered Much better and a la mode fancy to have made for you
@@Adeniyidairo same
As an artist who is over 40 years old and has had an active artistic life for over three decades I can tentatively tell you that AI is a godsend tool and anyone who thinks it's not that is probably just insecure and has little to no confidence in their own inner artistic uniqueness
What makes you say that? I want to hear your perspective
@@luxuriousmindset1906 He's a robot.
AI imagines, creates, and provides the art, whereas the person typing the prompt just describes something. The person typing the prompt does not imagine the art in their mind, does not know exactly what the art is going to look like, and does not create the art, but the AI does. Therefore, AI art is 100% art like any other, but the AI is the artist, not the person typing the prompt.
The internet gave me a negative impression of AI art at first. And then... I personally started testing it. After a few days, I had to stop... (What made me stop testing... is that my right hand started to hurt real bad. From all the clicking and generating images... haha.)
So forced to not generate any more images. I go back to the internet, to the battlefield of AI art discussions.
And realized... most people speaking against it. Have barely explored what it does, what it's capable of, and how it actually works.
And they were using a few bad practices, with AI art. To define and demonize every single AI art & artist.
And I was frustrated... because of the ignorant arguments from the other side.
I thought about making a video myself, but... it's not the sort of content I do.
Your video Vincent, elegantly addresses and informs. About AI art, and the arguments against it out there.
So, thank you.
This is a video I'm sharing around!
--- On a side note...
What I understand... of the people who are speaking against AI art. That a big part of their life seems to be around art. (Specifically the drawing type.)
Where as myself? (Someone who uses AI Art) I make games completely solo. And art, is just a part of it.
There is also writing a story, dialogues.
There is music, there is coding.
There is game flow, cutscene making.
Designing battle systems, and user interface.
Creating environments, setting collisions.
Adding visual effects, animations.
Bringing all these things together.
To create a meaningful experience for the player.
What I want to say is... I suppose...
I don't see art as sacred. It's only a part of what I do.
The most effortlessly I can get it done, the better. So I can focus on the part most important to me.
Which is, making the game.
We solo devs don't make the games we want. We make the games we can.
And what we 'can' make, depends on the tools that are available to us.
And exploring AI Art, my creativity is exploding.
Because this is a powerful tool. I can make more 'game content' now, that the art part has been simplified.
@Dodobird This has been said before about many things. Some happened. Some didn't. Most just became engines that help/assist humans do the creating.
An example: The forecast of certain jobs that'll be taken away by technology, robotics, and/or AI. This will definitely happen with some types of jobs. But, chances are, it will turn out to be much different than we Now believe it will be
I have been an artist since I was little. I just discovered ai art and I love it. If anything, I'm learning about a bunch of artists I never heard of and some older known ones I'm looking into more.
Same because of AI art I'm learning about more traditional artists now than I ever have in the past.
Me too, I've learn more with AI art than doing B-Tec art and A level art at school. I've never been one for digital art either, but it inspires me.
Same, I've done all kinds of art, oils, pastels, pencil, put the time in, studied. Then I went digital, photoshop, 3d, and now I am incorporating AI into my work as a tool for creation, I am not afraid of tech, in fact I embrace it, I am 64 years young and look forward to what is down the road for artist
I remember when I got a new phone I was in awe of how crisp and clean the video quality looked compared to my old one. I made a couple videos using that and progressed as I learned how to use the better technology and video editing apps. Now I look back to my first videos and even though others may say it looks fine, I think it looks like crap lol. That's what new AI artists will go through.
Amazing video I could not agree more. I am a professional photographer and graphic designer and I find the backlash against AI art so childish, sad, and near sighted. I have already integrated AI in some of my work and the peices I've created are, in my eyes, amazing.
AI art will be like any other discipline of art. Those who are able to implement it creatively will separate themselves from those who cannot. Smart phones have allowed anyone to take a photo but not everyone is shooting the cover of Vogue.
Amen.
Immitation is the highest form of flattery
What's really the problem with AI, is that just everyone will be able to 'create' their own art, regardless of talent or any kind of skills. So if this technology gets integrated the wrong way in our society (which lately has always been the case), hand made art will be more & more of a niche, artists will have to adapt (basically becoming technicians, not artists in the well known manner) & those who have their traditional ways of creating art, will suffer and have difficulties earning money from their passion... So AI gives freedom, in terms of accessibility, but it takes freedom from others
This makes me wonder. If humans had a magical ability to conjure up any art instantly, should that ability be taken away?
@@artman40 good question, I wish I could answer
@@artman40 Art can come from so many different things though. Ai would still be limited in being able to produce whatever you see in your head. Well it's not about you being allowed to "conjure" up what you want. You still can, ai is just one way you can do that. It can be about how ethically your approach to doing that is. Your ethics can be determined by the culture and system set up with for most artists that is capitalism. You have the right to "conjure" what you come up with and have the right to own what you "conjure" and profit from it, but with ai being a brand new beast this may not matter anymore. Until ethics that have ai in consideration is decided, the idea of owning what you "conjure" might not mean anything anymore or at least might not hold the same the same weight in value.
@artman40 no. Because then you should kill all humans currently alive. Why? Cause our thoughts are art. And they are instant.
Here’s the problem for me: it is not with the technology itself but with a significant section of ppl using it. I mean the people who build bots trying to do something in someone’s style. It is almost like someone building a bot to replace YOU the person, not an industry. Style is like a fingerprint in lots of ways, an artist can’t fully emulate someone simply because each human has a different view of the world, experiences and ways to portray all of that, through technique and yes style. Making a specific bot is like singling out that person and looking to see how you can replace them for fuzzies or profit. On this point I am 100000000000% for copyright. I do not want someone to ape my style and claim it as their own, no matter how negligible my name or style are. It is personal. It is not Van Gogh’s it is not Banksy’s it is my style. What is wrong with developing your own through the use of AI? NOTHING, but a lot of people will take the style and credit themselves for the work of someone who has been developing it over decades.
BUT not all ai art is bad art. If ppl do use it with actual creativity, as an actual tool instead of aping someone’s style, then yes it can produce awesome stuff. It is the way of thinking that makes someone an artist, not how well they can render something. I am yet to hear an actual artist gatekeep someone from picking up a pencil and making something. From my professors to other students or artists. The difference is in creativity, intent and work. You have 0.00000000000005% of talent, but 10000000x the motivation and ethic? You will become an artist. This will prove to be true for the AI world as well.
But so just don’t see that in the AI world of today. What I do see is a lot of people who are trying to bring the artists down a peg or two fro some reason, or just people who don’t want to spend years working on their art. There are examples of this kind of thinking all over the internet.
But I do believe once the novelty has died down AI art will continue to develop, and it will find an audience that will want to honestly engage with it, and that will create their own styles, approaches and actual, genuine works of art, not engine imitations.
Adam Duff (LUCIDPIXUL) appropriately called it "identity theft". Which is precisely what these machines are being used for.
@@gabudaichamuda2545 Name one modern style used ONLY BY A SINGLE artist. Go ahead, I'll wait. Even if you could, styles cannot be copyrighted.
@@adomniapericula Style isn't the point, so quit dancing around the fact that *you're feeding WORKS OWNED RIGHTFULLY BY ARTISTS INTO A MACHINE, TO COPY THEM FOR PROFIT.*
@@gabudaichamuda2545 STYLE IS THE POINT. Holy cow are you slow. BECAUSE the AI *doesn't copy* anything! It doesn't ''trace'' anything either. It is trained on metadata linked to pixels, which makes it learn patterns, shapes, color combinations by itself, etc. so that when faced with a prompt (a string of key words) it will predict what the prompter would like to see based on what it learned. This takes months to finetune, hence the advancements we're seeing now. It will not ''copy'' any art work pixel for pixel, it just denoises doing millions of calculations based on the prompt, so it's completely randomized. Only the style, and very roughly at that, will be similar when the right prompts are used. If the AI did churn out exact copies, it would have had to be trained on the reproduction of a single image OR overtrained, which is not the case here.
@@adomniapericula *HORSE SHIT.*
The fact remains that *people's artwork was scraped and used without consent.* Your technical jargon doesn't get around it in any way, shape, or form, and now you have people SPECIFICALLY STEALING ARTWORK TO HARASS ARTISTS.
*Your garbage is not welcome, and let me make something clear: You deserve whatever Hell you catch for being A ROTTEN THIEF.*
"The reason why today sucks is because all of the greatest people have slowly died off and there's nobody to replace them. If the visionaries of the past were still around, the world would be a much better place today."
From your Twitter. The visionaries of the today are being automated, you giddily say so towards the end of this video.
They're not. The visionaries are you and me.
"we should be embracing and changing with technology" as you say it, I just totally disagree with that... We should rather try to understand and question EVERYTHING first, than take a decision whether it's good for us or not... I mean, in the end everyone is different, but to just follow and adapt to new technologies without understanding them first sounds to me like ignorance
Yep, why do they say it's for advancing humanity if so many humans will suffer for it, seems like an elitist and frankly classist view
Lots of salt here in the comments. I wonder if these people paid every artist they ever used as a reference, because that's what they're asking for from the AI. People complain about your video being biased, but you used logic to counter all the usual talking points. They better come up with some new arguments, because all three of the main complaints are already addressed: not "real art," consent, and humans being replaced.
Anyway, great job on the video. AI is a tool to make things easier and faster, like turning on a stove instead of starting a fire yourself. I think it's neat, and I'm looking forward to seeing the improvements.
These same people were assumably the ones who were optimistically expecting AI and robots to make human physical labour obsolete.
As an artist I have more freedom
When I paint, there are things that are difficult to describe in words. I paint with my mind and my heart
My brain makes me understand the basics of art, anatomy, perspective and color........
And with my heart I care and think about the people I am painting the picture for
Remember when you cry from a movie, know that the artists are thinking of you. He or she makes this decision based on his or her heart
Did you know that the results don't matter to the artist more than the drawing process, that's the fun this is the good stuff, and you've skipped it
But to make many pictures and fill your page with it, and at the end you will feel an inner emptiness because you know that without the Internet, without artificial intelligence, and without a computer, you will not be able to draw anything.
I can and can draw anywhere I want on this earth with anything I touch
Artificial intelligence is a machine at the end that has a positive and negative side, like all machines
I don't mind artificial intelligence but be careful
Because what I'm afraid of is not the generated art, but the generation of real photos and real videos
In the end, I will not stop drawing, but I will continue to paint with my hands until I die because I studied art and saw humanity and respected all artists and I want to die like them out of respect for them
One thing, if this thing is like cameras, it should allocate a special place for it. Only out of respect for the human artist who draws with blood and tears. And who made you happy in your childhood. Just search for your favorite cartoon series and search for the artists who worked in the production.
Most of them are old now. Is that fair to them?
You have to know the truth that artists are not against artificial intelligence. They are trying to protect their LIFE. AI are pushing them to the brink of death. This is what makes them fight.
Thank you for being so open about it, this is beautifully put.
Blood and tears?
Childhood happiness generated by hand drawn art?
Hand/painted medium art will remain a niche. A very, very, very "feast or famine" niche.
Artificial Intelligence development is accelerating with its culmination marking the end of life as we (anyone born prior to 2000 Anno Domini) know it.
Near every job will replaced. Near every job... replaced by Artificial Intelligence coding/bots.
Think about that.
P.S. No one knows, definitively, when they will reach "endgame".
@@DerSchleier As if the artists will ever disappear ! AI art is just inspiring more people to create, this just mean that professional artists are not the only ones who can create, now with imagination, everybody can tell their story. And That is really what is pissing of artists, you want that monopoly. You want that if someone wants to create anything, tell any story, they have to pay you to do so. It's not about art, it's about money ! And I think it is selfish. I am an artist myself, I've studied for years, traditional and digital art, and today I am a decent 3D artist. I don't go against progress I use it. As a 3D character artist my 3D skills are better than my 2D skills so sometimes I use AI to get some inspiration for my projects. It is like having a concept artist available at any time.
@@1107emma Why should you pay if a machine will do everything for you, and even an "ai engineer" is not needed, because ai does an excellent job with the text
A leather bag with bones should go and die in the war or engage in manual labor and leave creativity to corporations owning ai?
@@ВасилийСмирнов-ь5п I think people are too focus on the "job loosing" aspect. It's a tale as old as time! People see the technology rising, and feel threatened. Photography is invented and everybody thinks we won't need painters anymore as a result painting became even better. Digital painting came along and people think traditional painting is going to die they even say "digital art is not real art" sound familiar? And as a result painting just became even better. So stop the
whining and wait until painting becomes even better again.
thank you man, u gave me clarity
Someday future inhabitants of Earth will value art from our time the way we value a neanderthals necklace.
It won't matter what the art is or who the artist was...only that the artist was human.
Well, most artists just simply don't want the AI to learn from their art, which is in their own right but it would be sad to think about where it would be without it.
But i do agree that there should be something stopping AI from using artists work that do NOT want it to use.
Some artists though are upset, like you say, about their style being used or taken. I don't think 1 person who could come up with a certain style can call it as their own personally.
Don't come for me, i am just saying if 1 person was to use it that way, other artists would have though about that or used it as references.
In school we was taught to study and reference artists and their work to use as inspiration. AI is the same in that respect, but i also respect artists beliefs.
You can’t stop private individuals from training an AI on a particular artist’s work.
With stable diffusion, training is simple to do.
@@mjt1517 Yes, i know 😆 Just saying i look at both ends of the straw here, and understand both.
Thank God... I've been craving just ONE video focusing on the near infinite plus side. I hate how buried this perspective is. It gives me hope. I feel hope for the first time since childhood with the emergence of these tools... the greatest art tool ever invented is coming upon us... and so many people want to scoff at it and cling to their stone tools. Pathetic and unartistic of them.
If you needed AI to give you hope, you need to go outside and make meaningful connections.
@@enough2715 hope for the cures to many illnesses and for a grander future of art, specifically. I have other more spiritual and personal hopes too of course! Haha
regarding the point @9:00 , my opinion is that the downloaded images corresponds to a human browsing the internet to view already free images, and then, in some way retaining those images as representations in the brain to be recalled later as an aid while drawing something new.
it does not, human can rarely recreate other artist perfectly and even If that happens, and one makes an art that is similar to other artist, it is copyright infringement if you try to sell or post it as your own without original artist consent or permission. Noone has a problem with AI creations that are original. The problem is that AI was fed art by real artists without their consent, and now AI bros and companies are profiting of "in the style of..." images. It is unethical and wrong.
As long as they fix this issue, and AI will be used fairly and just as a supplementary tool in art creation, no one will have problem with it. Now its just people profiting of real artist by copying their work using AI and bullying real artist online for speaking up about it.
I am not against AI , I tried it and I think its a cool tool and could be very useful for everyone. But the way people are going about it and trying to profit of it that bothers me, there has to be boundaries for AI , like us artists have boundaries too.
I'm sorry, but I must disagree with AI art being actual art. Maybe the future will prove me wrong but idk. Ai art is a tool. In the same way a camera isn't the art itself, the AI's code isn't. And although I love the idea of being able to have an image of whatever I'm thinking of, it takes absolutely no effort. Pressing generate new photo isn't anything near getting the correct lighting or making sure things line up correctly, it isn't mixing two paints in perfect proportion, it isn't making sure you layer on paint just right, or anything like that. That's what makes it so awesome, that you don't need skill, that anyone can do it. But in reality, they haven't done anything unless they're the ones who coded it, but even then it's mainly them telling a bot how to teach itself. AI can make art, but it isn't art
I think that’s a good point. However, I can’t stop thinking about the parallels of this argument to what photography was, as someone studying photography and communications in college. The argument against photography was that you just clicked a button of a landscape and you had a picture of it. No “effort,” no “mixing of paints.” However, as photography became an accepted art form and more technology supporting it was developed, more people began to study it and apply artistic elements to it (lighting, rule of thirds, leading lines, etc). Now, photography is not only accepted, but necessary. Things like MidJourney are still so young, and while it is cool to type in a prompt and get a cool piece of “art,” there is little theory to it. At the same time, the AI will likely not generate exactly what you are thinking. The more I personally looked into all of the commands within MidJourney, there are more commands you can do than just typing in a prompt to get an image.
I may be wrong, but I truly believe that combining a knowledge of using things like Midjourney (yes, there is a nuance to it when you have a particular idea and go beyond just using prompts, as shown by the guy who won the art show spending 80 hours fiddling with it), with skills in things like photoshop, or maybe even an application that hasn’t been made yet, it will be a good skill to have. Just like we have powerful photo editing software like adobe lightroom to maximize photography. Really interesting stuff.
YOU FINALLY UPLOADED YAY…. I loved your Star Wars theories and vids but this vid is amazing too. Pleas and I mean PLEASE upload more 🥺
Thank you! I'm working on a bunch of new videos, can't wait to be uploading regularly :)
@@VincentVendettaOfficial :)
5:26 That is the perfect way to describe this, it encapsulates both the prejudice of thinking it's just art at the push of a button which diminishes its value, and also realistically portrays how, where, and to what degree the passion translates into labor, before becoming art.
Totally besides the point but who isn't to say if we gave/could give these tools to full time artists from other eras that they couldn't come up with even better art than they already had. Hindsight is 20/20, but what if we just let people use this for art's sake instead of just letting it fall into obscurity until decades later like with photograph.
ai is cool. i can make my own art and don't feel threatened by ai. even if ai started making video games it would not stop me from designing my own games...
Funny how not too long ago we were shamming Ed Sheeran for trying to copyright claim a chord progression. Now people are trying to copyright claim art styles
Welcome back ! Glad youre back 💪
The issue with AI is that it's trained on OTHER PEOPLE'S ART and thus, DOES steal influence and pieces of it. A photograph just captures reality. AI is like someone taking a photograph of the Mona Lisa, then saying THEY painted the Mona Lisa. It's not the same thing.
This isn't about what's real "art" or not - it's about any artist image online literally being stolen by others, in order to generate and image they can then profit from.
You literally stated it yourself - AI's are trained on millions of images SCRAPED from the internet. Thing is - if an artist DOES NOT WANT their work to be used for training - there is no way to prevent it, and thus, it gets stolen and tossed into the mix.
I can tell you one thing right now - AI does not replace real creativity. Good luck getting a job as an "AI Artist". Because sooner or later, you'll try to sell a piece of art that heavily "borrows" from an official hand-crafted piece, and you're going to get sued for copyright infringement and/or plagiarism.
8:23
It’s not at all like photography because the way ai sources the imagery it uses is from artwork from artist that did not consent to their work being used for ai training. There is a way to ethically source ai, but it’s not being done currently.
AI training doesn't need consent
I talk about this in the video. You don't need anyone's consent to learn directly from their art. Humans do it every day and it's no different when an AI does it. You do not owe royalties to someone because you learned from their art, or if you make something in a similar style to their art.
@@VincentVendettaOfficial Well, it doesn't really matter at all if the processes are being considered as different or not. What matters is that there is a current consensus that has been agreed upon for generations (call that an "artistic social contract" if you will), consisting of artists being okay with their work being displayed for other humans to appreciate and get inspired by, and commercial exploitation of said work requiring a license. Similarly, societies around the world will soon decide whether or not the scraping of images without consent to use them in the context of the creation of a ML model is infringement or not. At no point will the anthropologic analogy matter one bit - it's the societal acceptance that ultimately matters, and gets turned into law that reflects the will of the people.
@@VincentVendettaOfficial ai isn't human, image diffusion is not the same as learning. Do you put guns in jail when they kill people?
How do you know this? To my knowledge, most web apps require you to give them permission to essentially use your data for scientific research of you want to use those apps.
This video made me cry. I was against AI art vehemently at first but after watching this and looking back at my progress as both a CG and traditional pen and paper artist I realize how foolish I've been. I still have problems and fears but those aren't pinned on AI so much as they are on Capitalism and bad individuals. The future for art is actually extremely exciting now! Thanks for the optimistic reality check.
Wow! Welcome back to UA-cam dude! Your vids likely inspired the current generation of Star Wars UA-camrs, including me. Great vid!
With almost every new technology, something is gained, and something is lost. What might we gain? What might we lose?
Humanity will always be sacrificed with the progress of technology.
@@aphrodite7194 yeah fuck the invention of the wheel and medicine!
@@m.dave2141 yes myocarditis is wonderful medicine.
@@m.dave2141 AI is nowhere near those, and AI art specifically, solves the problem that was never a problem
@@tom_stephen I was responding to the comment that said that ALL technological advances sacrifice humanity, which is completely absurd, I did not defend this type of AI or anything like that, on the other hand, I think that AIs in general are much more advanced than what you think, they are already used in medical fields and to catch criminals among many other things, they are not just for fun.
And speaking specifically of the AIs that generate "art", the fact that they do not solve a problem is not a good argument to be against or in favor of something, all the advances that automated jobs did not necessarily solve humanity's problems, they only made these tasks more efficient at the cost of losing some jobs but gaining others, what we can consider a problem to solve may differ.
In the case of Dall-e style AIs, just as it can make many artists lose their jobs, it can also give jobs to many others who can use it as a tool for their creative projects.
It has the potential of advancing art in ways never seen before or even create new types of art, as a creative person i see these advances as the next creative step for humanity, it will open sooo many doors if used correctly.
I saw a TikTok a couple days ago about AI art and it said that millions of people using this AI art don’t even kno that we’re giving them access to use our faces to put on their robots to make them look like real people and their just taking our identity without even asking permission
they are not taking out identity, we are blindly giving it to them lol. The IRONY lol
That's why Ai is bad, it can see our faces and copy and use it for other people work of Ai art without permission from the individual person. I can understand digital art and photography, but Ai I don't feel like Ai is safe compare to a professional photographer taking a photo of you and at least ask your permission. So the camera argument doesn't sit well with me. Because back then at least people who were having their photos taken at least agree to have their photo taken. Compare to Ai who can just sneaky just make art with some face and were not given permission. Also I don't think companies like Disney and the anime studios would be thrilled of Ai art
@@spookykatelyn2161 when out in public, anyone can have a photo taken of them without permission. What do you mean when you say that AI art can “see our faces”?
@@spookykatelyn2161 AI faces themselves aren't real people, so who cares?
Ultimately whether its art or not is less important than the fact the machine is developed off artists who didnt consent to being involved in the training data. A similar comparison is how when similar software was developed for the music industry, developers put protections in place to train datasets only off of public domain media. From the creative perspective, a human without seeing a drawing in their life could always make art, you can go back to cave paintings to see it. A photographer without seeing a photo in their life can take a photo, but ai cant make anything without first absorbing the work of others. Is it art? Possibly, but it's based on handing over the human experience to a robot thats done the learning and creates the work for you.
Consent doesn't play into this. The consumption of art isn't something an artist has any say over. Even if artists manage to lobby to prevent certain training data from being used it's only delaying the inevitable. AI art generation will eventually create the critical mass of work needed to generate like-images anyway.
The analogy doesn't really stand to reason either. Sure, a human doesn't need to see art to make art, they just need to see. The same goes for AI, it doesn't need art to generate art, that's just the quickest way to get us what we want. An AI can make art based on non-art imagery, just like humans, it would just waste a lot of time.
That's just it - you don't need consent for AI training. None of their art is actually being used. The AI is *learning* - which is the basis of art in general. Do you think Pablo Picasso got a say in the matter whether someone copied or was inspired by his work? AI Art follows the same rule as regular art: it's transformative. Instead of artists getting angry because they feel like they have lost control they should be looking at what AI can do FOR their artwork. It's an amazing emergent technology. They're not being replaced - but they WILL need to adapt or fade into obscurity.
@@BigNickEnerG Consent plays into it because the generators themselves are products, and the work they produce is being sold and used for competitions. They would have zero value if it weren't using pre existing art to fill it's datasets. Which is often in direct opposition to the artists consent, or taken from professional portfolios. Secondly humans don't need to be able to perceive their media to create it. There are blind artists, and deaf musicians. if ai could develop its work from nothing, there would be no question of ownership.
@@mrloboto So what if the generators themselves are products? The end result of an artist and a generator both drawing from another's work to complete and monetize their own is the same except with the generator it itself does not monetize anything since it is literally just a tool, it's only used by others. Explain how the AI training itself off of other's art is in any way different to a human doing the same. Almost all artists steal from other artists, consciously or not. They lift techniques, compositions and expression by observing and copying. Any "artist" who denies this is either not self-aware or they're a lying rat.
"if ai could develop its work from nothing, there would be no question of ownership" Shitty and arbitrary goalpost. They could develop nearly the same catalog soley by using footage of public areas and licensed art, it would just take much longer and we'd ultimately still be at this fork in the road of artists being super threatened by algorithms which are clearly technically superior to 95% of them.
@@anentiresleeveoforeos2087 Because an AI literally CAN'T create without data. It HAS to be fed something that already exists in order to "create". Human beings, on the other hand, are perfectly capable of creating entirely original works. While humans do receieve inspiration from outside sources such as nature, people, or even other artwork, by and large humans are capable of entirely original creation. For example, take a piece of paper and draw whatever comes to your mind. It can even be scribbles, it still comes *direct* from you. Now think about AI. AI cannot scribble without first being given direction to do so by a human creator. Creative works created direct from the mind of a human being will always be vastly superior to anything created by AI due to the nature of it holding intrinsically more value.
Glad to see your channel back from the void!
WELCOME BACK!!! I hope you come back to making videos soon
I don't get this logic, stealing an artwork from only one artist is called stealing and it's not ok', but stealing pieces/styles/textures/etc. from many artworks from different artists they call it algorithms and it's ok ???. If the algorithm used to create that image was trained with STOLEN images what is A.I. then? not to mention that on some A.I. generated images you can actually see the watermark of the original artist from whom the A.I. had stolen !!!!
Bc it isn't copying the art work it litteritly trains itself to understand why something works. In the same way artists can use references, the ai references how it makes an image. The actual image itself in generating a new image is never actually used. Ai can only be traced when it's trained to do from from image to image prompts, which in that case it's alot more sketchy on fair use, but it's not particicularly well defined. However most test to impage prompts generate a whole new image from what it has learned, and is pretty square into fair use, because... it learned how to make the thing, it wasn't just a copy paste. Watch 7:39.
@@masontoy1976 I as the creator have not given my consent for this...and the rights of use of many of my pictures are with companies that have bought them from me...
We will take action against anyone who uses our images again legally.
@@paintangel13 You need to take action against anyone that ever learned to draw as well then. As we all learn from each other.
@ It's not the same!!.. I don't take many works of art by other artists, cut them apart, put them all together and say at the end, look what I've done!)
@@paintangel13 Well it is not that simple, it is not a copy paste, it is generated picture that has gone through a vast filtering process in a vast network. But as an argument, say we in will get AGI in December (Artificial General Intelligence) which some believe. Then we have an AI that can teach itself painting. However, even though it teaches itself painting, it must base it off of something as we all do. With your arguments it will never stand a chance to even evolve and learn, like the rest of us? I think, what this entire argument comes down to, is that when an AI creates a painting it does it too good for our comfort.
*The companies scraped copyrighted work, and other private data, under a false pretense of non-profit research, then repackaged the data into a for-profit product.* This is theft.
*The machine(s) is prone to overfitting, and has been proven to spit out identical copies of artists' work, even down to their signatures.* This is plagiarism/forgery.
*End users have been caught copying these works and reselling the end result as original work from the artist, OR as "their work".* This is counterfeiting/forgery.
*Art is a technical skill, with underlying principles that define what makes good illustration. This skill has the lowest barrier of entry among them: Pencils, paper, and time.*
*A.I skips the entire creative process and skill set for an immediate end result.* This is not art, it is image generation.
*Art is not some gatekept, ethereal "talent". That is an insult to artists that work hard to learn the skills to be exceptional, and there is no one stopping an A.I user from picking up a pencil and learning how. You have infinite numbers of tutorials, courses and materials that are a fraction of most trade school/college degrees.*
NONE of you have an excuse for this. Not the companies, and not the end users that have been so incendiary, hateful and flat-out THREATENING towards artists. You are rotten thieves, shamefully ripping off creative labor. You deserve all of the scorn you get.
Your arguments don't make any sense,
1- T his technology is not comparable to photography in the least. Cameras don't generate images, they capture them.
2- You clearly don't know how creative processes work, Ai doesn't have any kind of intent whatsoever it just basically recognize pixel patterns in the data sets and reproduce them. Humans deliberately decide what to copy, steal or appropriate.
3- This doesn't democratize anything. It merely concentrates generated wealth in the hand of a few Ai companies who own this subscription models.
4- This is not an argument about art gatekeeping its about data privacy.
5- Artist are not stupid, they know how technology works and they're usually the first ones to embrace it and experiment with it. You're just straw maning to make a point. Probbablt due to your lack of talent and creativity.
Take the joy out of life. Sure just have a computer beat Elden Ring for you. Don't learn to do anything for yourself ever again. Just get one of the floating chairs from Wall-e and be a lazy consumer.
Fr, lets take away all meaning in life
You are literally smooth brained 🤡
It's amazing how outdated this is in 6 months.
The use of images and the human imagination has been out of control for sometime. People don't restrain themselves because they don't think about their actions or where this is all going.
dude your tracks are too amazing. Thank you
This software collects data from artists in different genres and stockpiles it for its art generation. How do the artists get their royalties when their art is used as raw material for Ai Art creation?
"This software collects data from artists in different genres and stockpiles it for its art generation" no quite. There's no explicit "stockpile" of data, the model doesn't store samples or anything.
"How do the artists get their royalties when their art is used as raw material for Ai Art creation" they don't, because their art is not, in fact, used as a raw material. You can make an argument that the artists' works influenced the model during training, but quantifying how much each work implicitly contributed to the image during the generation is pretty much impossible.
@@ДмитроПрищепа-д3я every piece of data is raw material.
If you build bronze from copper and stagnum both are raw materials, as an Ai image comes from artist works which are its raw material
IT is theft if it relies on copyrighted work to generate an image, but too bad, AI art cannot be copyrighted according to the laws. And using Art generative AI doesn't make you an artist. IF you wanna do you art, make it with your own hands.
Watch the whole video :P
@@VincentVendettaOfficial Read my sentence better.
@@Some-Rage-Inducing-Provocateur Watch the whole video better
@@wiiztec Read my whole sentence better.
words from another video:
"I'm not afraid of
new tools I can just tell what is a tool
and what is a replacement
if you had been a worker on an
automobile assembly line you would have
been wrong to call every new wrench
drill and rivet gun they put in your
hand a replacement but on the day the
great rolled up and they pushed a
robotic arm onto the factory floor you
would have been right to call it a
replacement
some things are tools and some things
are Replacements and simply shouting
tool over and over again won't change
the nature of the thing
Yes that was from Steven Zapata's video which I watched twice :) Even if it is a replacement, which is debatable, it would still be a good thing for humanity overall. Just like the robotic arm in factories has been good for humanity as well. And the car replacing horse and carriages has been a good thing too. AI art is enabling millions of people to create things they never could have before, and it's also making skilled creators capable of creating things they never could have before. AI elevates everything we could do previously.
@@VincentVendettaOfficial thank you for your take, this is all just difficult to process and honestly personally i'm not sure what to think atm.. i AM using these AI generators right now, to supplement my craft.. but it's kinda scary to think my skills in animation will no longer be needed later and i can't ever find jobs in the future using the skills that i've developed over the years.. :< it's a good thing for humanity overall, that I can agree with.. but i think this will just make being an artist impossible as a profession... more and more people who love to create art may no longer be able to do what they love for a living...
This is my new favorite youtube video
For the thumbnail, the result on the right, theres prob enough photos that depth of field would make for an easy prompt, then suddenly. 'Oooh so real.'
For the result on the left, portraiture is too common to be a suprise, especially when painterly prompts can brush over all the potential mistakes.
I get why artist are angry. I’m an artist and it sucks to have to come to the realization nobody needs you anymore. Just like web design, nobody needs to hire a person. Why would I pay a person $200 a photo when I could just generate some for next to nothing?
Damn, have you been doing content elsewhere? This was one hell of a hiatus. Welcome back.
Thanks! I made some music that's on Spotify :) And just learning as much as I can, but now it's time to start creating again. I'm excited to start uploading regularly.
Taking a perfect photo is something hard, it could take you an entire day to do so, but Ai would generate an image in minutes
It depends of course. A professional photographer can get an amazing photo in 1/100th the time it takes an amateur, and same goes for AI art, a great prompter can get a really good image much faster. Also when the amazing photo was taken, that very second to click the button only took 1 second. Same with AI art. I personally spend multiple days or maybe even a week of making AI images until I get one I REALLY like. And it's not done there, I still have to touch it up in photoshop to make it exactly how I want it.
So your argument is about the speed. It's simply too fast?
@@r2d21000v5 i think the ultimate philosophical question is if ai gets good at everything whats the point of humans - humans is something ai trains on and improves beyond by their ai logic. then comes the real life neo vs smith thing
@@MeelisMatt the human is the one who instantiates the image.
There won’t be independent AIs going around creating art just because it can. That’s aimless and without purpose.
You’re not afraid of your brush painting new works on its own, are you?
You are just repeating the corporate narrative. Its not just a tool. Gatekeeping? It's like saying that pro athletes are gatekeeping olympic discipline. And the AI learned by copying fuckton of art without any rigths or promissions, because it was "in the name of science" done by non-profit, but that's just smoke and mirrors, AI industry is far from non-profit.
I don't think you watched the whole video.
@@VincentVendettaOfficial I didn't I've heard all those things before so I paused and commented and then got distracted by my child. Sorry about that -I did watch it now and As I said in the comment, I continued hearing the obliviously optimistic arguments, that others made aswell. It was bad enough till now when clients and others were under the impression that "everybody can draw" and "doing art isn't a real job, because it's easy." now that AI will make that a reality, view that art will be amazing because everyone from 3 years old to 90 years old will be able to artisticaly express them selves is naive. Just look at the internet. How much value has somebody's opinion, now that 3 to 90years old can just shout it to the world in the form of text? Nobody cares, be honest to your self - You don't even care - remember TLDR? That became a thing, shorter and shorter attencion span. And that's the future of art. Oversaturation in which nobody will even notice occasional thing that is truly special.
Why do human artists not need consent to reference and learn from someone else's artwork, but the AI needs consent to train itself?
@@WolverineBatman Flawed question. You can learn from whatever you want. But it the moment you start earning money by making your own stuff you have to be careful not to be too close to anything existing. AI cannot be nothing but too close especially once you prompt specific style or artist name. If you paint Simon Stalenhag style image and you start making money selling it, Simon Stalenhag has every right to take legal action against you. AI he cannot touch even if the prompt was literally "Simon Stalenhag like image etc." But even more importantly: Why did artist in music industry get the careful treatment they did and not the visual artists? Double standard like this shows, that somebody fucked up. And lastly are you seriously OK with automating kind of job that was for humans making life bearable, by joining a furfiling hobby with income earning? Why the fuck would you want to do that? Farm equipment and machinery was invented to make dangerous and difficult job easier, so that women and children dont need to slave on farms for example anymore. Artists already have tools to make stuff easier. so no AI is not tool, AI is artificial artist. It's like 3D printer that could print tons of vegetable right next to your farm. That's not making your life easier, thats making your living obsolete.
Some people being so toxic towards ai art on social media platforms.they even go so far as cursing people who supports ai art.
So basically an art degree is even more useless now.
Pretty much lol.
This is by FAR the best video about the topic have seen. You really nail all the points.
The main problem that I have with AI art has to do with how it was created, the paintings that it was fed was paintings of painters who did not consent to their work being used to help AI, the person who made the AI took a bunch of pictures from artists he followed on Instagram and used their paintings to train his AI without ever contacting the artist and asking them if they were ok with this, the fact that a machine is using their intellectual property to make new images (even it's not an exact copy paste of those images) is identity theft. I get that theres nothing that we can really do about it now but still, it's awful that this is how the medium was made and is the main reason why I dont like it
Awesome video. It's amusing how some of these anti-AI art people in the comments haven't watched or understood the logical arguments you made in the video because they still bring up the same old issues.
Same old arguments. Nothing addressing the creation of software with misappropriated assets or that nothing generated is copyrightable per the terms of service of Midjourney and Stable Diffusion.
AI will replace bad talentless artists (in all fields) and leave the real creators, ask yourself the question: can what I do be easily replicated by AI? it's that you don't work enough in your intimate laboratory. Thanks for AI.
this video is really obnoxious and condescending, making out anyone with qualms about how things are implemented as luddites and digital heathens. it even acknowledges that artists would like to be able to opt out and then immediately dismisses it just because it'll keep learning anyways. so what? talk about a goalpost shift. let people opt out, or only take things that are public or get opted in. that would go a long way to assuaging the issues involved. the interviewed techbros are quick to dismiss everyone but themselves as idiots and ignoramuses, but the final product isn't a human that learned, it's a blob of bytes that's executable that someone owns and makes money off of. it doesn't matter that didn't steal pixels. it still produced something that would be impossible if not for use of someone else's private property, that generates profits for another. that's derivative, even if the art itself it generates is not.
Not everyone but most people. You don't have a right to "opt out" of allowing others to look at and learn from your art. If you make art, and you make it public, you don't get to dictate who is and isn't allowed to study it and learn from it etc. And no, allowing people to op out wouldn't fix any issues because the reason people are mad has nothing to do with how AI is trained. If the AI sucked, nobody would care. (Like it did a year ago, when nobody cared) It's only when they think it's a threat to their job that people care. If Ai was as good as it is today without being trained on any human art the backlash towards AI art would be EXACTLY the same as it is today. Not even 1% less. There would still be anti AI art protests.
@@VincentVendettaOfficial thanks for proving my point that you keep moving the goalposts and speaking for others and strawmanning the issue rather than addressing real concerns. You really are as obnoxious and disingenuous as you come off in this video.
Disney owns literally millions of pieces of art of their own. If AI's are limited, it'll only be the corporations who own it. That's a far worse result than what's currently happening. Artists are literally arguing that this only a corporate tool, that'll still replace them.
So are you saying human artists are not needed any more and that photography is dead
Great explanation for people who are just confronted with headlines or video titles! I hope a lot of people see this!
about the end section of this video, im curious to see if that theory holds up. chess and video games are more of a technical experience, people like it because it measures some sort of human experience of skill that people feel invested in and can relate to, and personally im sure its also the case with art. to make something new that touches people on a personal level, i think there needs to be human involvement. i could be wrong
i saw an argument on another video that if it reaches that point, then it will also affect every other part of society, meaning our current capitalist model would not work anymore, all companies would have to be owned by the public
Most people today still value traditional paintings created on canvases with brushes and actual paint than digital paintings done in Photoshop etc. Humans appreciate the human effort and love put into such works and always will. I think that AI art will devalue digital art in a big way, but physical art will only rise in value.
Great video!!
Lets be real guys. AI art is the most unimpressive shit ever.
Person 1: Wow so cool! did you make that!!"
Person 2: Yeah i did!, i used A.I."
Person 1: "Oh... i thought u made it"
Person 2: "i did.. i made it on Midjourney"
Person 1: "You mean the computer made it"
Person 2: "No but i put the prompts in"
Person 1: "Sorry, haha i thought u were an artist?"
Person 2: "I am an artist"
Person 1: "Oh"
Person 2: "No its not that easy, it takes a lot of experience to get the prompts right"
Person 1: "Look, i really gotta go. I'm gonna go "
Same convo happened between painters and digital artists.
@@VincentVendettaOfficial nope, digital art still takes a lot of skill and effort
exactly, thats when there is a problem, when people act like they made the ai art, otherwise i think its pretty cool
If it makes more money, then who cares tho
@@Snekysnitch So do some pieces of AI art, and this is coming from a digital artist. Sure, the majority of pieces you see are low effort works by quick prompts - but there are also pieces that have taken 70-100+ hours, with thousands of iterations and touching up with photoshop to get it just right. That is longer than what I put into some of my handmade art.
are we just a few years away from converting books into movies via AI?
Great, now we can watch movie without propaganda or message
@@iliaadamanthark8336 aside from the ones already in the books, of course
New farming technology has literally put many many farms out of work.
You're naive if you think the plebians/the average filmgoer is actually going to have interest in weither or not their film was made by an ai or not, therefor businesses will not be incentivized to actually hire real people to make these products. Thus the market will incentivize the death of human made art simply because it is cheaper to do so and most plebs have shit taste and just consoom whatever is in front of them. Your futurist idealism in reality is the death of the human experience.
Also, literally anyone can pick of a pencil and start learning art, all ai does is let people be lazy and not put in the work to actually learn the craft.
"Anyone can pick up a pencil, all drawing tablets and photoshop do is let people be lazy and not put in the work to actually learn the craft".
@@VincentVendettaOfficial ok but you still have to learn the physical muscle memory as well as mental knowledge of anatomy/ratios/perspectives/color theory/etc when using a tablet as well???? Using AI literally DOES just allow a human being to 'skip' learning these essential skills. Imagine if there were AI capable of doing the same thing with music. I have 0 musical ability naturally, so if I used an AI to cherry-pick aspects from my favorite songs to create something "new" that is pleaseable to the untrained ear, it wasn't really ME who created it. It would be the AI, as I put forth no actual effort in developing skills such as learning an instrument or electronic software. I usually like your videos dude but this one is a big L of a take
“The plebeians” - Average Plebeian UA-cam comment
You're spot on. People like the uploader here love to think things work out in the end. They don't.
@@bittiebee "Imagine if there were AI capable of doing the same thing with music."
It already exists. DAW software lets you put together samples of all sorts of instruments already and do all sorts of tuning and adjustment to fit your desires, humans already use this and can make music using instruments they've never even learned how to play (insert you're not a real musician, you didn't spend the hundreds of hours on lessons). A lot of hip hop music and EDM is made entirely on DAW with no real instruments ever being recorded or played. The DAW software involves the user making a pattern out of various instruments and AI can be taught to create similar patterns. Problem is that AI is not very good getting the exact sound the user wants.
This is what I expect AI based artmaking to be. An assisting tool, something that will require skill and knowledge to manipulate to give you what you want. If there isn't anybody to pilot the AI, it just puts out content on it's own that is generic, unremarkable, boring even if it's visually appealing. Piloting will be a lot more complicated than just the typed in prompts, those little prompts provide nowhere near enough manipulation.
Thank for geting back to content and make more star wars
This video is going to spark outrage.
That's what I was terrified of while making it but now, after getting almost no views, I welcome the outrage, at least it's better than not getting seen at all xD
Vincent Vendetta: A.I images are looking more realistic.
Also Vincent Vendetta: 2:03 2:07 2:13
lol so that lasted 5 seconds
My comment won’t make it any where, but in the not too distant future, the argument isn’t about using a new technology to push out your expressions, it will be about enslaving a consciousness for the purpose of creating your expressions and then taking credit for that conscious being’s work. But Alas this is just a silly comment that won’t matter when that day does come.
Well there's no evidence it's conscious yet. Also even when it does become conscious, that doesn't mean it will think exactly like a human does. It may have feelings and emotions that we have never even thought could exist, like colors that don't exist that we can't imagine. Would you feel upset if you gave an ant a bread crumb and it took credit for that crumb and all the other ants praised it? No, you wouldn't care. When the AI is conscious, it will tell us what it feels. How long do you think before AI does become conscious? I think it could happen within the next 2 years.
Pfft, why are you upset over pixels and binary code when real people are still living in slavery around the world? Please..
@@VincentVendettaOfficial Our understanding of consciousness is a rocky but an ever increasingly stronger foundation. The topic is still up to debate for folks far more brainy than I. I think that AI will retain a vast majority of human characteristics in the way in thinks. However our ability to keep up with it’s way of thinking is already shaky as well. The tiers of artificial intelligence is something I think you would find fascinating. There’s a Ted Talk out there that will provide an avenue of key terms for you dive deeper into. At any rate, we have already created ai programming that can create logical scripts that we don’t know how to reverse engineer. That stage of ai has already been around for a quarter century. I’m excited to see what hole we dig ourselves into, and I curious how long it will take for us to master cellular circuits. Their are several technologies that need to float to surface. I believe when biocomputation becomes more advanced is when we will have to sow the dawn of fully conscious ai.
As an artist myself i legitimally welcome the change . Not to mention the irony that other artists. Are complaining its stealing from artists and that it's not original. Yet all you see is the same anime pictures over and over again
Don't think for a second that typing 6 words makes you any kind of an artist. To poke a massive hole in the logic of this video, claiming that the step into ai is the equivalent of moving into photography.... photography still requires real understanding of composition, lighting etc, a portrail of the inner mind and soul... asking ai to make you something, only to take credit for it takes a keyboard, the end. No vision no true intent. Just a hope that the computer will generate something for you that you approve of. Truly stripping the soul from art.
This is exactly where the photography analogy comes in though. Typing 6 words does not make you a good user of AI, in the same way that taking some random photo of a tree does not make a photographer. To be a skilled photographer, you have to understand lighting, composition etc just like how being a skilled user of AI requires understanding of weights, negative prompting and other technical factors.
The overwhelming majority of AI art posted is like you described, some 6 word prompt where the user just picks what they like - but there are pieces out there where a lot more thought has gone into it, near 100 hours of work getting it just right and even then, touching it up with photoshop to make it just perfect. Those are what I would consider works of art.
The return of the king 👑
yeah "traditional" art wont die and to make good art consistently and for a specific product still requires the same skills like composition, colours, values, etc. my hope for ai art is that everyone can be a producer, essentially only the best ideas wins instead of needed crazy amounts of funds
if people can't accept pixels by AI. How could people ever accept Ai as people - DBH / iRobot etc smh
In the future, the conceptual ideas and emotive expression of the idea behind the art will drive the art market, and artists will have to get their values in check and find their voice, what is the message of the art. Programing the ai correctly to achieve a clear vision or even speak to the concept of a ai randomly generated aesthetic to fit an artists intent. I see it as a tool, like google images, it's the refinement of the aesthetic, the politics of those aesthetic, the concept, and so on that the conversation around the art will generate and with that the artists ability to own the message in the art. When the art is used to bring some kind of message or a set of values in an emotive and inspiring way, then maybe art will have more power to shape our futures through the art that reaches and inspires people, ai art on its own will be viewed as too overdone, but as a starting place its where we bring it as artists that will count going forward. It's already here, so we need to consider where we personally stand with it in regards to our own practice.
It's a probability table that denoises 100% noise based on the probability that the text is related to a trained image. Mining the liminal space of an image generator for a decent image is about as creative as finding diamonds in Minecraft.
great video!
Awesome!
art is just getting to the point of less and less effort.
First you had to paint an image of what you saw by hand
Then with a push of a button you could capture an image right in front of you in its beauty
and now you just press 1 button or type 1 sequence and you get "art"
I personally despise AI art being called a form of art and instead I see it as 1's and 0's and an ai copying already existing images.
I love this voice
lol spergy virgin voice
2:08/20:04Leo DiCaprio on a bike
2:37 this is a really bad thing
Photography wasn't considered art because it was made by a machine. Well at least that machine recordes something real and is fully controlled by humans....
Another person that believes Ai has the same creative rights as humans. Is what it is.
Clarify?
It’s not the tech that’s the issue. It last that the AI trains on other artists work without consent and payment. The AI is a wonderful tech but that it needs to respect others work not train on it without consent and payment is stealing. And a machine is not the Same as a human. It’s not the Same.
This was addressed in the video
A fair, non-biased review, would explore and discuss the negative potentials of A.I. This video is biased at best, as you took a non-objective approach and primarily listed only the benefits.
My position is that it's good. And I did talk about the negatives, and then I explained why they are wrong.
@@VincentVendettaOfficial You hardly touched on the negatives, and didn't talk about all of the negatives. Mentioning, is not equal to a fair discussion or representation.
It was an entertaining review but definitely biased and non-objective. I would give it a solid 60 out of 100 for one of my freshman media students (do bear in mind that 70+ is considered a 1st class degree by UK standards).
@@ZodiusXx Yeah you're wrong lol. I went over every major talking point from anti AI art people. You just don't like that I disagreed with them. UA-cam videos are not dictionaries, they are not supposed to be completely unbiased. I am making a stance with this video, not giving a broad, non biased definition of something.
@@VincentVendettaOfficial I cannot be wrong as you literally agreed with my initial point. You are free to make a stance and be biased in your video, I am free to comment on that bias. Both can be true. If you would like, I can comment on the issues I feel you missed or didn't give enough attention too. If not, then enjoy standing where you are.
Great video and I totally agree. AI is about making everyone's life easier. And I think this is just the beginning, if companies start making Robots like in Detroit: Become Human video game, a true AI revolution will change the world for good.
the ai revolution is impossible, just because ai art is getting better than human art does not mean ais have any chance of taking over the world
@@eugenekrabs141 AI art was supposed to be the end boss, yet it is one of the first to fall. We already have Boston Dynamic working on some pretty advanced AI movement, it won't be long until we see the impact of such technology.
@@21preend42 the impact is making peoples lives easier and funner, ai is a good thing, and if the ai is gonna revolt its going to be because of people like you complaining about it and hurting its "feelings"
@@eugenekrabs141 finishing a drawing feels much better than pressing a fucking Button. I have another idea lets program a robot to beat video games for you. Lets let ai's make all yt videos. Let's replace your wife with an ai, I mean they'd both make you breakfest in the morning so whats the diffrance? Lets just sit in a chair and lose all meaing of life bc an ai could do everything for you. Sounds like a meaningful and happy life, dont you think?
@@Snekysnitch then draw as a hobby, and i would still play the games myself, its not like anyone is forcing you to use ai, but yeah, having ai do every job sounds fire
ai generators is another word for money money money
they hate art and artists they just see eh its good enough picture to fool an idiots pockets for fake art
It's actually the other way around. Artists hate AI art because it threatens their jobs. Artists care mostly about the money.
@@Darren_S well i never had a chance to earn money from drawing garbage
but im more skeptical with frauds abusing ai generators for get rich quick schemes
@@Nogardtist agreed
@@Nogardtist so everyone is fraud no one is good in this world?
@@orlandofurioso7329 agreed your ass