AI art, why I am no longer afraid of it
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 січ 2023
- A bit of an optimistic, probably naive, look on the possible future of the art industry now that AI art exists.
a few comments on the no AI art movement and the overall impact of AI on my personal work. - Фільми й анімація
It's important to keep in mind that the copyright office in the US has already decided that simply entering a prompt into an AI generator is non-human authorship, which means that the result can't be copyrighted. No matter what the result of that lawsuit against StabilityAI is (which is actually incredibly shaky and filled with outright lies about how the technology works, which tends to make the courts turn against you), this means that companies cannot afford to simply replace their art staff with AI. All of their branding would become public domain.
But you can use AI tools to accelerate your workflow and get industrial art products out faster. This could mean that quality remains the same and price goes down, making this kind of art avsilable to more buyers. It could also result in the price staying the same but quality improving. Realistically, it will probably be a bit of both.
Synthography, art production using primarily AI tools, can also generate copyrightable works with more significant human involvement such as fine-tuning the safetensor, manually generating input images, the way the outputs are curated together, and more. The leading synthographers today are already creating images that look nothing like anything made anywhere else, so it deserves to stand as its own discipline in the same way that photography does.
The built-in limitation of generative art is that the machine does not understand what it is making - it isn't even aware of what a single group of pixels represents. It's just pattern matching based on existing images. As a result, you can never actually get the machine - no matter how good it becomes - to create something truly specific for your needs. And it cannot actually make anything new. For professional work, this is a pretty serious limitation. Projects require specific images and assets. Machine generation has already been used for years to create "noise" assets like very basic texture patterns. It's fine for that. But there's a reason it hasn't really ever been useful for anything else in a professional context. Companies pushing the technology are engaging in some classic snake oil pitching.
"But it will get better!" Of course it will, but the fundamental way it works won't change. This is what a lot of people don't understand. This is what promoters hoping to cash in bank on people not understanding. Here's an example of how trying to rely on it can be a trap. During the development of a major video game (Red Dead Redemption 2) generative assets were used to try and speed up the creation of buildings for the game world. Except artists working on the game kept having to go back and redo the textures for buildings that were being generated - because it was impossible to get the generator to create precise textures for things that have measurements like walls, signs, doors. So much time was being wasted doing the work twice, they realized they were being stupid and quit using machine generation for precise objects.
Yesterday on the way going to watch Avatar 2 with kids, we were talking about you. I said to my kids that I have not heard from you in a long time, hoping that all is well on your end - since you stopped posting for over a year now. I saw your video and I am glad you are well. 🔅I enjoyed your lecture and point of view. Well said, master Celso. 💐😊
Thanks Javad, I am glad the kids remember me :D all the best for you and the family
Your final comment about solving a problem really resonated, as a tattoo artist I've had to look at my artistic skills not as a form self expression but as a tool that I use to help my clients express themselves. I have embraced some level of AI art into my workflow, by sourcing reference materials and getting my rough ideas to be almost polished final drafts. Working from a series of images that did necessarily exist before allows me to create a more original concept ironically. I have seen far too many designs where I can see the source reference because I've looked at the exact photos. There are only so many Poseidon statues, or horned owls in flight photos when developing a project with a deadline. I cant go to Venice and source my own reference, or spend weeks tracking wildlife. These tools make it possible for me to have more original source material to work from. At the end of the day when a client is asking for something, my artistic integrity only matters to me, and if I want to express myself fully I should make a personal project. Having a well done finished product is the only thing that matters to the client
Ayeee that’s cool. I’m a tattooer too :)
Goddamn that was a good video, I think you've got the healthiest outlook I've heard yet - also your custom table is gorgeous, great job!
Thanks Tyler, I was holding back posting this video a little afraid of back lash. your comment alone already made it worth it.
Thank you for this amazing video .This video gived me the motivation to practice , learn and pursue my passion of making art back. I was really worried because of AI art and thought if theres eaven any sense to go to art school after high school or just learn art by myself but after watching this i got rally motivaited to do what i want in my life and not worrny bout anything.
Thank you for this video. I am doing the same thing. I am working on long term projects and I stopped posting every day too. Thanks for the reminder it is okay to keep some things for yourself, like the process of long term projects. It’s not ready to show yet, and that’s okay.
Midjpurney is only in the beta state, this is only the beginning of the beginning of AI art.
You changed my view completely on this and raised a lot of interesting questions, thank you
thank you for sharing that, I don't have a following or anything, so it can feel like a waste of time making a video to share my thoughts to the void, comments like yours make it worth it
Just to chip in about programmers, (I'm an artist, hubby's a senior programmer)
with art, you don't need necessarily that skilled of a person to choose something goodlooking from generated result. And if something would be wrong, you can generate again until it kinda looks right. But with programming, if there would be a mistake, you still need a very qualified person to understand what is wrong and how to solve it.
Also, with visual part, stakes aren't that high. If your character will have an extra finger, that won't overheat your device, corrupt your data or freeze the application.
Programming however, is different, because if something is wrong, it can result in crashes, information leaks, exploitations, etc. Especially the higher we go on a spectrum, (banking, data optimization, healthcare related, etc).
Great points, for sure this contributes to the attitude difference.
yeah you can always spot whenever someone thinks they know what they are talking about but actually doesnt when they start to go on doomer rants about how programmers are gonna become useless in the next 5 years. Its one thing when it can write simple code and solve problematic code that you wouldnt know how to make it, but to actually compile it, build it together and make an entire software/game out of it? thats just asking for trouble lol. And the bigger the software and game, the more complicated it is to make something like that. People are either so scared or so blindly hyped up about this technology that they dont notice that EVERY SINGLE A.I and Robot implementation into jobs has been added, it always needs human assistance and it always needs humans to operate it. There's barely any exceptions to that.
And even with ChatGPT its the same shit. Without the data we provided that we humans created, it's useless. You need a human to prompt it to do something as well.
There IS a limit to how much it can do when it comes to programming, like it's not as godlike at it as people hype it up to be, and even at its highest hypothetical level in 10-15 years, its still gonna be pretty good, but not good enough to replace humans completely. In the next 2-3 decades i predict it will eventually become a tool/assistance to artists and programmers alike, built into software.
I'm an artist too. You have brought up many good points and I am feeling more hopeful that artists can live in harmony with AI generated art. It is my hope that when the dust settles, perhaps people will value human made art over AI generated art for several reasons such as having an appreciation for the process of creating a painting or sculpture. That is really where the magic happens for a work of art. AI really has no process beyond the lines of code in the algorithm. There is no magic in AI art.
Great job , the message makes sense . Although this is a trippy time
*truly deeply grateful for your insights and perspective shared here. Thank you, your points made me feel more at ease*
Thanks for making this vid
even tho i m not an artisit, , i paniced with my overthinking ass brain because of all this AI thing, since i love to see things like concept art for characther\splash arts for games, and the whole process of making art in general
maybe the future isn t as dark was we think it is
maybe you are more of an artist than you give yourself credit for, having a good eye and knowing what you like is half of what it takes
@@celsofx true
You are the kind of person who will make it out of this untouched, with the head up and successful.
Thanks Juan, I sure hope so hehehe
If it may soon become impossible to tell prompted AI Image Generation apart from pre-generative era art, then should the practice of video recording of an artist’s process be made into a trend (and ultimately, common practice?)
This would clearly show how the art was made and whether or not generative output tools were used?
I think we are already half way there when it comes to that, sharing the process is one of the most trendy parts of posting art on social media
@@celsofx good. then it could move past the trendy phase and become common practice, given the advent of generative imagery. great video! thanks for putting so much nuanced thought into it!
it wouldn't be that hard to fake the art creation process in a recording, especially if its a timelapse. Proving art is made by a human is a lost battle in the long run
@@Waffle4569 procreate, for example already creates its own timelapse of anything that is drawn, painted, etc in the procreate app.
why couldn’t that idea be extended to another app or product that visual artists could use just for the purpose of creating a verifiable video or even timelapse of their process to prove it wasn’t created by “push-button generative image creation tools” like mid-journey (circa 2022-early 2023)?
say an app or service built by Microsoft, Apple, etc. that verifies that the video isn’t tampered with or that the timelapse checks out.
a video app or service that could be used IRL or digitally. for both traditional and digital artists that shows that the art wasn’t “faked with AI” as @superotherguy1 noted?
@@SchopenhauerVsCamus While possible, it would probably work at first, but it'll just start an arms race. The more timelapse videos on the internet, the more potential for AI to learn how to fake them. We've already seen this in video game cheating, where there are literally AI cheats that watch your game's video stream and use a modified mouse/controller to emulate human inputs. How do you detect AI inputs vs human inputs? Even if you're playing on a "trusted" server, the server can't tell you apart. The same problem will occur with verifying the humanity of art. We've accepted we've left the era that still images can't be trusted, but people are having a hard time realizing we're leaving the era that video can be trusted.
You should not be afraid of ai... all software is algorithms and ai. We must learn different tools to ensure we can create the best work whether thats photoshop or blender. Saying that ai or a computer does not know how to draw. The most sought after creative skill since the stone age. Drawing never ever goes out of fashion.
Love the table, keep setting trends
The best artists/musicians/writers will still keep their jobs and will make even more money. It’s the rest of the 90% in these fields that will be replaced. AI can make general art some hotel needs for their lobby, it can make music someone would have hired a studio guy to play and it can write basic schlock we read or watch on Netflix. (Buzzfeed is already committed to using AI since their articles have always been empty calories for the mind).
So basically if you’re not one of the best or don’t have great marketing and/or luck your work will be replaced.
Even if your job title itself is safe if AI can complete 80% of the work, many of your field will need a new job. Don’t look for the government to “help” as they are only interested in what their friends/masters want, and that does not include a large population of people who aren’t contributing in any way.
When I create art work it's not important how I created, or what software I used. It's my creation. Even if it takes me a day, or a few it doesn't matter. What brand of pencils I use, or if I use my ruler to make straight lines is not important. People want to know how others are making art, but instead of asking they should be creating their own. They are wasting time.
great vid, though not sure the music world from now is a good example of fair for the average artist; its a place where the public domain is very kneecapped, a place where big money can buy ownership over a progression of 8 notes, a place where ip related takedowns by big corpo go largly unpunished while the average person walks on eggshells, a place where your local branch organisation favors one style over another and probably has a copyright troll CEO, and a place where most make next to nothing on spotify because one time just its existence angered warner enough to succesfully demand to own most of the profit.
Sure, deciding how model training fits somewhere into copyright and fair use as we know it isn't a simple issue; but i feel that in the long run its better to at least have fair space for large parameter model training to interact with and exist in public/open source domains, while leaving the tightest expectations and rules to land on the shoulders of big corporate interests, as capitalism naturally would give them the unfair power and money advantage to again just make things worse while telling us otherwise.
Right you are. My biggest take away from all this is that art is a great form of human expression. Independently of what tools were used. But I do believe there is a direct relation to the amount of effort and involvement in the process to the honesty and appeal of the result.
@@celsofx Agree! and i feel another thing a lot of people miss every time some automation hits art, is that no one can ever steal the fun you have with whatever tool.
Though when it comes to perception of authenticity, art can still be really damn weeeeeeeeeeeeird, and beyond a personal perspective even the "effort and involvement" angle isn't as clear cut.
Take the ready made piece "fountain" by marcel duchamp for an example, the guy wasn't even involved in its "creation", yet the piece is universally considered art just because he chose to present it in a gallery with a new purpose.... on one hand it simply offends the hell out of me because "wtf didn't the mofo just cheat without lifting a finger?", but at the same time i can't deny the impact of the meaning that was given to the piece.
A little offtopic but as a brazilian too i'm really impressed on how good your english sounds
hahahaha, Thank you! I am trying :D
You can't compare sampling in music with AI art, and the only ones profiting from restricting sampling are big labels, who not coincidentally are the only ones who csn ever afford it.
Besides that it's 100% legal to sample and publish something without asking if you aren't earning royalties from it. The art that gets generated by these models is generated, not translated.
This makes it the equivelant to a musician making a cover with variations.
yeah its not quite right, though sampling as we know it made similar big waves, because it heavily coincided with the rise of the internet and the home pc as all-in-one studio, so, the rise of sampling in music is a decent analogy purely in that sense.
A very brilliant , thought provoking video..
thank you for this.
Great video. The tools are going to be where it’s at for this new technology. I’m a programmer and, in my spare time, a Houdini and UE hobbyist. Right now I’m working on a tool which uses Stable Diffusion to help with texturing and it uses curvature/AO maps to help with that. I’ve fine tuned my own model iteratively on a specific style of texture. As an independent, this is a huge help for me because I don’t have enough time and money to invest in learning the Substance tools; Houdini and UE is already a lot.
I like how you brought your reflection of scrolling art pieces on social media up. I kinda get the same feeling on ArtStation. Nice technique, seldom a soul. A lot of the AI generated stuff is like this too. But I think the really cool work is going to be done by people who use AI to create new raw materials for expression, just like I use Copilot and ChatGPT for code. It’s gonna be fun and interesting. Maybe we won’t even need to deal with UVs in the future and who wouldn’t love that?
Agreed the more disciplines you handle the more beneficial the tools are going to be. On that sence Generalists are going to enjoy the new tools way more than specialists
Since it’s becoming harder to tell what is and what isn’t generated by AI can you also think about working on a tool that distinguishes between the “push-button illustrative, AI image generation” of the type we see on the Midjourney showcase and real pre-generative era illustrative art?
Otherwise people will just continue to call AI Generative Imagery “their art”.
So an app or service that allows a verifiable video recording of an artist’s process?
The procreate timelapse idea, but extended for use by both traditional and digital visual artists? + verified (that the video record was not tampered with)
This would also be a good way for artists to share their process with loved ones or to revisit it later.
because you know not all artists are creating art with the “art as a product“ or a profit motive, in mind.
for good 3d topology, it will propably need an other year. But usable text to 3d with bad topology hopefully 6 months
That would be great
When I was a child I always was like "I think the thing that robots will never replicate its art" then here I am 18 year Olds trying to learn art, just looking how many people prefer to have an ai that makes their product in 1 minute. Than a person who has problems, time prices
Don't get discouraged, it may get harder to get started in a production jobs. But its only getting easier for independent artists
Very well said.
Thanks!
One of the things that makes me think A.I might not be as powerful as people think, at least not in such a short time like 5-10 years is resource usage. I mean the most obvious one, people always love to say how overpowered AI is gonna become in the next 10 years, but of course when asked how will that even be possible if it will require a ridicolous ammount of power, and pretty powerful PCs and Servers to run it, they will OF COURSE answer with some babble along the lines of "w-well, technology moves fast and we will have faster servers in the future...ooor something..." . Keep hearing this one all the time and it's such a hilariously ignorant statement. It exposes the pretty obvious fact that no one ever cares about the practical problems. they just want results. These things don't just "pop into existance" one day and exist in a vaccum. they do indeed require pretty damn powerful resources to even run, it's not as simple and as easy to create as "typing in a bunch of code" . It took years if not decades of reserach and developement to create just a basic Chat that makes some pretty good images and can write intermediate code. And it already requires some ridicolous fucking resources to even run, i mean the ammount of DATA it needs to get through is INSANE, its too big to even count, and everyone just seems to forget that it's not magically immune to the same hinderances as every other software or video game which is the power of the Computer it is ran on?
Excellent video, I agree whit most of this except I do not see that Ai is that good and usable of most of the projects. Also I do not think that they can improve much as this is how they ware designed in the first place, and this is shown not just in art Ai but in others as well, they are inaccurate probably because it constantly tries to give an average of the samples that it has. This is why for example Ai trained just on one topic can give much bather results on the same topic then one that was learning from all over the place. Thing is that I do not think that they can improve much. As for AI for coders, that works a bit bather but again those are mathematical formulas Ai can not screw things there as much.
As for artist who are in panic mode "I WILL LOSE MY JOB" calm down and do a little test. Let some friend who is in art industry give you a simple task as creating a poster for the new movie, whit couple of reviews and changes to be asked from you. You do the same project using Ai and whit no Ai and then look at the result and the time spent to complete the project. You will see that you will work way more faster using stock images then Ai.
As for 3D I totally understand you for retopology and UV mapping, but I do not see that it will happen. Two things are problematic here, one is all the good models are not available online and second is the business model of the Ai developers, that is instead of using qualified people to filter and complete the dataset, they are using cheap labor whit no experience in the field that they are suppose to make critical judgment. There are attempts to use 3D scanning but I am familiar whit 3D scanning and there is no chance that this will work even if you pay an army of professional scan operators whit professional equipment.
At the end the impact of Ai on the art industry will be the same as mobile device cameras on photo industry. I am more afraid of what will Ai do in medical industry, military's, police ... as those can set us back to feudalism. But again even for that I am optimistic as Ai is nothing compare to the economic bauble that will have to explode one day, climate change, economic and real war ... so we have lot of options to screw our self :) Ai art is not one of them :)
great comment in a great video, thanks
Theres honestly so much exciting potential for A.I, i am a bit intimidated by it as a programmer and artist, but the ammount of potential amazing usage is insane.
Since A.I is indeed getting so powerful, imagine if one would then create a Teacher A.I that would be designed to teach humans in return how to master art, and programming so they can be on the same level as them. Or basically a teacher A.I on any topic. Sure it would destroy teacher's jobs to some extent but honestly this is where i think it would be worth it, because you'd be basically learning from a "higher being" so to speak, who would be perfectly trained how to approach individual people and would learn the best way to teach them. If this could go right...my god, we could have a very bright future ahead of us as humanity, and the whole "dumbing down each generation" would finally stop.
Realistically speaking, i feel like for the next 10-20 years, AI wont really replace any jobs, its gonna be a tool that will be incorporated into our daily lives, just like Internet was. Its gonna be more of an assistant. I'd even go as far as to say that it's kind of fucking impossible for it to even replace ANY jobs right now, as long as its not sentient and still requires human input and overseeing to function.
I feel like a lot of people think AI is gonna replace every job but they don't really...think through how this would exactly function. because i dont think it makes any fucking sense, when you really think about it.
So who's gonna run the businesses then? what is it just gonna be the CEO that will stand in front of a computer 8 hours a day, typing in a bunch of words into a Chat to do work for everything? Yeah that just sounds...really fucking silly, even for the times we live in. AI isnt gonna take away jobs, but it will definetly make all jobs a lot more approachable, which might make beginners's lives pretty hard since entry level jobs will be near impossible to get if they will only rely on A.I for their career.
I just keep painting. Keep moving forward. That's what I do. If your good you will be just fine. And if it moves to A.I. cough , it won't. But if it does , Trent Reznor It.
The sad thing is that these tools that will increase quality or “protect” copyright will be benefiting those who are already in power. Either the big music labels or big animation studio’s etc.
My prediction is that these technologies will only increase inequality en enforce current power dynamics. I hope I’m wrong.
Great stuff, man. Hit the nail on the head.
Thanks Lee, for this and for debating the topic with me until I was able to put all my thoughts together.
I also freaked out about AI but then I realized that it has its own limitations and isn't this almighty tool that summons creative works from the depths of hell.
Also, people who weren't willing to put time and effort into learning creative skills and creating something will always be too lazy to make anything good. There really is nothing to worry about.
Agreed!
short sighted view
@@ithurtsbecauseitstrueElaborate
Good perspective, but also keep in mind that industries absolutely are going to change a lot in the coming years and decades with the further development of AI. So you (everyone) should be flexible and have a plan B (and maybe C) in case the market for artists/writers/programmers, etc becomes a lot smaller. You can always keep making your personal projects but when it comes to jobs for commercial art (graphic design jobs, illustrator jobs, and other corporate style artist jobs which, I would imagine, make up probably the vast majority of the revenue actually earned by artists other than the top fine art artists) there is a very good chance that the availability of these types of jobs is going to decrease significantly over the next few decades (maybe even years). I'm excited to see the ways that AI can help us achieve advances as a society faster whether it be technological or medical or otherwise, but I am also sure that it will come with a fair amount of change in the job market.
What AI has (seemingly) conquered is digital, online art. Not art that exists as a physical object. Does that mean artists should gravitate towards making physical objects, whether that is sculpture, art installations, metalwork/woodwork, live music and so on?
Maybe, but this technological advancement doesn't mean physical artwork is necessarily gonna increase in value either. Only because more options exist to receive good artwork, doesn't mean people will suddenly buy more physical paintings. Possibly it's going to increase in value a bit, but I fear not much.
Technology and its convenience is getting too sophisticated to compete with. For example, 20 years ago we had over 15 bakeries in town. They all produced the best quality handmade rolls and bread. But guess what, now they're all gone. I talked to a retired owner (of a bakery) and he told me how much effort it was. He had barely any time to take vacations. The grocery store has replaced most real bakeries. There are still bakeries around, but all they do is put frozen bread into the oven, so it's not even comparable...
well, you got 3d printers
In music it has already been true for more then the last decade that the average artist can get more out of at least the offline world, and that isn't because either things like sampling or downloading happened (like big corporate made many believe), but because IP regulations in the digital domain became so slanted in favor of corporate interests that for an example: most of the underground music scene was functionally dead during the pandemic, as it was forced to try and exist in the corporate IP minefield that is todays internet.
The problem with your point about paying for sampling images is that
1. artists already do that all the time without paying for it.
2. If stable diffusion ever does make an AI model that was only trained on open-source images, people will just use that instead and train the models themselves.
good point, I was refering more to the paid model like lensa app for example, but when it comes to general stuff your def right
What would be wrong with a model that is only using CC0 images? 🤷🏻♂️
@@samthesomniator The biggest problem with CC0 images is scale. The current small models needs 100s of millions of images to train, and the bigger ones require million - Google's Parti was supposedly trained on a large portion of LAION, and it negatively impacted the quality of some of the generations (because it started to overfit). So for a model like that, 5B images isn't enough.
It's unlikely that there are 5B CC0 images available, and if there were, the man power required to source them would be astronomical (it would take 10+ years).
So you essentially stagnate generative AI progress (by limiting model size), drastically slow progress down to the point where it no longer becomes financially viable (so no money will go into generative AI research), overfit to the point where the models become unusable, or you allow them to train on copyrighted images too (which may be allowed as it's similar to how Google indexes images for image search and still makes ad revenue).
Keep in mind that these models can do a lot of good besides simply making pretty pictures. If the quality of generation is high enough, they can be used to create synthetic data for training other AI (for self driving cars, dangerous object detection, and transferring learning to things like tumor detection in medical imaging). So the gains from training on more than CC0 data will likely out weigh any harm that doing so causes.
That said, there are still ethical ways to train on these copyrighted images in an effort to reduce harm (such as anonymizing the images which removes the ability to prompt for a specific living artist).
I say this all the time. Most artists already gave rights and permissions for their art to be used the moment they posted on some very predatory social media platforms like Instagram or Facebook. Furthermore it is common practice for AI art companies to allow artists to opt out, but they are very much just taking from public sources and if one of those public sources was Instagram or something they don't have to remove it until Instagram asks them to because they didn't source the image from you, they sourced it from someone you gave rights to just by posting.
If my non artist mom’s pet hamster fell onto her computer keyboard and accidentally prompted MidJourney (MidJourney does accept both single word and “non-word” prompts)…
would that then
A) Make the hamster an artist?
B) Or my mom the artist?
C) Or Neither?
Just a thought experiment.
that reminds me of an old controversy, of a photographer that set up a camera gave it to a monkey and the monkey took a self. the picture went on to win some prizes and the debate started if the photographer had the rights for the picture or the monkey hahaha.
@@mattc3510 now the question is. Wold those images exist without you ? Is a tool fully responsible for the outcome?
i get where you are going with that, but honestly that thought experiment isn't as deep as you might think;
- Neither is, same would be true for the photo button on a camera (see: the case where a monkey stole the camera and made a picture)
- from an enduser perspective; whats wrong about mass casual adoption? everyone has a smartphone, but getting judged for snapping a picture without "knowing how to art" is rare, while we also recognize people who do use it in ways we think is artistic.
@@sperzieb00n - This was meant to spark discussion.
- You’ve always had access to plenty of art making tools and and techniques.
- If one has some deep desire to create, then there was not much stopping anyone from doing so, prior to the advent of AI image generation tools.
- Anyway, the point wasn’t to bring up access to tools. There has always been access to tools.
@@SchopenhauerVsCamus well, im discussing aren't I? and my contribution is: what you're posing doesn't seem very relevant or thought provoking, mostly for the first reason i mentioned. I added the second reason because it looked like your thought experiment overvalues the importance of being an artist over a casual user of the tool (and more then often that kicks off in the form of including things that point to a rigid notion of artistry like "non-artist").
but i guess i'll digress on that last point, as the situation you posed is whats casual rather then the use case. No one used the tool in your example; the outcome was accidental
i dont think comparing ai to tools of the past is even remotely accurate.
Some areas will be safe: celebrity. People like following as fans. So generate a tribe as a celeb.
But as a service… ai cannot be compared to other tools. Its just not the same. Replacing a pencil with a stylus is not the same as replacing the artist.
Make money now, pay off your house, plant a garden, and generate a fan base or brand that people can follow like a celebrity.
It is very important whether what we see and think is coming is what is actually coming.
Because if AI exists, if it is real AI, it has come, it has consciousness, it draws through its own consciousness, ideas, visions, perceptions, then fine. Maybe this AI should also have human rights..
But In general, the current AI situation is very different from everything else because it is very wrong to begin with.
When we talk about Artists, we are talking about INDIVIDUALS!
And every single one of these individuals has developed his OWN skills for himself through a lifetime of dedication, persistence, love, passion and will.
When we talk about """"A.I.""" mixer the situation is very different.
Because some of us talk about AI in the way that AI is already a fact. Which is not the case. AI has not proven itself.
First of all: we shouldn't be talking about what the AI will and will not do, because in this situation the A.I. (image generator) is based on illegal activity. So he fails at this very first step. So he has no right to say anything in the first place because at this point he is a criminal
(since when do we give criminals the right to set the rules, demand, and take away jobs and rights from other people?
I had not heard such a thing by now! you? )
So, I give you a guarantee that if the law is implemented the way it should be, for A.I. "art" has no future in the way it is now. So I don't think A.I. "Art" will replace even a signle thing because at this stage A.I. it just needs to be taken back from the web as it is generally illegal, unethical, which makes it irrelevant.
And when we have that in mind, will we allow even a single job to be taken away because of this illegal activity? I don't think so! I do not think that we should give up even one workplace behind, not even one single step back
Second: Knowing what we already know are we going to allow something based on dishonest, unjust, immoral activity, what is that AI, to take even a single job away? The jobs of people who probably are not prepared to lose their jobs and it is the only support they have? And they will lose that job for no reason because of an illegal AI algorithm? No one should lose his job under these circumstances.
Third: "A.i." are software robbing each individual Artist individually, and then taking that stolen work and putting it into the hands of the entire world. In other words, there is no PERSONAL, INDIVIDUAL WORK there. No personal achievements. It's just lazy individuals being given the right to do something they weren't qualified to do! They didn't put any effort in there! Because this software is for the mass audience.
The bad thing is that A.i. that this, in general, is a very unnatural phenomenon. It violates basic natural laws---"you get what you deserve!"
A.I. it's not that way. He steals your labor and puts that stolen labor of yours into the hands of people who then make sales on your back, they compare themselves to you (and on the condition that they do not even have skills, are not qualified, but simply use something taken without labor on their part, but also labor stolen from somewhere else. What kind of absurdity is this?).
To me, (I won't call it AI anymore because it's not AI. It's just learning algorithms ( it should be L.A. Learning Algorithm ) ) is made by greedy people who want to make money off the backs of other people in a cunning way. So this topic is not even about science or art. This topic is about some easy money!
Fourth:
LA devalues art. It also mutilates the personal handwriting of any artist from whom he has ripped off his personal work and personal Art style. It is very miserable for my eyes to see this.
So the bottom line is this: we shouldn't allow anything illegal to be around here...doing...what ever...
You really don't understand.
You're supposed to own nothing, be nothing, do nothing and let yourself go.
Complicated tasks being trivialized, the value of money being destroyed, the experience of life being limited to being online.
This is a process of demoralization.
If your spirit is crushed then what will inspire you to create?
Most "art" is kitsch. What entitles artists not to be superseded like other TRADES where machines are more efficient? No one will be prevented from art, just not necessarily paid to amuse themselves.
Ai arts made one of the most terrifyingly worse thing ever, so I'mstill afraid of course.
In the industrial revolution, skilled artisans and craftsman were replaced by deskilled production processes. Although this caused hardship for the skilled workers, the mass of the population benefited from the cheap goods. With the advert of computers increasing complex tasks and workers can likewise be replaced. For example 3D scanners and printers replace mould jigs and machinists and replacement will now be made for more complex jobs. Now some people get displaced but processes improve. Society as a whole benefits. Would you really like to live in a pre-industrial society? Most people would be very poor and die early.
So now we come to the complaints of artists, who are happy to accept the benefits of modern society, but think an exception should be made when it comes to the automation of THEIR jobs. Oh but they are using our work they say. In the 5 billion images used in LAION database what share of royalties could modern artists reasonably expect? The legal case is that the learning process is transformative so that the output has very little connection with any particular input. Looked at in this wider context its clear that artists, the privileged few, are simply trying to cash in to the disbenefit of the wider society for whom AI art is an asset.
1:40
Yes, exactly. People chasing trends kills creativity. I'm very pro-AI - but not really in the: "I need to get social media followers" kind of way. I want to see what is in people's head - independent of their skills. Here I think I still disagree with many. People call AI Art soulless and most of it is, (like many normal art pieces), but there is that 1% that moves me... and I live for that. I personally do not care about value, I do not care about process, I care if something speaks to me. Can someone speak to me?
6:50
There is nothing unethical and it's not sampling - First a machine learning algorithm does not teach a neural network to sample - there is no such data inside the neural network, it just learns concepts through changing pre-existing weights inside the neural network. Second point: the LAION dataset is located in Germany, meaning under EU jurisdiction which has in EU Directive 790/2019 concerning commercial use for machine learning. Even without LAION being a research institute (which has special exceptions in the law) machine learning on publicly available data online is not only allowed, but encouraged by the law makers in the EU to boost their AI industries. The law gives people an opt-out - there is no requirement for an opt-in, not a retroactively applicable opt-out. The law has been fought against in court and has been ruled as acceptable. The idea that the current models aren't ethical is simply wrong.
Expecting that this is going to be treated like sampling once laws are in place is misguided. Laws are in place (at least in the EU) and have been applied accordingly. The US has no jurisdiction over what happens in an EU-Memberstate like Germany (Where LAION is located). Btw. the same laws exist in the UK, where Stability AI is located. You can argue against Lensa or Midjourney though since laws in the US aren't as clear.
If you’re going to talk about “having soul” you ought to consider the following notion:
A soul requires sentience and embodiment in the corporeal plane.
at the moment AI is not sentient.
not in a verifiable sense. once that’s established, yes an AI can have soul. 🤝
I agree some of the output is beautiful but is a result of the beautiful expression that was created by humans with “embodied soul”.
@@SchopenhauerVsCamus Process doesn't own the concept of soul. Ideas have arguably more soul. The idea is still human.
I guess it all goes back to artists over identifying with our craft. great points. the legal stuff that I mention was very one sided. I based it on what I heard from other artists instead of doing more research and that's another problem by itself. thanks for sharing that, I will dig a little dipper :)
@@anonnymous7009 Having what we refer to as a soul requires interfacing directly with the physical plane:
meaning interaction with
1. an embodied relationship with the social world (human relationships, body language, physical interactions, understanding subtext, etc. etc. not just language)
2. an embodied relationship with the larger environment (objects, plants, animals, the planet, etc.)
3. a personality that emerges through those interactions an AI can call it’s own. or multiple personalities.
Embodied AI could achieve that.
that’s what I meant, sorry for the lack of clarity.
@@celsofx
Just a heads up - the EU has three different kind of law implementations. EU wide "law" meaning EU laws that are word for word applicable to its memberstates. Second are EU directives, which give a little wiggle room and have to be made into law by the memberstate inside a given timeframe. Third, national laws where the EU has no jurisdiction.
The directive 790/2019 is part of the second kind of laws. Meaning every memberstate has their own wording on the law. Which can become a bit complex when researching. Just a heads up to warn you about this, since it can get confusing for people who don't know how the EU works.
I dont fear ai.
I hate ai.
Its repugnant.
Its anti-art.
Its anti-life.
Its unethical.
Yeah, but you don't get the joke.
You see, self-checkout means ending your life as you know it.
That's why it's funny.
You liked my comments.
Okay, then I'll take this a little further.
The LGBT+ flags, they're mocking God's promise to mankind.
If you understand that, then you understand that the globalist movement is a liberal movement.
Liberal in the sense that it liberates us from any responsibility to ourselves and others.
If you would call that something it would be Satanism.
Where your freedom ends, someone else's begins.
If we're just free and unconcerned with consequences then we are agents of chaos.
Discrimination = choice.
Making discrimination a word to describe injustice makes having a choice wrong.
You are not meant to choose anything.
In a world where you have no responsibility to yourself or others, you are a threat.
You are a wild animal, and your only value is as cattle.
You will be fed, clothed, given the means to exist, but you will own nothing and be "happy".
That's where this is all going.
You don't have to believe in God.
Those in power still have to follow tradition.
It's the only thing that keeps them from killing each other.
There is a plan, it's often hinted at in movies.
It's sometimes made blatantly obvious when these people believe there is no way to fight back.
Just like you don't have to believe in any concept.
At the very least, God exists as a concept, and there are real consequences that come from that.
Anyone who says they don't believe in God, or marriage, doesn't also mention that they realize there is a concept.
There are tangible, observable outcomes to this thing.
I call it spirituality, as the spirit in which we give and receive in this life.
The spirit we put into our work and expressions.
There is a cultural connection... cultural values.
Something else which is being eroded.
The spirit of man is being eroded.
Feminism... which would likely have been called witchcraft many years ago, and had women ostracized or tortured and put to death as an example to others.
Feminism is against family, against children, and against men.
It creates an imbalance, as it works against the natural order.
There is a biological imperative, that keeps us human beings alive and healthy which is being attacked.
Attacked on a political level as well as personal.
If you see it this way, you may also be able to rationalize the invasion of the West by a large number of people who are against the cultural values which underline the laws.
The Quran has its own codified laws which are in direct opposition to the laws of the West.
So bringing in people who have a mentality to commit crimes is only going to undermine the tranquility and prosperity you can enjoy as you try to carve out your little piece of Heaven on earth.
Your children can be influenced online, or by their school administration, or by social workers and media personalities to go against their own biology.
To destroy their ability to have children, and destroy their sexual market value as well.
Parents in my country are threatened with jail time if they interfere with their children being brainwashed and altered physically.
The cost of basic goods and services is skyrocketing as people are being put out of work with diversity quotas.
As their healthcare services are being denied them, or their quality renders them useless.
It's a perfect storm to destroy everything.
Companies like Apple are not fulfilling their obligations to customers.
They go with a subscription business model which makes their users dependent.
Everything is going that way.
You will own nothing!
That's the idea.
You will not discriminate, you will not have a choice.
Meat... you will only consume what is allowed.
And what is allowed is a paste made of bugs.
That's where we're headed.
If you don't comply with your government sanctioned orders and demand more than what's rationed to you, you will lose all your privileges.
You will be refused on public transport, and your automobile will not move.
Your streaming services will be denied.
Your social media and ability to communicate with others will be cut off for a determined amount of time.
You may even be made a prisoner of your home.
And don't forget, the government, in fact anyone has the power now to frame you.
All it takes is some automated software to apply your likeness to a person in a video.
With all the information that's been collected on your habits, you'll be easily tracked, controlled, influenced, and made a target if necessary.
That's what this is.
Tell me I'm wrong.
Islam... tell me it's not a death cult. Tell me it's a religion of peace instead.
Watch the Apostate Prophet on UA-cam after that.
Look man, tbh, AI is going to take over everything. This is just beta testing and it has already caused so much distruption, Imagine when they fine tune this and put the updated iterations out. And loving the process and enjoying the process isnt going to pay the bills.
For sure this thing will only get better. But I do believe we can adapt and evolve with it, use it and not loose to it. I see it as a tool that we can choose to use. Not a replacement
@@celsofxI hear what you’re saying and truly appreciate your candor and where your heart is but just want to say that
we shouldn’t assume that every field must use generative ai tools or that there is some obligation to.
yes job loss is a real issue. that can be addressed with universal global guaranteed UBI
however back to the point: it would make sense to use generative AI in SOME fields or industries for SOME applications.
not in ALL instances or use cases.
there is absolutely no obligation or real need to use these tools.
that’s the point.
only reason why everyone would be forced to is well… because they would be forced to.
I don’t think anyone actually wants that.
hope that makes sense.
@@SchopenhauerVsCamus see....businesses would LOVE to use these tools. Wages are a businesses biggest expense. If they can reduce that....they would.
@@Random-qi3vv No, that’s not what I meant at all.
I was saying it
from the perspective of CREATIVES being forced to use AI,
NOT from the perspective of EMPLOYERS, trying to cut back costs. see?
@@Random-qi3vv From the creative’s perspective I’m highlighting the simple distinction between :
wants vs. needs,
regarding generative AI.
Where, as an artist:
you might WANT to use it.
but you don’t NEED to use it.
So let’s not create an artificial need, where there was no great, pressing need to begin with. (think: Facebook, tracking cookies, the advertising Industry, NFTs, consumer vehicles for everyone, pineapple pizza, fidget spinners, the atom bomb, car dealerships, etc.) All unnecessary things that there was no great need for.
when it comes to art making, we should not be put in a situation as a species, where we are coerced to or forced to use it.
These AIs dont sample
👍 Oversimplification on my part
Also, the systems that were set up to "protect" the starving musician against sampling and downloading didn't deliver either, they ended up mostly benefiting big corporations and the few musician who can pay the best lawyers, while practically killing utility of the public domain and holding back progress in open source software (sure LMMS exists for production, but only a few masochists use it).
@@sperzieb00nand Napster ultimately ended up joining their ranks, charging between 9 and 15 euros, per month.
neither Napster nor the music industry actually had the best interests of musicians at heart.
same could be said for MidJourney and Stable Diffusion, despite their framing to the contrary…
too money hungry.
we could focus instead, on making access to good legal representation more affordable for the average person. without that, there’s no fairness. maybe there’s an AI for that…?
- we should focus on the actual underlying issues rather than just say how it’s too expensive for the average musician or artist to afford it.
- focus on the causes not on symptoms right?
@@sperzieb00ncan one honestly make any analogy between software development being “held back”…
and
art being held back???
- no one would argue that art (nor art) making was being “held back” before the advent of AI image generators (that no one asked for btw).
-maybe we can stop pretending that this is about the democratization of art. it really isn’t.
It's all about steal of PIXELS is the end goal of what and when do we fellow hand drawn animation artists who scan and post is the problem.......how much and when do we get compensation from these bad A.I. ART GEN's that scrape and take and make a profit, ... is the problem that is to be solved good and kind sir !!!!!!!!!!!!
🙄 Another artist complaining about ai art.
We tend to do that