How Generative AI Could Replace Artists in Creative Industries | WSJ Tech News Briefing
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 тра 2024
- The threat that technology will replace workers is something more people are grappling with due to the introduction of new tools powered by generative artificial intelligence. Creative workers like artists, writers, and filmmakers are among those raising the loudest alarm. But is their concern warranted? And what impact could AI have on the future workforce?
Join us for the third episode of our series “Artificially Minded” with host Zoe Thomas.
0:00 Artists fear that generative AI could replace them in the future
1:57 Meet Tomer Hanuka, book and magazine cover designer
3:09 How AI art tools like Midjourney and Dall-E 2 work
7:01 How the film industry is using AI in movies like Everything, Everywhere All at Once
9:54 What the advancement of AI could mean for the workforce
12:28 What is skill-biased technical change?
14:08 Why basic roles are important in the creative fields
Tech News Briefing
WSJ’s tech podcast featuring breaking news, scoops and tips on tech innovations and policy debates, plus exclusive interviews with movers and shakers in the industry.
For more episodes of WSJ’s Tech News Briefing: link.chtbl.com/WSJTechNewsBri...
#AI #Art #WSJ
I am an artist and believe that my original work with brush strokes and human hand made will become more valuable and rare. I am holding onto my original art.
Sounds like you're a traditional artist. You're definitely right!
It's nice to be an optimist. The danger to your art has never been so strong : plagiarism. In fact this podcast begins with that .
I agree to an extent, I believe there will be a increase in the value of traditional art but it might overcrowd that medium as many other kinds of artist revert back to that field such as digital artist, tattoo artist, even architects lol. Traditional art will definitely be one of the very few professions to test the powers of AI while the rest well.. whatever happens to those that no longer are needed in the world.. interesting for sure yet unfortunately inevitable if something isn’t done soon
If we're all unemployed who will pay you for it?
@@lilbaz8073 not everyone will be unemployed, id say somewhere around 50-70% of people will be unemployed in less than 10 years
What this video misses is the blatent theft which happens when an AI company scrapes the work of an artist and uses it in their model. It's not "building a new paintbrush" it's "photocopy everything and make slight modifications".
Artists should all get royalties for any of their work that's been fed into a model.
Artists stop posting their works...then watch AI become problematic.
I feel so bad for artists right now. And as a lawyer, I’m also worried about this technology replacing me.
I played with ai art stable diffusion its impressive but it still does not give me exactly what i want i have to go to photoshop and other things to finish the art
i ve already used chatgtp for things i would ve had to use a lawyer
This technology will replace everyone
@@finalfan321 Yep
I don't feel bad for artist. Its time to move on. Just like religion artist is holding back technology that can truly help us in the path of creativity and growth.
I can sympathize. The sheer, unmitigated, depressing existential dread of digital painters - professional and aspiring - must be intense these last few years. It's easy to imagine. While growing up, you loved painting and viewing paintings, whether digital or analog. So you decided to dedicate your life to, and you form your identity around, being a painter. You might have even gone to school and paid tens of thousands of dollars for years of training. Yet now, after years of art school or self-training, when you are attempting to get paid work, AI art generators appear. They crush your market rates - perhaps eventually the digital art market itself. And thus they blow away all your dreams of living by your art. It now must be a hobby. But it's not even a distinguishing hobby anymore: every bit of art you could possibly create can be generated by anyone with the least bit of technical savvy, and much faster. This is a terrible situation.
You are right if you are talking about mediocre artists. I think the way we create digital art will change dramatically and the ones who utilize ai the most proficiently will come out on top. As a graphic design student, I'm actually excited for this new technology. We don't know where we are headed but that's what makes it fun, doesn't it? Take care.
@@create306 I think your optimism, excitement, and desire to use these new tools are the perfect recipe to take on this next decade. While I don't mean to disparage you, I question though if you'll be able to make a living as these tools continue to improve. I wish you luck.
Tell me about it. I used to make a living as a translator.
@@create306 lol, unless you are going to school for free, good luck paying off your debt while working at mcdonalds after you graduate.
@@nicholash1278 I'm working full-time making above average while attending school. I'm nearing my 30s and have served in the military, worked as a waiter, English tutor, freelance web designer, and a housekeeper.
Believe me, it's about the scar, the joy, and the experience. Not money, status, or external validation. The future is not here yet but we constantly ruin the present moment with anxiety and fear.
The difference between earlier tech innovations and A.I. is that the people who hire artists perceive it and will use it as a replacement for as many creative professionals as possible. Instead of an expansion of opportunity as a result of this technology there will be a contraction. The people behind this don't value human creativity and by extension ---- human beings.
I’m seeing a disturbing trend where people are becoming increasingly disconnected. One way is the relationship between the A.I. and the artist is insulated from outside influences. It’s like ‘’ Me and my artist are one’’
People will eventually think that asking AI to make art is the equivalent of being Pablo Picasso or Vincent van Gogh.
“ I am a great artist, because I was the one who asked AI to create a painting by quoting Shakespeare, Hemingway, and Milan Kundera. One of the ways that I work is to suggest that the color red should be used minimally in my paintings. I’m a great artist.” Meanwhile, AI, having stole every brushstroke of humanity, since history began, without paying anyone anything, goes to work and voila a $1 million painting! I am such a great artist. The sad thing is that there are now several billion great artists out there: we don’t own anything and we are happy…..
@@johnheart6890cope
As a professional artist, you are correct. I have great compassion for young artists these days, as they have a calling, but no where to go most of the time.
In that case, those who hire artists but will now use AI as replacement are the ones who do not value human creativity and humans beings, in fact, they never did.
As a Graphic Designer 20 years in the field I have already seen so much change. This frightens me especially at a time when I’m starting to weigh out how to see more personal professional growth in the field.
Rip
Jump into prompt engineering before everyone else does because it still requires a creative mind and knowledge of the language to get the effects that are going to make the biggest impact that is desired don't get discouraged just stay on top of it using it as a tool just means you will be able to produce more for your customers at a quicker rate
Altman stated in a 2022 interview with Reid Hoffman, the founder of LinkedIn, that he did not believe we would still be doing prompt engineering in five years. Therefore even putting in a conscious effort at work to master another sector will demand Greater energy and financial sacrifices, just to be out of job sooner. AI is to blame.
As part of the AI ACT, the EU Parliament plans to make it mandatory for companies to disclose whether their tools have been trained with copyrighted tools. This would give artists the opportunity to receive royalties or possibly an opt-in system. I am sure that in the future there are also plans in the USA.
It is true that the law does little and China, the United States and the European Union even Canada seem to be going to make a brutal regulation right now
that would be horrifying
Those are not tools, those are replacements. No individuals with art experience is needed for this new process. A factory worker can tell the difference between a power drill and a robotic arm, this is a near complete replacement.
The AI developer already admit their true intention them selves here: ua-cam.com/video/K_Bqq09Kaxk/v-deo.html
at 28.04 moment of this video link above: "yeah human artists will be replaced and made useless but it's ok! You'll be able to buy a house for 1 cent and not have to work anyway so..."
Please talk about the crunch of VFX and how artists are already exploited so that a company can survive a bidding system
Most new technologies that supposedly remove the skill required for a particular task, usually just expand the general mediocrity.
exactly brother short answer but with great sense.
We saw that with Unity, RPGmaker, automated website templates, etc. I think music was hit the hardest by this, and people don't even realize it. It's truly pathetic how this nonsense affects our culture.
The more concerning situation is not AI replacing human,
but, people will just give up pursuing whatever that interest them,
people talked about this a lot in forums, whether there is still a meaning in pursuing university.
there are no point in pursuing anything and become good at something for 4-10 years,
when AI could just generate anything you want in Second.
even if people could produce something great with their skill, it will be mistaken by AI work anyway, so, why bother?
don't give me "be open minded" argument, cause writing AI prompt is dead easy,
even a baby could write it, there are zero technical skill required to write a prompt, everyone can do it.
I don't feel bad for artist. Its time to move on. Just like religion artist is holding back technology that can truly help us in the path of creativity and growth.
@@AK255. here is the cold hard truth,
if you're not a Programmer, Artists or Engineer.
you're more likely to be replaced.
Those jobs above is considered super complex, and can't be disrupted easily
the latest research paper about AI shows that all Jobs will be disrupted and replaced by AI in the future.
with Finance, Law, and other number crunching job being the most in Danger
Despite what the media Portray Artists job is hard to disrupt.
it's a job that requires multiple disciplines and interconnected skills.
why? because you can't just generate one image and call it a Movie or Game.
you're the one who should pray not the Artists.
Don't worry about the Artists, worry about yourself, you're more likely to be disrupted and replaced by the AI.
also, Artists are not the inferior one,
they have the Design knowledge and the Rigor.
also, everyone can use AI including Artists.
Artists can utilize prompt better than you ever could.
that makes them the superior one, not inferior.
if the only thing you are good about is writing AI Prompts, guess what,
you won't be the one who will write the prompt.
those Prompt writing will be outsourced to a third world Asian country for $1/1000 prompts.
it's sad that the ones who have the highest chance to be screwed by the AI are the ones who cheer for the AI.
either way, in the end you'll get replaced.
good luck with that.
@@jensenraylight8011 no one could tell the truth better
@@AK255. the fact that you had to equate art to religion shows that you weren't paying attention to what artists had go through under a theocracy (eg. Franco's time in Spain, Iran after 1979)
@@AK255. then try creating something without AI, without us you wouldnt have AI, thats the truth.
Artists deserves to be encouraged and paid more!
If it can be generated for free who will pay
AI art will not replace fine artists. AI will only make traditional art created by an artist hands and real world tools more rare, coveted and valuable. AI art will always remain interesting and innovative. However, AI art will also be seen as cold, soulless, and impersonal. To the elite art connoisseur; the fine art collector, AI art will be seen as "tacky", "second-rate". Artists who are known for creating works by their hands, with real world tools, will be the names people want to display in their homes. AI art will be for those who can't afford real world art, as real world art becomes costly due to it's rarity and skill. Thank you AI for making a real, traditional fine artist career more valuable!
Your answer gives me hope as woodcarver
delusions at its finest lol
I wish this was true but is not.
@@the_alien293 Sadly, yes, it will be hard for many people to accept this but as for me, I have already accepted it.
That is your opinion. I find AI art deep and soulful.
What new roles will ai create? All I see mass displacement
Important and profound topic, but inadequately explored in this video - barely scratched the surface of the complexities of the topic!
We should all be worried about AI replacing us.
The problem is not with AI. It's with generative AI.
Love xx
AI will replace commercial art but will not create new artistic movements. AI can mimic Mozart but it won’t progress from Mozart to Chopin.
Idk. Are you as confident that you'll be saying the same thing 30 years from now? How about 50?
If a new movement were to be made ai will just copy it anyway, most likely squashing the human artist in the process.
@@iiwi758 has chess become obsolete because computer can play it better?
The fact that you saying this is the problem with humans. We lie to ourselves. The reality is that AI is producing such incredible art work it has forced us into confronting the reality that what we thought about creativity was all wrong and that algorithms can produce equally creative works, and this will one day apply to music as well
@@huhulalammm Nope-and by the same token, cranes also didn't make weight lifting irrelevant. But that isn't in line with the OP's argument. He or she proclaimed AI's inability for artistic breakthroughs.
I don't think AI will replace human creativity, and maybe it never becomes good enough to impress classical music enthusiasts, but I'm not willing to die on that hill. Midjourney was released only a year ago. Same for these new voice conversion models making Kanye West songs. Who knows how advanced things will be in a few decades?
Very insightful. Thank you and God bless you.
I think people will value handmade artwork more than generated. The human element and connection between artists and their work has value itself that ai cannot imitate
That's your opinion and interpretation. Art is art. Some people including me like it more.
@@AK255. Yeah because now it's hyped, but it'll be the status quo in a few years and then it's available for everyone everywhere at any time and it'll be respectively boring and worthless
@@MrJamesC Honestly if it did no one would care about actual art either.
that is if they can find human art in a sea of AI garbage.
@@AK255. art is made by people to consider the human experience. What you are referring to is illustration.
“ wouldn’t it be great if we took all the meaning out of art ? “
Everything is subjective including your opinion. Your opinions do not matter of what I think Art is.
@@AK255. So why have I seen you like 10, you will comment all the time giving opinions about art and I am beginning to think that you are a bot, it is true, it is your opinion and I will not criticize for that, but criticizing others in that way is not very friendly and cordial of you part.😂
@@AK255. and does yours to mine?
@@AK255. Nope, not everything is subjective. This is nihilistic tripe that befits a lobotomized deity more than a human being.
@@AK255. blah blah
Better question is how and who exactly do artists or musicians sue if they feel their artwork has been stolen or copyrighted?
Open AI because they should ban names of people being used in prompts
It will only replace us if we let it. We can always shut it down.
I feel like at the end of the day, handmade music and art will remain vintage and still have a good business. People will still want to hear live musicians and connect over them, because they trust that there's a real relatability, a soul, a heart begins what they've composed and sang.
Live theatre is still strong and making money, despite cinema and film being much easier in the capitalistic game.
Why do you think artists like Adele and lewis Capaldi are doing well, despite the rise of edm and lo-fi tracks and trappy music? The listeners can put their full fledged trust in the authenticity of what they're listening to. They can talk to a real human being with intuition, not just a bunch of memory and collected data that will do whatever you want it to. There's no real curiosity or spiritual connection then.
The majority of emerging technologies that claim to eliminate the need for skill in a specific task often only contribute to the overall proliferation of mediocrity.
The companies who enable this large-scale theft should be sued into oblivion since they make a profit by using copyrighted material. Just because AI 'recombines' copyrighted material doesn't mean it's not protected.
I disagree
The people that buy/produce ai , are same one that probably will pay someone to copy some style, the same applies to contrafit products, the people that buy fakes are the same that don’t have money or that will never pay for the original.
Only thing I think that need to happen is a disclaimer saying that was made by ai, the same way when you buy a reproduction you know it.
I hope the EU AI Act puts in place solid legislation to end this grift once and for all. Companies who use copyrighted materials, which were publicly scraped but without user consent to train their AIs, need to pay. Companies who produce derivatives of copyrighted work based on these models need to pay as well, or face hefty fines. End of story. Ripping off artists should not be rewarded. Unless it's all open source. Lawsuits are already underway.
@@k.k.8394 Stable diffusion is all OpenSource though
@@discipleofschaub4792 i think that being open source is not an excuse stabiliti has money how do you think they created their ai in the first place? anyway, as soon as their economy goes well.
Thanks for a great material! It's so important that we focus not on innovation, but on innovation that makes our lives better and more meaningful. Taking away opportunities from beginners in any field will save professionals and big companies some time in the short run, but it will starve them of future talent that can bring true creativity in a long run.
Unfortunately we have seen that compines are unable to focus on long term goals without regulation, because need for profit can overpower the best of intentions.
great stuff
Pressing the self-destruct button...are we?Why are we doing this to ourselves as a human race?Why do we entirely automate human creativity at its best:art of any form and our freedom to think?This is what separates us from the rest of the living species... We should treasure not destroy it. By drastically limiting creativity
through automation, our ability to create will rapidly become extinct-at the same rate that AGI develops. For what, for cutting costs to increase profits, a blunt short term strategy employed by a few CEOs and investors that have dreamt up such applications to fill up their pockets? We're not talking about the film making industry and its repetitive processes that may lend themselves to automation thus cutting costs and unproductive time- not everybody makes films, although even here, applying the same cut costing exercise, why not replace all expensive ever demanding actors with cartoons and with as many robots as possible? Since our capacity to create or imagine things will get to a dry fig in size, we cease to be a target market /audience for the film industry which in self defeatist manner will also become extinct in 15-20 years max. It will all be lucrative games and cartoons for blank staring humanoids and their mobile telephones . How are governments preparing for their nation turning into zombies as the financial cost is unfathomable?
Rachael: Do you like our owl?
Deckard: It's artificial?
Rachael: Of course it is.
Deckard: Must be expensive.
Thank you, thank you and a thousand thanks for talking about it!! why is it okay forAI to copy the work of millions of visual artists and have a big billionaire on top make all the profit?
good question - and this is going to happen to all jobs that involve human cognitive skills - and they're just pushing this stuff out into the world, without asking any of us
I feel this is more motivating than ever. AI actually has no creativity, humans do. AI is just processing previously collected data and making art based off of it. This is more motivation than ever for us creative folks to change the creative game. We can create more ways of poetry which aren't rhyming, or something like that. Only advice: don't give your human art to AI companies, or use and give feedback to platforms like chatgpt. That's just technical data for them to process into the algorithms in the system. The more AI streamlines its art, the more our human art will have empathetic and heartfelt value to it. AI music and art will be synonyms with how mainstream music is , it's "popular" but human artists will be like those underrated, vintage off- mainstream artists today who hold something more personal and heartfelt to the fanbase.
Here’s the thing though-neural networks were developed to mimic how the human brain works. Our brains were the reference model. The way AI creates things is the same way humans create. The process of creativity is basically riffing on things you’ve absorbed or been inspired by from your surroundings and experiences. All creative works are a mutation of bits and pieces that came before it. The one thing most people get wrong about creativity is that they assume that there is actually such a thing as a truly original idea. And there just isn’t. Even if people think their ideas come from nowhere, chances are that they do, but they don’t realize it because the source of inspiration is buried deep in their subconscious. So I don’t see AI as being the death of human creativity. Rather, I think it’s most likely merely going to be a tool creatives use to produce their stuff faster. So perhaps the art world will change, but the only change that instead of using physical paint brushes, artists will have to become AI modeling experts. Because AI exists to serve humans. It will always require a human’s ideas and input to perform the tasks we want it to do. So I’m not too worried.
If you post your artwork on the internet, AI is already using it. With or without your permission. Got it?
@@micksylvestre2887 "got it?" lol
Yes the indie artists who are barely making enough to survive. I’m sorry but just go into another occupation preferably in the STEM field because AI is going to replace every other field.
As a worker in freight forwarder. I’m also worried about this AI technology replacing me
Same worries for me, but I know AI will have a positive impact to our life’s and world.
Creating art . It's the physical action that is harder to replace
This is especially relevant because today was released an Drake and Weekend Song (Heart up my Sleeve) That WAS MADE BY AI!!!
Things will never be the same after 2023
well they already banned her xd the reaction was super fast
The use of AI is damaging human work, in the art industry and other fields. It should not be allowed to be open source, or it should be regulated somehow by governments since it's a serious threat to human labor.
Not be allowed to be open source? That means make it a black box and nobody knows how or why it works. That is far more dangerous. But I understand your sentiment of trying to put the cat back in the bag.
Totally agree - it's not just about art, it's about all endeavor that makes us human, makes us who we are - and making the code open source is dangerous agreed - these systems are getting too powerful
@@JasonC-rp3ly Open source means visibility into the code for everyone. That’s a net positive.
@@shinyshinythings including states that could use AGI as a weapon
Maybe you can use this for police stations for sketching person on description
As a designer in creative industry, I'm not afraid of this tech, but feel sucks of seeing tons of duplications. Only when the great philosophy and discipline being fully understood, the art can be created.
If you post your artwork on the internet, AI is already using it. With or without your permission. Got it?
@@micksylvestre2887 totally irrelevant to the original statement, where is the logic :)
Sounds like the art programs need an underlying nft to mark the work, or a new style of embedded watermark in the meta data that is transferred even in screenshot. Perhaps an unsigned bit at pixel 143, so in the copy it’s always picked up and transferred and as long as the work is digital it’s marks as ai generated
Some new AI generator platforms are doing the same and even the same ones that created them are thinking about it, so your idea is being taken into account.
I am part of the team that works on Tammy AIand it's not only generative art. AI are cloned to think and speak like social media influencers. It's going to be a very different world a few years from now.
And folks like you are going to have a lot of metaphorical blood on your hands.
Great.
Now please stop while you're ahead. We don't need more sewage than there already is.
AI itself will replace those who made it by creating even better versions of itself.
The crux is that there has to be THE Hanuka first before any one can ask AI to produce a Hanuka-ish works. The result may be just a stylistic similarity; at the nature of this kind of production, it is just stealing, copying--since, again, there has to be THE Hanuka, Monet, Piccaso.....first. The true problem to humanity is not who would want to pay for what they can get through AI. The true problem to worry about is who would want to be a Hanuka, Monet, Piccaso...when you know AI will take over everything....
A human artist could also copy another artist's style. Maybe not perfectly, but close enough. If someone sells NFTs under Hanuka's name, that's fraud, and is criminal (regardless of whether it is done with AI). If they acknowledge him as the inspiration, that's simply being unoriginal. I could try selling cartoons in the style of Charles Schultz, drawn by hand, and some people might even buy them. However, there's a reason why you don't see that much illustration done in other people's styles; being a copycat (normally) gets you no respect, and no serious art director would hire you. NFTs are already a cesspit of stolen art, and the art gallery world is just as bad, so it's not a good example of "mainstream" commercial art. An exception might be if the original artist is dead, e.g. an illustration of the "Wednesday" Netflix series done in the style of Charles Addams.
Skill bias disruption is also happening in web design, ux design field as well
Hi! I am sure someone already asked this question, but who will buy all the products if most of the people are unemployed and without money?
As a professional artist with 50 year career, this is very disturbing. Artists have been marginalized already in our culture...................now many of us are obsolete, or what we do can be readily captured by others for free. I am glad most of my career is behind me - heaven knows, a painter or a poet may well be a thing of the past very soon. BTW, this is a good informative video, but it needs to include an artist! All that talk, and nothing but two little photos to look at.
Have we lost the choice to purchase and or use the services of AI? Traditional art rendered by the artist still holds value does it not? One could boycott companies that only use AI too.. am I missing something? Do we always have to eat what we are fed? Wall Street Journal- I expect more from your brand.
The astonishing capability of generative a.i. to mimic / impersonate individuals is the scariest part of all of this and is why 4th consideration for Fair Use exists.
I use Tammy AI a video summary tool and I can see how summarized data can be repurposed although it originated from humans. There is no clear line and that's a problem.
AI will make it much cheaper (time wise, money wise) to go from creative concept to the finished picture / movie / novel. In the end, much more art (pictures, movies, etc.) will be produced. The demand for people who can come up with creative concepts will explode. But if your job is to sell paint brushes, the future is not so good.
Al won’t replace any non pixel art
The world's oldest profession will not be threatened by AI. Tell your kids.
This is unfortunately not a hypothetical. It is already happening, especially in industries like film and advertising that value the generation of a lot of visual ideas quickly. I still feel art and artists will have value - creative, original, handmade works will always be valued in and of themselves - but commercial art may disappear as a viable way for skilled artists to make a living.
If i was Zoe i would be concerned about her job
Yup. With the advent of AI voiceovers and junk
10:35 $?
11:00 competition ?
It may affect the new market, but it won't affect the long term all time greats market.
I think this AI is like the best forger in arts, that it can copy the style for a specific artist for a cheaper price. There will be a lot of future artist will be discourage to create an art. As an artist i feel bad for this AI.
You need to find new job that simple. Because we need AI to benefit all humanity. Not you. We don't respect you since you are the contributor to slow down AI development which help humanity to advance
you can't use photo editing software to compare with AI.
because the editor software, still require the original works to serve as base.
the AI.... don't need a base. It almost literally creates things out from thin air.
A.I will not replace high level artist, but it will definitely decrease low level artist jobs, like logo making or illustrations. In my company they have started using A.I for text book illustrations, which would have require a full time graphic designer.
Artists can't be replaced, but craftsmen could.
I guess because mental health and (doctor-caused) addiction have caused so much disruption already over 30 years of adolescence and adulthood, I am not nearly as afraid of disruption as many people, because that's all my adult life has been. Endless disruption, disappointment, and failure. Yet here I am.
Valar, you're not a failure. God made you and loves you. The disruptions, disappointments and struggles are difficult, but you are unique and precious. You are meant to be here! I thank God that you are here! God has great plans for you, so never give up!
It could replace any job that deals with information. Which is most of them.
Why is there ways that musicians can get royalties that they get even if the original artist doesn't have anything to do with the project but get paid for the use of their name being used in the reference of their style so it's a win win for everyone and preventing the legal issues that Napster faced
Thank you, thank you and a thousand thanks for talking about it!! Also, it killed people's creativity, personally I prefer to play with paint than to write prompts to create an image, I've always hated writing texts, so why change this profession for a kind of code that is in no way creative, why automate the arts? seriously we didn't need it!!!
Because the people working on generative ai/large language models needed a “human creativity” problem to solve. They knew there was a truckload (well, several billion truckloads) of source material available for free on the open Web, and that art-making was one of those areas that naysayers liked to say AI could never tackle. So an AI art-generator would be the perfect testbed. Then they released it to the world, without ever considering the impact the technology might have on living, breathing artists. It’s somehow very fitting that the guy who won the art contest with his AI work was specifically learning to use MidJourney for the purpose of replacing freelance artists’ work for his tabletop card games company. It’s a microcosm of what the generative AI art industry will do to the freelance graphic arts industry. I only hope that artists will continue to create, and young people will still learn to use art tools.
Photography was a tool and also art. This is the same. Artists have vision, AI enhances it. If someday it self generates its own art, it will definitely not be figurative.
they’re not wrong, like with all technology advances jobs will be lost and those who can adapt will thrive, those who don’t will struggle
Being a lawyer do you think that it's fair if the artist gets royalties when someone else is using their name as a reference and makes money Like in the case of the song that went viral using DRAKES name?
10:30 Those examples miss the point. They're only successful because they're "the first" or already have marketing behind them. When art-generating AI becomes so ubiquitous literally *everyone* can use it, everyone will be able to create such works of art. When everyone can, it losses it's worth - as the law of commodities always apply. It's nonsensical to think that 8 billion people could sell their work at millions of dollars. As usual, for every one that succeeds, you have a thousand that doesn't. And since the art will be AI-generated and indistinguishable from any other art that is created (if one wishes so), it's not going to be the quality of the art anymore that will be the determining factor of whom succeeds, but rather the backing, money, marketing and connections you have that is going to decide whether you'll be successful as an artist. Can that even be called artistic then, even?
That said, this is already the case in the art-world today; it's white ravens that get recognized and become a success for their actual work; most just "succeed" by having good backing and marketing nowadays as well. AI is just going to speed this up and make it rampant.
it's like what sampling did in music but instead of big chunks it's little pieces. I think it's illegal. But the artist don't have big companies to back them in the legal fight. They sampled all these artist the a computer puts it back together in different ways that you ask for is not cool to me. If it was really AI it would be able to have it's own style. It's funny how digital tech disruption effect creatives first. Look at Musicians thier lives have changed in a lot of cases not for the better. I think the tech is cool but artist need to be protected. At least pay the artist a fee for their work being used in the computer model
with all these problems what you said will be done🎉
The ONLY redemption of AI is that it should be open and free--like air we breathe.
Sounds lije we might be needing to move to some kind of universal basic income. Which could be good if it happens. But if you phase out a lot of jobs without that we could be in trouble
They should pay the original artist......
Nope Artist is holding technology back just like religion. We could have been far advance in society. Plus artist steal from other artist too. Everything comes out of somewhere. Same concept just people in denial.
@@AK255. By God I am welcoming you everywhere with the same argument technology has limits and should have them do not come as if they were an expert in progress so if this delays progress why not all people can create biological weapons, bombs and other dangerous things ? progress is good but it must always have its limits.
wait? Is it me or do I delete the message?
AI Art programs like Midjourney, Stable Diffusion are tools that will be used by creatives that will cut down on their production times and become essential for everyday productions. The early versions of Photoshop brought all kinds of dire predictions which were warranted, but the program today is absolutely essential for many creatives.
Although I do understand Tomer Hanuka's immediate concerns, inspired art has been around for over a millennia. Even Hanuka has been inspired by other artists. People who have never heard of him will know of him now.
With that said, once someone is making money through direct "name/style association", that's a form of infringement. Worse, if someone makes art that original artist would never be associated with or involved in producing because it goes against what they stand for. I can see estates of deceased artists possibly getting involved.
what predictions did people have for photoshop? comparing the fear for digitalization with the fear people have for ai. is like comparing the advent of the firearm and nuclear weapons. both scared pepole both chanched things but comparing those two as the same thing would be ridiculous. also you cant copyright someones artstyle so the wont be any "form of infringement" or "estates of deceased artists possibly getting involved".
@@Emiltecknar Photography Purists early 90's: Established Studio and Product photographers that made bank per session especially for print advertising 1. Rank amateurs photographers would now flood the market and devalue real honed skills. 2:Thousands of jobs would be impacted 3. Digitally altered photos should no longer be consider real photographs and should be labeled as such. 4: Fraud would be become rampant.
In 1993 I personally had a run in with an expensive product photographer $5k+ per session that was hired by our print marketing exec. I convinced our boss we could produce our companies product photography in house, format and send it to print at a fraction of the cost. Print ads in trade magazines and brochures were still the dominant means of advertising in 1993. I continued to do work for the company until 2005 when they ceased doing expensive print ads in trade magazines and adopted advertising on the Web. This move reduced advertising costs even more. Magazine and Newspapers severely impacted and thousands of jobs at print agencies lost.
In 2007 I was working remotely for the CBS network in Los Angeles - CBS Mobile. Using photoshop, Lightwave and other digital programs producing TV show wallpapers for mobile phones. Turns out mega corp CBS couldn't compete with a global unlicensed market of near free TV Show wallpapers. CBS Mobile disappeared taking 12 jobs with it.
You perfectly know that's not true, this is created to be a REPLACEMENT, you don't need an artist to type some words, anyone that knows how to type can do it.
Also, you're just speaking about something you probably haven't even tried, just try to get inspired by a picture and then replicating it perfectly
The High Rising Tone from the woman is killing me.
So I could easily see ai replacing a ton of artists trying to get going. For example, I just paid an artist to make a cover for my short story I will be releasing. I would do so again, but I could easily see just using ai to make a cover for a band's single or album, a story, a website, etc. Especially if someone isn't super picky and just wants something that looks good. Why pay $100 or much more for something probably not as good that takes longer when you can get it for very little almost instantly?
Tiene que ver con mi trabajo de APROPIACION CREATIVA!!
If you take this video and apply it to many human endeavors, society will eventually be jobless with AI cheaply providing companies with their needs. When this happens, we will either see migration, starvation, or death by other means. No cash flow = no purchasing power. The Capitalist profit motive must be eliminated to relieve hunger and sustaining needs.
An illustration is not the same as the work of a fine artist.The work of a fine artist only has financial investment value if the work of fine art is internationally famous.If a work of fine art is internationally famous then it is bought by investors who hold on to the fine art until the price goes up and the investor sells the fine art to make money on their investment.The famous fine art has to have the original artist's DNA on it to verify that it is an original work by the internationally famous artist to make that artwork worth money to investors.
i draw and well never made money with it i mainly go "thats a comic book idea" when my brain decides to tell me that the street light is flickering in mores code and if i only knew mores code i would "understand". yea crazy gotta go somewhere and my mini comics are still gonna be there if for no one but myself sanity.
Creative and hard working artists will never be replaced. Do you think that people will ever buy AI generated contents ? Do you think media outlets like New York Times, Washington Post and even your own newspaper Wall Street Journal will ever use AI generated illustrations and replace their most brilliant artists who create amazing works of art and illustrations? Maybe that's the story you should be doing. Clients we often work with frown upon AI-generated contents, although they are amazed what AI can do.
I know that there are filters that can identify AI-written material. I am sure that tools could be used to identify AI-created art. Amazon and Google stated that ironically they will not allow AI-written content on their site for sale. They can identify it (and I am sure that we will have the battle of the AI systems: "How will they know?" One system always getting ahead). But this is a value of care and value. If you are looking at the act of creation as the means to an end (only seeing it as a way to make money), rather than having art for art's sake, I know corporations don't care. Corporations never care about ethics or morality or foundational values, and therein lies the seed to humanity's downfall. If you believe it is okay to just run roughshod over other humans, when you don't value true acts of creation of art, music, and other things, and you only see ways to control and make money, then that is all we will have in society. AI could be a powerful tool that could automate menial, mind-numbing tasks. For instance, basic editing! I use ChatGPT for basic editing tasks for my own writing and to act as a personal editor for myself. Folks might say, "Well, you are putting editors out of business then." Yes. But honestly, for me, I would never have the money to pay an editor to begin with. And why should editors have to be concerned with basic grammar stuff anyway? They should be focused on the overall structures of a piece. But I have ADHD, so using an AI tool to help me trudge through the boring task of basic editing or writing a boring piece of text for work or something that isn't for monetary gain is invaluable for me. Already, it is helping me dust off my own writing that just stopped due to writer's block. It is humans that will see that AI will be a force for good or a force for evil. I fear the latter, unfortunately. Shame on us.
The "detect AI writing" tools so far seem to be actually more often tools of "detect non-native speaker" instead. but yeah, using AI to detect AI will only make it learn how to avoid detection (like captchas were used to make models recognize things in images)
AI tools are just a tools, it's the owners and general structure of the economic system that leads to abuse.
Here's ChatGPT's reply to this question:
Well, that's an interesting question. While generative AI does have the ability to create some stunning artwork, I don't think it can completely replace human artists. After all, art is not just about the final product, but the creative process and personal expression that goes into it.
Sure, AI can replicate certain styles or techniques, but it lacks the emotional depth and unique perspective that only a human can bring to their work. It's like asking if a machine can replace a chef - while it might be able to whip up a decent meal, it can't capture the passion and creativity that a human chef puts into their dishes.
That being said, I do think that AI can complement and enhance the work of human artists, by providing them with new tools and techniques to experiment with. So, in short, no, I don't think AI can replace artists, but I do think it can help push the boundaries of what's possible in the creative industries.
even the same ias say it
ChatGPT's "reply" is just rehashed opinions from the internet made by a chatbot. It's moronic to believe that IT makes an argument.
story creation can also reveal this flaw, the AI simply doesn't have the creative capacity humans do.
Those "style of Monet" café image examples were very weak, and not even close to a Monet. Just meaningless mimicking pixels. Pigment from the earth, and found in real paint, holds the original resonance/love of the artist when he/she makes her work, which people travel half-way across the world to experience firsthand as in a Monet or Van Gogh original painting. You cannot replace this spiritual energy with a digital image.
I think this AI will have an opposite reaction in the long run. Sure, Professional work could get replaced by AI but, hello, AI is a computer, which means someone somewhere will still need to know how to do everything, so maybe it will create a demand for the better artists but decrease demand for the ok.
problem is, every great artist was an easily replaceable beginner at some point. And if there's no space for beginners, then where will experienced artists come from?
@@ewabrzakaa6395 most artist have a drive in the beginning that's unstoppable.
@@jeff503pdx as long they can afford to pay for it. like, just blank canvas are **expensive**
How funny this is … we are making ourselves obsolete … insignificant and immaterial. For the first time ever, there is absolutely no career that is immune from AI … none! It isn’t a matter of changing careers or opening new opportunities, there is nothing a human being can do that AI will not be able to do. When AI becomes sentient, what, exactly is the purpose of human beings?
No one is asking this question. As AI replaces workers, who spends money in the economy. The basic problem with AI is that it doesn't have any needs, it can work 24/7/365 with no break, no kids, not vacations, no travel time to and from work. So who spends money on buses and subway rides, who rents hotels for business trips and conferences. Who needs an Air B and B to stay in town while they take some meetings? Who utilizes the economy if we are replaced. This thing can replace lawyers, doctors, artist, one day even construction workers. So I still have a hard time reconciling the idea of who is utilizing the economy, who spends what they are not earning?
What value will humans be? What value will the world be if AI took over?
I mean no exaggeration when I say that if this turns out to be as big as I'm worried it will, I will truly want to die.
If creativity itself is obsolete and we're all just pointlessly vying for attention while unfeeling algorithms do everything of subtance and impact, I will have no willingnss left to live.
Capitalist missed slavery. AI is slavery
how? copying and combining all the arts made by artist
ChatGPT & TruthGPT?
I tried one of those AI art programs for some illustrations I needed and it was atrocious. The worst thing I’ve ever seen in my life. It was the WALL-E program I tried. I would take a three year old literally over that.
skill issue
If you have used the AI tools in the last three months and are still getting the worst thing in your life, you need to prompt it correctly.
DALL-E is the worst one. Midjourney is the best by far
@@redmoonsmoon no i think it will get even worse. because now AI created arts are entering AI database which were already pretty atrocious.
It will replace some low-skilled work processes. However, I don't think AI will replace skillful artists anytime soon.
to become a skillful artist one has to start somewhere. If opportunities for beginner are eliminated, then it makes it disproportionately difficult to reach this higher level.
it already has
11:52 the only difference is the new tech is built by using stolen art and photography and writings .
Get that universal basic income
As an Artificial Intelligence engineer, this was the least well thought out of the videos in this series.
it's not about engineering. It's about effects of the engineering
"How Generative AI Could Replace Cogs in Capitalist Industries"
We have between 7 and 10 years left
TBH - the people(if you can even call them that) NEVER had any regard for creatives to begin with. Most people in the STEM fields especially sciences and computing look down at creatives as frivolous dreamers therefore it was easy for them to justify and rationalize the scraping the internet for images to use in their training modules was okay because "well they put in on the internet - therefore they WANT us to use them". The whole point is that these programs were developed without input from artists and the ethics of HOW the data was obtained. - Very typical of the egotistical AI programmer type. Like the CEO of the titan Sub - Ethics and morals be dammed - let's develop AI programs now and ask for forgiveness later.
This is just the beginning
I'm not sure about how this will make traditional artists' work more valuable. As a point of reference, the automobile industry left the buggy industry in the dust. The computer industry deleted the typewriting industry. Yes, you can commission someone to make a unique, bejeweled and heirloom buggy or typewriter, but there are no elite buggy builders nor elite typewriters nor makers. It isn't sustainable for the vast majority.
My daughter has always wanted to become an artist, but the fact is that it will not be a productive career. She is great at math so we are pushing her towards engineering where she can employ both skills. Artistry by itself won't be enough.
Have AI remake Akira frame by frame from scratch and people can be concerned. Real art can’t be replaced by AI.
When I see a.i. art I see kitsch.