Hope for human artists against A.I. Exploitation (Lecture 6/6)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 січ 2023
- Watch the full lecture here: • Humans against Generat...
New discord group for victims and artists who want to help the cause in small ways: / discord
EU crowdfunder - Help protect our art and data from AI companies
gofund.me/1cd549ba
US crowdfunder Protecting Artists from AI Technologies
gofund.me/2df3dc07
My collection of fresh A.I. memes, you can look at, laugh at and share:
imgur.com/a/CGMSWqR
Music is Smoke Signals by Pheobe Bridgers (instrumental)
_________________
New to 2D animation? I will teach you to animate with my course: www.animatorguild.com/courses....
Support the production of these free videos on Patreon:
/ animatorguild
Join our community on discord: / discord
__________________
ANIMATION SOFTWARE I use: www.tvpaint.com/
The accompanying SOFTWARE I use (Adobe CC): tinyurl.com/v7fvqgo
___________________
My Website:
www.howardwimshurst.com/
I work professionally as a freelance animation producer and consultant
MY PLAYLISTS TO WATCH:
My animated films - goo.gl/8kkgqD
Animation tutorials - goo.gl/TV50zo
Discussions about animation and art - goo.gl/BwbHbI
Industry advice and freelancing discussions - goo.gl/kajjK8
My PODCAST on Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/0kKfIDK...
TUMBLR: / howardwimshurst
TWITTER: / wimsanimations - Фільми й анімація
Thanks a lot 🙇♂ for this series. We have to have protect the things that gives our life meaning, It all started with cave paintings.. and I just don't want people to lose that small amount of capacity to create, sticks and a wall, pencil and a paper, pen and a tablet, it always has been a blank canvas for all of us..but that doesn't create hopelessness, a canvas without a pen is life without a fighting chance, but a pen is the power to create something out of nothing, losing that is putting yourself in a position where you'll lose purpose, value and meaning in life. Most tech that has given us good also put humans in a state where we all started feeling life a bit less everyday. If you long for the old and the grand, then you have to realize why they were considered as such, what was it that made it great? For me is how much they add onto a work of art. There's a fine line when A.I. is considered as a tool .. being how much control do you have over what you make? If its lower then are you even making the art anymore? is it even 'yours' to claim?
great series, I think this covers a lot of ground. A lot of people watching this series right now are artists that are already against AI, but to make the most impact, we need to share these lectures with people we know who may not understand the art industry/art space and/or how AI works.
On a side note, whenever I see a very good piece of artwork, my first question is always "who's the artist?", so that I can follow their work. AI artists can't answer that question.
an average ai bro would answer with some deluded thing about how he was "engineering" and "tinkering" that prompt, and how it helped him to surpass "luddits and non-believers" (just as if prompting would be some kind of ritual, and an ai "community" would be a cult lol)
Is not AI beneficial for you since works from the real artists will be more valuable?
@@Sanjay-un1yf the way I think about it is, people have different perspectives on what value is.
Some value the artist, and in that case, the AI would be useless in their eyes.
Others need something done but don't care about how it's done, they just want it done, so, they go to the AI. But of course, the piece becomes less special.
Likewise, if the client needs something vague done - they go to an AI
If they want something specific, they'd need a human.
AI does not make me appreciate real artists more, my appreciation for them has stayed the same. - maybe that would be the case with people who aren't into art like artists are, and they would notice something in human made artwork that AI can't replicate, increasing the appreciation for it.
Unfortunately, I've only observed the opposite, most people embrace AI art, and so we need to stop it - atleast as long as the algorithms are based in art theft.
Excellent series on the topic, thanks for standing up for artists. If nothing is done about all of this massive non-consensual datascraping, it will just be setting a precedent that will bleed into every other industry, as these companies will definitely not stop at art.
Most of the pro-AI people try to discourage artists from doing anything, saying it is like "horse riders protesting cars" (or some other idiotic comparison that doesn't make any sense, because the car isn't built off the backs of millions of peoples' work). Seemingly they hoped that artists would let themselves get quietly replaced and have the art industry destroyed so that they can feed their nasty addiction to instant-gratification.
It is great to see artists standing up for themselves like the artstation protest, recent lawsuit that was filed, and of course people spreading awareness by creating videos. Thank you.
Wow, I'm so glad I watched this series. Just here to say that you have completely reversed my stance on this. Unfortunately, what a lot of artists don't see is the amount of artists who are actually using the new AI. I went to art school for more than ten years and studied animation and digital art during five of those years. Now, while I don't use digital art to make a living these days and I wouldn't call myself a professional digital artist or animator by any means, I still can say that I can detect a great piece of artwork from a fake. Well, at least I thought I could.. when midjourney first came out I jumped on the band wagon and thought I'd give it a try. Now, I hate to say it, but I fell hook line and sinker for this new form of "making" And it was easy to dismiss it as simply a tool. When folks argued that the AI was stealing from copyrighted work and using artwork without the artists' permission, I dismissed this as being overly sensitive and butt hurt over new technology improving the speed at which compositions could be made. I even compared it to when photography first was created and how angry hyper realistic painters were about it at the time. No one was talking about how I learned digital art, which was, stealing is how you do it! Everyone steals! I stole images off the internet for inspiration and reference all the time. In fact, my instructors encouraged it. We were told to keep hordes of other artist's work as jpgs and work from them, especially off of sites like pinterest and deviantart. I stole color schemes, ideas, configurations, shapes, and compositions from other people's designs and work without ever asking for consent. I've seen other artists suggest a technique called photobashing, where you literally just paint in photoshop over copied photos that you collage together into an image. It never seemed like I was "stealing" because I still added in hours of work and my own techniques into the finished product. And up until this point, that was what I thought the AI was doing too. In fact, I believed it was doing it in a more fair way than a human could. Instead of photobashing and sampling from perhaps 10-20 images, it would sample from billions and take the average of that to create new work. However, now I can see that I was completely wrong. What these developers are doing is outright plagiarism. And after watching this, I think what our biggest threat is, are the other artists like me who have fallen for this. While I had an Instagram account displaying my work, I followed other AI artists and it was easy to see the stark difference between those who were just AI bros and those who were actual artists using the system. Let's just say that there is A LOT of shit AI art out there, and most of it will not be taking away anyone's careers anytime soon IMO. What we need to worry about is artists using the technology to rip off other artists to make good content. You need to know what a well designed and thought out piece looks like to tell the AI to make it. And for what it's worth, this is huge. We are probably witnessing a MAJOR game changer in the future of the art world. Whether we like it or not, AI art will greatly effect our conceptual idea of artwork and will likely create a whole new movement of artists going above and beyond, probably going down in history books for trying to show what makes art human and what doesn't.
i am gonna share this series to everyone i know who says ai art is the future
It would be awesome if it could change one of their minds
I am particularly excited about the animator guild contest...this year's would be a banger
This needs more views.
Thank you for the video.
I have a feeling watching those AI "horses" actually move will give me nightmares.
This series is very important. Honestly it even helps just knowing others are so passionate about this issue.
Great run down. Gotta say man, the quality of content that you share with the world for free is gold. Taking a moral stand against harmful tech developments is no easy feat, bravo. Most people don't want to open their mouths against "progress", we are all just expected to shut up and take it for better or for worse and to revel in the glory of obscene and grotesque novelty such as AI art, despite the real consequences. Data sovereignty is a massive global humanitarian issue right now and artists are now well wrapped up in that issue.
Anyhoo, thanks for all the great work you do, as always. This Friday is my 34th birthday - I'm going to give myself the gift of your Getting Started animation course. Not just because I want to learn animation but also because you're a creator who I am happy to support (I have standards). Take my money lol keep doing your thing fulla.
thank you very much man I appreciate the support
This is incredibly helpful to keep me feeling hopeful despite being reminded how hard things can get, and given the lawsuits that's finally going around. Not to mention how this explains the frustration and already Microsoft is an example of replacing professional for Ai in the gaming industry, 343i is among those.
I'll never know what Shad explains of what he means stop the lies on AI is stolen art. Just seeing that title alone to seeing prompters using his video as an example of using/exploiting art to generate fringed images.
We need to push for legislation that requires all AI to be trained on public domain images or explicitly get a license from the creator to use it as such. And also require them to publish their image sets for the sake of legality and transparency. It won't stop stock image websites from SELLING bulk image libraries and there will still be exploitation going on (as there always is) but at least it will be far more legal exploitation.
absolutely. Artists need to stop giving up before the fight has even gotten into full swing. If you really live for art and creativity then you should fight for this with everything you have. Don't conserve your energy for a later date. Everything we have is at stake right here and now.
If I may play the.. other side's advocate for a brief moment...
Don't you feel like there's waaaaaay more than enough public images out there on platforms such as deviantArt, Artstation, all sorts of stocks etc
We all trained our skills on those images.
I know I have.
Why wouldn't those same images then be used to improve a tool that would make our work as artists easier and more productive?
Happy to hear your thoughts
Cheers
When there are covers for music why is covering others Art wrong? Why shouldn’t ai be allowed to cover art? Why do we have to call it stealing? In music we need no license to do so.
@ public is not even close to the same thing as public domain. Just because its out there doesn't mean its yours, and if you copy it and use it for your own purposes, yes, you are violating the law. If its listed under creative commons, have at it, and it should also be fair game for the AIs. But more importantly even tracing (which might still in some cases be considered copyright infringement) is not the same as copying. And "training" is kind of a misnomer, the ai is basically just storing a highly compressed copy of the input images. The "training" that happens in diffusion is the steps taken to reproduce the image from pure noise which for all intents and purposes IS a copy.
Right now there is a single AI on the market that obeys and protects copyright law, and thats adobe firefly. Their images aren't all public domain, but they DO own the rights to those images, and even give the creators of those images the ability to opt out of having their work trained. I still feel a bit murky about it since its still intended to replace artists but at the end of the day its still miles ahead of the rampant abuse thats common in the AI space today.
It's raining lawsuits, hallelujah it's raining lawsuits
www.theverge.com/2023/1/17/23558516/ai-art-copyright-stable-diffusion-getty-images-lawsuit
stablediffusionlitigation.com/
Watch the full uninterrupted lecture here: ua-cam.com/video/WMykeJm8wJI/v-deo.html
New discord group for victims and artists who want to help the cause in small ways: discord.gg/BpkryRXVgr
EU crowdfunder - Help protect our art and data from AI companies
gofund.me/1cd549ba
US crowdfunder Protecting Artists from AI Technologies
gofund.me/2df3dc07
Great series and well said. Thank you for putting this together. This is the first discussion that articulates what I am thinking and feeling
Amazing series!
I'd say that A.I. has its usefulness, but creating art? That's straight-up THEFT of someone's artwork and years of commitment to creation. It's like me asking it to re-create the whole youtube platform because it can do it, and don't expect any kind of repercussions for it. Does that make any sense at all? 🤨
I mean, this shouldn't even be up for discussion. 🤷♂
Love this Series ❤
I watched all the 6 videos :)
thank you ❣
Thanks for analysing this complexe subject.
Thanks ... really helpful...keep us on the watch...
Please can you do a tutorial on how you colour your animation?... please
I'd love to learn
BTW Howard, watch all 6 videos in a flash a few days ago. Keep it high up!!!
Very good point about it being a S-curve in innovation. There are two fundamental problems that AI is currently running into: compute and data. To make a model better, you need to make it bigger. To make it bigger, you need more compute (to train and do inference). And to train a bigger model, you need more data. LAION was already starting to push the limits of available images, and it wasn't enough to train Google's PARTI model (it has evidence of overfitting). So then what?
The same thing is true for the text models, where there's speculation that OpenAI created their whisper model to transcode audio into text to train their models (since they pretty much have run out of internet to train on).
The next big innovation might be on how to train the models in a more data-sustainable way. But that's going to be a very hard hurdle to overcome (self driving cars that don't run people over will probably come first).
Great ending message about not giving up! There's always someone better in some aspect, and now AI is thrown into the mix. But is the purpose of art to make the best thing possible? or is it more about the expression and creative process? While I support the use of generative AI (regardless of the training methodology), I don't think it can be classified as "Art" (I saw someone call it synthography - a good way to describe it). And to be honest, the novelty of the base generation has started to wear off (I'm not going to stop supporting the individual artists that I have for years - their work is far better than anything that the AI can come up with). But it is still a helpful tool in both the creative process (I use it for 3D art workflows), increasing access to expression / empowering creativity of non-professional artists, and for pushing AI research ahead.
Yeah Ai might be a pain sometimes but not in every situation.
I agree. a very powerful instrument that can be used to do great things or commit terrible crimes.
I'm not an AI Art Bro. But being both as an A.I. Dev and an Artist concerns me both in my profession and my passion. Even though it was hard for me to sit through part 1 and 2, I can't help it feel to have second hand shame in this, but you stuck a chord with me from the 3 part. You made solid good points from the misuse of artist's from bad actors within the public. Although I came in here with a defense that I use AI art as a reference for my art and that I was under the false impression of artists are gate keeping, I wasn't completely aware the entirety of the public's use. As a dev it brings joy having made a masterful model, but not are the cost of someone elses, but as an artist it does rob of my identity as I could be replaced. I really hope that a more responsible use in A.I. art and a perfect compromise between the A.I devs and Artist be met in the future. I'm not defending these devs, for the sake they are in same field as me, but I hope that they'd think about the artist's dedication at work here.
I have a similar perspective to you. I only wouldn't call AI model makers AI devs because in my mind AI devs are the actual programmers building and designing the algorithms. People who actually know and use coding...
Programming AI requires a world more competence, and skill than training model by aggregating and copy pasting images.
Just like making actual art requires a world more skill than building a prompt.
@DrTheRich Actually when you do get in the weeds there's actually coding involved in model making, model making involves coding a new model that needs to be trained then later freezing (this is where the ai doesn't train as is now a complete product) that model. An A.I. dev would think how is A.I. is built on a framework, what types of algorithm, is this algorithm efficient, if not prove why (in mathematics) and what is the replacement.
@DrTheRich I think you're talking about the people above running this.
You would actually be surprised how many of us AI Art Bros are also fighting for a public domain/ opt-in algorithm 😉
Is that so? I'd love to se websites or forum threads to represent that group. You are not my enemy
If you're fighting for opt-in algorithm and models trained on datasets comprised of public domain material, then you're not our enemy, we're allies, we're friends.
@@costelinha1867 Thanks! I’ve actually left my AI community soon after i posted this with several others to advocate for y’all ❤️
What do you think of A.I tools for animation like Cascadeur?
Keep drawing, just enjoy the process 😊 , i just enjoy making art ,
oh my god i'm getting scared! what do I do? where can i post my arts to have a good portfolio and get a good job? I'm studying for animation and concept arts and it sucks that this situation is happening right now! this is unfair to all of us! Help...
I have seen many many works in all i find life but when i seen ai art for my gods they are so dull they feel like there's no life in them and not alive like. even the artworks like in the past were alive and beautiful even the oldest ones
there's another law called the law of compilation, it's another law that's associated with copyright that a lot of artists don't seem to be aware of but it seems to discount all the fair use claims that a lot of pro AI people reference, even though the AI breaches fair use anyway. Tbh I'm not entirely sure if this law applies to the AI but I just want to know your two sense on it. It seems mainly geared towards literary works, but it also mentions the use of images and data
Under the Copyright Act, a compilation is a "work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship. The term compilation includes collective works" 17 U.S.C. 101. This gives the compilation a separate copyright from any of the individual pieces within it. An author who creates a compilation owns the copyright of the compilation but not of the component parts. The author can compile material even if someone else owns the copyright, but the author must get the rights holders’ permission to do so.
A compilation of mere facts may not be copyrighted. Instead, a compilation may only be copyrighted if there is a creative or original act involved, i.e., in the selection and arrangement of materials. The protection is limited only to the creative or original aspects of the compilation www.law.cornell.edu/wex/compilation
- so from this source it you need permission to acquire the rights to use the data as stated here "The author can compile material even if someone else owns the copyright, but the author must get the rights holders’ permission to do so. "
- And this source states that if the collecting of preexisting material is a purely mechanical task then copyright protection for the compilation of the data won't be granted www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf
Compilations of data or compilations of preexisting works (also known as “collective works”) may also be copyrightable if the materials are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes a new work. When the collecting of the preexisting material that makes up the compilation is a purely mechanical task with no element of original selection, coordination, or arrangement, such as a white-pages telephone directory, copyright protection for the compilation is not available.
maybe these laws are relevant Idk, haven't seen anyone really discussing it though. I guess due to the fact that this tech is completely unprecedented there isn't a specific law referring to it but it's clear it's breaking copyright rules when you refer to this law or most copyright laws for that matter.
this is so important! I've been telling people that it is breaking EXISTING LAWS and this is just another example.
Yes, we need to update the law surrounding the new AI advancements.. But also... let's enforce the CURRENT laws we have which are being broken!
@@HowardWimshurst do you think that in updating laws that they might update them in favor of AI or in favor of artists though
There was a case a few years back where a monkey took a selfie and PETA tried to get the image copyrighted. The image wasn’t able to be copyrighted as much as PETA huffed and puffed.
What needs to come out of this lawsuit is that stricter restrictions needs to placed on AI generations, especially restrictions on commercial use. It should be held to the same laws we are held to also. Rights, attributes and payments must be paid and granted before using copyrighted images for commercial use. That’s why we have unsplash and other royalty free image sites for those that don’t want to or can’t afford to pay for images.
miazaki sigh
Heyo Howard, Artstation just released a statement regarding the NoAI protest yesterday. It was kind of vague though. 😶
i can't seem to find a new update on their website or soc media
@@HowardWimshurst I guess I'll post what they emailed me here, cheers 👌:
"We’ve updated our Terms of Service to make clear that scraping and reselling or redistributing content is not permitted, and to clarify the prohibition against use of NoAI Content with Generative AI Programs.
We have also committed not to use, or license any third party to use, any ArtStation content for the purpose of training Generative AI Programs."
The point of making new tools is to make the process easier for everyone involved, not for the people who want to only do it by traditional means. AI used in the making of a final composition can help speed up a lot of the work I would rather not want to focus too specifically on and focus on areas that I'd rather focus on the most. Additionally, this can help out for people who have issues aphantasia like myself because I have to go through an insane iterative process when making just the sketches alone. Having to render visualizations of what I'd want to prompt or have an AI help visualize what I'm attempting will help a lot relating to this iterative process. While there are some minor points I want to make regarding this conversation, I would like to not spend my time bickering over this when I got other matters to attend to irl. Therefore my main things I have wrong with your arguments is about fair use and consequences of favoritism regulation, but I may make minor points at the very end of this comment.
For starters, I have an issue about this topic of fair use because it should apply to all parties of the argument, AI and Human. If someone were to recreate your art style, or a style this individual aspires to recreate, then make their own commission work and advertise they can do the same art style for less. Would this be applied the same to the human? The law should be applied equally since the use of a human doing a similar service to AI because the only difference in this is the method someone sought out this service and how each service is intended to be used. Assuming the law is applied equally, this would be like opening Pandora's Box because its basically copyrighting art style.
To add onto this, AI and a human can take from the same gallery/portfolio of interest and recreate said work in their own composition. AI has the intention to be used as a tool, which I have seen other artists use AI to help assist their work or even use AI in full with the limited features like in and out painting. AI also helps make it easier for people with no experience in rendering out art to use and express creativity, but they still have to focus on how to use the AI in order to make unique compositions. This lower bar of entry can help people get more into making art and practicing creativity. The damaging aspect to this is the dumping of poorly done AI prompts and results, kinda like artists who refuse critique of their art, which I fully understand why people would want that off of websites like Artstation and Deviantart. But just cause someone uses an AI to help along the process or use AI in full with the limited local edits available, it doesn't mean the work can't be considered as "real art" worth sharing.
Now onto the second topic, the consequences of this favoritism regulation will always be the same. This favoritism regulation would be against AI, only having the law applied to Ai rather than equally to humans and it'll force competing AI tools to have a harder time than what the larger ones can already achieve. If you want to fight against the large corporations, then in the long run its best to focus on having competition to compete against these larger corporations. AI can be great for artists as a tool to make more with the same amount of effort, thus making it easier for myself to engage in larger personal projects and still have time to do commission. I have an entire universe I have written out and want to visually explore, say like graphic novel or eventually my own animation. Simply put, I don't have the budget to afford multiple artists to help make in a style I think suits the writing. However, to get this result in the future, I would want to focus on AI tools competing for my support. If people cannot easily use what people posted publicly to develop an AI, then we'll be stuck with an oligopoly of * insert big corp * branded AI tool that imposes anti-consumer policies. Yes it would be technically easier to make new art we personally own with the big corp branded tool, but then these big corps will do their political lobbying, thanks to the lack of separation of business and state, to make it harder for people to compete against them. Even if in the ideal world they don't do political lobbying, you are inherently hindered thanks to it being harder and more expensive to make your own proprietary dataset.
Where do I personally stand and what I believe to be the best answer to this issue?
I'm just someone who has a different view on how to oppose these larger corporations and I think we should be more creative than trying to control others with government. Unless they are doing direct harm, like making adult material of a real life person, then I don't see any reason why government should step in to save the day with these good intentions. Rather I believe the best solution is for us to make websites that promotes a market to specifically conserve the ways of creating in the current and older ways of making art. This can help with teaching the old and current ways of making art, which further makes for people to offer said services on the website. Think about how people prefer the look of film over digital photography or vinyl over digital for music, we should actively promote a market of people making art that has no assistance from AI.
To conclude, I do want to see AI to be relevant in the industry as a means to help assist us in the process of making art. It has the potential to do wonders when it comes to getting more out of the same amount of effort I put into a grand project and especially competing with larger studios on this smaller scale. But I find it hard to believe in the long run we're preserving our creative efforts and fight against these larger corporations because these big corporations benefit from making it a harder barrier of entry into the market. I think the best effort would be to make our own websites to conserve and create a market for traditionally made artworks.
I'll just refute your starting argument with the mere fact that machines and humans are not equal, thus treatment of 2 entities should never be equal. A machine is what it sounds like it's designed to be cost effective, and only created as a means to an end rather than the process itself. Artists who draw don't just want the end result the best part about drawing is the process. Now me personally I don't have an issue with a human copying an artstyle, because as it goes you will have an identity crisis as an artist if you live in the shadow of a popular artist which leads to style exploration in artists. Now the problem with machines is they are trained on a certain style and are really trained well on it. A human has no competition against a machine. And a market with a machine in it is bound to get saturated and die out as we have witnessed in industrial revolution, art has always been a career path thats appealing because it's process is therapeutic and it can have real life value attached to it. Ai art disrupts the process and makes art making a big Ponzi scheme. Double your money and f the process, appealing right. The mere fact you said ai and humans are similar is not true, because they operate different to how humans operate when it comes to art making process. But i wonder if you want it all go down this path, with automated prompting and pure automation of media based industries, what will it do to the common folk because all i can see that prompters are the text subjects for an ai that's being trained on prompting itself, and then they get replaced in a year or so and then the big corporations are back in business with a whole media market in their control because they have the power to censor human made media by mass production of media and dogpiling all the movies shows so that the individual has 0 chance to ever make it . Regulation is the way to go about something that has the power to do anything. Humans and machines are the same and id rather have humans over a machine.
@@neinpanel8027 I'll start off with the first issue of large corporations you claim to be so opposed to. The reason why we have gotten in this mess to begin with is thanks to more and more regulation of the market. Large corporations that doesn't fail exist because they can use government to change the rules of how the market works in their favor rather than having to benefit the people in the market to become so large. Therefore, adding on more regulation won't help the issue of these large, never to fail corporations. Regulation is all we keep doing over and over again, yet it causes decreased competition and more reliance on the large corporations. This is like Far Cry's definition of insanity by doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results.
It doesn't matter if AI and humans are different, one being more efficient than the other. Rather my analogy is to prove a point that a person could do that exact same thing just for the sake of making money to make a living. People already do that with adult material, since it is a highly demanded service people want. So why not try to non-AI replicate the mainstream artists art style to make easy money by innovating your personal workflow when making their style? This doesn't stop you from making quick money from that, then on the side use your own art style you develop on your own.
This next part on the issue of machines in the market and art, so this part has two subsections I will have to go over. Which my opinion right after reading what you responded with shows how unworldly you are when it comes to machines and technological innovation to benefit the grand perspective of people contributing to society. Innovation in technology has created more jobs and overall increased the quality of life, we wouldn't even be talking if it wasn't for the internet being a better way of communication than radio and mail.
Machines and technological innovation the market is important to make the quality of life better for all involved, for both producer and consumer of products and services. As it relates to art, this mean us artists can have an easier time at making larger projects and offer our services for less because we can take less effort to get the same results or use the same effort to get more results. Being more efficient allows us to offer our services for less, thus attracting in more customers and still using the same amount of effort as we did before. This ultimately results in a better reward for the work we do. Our work as artists in the market won't be going to waste, rather we are relocated to use human resource more efficiently and especially focus on the important part of art, the creativity of the composition.
As it relates to machines and technological innovation in art, I said before we are better efficient as artists and art is no different to innovation to make our workflows easier to go through. When digital art came around, it replaced traditional means of creating art and traditional art has plenty of innovations of its own before digital. With digital, this allows us to go through tedious parts of our workflows and focus on what we want to create in the composition a whole lot better than traditional. Art has nothing to do with what medium or tool you use, but rather if the final composition is brimming with your human creative expression. Technological innovation won't take away your creativity, its about how you decide to creatively use the new and old tools at hand.
Machines in general won't take away what you love about creating either, today with bread we can get at the store and yet it doesn't stop people from making our own artisan bread with interesting art on it. Yes, machines have saturated the market with long lasting, generic bread you can buy for your lunches but then again, bakers were only production making the same plain bread to meet ends needs and they were less efficient at it. Artisan breads with art on it was the premium, they were never the focus for the mass public. This analogy is like how we see people use those AI filters to make you look like an anime character or someone throwing a photo of themself in photoshop and applying a filter to look like watercolor. They were never the target market for us artists because the target market never would of considered to pay an artist for a portrait of themselves. As it stands with AI art with making new compositions of these different worlds, this goes the same where its the market that never would of thought of commissioning an artist for, to them, a random composition.
tools should assist not replace, so we can agree to disagree
you can't even say your point in short. how you think ai will help your life? you understand for every person who has some physical or mental issues and ai supports there are thousands of starving artists who just get removed from income. if you and your friends would be starving you' still write these long ass texts to advocate for ai replacing people? issue isnt ai as a mechanical tool issue is human beings made systems are creedy they want instant gradification. this is like cloning polo horses in argentina, nobody asks if this is ethical it's just done because somebody gets rich from it. journey to so called advanced future will cost allot of peoples jobs and ultimately lives. look in youtube you see artists but think how many didnt succseed and had to go work 12h night shift or other bullshit after finishing years of art school you are 'selling bread' to get a buck and this is because of willfully blind people who want instant gradification not dont think of big picture.
@@kylelee5966 My claim is that it is assisting us, the most recent tool being mostly to help with idea creation. This exact thing would come here regardless of whether or not we regulate how the data is being collected for the AI. The original conversation was about how this data is being collected being ethical or not, my specific point being about how its ethical to scrape data that is publicly available to see. If you hid your artwork behind the paywall, that would be something different where I would agree you need to pay for the offered product before using it in your own database.
Additionally, my argument highlights having to better fight back in the long term against large corporations with the ever evolving technology. Rather than having short term gratification that will ultimately bite us back. So I would rather punch, than a missed slap circling back at my face.
You echoed my sentiments about AI art. It has already become much of a fad and although the images can be technically awesome it lost its uniqueness already. A human being creates from emotion. There are stories that the artist will tell when displaying their drawings, paintings, animations and symphonies. AI looks good but it lacks emotion. I think it’s a great tool if used within that context but we know once something is created it is no longer contained. No matter where it goes you have to view it like you would if you were sitting alongside Kim Jung Ji and Norman Rockwell. No matter how good they are you will always have those who love what YOU do because only you can create what you have experienced.
well hope for the best but think many many jobs will be lost dont need a genius to make a folder or a flyer.
When there are covers for music why is covering others Art wrong? Why shouldn’t ai be allowed to cover art? Why do we have to call it stealing?
It's stealing by almost every definition. Just because data-laundering has two added steps in between it being a literal snatch-and-grab robbery of an artist's paintings, that added complexity is enough to give it a pass in people's minds? See past the Jargon, the buzz words, the utpoian ideals that have been sold to you by AI CEOs. See it for what it is. Profiting off the hard work of artists, without obtaining any permission, while the legal system catches up to what this technology is.
it's completely removing the incentive for professional artists to do what they do. It's completely unsustainable. There won't BE any human artists to drive innovation if their business / employment opportunities are diluted to infinity. Then if art becomes an non-viable career option, AI "art" self-cannibalizing its own images as a dataset by its very nature cannot lead to any creative results. Art will be dead - killed by AI companies whilst consumers stood by and did nothing.
Ownership incentivises creation. If you make it impossible for an artist to own and control what the artist makes, the artist - in a professional context - no longer has the incentive to keep making. Declaring a free-for-all on the use of artist's works essentially brings the art market value down to 0. They gotta pay the bills, and will be forced to leave the profsssion if their artwork they produce are no longer assets.
You assume that music covers don't hurt the original artists. Covers CAN cause harm to the original artist. And covers are made by humans - under the natural limitations that humans have. and ROYALTIES ARE NEGOTIATED AND PAID OUT FOR MAJOR COVERS. Drake can't just create a cover of a hit in the 90s without a negotiation with the original rights holder. Heck, Drake can't even use a 1 second sample without obtaining express legal permission and paying out royalties. Music covers are a very poor example to use as your justification.
I'm not arguing for arguments sake. I'm not doing it for sport. I want you to really understand the part you play in this as a complicit consumer.
@@HowardWimshurst ok music covers are a bad example. Looked it up and found out that you need a license for that. Ok I give you that.
But i think a big point that still speaks for ai art is that you as a human can also download every image on artstation without asking. And even if you wouldn’t download it you can still see it and use it as reference. Although you shouldn’t you could even claim that you didn’t paint from reference and that it’s only a coincidence that it looks similar if someone would argue but that’s never the case because everyone seems to be fine with this..or not?
If you go with the law then I think most artists act illegal by taking others Art and photographs etc. as reference material. You can even see people on UA-cam drawing stuff with the help of Pinterest images.
And you justify that by saying that we are humans?
"Rage against the machine"...
This AI image generator is a tool just like a brush is.
I believe, we as artists need to be the first ones to embrace it and help shape it down the road.
It's never a good idea to fight/boycott/protest progress.
Those who do always just end up being left out.
A tiny minority always does persevere, but those are truly exceptional masters.
I agree that the fuss about this will die out. Most likely sooner rather than later.
But also, I expect more folks to start delving into creating visual art that may not have necessarily would with out a tool like this.
So, keep calm and as you said Howard, keep making art.
Cheers
(sarcasm) Ohh yes, if history tells us anything, it's that it's never a good idea to fight / boycott / protest
- The civil rights movement. Who ever heard of Martin Luther King jr?
- Apartheid. Who's Nelson Mandella amiright? He was so left out! He only became the president!
- Indian independence? Whoever heard of Ghandi? What a loser!
Questioning and resisting when powerful people do bad things? what loser mentality! Much better to stick my head int he sand and accept what i'm given by the overlords while they snatch away our art and livelihoods. "I embrace technology!" that's what I chant with pride in my voice. Maybe all that chanting will keep my pride in-tact while the medium I love is violated for all it's worth.
(sarcasm continued)
"It's just a tool!" A tool which makes all decisions for me and leaves me absolutely nothing creative or expressive to do. A tool which nullifies the joy of painting. A tool which is actually a search engine in disguise - where I am typing in the prompts which will take me to a coordinate in an array of billions of pre-determined images. A search engine where - if someone uses the same prompt words and the same serial number - they will come upon the exact same image that I did. Yeah... Maybe someone will pay me to type words into the search engine. I'll change my job description to "prompter" and wear it with pride.. Until the employer realizes that they can cut out the middle man, type the prompts themselves.
(end of sarcasm)
go away and think deeper about who you are and what you want your legacy on this earth to be.
We''re not fighting against progress, nor tools. We're fighting for the UNETHICAL USAGE OF SAID TOOLS
Just because something is new, or it's a new technology, doesn't make it automatically good or acceptable. Specially when said technology is literally putting people's LIVELYHOODS at risk.
So no, we're not keep calm, we're gonna riot as much as possible and make sure the people responsible don't know A MOMENT OF PEACE in their lives until your demands are met.
I feel like if you’re a talented artist, it’s just better not to post it online, and keep it personal, or in a small bubble.
perhaps, but that's not really a solution though
Kinda hard to do that when that's LITERALLY YOUR JOB!
Also the whole point of art is sharing it, but sharing it shouldn't mean that people can just take it from you without permission and try to take credit for it as if it was their work.
- the "whole point of art" is subjective
- not everybody does art as a job
- you're right, sharing art shouldn't mean people should be able to take it and take credit, but it'll happen regardless@@costelinha1867
So you want to completely stop AI art because you're scared of what it might turn into in the future? Isn't that a little extreme? AI art has been amazing for the advancement of AI technology, and has a ton of amazing possible future uses. I have not heard of artists losing their job because of AI art yet.
you what? Jee, thanks for putting words in my mouth.
We want a fair system where Ai companies have consent of the image owners before trainign their models on said images. We want careful responsible advancement. Not this reckless "ends justify the means" utilitarianism.
My fear for the future is irrelevant when they are literally breaking the law, causing irreparable damage to our creative industries and mass data misuse in a way that makes zuckerberg data mishandling look benign. My agenda is that they don't break the law and cause harm to millions of people in the name of progress.
Just because you haven't heard of artists losing their jobs doesn't mean it hasn't been happening for the last six months without you knowing. Yes, digital artists are being commissioned significantly less than before, because their own images have been used to train AI models to create art just like them.
Thanks for mischaracterizing what I'm doing here. I start the lecture (part 1) saying that I am not against responsible AI advancement. Isn't your gaslighting a little extreme??
@@HowardWimshurst I doubt AI art is the reason for people not being comissioned as much, as the art that's being made by AI is highly flawed. Do you think it might be that people just aren't as interested in buying art as much as they used to?
If I want something as simple as my DnD character made into an image why should it be up to you to decide if I can do it by having an AI make a half assed drawing or pay $100+ to have someone I don't know?
If you think someone And regarding the law breaking, do you think immitating someone elses art is also breaking the law?
Don't be surprised that people don't like what you say when you say things like "We need to hit the breaks on this".
We don't want to completely stop AI art, we just want it to be done ethically, we want to have the right to not have our work taken for these models without permission, and if we DO CHOSE to let our art be used for training AI, THEN WE WANT TO BE COMPENSATED FOR IT! BECAUSE IT'S OUR WORK!
@@costelinha1867 They don't use art that isn't publicly available. And wanting to be compensated is like saying people have to pay you if they want to practice using your art as a referance.
You'll lose.
You know there are wider repercussions to this if artists lose right? This will bleed into other professions. What is it you do out of curiosity?
i'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees
you certainly will if you don't try
@@paulkingdesign5928 They don't care, they have no empathy, as long as they're able to use their toys to pretend to be an artist, they'll be happy, no matter how many people they harm in the process.
You don't know, you can't predict the future.
And even if we lose, at least I want to know that we did not lose without a fight, that we didn't just surrendered, and blindly accepted this blatant abuse, that we at least TRIED to resist.
"Make ai art taboo" xD, stop trying to enforce your own convictions on others. If you wanna make it taboo for yourself go ahead.
i don't think i even needed to say that point. It's already a taboo. If you tell someone you use AI to make your artwork you will probably get a dirty look 8/10 times.
and that's for good reason. You are leeching off the hard work of others and deserve no respect for it.
@@HowardWimshurst For reference I sell digital paintings. I've talked to a few clients about how they would feel if I incorporate some ai elements to make the paintings faster, better and cheaper and I have not had one complaint yet. For you to think that it's taboo just means that you surround yourself by like minded people without knowing what's actually going on.
@@HowardWimshurst maybe it depends on context I'm not pro AI art by any means but when it comes on to casual people using the AI apps that were released some are still ignorant to the nonconsensual data scraping taking place, I think as long as they aren't claiming that they made it themselves we can't really blame them too much as casual users. The best thing we can do is just continue to educate the public and their sense of morality may or may not show as to whether they think of it as taboo and unethical once they realize what's really going on. To me that's the best way to get more people on the side of artists right now, which I definitely see happening. The people who we should be mostly holding accountable are the companies responsible and the AI art scammers, but you seemed to have already addressed that.
Nah, it's not enforcing a conviction, it's enforcing copyright law.
@@eggegg9379 Actually, yes. Often clients would prefer to have access to multiple itteration of an image in a short amount of time before we proceed to a final design. And having the ability to do that without hiding behind a self made taboo is a great asset.