AI Broke Warhammer: Neil Hollis
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 лип 2024
- This week we talk to the loveliest, and currently most controversial man in Warhammer, two time Slayer Sword Winner, Neil Hollis! We talk through Neil's amazing painting career and get the the scoop on his golden winning entry that made use of an AI generated backdrop.
Whilst this topic is certainly a contentious one we hope it offers a civil insight into Neil's thoughts and process.
Join our Patreon: / thepaintingphase
Merch: thepaintingphase.creator-spri...
Streaming: / thepaintingphase01
Help Support the channel with our affiliate links:
UK: elementgames.co.uk/?d=10835
UK & EU: affiliates.waylandgames.co.uk...
EUROPE: taschengelddieb.de/?affiliate...
US: use code paintingphase to get 10% off at www.goblinshut.com/
H&S Airbrush: harder-airbrush.net/?sca_ref=...
Gaahleri airbrush: www.gaahleri.com/?ref=Thepain...
We Print Miniatures: weprintminiatures.com/thepain...
THEPAINTINGPHASE for 10% off
Follow us:
/ thepaintingphase
/ geoffsavory
/ pileofshamepaints
/ fauxhammerblog
@fauxhammer
Where we get our music:
artlist.io/Patrick-75781
Contact us:
thepaintingphase@gmail.com
Chapters
00:00 Introductions
00:30 Neil's Journey into the Hobby
02:24 Early Competition Experience
03:03 Golden Demon and Painting Influences
05:14 Entering and Learning from Golden Demons
06:07 Challenges and Progress in Competitions
09:03 Competition Strategies and Skills Evolution
16:14 Painting Techniques and Improvement
24:14 Lazarus Project and Base Development
25:04 The Journey of Lazarus: Concept to Completion
37:06 Backdrops in Competitions
48:23 Controversy and Community Reactions
54:43 The Future of Rules in Golden Demon
1:24:50 Neil’s Painting Process and Time Management
1:27:28 Slayer Swords and Miniature Painting Advice
1:37:02 Planning for Future Painting Competitions
1:40:00 Viewer Questions and Closing Thoughts - Розваги
We hear you loud and clear, we've a lot to take away from this one. We're taking on the feedback from all sides. Thank you for commenting and lettings us know your thoughts and feelings, We're learning for the future.
You're correct pointing that out, but language like that can push people away, perpetuates an 'angry keyboard warrior' stereotype, and stops the introspection and progress we want. Painting Phase; please look beyond vitriolic language; it doesn't speak for most reasonable people. Let's keep things respectful.
Thanks, guys. It takes guts to take feedback on board. We're here to support any positive changes you want to make.
I think that maybe this is the moment where you realise that you have a really engaged audience, that if we're disappointed it's because we want you to succeed and that having this audience does mean that you need to take seriously the way you conduct your content. It is the light-hearted and informative way you chat with guests that many people will be drawn to, but yes that can switch on a dime if you then bring in a very serious and controversial subject, but continue to act as if it were all funny banter and ultimately of no consequence beyond a cuppa tea and a natter about hobbies. This is a subject with greater consequences than anything else I can think of, it didn't boil down to "virgins", although I've said far worse about trolls and I abhor people attacking Neil personally, but challenging his attitude, his opinions, calmly and with empathy for other points of view is what was missing here as I hope you can see quite clearly from the response. Sending love not hate.
Interesting. Don’t fall into audience capture.
Are you, the painting phase, for or against AI in miniature painting competitions?
Hey Guys! I always try to encourage by commentary but I can't really this time. I'm a little surprised to tell the truth. When this piece was entered, Neil obviously being a great painter, I was convinced that the use of Ai was done to intentionally bring about discussion about the use of Ai generated "art" and about the wide spread concern of what Ai represents to many working artist. That has been the case in several art competitions, of different mediums, recently. And I was looking forward to the same discussion entering our niched realm. After watching the interview it seems like there was no such intent from the painter. Instead I sense quite the disregard towards the problematics at hand. I am then brought on to the next surprise, that in an interview situation like this, with such an important topic, you did not encourage the debate. Entering Ai generated imagery into a art competition is a pretty big deal, people like myself who to some regard earn my living by creating art take this stuff rather seriously.
Thanks Alex - good to hear your thoughts
1000% this ^ I was really hoping for more of a discussion of points/counter points rather than round table head nodding.
In response. If someone chooses to use ai to generate imagery as a backdrop, per se, do you believe such imagery requires it's own category? Would this allow a more equal footing in professional competition?
I'm a writer not an expert painter, so I can see the benefit of ai generated images, but understand the upset and rhetoric generated by the topic
In response to the 'virgin' comment, we called them 100 yard heroes where I am from lol
@@matthewtucker1578 I think because of what Ai represents at this present time in regard to arts it shouldn't be used at all in an arts competition. Regarding the equal footing, I mean, the whole purpose of a Golden Demon style competition is about "the best wins"? and so I don't see how equal footing places in that setting. But, on a personal note, I'm not a fan of the type of competition that Golden Demon is and much more prefer competition with several different levels (like "beginner, experienced & expert") so that a more varied crowd can enter and grow. Then again, I'm not a competition painter so I don't think I have much to say that is of importance.
I'm not an angry Internet typer. The piece didn't anger me. The attitude of Neil to the resultant issues following does disappoint me. I'd say that to his face too.
mans really boasting about theft from Artists crazy
I've never heard so much laughter in the absence of jokes.
Wow Sam, what a mic drop 🎤 !!!
damn sam, big ups for taking a stand
Bunch of nervous giggling and smile talking going on here. I've had sex and I still think this sucks. #virgin
based
It's not people being angry about how other people do their hobby, it's people like myself, a professional photographer who is married to a graphic designer, having to watch both of our careers get flushed down a plug hole rapidly so that hedge fund managers can make a few million more quid and we can all watch creativity die before our eyes as we drift towards a dystopian misery of mass unemployment. There is no exaggeration there either, my work is down 60% on a year ago because for much of the advertising part of what I do, AI has stepped in, and my wife had a redundancy meeting yesterday and may survive another 3 to 6 months before Canva and other AI generated crap becomes "good enough" to make the drop in creativity and quality worthwhile for the saving in human wages. Our careers are doomed and we will be replaced by low paid, low IQ muppets who just type prompts into AI all day (which is neither hard to do or creative) and there will be no new creativity in many areas of art and design. Neil appears to be all for it though, thank you Neil.
I've worked in creative agencies for over 20 years and if you think Lee is exaggerating then take it from me, he isn't. "Good enough" has become a mantra for business in the UK and we lose work to platforms that churn out absolute rubbish that our clients seem delighted with. I'm glad I'm close to retirement, I don't think there will be a creative industry very soon.
It's a weird hole the devs of AI are digging though. Without creatives, they have nothing to train their monkeys on. It's a finite resources and people are already looking into poisoning that well with tech. Not sure they think that's going to be a long-term plan. I guess most of them just absolutely don't care about long-term. Make billion now, worry later. CEO math.
I'm sorry for the impact on your life and in your shoes I'd be pretty devastated. However, if we shouldn't use tech that replaces jobs, why are we watching a video on the internet instead of writing letters and posting them to writers and editors at a newspaper or magazine? Tech has always replaced jobs and will continue to do so. AI is a much bigger change in a much quicker time than most tech, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't use it.
@@Kebabvan Society (and especially UK) is not set up for that though.
Some sort of universal income or widespread universal services that mean you could live on a much diminished income might help solve this, but we're not addressing the *real* problems of AI, people are worrying about SkyNet when they should be worrying about the Spinning Jenny.
@@KebabvanIt is sad, but these people have already lost the battle. This is just their attempts to lash out. Just like every industry that’s been made redundant by technology, in 20 years no one will even think about this.
Are you guys just going out of your way to find people who are gonna say oddly contentious stuff and never ask them to expand on what they mean? This podcast has turned into y'all just sitting there and nodding. C'mon lads.
Ai art is theft also Neil has no self awareness ''Everybody knew it was ai'' ''what about the judges? probably not'' ''Only my friends knew'' ''Only a handful knew'' Come on mate, keep your story straight lmao
What strikes me as odd is he argues that "you don't run backwards in a 100m sprint" in order to illustrate that one should use the best tool/technique even if it pushes the rules, but later he argues that prompting and post processing taking longer and being more work than doing it by hand legitimizes the whole thing. A rather stark contradiction
"Why did you do it then?" was right there
Other questions not explored "Why did you not check with the organiser before entering?"
"Why were you not up front with the organisers that you'd used AI?"
"Why were you worried about telling the organisers that you'd used AI?"
They're not confrontational or judgemental, just asking what I think are reasonable questions, also I think I can intuit that the answer boils down to :
"Because I wanted to win"
His whole ethos is so starkly different to another recent guest that I'm kind of surprised they've both been on the same podcast.
"I brought UberEat's food to a cooking contest, how could I be getting flak for having won something?" - A completely rational argument, apparently.
"You're a virgin! A virgin, I say!" - old overweight bald neckbeard.
@@borcodoolin I only just realised that this is the Warhammer equivalent of steamed hams. "Delightfully devilish, Neil!"
46:44 has to be one the worst takes I've ever heard 😂 you can't apply 'let people get on with their hobby' to a competition! Imagine if I turned up to a 40k Grand Tournament with my own ruleset and a codex I'd generated using AI, it's my hobby so I'm allowed to do that? 😂
Seriously! I was thinking the same thing
Just imagine spending upwards of a hundred hours on a comp entry and this happens... oookay.
But you're also told "oi matey, what you ge'in all worked up about? jus' ge' on wiv ya hobby wontcha?"
'let people do their hobby how they want' applies perfectly to anybody in their basement or home studio, working on passion projects for things they love. It does not apply to a structured formal painting competition. 100% agree with your take here. It's not the same thing at all.
I feel like the point Geoff made (about AI not being theft) misses the point, there is a big difference between inspiration, homage, and plagiarism. Especially because it's nothing like remixing a song, or re-editing video material... AI "art" involves no skill at all, I'm sorry. No matter how much Neil wants to spin it, it's just like going to a real artist and constantly telling them "no, more like this", "no, I want it more in this style", and so on. He didn't do anything that is even remotely in the vicinity of skill, he just sank many many hours into getting a machine to produce a thing close to an idea he wasn't either able or willing to produce himself. Having said that, I don't see any problem with him winning the award, the competition is for miniatures after all, and his was an amazing piece.
Doing AI imagery properly takes a lot of skill and time to do, just like sampling music right.
@@ReubenBarrett1989 theyre two completely different things
I think the main problem with the argument that "It's not stolen" falls flat on is that AI is only ever stitching a lot of people's existing art together, it doesn't make anything actually new. It's just a collage of existing works. That's the core difference between an AI piece and basing your entry on the Black templar's John Blanch art, for it to be an accurate comparison you'd have to cut out each marine from the original picture and stick them up on toothpicks.
lol you still believe the stitching fallacy
@@NightmanEX
Stitching is obviously a simplification.
The models are all trained on images that did not have the artists permission to be used for that purpose - Ergo theft.
@@DavidManser Permission is not needed. Copyright law allows for this kind of scraping and training.
@@NightmanEXjust because it’s legal doesn’t mean it’s appropriate. Use of AI in an art competition is completely inappropriate
@@jaretmoskal5558 That's for the competition to decide.
This was a bad look. Neil comes across as a complete dick, and you guys seem like you're just enabling him and giving him a platform. I expected better from the painting phase.
The work of Neil is admirable and he is a great artist, but his take on AI and the lack of challenge from any of the interviewer besides strolling along his way is disappointing. They just are all very snob. Or completely clueless in the domain discussed for the painting phase crew. It would have been the same result by kitbashing in photoshop and overpaint the backdrop and using AI as a inspiration.
What does Neil expect people to do when they meet face to face about the subject of AI? Call him out to a fist fight in the parking lot? The dude has a goofy outlook on how people should react to this 😂
The fact that you didn't debate or challenge his viewpoints is your decision as a podcast. That you laughed along with it and showed no understanding of the debate surrounding AI shows an utter lack of research into the subject. You'll happily laugh alongside him calling people virgins who disagree with the use of AI art but fail to have a meaningful debate. It tells me your podcast clearly lost its best host when Peachy moved on. What compounds the issue is that Neil is a fantastic artist but one who clearly doesn't care about the discussion around AI and he'd rather attack those who disagree with him, its pretty disappointing.
Don’t support ai art in art competitions.
Not even art, it's generated noise that looks like art
I think for me the thing is that, the ai image bit isn't painting, so it doesn't have any place in the competition. That could avoid all the controversy.
Yeah, should get rid of the models too as they're not paint either!
@@jaggardos and especially the plinths because they were made by someone else...
Love you guys, but you have to challenge a guest who's talking utter nonsense, you're our voice when you interview, we can't ask questions or challenge a guests opinion, so even if you don't share the concerns of your audience, you are there to put those concerns forward and challenge potential ignorance. This guy is a great painter but a poor human, you could have helped him by being honest, you could have helped your audience by being smart and enquiring. You were passive in the face of ignorance and people are going to dog pile on you for it, hard to see it any other way. I hope you ride it out, that you get better from this, and that next time you find a way to challenge and disagree with a guest when needed, imagine the version of this podcast where you totally disagree with Neil, you don't cave in when he spouts utter nonsense about AI and makes weak excuses for his "thoughts", but you instead represented your audience, stuck to your guns and thrashed it out, in a nice way, all good, would have been a legendary episode and you'd have had way more good publicity and I'd have had an opportunity to respect Neil for his opinion, even while not agreeing with it. This just leaves me feeling that you guys let us down and Neil is a bit thick.
☝🏼you summed up my thoughts on this topic, Neil, AI, and my expectations of this podcast and the hosts so eloquently and perfectly in this post. Well done and well put. After this I know no longer can trust either of these podcasters reviews of 3D printing tech (which I have bought printers based off) or general claims on what’s good/bad, exciting/benal etc about warhammer, hobbying, tech, and painting. A real shame. Hopefully they address these real and genuine concerns of THEIR FANBASE in an upcoming pod and maybe do some critical discussion and introspection on the future of hobbying and competitive hobbying in the face of AI.
☝🏼you summed up my thoughts on this topic, Neil, AI, and my expectations of this podcast and the hosts so eloquently and perfectly in this post. Well done and well put. After this I no longer can trust either of these podcasters reviews of 3D printing tech (which I have bought printers based off) or general claims on what’s good/bad, exciting/benal etc about warhammer, hobbying, tech, and painting. A real shame. Hopefully they address these real and genuine concerns of THEIR FANBASE in an upcoming pod and maybe do some critical discussion and introspection on the future of hobbying and competitive hobbying in the face of AI.
I was going to write my own comment but this comment expresses it better than I could.
It's to be expected from someone like Pat though. There's a literal quote from him from another video saying he has "no opinion on anything actually important". He could have a N*zi serial killer next to him and Pat would just say "interesting.." over and over.
This is an absolutely MAD discussion.. I've rarely seen anything like this before. The lack of self awareness is mind blowing. How can you go on a podcast in an online format and then call the AUDIENCE virgins? Just WTF? How can anyone make that comment without understanding just how stupid it makes them look???
Exactly, extremely cheap shot that completely undermines any valid point he might have.
As someone mildly disappointed by the controversy at best and after watching through this man, everyone here really comes off a bit unpleasant. I get the philosophy of competing like its racing where you push the rules to as close to cheating as possible, but not really fond of the attitude.
and learning of the culture of the winners and competitions really makes me rethink how much i want to continue trying to climb the ladder in the competitions.
Something that's sometimes hard to appreciate is the effect of enduring extreme online vitriol. If people had been kinder, he might be more open to taking a nuanced position and acknowledging critiques. However, when someone is attacked, it's automatic to adopt a more defensive-sometimes even seemingly arrogant-attitude as a psychological defense mechanism.
Neil might come across as a bit dismissive on the issue, but that's true of many great performers in various fields and doesn't diminish their achievements. One thing I think he deserves credit for is his transparency. He could have printed the AI backdrop and painted over it, which, arguably could have been 'worse' due to being covert. Instead, he chose to openly experiment with something new and at least its brought attention to the topic in the community.
I had a friend who received a lot of online hate for his takes, and saw first hand how it paradoxically hardened him to his position rather than encouraging him to see both sides. As for the hosts, it's important to remember that this is a podcast, not a debate show. If the hosts were less supportive, they'd risk upsetting the guest or deterring future potential guests. It's a trickyn. Hope you continue competition painting, mate.
I agree. bout it
Yup, disappointing to see this video and the gleeful taunting by the guest. I'd imagine he would be happy to do whatever vulgarity or sabotage it takes to get any better chance to win anything.
@@ccgear4367 hahahahah try actually watching the video
@@LindsayWarrington they literally call his critics 'virgins', not exactly a class act
Very interesting conversation (not just the controversy part)!
The 2 things I can understand people being angry/disappointed by are:
- Imaging AI is built upon the work of a lot of artists without their consent and is on a very dubious ground because of that
- The backdrop isn't painted (the issue Neil mentioned) which is just something the judges have to decide whether or not it's allowed in their rules (and it being accepted might open some floodgates)
Yep, I can completely understand that too. both points.
Being in the industry I'll tell you that AI will have no copyright issues. No legal challenges have gone anywhere and it doesn't look like they will. Ed Sheeran actually destroyed the future of copyright claims in his case.
Second point on it not being painted well the static grass wasn't painted either. Not the gravel used on a base created by hand. Or the pigment powder which is ground up stones.
Competitions are there to be won. Those who push the rules to the limit most often win.
With regards to your first point. You just described every piece of art ever made. All Art is influenced by other artists its just the AI is ingesting a far greater amount than any human can do. Its not dubious grounds as this is literally how every artists gets started and they continue to do it throughout their career. So why is it ok for humans to do it but if a non-artist creates a program to do it for him which is a form of art itself it is considered dubious. People who consider it dubious or illegal are just naive, ignorant, jealous or a combination of the three.
@@mekko1413 That's true but the fact you are mechanising the aquisition of other artists styles has very different implications in practice.
Copyright as a concept was a reaction to the invention of the printing press. Before that you could hire a scribe to write out any book you wanted and nobody cared, the amount of time it took to produce a copy a manuscript meant that the system was self limiting.
Copyright was put into place to make sure that people had incentive to write new books, create new artwork. Like allowing anybody who owns a printing press print the book that you spent years putting together and undercutting you on price, mechanising the process where you can copy somebody elses style and use it to drops the economic insentive on artists spending years to develop their own unique art styles and creating new content.
@@huwtindall7096 Yeah but the grass isn't the main focus, of the art piece, it's the model, if he made a diorama of a plain and used static grass then we could consider that cheating because he wouldn't have made the diorama. Also the ends don't justify the means, if it were then we should allow people comissioning painters to paint their models and present them as their own.
Interesting discussion but hasn’t caused me to change my own position on the issue.
Providing prompts to AI, however many, is no better than providing prompts to someone else to do the artwork for you. If anything it’s worse as the people whose creativity has been used to create the piece have no knowledge, permission or recognition of this. This is why terms like theft are used, because in essence this is what it is.
It may not be explicitly talked about in the rules but nowhere in the rules does it state ‘Do not set the cabinets on fire’. Just because it’s not explicitly ruled out doesn’t mean it’s acceptable.
It might be ‘just a painting competition’ but the reality and strength of feeling behind this comes from the countless hours people spend on their entries and the time spent to get to a competition level of skill, which Neil is undoubtedly well aware of as his skill and talent at painting is without question.
Mocking the strong feelings that come from a place where people have invested such efforts is not a good look and smacks of arrogance from someone with a platform against others in the painting community who aspire to such things.
What about AI systems were they do own all rights? For example the Adobe and Getty systems mentioned. Would those be ok? No theft occurs there. It is a tricky field and the legal system is as always playing catch up to the digital realm.
Does AI need regulation, yes. Is it a tool that will be around regardless? Again, yes. Will art and work in all its forms forever be copied by others, yes. Can something be done about it? Yes, and they are trying.
@@chicagohobbyheroI’d say the legalities of AI art are probably the least contentious part of all this. As I said, AI is something else creating artwork with prompts from an individual, which is the same principle as someone else painting your piece and you stood over the their shoulder saying, ‘no, make that part a bit more green’ or similar… and then entering it into a competition and taking credit for it.
@@chicagohobbyhero Those systems have been caught using stuff they didn't own. "Is it a tool that will be around regardless? Again, yes" - Why does this have to be the case? This is what's being said by the same people who tried to sell us on Crypto, NFTs, and the Metaverse all being "inevitable".
Consider classical artworks like the Sistine Chapel, Rembrandt's works, and Caravaggio's pieces, which extensively used uncredited assistants to do significant amounts of the work. Neil's defensive stance might be a reaction to intense scrutiny and backlash which may well have been nasty to endure. When heavily criticized, it's natural to become defensive, which can seem dismissive. I'm not disagreeing with your comment, just adding some nuance.
@@d45873 it’s a fair point, however even the old masters assistants received some form of reward for their work, be it material or tutoring and engaged willingly. In AI use in creative practises the assistants here are unwilling and / or unwitting contributors who receive nothing.
As for Neil’s stance then I accept it must’ve been difficult to come under such intense criticism, but in this video he seems to revel in the controversy and cited a couple of examples since where he actively encouraged more. He seems quite happy with his stance which I respect, I’m equally happy to disagree with him.
I was genuinely interested in a nuanced, introspective discussion about the controversy and merits of the issues some people have raised. To hear it essentially boiled down to 'eat it suckas, I'd do it again!' is somewhat disappointing. Neil came across as quite smug here, and wasn't really challenged at all. It came across more as 3 people having a laugh at the expense of everyone who raised some pretty genuine concerns and discussion on how this competition and others should consider evolving technologies in the rule sets in future.
Also the comparison to 3d printing is idiotic and once again, clueless and uninformed. Unless you are only stealing existing 3d models. It takes times and skill to model in 3d properly what you want. it takes some good sense of volume and an artistic eye to make something good. Do you really think it is the same as: i type on a prompt in a program to steal art until it make something suitable for me ?
Damn this video had me on a rollercoaster ride - some thoughts / feedback :
He almost got there...
"Why are people online pissed off?"
And then ignored people telling him why they're pissed off.
The feedback is confused because there's a lot of different things to potentially be pissed off about.
Maybe instead of smugly dismissing the critique he (and you guys) should have engaged with the critics and explored the use of AI in the hobby and especially in the competitive portions of the hobby, just nodding along wasn't good enough when discussing a contentious subject.
I have 2 objections to the backdrop
The first is that the backdrop is not painted - if he _could_ have painted it, he should have.
The second is the use of AI - the biggy for me is that even the "ethical" models were _developed_ using what amounts to theft, regardless of what the current models are trained on.
The piece is amazing, but _would_ it have won without the backdrop? _would_ it still have won with a hand painted backdrop?
I feel like Neil should have been very upfront with the entry and then any objections could have been addressed and even a conversation might have meant it was entered without the backdrop?
Possibly talking to the organisers beforehand as he seemed to think this might not be ok? I understand not tipping off the opposition, but this was presented as bordering on deceptive of Neil.
Using a new different brush, using a new / different type of paint - those are the same as new technologies in Formula 1, using AI in this way is not comparable.
Comparing it to 3d printing is also I believe disingenuous, AI generated art is not an artisan using a new material or medium for creation it's removing the artisan from the process - and no you can't tell me that writing and tweaking 200 prompts to then tweak the output is comparable (time or effort) to a _person_ drawing and painting a similar piece.
There are other objections to AI beyond the ethics of it's creation.
The whole "you should use AI because it's just a tool and if you don't then you'll lose out to someone who will" will-fully misses the point that the current artisan will get under cut on the cost of labour and also the other concern is that any work produced will be lower quality creatively homogenised rubbish.
This whole conversation largely ignored the impact that new technology can have on peoples lives and livelihoods, regardless of where it's used.
Conveniently dismissing legitimate concerns regarding this technology with lazy "anti-progress" rhetoric.
Call me a Luddite, the Luddites did not hate technology (they were skilled artisans using state of the art tools) and just wanted fair pay for a fair day's work and greater consideration for the impact that new technologies were having on working people - we could all do with a good dose of Luddism these days imo.
Bit of a ramble, sorry, I'm, as someone else said, not angry, just a bit disappointed both in Neil's attitudes (lazy and dismissive) and you guys kinda just nodding along.
I realise this podcast is not hard hitting investigative journalism, but some research when discussing potentially contentious subjects and gently probing the guest _snigger_ on their views would really add to the conversation.
If you are entering a painting competition and didn't use your own art, then it really isn't your entry is it
No one thinks Neil isn't a good painter or that the piece wasn’t amazing. You can think it’s a gold-worthy paint job while also being disappointed that he used AI for part of it.
We are all sick of Big Tech and the people investing in it trying to shove a broken and harmful technology down our throats. People are losing their jobs, not because AI is good at what it does, but because management class, as always, is enamored with replacing labor so that it can pump out low quality goods as fast and cheaply as possible. AI as it currently exists offers almost no benefits for the working class or for craftspeople, and is built upon the straightforward theft of other’s work and IP (not to mention other the environmental cost required to make it run).
“AI won’t take your job, but someone using AI will take your job” - no, the CEOs will get rid of your job for someone who is willing to do it cheaper.
Neil’s piece is truly amazingly painted, and one of the coolest things from Golden Demon this year…but he used a technology that stole other artists work to generate something for his piece (let alone the fact that the actual rules are extremely wishy-washy about backgrounds and whether they help or don’t). The fact that he seems to be very friendly with a lot of the top painters and influencers seems to have given him protection from criticism, and so I think people are frustrated that it hasn’t been given honest discussion and is typically just people laughing at those who have legitimate concerns and frustrations with the use of AI (“oh those simpletons!”). Also dismissing the concerns as just “online virgins” ignores the fact that at the competition you’re surrounded by your friends and people who don’t know the facts of what you did. Extremely disrespectful.
Now, regarding the content of this interview, there’s a lot of frustrating stuff. Saying it’s “OK” because UK law says you own it if you wrote the prompts is extremely insulting to artists. It’s very tone-deaf and is just a really bad look. Also, bemoaning how “difficult” generating the prompts was is also a bad look - you’re just writing text. It’s not like actually creating something. Hiding behind the “legality” of it seems like you know you’re doing something wrong but are saying “Says it’s legal, you can’t criticize me!”. (And don’t cite Adobe Firefly as “legal” - they’ve been forced to take stuff down multiple times recently and gotten into trouble for including stuff that is not allowed)
The comparison between using a famous John Blanche piece and AI does not hold water. One is clearly inspired by the other, and is judged accordingly, but with the AI piece you are saying “I did this!”. It’s like the difference between covering a song and sampling other songs without credit.
Had to stop listening around an hour in after hearing the fifth bad-faith straw-man argument. This conversation was extremely disappointing and it seems Indicative of the direction the podcast has been heading for a couple episodes now. I’ll be tuning out from now on.
#NoKingButKingLudd
could not have put it better myself
Honestly, this discussion has me disappointed in everyone. Such a trash take claiming in tact moral integrity because what they did wasn't technically illegal. I hope Neil wins other awards so this one can matter less and he and the others can grow.
You have phrased it incredibly well. Not only did he clearly disappoint a lot of people, but the rejoicing is infuriating. And the podcast guys are honestly pathetic. When Neil says he posted an AI-generated story to shut people up, and all these other panderers saying “oh that’s brilliant!”. No it isn’t brilliant, it’s extremely cocky and in poor taste. I’ll be unsubscribing.
incredibly well put
The "UK law" part is actually a straight lie too. There's literally no legislation regarding AI as of yet, it's why people are pushing it so much. He likely found an article on google talking about it and took it for being fact. That's indeed ignoring the fact that the competition wasn't even in the UK, it was in the US - where UK law doesn't apply (obviously) and there isn't even a discussion yet to be had in the US government about it.
Throughout the interview, Neil contradicts himself regarding the AI; everyone knew, but not the judges; he believes he owns the artwork, but AI artwork can't be copyrighted. Why included when its party of the piece.
When the AI program scrapes for art and the artists have not agreed to have their art used to train it, it is theft. Full stop.
you should take a look at the tattoo industry. 99% of tattoos are taken from the internet, traced, retraced, drawn and re drawn. nothing in this world is unique it is all a copied idea from somewhere else so it is arguable that your artists have already done the same thing. if you cant copyright it, it isn't stealing and once you post it to the internet it isn't yours anymore. sad truths but that is the landscape.
@@chaosclg the absolute irony of you telling me to look at the tattoo industry lol no i can tell you that good tattoo artists will use references but not others work directly
@@almost_zab Warhammer in itself is a collection of "other people's work" 😂 you kids are so hypocritical
@@chaosclg kids? also lol. we don't agree that's fine.
@@almost_zab you just don't have a valid point more like 😂
On the entry guidelines, 3.3 “only entries wholly painted by the entrant may be entered”
It was always there.
lol. Who else painted my entry? Was definitely only me.
@@nhollis24 including the backdrop?
Aren’t you allowed to enter minis with decals?
The rule you have edited refers to joint entries and submitting on behalf of someone else. I am the only person that worked on my entry.
Not if everything is “painted”
@@nhollis24so, your entry is not wholly painted by you? Some of it was painted by a 3rd party (ai) and some by you? Correct?
Neil endorsing art theft through Midjourney whilst being someone who makes money as an artist really has to be trolling because nobody can be that tone-deaf, can they?
AI has no place in any art competition. It’s no better than plagiarism
I wonder how Neil would feel about AI if someone entered a miniature painted by AI and it won and he lost? He's a great artist, but what a poor take on AI for other artists.
Artists should stand with artists. Dude has skill. He should know how much work it takes. How it feels to have that effort stolen from you for a machine built to replace your job should be an understandable perspective.
Shame.
Love the part when he brought up how Adobe Firefly and Getty don't use stolen artwork so they're fine - but he didn't use either of those, he used the one that does use stolen artwork.
This is horrendous content and you're platforming a guy who constantly contradicts himself in order to make himself look innocent when he is clearly in the wrong.
Glad I can go elsewhere to get Peachy now.
Whilst neither of those platforms use stolen images *now* the tech is built on widespread theft of art in the public domain, so until that is addressed at the societal level all AI generated images are theft.
Looks like Peachy got out at just the right time. Platforming a painter that decided to get lazy for clicks and using imaging AI that takes from other artists in a competition is just shameful. You guys really decided to get a guy who tripled down on his use of such a thing on a podcast with viewers comprised of hobbyists and painters who put in graft from start to finish, some of whom may be wanting to enter competitions themselves. 'Pushing the rules' is not an excuse for taking shortcuts built off of the work of others and passing it off as your own. There's nothing innovative about typing prompts into a program; it's the absolute lowest levels of scummy practice. Everything from the decisions made on Neil's part to how the judges handled it is just laying the groundwork to encourage more and more people to get lazy and use AI in every nook and cranny under the guise of 'pushing the rules'. You can justify the use of it all you want, Neil. You're still a deceptive scumbag for not even being willing to disclose that you used AI till after everything was said and done. The fact you knew you'd be DQ'd proves that nobody's gonna buy that toss.
Why would Neil care about clicks? Thats not what win's him these competitions. Same with his use of AI - it doesn't make a difference to whether he'd win it or not
@@jaggardos Considering by Neil’s own admission that he believed if the judges knew it was a printed piece of AI art it would have been disqualified - yes, it directly did contribute to whether he won or not.
@@Vin_Venture896 But he didn't. He said he didn't know if he would be disqualified because it was printed. Nothing to do with where the image originated from. The judges were obviously not concerned by it
@@jaggardos But… that’s literally what I just said lmao. ‘If the judges knew it was a PRINTED piece of AI art it would have been disqualified.’ If you’re pretending that it wouldn’t have been devalued as an art piece if the judges were aware of it being a printed background (even discarding the AI part) then you’re delusional.
Neil knew it, which is why even though he had months to contact GD support to ask whether it would be disqualified (or devalued) he didn’t do so. He believed it was better to not ask permission and then beg forgiveness after the fact.
@@Vin_Venture896 So you're saying the judges couldn't tell the difference between something thats printed and something thats painted? Maybe you should be directing your unjustified rage at them and their apparent incompetence rather than poor old Neil
The only thing his win did was devalue the meaning of the Golden Demon award.
The ego and self-righteousness, and just how proud he is of himself for getting away with it was just ugly.
Why didn't he try to paint the image the AI generated instead of gluing a print on the plinth?
Pretty simple, he thought it would be a neat and novel thing to do.
Also, I personally think that the thing that devalues GD as a painting competition is the fact that the winner isn't based off of quality of the paint job. Whatever sells Warhammer as an IP the best wins.
This is not the kind of look you want. For starters you're joking about openly cheating in a competition and making fun of people (who are RIGHTFULLY) calling Neil out. No one can doubt that Neil is incredibly skillful and 100% a slayer sword painter, what people HATE is his complete uncaring nature for the theft from other artists simply because its 2d art and apparently not of concern to him. AI art is THEFT it has been clearly shown that it is theft and anyone who uses it is plagiarizing hundreds or thousands of actual artists who put just as much time into their art as Neil puts into his.
As an artist himself, and of the calibre he is capable of, Neil should know better. It's not "pushing the envelope" if you just straight up grabbed someone else work and claimed it as your own. Tarro was on Cult of Paint right after the competition and he perfectly describes what any artist with a grain of integrity would do. He has a background in his piece, he looked up backgrounds on the internet, took one he liked, photoshopped it, USED IT AS A REFERENCE, and then he TOOK HIS AIRBRUSH AND MADE IT. he replicated it with his own hands to his own skill level.
The golden demon entry form has a box literally for you to explain all the parts of your piece, if Neil didn't write he used AI in there then he is being deliberately deceptive
As for the internet outrage thing, its a poor argument. Yeah, the internet often has stupid arguments, but very real concerns about very real theft and the integrity of art is not a silly argument, there are reasons conventions don't allow AI art in artist alleys and MOST competitions now specify AI art is not allowed.
In the end the worst part is Neil could have removed the background and he probably would have still won the gold, the paint job on the thing is amazing, why sully your work with shitty AI?
Great comment
You have three studio cameras but are unable to insert the picture of the model in question?!
doesnt mean the law doesnt acknowledge this yet it isnt wrong IT is Stealing as a miniature painter and digital artist myself this is offensive seeing your work being mis mash into something u have no consent for some people who just got a keyboard start prompting won a competion, Use for commercial purposes and stealing your intellectual property.
this topic got more offensive even more knowing Neil has no remorse and insults people who calls him out.
So I can just hire someone to paint stuff for me to enter into competitions and as long as I type out a bunch of instructions that counts as doing it myself right? Asking for a friend.
If you want to use AI backdrops on your personal models fine, but a formal ‘painting’ competition NO absolutely not. None of his arguments made sense and were even contradictory in some cases.
Neil's beyond talented enough to paint his own backgrounds. The exodite doesnt even need a detailed one, its an insane piece on its own.
I guess the notoriety has its own value for the ego...
On AI as a subject, Warhammer was brought to life by some of the most talented artists and sculptors in the world. And still is.
Rue the day gw decides artists and sculptors are too expensive and replaces your beloved art with ai. We can all be smug about ai then 😂
So if I send Richard Gray some prompts on how I want him to paint a miniature for me, and then I run it at Golden Demon it's fine?
Takes the same amount of "skill" from me to do that, as it does using AI.
If you view AI as a tool, then you view artists as tools too.
I know what Rich would say if you gave him prompts on what to paint. 😂
@@nhollis24 Great attitude, can really tell you care about the community and the art you make.
@@nhollis24 when i first saw your pieces i was amazed at your skill, I'm so disappointed to see such talent yet such a lack of self awareness, as an artist you shouldn't be using tools that are directly threatening real artists jobs and livelihoods, your attitude in this interview was disgusting.
Hey Neil at 45:06 I feel you are missing the point , the question is not about your ownership. its about the backdrop may well have used other peoples copyrighted material and added it to yours. Had you asked about how Gen AI grabs content it might have added nuance . You may have unwittingly in this video created another swathe of badly informed users of gen ai. Your work is yours , if I took your images from from Instagram and amended the filter and said it belonged to me this would be similar to how AI gen images are occurring . Its not just a tool is a tool that has and is damaging the interest of creators.
I guess the question is , had you just cut out an image from Instagram and used it without crediting the artist as your backdrop would you be happy to do this too ?
Had you used Ai to assemble images from your own collection of photos .. it would have been ethically fine. There could be no doubt you had created it as a backdrop. As it is you searched for an image and used it.
Don’t bring e-bikes into this too!! However on that note I some one enters a bike race on an e bike (since this is about competition) and beats others who have trained for years I think they might justifiably be a bit annoyed. Fancier bikes allow you to go faster (if you can) e-bikes make you go faster (even if you can’t)
It happens! It's called mechanical doping- they've found cyclists with tiny motors concealed in bike frames, and, funnily enough, they get DQd, banned and fined.
As someone who works in an industry currently undergoing a lot of upheaval and stress due to generative AI and what it may mean for future work and copyright issues..This discussion was incredibly disappointing. Then insulting everyone who opposes it with legitimate concerns regarding AI in creative spaces, just, wow. The hosts just going along and not even offering a nuanced opinion just makes it worse. Unsubscribed now (not that it means anything). Shame, the Tommie Soule discussion was at least informative.
"When I was creating this" "I'm the creator" "the creator would be the person who used the prompt". 🙄
1:01:06 The core issue here isn’t whether something is stolen or legal, the core issue is that Neil, who is talented in one medium (mini painting) has clearly lost respect for artist who work in another medium (digital art and photography). Saying “‘but I could have used Adobe!” isn’t the point. The point is that we now live in a world where certain types of art will no longer be viable ways to make a living. So yea, Neil’s glib attitude is obnoxious, and that’s why a ton of people are annoyed.
I don’t actually blame the hosts for this-they just seem to be fairly incompetent interviewers. After all, they chose to toss boring softball questions and pal around with the guest instead of create space for a thoughtful and/or provocative conversation.
Y'all had access to a GW store with employees that gave feedback? Lucky! The only way go get warhammer miniatures for me was mail order, and the only local paints available were Humbrol and Tamiya from a store that sold tank and airplane models. I only got a McVay painting guide in a trip to Ireland, where I was lucky to find a hobby store in Dublin by aimlessly roaming about.
Man, the 90s were tough, but at least the cylindrical pots didn't dry out immediately, like all the 2000s hard plastic jewel pots. I have working paint from the 90s, but decades of colors which had to be thrown away
His piece is great, but Ai is problematic with the theft. Firefly and Getty are just as problematic due to how they training them and how they licensed their usage with their stock.
It’s like, oh yes this tools grabs movie stills to help make these backgrounds. And that’s theft. There is no Creative Commons ai.
Could've tried being a little more critical rather than just laughing along at the overly smug sense of superiority, but I guess that's a little too difficult. Shame - hope the presumed controversy click money is worth it for you. Bringing a 'controversial topic' onto your Podcast only to not engage with it at all, aside from simply nodding and laughing along with your guest while he assures his own superiority over whoever disagrees with him, largely devalues it as a whole. You're not having a discussion or sharing ideas, you're letting one guy just talk about how great he is and how it's awesome that whoever disliked what he did is a salty little virgin or whatever, and you're fully embracing just farming rage clicks/engagement across your social media platforms.
This issue affects all podcasts, sadly. Podcasts want to attract high-profile guests and cannot do this if they get a reputation for being critical. (This is one of the few advantages of pre-internet media, where there were fewer channels for people to appear but that's another topic.) They did cover on the AI stuff from a different angles, but ultimately, the painting phase is an entertainment show and a business, so that motive something to bear in mind.
I think the hosts did a good job by dedicating a significant portion of the show to the topic and trying to discuss various angles. Expecting more than that might be a bit unrealistic.
Absolutely, there is no challenge here to make the guest think about AI usage. They really turn to rubbish since Peachy left
You’re absolutely right, couldn’t have phrased it better. The pandering is disgusting.
when has this podcast ever challenged anyone
@LindsayWarrington seeing as they've been talking about "starting a discussion" or whatever all over the place with their "very controversial topic" the least I'd expect is for them to actually discuss rather than listen and nod along
In regards to AI created content, I think the ethics test of “is it a good thing if everyone does it” can be applied. If painting contests become who has created the best prompt, or used the best AI tool, does that make for a good contest? AI is already capable of making 3d models in full color…based on existing artists work.
+1 on the Shadow Falcons.
If the backdrop was a photo, or a printed image of something he had drawn himself on a computer, would it also have generated the controversy? Is it clickbaity enough without the AI angle?
In my mind it would be the same thing. None of those would be “paintings” either, so backdrops that aren’t hand painted probably shouldn’t be in a miniature painting competition.
There wasn’t much controversy around the 3D printed vampire model that won high praise. Which I agree with, it’s still a great miniature, but given GW’s hatred of all things 3D printed (especially their IP 👀) it was surprising they even gave it the time of day.
Well If if's and butts were candy and nutts then we'd all have a merry Christmas
The Vampire model was fine because the creator created a new 1:1 mirrored model - 3D printing isn't banned from Golden Demon, providing the model is made by the painter.
Geoff, Ross, Patrick, Neil - You seem like good blokes, and I hope you can see beyond some of the snarky language in the comment section. There are many intelligent well-intentioned people in your audience, who are taking the time to offer sincere critiques of this interview (There are likely others who feel similarly but haven't commented). It might be easy to dismiss some of these comments as harsh, but I believe it's important to recognise there's an increasing responsibility that comes with your success (well deserved due to your consistent hard work on this excellent pod). This responsibility includes approaching topics more impartially and also not just waiting for this kind of critical feedback to blow over. I mean absolutely no disrespect and hope you can see the good-will intended here.
I love you guys and appreciate you so much, but do think this is a miss. Hope you guys can learn and push forward to making better and even greater content in the future 😊
This was wild because I assumed that Neil would just downplay his use of AI but he’s actually just went and tripled down on publicly revealing himself as a brainrotted blue checkmark tier AI bro who simultaneously keeps talking about how ‘It’s not a big deal! It’s just a tool! Why would I talk to the judges about the fact I used AI?’ to only in the next sentence say ‘Oh yeah but I also had to check a bunch of copyright laws and I also thought the judges would disqualify it if they knew it was AI.’
The fact he then tries to play everything off with ‘Oh who cares! It’s weird how people would get mad on the internet!’ is honestly a sign that Neil has far less respect for miniature painting as an art and even less for the spirit of the competition of GD.
His public stance may be somewhat of a reaction to the intense backlash he's received. When faced with criticism, people usually do adopt a defensive attitude, which can come across as dismissive but is just human nature. It could be a case of him trying to balance transparency and self-defense. He's a world class painter with a long pedigree and could have won the contest with or without the AI augmentation.
Yeah.. it def was hard to hit the “produce” button those 200 times right? 😂 nothing wrong but my man it was a painting competition that”s all
You have to wait for it to produce the image as well! It takes ages
Review the image, refine the image, refine the prompt, review the refinement, review the prompt, refine the image. Probably a solid 15 hours of effort at least, it’s not the nothing effort people like to make it out to be. He probably would have painted something similar in less time to be honest. I doubt the backdrop was the entire reason he won, but admittedly this is the first time I ever heard about this controversy
@@farplaine completely right. 💯
The ai art issue is obvious and neil should change his name to neilebus! That being said we should all recognize the model would hv won without the the backdrop and personally i prefer it without. I agree no ai art, unless its in conjunction with designing a 3d print. Even then id prefer it no 3d printing, no ai art etc just paint the model but i understand we live in a different time now. With all that i hope to compete with neilebus one day and hopefully beat him lol
If your aim was to 'stir controversy' I would think mission accomplished. Absolutely shameful this "I didn't do anything illegal" response and belittling anyone who might object as salty keyboard warriors. Also strange from someone who does something artistic to not understand the difference between being inspired by someone elses art and having a computer copy/steal bits and shuffle elements together. That's me unsubscribed. Farewell.
"I didn't do anything illegal" has all the grace of a 50 year old shagging a 17 year old.
I love the Exodite entry and it is extremely well painted, but I do think the use of AI is potentially problematic. Nothing against Neil at all, he's proven himself to be a extremely skilled painter.
Honestly I don't even have a strict problem with AI generated imagery so much as how capitalism uses it to replace human artists.
There's probably a huge debate here about the advance of technology and shifts like what happened to portrait painters when photography was developed that I don't really want to wade into, but as someone with friends in creative industries whose jobs are being cut to maximize profits to executives, I don't consider it a helpful tool for humankind.
It will be interesting when miniatures will reach the point where they are fully designed and 'painted' by AI that creates STLs which can then be printed in full color. We're not far off from that at all, especially looking at what HeroForge is doing.
This isn't just limited to traditional art either. Look at the AI generated twitch streams. How long before someone can get a good large language model and image generator, train it on Warhammer channels/content and generate constant episodes of Warhammer podcasts just by working with prompts and scraped data? AI is still limited in what it is capable of, but it's getting better and the amount of content it will be able to generate will be significant for youtube and twitch channels in the near future.
There're a lot of interpretations of what AI actually is. Now that it's a buzzword for investment opportunities, it's everywhere. A bad side effect of this is that if you say you're against the building of the data sets from copyright material but use the word AI anywhere in the explanation; you're instantly seen as some luddite technophobe.
Indeed. There's very little actual Intelligence in all the current usage of AI - it's canned Machine Learning, which is something different.
You're a luddite if you just lump them into one "AI is bad" box. I'm as much opposed to stealing art as the next guy, but not all AI are trained alike.
Saying AI is a tool just like anything else is a fallacy. A paintbrush is a tool, a device through which one can make art oneself. AI is not such a device, AI creates the artwork, it’s not a medium through which the artist does the work, unlike a brush. False equivalence.
There are ways to make it a tool, but if the baseline training for the LLM is stolen content, it's no good. It's tainted already.
That said, you do have to have some eye to get good results with AI tools, and time. It doesn't just hand out perfection. But for now, it's all a bit wank.
What a bad attitude. Wrong call having him on
This is sad. I am very disappointed with the position on AI.
The podcast started with you guys all talking about various techniques and little discoveries you make as painters, even from Neil himself. With AI you lose that organic bit of discovery. Art and creativity should be a reflection and development of us as people, AI is too broad and oblivious to properly reflect that- it stops being human. A painting competition should be to celebrate human creativity.
While AI is just one of the many tools that can be used, I think in the use of it here is too strongly leaned on to consider it as used in a skilled manner. Neil himself says that part of these comps is about pushing boundaries and the use of AI here is just implemented in such a pedestrian manner that it's kinda disappointing to not see it more creatively used by such a renowned painter.
Tried watching this chanel for a while now. Not sure if its frame rate, but videos glitchy as hell. Tried on multiple platforms, same result. Shame as the content looks good.
Anyone else or just me?
Well look into but no problems this end and other negative comments on it, don’t know what to advise.
@@thepaintingphasethanks for the feedback. Most likely issue at my end. Only highlighted as I wasnt sure if it was a global issue. Barring that, have enjoyed what I have seen and look forward to future content.
@@thepaintingphase Could one of the cameras be locked at a certain frame rate?
what was sad is that he didn't even consider that the art used in the AI program wasn't consensual with the artists it used to generate the image. AI art is theft!
Not all AIs are trained with stolen art. I don't understand why people keep saying that.
@@esaedvik one he used was
AI art is in a grey area of stolen simply based on it's rendering model. Also, I think printed backdrops for miniature painting competitions is cheating, regardless of what the rules say. Doing vignettes/dioramas with a backdrop is an art skill in of itself. Printed backdrops circumvent a significant portion of the work involved in making one; that's why it is inherently cheating. I hope they change the rules for next year to state clearly that any backdrop must be painted. If you don't want to go through the trouble of painting a backdrop, then do a miniature entry without one.
Well, time to unsubscribe. Don't give platform to these people...
@@thepaintingphaseif you associate with garbage, don't act so surprised when you start to stink yourself mate
Bye Felicia. Clearly people must all have exactly the same opinion and be in mindless lockstep. How very Imperium of Man.
@@jamesmaybrick2001if you're ok with AI getting used in art then more power to you James but you can't be surprised that there's more than a few folk that actually have standards
You will not be missed
"These people" is a bit dramatic, don't you think?
2 months ago cult of paint interviewed james taro after adepticon and teased that the following week they'd have Neil on to doscuss this topic. Still not happened so you've managed to scoop them there, but i'd love to hear Andy Wardle who clearly knows Neil well discuss this with him as a peer.
I want to hear him talk to people he’s not friends with about this…
A valid point, he mentions discussing it with a group of people ahead of entering, and from further conversation these people would likely be high-end competition painters themselves, be interesting to hear why they didn't discourage him from entering it.
How can he paint one miniature for all those 100's of hours and still not put enough paint on to obscure the details. One pigment particle at at time?
more or less yes
I generally like your guests and talks, but the non-chalant use of AI by Neil is pretty terrible but is the going mentality of many people I've met who often undervalue artists and the work that goes into it. This is the mentality that is going to result in AI art driving artists and creatives out of work.
For a creative hobby, embracing AI seems counter productive. Perhaps Neil will change his tune when folks start submitting AI generated colored sculpts printed in color with a 3D printer into competitions. It's not too far off in the future.
I understand he didnt want to paint it himself, but couldn't he just have commissioned someone?
I know yall are just having a casual conversation, but AI is a serious problem and very destructive for creative and artistic fields.
I have no problem with Neil winning the slayer sword. In fact Neil is a exceptional painter and he earned to win with or without the backdrop. But I have to say, I have never heard an artist talking that disrespectful about art theft... I'm honestly disappointed how unreflective you guys are talking about a very sensitive topic. Yes AI is and will be a great tool in the future but AI will kill livelihoods.
The metagame would be to steal the model and use it in an entry to next years GD....
The comments speak for themselves lads, no effort was made to challenge the views of this painter who claims that making prompts into a computer is equal to someone actually painting and creating a unique piece
Give me the exact same prompts and I’ll give the exact same results
Give me the exact same paint brushes and paints and you will not get the same results
Pretty poor effort here lads. I really buy into you both, beginning to question why Peachy decided to leave but the answer seems obvious when you’re giving a platform to people to boast how they got away with it
No one, and I mean no one, has ever looked at AI and competition/art and thought the two would be a positive mix. Everyone and their nan knew it’s not a net positive result and this guys attitude is abhorrent
You shouldn’t bring people on if you’re afraid to challenge their views
43:39 I love that just as Pat is saying "AI make better button", the volume peaks a bit :D It's a bit wobbly in parts. Only noticed twice before that point though.
He just likes to mess with your mind, he’s the next Hitchcock I tells ya!
While I don't agree with Neil's attitude I think it's good that his entry raised a debate. This way, as a community, we can voice our concerns and Games Workshop and all other painting competition organisers can make adjustments.
This reflects really badly on you guys on a personal level and is really negative for the community as a whole. The rules regarding entries were, and still are, totally clear - it has to be painted by yourself. You can debate AI, but bringing in Neil changes the context. What he did was not morally right. Giving him a platform to talk about AI unchallenged and without balanced nuance is therefore not morally right. I really feel that you guys should pull the video and issue a video apology including your support for following the rules and your support for artists the do not use AI.
Hello gents. Iv dabbled in painting but I seek your knowledge. Iv painted a few figurines, I like Fantasy D&D Warhammer ect. But some of the figures Iv ordered online ended up just being too small. Like idk how anyone could do without a needlepoint sharpie. Is there a brand or or model type with larger figures 4inches tall or so that's a bit more beginner friendly. I just can't get the detail and shading with the smaller ones
Sounds like 3d printed figures for DND and such are what you're looking for, there are also action sized JoyToy Warhammer figures, but they might be too big. You have to search for local/ internet stores with "RPG miniatures" and usually when you order they let you pick the scale. Keep in mind however, that bigger ones aren't necessarily easier for beginners, smaller scale actually helps you get away with a lot of stuff that would look unnatural on bigger figures. It's normal that things are difficult in the beginning, don't give up, enjoy the painting. There's a ton of resources to gain knowledge from, magnifying glasses can also come in handy.
Why give someone that steals art a platform? Not a great look
Hi sorry if I missed it but is Ross part of the regular team - if so - I must say when there's 3 guys and an interviewee - it seames a lot more relaxed. Love it. All the best.
I am now mate yes. We filmed my welcome to the show last week, which is my 9th video lol.
But we're gonna push the release to talk about UKGE first
39th minute...why does Ross lick the mic arm?!
He just really loves mics.
Just for the sake of discussion and since the comment section is for sharing opinions: Was the outrage overblown? Yep. But there's a big difference between what's legal and what's ethical. The fact that he doesn't seem to care whether its ethical or not....it's pretty disappointing coming from such a talented artist 🫤. His "there's no way I'm wrong, f**k you" style initial response was childish at best as well. Those factors coupled with this interview...he's not a guy I'd want in my lifeboat. I mean we all make mistakes...but the more I watch, the more this guy just seems like a real jerk 🤷♀️. Ah well, ya can't like everyone I suppose.
Fantastic take here. Hiding behind "I looked it up, it's legal!" is a very telling way to say "I know what I'm doing is wrong ethically but because it's legal I can pretend it's ok".
@spilbobaggins I mean a simple "I understand people feel strongly about it, but I don't agree that its unethical because XYZ." would be perfectly fine instead of the smug taunting displayed here. You'd think a guy who's been alive for over 4 decades would know how to give a dissenting opinion without coming off like a schoolyard bully.
Something I've seen first hand is its very hard to appreciate and predict is the effect of enduring extreme online vitriol. If people had been kinder, I can see he might have be more open to taking a nuanced position and acknowledging critiques. However, when someone is attacked, it's automatic to adopt a more defensive-sometimes immature attitude as a psychological defense mechanism. I'm not disagreeing with your point, just trying to provide some nuance.
@dw45873 I don't disagree, but that kind of reaction says quite a lot about his character. I'm not the biggest name out there, but being one of the GW promo painters (and a woman in the hobby), I've received plenty of online vitriol. Responding civilly or not at all is just part of being a mature adult. It's one thing to respond to outright trolling heatedly, but this....is just flat out disrespect. I actually love debating and seeing why people feel a certain way, rather than just fanning the flames as Neil seems to.
Getting abusive must be unpleasant for you, sorry to hear that. I can’t speak for Neil, but you may be a more mature and evolved person than I am, as I’m not sure I could handle it so gracefully.
You mentioned that responding civilly is part of being a mature adult, and I agree. In that spirit, I wonder if saying he has a "fuck you" attitude or that "he's not someone I'd want in my lifeboat" could potentially be hurtful to him to read as your negative comments are to you, and potentially diminish the respectful discourse you advocate for. FYI I mean no disrespect and appreciate the discussion.
1:02:49 The shock of the new.
Surprising and disappointing.
I don't care about people using it, the real issue is how was the judging so terrible as to let this pass? If I see something is a decal, it gets punished. If I see something is printed, it gets punished. Nobody that can't see the difference between a print and a painting should be allowed to judge an event like GD
Fully agree dude. This is the problem. When GW don't even let their own painting team judge the competition any more. It really diminishes the value of the whole competition for me.
This ain't it. I would simply choose not to platform the guy who used an art-stealing machine to win an art contest.
But the background isn't judged, just the model itself, so why does it matter
@@jaggardosthe whole piece, including the backdrop is judged.
Is Neil on Instagram or anywhere?
🎉 feed refresh of dreams
Oj this was disappointing.
If you melt down actual figures and then use that to 3d print something - thats a legit figure for golden demon right? :D
The key point on this is that the entry came on a level playing field and within the rules as judged by the people who ran the competition. The AI as art theft question needs to play out on a different battlefield. The entry is great in all elements.
100% correct. So much bleating on this video about AI art is theft without knowing the second thing about it. If everything is influenced by what's come before then everything is theft, no matter if it was created with the help of a counter or not.
@@huwtindall7096 AI isn't influenced by what it's trained on. It steals the literal bits of what it's trained on. If I took the gun off his model, head from another, armour from a 3rd, etc and then mashed them into a good looking model, is that ok? Because that's literally what midjourney does.
Hey guys great podcast - What mics do you use please
?
Great insight into the world of GDs. Thanks!
Wasn't against the rules of the time. Just like the 3d printing aspect, the rules were changed after the fact. If GW does not want it, they will now change the rules.
Also, kudos that he never hid the fact and was open about it. Like he said, you push the rules until they make a definition. If anything this will force them to make a decision.
Rule 3.3 has been there for ages in the terms and conditions.
@@RichardReads but he did paint it, he's not submitting on another's behalf. And per UK law, he did create and own the image. Does printing it and painting on it qualify? According to the judges, this time, it did. But it does mean that GW needs to reexamine and consider changes to the rules if they don't want these tools utilized in the future. Otherwise, people will use them just as they do with 3d printing.
@@chicagohobbyhero By UK law he has ownership of the image, not evidence of creating it
He literally stated he didn’t tell the judges because ‘Why would I tell them that it’s AI? People don’t tell the judges what red paint they’ve used!’ and then later said that he took a risk as he also thought the miniature would be disqualified if the judges knew it was AI. He wasn’t open about it at all, he deliberately omitted information because he knew it would potentially disqualify him.
@@chicagohobbyherounder US law he does not own it. Adepticon was in the US.
I think there’s a place for AI in backdrops - generating ideas/concepts/inspiration for painting your own. Sort of like brainstorming your background with a lot of artists
o7. My heart with you and his family and friends at this tough time.