IF EVERYONE IS AN ARTIST THEN NO ONE IS! Ep. 233 - AI ART 001
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 гру 2022
- AI ‘ART’ is a burning topic right now and is incredibly disruptive, problematic, inspiring, and creative all at once. And in this Solo Episode, your host, Ash Thorp, shares his current thoughts on this topic and the implications on the industry and creativity as a whole!
Also available on your favorite podcast platforms
www.thecollectivepodcast.com/...
Ash's Links
www.altcinc.com/
/ ashthorp1
/ ashthorp
Follow The Collective Podcast
/ thecpodcast
/ thecollectivepod
www.thecollectivepodcast.com/ - Фільми й анімація
/imagine: How many subs can we reach? The one and only true AI is the Algorithm! So be sure to subscribe, like, share and tell your friends!
I have been trying out both MidJourney and StableDiffusion over the last few months, both doing images with promps and by turning my own images and sketches into something else, and It has caused me severe depression on a scale I have not experienced before. It's the most soulless and pointless kind of "art" I have ever experienced. There is no craftsmanship, there is no creativity, there is no journey. It's essentially just a button to create an image. As I see it, it is the end of human creativity. And the take over of artificial intelligence doing everything for us. Even the things that used to give us joy. It's just the first step in this race of hyper consumerism where eventually humans won't be doing anything except consuming. The idea that humans will work alongside the AI is kind of silly and short sighted. My biggest hope is that we do like sports, and separate the machine from the game, and humans cannot compete against it.
" have been trying out both MidJourney and StableDiffusion over the last few months, both doing images with promps and by turning my own images and sketches into something else, and It has caused me severe depression on a scale I have not experienced before. It's the most soulless and pointless kind of "art" I have ever experienced. "
Sounds like that's what you want to see is as you put it,
"It's just the first step in this race of hyper consumerism where eventually humans won't be doing anything except consuming. The idea that humans will work alongside the AI is kind of silly and short sighted."
You put in the prompt, now its holding up a mirror to your lack of creativity and its crushing.
You were never creative enough for this career in the first place, the good news is labor jobs may be harder to replace than art/intellectual jobs, so grab a shovel.
Nice video optimistic , but i cant help but being on the team "kill it while it is a baby " .
Lol epic Luddite take. The defamation is slowly becoming threats. You guys still think you're the ethical ones?
Oh noes a competitor did something better than you. Better accuse them for theft, yet show zero evidence of this.
Now the baby murder threats.
Regarding your closing statement about knowing what is true to you. What if the reason someone became an artist is because they love to draw and paint, or they do love to sculpt/model, be deep in the process. A huge amount of people are in that category, and if you take that away and need to become essentially an art director for AI, it removes almost everything about why they wanted to do this in the first place.
I think it's hard to understand for ones who are purely about the creativity and tools have always just been a means to an end, to really empathise with artists who are deeply connected to the process itself as being part of that creative expression.
It's the same pain I'm sure was felt by painters when computers came around and everything went digital. And again felt by painters when photo bashing became such a thing. This is another of those steps, but removing so much more of the process than ever before.
Not that it changes anything, just some extra perspective on why so many people are so deeply distraught by this.
companies will gladly replace the art directors, too. So there really is no need to specialize in art in any way whatsoever. That is, as long as these datasets the tech bros are using to make their money off of keep including copyrighted artwork, aka stealing.
"It's the same pain I'm sure was felt by painters when computers came around and everything went digital."
I'd have to say this is an errored argument due to the fact that digital simply became a new medium, not a shortcut. Creators still have to physically perform and create with their hands, they just no longer had to source substrates or materials, no longer have to mix colors to work with - every color is immediately available. Photoshop, Clip Studio, etc. do not instantly present a new piece of work after the operator opens a new artboard, choses a color palette, and selects the paint brush. There is still an actual level of physical input required.
These AI bots should be looked at more like the designer/artist being DIRECTED by creators word prompts - EXACTLY what you would get from an art or creative DIRECTOR, they are not the artist. Users are creating requests that they are not responsible for creating, they are asking for a wish that the AI bot genie tries its best to grant with the collected dataset it references. Users are NOT creating anything. This leads to another path to laziness and will eventually shift to more people wanting more for doing less.
@@SUITE76 I agree. What I said was an understatement. I should've said 'similar' because this is much more impactful. It also assumes an artist adapting into the role of using AI prompting as a big part of their job. Rather than the inevitable many who will likely use their jobs regardless of how fervently they adopt the new tech.
@@SimonC021 for sure to all of this thread. And chatgpt or similar will soon just write the most popular movie script or game design based on what is popular and provide detailed prompts to generate the actual movie or code for the game. Concept artist are just the first in line to get slaughtered.
Most people don't respect art and so don't invest in it. It's like a relationship if you value a relationship you will invest in it. Ai art is art but I feel those who enjoy it while it's fun are lazy to invest in the process of drawing and knowing it's fundamentals which is sad.
its not a tool, its a replacement.
I think you are still way to positive on this subject. The creative class will be very reduced and replaced with curation. Asking AI for an image via a promt is similar to ordering an artwork or selecting an artwork from a collection. Why would anyone try to learn to draw or paint except as a hobby? When the AI art was still somewhat bad last spring it was a fun and useful tool to make assets but with the latest developments it can already totally replace artist as long as the AI customer/promter know what he wants. And honestly, you don’t even have to know much about what you want even. Just use chatGPT to give you some ideas for promts based on a single word. Use the learnsquared brief builder, then feed that to ChatGPT and finally mid journey. And this is now. What about in a year? 5? It is totally malicious and soul sucking shit that will rid us of purpose to live. Also, from now on , who can ever guarantee that they had an idea of their own? Wrote an original text?
Have you tried using Stable Diffusion? It takes a lot of work refining, changing prompts, and checking seeds to get a decent image. Much longer if you want a great image.
Most people look forward to that though. Life will be easier and more enjoyable.
@Yellow Brand The hell are you talking about?
@@owimze I said most people, not all artists. And there are artists that enjoy and find AI useful and that trend will only continue until most artists use it. And what price will we be paying? The price of products being cheaper and easier to make? You're also ignoring that coders, your "techbros" are going to be replaced by AI as well.
The analogy about video games is so stupid too. I wouldn't have the AI play for me, I would have it play against me and that would be very fun. But in reality AI is much superior to artists or video gamers since it's a computer so what you said doesn't work either way.
I use AI to create art and I enjoy that. It's free too.
@@owimze Again, I was talking about most people not most artists and I'm sorry to say but much of the creation of art is a chore. I don't know what kind of artist you're pretending to be to argue otherwise. Making your craft easier should never a bad thing and because of that, people will learn to create AI art as many have been. Or they'll do tadeonal art. It's just another medium that is more accessible and arguably has a higher quality than most human art does.
And ... what? Consumerism has its hooks in me because I think cheaper goods are good? What the hell? Are you upset and arguing that when people like you lose your job the quality of art will decrease because it's easier to make? If so I doubt that. You're clearly a bigot and a luddite, I highly doubt you have decent taste lol. I won't miss you and AI art has already become more interesting to me than most "traditional" modern digital art.
Answer: I do not care a bit. A computer has been taught to draw by giving it tagged examples of anything you want. Whether that is a photograph of some bugs, an artist's works, or simply random images. It will learn to draw and attempt to draw what you tell it to. Crying about this just makes you look like a fool and you will eventually get over it and laugh at how stupid you were acting.
I would be OK with it if wasn't for the blatant image scraping of copyrighted work.
But the Ai bros will only learn after their stuff also get scrapped and then it gonna be too late for everyone.
This isn't a tool, it's a replacement. Comercial art is dead.
100% with you on this. It's basically an art-directable random seed with the added bonus of clarifying your intention to the machine. Plus the ethical problem that's also in remixing. PLUS the bonus of getting rid of the "creation process p*rn" you mentioned.
Edit: srsly, go watch ash's and maciej's episodes with Steven. Super good ones, with lots of perspective beyond the scope of art.
Good episode but Ash you didn't address the main issues people have with it. Is it ethical that people's art has been fed to the algorithm without their consent? and now the algorithm uses their art to make images.
Or what about the fact that every time you use it you are also training the machine?
@28:27 I think it's worth pointing out that there is actual art theft going on within the AI art space. It's not just people saying "In the style of X dead guy's art". There is now an implementation of Google's Dreambooth into Stable Diffusion where you can train a version of the SD AI on a specific artist's full body of work, creating a custom model you can run on your localized installation to essentially replicate that artists work with text prompts of your choosing. And in that case, you're not only skipping the 10,000 hours, you're standing on the shoulders of someone's 10,000 hours to take money right out of their pocket.
This is so true. The catch here is that anyone who does that and sells the resulting artwork has no copyright claim on the output image as US copyright law states that the produced work cannot just be made by “machine” and must have significant human involvement in the resulting product for it to be a copyright. So everyone’s “AI Art” is up for grabs. As soon as someone makes money off of someone else’s “AI Art” and wants to defend the copyright in court, they will probably lose. So one solution to fight against it is to sell other peoples “AI Art” and let the chips fall. It will force the legal issue forward.
Please someone rip me off. I want to see what you can make. It won't change my bookings or day rate whatsoever.
Not theft.
Try comprehending the law better.
What makes you think that people have to buy your lower quality higher priced images.
Just because of this pretentious monopoly.
You guys got a real case of superiority complex where you think you're special.
If you can't think of where to go from here, you weren't as creative as you thought you were.
Selling art was always a risky career.
Using survival bias to speak from a moral high ground. When the reality is it's just some luck mixed with the "skill" that is just time spent practicing.
We all could have practiced juggling for endless hours until we were good enough to become clowns. But most people have life obligations, or a valid concern that maybe a juggling act would be hard to depend on. But yeah let's listen to the clowns try and tell us that their risky choice is fundamental and that the rest of us should keep paying for their juggling acts.
When you lose the class action lawsuits I doubt you will honor it.
A Tool's Purpose is to solve Problem and brings ease to the user. Since when did any artist complained or raised a problem about picture generation that this tool as a solution has been forcefully flooded upon us(the artists). Yes we did had problems like UV unwrapping , autoretop etc. This A.I. Tool and its unethical data scraping and remixing had definitely left a scratch on every artist's heart 💔. Ash Thorp and many other artist are saying to embrace this tool, we all would have to unfortunately but Why this tech is flooded upon the artists, why not musicians. Dare them to scrape music from top artist all around the world and create a A.I. based Music generation tool, Which is totally possible but the Companies behind A.I. tech are smart and aware of what they can dominate and exploit !!
When the tool is literally stealing from you and not returning the profits to the space then fuck off
yep ur totally right
Here's my thoughts.
"Artificial intelligence" is giving it too much credit.
There is no intelligence involved, otherwise it would be aware of how many limbs/digits people have. It has no intellect unless if intellect means a very clever way to present a statistical model.
It takes vast amounts of prior work (from whom didn't necessarily give permission) and squirts it through something that tries to make something coherent or aesthetically pleasing out of it, by statistical example. It only produces aesthetically pleasing results because that is what was put in, not because it has intelligence or creativity. We can argue that its a very sophisticated method to plagiarize the inputs.
It has value as a TOOL, as in, a means to spinoff our own ideas, youtubers to generate thumbnails, texture completion, object removal, up-rezing etc etc. I'm happy to use it in that context in my daily work (CGI artist for 23y).
In my opinion this stuff has zero value in its own right. I would never pay for "art" where the input was a prompt. Why would I when I alone could find a few minutes to type a few lines of text then click through a genetic algorithm until I find something I like.
In terms of intellectual value from the 'prompter` I see it as a kind of reverse astrology, except that instead of the text directly provoking a thought where the reader accidentally finds something in to connect with, it produces a visual derivative of it, which may then produce a reaction in the viewer to accidentally connect with. So there you go, I assign equal value as I do to astrology...
What will it look like when the product of a statistical model is so prolific that it becomes the biggest contributor to its own inputs? I dont think this is a feedback loop that will end well for it.
Art has to add into the system, not consume/recycle.
About the speed of creation. if you cant assign it intellectual value then the speed is irrelevant.
Promoting this will increase the value of the artist elite, while hurting the beginner artist, thereby reducing the pool of elite artists that "make it" over time.
Finally, in case you think I'm some anti machine activist. When, and I really mean when, true machine Intelligence/Creativity happens, as in not requiring petabytes of examples, and therefore produce something truly original/creative, then this is something that would actually consider recognizing as Art. Even if whatever it comes up with does not connect with humans at all. As in only itself or other Ai's would be able to appreciate it.
I wished OpenAI companies would be more transparent from where there getting the data and they should have made some form of "watermark" if you as an artist can choose if your image is used as training material or not. Major headache would be the issue of copyright - in the new AI world this concept of owning a piece of art is over if you let the AI create an image. Many, many things to figure out... I just hope our human brain is still up to the task and not overwhelmed by the noise of billions of generated pictures.
They don't want to get sued is the main reason.
I’m an idiot but I have a feeling NFTs or some kind of digital encryption will be used to protect creative rights in the future. I obviously have no idea how but your comment made me have this thought
The ai doesn't create a image by itself.
You guys don't understand copyright law. It also shows you don't understand the tech either.
If your image was used as training material and you think it's theft. Then show us the evidence.
The class action lawsuit still has none.
The spiral argument is absolutely hilarious.
Since the diffusion process its showing is not what the ai used.
The diffusion the spiral graphic is showing is just a integration that lead to it.
Which is still not theft. If you look closely at the the paper the spiral argument is made from. You can see that the spiral image is destroyed by noise.
If this spiral was copyright. If I paid a artist to draw a spiral who had never seen that before. Who gets sued?
If a artist seen a copyright image, and they are called into court and asked to draw it from a description of it or by naming it directly. Did you prove that all the work that artist makes is a derivative?
Thank you for your content! It inspires so much. Normally I listen to your podcast during my runs, and having something for the brain and the body really combine well. Only issue, I always want to get home as quickly as possible to start working on my things and be as creative and productive as you and your interviewed friends are. Just love the whole vibe in your talks.
Now this single episode is already 6 months old, and I would love to hear, maybe even in an AI Art 002 panel with others what you feel now. A gazillion of new products emerged on the market. Automatic skyboxes, canvas enlargings, video to NERF, NERF to 3D, NERF to autogenerate surroundings, AI old-to-new restoration, AI cg composite, AI smelling systems and now even good ol' McCartney (ab)uses Lennons voice to create a new song and calls it Beatles... a band with sould and heart (and prolly lots of third party influences) and thoughts goes somewhat soulless digital...
When I open my linkedin I am always a little hyped about all the new stuff which get shot out by a day to day basis, but then I lean back and SNAP I am back into negativity realm and an absolute downward spiral. Fear of the unknown.... or just fear of knowing the abussive mentality of people? Reading through comments really makes me think about naivety in some people and somewhat I cannot embrace everything as they can.
I am somewhat bewildered about the whole world in the sense of absolute new technology hits hard on very old thinking (political and value wise). Lots of thoughts throwing out...
And then during my runs and listening to this I am standing at the traffic light.... no cars are going, no one is driving, all lights are on red... now HERE AI might help wonders to have fluent driving...
I was looking forward for this special episode! thank you for sharing your thoughts in such honest and pure way. 🖤 See you soon mate.
It is sort of the height of irony that someone who likes AI Art would also be a fan of Cyber Punk when the whole point of Cyberpunk sort of ties into a Para Primitivist view of humanity and an inherent skepticism of Capitalism coupled with advanced technology.
I don't think its that people are offended , they are just afraid for their livelihood and that is where all the anger comes from. Anyhow I'm curious to know what Maciej thinks about all this, its nice of you to motivate him to do podcasts again.
Also I can totally understand the frustration people feel when they sacrificed years from their life mastering a field, only to see a huge part of it being handed out for free for everyone to do.
I might not agree with the rightfullness of those feelings. But I can totally understand how one might be feeling fooled, cheated or even robbed after this.
Hi Phantom, Just to have a persperctive from a life of dedication to art, and art teaching. I dedicated my whole life to study and make art and not just one kind of, since a child... im 40 now so maybe was around 30 years of my life since started studying... worked for brands like coke, nike, sketchfab... and a nice list of brands and aldo unknow brands and clients. Studied traditional oils, clay sculpture, analog photography, and eventually adopted digital tools and make a digital design carrer while working mostly on advertisemen and learned to play 27 musical instruments, to record edit and master, ive ben an FM operator and co host, and recorded locucions. But besides all the art in my life. I go mainly ruled by digital sculpture. I have an online school now, toke me 14 years of being an "employee professor" to make the jump to have my own school. Knowing all that driving a school 100% by myself implies being a "one solo man art and busynes". Now think of it for a while... its my whole life. Whatever I think, ok. If a machine can do sculpt, i can do paint, or music, or ah no... Nothing of what I learned. Now, a 10 years old (You dont need more age skill to type a prompt) comes and type 3... 5 or 20 words, boom! Just tanks to every digital artist in the world its being able to do that... Now that same person tells you. Hey, artists now go and find a real work. Thats insulting, thats offensive. So yes, "people" we are offended on this. Not by the tech itself, by on how it was feeded with no consent, and lets be clear they are profiting billions from our work, we in exchange are being bullyed, even the gratest artists on the industry are being harrased by the same users that calls theyre style on prompts and later asked to stop using theire names on the prompts. Creators of great art from things like Love death and robots, Star Wars, thor... are being bullyed after being stolen. So yeah, lets make a party and call this a great tool and that we are not offended. Couse it is a great tool! but with no ethics, or moral, or any kind of regulation, a tool based on thief by legal loophole we humans (Not only artists) we my be doomed. Just maybe. To close, I have a strong feeling that art will bne still valued and with in a long term there will be regulations. Meanwhlyle this is the wild west
Yeah, let's reject these old thinking and build a utopia.
We must seize the means of production and create a utopia where everyone can work on what they like.
Traditionalism is useless for the brain, we must rid of all literature and idols of past.
There might be times of resistance, but that is nothing we cannot solve with a couple of tanks.
@@markkocsicska2590 the issue is also that the artist's work is being used to feed the artist's replacement directly. there'd still be anger if the ai had been trained on public domain images but it wasn't, it used the art of living working artists.
I would like you to talk more about the pushback that mostly OG and other artists have had towards it. Esp the influential ones who don't want their art styles referenced in it. Miyazaki spoke against it so maybe if alot of the influential artists opt out (Its not a feature in most AI programs) then it won't have much to feed on.
Otherwise great topic!
This doesn't change anything. What happens with a copyright free training data, is they look the same. Just the tags change.
Language is complex enough to describe a style..
Plus people could still give prompts to the AI to create derivative works.
If I hire someone who never seen a Nintendo character, to create a cartoon man with a mustache, red hat with a m logo. Red shirt, white gloves, blue coveralls and brown boots jumping off a turtle.
The artist doesn't need to even see a copyright works to create a derivative.
This is how poorly your understanding is on the subject.
To think it won't have much to feed on is silly. How many of you copy each other calling it fan art or inspiration.
Do you honestly think that the entire historical art public domain, artists who like ai art and all the open source data available is tiny. You guys realise you are even in a minority in your own industry. I see far more popular artists using the tools than the ones not.
To think your art style that you stole is yours and that it's so far ahead of anything else that you would be immune to style capture is tragic.
There are entire countries with zero copyright law because they are socialists.
Even places that do have copyright it doesn't apply across jurisdictions. This is how Disney could steal kimba the lion 1to1. It is first come first serve. Lion king was first in USA. Hunger Games is another clear case of this.
You guys need to stop showing you have a grade school understanding of this.
29:50 - its not a thin line, is straight up theft, because the artist that get their art used to train the AI that will replace them dont even get a say in the matter. They may not even know this exists.
Also worse than mimicking the style of a dead artist( which happened to Kim Jung gi not even a week bbefore his death and was straight up disrespectfull) is the mimicking of ALIVE artists, because this has direct negative impact in their income, as it implies people can 'commission' them basically for free.
45:00 ah there we have he said it. Again with this BS that well use the AI art as ''tool' to make art. No dude this is straight up replacement. Why would someone pay you to work over an AI image when they can not pay you and just get whatever they want straight from the AI?
There's already people in the comments doing just that.
i think the point you bring up about people being creative has the fundamental truth to it, some people like to create and stop because they lack skill to have a pretty picture by the end of the process.
But creativity isnt about the endresult so why would it now be enabling people to be creative? ^^
Thanks for sharing your viewpoint Ash. You have some great and important points for thought and discussion. Especially right now as the artistic landscape is changing so rapidly with these new tools. Looking forward to seeing how we can embrace and grow with it & share our human experiences on a deeper level artistically.
wonderful ! thank you. could fly for hours listening to your thought process analyze sharing emotional and intellectual vibes articulated. going north, south, dipping the topics in humor, and then super deep darkness and bim rising above the clouds, the atmosphere contemplating the universe. really awesome !!! pure awesoness melting into the brain !!! hahaha !!
I don't think everything needs to be accessible to everyone when it comes to certain skills that require years and years to master. The beauty of it is that you have to reach out and grab it yourself instead of someone to bring ot down to you in the lap. This "reach out" is quite an effort and a process which prunes cerain kind of people to never get in, so the industry and art community has distinct almost family feeling to it and understanding among each other and at the end higher value too.
In general i feel like at this point there is a ton of people getting in for the quick money and ride the hype wave without the care of anyone or anything. Eventually i can see or hope this will not last and the same way many got in they will also bounce out once they see the art as craft is a skill improved over the years, to develop the eye for it and certain taste for it and to be able to direct it in certain ways, etc. Like for example, what would most of these so called prompt artist say when you tell them something like, hey, it is all fun and games now for a month or two but is this something you can do for the next 15-20 years? I see it currently as such empty way of making artwork almost as siting on same factory line (AI service) and do same thing and moves over and over again (writing prompts).
Hopefully at some point bunch of garbage people will bounce out and we can then use AI in more meaningful ways.
Yeah Buddy!! Cool bike back there! 😉
Yes perhaps I should hurry to be an early adapter. While the ocean of AI content sludge is not too overwhelming. On my way to watch videos of the earliest adpaters, who see no problem AI models are built on artists backs, and who are glad to make money, while the stuff is still worth anything.
Thank you. I love it. Great episode Ash.
I'm an artist that has put countless hours into honing my craft, and I'll share my perspective with you.
Art is about expression. It's a way of connecting with others in a very creative and intimate way. So to have it automated is disgusting and inhuman. A crime against humanity. It's unethical. It's destructive to the lives and dreams of creative people, and it's completely undermining entire lifestyles. It's demeaning to see how little people care about artists, but this was a great way to see how little society values art and artists.
That's my two cents.
They value artists so little, and yet art touches pretty much everything. :(
An excellent, and riveting, video essay. Thank you.
I find this podcast pretty hollow except few points, but it is what it is.
Agreed on the "process pr0n" Don't get it twisted, I love the wealth of information/lack of gatekeeping
we enjoy in the current era. But the constant refrain of "tutorial plZ nOw!" on every IG post and YT video
got old...fast. Some of us remember having to reverse engineer this sh*t, or engineer it from whole cloth, so to speak.
Your thoughts on the actualization of Artists Who Might Have Been and Now Can Be...spot on. There's an undercurrent
of elitism fueling all this hand-wringing and tooth gnashing. While I too can somewhat sympathize to some extent all this
wailing about "it's the death of art!" started irking the sh*t out of me about 5 minutes in. The modern eras' worst contribution
to Art was the air of it being so GD precious. Art is a skill as much as anything. Being good at it makes you interesting, but it
doesn't make you special. The people that believe this also wait around "to be inspired" rather than just getting to work. Well good
news; these tools are literally Inspiration Machines. Soulless? Hardly. I've seen some amazing concepts springing from peoples
imaginations, and soulless is not a word that enters my mind when I see them.
Here's a hot take; it's the death of *mediocrity.* A significant number of you, and you know who you are, are coasting. You've seen
what it takes to really stand apart in this game, stared it in its face...and blinked. So yes, for people like you...this is probably
the end. Because instead of striving for excellence, or trying to seek new and different persepctives on how these emergent technologies
can up/change/evolve your game...your throwing your hands in the air and declaring the world to be over. The rest of us can see the
potential, and recognize this to be the *beginning* of a new world.
The ethics..tricky (what isn't these days?). I'm not letting it dampen my enthusiasm, but it is on my mind. Stealing from the dead though?
Hmm...f*ck off. The morality of what the ultra-wealthy are doing with/to art is far more concerning/galling to me than anything being done
with AI. As for current artsists, again, on my mind. I do know that the most prominent models are moving towards methods/algorithms that
don't rely on any one specific style of a specific artist, so clearly they're thinking about it too. I will say...the rights to the art you
create ultimately (IMHO) belong to you (or whoever you license it to), but your style? Nope. If that were true the number of comic artists alone
would be waaaay less than what we've had. Styles inform styles, much flavor will be chomped, deal with it.
These are some of my current thoughts as well, and I'm sure they'll make people mad, but hopefully they'll make some of you to think.
Apologies for the Blog Post length.
hey, ai bro, your ass is on fire, get some water
thanks for sharing, within a year ai already shaken almost all industries (don't forget about chat gpt too). I'm still doing my art commission job as my career but slowly shifting to another job. Thinking to change from a professional to a hobbyist artist. Praying this will be smooth transition
True artists are deeply connected to the process of crafting and the reward when the work is done.
Taking that away is basically destroying the soul, destroying the connection and leaves us empty…
Ppl who aren’t artists will play for a bit and then they will leave the toy.
True artists should find a way to integrate Ai as a tool, define their style, own it. And shouldn’t be demoralized by the amount of work that gets created on a second basis.
Ai is replacing so many jobs not only artists. That’s fine. Maybe time to go back to physically created art.. like paintings.
A printed painting is still way cheaper than authentic one!
Thank you so much for making this video. I love how you articulated so well many of the thoughts I have been dealing with. A bright future comes for us artist. This is not a threat to us this is empowering. I hope tha sooner than latter small teams of people will be able to make art that reaches millions without having to spend millions of dollars like nowadays blockbuster movies. I imagine a day where 5 people can tell something very deep and truth to themselves.
lol as someone that actually does oil painting and drawing I'll pass. Not my cup tea but to each his own. The images are nice but they're just digital images. That already existed. I was never interested in doing digital art, so this won't change it. Digital artists will be affected but the truly good ones will be just fine. I remember when instant websites became a thing and people cried about programmers losing jobs. Programming is still in demand. Good website developers are still in demand. Painting has supposedly been dying for 150yrs. Art is still being sold for millions for dead artists and thousands for alive artists. People have varied tastes, and most will purchase what interest them. Artists will be fine, especially the truly good ones. What will increase is art fraud and the art world will have to put in additional methods to identify real from replicas. I mean from the moment companies think it's okay for their AI to steal artists' work we have a problem. However, if companies can remove the stealing aspect, I can see this becoming a new medium of expression for a new wave of digital artists.
Killer talk as always!!
I have enjoyed listening to your thoughts on the subject.
I'm no expert in this but people are overly optimistic about this technology in the future. It is impressive what it can do right now but highly-detailed 3D scenes might not be a possibility in the near future simply because it requires an excessive amount of computing power to create them. Moore's Law is no longer true and every new generation of GPUs for example becomes bigger and power hungry than a previous one. We might reach a plateau very soon unless there's a breakthrough in technology, like a quantum computer.
Looking at Google it seems that the consensus is that Moore's law still holds true
also, the perspectives in this video are from almost a month ago, which I'm glad is visible in the dates put into the video. But probably should've mentioned that in the audio too, as so much has happened in the last month.
34:20 All the art tools that existed to this moment were made for the creative mind. dumb. These AI were created for lazy-ass corporations
I disagree on the process view. There might be frustration there. But there is also control and intention. But great talk.
42:50 comparing it to google search was the most reasonable thing is this video up to now, props
interprtating the world through our own individual eyes to create something specific, will definitely be something that's hard to recreate. Would hell boy look the way it looks without the individuals human eye. Do you want to see through your eyes, or the a.i. eyes.
While I do try to force myself to be happy for people being able to express themselves that is also the one point that I really am not excited about. The sheer endless amount of content that is gonna be created. It is gonna be that much harder to find something unique or interesting imo. Everything will just be very samey i think. And with samey I don't mean it won't be high quality. But even high quality content can be exhausting if there is too much of it. How will we be able to distinguish between good and bad art anymore?
If all artwork will all of a sudden look freaking amazing with no more technical faults in it, I don't think even images/animations/whatever with good ideas will not stand out anymore. There will be simply too much. And to be honest even ideas are gonna get created by ai's and not humans at some point.
So yeah, not a fan of all of this in general. You do make interesting points though
Another way to put it is under the law of offer and demand; if the amount of great visual work reach infinite, will anyone still be interested? None of it will be rare or exciting anymore… maybe then we will look for something else.
@@andreutaberner8175 Great point, I keep going back to: What I look for in amazing art is it's uniqueness, a different point of view.
Maybe like random seeds combined with prompts this is infinite
Another way to look at it. Commercial art is being replaced by AI because that is the point of commercial art, you need to dish out a lot of high quality results within a small period of time. Traditional art is back in popularity because it is not cost efficient to build a robot to make traditional art. just like hand crafted bags are more expensive because people prefer hand made stuff sometimes.
so i have been thinking on this podcast as I saw it last night. And I guess one point you made somewhere in the middle i find interesting. You said that people were simple and that they choose the unoriginal option sometimes in a prompt or an artwork. like cyberpunk. and yeah, that's probably true.
But maybe it's in part because we don't have endless things and symbols to express ourselves. That there is a limit. And by using AI we will likely hit that limit sooner and thus tire out more and more things that maybe once were interesting? (For instance in movies we are more or less currently tired of Zombie movies. Not that there are no great zombie movie ideas, but there are fewer as many have been explored already.)
Either way we are all entering into something very different now. And the people who are at most risk are people who are not yet quite in the art world, they are trying but haven't made it I would think.
Hi Ash, could you speak to the thousands of artists who simply are fighting to make a living. How will this affect their ability to generate money ?
What would you say to cashiers who have lost their jobs to kiosks, or factory workers who have lost their jobs to robots, or medieval scribes who lost their jobs to the printing press? What will you say to 3 million truck drivers who are likely to lose their jobs to automation in the next 5-15 years? Whatever you would say to them, say that to artists.
@@lendrick just getting back to you on this. In the time since my comment it has now been revealed that these AI image generators scrape art from internet sites to use in their database to create their images. Know this there is now thought of creation without us artists. So its Stealing, its theft if they are not directly compensating us. There will be jobs that are replaced. but the cost is too high in my opinion.
@@lendrick so homeless starvation ... try having more empathy
@@mf-- Don't lecture me about empathy. People's jobs have been being automated away for years now, and if all these people flipping out about AI art cared about it when it was happening to other people as much as they care about it now that it's happening to them, then we'd have been having this conversation at this same intensity for years.
The economy needs to change. We don't need to smash the machines.
@@lendrick the machines aren't going to kiss you, dude. you don't need to defend them so hard.
Very cool insight!
We always had templates and yet most of us did our stuff, even if it was as simple as type animation.
We always had presents but we rarely if not ever used them.
Will we have people that will use AI nonstop and get some short fame from it... absolutely, but they will all have the same fate as people that followed a particular style and they got out of business soon as that style went away.
Wasn't the main reason we do our own type animations that templates are generic and we want something unique?
With AI, down the line, you get a random seed and an infinity of unique animations -automatically
@@rareviz I think that is a very valid point, but I also believe that we always did the hardest things to satisfy our community rather than the general public.
Also, as it is right now I won't call those AI-generated images unique. They are advanced kitbashing at best. All those images are generated on top of other images/styles that humans created for centuries. Without human input and creativity, AI will give you nothing.
@@RidvanMaloku Agreed.
The issue is that this advanced kitbashing is more than good enough to pass for excellent for the general public, and for us too if we are honest and not colored by knowing that we are looking at AI art.
I heard one point of view that said: "we find out what we truly valued all along, when the output gets 100% automated", with an example of how we still go to clubs and listen to DJs even though DJing is automatable
finally someone who puts things into perspective. we are relating a lot to this.
3D is definitely happening with Scenario.
I have no interest in using software based on stolen assets.
Around day 45 I found out how uncreative I really am.
Hey Ash, you mentioned not having found any artist's perspective on AI, I suggest taking a look at Steven Zapata's video on it. I think he articulates the main points well ua-cam.com/video/tjSxFAGP9Ss/v-deo.html
I've watched this one too when it came out but felt way more connected to ash's thought process.
This is great, thank you! I think all of the concerns herein are valid.
Steven Zapata's video is the most concise I've found on this topic. I studied traditional 2d animation, became a 3d animator, I worked in VFX for years and do concept and storyboards nowadays for Hollywood productions, I've been interested in every new software or tool I could get my hands on. Initially Ai generators was an interesting way of getting something I might paint over, but when MJ v4 dropped I realize that its not really a tool, its the full pakage. Type [Barbarian concept art Greg Rutkowski] and you are 98% done. Now its not my taste, but I can see how a lot of clients will say "wow, good enough". I have artist friends in a large studio facing redundancies, while their managers will be generating the material, and keeping a reduced staff of artists on the payroll to just fix the hands. While the foundation of the tech is based on the datasets LAION gathered as non-profit, to pass onto for-profit Ai training. Here is another great video trying to take a neutral stance and evaluating from there: ua-cam.com/video/uuTlcApanHY/v-deo.html&lc=UgyhouNAoYgB-d1qS-d4AaABAg.9jprCFWOnVR9jsVdeGW2Z3
I really liked the episodes by ash and maciej with Steven. Super valid points that are even more important beyond the scope of art.
when everyone transitions to Ai art i will become a traditional artist
This wont save you, AI software will be combined with a printer who paints. You guys are too stupid and naive.
I could get behind this technology if it assisted in creating directly from a creator's brain - a type of mind projection, cognitive assistant, something that helps a creator build something from directly within themselves. IE: I have an image, design, character, pattern, gown, etc fully developed in my thoughts - with a headset or other input device, said idea can be projected - those mental waves - into a device that assists in fleshing out the concept to a visual forum, a 3D print, etc. This would be useful.
Creating a prompt for 'salamander ninja army fighting a commando allosaurus in a taiwanese jungle in the style of Georges Seurat" is no different than ordering a pizza from Dominos. In a realistic and rational reality everyone would know that pizza was made by someone else's hands, not the person who ordered it.
AI is not something to be feared, but it should be scrutinized and fully vetted. Anyone utilizing it for anything other than knockoff big box store wall art, trapper keeper skins, or as a low to mid tier assistant to further develop a jumping off point - not as a ways and means to create the entirety of a portfolio or commercial endeavors - should have their scruples questioned. We've all arrived at a point where deep soul searching is necessary.
When all of this gets regulated, you could imagine training a model on your past work, effectively getting what you are describing to begin with there.
"We've all arrived at a point where deep soul searching is necessary." indeed, and maybe it's not too bad that we are one of the first industries that get to do that - like a headstart ahead of most other professions
@@rareviz "... you could imagine training a model on your past work, effectively getting what you are describing to begin with there."
I understand where you are coming from here, but with these types of softwares this approach would only create an echo chamber in essentially recycling previous works if there are no resources of everything else that occurs naturally or otherwise in the world - basically, you could never develop past what it has been trained on. Nothing "new" or nothing that the machine hasn't already seen cannot grow from such a grossly limiting practice, but derivatives of those resource works or perhaps a styling template would possibly be the extent of this. It wouldn't be predictive nor would it be telepathically/telekinetically driven, which is what would truly change the game - something we will most likely never see in our lifetimes.
@@SUITE76 Good points all around, I see what you are saying.
I guess the argument becomes: is infinitely random AI guided by human preference, reinforced 100000x times more or less "creative" than humans.
I can see why you lean to the side of no.
Yeah we got an excavator instead of our shovel, so it's time to create a whole jungle instead of our small garden. We will visit each others worlds, filled with millions of assets and dozens of stories. Don't focus on small pictures, just because we have a small picture frame in our pocket.
If you follow Maciej's art, there hasn't been much painting in concept art for a decade.
24:00 dont you think people will actually become less creative when theiy stop developing the ideas of pictures in their head and let the AI do it?
Absolutely, are people better with directions now that gps’s came out. Just another invention to dull the natural human senses. Did we find cars in caves, or paintings?
@@gonks7071 True, we are the dumbest we have ever been and yet so conceited, we think we are so much smarter than our ancestors.
All the knowledge is fake, the truth is, we cant do basic stuff, like growing our own food and building a house. We give all the work to others and become increasingly more dependent on things that we have no control of, the usage of machines is constantly making us loose capacities. I can have all my info stored on my cellphone, so i have no necessity to develop memory. My memory sucks!!! I forget what im talking about mid-phrase.
And now is imagination. This is the last straw for me, i wont take it. Everyone else can deceive themselves thinking theyre creative by using "machine imagination" but ill never accept this, because i think imagination is connection to god.
@@weeecalango2761 this! preach my man.
interesting perspective on style, but for beginners who do "art" by using ai, how do they develop taste and style by failing? It's just gonna be "stunning" at the very beginning. I wonder how ai trains our eyes or taste, cos our technology explodes, but our brain will always be somewhat primitive from certain perspective. Simple as TikTok could already cause great impact on human behavior. If we have to looking at it as a tool, it's a tool that is way too powerful, at least for people who don't have a clear vision. I think it's quite normal for people not having a clear vision. Our brains are mysterious and beautiful, but I don't think it's that powerful, lots of things can defeat or deceive it, especially in this crazy time. So interesting, so crazy.
and as far as I know, the dataset of Dalle is somewhat ethic and it clear isn't provoking these much of anger and grimes. What we have now is just a such bad start. Looking at this as a personal use is surely exciting, but it's really hard to be optimistic when thinking about how it's gonna develop in society. Either way, we have no choice but to grow with technology...
thanks for sharing your thoughts, always nice to hear things from different perspective, podcast is such a nice media.
38:00 not really surpassed us, you cant make exactly what comes to mind, youre litterally letting other creature make the art, so thats why you cant be an artist if you work with AI. The AI is dumb in many ways, like if you ask for a salmon in a river and it draws a cooked salmon in the river. The AI has no sense of context of human life and also no sense of storytelling.
Of course its faster and if you want p0r* pictures of pretty girls you can have 10000000 of them per minute, but whats the value of this really. We know it was made with the press of a button.
No offense meant: Completely dishonest take. Of course influencers that sell courses are always the least honest because they dont want to scare away from buying their design courses and wares. This tech is going to crush the design industry as a way of living for a huge professional chunk.
While it's true that most of the things coming out from AI are aiming to be aesthetically pleasing, I've already seen numerous original and extremely thought provoking concepts that may not have been made without it.
As you mentioned, the market of simply aesthetically pleasing images (such as images of beautiful women, scenery, cars, etc) will be inflated. So art will have to find a way to come up with new and interesting concepts that mirror people's experiences in a way the viewer never thought about. The art will shift more towards the overall intent and meaning behind the image rather than the technical aspects of it's quality.
Also I can't really agree on something having more value to the individual if they cannot do it themself. Sure, when measured by money it is true. But I believe you don't have to be unable to do something to value it when it comes from someone else. Many programmers could program software themself, yet they value ideas they could make just never thought about. Maker communities are the same, there are many open source designs you could easily replicate with very little know-how, but you are thankful because someone actually came up with it and made it. And I see the same with AI art. Due to the ease of it, you no longer have to restrict yourself to spending time only on things that would look good in your portfolio. You can experiment with new ideas that you might not want to include in a portfolio meant for a professional enviroment. Before that anything not applicable would mean you take away time from projects that would actually contribute to your employment and financial stability. Now if you have some crazy idea to express yourself, you can just experiment with it without sacrificing meaningful time you could have spent on advancing your carreer.
This is surely a game changer.
Show notes? 😔
don't think there are official ones, but the app Snipd does AI transcripts (haha) for free and is pretty great at it, (uses OpenAI's Whisper)
Art is a human activity. A sunset’s beautiful, but it’s not art. Neither is AI.
Since when did you become so apologetic? stop apologizing for having an opinion outside the norm.
pretty depressing.
Great episode Ash. Food for thought!
AI is currently in 2d state..wait until it enters 3d, especially when it is capable of doing motiongraphic! Let's see who's willing to adapt. lol... This so called tool is designed to lower your value as a creative individual. Now we have chat GPT, I am looking forward for AI Art Directors in the future! See you in the streets!
3D asset generators and video generators are already underway. The future is dark.
A million people could paint and draw during the Renaissance, but only a few were great artists. Digital art made a million people that can draw, think they are artists. You aren't, you never were. Ai art has simply exposed the grift. There are only a few hundred actual artists at any given time.
I guess your extrapolation from ideas jotted down from your iPhone is nice, I was expecting you to dig way deeper into the actual benefits of ai and Midjourney.. maybe I’m seeing something that not many can. A visual library bigger than any conceived and resource we can creatively draw from anytime, not bound by Pinterest inability to display images bigger than a post stamp and littered with ads. You do hit a good note about this wave is bigger than any we have seen. I hope you can side step the negativity and backlash and delve into the human mechanics of Ai.
Please stop calling AI generated images art. People who use these programs are not artists. Its ironic that these programs only exist because of real artists work
If everyone is a human then no one is.
Terrible logic it seems to me.
"Human" is already the entire category of "everyone" so your example is not equivalent.
Artist quoted me 300$ for a full sized digital art, now I make the same art I was envisioning on my pc, and it costs me only electricity. Art commissions will be dead within 5 years or will be so cheap they will be available to the wide variety of people.
And this is good?
@@AironyAi yep it's GREAT, i get my art and i paid like a dollar for electricity. No more paying 300$ for a freaking picture.
ART was a luxury, but now it's pretty much democratized. instead of pushing back artist will have to adapt and incorporate AI in to their commission workflow to lessen the time involved to just fixing the AI output.
Don't you understand? Volume of commissions will go UP if you can churn out like 5 commissions in an hour for 30 bucks a pop without even breaking a sweat.
Cat's are out of the bag now, there is NO way back. Stable Diffusion is free, relatively cheap to run, and can be trained by ANYONE on ANYTHING. Artists can only adapt.
Isn't this basically fast art?...as while i understand the cool factor of look at this thing it generated it looks awesome. However you arent necessarily paying 300 just for a finished product..instead you are paying for the process and time it took to make it and the value of their skills.
@@imanispence9795 I don't care I pay for finished product only. I don't care who made it and their "feelings"
@@KissesLoveKawaii if you don’t care who made it so why do you want an artwork from an artist that cost you 300$?