The lack of empathy is what is most disturbing. Non-artists have no problem with AI being in a position to overtake the art industry. What if someone made a program that rendered their livelihood and craft redundant, though?
This has been happening for decades at this point, now it's suddenly a massive problem because people that work in the comfort of an office are having their ''''''jobs'''''' threatened. This whole backlash just goes to show that blue collar workers are seen as worthless, where was the outrage when machinery replaced the physical labourers?
@@snail736 1. Dude, people have been talking about the danger automation represents for blue color jobs since this has been a thing. The Cyberpunk genre has critiqued this thing since it existed. 2. The reason people were ok with menial jobs being replaced is because most people did not like those, and instead hoped that automation would free them from bad working conditions. 3. Your authoritarian leanings can clearly be seen here with your hatred of artists. 4. Artistic jobs have not been forced on artist. They have been chosen, to allow people to express their creativity and passion.
@@snail736 The humanist ideal of automation was to replace dull labour so people can do something more fulfilling with their lives, but can't you see we're now devaluing the tasks that give meaning to human lives? And automation has been discussed for a centuries: the Luddites were in the early 1800s and they just wanted to retain their jobs; they didn't even mind using the new power looms, just about realizing some of the cost savings themselves.
@@snail736 I mean there have always been backlashes against automation, in case you haven't noticed. If you didn't notice the backlashes, that's your problem. I work in accounting, and psychopathic programmers salivate at the prospect of automating my job for over a decade. I do see the practicality of that, at least. But the thing is, with art it's entirely pointless and it serves to do nothing but devalue it and ruin it for artists. And it ruined online art galleries for me. Those that didn't ban it that is, but who knows how much it will advance and become indistinguishable from human art one day.
I'm a trained conceptual artist. That job has gone destroyed by AI. Will that stop me from making art? No it won't. I love making art. I love drawing and creating stuff. No AI will replace that itch, what's in my heart.
That is true, but it will stop people from being able to profit from their passion. Which is sad, because it makes sense to want to market what you are very passionate and, presumably, skilled/will be skilled at.
I spent decades of my life learning foreign languages, only to see the translation industry destroyed by AI. The inferiority of the machine translations a few years back did not stop the destruction of the industry. The machine translation cost nothing, and so the price for all translation came crashing down, because the bottom feeders used machine translation. I found myself paid half price to 'just edit' (as if it was less work) a translation done by machine which was basically unintelligible so that I had to go back to the original and translate it myself. Most clients, the bottom of the pyramid that kept the industry going, did not care about the quality of the translation. If we expect that clients prizing human made products will save industries we are being very delusional. ... the vast majority of clients will go for the process that costs less.
„the vast majority of clients will go for the process that costs less.” While that is a claim that makes sense... There are several factors that make be doubtful of this. First and foremost, Vinyl sales are at an all time high, with no sign of stopping now, and they are even doing better in gen-Z then in millennials. Second, physical books still sale better then digital ones, and are actually doing even better in millennials and in gen-Z then most will expect. Third, translation is an utilitarian need most of the time. So that is a factor that needs to be taken into consideration.
@@laurentiuvladutmanea3622 Excellent point. Now is art more like a vinyl? or is it more like a translation service. Debatably.. I'm leaning towards art being a service akin to translation. I think it has been this way long before ai came to fruition btw. Client wants art... often for a purpose, a reason. Maybe its a company logo or a character design for a cartoon. The things that bring the client value is whether this suits their needs and less so how many drops of sweat went into the creation of the product. Art is oddly utilitarian in a sense.
@@cachauable I think that is to people who don't understand art. for artists who do art it's different. The work that goes into art is to make sure a particular message is communicated. It is communication a form of conversation through non verbal means. So I would not say it's completely utility based. Marxist argue that art acts as a superstructure so it tells a lot about our society that we see it as utility rather then communication. I guess fault is in art education, and AI art is taking off cause people are used to seeing art as just pretty pictures. It's said that architecture tells a lot about a civilization and it seems it's true. Everything is now minimal, low effort, maximizing utility and function over aesthetics it's logical and productive but it's also cold, lazy and uninspiring existing to serve a purpose of it's creation and nothing more.
@@Nyfiken-8 It is just a tool. AI art will become one of the various art mediums among the others. It would not replace "Art" because it can't emulate the physical experience of standing in front of a piece of art made of canvas, wood, paint, oil, marble. The materiality is important. By the way, photography did not kill painting, cinema didn't kill theater, electronic music didn't kill acoustic music, 3D printers didn't kill hand made sculpture... Everything will be fine.
@@Nyfiken-8 I hope so... Can't be sure though. I just think people are always scared of technology. I also noticed that they tend to compare art with menial work. These jobs can be automated for various obvious reasons plus they are given a low social value. It is not the case for artistic jobs. And sadly, almost no one in this comment section seem to understand that applied art and visual art are not the same thing. perhaps some illustrator jobs in big video games companies or advertising compagnies can be partially automated for economical reasons. These "artworks" are juste technical documents with some artistic value that can be done by a human a being or an AI... There is some kind of confusion though... for instance "concept art" is not Art, it is a technical artistic skill.
@@alexandrekorobov4087 seems like many are excited to teach AI their art skills, and not just technical skills, in this respect becoming tools themselves. Will this make human artists abundant like many menial workers? Probably not. My initial comment concerns the basic purpose of AI. Financial incentive and curiosity would be drivers, but where does our obsession with replacing even what makes our lives worth living take us, ultimately?
Looking at A.I art is really a throwback. I rememebered when my industry became automated an artist friend told me at least her job will never be automated. But here we are right now. That being said, having survived the automation of my industry. Perhaps i could share something we did to save ourselves. In the late 2000s, as 3d printing became more prevalent there was a fear that one day these things could simply print out all the things we could make. People scoffed on it, no way could they ever get that precise. But they did, and they absolutely devalued and destroyed pottery. Any idea, any sculpture, any technique you knew could now be imitated functionally by a 3d printer, even worse there were random generators primitive as they may be that could create any kind of geometry for the machine. But we survived and we did for a few reasons. It turns out these companies mass producing pottery in china were trying their best to get their materials as cheap as possible. Perfect as they looked, they had bad smells, they were brittle and they were also not safe for health. Many of the chemicals they used to create their synthetic clays were highly hazardous for health and the chinese public took notice of it. They were everywhere and they still are. They flood 100s of pages of taobao in all aspects. But in a weird way this corporate greed, the greed of selling so much and using terrible materials made people desire real human handmade items. In China, artists created tags 手作 shouzuo became a tag used by artists to to signal to be public handmade goods, people banded together into studios and began to build public trust in human made products. Potters reached out on social media, with their own influence or made use of current cultural narratives to spread awareness of the importance and value of human made work. Fast forward to 2022 and even though a lot of us got wiped out, those that survived today are rebuilding from this apocalypse. Prices of pottery allow for a livable living, the public in china recognise the dangers of mass machine made pottery and always seek out human made goods if possible. But the battle is not over... Companies in china don't stay stagnant they too picked up that people like handmade goods, so they started to add 手作 into their tags too, they took amateur photos to pretend to be artists. And this is where we are now. Trying to figure out what to do, but for what is worth, these companies are also lazy, they will refresh every sale and it becomes clear a mass produced piece was sold. Once this happens word starts to spread to avoid the shop and people having been educated to do so, do just that in most cases. Its clear the public does not take kindly as these companies 'skinwalkers' as i call them actively delete comments from people confronting them. Long story short i don't think artists can expect governments to care and i don't think artists can stop A.I art. But what artists can do is to create and spread awareness on the importance of human made art and why they should buy from people instead of souless companies and machines. Companies will also do their best to produce at the cheapest possible ways they can if they were to get into fine art its highly likely they will use inferior canvases and frames etc. Hence in china, presentation is very important, artists don't just sell you a product, you are given it in a box with a letter of thanks and its good material and beautiful to look at. Something these companies can never be bothered to do.
But isn't the later half of gen z and gen alpha dumb as hell? , They already pouring boiling water on themselves for a tiktok trend and they are the people of future, the old people and the relatively young who would understand us are not going to stay for long , i remember my little sister cussing at me because i tried to help her with a math homework, she said she would get a failing grade than be tutored by me
"importance of human made art and why they should buy from people instead of souless companies a" Your wall of text fell apart here. No one will cares, and no one will care, ever.
It's really crazy to think in the not so distant future many artists may have to verify themselves as legit, by sending in some kind of private video or speedpaint to the website they upload on of their art process, to prove they're legit, and then once this is done, they can then get some kind of checkmark or something to prove they've been verified. But this looks like the future we're headed for. At least verification will give us a way to prove we're legit, so we don't get accused of using Ai.
@@diagorasofmelos4345 bruh the next step of human evolution is being dead while lines of code take over. sounds cool and here i thought i will get superpowers but i guess am dead and a program is pretending to be my grandson.
@@smail6865 Is it an actual speedpaint? I'm sure that if AI speedpaints start to surface, there will be other means of verification, even if it's going as far as sending physical artwork. Every digital artist is able to draw traditionally as well, even if we haven't picked up a pencil in ages in favor of tablet pen
Techno-utopians: in the future, soul-crushing menial labour will be automated so humans can focus instead on art and self-enrichment Techbros: we've automated all art and creativity so our wage drones won't be distracted from their soul-crushing menial labour
Honestly, this was one of my biggest shocks when seeing this thing originally. I used to be an actual tech utopian, so it was a massive shock how easily people accepted the exact opposite of what is meant to happen.
This point is under explored, even if posted as a half-meme. If I may spur on the conversation a step further: there are debates on whether or not some things that have been automated/industrialized are wholly good. For instance, agricultural development. Some disagree that GMOs are good and they have arguments against their long term health benefits. Others have described a nearly apocalyptic scenario regarding the abuse of farmland, and how it has been ransacked beyond sustainable repair (for instance, the Standard Process Inc.'s take regarding supplements and why we need whole food supplements versus manufactured supplements). Even more are pronouncing doomsday regarding the decline of the effectiveness of antibiotics, not due to modern medicine's prior whimsical measures against the common cold, but due to the overwhelming use in industrialized livestock. Do I personally subscribe to all of these alarm bells? I'm not sure, but what I can say is that sticking to primarily a whole-foods diet (not perfectly, but consistently) has granted my family good health, even if it has cost me a lot of convenience, budget constraints, eating out, or even less choice for food. Therefore, I am convinced that there is some truth to the naysayers of the modernity of agrarian practice. What I see for the future of art is going to be discouraging if it affects humanity even half as negatively as the psychological damage social media has already wrought.
Problem is there is no real investment of time or emotion... A painting that would take days, weeks, months or even years is now done in minutes. The cost of failure removed. Instant gratification... No bleeding or sweating... It's so sterile...
I wouldn’t care too much. I prefer real, physical painting made by an artist than a compiled image. Actually the emptiness of AI generated images is that it would put more value on the real deal. If you master your craft strongly you will succeed for sure no matter how many AIs throw at you.
I feel like the biggest thing we have going against ai art is just the fact that people have an inclination and bias towards "real" art. This can be seen in sculpting, where hand sculpted artworks are valued more moulded factory line models. People follow their favourite artists similarly to how they follow their favourite bands. People use art as a means for interpersonal connection just as much as advertising or marketing in a corporate sphere. The community aspect of art and the respect to each other in the industry I hope will avoid the redundancy of artists.
Sadly, with our interactions with our favorite artists being limited to press releases and other digital social media, and the increased intelligence of automated chat bots, we may well experience in our lifetimes, not knowing if our favorite artists are real human beings doing original work, AI bots, or humans using AI bots as a way to exploit others, by offering the persona of being a human creation. Ironically enough, Philip K Dick, the famous sci-fi author, wrote about this sort of phenomena several decades ago. He was definitely tapped into something.
""The tactic of poisoning Linda Fox with small doses of mercury was an artful one. Long before she died (if she did die) she would be as mad as a hatter -- literally, since it had been mercury poisoning, mercury used to process felt hats, that had driven the English hatters of the nineteenth century into famous organic psychosis. I wish I had thought of that, Bulkowsky said to himself. Intelligence reports stated that the chanteuse had become hysterical when informed by a C.I.C. agent of what the cardinal intended if she did not decide for Jesus -- hysteria and then temporary hypothermia, followed by a refusal to sing "Rock of Ages" in her next concert, as had been scheduled. On the other hand, he reflected, cadmium would be better used than mercury because it would be more difficult to detect. The S.L. secret police had used trace amounts of cadmium on unpersons for some time, and to good effect. ...Galina said, "But if she's destroyed, the colonists will grumble. They're dependent on her." "Linda Fox is not a person. She is a class of persons, a type. She is a sound that electronic equipment, very sophisticated electronic equipment, makes. There are more of her. There will always be. She can be stamped out like tires." "I feel sorry for her," Bulkowsky said. How must it feel, he asked himself, not to exist? That's a contradiction. To feel is to exist. Then, he thought, probably she does not feel. Because it is a fact that she does not exist, not really. We ought to know. We were the first to imagine her. Or rather -- Big Noodle had first imagined the Fox. The A.I. system had invented her, told her what to sing and how to sing it; Big Noodle set up her arrangements...even down to the mixing. And the package was a complete success. Big Noodle had correctly analyzed the emotional needs of the colonists and had come up with a formula to meet those needs. The A.I. system maintained an ongoing survey, deriving feedback; when the needs changed, Linda Fox changed." - Philip K. Dick, The Divine Invasion (1981)
That bias is solely cultural though. You can see this by people changing their mind once a piece they previously enjoyed was revealed to them to be generated. Or if that information is simply not known, there are well liked musicians who are essentially produced with assembly line precision, with dozens of people working on the tracks.
@@reck0n3r Dude the covers on his books are SO MUCH BETTER than a lot of the current digital made book covers. They are on a style like the covers of old videogames and it is just phenomenal the level of draftsmanship that they present.
As a game developer myself, I hate to say it but I will use AI created background art for free, and hire less graphic artists because I am a one man studio. I know article authors who feel the same way about pictures for their articles etc... And we are just the tip of the iceburg. There will be less work for graphic artists overall as AI quality improves and surpasses those of humans.
My biggest surprise is just how little other people care about it and sometimes are even excited to replace artists even in fields that should understand the importance of artists. The programmers in the indie game dev space seem so eager to replace their fellow colleagues. It’s so disheartening.
There's definitely almost a feeling of glee and Schadenfreude at seeing artists replaced, as if, by virtue of having cultivated a skill, we deserve to get knocked down a peg. It's disgusting, especially considering how much artists struggle to be taken seriously as workers and receive fair wages.
Oh yeah? And where were you when digital art became industry standard? Were you campaigning for the people who would lose their jobs, or were you rejoicing in the opportunity for effectively resourceless art? Ethics are a farce. People only care about stuff that benefits them.
@@tahunuva4254 I don't feel as though you've watched the video. Digital art becoming industry standard being compared to what ai art is currently doing is a false equivalency. Some guy rolling up photoshop into the company office one day is a far cry from a robotic arm being rolled into a fords car factory. The similarities begin and end with the two being new tech. That's it. Especially when you consider industry veterans, who were there to witness the transition, have some history of traditional painting who now digitally paint. We're looking down a position where the artists simply ceases to exist as a job.
@@tahunuva4254 Digital art is a tool and requires mastery in it's own right. Photography had a similar backlash of artists worried but is of course now seen as it's own art form. This is fundamentally different; ai art is specifically made to undercut the labor of artists and is trained without proper compensation or credit to thousands of artists.
the thing that steven gets that i think other videos don’t highlight enough is that it’s not about the ai. the ai is just the product. it’s about the developers, companies, businessmen, and capitalists behind it who will take a mile if you give them an inch. we’re being bogged down by technicalities and arguments but they’re just distractions. it’s never about the tool, it’s about the people behind the tool and what their agendas are.
It should be protected by copyright. I.e. you shouldn't be able to use someone's copyrighted works as tooling for your machine. It's literally using someone's hard work to replace them. Using these tools in this way is absolutely evil.
@@kenoctcercos4832 Absolute fucking propaganda. People like you make me start to think that Satan is literally real and at work in the world. That is my opinion of your choices and actions.
@@kenoctcercos4832 Do you know what conservatives and communists have in common? They're fucking selfish. When conservatives say that communists are just selfish, they're right AND they're also projecting their own selfishness onto communists. Hell is made up of conservatives and communists fighting each other. Become a liberal, and actually give a damn about someone other than yourself.
23:12 is the most important section of this video. I've seen so many people making that exact argument in the comments of my own analysis. The people who are cheering the hardest for this, idea guys who think this is the magic key to finally unlocking the story they have bottled up inside them; artists and especially writers who think they can cut everyone else out of the process and tell the story they've always dreamed of, will doom every artist alive to algorithmic irrelevance through their lack of solidarity and short-sighted solipsism.
I dont think this is the whole story. There will certainly be chaos in a variety of artistic industries for a period, but i think ultimately 1.People will still want to draw/paint/etc. 2. We will still need artists to create works that either these AI utilize, or that utilize these AI. You can certainly do a lot with a prompt, but theres still something to be said for understanding composition and being able to rough out your ideas to get a proper start. 3. People didnt want the camera to become so ubiquitous because it would put the painters out of business, people didn't want the radio to become big because it would put the local musicians out of business. You are not going to get anywhere if you keep shaking your tiny fist at the tides of history, noone cares about you. if your art or ambition gets swept away by this, chances are it was never gonna change much beyond your life, which means nothing much has changed, just draw your drawings and die in obscurity like everyone else. Our whole world is dead, all these reasons to protest AI are not reasons to protest AI, they are reasons to protest rampant capitalism, corporatism, inequity, etc. I wanna be very clear, I'm an artist and most people close to me are artists, i have plenty of sympathy for those who will be displaced or suffer as things change, but 1: The toothpaste doesn't go back in the tube, and 2: its not the AI its the money. Art should not be the kind of commodity it is, it should not be made for money, it should be made for the love of art. When you take those 2 points together its real issue, because the capitalism toothpaste doesn't go back in the tube either. We need to build a post-capitalist society IMO that allows all of these paradigms to flourish outside concerns of money. Most of our dayjobs are pointless nonsense and should end, the stock market should be burnt to the ground, artists shouldnt be grinding day to day just to finish commissions and survive, they should only draw when they want to. Social media as it exists today should be crushed into lifelessness and replaced with free open source solutions that prioritize the choices of the individual and abandon algorithmic feeds almost entirely accept as an opt-in. We will have plenty of algorithms we can apply wherever we want, theres no good reason to sell us their bullshit built in algorithms when we could be accessing free open source ones that prioritize what we desire them to. We could all have access to everything, forever, already, if we just chopped up a few rich people, used their abundant resources to build and train robots and AI to replace the jobs we hate, and then lived our lives doing what we want. I'm not saying noone will work, but realistically, if we actually banded together as an entire race, it would take a very small amount of hours per person to oversee crews of AI robots, or in a few cases, do the jobs themselves. People don't do jobs because they love them, they do things because they love them, and if they are lucky, those things earn them money. We don't need it to be that way and its not better. Art under AI COULD be deeper, not less deep, but yes, under capitalism, it could get pretty fucked. Eat the rich.
Indeed, ai is the perfect in between black box to launder your crimes. You could just point and blame the ai. "It's the ai, not me. I'm just researching the ai!". There's no better time to exploit this than now. Exploiting others directly is illegal. But through the black box of ai, it's legal! I could create a virus that steals data and says its the ai that creates it, not me. Got my hand completely squeaky clean. Use ai to exploit, now!
maybe if you don't understand the first thing about machine learning and contemporary models, and even then it's just a hollow phrase not explaining anything. this is just uninformed fear-mongering.
I like how fitting the drawn art piece is to the topic at hand. The conjoined mass of a creature with faint traces of humanity, merely displayed in recognizable shapes here and there. Faces, grimacing and laughing in hysteria, ignorant to the loss they incurred on themselves and others.
@@thealliedpowers I meant that this comment is very descriptive of something shown on screen... Does text bots know how to interpret what they "see" and comment about it?
@@AbraHaze84 interpretation and art commentary bots also take in data from the net so its about the same thing there. Just another artform being abused to make easy money.
Ok. What if they trained Ai based on stock and consented art? U know what, You would still be hating it. Ai won't replace real artists using canvas. It will only replace boring unoriginal clones of digital artists that just changed eyes and hair color of characters. Ai doesn't generate just by prompts. U can draw better stuff using img2img by improving your sketches and anatomy. Ai is here to stay. People who draw for fun don't earn money. People who draw for money don't enjoy it. It's like any other job. I'm a professional artist and used to draw for fun since childhood. I started posting some very good art online, but I hated it when I did it for money. But Ai is good. Yes. Cope with it. Stop hating ai. Read the free IMF book *Gen-Ai: Future of Work* and choose the jobs that won't be replaced by Ai.
I had a guy on my Facebook actually have the balls to defend using AI data sets bc “ it still takes a lot of work to type prompts into a computer and I’m doing most of the work still” To which I replied “ yeah I here you. I’m a master chef bc I am REALLY good at ordering a pizza. I don’t cook The pizza but damn can I place an order, painstakingly describing the pepperoni, extolling the virtues of thin crust! People don’t understand how much work goes into ordering a pizza!”
but some people want $5 pizza made by stoners. Cheap and easy is what makes the world go round. We all are guilty of machine made things that a person could have done. But no one wants to pay the prices of artisan items for every single thing you own.
As a working artist and someone that cares immensely about human art, you just put put all my fears surrounding this on the plate and I hate you for it, but I also really appreciate you for it, if that makes any sense. Very important video and perspective more people needs to hear.
all these fears should be realised by everyone before theyre even created or come to fruition, We need to somehow create a large social wave that enforces lawmakers or politicians to fight against this... but how can we make them motivated to stop it?
@@gabudaichamuda2545 I see your point, but people have tried to "create a large social wave that enforces politicians to fight against this" for countless problems. Global warming, oil, democracy, guns, schools, it just never worked. And all of these issues are easy compared to AI, because at least we have some control over them. AI is digital, and owned by companies who have no interest in losing profit for the sake of art, supported by a government that will be more than happy to have less "artists" and more "workers" in their economy. I hate this. I want it to end, but it's been going on since before we were born. I'm not saying it's a lost cause, I just really want someone to come up with some concrete way of dealing with these things that isn't protesting and proposing new laws that are never gonna get pass anyways.
Same here! The way a knife craftsman cares about hand-made knives, we care about human-made art. The big question is: should we force other people to only enjoy human-mad art? We all buy cheaper manufactured knives that replaced a craftsperson-made product. I'm sure they're not thrilled about it, but it doesn't mean it's objectively wrong to manufacture objects? We can hope that, as for hand-made knifes, a part of the market still sufficiently appreciates human-made art to keep it going.
Great video. One thing that is worth pointing out, is that music isn't being treated differently because of musicians, but because so many of these musicians are signed to huge record labels that have the resources to enforce their copyright. The AI companies foresaw the legal trouble this could cause and said "let's not". As I say this, I do wonder if these "capped profit" companies are being short-sighted about images, because their datasets include intellectual property from companies like Disney, and that seems like a lawsuit waiting to happen.
I think there’s also an inherent difference in the amount of effort it takes to consume visual art versus music. It takes a second or 2 to look at an image and have a strong impression about it. It takes at least 30 seconds if not more to get an impression from audio, and 2-5 minutes to experience the entire thing. The effort to get feedback from the ai-generated pieces is much smaller and way faster for images. But make no mistake, ai is coming for every industry. The underlying problem is the way capitalism embraces automation as a means to reduce labor costs. Long-term, I imagine a world where human-created art (or any good), will be prized simply for its novelty and our inherent connection to it. But the short-term outlook is pretty grim for all workers and the way we trade our labor in exchange for the necessities to live our lives. They are just coming for visual artists first for the reasons outlined in this video.
This is just plain not true. Plenty of corporations have their codebases uploaded to GitHub but were captured by co-pilot largely without incident. There is one lawsuit that will probably be a precedent setter for the entire industry. Frankly, I don't think anything is going to come of the lawsuit
Its hard to reason with most ai art bros bc the argument for human made art will always be an emotional one and some of these people have the emotional intelligence and human empathy of a potato.
U are so Damn on Point with that simple comment. They are so obliviously ignorant to the World that we are all in, social skills they don't seem to have!?!?!
I find rhetoric like this disingenuous. Nobody is arguing "against" human made art. It's you "anti-AI bros" who are arguing against other kinds of art.
@@WeAreCameron I’m fine with ppl making AI art for recreational use and uploading it to it’s contained communities, most people aren’t opposed to that. What human artists take issue with is the AI bros who mock and insult their process then brag about how AI (that trains and scans human art work) is going to replace their jobs.
The Kim Jung Gi AI was the nail on the coffin for me, this is not a tool this is a replacement for one of the greatest things humans have ever done in exchange for money of course. I hope artists get together against AI before it's too late.
@@DeadGuye1995 Just watch the video dude, he never mentioned Kim Jung Gi in it, my comment was based on my feelings it was not based in content of the video, and this feeling was a general consence in the art comunity. But also its not "worse" its very sad as well, be respectful pls.
@@leonardodomingues9010 At least one of the AI training sets also includes images scraped from art posted on ArtStation as portfolio pieces for artists. (which of course, Google Images brings up on a search as well, so it doesn't change your point...) :(
There are very good points in this video (elaborated on at the bottom of this comment), and its sentiment is correct, but as a computer scientist I think it's important to note a few things that are definitely not correct: - AI art is provably, and objectively not 'art'. It does not know how to create art without directly plagiarising from existing artworks - if there is a single way to define what art is, it is that an artwork can't be made purely by plagiarising existing artworks. Pastiche is art, parody is art, many forms of 'copying a style or referencing something' are art - but AI 'art' is none of those, as it adds absolutely nothing new of its own. It does not know how to, and it is not designed to - it is designed to copy and only copy. In terms of how it could be called art in future: it can only do this if the 'AI' learns the actual ability to 'draw' rather than merely 'copy'. This isn't anywhere near achievable, not in the next hundred years and likely much longer, because the data you would need to give to the AI to learn this is neither available nor plausibly recordable (imagine trying to teach an AI the entirety of the laws of physics, commonly known animals and all of their characteristics, anatomy, videos of their walking gait, just to name a few things - it's not plausible). Humans know these things, and learn fundamentals to inform their drawing decisions, drawing upon decades of experiences and learning. Training an AI with that much data is not going to be possible for a very long time, both in data and computing power terms. - Outside of the computer science field, it's probably true to suggest that people 'never imagined the advances in AI art in the last 10 years' - but inside computer science, it is well known that there are no such advances. The 'AI' powering Stable Diffusion, DALL-E, Midjourney etc are neither new or improved. There are two reasons they are possible now, when they were not before: firstly, that the data needed to train them is far more readily available due to the larger proliferation of professional art online on large websites such as ArtStation. Secondly, the necessary computing power to train these models was previously something that was only easy for researchers and large companies to get hold of, but in more recent times, online cloud computing services are much easier to access, even for smaller developers. There have been no breakthroughs in the models themselves, or the way they are generated, or anything else within the 'AI' algorithms themselves. Those points aside, you are absolutely correct about the dodgy legal nature of these 'AI' organisations, their effective theft of copyrighted artworks, and their lack of transparency. I also entirely agree that resisting these 'AI' tools is nothing to do with being a 'luddite' - innovations can be awful as well as great, and 'AI art' in its current form is one of the worst 'innovations' the art world could ever have. This is a well laid out video, expressed well, and here's to hoping that 'AI art' falls flat as it deserves to. Thank you for speaking out against it.
I was thinking about how to put this properly into words. I think we could say definitively that AIs in their current state are not drawing, painting, sculpting, or doing photography - charitably you could call it digital collaging which creates the illusion of something having been drawn or painted. That said, the process you describe could still be considered a form of art making - but it would be a mistake to say the AI made the art on its own. Rather, it would be the collective artistic input of the human race (and not just the artists in the data set, but their teachers and influences) that is responsible for whatever is generated and the AI is merely the process by which that generation occurs. Plagiarism as a concept is dependent on ownership. Ownership can be exchanged and bartered over. So plagiarism to me is not necessarily a strong pillar for a definition of what is and is not art. The ethical AI system Steven describes would do away with the issue of ownership. I think the images produced are indeed art. But I think we could say that AI is not yet an "Artist". Rather it is a collective project of all contributing artists and the flaw in the system is that it has been conducted without their consent or even knowledge. So in sum, I disagree for the most part with your first point on whether AI images are art but your computer science knowledge has added some nuance to this discussion that I hadn't considered.
@@nateg3962 It's not that 'plagiarism' is the pillar of deciding what is or is not art - but rather that to be considered art, there must have been some contribution by the artist to the artwork. The 'AI', in this case, makes zero contribution - it does not add any meaning or drawing technique, it gives no new take on the art it uses, nor does it have any purpose behind its actions. It has no agency, no reason for why it combines artworks in a particular manner or extracts specific features. This matters because when humans create art, it is done with a meaning (including artworks with a deliberate lack of meaning) - with an intent to express some view, or give some specific feeling or atmosphere. For example, an artist who e.g. paints a headless horse puts that headless horse in a background intended to give the viewer a reason for why the horse is headless, or to make a statement, or for some other purpose - even a vague or crappy purpose. The AI has no such concept because it does not understand - or attempt to understand - why the horse is there, or why it is headless. It has no idea what a horse is, or how a horse behaves, or why a horse is in the painting; all it knows is that it found image features that indicate the presence of a shape it knows to be a horse. Even with the most mundane objects - a simple painting of a tree - the AI does not know anything about trees, or how they work, or why. It is unable to "draw" a tree, because it does not know what a tree is - it is only able to copy features from things its model identified as similar objects in other artworks. A human who plagiarises a bunch of artworks and blends them together could still claim to be making art - unethical art, poor art, but art of a sort. Humans using 'AI art generators' would fall into that category. The same cannot be said for AI on its own. As a further example, a human who throws a bunch of ink up in the air, landing on paper below them, could be said to be making art - because the "artwork" in that case is less about the resulting mess of ink, and more about making a statement about the nature of randomness or some other concept. The AI, in such an example, has no understanding of concepts or statements, and cannot do the same thing.
@@Ant-le7hl I don’t think we actually disagree here. My contention was also that AI is not an “artist”, though I would argue this from a different perspective from you. However, in the process of compositing images from other artists, their legitimate works of art still contribute their voice to the image. Therefore the image generated by the AI is a work of art, but it is not the AI’s art. Does that make sense?
@@nateg3962 Yeah, that makes sense. It's just a question of definitions, as many 'AI artists' (I do not recognise them as artists, I don't think they deserve to be recognised as such) claim the AI on its own is capable of making art when it is not.
Exactly, it's like a sandwich machine, but where everything that the sandwich is made of is stolen from different stores, you can say that it doesn't look anything like the bread, meat and lettuce that they stole, because they are " sufficiently modified" to not be the same as the original, but that does not mean that they are made of stolen things
Perhaps you should switch jobs and go for anything that is actually needed and paid. And perhaps other members of your family can start looking for those jobs too.
Thank you. I find the arguments pro-AI people make for writing, for example, to be absolutely impossible to take seriously. These guys are telling me that just because half or more of their creative process was done and AI doesn't mean its any less creative. . . yeah right.
@@goldpeen2661 They wish they could have what we have worked for. I bet a lot of those people are trying to convince themselves more than anyone else that what they are doing is an equally valid form of creative expression. And besides making it yourself is the magical part, I wouldn't automate a single second of the process if I could.
Art is perhaps the oldest surviving form of human expression. Evidence of literature, politics, philosophy, religion, and language itself go back merely thousands of years. We have art that survives from tens of thousands of years ago. Art is a fundamental part of who we are as humans. I find it profoundly tragic to see art threatened by AI.
I see the "threatened by ai" as a very narrow minded and wrong aproach and thought. It actually makes me chuckle a bit because every time a new medium in art was invented people cried about the death of art and the work of artists being devalued. Photoraphy being a prime example. "No that everybody can make Portraits so quick and without skill, what are the portrait artists going to do!" What happened was, that yes, portraitry as an industry got thrown over, that is the progress. But out of that came whole new branches of art, so many new possibilitys. You people will be the horse breeders crying about the car, while other artists are already out there develing into the topic and discovering what actually can be done with AI. Its a new form of art, it will change the status quo, but its not going to end art. Its just going to be different.
@@theexchipmunk 1. This is not a new medium. It is a dehumanization of digital art. 2. The limits of what it can do are known. There is no self expression.
@@digitalcurrents I sense a tone of naivety in your random internet mutterings there, stranger. Ever heard the saying "Road to hell is paved with good intentions"? Like life on earth with its diverse creatures and thoughts and minds as we do in this discourse, progress too isn't a one way road. Not all progress is good, nor without its consequences. I for one, want the AI to thrive or even fall into the wrong hands so when bankrupts, the scream, the doom and gloom comes I can only laugh at these so called "progress", for the clueless to know that the knife may hurt them, they first need to cut themselves firsthand.
@@jimimased1894 I mean yeah it's not really threatened, but dumbest as it may be do we really have to deny artists from their thoughts and concerns? Like.. This video, topic & thread?
Just started taking art seriously this month and had a lot of enthusiasm. Now with all the news about AI art, I'm questioning whether this was/is worth anything or whether I should quit before being utterly disappointed. I wish I had more time to think about these things, but it's my senior year of high school, and time waits for no one Edit: Big thanks to everyone who's commented; your thoughts have provided fantastic insight! You all have reminded me of why I began my art journey in the first place: my burning desire to create. So, whether or not I pursue art as a career, I'll always be an artist. Thanks again everyone, much love!!
Of course it's worth pursuing,you will enrich your life in so many ways,you can achieve things you never thought possible and therein lies the reward,to hell what these programs can do, they're not you
If you want to be realistic going into the future, ask yourself why you want to learn art first. If it's because you want to make art exactly how you want it, or if you want to express yourself, or for a similar reason, go for it. It's absolutely worth it in that case. But if you plan on making a living on drawing and painting, I would contemplate reconsidering. Unless it's niche or taboo art, or you become a master artist, or you know you can secure a position in a company (which are usually slow to adopt new tech), drawing and painting is going to become increasingly compromised for artists to make a living on as these AI become better and their images increasingly flood the internet. I oust drawing and painting because there's so much easily available data to train AI on it's almost unfathomable (Stable Diffusion was trained on a couple billion images, with a b). Other fields like 3D art will be safe for the _near future,_ as there's significantly less training data available _for the time being._ These companies taking on the AI market are dealing in millions of dollars, at least. We're talking tens of thousands of dollars in electricity _just to train the models_ when it comes to processing that many images. So despite the uploader's wishes, I have the feeling not much is going to alter the path we're on.
Something that's really bothering me is when I explain my worries of horrible realities "AI generater" pose, and people just tell me that won't happen. I'm telling its already happening and they say people will always want human made work. Unwitting downplaying the issues, talking to people who are not artists has only made me more convinced that the worst possible outcome is the most likely.
@@reinasayama8077 When I see people commenting that “huge amounts” of the population continue to prefer content made by individuals I see people committing the act of assuming that their ideas are representative of the majority when I see no evidence that this is correct. People see what they want, but in the end it’s companies like Google Facebook Twitter etc etc etc, that are driven by algorithms and increasingly autonomous code like AI, that have long ago in the history of modern Big tech swallowed the world and all the hopeful humanists with it. They’ve been laughing themselves to the bank for decades already by profiting off the vast majority of the world’s docile behavior in regards to their profiteering, predation, and control. This new turn tech is taking with AI is just beginning, and it’s already not looking so hopeful. I have the same issue as the original commenter. People I talk to tend to try to minimize the entire situation and end up appearing tragically ignorant. And everyone having this discussion now has already been alive long enough to even know what it was like before AI became a thing. Relatively soon there will be walking talking voting choosing humans who will have never known a world without ubiquitous and likely insidiously pervasive AI. I’m not a fortune teller, but I think it’s pretty likely that, just like every generation has done before them, they will grow up and grow into the tech of their time and be the fuel for its continued endless sprawling grasp on social structures, economies, governments, ART…
Remember vintage lace? That used to be handmade, too. They also believed that people would prefer handmade lace over those made by machines. Today, the majority of lace is machine-made.
@@danielawesome36 Good example. Indeed, how many previously hand-made things are no longer made by hand, but by machine or simply printed or coded? It would take too long to count.
@@reinasayama8077 i dont wanna be a boomer but i have already seen people (non artist normal people) not caring by both (human or ai) which it would lead to them to not care for whoever wins, at the end they dissmiss art in general, so if Ai at some point can do what is on their mind, they will be ok with the disappearance of artist and therefore allowing the path for Ai replacing other jobs
@@bitterbunn1831 If AI manages to draw what people have on their minds that would be a blessing, it would destroy the skill barrier to entry for making art. And AI should automate more jobs, all of them. The problem is the requirement of having a job to survive.
as a 77-year-old artist with limited time on this earth as a living organism, I can appreciate this talk in so many ways. First of all, my one and only desire was to be an artist (visual) since maybe 6 or 7. And, it has been a wonderful journey. My parents tried music-making and singing, but that didn't titillate my tingle-ees in the right chords. it always came back to visual two-dimensional art. I worked hard and made it. then watched, typesetting replaced, then board art, then inception to complication taken away from my creative work. i took and still take pride in my work. I can only imagine the next 80 years. After the war, the people that are left will be required to relearn the basics. The Neo-dark ages. Or, we the populace will be parasites sucking the tit of whatever machine we are attached to. The machine will be called "Mamatrix." And, when it figures out we are useless baggage we will be sucked dry of any information and discarded like Pampers. But in the long run, it won't matter because people will not be around to complain.
Trust me, japanese artists are more intolerant of ai before it even became this famous. It's super disappointing that from what I see from the west are mostly artists who are coping. Trying to be positive etc. It's not just visual arts , ai is also getting into writing and music composition. Sure, experts are the only ones who can see which is good or not but the common people wouldn't care. It's really frustrating to see the amount of people who are wayyyyy too agreeable for their own good. So darn short-sighted. I'm afraid of a time where artists can no longer prove it's their original work without being asked for the video process. Or unique artists whose works might lose value when people keep using their styles. There are even assholes who use a professional artist's name with an ai work with their style in it....and sell it. Even going as far as telling the specific artist "we will make sure you lose your job" is so darn hostile. But yeah, thank you very much for this video at least I know somebody is actually thinking this thoroughly. I hope it's never too late to do something with these pirates.
as someone who really wants to get into art as a career, this whole AI art craze has gotten me actually kind of worried. I am in the same boat as you. It blows my mind how people dont see big problems with this. the only people who seem to care are the artists themselves. we must fight back
As a writer, my artwork has always been easy to copy, but my particular verbosity and individual style will soon be obsolete, when AI is capable of manufacturing every imaginable configuration of words
Writing is the safest form of art that AI won't be able to make due to the fact that AI can't understand semantics(for now). And if they did, they would be sentient.
@@AddyLovestar AI can already spill words. The thing is that it wouldn't have meaning. AI is very good at making text that seems that was written by people. But fails when we go to specific semantics about comstructing a story like a human.
@@hyleriangaming22143 Hopefully we'll one day realize, we cannot automate our way to prosperity forever. At some point, a critical mass of unemployment will cut corporate revenue, and we'll regret trying to make the human brain obsolete.
This is sad to know about. And I JUST KNOW that the argument is just going to boil down to "Suck it up artists! You should've gotten a real job!" While watching all my animated scenes on Hulu and Netflix.
More like: "Suck it up artists! You should try to find a way for your skills to remain relevant in a fast evolving sector, like all other manual professions had to since decades ago with the rise of automation!"
@@Danuxsy „While watching all the AI generated animations on Hulu and Netflix” That is not going to happen. Works generated by „AI” cannot be given copyright, so no company will use them for a significant part of their work flow.
@@laurentiuvladutmanea3622 companies won't exist because customers can generate their own content with a neural network just like they are with images using Stable Diffusion.
I love the "looking into the mouth of the lion" analogy. I feel like a lot of artists are stuck in denial right now, trying to scrape together any reasons why AI art is good for the art community at large.
Actually, it seems the artistic community is united in being opposed to AI art. The ones who claim this is good are other industries(music most specifically). Animation is still opposed to AI art, and the writing and voice acting communities have started to also oppose AI generation.
@@laurentiuvladutmanea3622 And now writers and voice actors have joined the fight against AI, this is no longer a one-sided war. I was terrified we were going to get trampled and conquered one sector at a time but in a twist of irony, the speed at which AI can grow may be its own downfall in managing to unite almost every major creative sector at once.
Thanks for taking the time to make this video. I agree with more or less everything you said, but to be honest.. if I had any say in it I would want these 'tools' to be gone entirely. It's just another slippery slope into oblivion, whether they get your permission to participate or not, or whether they compensate you or not. To me the most disturbing thing about all this is the ongoing aggressive trend towards acceleration and devaluation of effort and time. Who actually wants this? Who has anything to gain from this on a long enough time line? Grifters, narcissists and corporations. It blows my mind how artists (the same ones who are upset by the capriciousness of social media algorithms) think this is somehow a good thing. We're already drowning in content oversaturation and the algorithms on twitter and IG reward constant activity. Now that these platforms are also being flooded by bright glittery and bizarre meaningless art ("created in collaboration with AI"), it's only going to get worse. If i had to force my thoughts in an optimistic direction, i'd say that maybe the complete oversaturation with this hollow visual drivel will make people hunger for art that actually has a voice behind it that you can feel. Maybe it will make people hungry to see something more human. I do feel like this is wishful thinking though, because if an image is distracting and bright enough, the eyes will go to it. It's easy to forget the value of humanity if you stop coming into contact with it. Especially when there's a million other things that could potentially be causing the depression and anxiety that it inevitably creates.
@Terrorists Win I am definitely planning too, I just have to properly organize my thoughts about it first (don't have the gift of Steven's eloquence lmao)
I will say that, while I may not represent the average person, AI art has made me fall in love with human made art all over again. I look at it with a level of wonder that I never have before. I am not a visual artist. I hope others feel this way too.
It's really interesting that for years and years non-artists have been saying "digital art isn't real art, the computer did it for you!", but now that the computers _are_ making the art the overwhelming sentiment is "AI art is real art!". Honestly, I think people just want to jump on the bandwagon of whatever next big thing comes out, like with NFTs. They don't care about artists, they just want the same attention good artists get, and when it eventually dies out they'll move onto the next thing
Perhaps people just care about the result - the part they see at the end. Why should they be concerned about the process that created it, if the art has the same impact?
@@vylbird8014 And that's exactly my point. Who cares about all the effort the artist put in if a computer can just do it in the blink of an eye, right? But that mindset is exactly what's so annoying about treating AI art as real art and the people who make them (as in the people who just type some words in and call it a day) as real artists: as an artist myself, the most important part is the process, NOT the end result. It's where you get to put your skills and everything you've learned to use, where you try out new techniques, and how you learn to be better, because even if it doesn't turn out how you wanted, there's ALWAYS something to be learned. You take away that process and there's no more growth, there's no more feeling, it's just an empty picture that has no effort and no soul. If every single image produced by an AI is absolutely perfect on the first try then theres no value in that; even the great artists of our time like Monet, Raphael, Degas, Van Gogh, etc. don't have absolutely perfect works, and also have a lot of pieces where they were studying various objects and forms, because THEY were always striving to learn and improve too! Put simply, AI art is just a cheap imitation in comparison. Art is a discipline in any form it takes, if you take out the process, you're just left with nothing
@@A_keo I can see historical parallels. There was a similar anger among musicians when the first commercially viable music machines came out - first player pianos, then wax cylinders. They were seen as devaluing music by taking out all the skill - why would anyone spend years practicing their craft any more, when a machine can reproduce it so easily? The process might be the most important part for the artist, but it does not matter at all to the audience. All they care for is the finished piece.
@@vylbird8014 It's a tale as old as time isn't it? Unfortunately, because things made by machines can be mass produced, the way the world is now it's far more profitable than paying people to do the same thing, cause people are slower and more prone to making mistakes that a machine wouldn't. Not to mention that when it comes to art people don't really give a shit about the artists like you said, they just want the art itself, and music is a big one for that. If only we lived in a world that wasn't so focused on shoving product upon product down peoples throats where everything has to be instant to be profitable. The world slowing down for a sec would do us all some good I think, but unfortunately I don't see it happening anytime soon 😕
Nobody ever cared about artists until artists will prove their worth. Our job was always to create beauty to uplift peoples souls. Nothing changed really for artists. Only craftsmanship is death. but then, how many of us can draw from a figure? How many of us can mix paints?
@@therealOXOC I'm fully prepared haha. AI Art is inevitable at this point. Luckily I'm not too bad at maths so I've got something to fall back on. I just think people should know that we're being fucked over by shady business practices and stop naively viewing it as a "tool" for artists.
@@telepathicfish1489 what can i say. stable diffusion is already here like he mentions. there is no running back the model. it's a tool for artist as i can see many artist that are not that ego centered using it. even if they stop training on living artist it's a tool that is here to stay and seeing only the negatives makes yourself depressed. it is so much fun sitting around with my little niece a producing awesome images that she thinks of. She likes drawing aswell and i think that will never stop but i can't predict the future. looking at the positives makes much more sense to me than to put up a video where some guy is drawing a guy fisting an asshole and allover psycho shit he deals with in his art. it's pretty dark art he draws and i only want to see this one drawing of him and don't hear more negative stuff form him. i kinda understand him but i know many artist that would never put their stuff on the internet and make a good living out of it because they don't trust the web. if you use it as marketing tool be prepared to be used as a marketing tool. i'm always drunk on satrurdays so excuse the rambling...
Collective lawsuits is the answer. Artists should finally start to protect themselves legally. Creative AI's should get their databases open for public scrutiny and sued to hell for each and any copyright and plagiarism infringement that is found.
@@TheNeomaster15 The A.I copies 1:1, and the companies stole millions of copyrighted works from artists that they had no right to. Shut your mouth, and keep it that way.
@@gabudaichamuda2545 You don't know how the AIs work. They learn by scanning the noise of art and analyzing it pixel by pixel. Eventually learning an apple is red and an apple is round. No where is the works stored or re-used.
Thank you so much for taking a strong stance. I see so many artists and people faking positivity, turning blind eye at catastrophe that is happening before our very eyes. Artists need to speak out. They need to show the world whats happening right now. Before its too late.
There's no way we'll see a perfect AI. It will look like it does now even in 10 years. They can't "steal" my silly cheap chibi animations I uploaded here, for example. I still think it's an amazing opportunity, not even faking positivity here - people like me struggle hard with backgrounds and inspiration, novelAI and Midjourney helped me to get back into trying harder to improve myself and using some of these pictures as reference. Big artists are pretty much safe. It can help a lot of people, but yeah, in the end all the "mid" commission artists out there who aren't insanely popular and big will be screwed. Even though I think it still is an opportunity. Of course it's pretty pointless nowadays to commission someone to draw a picture of a random autumn forest or a random anime character for a newspaper article. Concept artists might not be needed in the same way as before, a typical deviantArt artist with 10$ commissions will have problems finding clients because the 9$ novelAI sub is cheaper and you get better results. But overall? It's pretty hard to be a 100% doomer imo, completely ignoring the positive aspects. The world changes and so does art, sadly. It's almost impossible to stop it and there's no point in crying.
@@bighatastrea oh on ... don't look up meta Ai generated videos. they are in the first stage of making a ai that can create videos (including animation) Ai .
I hope this will bring back more interest to traditionnal art. Having artists more willing to draw on paper and canvas and having more people willing to buy them originals.
I think there will eventually be another return to Humanism (a new Renaissance). Specifically because humanity will end up thirsting for verifiable humanity again. Also, I believe that humanity will start to resent the increasing lordship of ai over our lives--- and will develop a natural distaste for ai-anything. The game may have to be raised, though. :Human artists who paint complex and meaningful compositions are poised to do well. Human artists who just want to make pictures of flowers or Spiderman, not so much.
keep it together man, in the face of peril, we should strive and band against it rather than wither and die. It is when you do that will grant yourself the possibility you have not if you did not try.
I think you will find a lot of support for human made art. These feelings is something that often plagues the creative, but lets try to empower eachother and have solidarity. You can do it 🙏🏼
I didn't want to "like" your post, so I am just saying: I'm in the same boat and this whole thing has given me such a sense of dread for the future it's hard to even get through a single day without being bombarded with it. Find joy where you can get it.
@@n8horsfall Honestly we just have to adapt. I have already dealt with being replaced by a cheaper faster option for years because I have worked in traditional crafts since childhood and watched the industrialization and outsourcing to China slowly make it harder to sell to stores who can get things cheaper from China. There are a lot of customers who want what I or my employers offer, but unfortunately it is becoming only acessible to wealthier people, which could also happen with human made art. I think a lot of people who are laughing at our concerns haven't actually experienced it because they aren't in the same industry or weren't taught to be aware from a young age.
This is the first anti AI video I’ve come across. Every single other I’ve come across just blindly calls this trend progress. Thanks for offering I different perspective.
If they take away the ability and the incentive to create, we will only have the desire to consume. And deep down, it's just that, consumption and more consumption. This is a strong step towards a less "human" humanity. Not to mention that there will be fewer and fewer jobs in which one can learn and enjoy what they do. This is horrendous, almost straight out of a sci fi horror movie. Excellent video and beautiful illustration!
Except nobody is taking away your ability to create. And unless your incentive is to make money with it (which isn't the case for everyone), that too is untouched. So if anything, AI art will flush the people who are only doing it for the money down the toilet.
@@OzixiThrill noone does art "only for the money" If you think that you dont understand a key aspect of art. The people selling art are doing that to be able to both do something they love and make money with it. And you said it yourself; noone will make money anymore.
@@Parrotcat That's rather naive of you, thinking that nobody gets into art solely for the money. If you actually believe that, then you haven't witnessed humans being themselves. Also, AI art also won't make it completely impossible to earn money through art; Sure, it will make it more difficult for artists to support themselves off of art only; Maybe even make it impossible for some artists. But if that will be enough to get a supposedly passionate artist to stop doing art, well... That's all the evidence one would need to see the liars. PS - Ultimately, I don't think that any artists worth their salt will really see that much of a dip in their money due to AI artwork.
@@ajp2206 people are inspired by the idea more than by the method and techniques. If you arent the student of an artist, you aren't "copying" the art because you don't know the "technique". And the main problem is, AI samples other arts to make a picture, but humans sample experiences. They can even sample music, they can sample memories into images. AI can't do it. Having said that, a lot of people have pathetic imaginations, the 99 percentile won't make it, but there's a world of difference between 99 and 99.9
After following this technology unfold for months, this has by far been the most informative video I've seen in explaining it's true intentions. That double standard of the usage of visual art vs. music really said a lot about the companies behind this tech. They know big record labels would come after them if they used copyrighted music. Yet, individual artists are having their work used for training this tech unkowingly and without compensation. I now fully realise, we the artists, are the losers in all of this. All artists much watch this asap.
100%, they know what they're doing. Just as a thought experiment, imagine if the government skimmed this much data to train any software. I'd imagine the reaction would be way different.
Sadly artists are always the losers, hence the term "starving artist". But artist are also the best at adapting, and you're really not giving them enough credit. Examples - Camera ( didn't replace realism in art) - 3d printers(didn't replace sculptures) - Digital Art on Screens ( hasn't replaced real paintings in houses) - AI art will be it's own thing, but artists will always be around, and mostly starving as always.
there’s next to no work for sculpture and the painting market isn’t that big. There’s only just a small handful of people who do sculpture and it’s not consistent for most (sculptor/concept artist myself) Camera is a different medium. AIs a different threshold. supersedes basically all of it not on a canvas commercially. (Potentially photography in some respects too) and later on; animation, movie effects and so on. there will be a couple traditional painters around, but the vast majority are going to be displaced. We’ll never see a Kim jung gi again because there wouldn’t be enough work to support them drawing that much. Everyone was wondering what the vast amount of indiscriminate data collection was for; now we’re here. Should have been illegal, because it sure doesn’t feel ethical. Especially now that literally all someone has to do, (especially in mjv4) is upload a photo of themselves in a pose, then just type “painting by [insert artists name here]” and get a result almost immediately more than good enough for most standard clients.
@@stinkypete9070 As another thought experiment, imagine a single individual just asks you for a bunch of personal data. Are you likely to just hand it over to them? *We keep giving them permission!*
The way that government reclassified, extended, and perverted IP laws in the last 80 years is one of the largest thefts against culture to exist in history.
Thank you for sticking up for Artists. The biggest tragedy of this is discouraging young people from beginning the steep learning curve of illustration. Why start knowing that you never be better than AI and the work prospects are forever shrinking? Young people need hope not despair. I hope these companies get sued into oblivion.
Yea this is me right now. I just started my path to a graphic designer career after thinking through every other career option. I am doing a 1 year internship right now and don’t know if I should stop and pick something else or continue. The job I am aiming for will either not be in demand anymore or the field will evolve to something completely new and I could get a great job that doesn’t exist now
Lol, now they can do it instantly and have instant gratification. They can make art without need the muscle technique to do it. Just like how computers have allowed the JWTS to see farther and teach us more, the calculator didn't stop math.
@@narutobankai I worked for an old man who was known as ''the human calculator.'' He worked for a top accountancy firm straight out of school and had lots of money and even bought himself a plane. He was replaced by a calculator in the 50's and was never in demand again.
@@PlsSubscrib AI will ultimately make us all obsolete, first white collar jobs, then blue collar jobs as bots roll off the factory line in a decade or so. 20 years from now there will be little to no middle class, we will all be on some sort of UBI and society will undergo the biggest change in Human history.
@@PlsSubscrib I don't know man, you either are not an artist or you're just those guys who ignore the evidence. You said a lot of things that are outdated and nonsense, if i don't say "ai is better", that doesn't make ai not better than me. Easy as that. I know it won't be me, the work won't be mine, but we can't just live of self satisfaction, be honest with yourself, it looks like it's what you repeat yourself in the mirror to escape from reality, and i don't want to ruin it, but i want you to open your eyes. Yeah, nothing we can do, literally. But atleast we are prepared to loose our job. People won't care if it is not you, people are greedy just as those guru youtube videos oversaturating everything, comic books, kid books, color books for kids and all that sh1t man. The guy in the video made completely sense. Especially the part where he said that everything will become worthless. This is what i always said, having so many things on demand is completely ruining the beauty of art in it's purest form. Art is cool because it is made with dedication and brilliancy from the people who put all their lifetime work into it, willing and dedication. We are lost, and that is a damn fact. When i read people comparing AI to calculators i just want to punch myself in the face so hard i wake up and forget about it. It's literally retarded, like comparing a damn shaver to scissors, makes no sense. I could stay here and discuss all day about this... Ai is not a TOOL as is a REPLACEMENT and that my friend, is a fact. Prepare to get ruined.
The "opt out" model has about the same ethical grounds as people uploading porn of strangers and defending their actions with "DM me if you want it taken down"
It feels like the perfect storm with this coming now, people are so addicted to constant distraction on their phones and AI art is perfect for this , a quick hit of entertainment and then on to the next thing. If you're an artist you already know how hard it is to get anyone to look at your work, even if you're lucky enough to get featured or tagged somewhere big most people won't ever bother to seek out your work. Now you also have to compete with AI. the world was already getting completely squeezed in the fight for attention 'look how big my ass is' ' look how ammaaazzing my art is' 'look how delicious my food is' etc. This feels like it could hasten breaking point whatever that is.
it is inevitable, and maybe that's the way it has to be. Let's strip the ego away from it and make art for the sake of making and creating and nothing else.
@@primtones and then put their expression on the internet, get stolen by ai while the developers or patent owner don't need to pay a dime of royalty? lol
@@Djoarhet001 It is not inevitable. Rights and permission are not synonymous with "innovation." This is a legal issue and it's finding its way to the courts now.
You have my deep appreciation for making this video. When this issue was first beginning to materialize, I saw a few videos from other artists commenting on it that I found largely unsatisfying, it wasn't until I started hearing you're on stream discussions that I began to feel as if I had my feet under me on the matter.
So on point. Thanks for this work. I'm an AI researcher and an artist (at the level of a hobbyist). I made a video last week about this exact thing... This feeling of, "What's the point anymore?" paired with the economic consequences of automating creative expression. Got a huge amount of backlash, spurred an 130-comment flame war on Reddit, and got doxxed. Spent a long week thinking about this and put out a new video basically saying that I believe in the resilience of artists. Artists are so resourceful and so creative that they can fold any technology into their process. But that adversity *can* be made a tool doesn't mean it was *made* to be a tool, and AI can far more easily just be used as automation.
Beautifully said. I have learned how heartless my own friends are, viewing my own artwork as meaningless. Hundreds of hours of work put into some pieces and just because I normally use digital tools my art has no value. He views himself typing for 30 seconds as making him as much of an artist as I am. People are so incredibly lazy that they just want the fruits without the labor, but how can that fruit carry any meaning? It would just be another product that you consume. We had this argument when I was actually going to say "if I had an ai that was able to generate my comic for me, it would ultimately be hollow. I would have the product I always dreamed of, but know I had no part of in its creation." Art is just not a valued skilled by most people, and that's tragic. There is so much value in actually putting effort and heart into something instead of just google searching your whims into existance. Google already makes collages and clips out of my pet photos for me, I don't want my whole life to just be generated content based on my habits. I think this is how the human spirit ultimately dies. Also, I doubt me friend would be okay with students handing in Ai essays and projects so they never have the need to actually learn. We'll have whole doctorates written in AI and have to accept we're a whole world of people who never took the trouble to learn anything since computers could do it all for them.
Honestly, if you still consider that person a friend, god bless your patience I could never. If you ever receive comments like that again, I recommend you may as well spoil the fruit and give them the whole artist experience. "What?! What do you mean this costs 10$ to buy?? It took you five minutes to make!" "I could do that in my spare time, there's no way this is worth ____$" "Is it okay if I pay you in exposure?"
"Do you build your own paintbrushes? If you don't, then you have no hand in the art's creation. " - some perfectly valid opinion. You see the problem is, you're drawing a completely arbitrary line - which you're well within your right to, don't get me wrong. But you can't then expect others to change their equally arbitrary standards to match yours. To them, it *is* just another product they consume, similar to how you don't give a shit that your paints are mass-produced machine products instead of hand-made woad - that is, if you even use paint at all.
@@tahunuva4254 Writing a sentence of what you want a picture of is how you request a commission, yet no one before would have claimed they were the artist of the finished piece. The computer is the artist, not the person who writes a prompt.
37:10 Oh yeah, I remember reading an article about that and feeling so mad. The double standard is unreal, the only reason they give a shit about copyright in that context, is because big music artists actually have the money to file some pretty nasty lawsuits against them, while meanwhile, most artists can barely manage to make minum wage with commissions. Absolutely sickening double standard.
An object can be seen from infinite angles and mixed with an infinite amount of objects from infinite angles. A song has one angle and little deviance from that, because music aesthetics are incredibly shallow compared to physical aesthetics. It's not a double standard at all, it's out of respect for musicians that they aren't training on copyrighted material(and because there would be court cases lol). And they aren't disrespecting artists teaching a computer to draw, artists are just taking disrespect for various reasons. Mainly because the computer can learn and draw REALLY fast. It's like the guy said, if you learn to trace a master painter, You've Earned It! But when a computer does it you should be MAD lol. THAT is a double standard and it's driven by some inane logic about egotistical humanism. There are still people alive today that won't use circular tires because they think going too fast cheapens their lives. It's a silly opinion just like these stances against AI's drawing.
@@DemWaifus The issue is that the ai is taking very specific angles and very specific objects from art that already exists, without people's permission. Art that some random person posts online is not automatically public domain either. No matter how advanced the ai get's, it's not a person, it's a product, and it has already used countless copyrighted material in order to form its network. There's no reason why musicians should have respect while artist shouldn't. Also, there are infinite configurations of potential sounds and melodies.
@@chompompcharly That is not a real issue though because all those billions of images are being bounced off of one another to produce an image in seconds. It is IMPOSSIBLE to take this issue of yours into a court, it's like suing a painter because he visited a museum in his youth and got inspired. Except even sillier than that lol. I understand why artists are upset but they have to deal with it, they can't stop what's already released, they won't stop the likes of Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and the UN from developing this either. Just be glad that StabilityAI is friendly to open source. And please take note that videos like this weren't being made when the closed source bodies were doing the same thing. This is a reaction to this technology being open. People against this are fundamentally coming at it from the angle of greed.
@@chompompcharly Like think about it, a 512x512 image has 262144 pixels in it right? How many pixels belong to you if you type "anime woman with big breasts in the style of picasso and greg rutowski :)" Are you trying to be funny? No one owns the artwork that comes out except you because it didn't exist before you prompted. Why do you think someone should get paid because computers can draw funny pictures now? Greedy as fuck.
@@digitasoul1389 Dunno, maybe they're friends? Maybe this is educational research? And don't get me wrong, closed source AI is terrifying, I'm just calling artists greedy when they're trying to burn down Stable Diffusion, because they're evidently afraid of free art from and for everyone.
Cancelled my Midjourney subscription. I make music. So I don't really have the money to support artists. I was using pics for random songs. I decided to commission my first piece of digital art last week. Working with the artist on what I wanted was a really cool experience. He nailed it. That's the biggest difference for me. There is zero humanity in AI art. As where the artist was a real person living in Pittsburgh with a broken furnace. I'm 100% on board with most these arguments. Artists of all mediums should support each other in this. My only critique would be that they seem to be very supportive of the future capabilities of AI in support of their arguments. The ability to use prompts and data sets will improve vastly. But AI will certainly lack imagination for a very very long time. The human mind is just too complicated. That won't necessarily save your job though.
By that logic I could get AI images and say I made them myself (Assuming they look normal) and Id be praised, but if I say they are AI then people wouldnt care
@@michaelschemmel1984 BRO thats one of the easiest arguments I make for people who share the same line of thinking as OP here. They say its not art solely for the external negative stigma that generative art has. They aren't even judging the art for its compostion, tone, mood, perspective, shading, contrast, general creativity, etc. etc; Ya know, the things that make the art actually art. I find it so crazy that I could generate something that looks nice and that a human could draw or create and show it to people and they say it looks nice but then if I said that SAME piece of art was generative art they would immediately say it's sucks and isn't art... The cognitive dissonance fr...
he probably used ai art for inspiration for his own creation. you over estimate the human mind and under estimate ai. you had mj so you have seen the amazong things ai has created with 3 or 4 word prompts.
@@GoharioFTW The people you are arguing against are correct. If it was AI generated, it really does automatically suck and isn't art. You can step out into nature and see a sight that is breathtakingly beautiful, but it's not art because it's an accident. Intention and effort is what makes things art. A pile of rocks can look pretty, but only when a human shapes those rocks is it art. AI art is just an accident by a random algorithm. It's not art. That it's hard to tell the difference between AI and human art does nothing to change this fact.
@Magicwillnz ok can't wait to see how you're doing in a year when ai generated art can't be discerned from physicl and digital art and you're biting your fingernails at every single image you see online and end up accusing people of using ai generated art and shaming them when in reality they didn't do it and then praising someone for their art when in reality they did use ai generated models good luck Also your example with stepping out into nature made 0 sense. Are you saying people who do landscape photography or any still life photography of nature aren't artists?
Some fantastic food for thought, I very much appreciate your insight on this touchy subject I’m actually recording a podcast with Hardy Fowler tomorrow on AI and I’m going to surely be tapping into your perspective
you are by far ,literally the single and only artists that i 100% agree with on this topic , i kept looking up this topic and all i sawwas wishfull thinking artists repeating "it's just a too lto help artists" and i was like , no , it's not , it's not made for artists , no one said that exept artists and deep down everyone knew they kept sayign "it's just a way to look up refferences and ideas" , no , that's just one use you came up with the cope with the idea while altho it's possible this is not what the ai was made for , they didn't spend years and fortune just for you to get refferences from it , it's called ai "art" generators not ai refference generators or texture generators , it saddned me that most of the damage was done by artists themselves and not even by the ai users who can usually barely formulate two words together. i really hope artists come and bond together against this and not allow outsiders who are compleatly out of touch and care nothing about the craft to tramble it using artists work itself and let these corporations earn billions with artists own hard work.
For real, artists saying they use it for reference are admitting they didn't come up with their own compositions or ideas in their work. Its like having no faith in yourself. Giving up on thinking out of pure laziness. Its why I don't respect anyone using midjourney or painting over novelai, its like double plagiarism. It easy to see 'artists' becoming dependent on these companies. I as a viewer of the work have no idea where the AI stops and your contributions begin, off the bat the work isn't really theirs no matter how much they rationalize.
@@chinogambino9375 Isn't your argument just a rant on looking up references of any kind? Nothing you complained about is really related to AI models, so I can hardly agree. As much as I loathe the unethical and anti-humanist aspects of these models, they're effectively glorified Google Images (people just pretend they've created what they find). Whether references are real or generated, laziness comes when you settle for whatever you find and copy it, rather than looking for something specific that fills your own idea and using it to inform your own composition.
@@rikamayhem Having seen how midjourney is used, no its not the same. If you type in a scene you want to see into these image generators they tend to follow very effective artistic rules of composition since they are trained on human work. The results people want to see are ones they can lift and use. Its very hard to not be influenced by a finished composition made by a generator especially after a few iterations, I take issue with that mental heavy lifting being outsourced. I know for certain artists cannot be honest using these things. When a human absorbs photographs and paintings to use as reference its very unlikely its particular enough to their subject matter to be lifted. The skill is adapting your own visual library, problem solving and life experience to fill in the gaps. If we side step that by copying the composition of another work we usually call it a study and credit the original image, we'd feel dishonest otherwise since we owe too much of our work in that instance to the original. To me if you use an AI for reference it is your collaborator, you just are not the sole author. Think about it this way. Is a human author who has read a 100 books and then decides to write his own novel the same as a human author who lets an AI trained on 100 books write his draft? One chapter? Part of a chapter? Uses the AI draft as his 'inspiration' for a rewrite? The latter can still write his name on the novel but personally I can't take the attribution seriously.
@@chinogambino9375 Fair enough, your argument is much clearer now and I largely agree. I realise that AI-art platforms, specially Midjourney and "img2img" tools, encourage iterating on generated images repeatedly until you get a precise result, and I agree each iteration does hamper the user's share of the original thought put into their work. However, and while I don't even plan on using these models, I think that, as a user, you do have agency in how particular to your subject you choose to generate references, so this is just revealing how many artists would rather take the easy way when given the chance.
“Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.” Frank Herbert, Dune
I'm a 15 year old high school student, after many years I have finally worked up the motivation and courage to try and improve myself and my art. I'm seriously considering giving up on art because of this... I still have time to change my life path, but somehow I'm still drawn back to art. The thing is, there seems to be no real solution or prevention in place, as much as I want to keep going I know it will bring me nothing but sadness to see AI art in museums while my art is still laying on the floor of my bedroom.. i am crying while typing this out. Is it true that I must give up my dreams? i am begging for someone to say its not, but everything i see is telling me this
I am 14 and literally in the exact same boat as you. Couldnt sleep last night, I had an existential crisis. Were so young and we have our whole lives ahead of us, its messed up.
U are just 15 my younger fellow Artist friend & I understand u want to b a successful artist in the future. One of The most important things u can do now is draw bc u love to & bc u just can't not create. Use those emotions u are feeling in a positive way & turn that Shit into making your Artistic Passion stronger & fight for that Art Dream u want. Doubt anything I have said will help or even matter to u & thats ok too. I just hate to hear a young artist give it up so quickly for a reason that is unknown for 1 thing. Keep it up !!
Never give up on your dreams, continue to draw. However, art is not a viable career path anymore (I'm sorry it's just the truth) so you will have to pursue a different career and make art as a hobby. If you can get good enough you might be able to break into the industry one day, but please don't fully pursue art as a career path because it is extremely volatile and I don't want to see you struggling to make ends meet.
Yes, and far beyond just artists. Hardly anyone crying over truckers, manufacturing and other sectors out of a job due to AI or just the progress of technology.
@@oddinvestigator It's a fascinating debate, and it's coming to every industry and field of human endeavour. I suspect there will always be "workers", or at least, there will always be "work", but a lot of future work be unrecognisable to us. If you took a random high tech worker from today and transported them back to 1922 and asked them to describe their work to most people from 1922, they'd have a tough time making themselves understood. Send them back to 1722 and their difficulty world be even more profound. The process of change is definitely accelerating, no doubt about that, and the speed of change coming from AI presents its own challenges. But in some ways we've been here before, across many forms of work/human activity. I just don't see any way of stopping it. The AI training processes that are so expensive today (requiring large corporations and server farms etc) will be cheap in a decade or two. What then?
This is exactly what I've been saying. As a piece of technology this is pretty impressive and interesting, but we got to question who's interests is this fulfilling and stop guilt tripping concerned artists for not ridding the hype wave of Ai.
This is the conflict that technology has with the structure of our economies. You are feeling the effects of technological efficiency that has already decimated entire industries over time. we can not have a sustained system of human labor for survival when technology makes the labor of millions something trivial. In a world where artists arent required to sell themselves they would make art as an expression of themselves with creations containing only the specific intent a human artist could have. We can not and should not fight the progress technology provides. We should be fighting the economic systems that force us to sell our creativity in order to survive, so that we can create for ourselves and others purely for the joy and challenge of it.
@@laurentiuvladutmanea3622 Bullshit. Abuse the tech while it's in it's infancy. Slap out work at unprecedented efficiency. Make money and invest in your future. If you have art skills, then ai in your hands is significantly greater than a non-artist. If you played Elden Ring, please revisit it's themes on rot and stagnation vs flowing water.
"It's a replacement, not a tool." After making a good-faith effort to learn about it (my initial opinion wasn't negative), I've come to the same conclusion. I also like that you pointed out how it takes all the fun away. I got some good results but felt a little sad that I didn't just come up with them myself.
I'll admit, there's a small dopamine rush when you type a prompt and make AI art, but ultimately it's desensitizing because I can just make more art of that caliber in seconds. It's like a kid who can eat anything in the candy story for free. There's no toil, no effort, no journey. Just the final result, which is boring and soulless.
You’re right I felt the same I managed to creat a professional looking art way much better then I could ever draw or paint my self , but it didn’t felt mine it’s just felt I’m googling. nothing compared to the act and journey of creating art by your self
Try applying this logic to written communication: are you sad you are not writing this comment using pen and ink? Handwriting used to be a form of art thousands of years ago. WE EVOLVED. EMBRACE IT.
@@gukes-3dx „Try applying this logic to written communication: are you sad you are not writing this comment using pen and ink?” Written communication is an utilitarian tool of communication, not a passion.
I gotta jump in here, chief. I'm not exactly the type of person who's eager to pay for a serious commission, not because I'm not willing to but because I don't want to waste my money or be the worst nitpicker imaginable. I am not skilled enough to create detailed works myself. Even if I did endure the countless hours of education and practice, there's no guarantee I'd know about or have access to the tools and techniques required to perfectly imprint a mental image onto canvas. If I would commission a work, the amount of back and forth would render any profit to the artist completely meaningless. The sheer amount of time wasted on revisions and attempting to understand precisely what I'm looking for when I myself don't have the ability to explain it. It's more of an "I'll know it when I see it" sort of thing. I lose money, the artist puts in more work than they've any reason to, I don't get what I wanted, they feel underappreciated. It's a bad situation all around. AI won't complain when I spend 10+hrs demanding revision after revision, telling it to scrap the whole thing and start over multiple times, and I wouldn't have to feel guilty about being problematic or cheated our of my money for something unusable. My primary motivation in AI generated art is to spend countless hours learning how to define specific instruction sets that yield precise results. I've no intention of harming anyone. Option 1 is AI. Option 2 is accepting the impossibility. There is no option 3 in this scenario. I'm sure the majority of personal use cases reflect mine. It's just interesting to tinker, and artists tend to get upset when you ask them to satisfy dozens if not hundreds of consecutive requests.
As an artist myself I embrace this as a tool for ideas . Traditional artists said the exact same thing about digital artists years ago . You have to face reality my friend this is where we're going if you can't keep up you're going to be finished . I'm sorry it sounds mean dude but this is the way how it's going . Either you adapt or become extinct
@@trajectoryunown *Then sit your ass down for 15 minutes a day, and learn to draw.* You want it? FIND THE DAMNED TIME. Just because you don't want to learn, and want to make an excuse to not pay for it, doesn't mean you get to steal from us. Is that clear?
Thank you for finding the strength and dedication to make this video! I have been furious for exactly the same reasons as you and felt so frustrated that so many artists are willing to look the other way. I will share this in the hopes that more people wake up to the exploitative nature of these companies and the erroneous desire to see themselves benefitting as artists from it. I am truly relieved to see someone tackle these common arguments so fiercely and intelligently
I thinks that's starting to chage. I feel like, many Artist were in denial for some time. Fighting for your rights is scary and exhausting. But I have already seen people starting to change their tune.
The thing is there are not many true artists out there. Those very few who are will see their work raise in value. The ton of "artists" who aren't so will finally be where they belong - oblivion.
The weird thing is - these Ai prompters are saying it is "faster" to make Ai art, but then say it took them a week to create the prompt to make exactly what they wanted? If it took you the length of this stream to produce this beauty and then took them a week to prompt a computer enough times to get the result they wanted, I wouldn't call that efficient? Sorting through thousands of images sounds like a pain in the ass when you can already see your own work unfold before you exactly the way you wanted ONE time sounds a lot less like a pain to me lol
They're avoiding the tens of thousands of hours of training and practice that it would take for them to match his skill, and to create a piece of similar quality in a comparible amount of time. So from their perspective, it is certainly faster.
I don't have much to add, but I just feel like a lot of artists on the pro-AI side are only taking that stance because they are terrified of being left behind like many other obsolete professions of the past.
The thing is.... AI art is actually IP theft. Its LITERALLY built out of other people's stolen work. The people who make this stuff are thieves, the people who justify its existence are literal fucking orcs.
Same with Steve, he only has an issue with copyright, not overall ai images He does it only because fear of being accused as ultra conservative or purist
Also because they never were that good at drawing. Lots of pro designers have this problem, LOTS of them have had a career-long inferiority complex about their lacking raw ability to draw... I would say at least 60-70% of all working graphic designers don't really feel that confident in their raw ability to illustrate... And now they feel massive relief because finally their weakness is irrelevant. Until now they somehow conned and wiggled through their career, avoiding drawing whenever they could, and now they are triumphant because finally they are considered a worthy illustrator (with AI assistance) and fully respected graphic designer. (Or more like, the illustration experts got their thunder stolen from them...) Having the profession of graphic designer is FAR mor common, than the ability to draw well.... Out of the people I studied graphic design with in university (13 people in my class) maybe 3 could really draw well (I was one of them). Almost all of them got employed in design.... Those people focused on other things, like typography, info graphics, photography, UI/UX design. Which currently aren't threatend by AI, only illustrators and concept artists are, the hard core drawing/painting people. In a nutshell, the better you are at drawing, the harder this AI crap will slap your face. You career path has been probably also more illustration oriented, and you have spent a lot of time on illustration skills, at the expense of other graphic desing skills. And respectively, the worse you are at drawing, the more positive you are about this AI. You probably steered away from illustration orietented career path early on... probably in university already, when you noticed it's not your thing... this free'd you a lot of time, to acquire other design skills like 3D. Now you finally get to be "an illustrator" too. Why wouldn't you be positive about it.
I'm a Software Engineer and I agree with your points, the sad reality is that I'm not sure there is anything you can do about these changes, even if you somehow get all these companies to stop their progression, in around 5-10 years time you won't need a team of people to create an AI like this, a solo university student could do the same for just a simple free time project, thats how fast things are progressing in this field, part of this progression is fueled by Nvidia's advancements in hardware, around every 4-5 years we can build computers that are twice as fast as before, but also the tools for Data Scientists are developing very rapidly. My belief is that we aren't too far from a general-purpose AI (around 15-20years) which would be an AI that is conscious and can learn the same way a human can (but much much faster since its made of hardware rather than biological material), this would mean that practically all jobs could be replaced by AI. What can we do about this? I don't know, but what I do know is that we can't stop it because we have a very limited influence on organisations like Google which would be at the front of this development. Another worrying thought is that Law is always playing catchup to technological advancements therfore we don't have any laws in place to help and protect the general public through these changes, we also won't have them when these changes hit. Keep speaking up people, Art is just the first sector to feel these changes.
People don't really care about artists and chess/go players because they are minorities, and they got cracked one by one at each time. But if the public start to feel the common threat about AI to take over most of the office desk jobs and start to panic in the future, don't you think goverment will have to step in somehow ? At least in the democratic countries, because they will need to pacify the huge amount of angry voters. I kinda foresee a much greater confrontation between conservatism and progressivism at that point.
I agree about speaking up - art is a form of expression and they can’t take it away. Its on us to lead it with ethics tho, and if we want it to be like us - I think we should give it a human law and decency as well. Not that it’s related to us at all, in fact it takes a 8 layer ANN to simulate 1 biological neuron. It’s a huge mistake to call it “intelligence” as it’s more of a computer power, human intellect coding data structure and algorithms, a lot of hype, wishful thinking and uncountable limitations. If the Ai suppose to mimic us and help us to tackle problems to help our society, I don’t see a problem with it, but currently this is just a massive exploitation in the name of technology. If it’s here just for the exploitation and usage of military the way China tries… the future is very dark. It’s really on us to change that. If you in the field please remember that ethics are so important, stable diffusion dev called me a “moralist” when I expressed my concerns, almost like it’s a joke to care for humanity and I can’t stress enough how important it is to lead the future in equatable way to shape it for the better and not leave bad presence for opportunistic devs. We can’t let everyone be like that, that ain’t it.
I disagree, the only ones that suffer here is the artists which is a tiny minority, hundreds of millions of people are going to benefit from using these AI systems.
It's already happening in your field too, not sure if you use Visual Studio as an IDE, but the latest version already writes much more code for you now as a form of auto-complete. I agree with how fast the field is advancing, you don't have to be a data scientist to setup a model to be trained, format training data, and run an inference. I do think we are still a long way off though from a AGI. There is this giant jump in going from the models we have to day, to a fully conscious AI.
Honestly, I don’t really get the whole “it’s a great tool for artists because it can help with colors and compositions!” argument because…we already have several online sources that help with that? We have sooo many pictures online and several apps that allow you to make your own 3D models to use as references, so I don’t really see the point in using AI to do that tbh
well... it's really fun, I found ideas I never would have found online, and that I sometimes *can't* find online but when I REALLY want something right I have to sketch it out, clean it up, render it by hand (I love coloring) but I use some of my Stable Diffusion generations in my references to really capture a "mood" that I like
Is there an app you can recommend that does that? I use an AI app called Wonder and I’d like to see how it compares to other apps that are made to assist artists 🙂
@@grain9640 I do the same! The AI art inspires me to start new drawings. I often digitize my sketches and add in texture and color. All because of the stuff I generated with an app.
@@moreicestreaming I get what your saying, I think what I was getting at here was that there are resources that don’t involve just stealing a bunch of artist’s work and putting it all into one big picture Looking back, my original comment wasn’t really worded the best way, so I do apologize for that
This is a serious matter for Artist and Content Creators alike. It's not difficult to imagine that AI will eventually be capable to produce short form and long form entertaining TikTok and UA-cam content in such an abundance that human made content won't catch up to matter. With algorithm being increasingly better at understanding you intimately and the in the video mentioned potential of having content created specifically for your current mental state, ideas, or circumstances It's difficult to imagine a human content creator able to keep up with this for long or even at all.
I think a lot of people are still naive. A.I. is now here and it will not go away. It can only go up from here. No 7 fingers on one hand in the near future. It is just matter of time. What most peope dont understand is that A.I. will do more than enough for a lot of basic stuff. A 10 men company that need new a new text for his website can do it all with chatgtp. It will be all fine with some minor tweaks. No need for a writer. That is an 500$ job less for the human writer, and maaaaany of them will go to A.I. I dont see any reason why a business wont use an AI art tool for a cool background for an event. It will be used once and throw away after that. Goodbey 1200$ job for an artist. Etc. Etc. Etc. AI will take a huge part in this world. Text, image, graphic design, logo's, audio, video clips.. many jobs will be taken out. And you allready see a forrest of AI program's and website u can use in a minute. If you build the best AI machine, you can make tons of money in the near future. Still.. people are naive. I am not going to wait before this hous of cards wil crash. I am working on my plan B allready wich makes me sad. But i dont believe i can feed mouths as an illustrator in new years from now
@yoRRnl That is ultimately your call to make. However, despite menial jobs being offloaded to artificial intelligence it seems like a stretch that the skill of an illustrator will be completely useless in your lifetime. Artificial intelligence is still very much inspired by human input. It's ideas were referenced and it's motivations are prompts. AI will reduce work force, because it cuts cost. AI, however, isn't sentient. While that must not mean that it couldn't do plenty human quality work there are still these two aforementioned hindrances to it taking over the world on its own accord. As an illustrator you could use your skill to prompt better. Or you could feed an AI with your design tweaks. Chatgpt doesn't always give a great first response there is some iterating that happens to get to that perfect output. Your skills as an illustrator would afford you that judgment.
@@RIPxBlackHawk The video already addressed that point, particularly in the “AI is just a new tool” segment (15:26) and even more specifically at 18:29.
@@RIPxBlackHawk I mean everything you said in your second comment may be true now but won't be for long. The reasoning was detailed in the video so I just linked that part instead of retyping everything.
My biggest problem is that this advance does not help artists in any way and only hurts them. Imagine if it was something like programmers losing their jobs to self developing AI, it would still be "good to progress" but its like a mass resignation of millions of jobs.
edit: my stance has changed since i posted this comment, after days of crying i realized that no matter what, the only answer is to draw as much as i can. even if i go down, then i go down with all of the artists i look up to and idolize instead of being the person that gave up at the very beginning of the battle. i'll leave my original comment for people who feel the same way as i used to feel, please remember that no matter what, nobody is able to predict future. 💗 Every day I'm waiting for *any* good news to come but for now, it's just getting worse every day. I'm so tired of crying myself to sleep nearly every night, struggling to eat and feeling suicidal because art is my only purpose of living at all. I just want a slither of hope, I'm trying so hard to stay passionate and keep drawing as usual but the thought of my art (therefore my existence as I have nothing else of value to show) eventually becoming worthless if things keep going on like this, just makes me break down crying instead and wanting to die. It's only the beginning but it's already so difficult to gather hope and strength to fight
Try switching to 3d art: sculpting, modeling, animation, etc. Just in case. If you learned something while drawing (anatomy, character design), i'm sure it'll translate over well.
I think we gotta think about things differently now. The future of just art on its own is totally bleak with this on the horizon. Success has always come from the connections that people have with each other and the opportunities and events that are present in communities. The world has become incredibly insular and isolated in the last 2 years, partially out of a necessity at the time, but also kind of against our will as social creatures. I know artists tend to be pretty solitary, but I think the antidote is going to be going against that. What small step can you do to build an art community around and with yourself locally? Do you have the ability to go to a live drawing class? Do you have an art museum near you that you could learn more about history? Are you close to any art schools or ateliers that you could meet anyone/ take classes at? I think you might find solace in community. Also, think about contacting your local political representetive with your concerns about this technology getting out of hand. I think that may be warranted at this point. I've also reframed how I think about art and the time of creative endevor. I think that the gatekeeping inside of analog, human intelligence creative endevors has overstayed its welcome. No more in-fighting for artists. I haven't seen your art, so I don't know your technique, composition, subject matter, or medium, (and assuming that you aren't just an immoral deviant tyrant with what you draw) but the fact that you're a human and have put time into learning how to illustrate at all is more valuable in my mind than someone who got bored and mispelled an idea into an AI. lol. An AI never had that period of intense excitement, and learning, and discovery that you probably had. So, don't lose hope, artists need the intensity of the emotion you're feeling right now... but intensity in a different direction. Try and shift that from despair over to strength, little by little, day by day. It's difficult, but that's what artists collectively need right now. If you can do that, I feel bad for the AIs and the people that are obsessed with it. They want to kill art as a facet of hummanity so bad..... but there you are. Keeping drawing alive, day after day.
For some good news: FurAffinity, Newgrounds, InkBlot, Getty Images and a Japanese(whose name I forget) site have all banned AI generated images. The same happened with a lot of subreddits, and on twitter, most AI art is getting mocked. Edit: also, these things cannot be copyrighted according to USA and EU laws, so there is that.
@@reinasayama8077 if push comes to shove, you can still take solace in the fact that you could be one of the last keeping the artistic tradition alive. Even more amazingly, there might come a resurgance. A time where people finally realise that mindless gluttony isn't the answer to lifes inherent suffering. But meaning. And many find such meaning trough art. Not just the consumption of it, but creation. It's the blood, sweat and tears that let an artist savor a piece, or an improvement. The result in and of itself isn't meaningfull without it. At least not to the one who made it. Or "generated" it. Since the dawn of humanity, we have created, and I will not allow it to end. Not until my very last breath.
Everybody knows deep down, that there is no going back to the way things were. Especially when software has gone open source and can be run offline, you could theoretically legally restrain the originating company, but you can't destroy the AI, because it will still spread peer to peer.
The Nuclear Age saw a similar threat looming on the horizon when they triggered the first atomic bomb, and the wise ones mourned the loss of their innocence knowing life would never be the same. I suspect the Information Age has just succeeded in doing the same and it’s far too late to stop it now.
@@edisonkimmel7843 If governments wanted to they can easily make new laws that would apply. They could even do so with retroactive application if they felt llike it, although I doubt they would.
@@captainslender12 ok so make new laws to stop ai art because... People's jobs are being threatened? Since when is that a good excuse? I am legitimately confused as to why art Ai's should be subject to special legislation.
I don't get why luddite is used as an insult. Luddites did not revolt because of machines, but because of bad payment and terrible working conditions coupled with a total lack of help if they got hurt in the factory. Now tell me, does that sound enjoyable to you?
What worries me more about this program is that it might discourage kids from putting in the years of work and effort it takes to become a skilled visual artist. It gives you the illusion of creating art. It’s fun to provide a prompt and see what you get out of it. And it’s a hell of a lot easier than working for decades to learn how to draw.
I am not really worry about that , as a teacher and coach in the visual art , I can tell you that people that are going to put the small effort to make there best art do it because they are what they do , art in it self . They will do the work because they want to get the goal , pushing a button doesn't satisfy them . My worry is for the Firms and employer that look at it to make their posters or book covers or whatever instead of hiring an Artist .
Same. The issue is that this will have bad ramifications for art overall. AI won't really come up with "new" concepts, it's entirely dependent on what humans made in the past, which is why I'm reluctant to even call it "AI" in the first place. No skilled human artists to feed it stuff = nothing new is created. People are in denial especially the AI shills, but they'll realize this eventually, and then you're going to hear your average Joe screaming about how everything related to entertainment sucks these days. And they'll deserve it, because seriously this world deserves nothing.
art is passion first and job later. There already insurmountable obstacles in art that would be almost impossible to tackle if they do not have the passion. AI wont stop ones that have the passion, at most make them pause.
just like microwave dinners making people less motivated to learn how to cook, or automatic transmission reducing ppls motivation to learn to drive stick shift. or ipads and good user interfaces reducing people’s motivation to learn how to use computers through the command terminal. or calculators reducing people’s interest in developing skills in doing mental math or hand calculations. people will allocate their time differently. hopefully they can be guided towards doing things that are good for development of character and talent. i think in the future it might become seen as moral imperative for every person to have like one or two things they commit to learning to do the ‘hard’ way, with less technology. just to keep the knowledge alive. it will be a hobby, shouldn’t be expected to be able to make a career from it.
@@LeetMath Well, calculators help me (as a person with dyscalculia) to solve problems easier and more efficiently, since i'm very lacking in terms of mental math, though i still do hand calculations when a calculator isn't in reach.
I'm happy to have come across this video, really happy. I'm just a normal artist who wants to make books for children, graphic novels, and become an art teacher. I'm always complaining about back pain, art programs being slow on my computer, having to buy materials, staying up until late, etc, but i really am in love with my craft. People saying that AI was "just a new tool" felt like a half assed answer to me. Much of your concerns you mentioned here were also things I've thought myself. Why, would i want the world's most beautiful picture if i knew that it was an amalgamation of unconsented sets of information processed by a program with no soul. Yes, it may be better than anything i might amount to do in my life, but it not only feels empty, it feels disgusting. Not everyone will be sensible, or will care enough to notice this of course, some people are so numb that they will only care to see "new and cool content" and that's it. I could ramble on an on because this is a topic i think about a lot, but i'll stop here.
because it costs less :) ? because they are pretty pictures ? because it is quicker, more available art for everybody? If I'm a refugee from Afghanistan and I wanna picture the horror I felt while fleeing I simply use a program to create a beautiful and moving picture quickly and easily, instead of paying someone to do it. Adapt to the new environment, how many more children can be taught art with these new tools? This is fantastic for art, stop complaining
Keep seeing same comments over and over again. "You can't stop progress, Steven!" None says anything about stopping AI technology. All he talks about is a thing that many adult people should kind of easily understand and practice - *CONSENT*
This comment is SO underrated. That's exactly what the problem is here. Millions of artists work and billions of hours work of blood sweat and tears have been taken in an instant to train AI. But "oh well, progress" ☠️ Um, no, literal theft and zero consent. And of course zero fcks given by the creators of AI. Recently saw "the father of AI" (whatever his name is) is having an existential crisis or something... Yeah. Um. No sympathy. 🙄
I fear that ai will not only steal many of the already competitive visual arts jobs, but social media will also cease to be a viable opportunity ll be competing with people secretly posting ai content as their own work. Its already is happening to some degree.
there's already someone who used an AI to produce something in just a few weeks that won a contest and a cash prize, without telling the judges that "their" work wasnt made by him at all
@@FantasmaNaranja There was also a case of some user taking a screenshot of someone's work in early state during a livestream then pretending they did the image first by posting a "version finished by the AI" before said artist could finish their piece. Of course, that was extremely stupid and that fool was hit with backlash. But this scenario is a total nightmare and can be replicated easely. Not only these opportunists can pretend to have paint a piece an AI did, but on top of that some would be playing the "mine was posted first so you're the thief" card (Which is particularly stupid since the artist's work files would be older than the fraudulous post anyway) against artsists who actually spend hours working on their pieces. The nerves of going out of their way stealing someone's sketches instead of creating "originals" using only prompts deserves an award...
@@EddieJrDigiarts Designing logos takes way less times and even in that aspect AI can be useful to prototype an idea and see it go a direction you wouldn't think of yourself. Doesn't matter if your final product is even close to what AI generate, but sometimes seeing the potential in one of those random shapes can spark an idea. It can be a good tool if used right
@@EddieJrDigiarts that's not really art, it's design, it's cold, calculative, a designer might insert some of their personality and likes, but they are bound to what the company wants, even if they don't understand shit about design themselves
I've hated AI art the moment I heard about it and saw people start to post it. Anyone that thinks it won't affect them eventually has their head stuck up a dark place. It WILL affect us all if we don't choose to fight against it. It is probably already too late, but I for one, will not stand for AI art. Like you said perfectly, it's not a tool, it's a replacement. That's exactly how they made it and how they want it to be. The people that started these programs have ZERO respect for the hard work and talent real artists have. I have to sign off before I start throwing around a lot of bad words I'll owe my daughter dollars for later... but I've shared this video. I hope others find it and watch it. I hope they listen. And I hope we will rise against them to take back our own livelihoods.
If it was a replacement, then it would be able to do its job better than an artist. A quick look around, and a lot of people are trashing on how AI art looks. If it can't do its job better than an artist, then its not a replacement, its a tool. And if a job can be completely automated, then why should it be around? Everyone seemed fairly silent when robots took over manufacturing.
@@sa1t938 No offence, but it's short sighted to judge it from how it performs now. It's gotten miles better from the first DALL-E, and it makes sense it will improve and perhaps be enhanced with more generalized AI. People weren't silent when factory work was being replaced with robots, but I think art is held in higher regard. Not to mention the opiates that let inhabitants of former steel town calm down (Thanks Purdue).
This really drove home the point of how bad AI-generated art, and AI-generated media in general, can really get. And I thought NFTs were bad for digital art...
@@aliasmcdoe Some would call that action vengeance. I'll be honest the whole NFT controversy was so overblown. Basically glorified baseball cards nothing more
How do you keep yourself from going mad as a professional artist? I spent 2 years unemployed, and 99% of that time was trying to build an audience and attempt to achieve a freelance level of self employment through commissions. What I learned: If you're not someone who can learn to self promote, or can't spend just as much time self advertising as you are making art, you're going to do nothing but frustrate yourself. I gained a total of 180 followers, 0 comissions, after putting up over 600 finished pieces in hopes of following my passion. I hate, loathe social media, keyword culture. I cannot keep up with it. I just can't. So, I create more. Every art "community" I join seems like it's just a board to slap your self advertisements onto. SO much untrained, low effort stuff that if you don't LIVE on the platform and repost constantly, good luck being seen at -all-. So, I have gone back to office drone life, miserable, disillusioned, and worse for it. I still draw and paint...but only for myself, and it hurts, knowing there are people who do it purely for profit, with much lower skill in the art than their advertising, and achieve wild success, letting them create for a living. It's no wonder so many classical artists we praise now were drunks who killed themselves. I'm sad again.
I have the same frustrations with self advertising, i had bought the idea that as long as you're good at what you do work will come for you And well it doesn't help that most of the art sharing sites have become dull, artificial and sooo saturated, in the earlier days of the internet at least there was a sense of personal presence, where different artists interacted and shared ideas (Btw could you share your socials if you still have your art up?)
well may be is time to reevaluate what ART means to you ( in reality to most people ) , the greeks did art not for the money but for the pleasure it gave them and they created magnificent art , perhaps AI as it takes over mundane tasks and jobs will give us that possibility again , you should continue making art it should not be about what art gives you through others but what it gives to you directly
@@robotron07 check your history, there was plenty of Classical Greek work that was commissioned for government, temples, homes. They didn’t just create things out of “love for the work”- it was regular old work for hire. And saying to use AI as a way to free you to make art that’s there to fill some kind of niche inside you, well that’s just telling a working artist that he’s gonna lose his job to AI, but it’s okay- just go out and make yourself happy- you won’t care then that you’re out of a job and broke.
@@denises3727 that how evolution works ,better systems take over obsolete ones ,Humans have a choice to integrate with machines ( at the neocortex level) or be left obsolete .i will let you some food for thought find out what is the true concept of a cyborg and what is its relationshipo to cell phones "today" ,soon there will be the possibility of physical integration and that decision will come to play in the near future,this will be more a matter of being left with out a job because you want to
I refuse to take them seriously. But I'm a 67-year-old who's been a pen & ink illustrator for over 50 years. I've earned the right not to care about trends. Flushing a toilet does not make you a plumber and pushing a button does not make you an artist. “Where the spirit does not work with the hand, there is no art. " - Leonardo da Vinci
@@KolossosDD I mean, I think you are really understating how much goes into proper photography. While to some it's just pushing a button, there's so much that goes into photography outside of just pushing a button to capture a picture. How you frame the picture, what lighting you either set up or wait for the perfect lighting opportunities, the type of lens you use, and so much more go into creating good photography.
@@chromulus2225 Yes I spend a lot of hours and days on photography (semi commercial and as hobby). Thats why I can joking about the "its only a push on the button" critique that comes from painters since 1860 and now for AI art.
@@KolossosDD It’s the perfect example to bring up really. Artists back then though the camera would wipe out their industry. The same reactions on this video are echoed again. Automation creates fields of new and niche expertise. It’s just a shame that most artists shrug off or scoff just as well how economics in markets work. Most are conditioned through fear to demand political regulations on an industry. It’s unfortunate.
"STARVING ARTIST" VS MUSIC INDUSTRY The double standard with AI data sets between art and music most likely can be contributed that artists are individuals and music has always been dominated by studios and is even referred to as an industry. We need to start a AMERICAN (or International) UNION OF VISUAL ARTISTS that can lobby and litigate on the behalf of visual artist community!
Yes that sounds like a great idea! And agree with you 100% But the question is how many artist do you know that is good with politics? Or even know how to start something like that? I would love to create something that can protect all artist. But the only thing I know I'm good at is just art. Even the business side of my art I'm still trying to figure it out. But hey if you know how to do all of that count me in. And I'll help any way I can.
As an artist (hobbyist) myself, I am disgusted by AI and especially "AI-Bros" who make fun of artists and tell them to "get real jobs" because we "can soon be replaced by AI". Art is my passion and what I want to do my whole life and as a job and seeing these people completely disrespect artists and their work just makes me sick.
"Art is my passion and what I want to do my whole life" sorry to tell you, but world don't revolve around you, if you get replaced you get replaced period. i need some art for my project and i have 2 options 1) human, order can take up to a week, charges a lot of money, i might be not satisfied with finished product 2) computer programm, works EXTREMELY fast (10000x10000 high detail image in less than 1 second), needs to be purchased just once, dont like the result? just run her another time lol
@@neolordie even if it will i'll just pick a new specialization without crying about it, i did it once and i can easily do it as many times as i need to do, so as every human being with a speck of a brain
Couldn't agree more. It's not the technology that is at issue. It's the massive theft of copywritten art used to train the system and profit off it that's the problem. There is no other industry where that's an acceptable practise. Let them train the AI with their own art and see how many people want to use it.
not really - I have trained the AI using my own artworks (I have been an illustrator for over 10 years - I am programmer from a few years already). I don't use any living artists. Prompting is an "art" as well. Why? You need to select topic, create the whole idea, manipulate the image late on and so on and on. To say to somebody that is a thief just because creates art differently is unfair. I get it when it is addressed towards people using the living artist names. But on the other hand - the ideas are art. Not the craft. Art itself has been luxury good - lets be honest. Most artists has been and do struggle. The top few % are making more than a half of the industry. Should we be angry at these people? This is my statement - not everybody is a thief, not everybody is using all of the AI tools out of the box. Some people use their drawings/sketches as a base and just work similar to collage artists. Some as I do - use their own processed artworks for style base and not use any living people for their works. So please don't put everybody in the same basket.
@@HCforLife1 You don't (or you do and you lie, therein lies the problem) but many will. That's like saying everyone should have their own nukes, and that having nukes is fine because I personally won't use it to bombs others for no reason. And even my personal declaration is faulty, because my statement should not be taken at face value and should be placed under suspicion. It's a terrible argument that cannot be taken seriously. As a non-artist I will put every AI user in the same basket, don't you worry. I believe that you people deserve no quarter, because I see a lot of you try and demoralize actual artists so that they might give up and allow you to be a parasite on their backs in peace. Not a chance buddy. I also hope that artists will not give up on this, and will be relentless in defending art and their work. Or we will see the further devaluation of art, into nothingness.
And yet real humans do not train only copyright-free art. The onus is on them not to produce infringing works. Just because you have studied drawing the perfect Mickey Mouse, or performing the perfect rendition of Master of Puppets does not mean you can sell that product without legal risk. What I am saying is that it seems to me that the AI's capacity to produce infringing work should be moot. The onus should be on whoever uses it not to make commercial use of infringing work. That the developers of this AI removed copyrighted works from the dance diffusion dataset does not speak to me of visual artists getting shafted - it speaks to me the gross copyright overreach of the American (and it IS predominantly the American) music industry.
@@HCforLife1 the people using AI are not the thieves, it’s the particular organizations mentioned in the video that are. Again, the technology is not the issue here. The way these corporations have trained their own dataset using copy written material and then profited from it without paying the artists, is the issue. Artists training their own AI with their own art work is fine.
@@NiloNova Ah yes. We artists who have spent a lifetime dedicated to this skill are monopolizing creativity. Much like obese people have a monopoly on food. (Satire)
As a game developer, I work with artists and musicians, and nothing motivates me more than seeing the joy and pride they get out of coming up with ideas, sharing their work and seeing it come to life. I think there's a lot of cool things about diffusion AIs, but the thought that they could take that away terrifies me.
It feels bad eh. At least you can see their work and verify how it was made. Me from joe public has to check every art account for proof of authenticity now, the front page of every art site is already endless waves of AI junk. Deviant has bots spamming 'untitled' works mixed with stolen art in the feed to trick people. I've stopped going to art sites and I can image a lot of artists are going to nope out of having their sincere work obscured by everyone using image generators.
@Chino Gambino feels...ive honestly thought of making my own website with checks and balances to prevent thieves from getting in, such as requiring knowing a physical person who is a member and each person who brings you into the site needs to be picky because if the newbie breaks the rule, then you are also responsible for not vetting them. A bit draconic but im not a coder
You're looking at it from the perspective of an artist, the end user most of the time doesn't care about the process used to create the thing. As long as it's entertaining or serves the purpose, it could be from AI or a human for all they care
And you're stupid. As a game dev I feel incredibly joyful that I can actually be independent and not rely on the charity and goodwill of others can can actually focus on that which I do best, code. I don't even need to waste exorbitant amounts of money on commissions!
"When you prompt, you are shouting your inner heart into the next dataset" @19:31 As someone who studied writing in college, I got some intense chills the moment you said this: Because of the poetry in your phrasing; and that I knew deep down it makes absolute perfect sense. The data collection never really stops--working in the IT world has at least taught me that.
I am a poet. Not an artist. However, I have many friends that are painters, musicians, dancers... They are my brothers and sisters. This is an attack on human creativity. I am sharing this video essay with everyone I know.
I am curious. Is it okay for AI and technology to greatly reduce the need for non-creative? Trucking with self driving cars, robotic arms and manufacturing tech with those skilled workers, digital kiosks and service workers? Unfortunately, AI and tech is going to put a lot more people out of a job than just creative jobs. Historically, we haven't seen protections for these workers.
@@misterogers9423 1. People have been talking about this happening for decades. 2. Everyone is creative. It is just that our creative spark has been squashed by the horrible work conditions.
I disagree. I’m a musician. I play the piano. Been playing since I was 13. I have no problem with ai systems that make music. And that’s because I don’t use music to make money. I use music to make me feel better. And here lies the problem. People that have a problem with this are people who think they will lose money from ai systems.
Finally someone understands, I'm tired of this overly optimistic outlook many artists have: "nooo, we will be better than ever! Everyone will become an art director! It will only get rid of *craftsmen*, us *real artists* will be fine!" Why would anyone hire you if they can get a computer to do your work for free? Oh, and it won't stop with artists. White-collar jobs are probably the next chopping block, then the blue-collar ones. Ironically enough, the dirtiest and lowest paying jobs will be the last to remain cause it'll be cheaper to pay a human pennies to do then rather than get an expensive robot.
its evil dressed up in one of its favourite disguises: marxism. What don't you want to not work at all and just spend all day fishing?!.......thats the future: a few will live like gods and the rest of us will own nothing, plug into some shitty VR reality and love big brother with all our hearts.
Amazon is laying off tens of thousands of people in favor of robots. I'm not so sure if blue collar jobs will be the last to go. It will all depend on how cheap the robots will become.
This might be true and I agree, its why i make art. But consider this: what tools do you use to make art (say, digital only)? Photoshop...Corel...Procreate. these tools require people to purchase them to continue development and hosting - they ain't cheap nor free to make. If Adobe et al stop getting cashflow because not enough people buy their software, what happens to the sotware - and the tablets - needed to make digital art? Let's face jt, the vast majority of their sales are enterprise and individual pros - hobbyists make a tiny percent of their income.
Very interesting video. As someone who has mostly been disappointed with the arguments made against image AIs thus far, you make several solid, persuasive points about what's wrong with their current development and implementation. I intend to share this one around a fair bit. Hopefully it will improve the discourse.
In a vacuum I have no problem with Ai art, but technology isn't developed in a vacuum. It is created in a political, economical, ideological context. Technology is not neutral. Right now, it is perfectly legal for these Ai programs to take existing copyrighted material and use for “training”. And That should not be the case. It should not be normal that these companies took the work of artists without permission.
AI really seems to me like a way for Capitalists to cut out actual artists so they can have guarenteed content that's cheap to create without any human input at all. Corporations at the end of the day only care about profit and will do anyhting to try to mitigate the tendancy of the rate of profit to fall.
The people who write comments about how AI learning from images is similar to how an artist's being inspired by the works of other artists seem to miss or purposely ignore the point of the Data-laundering argument: an artist and an AI are two absolutely different legal entity types; one is a human with rights and legal responsibilities while the other is a software the sole purpose of which is data extraction and categorization. Legally the software is represented by its creators, which are legally and morally (perhaps to a lesser extent) responsible for the methods they use to create the software.
When you do a google search, copyrighted images can show up. It seems like it is perfectly legal to categorize copyrighted images. Is there a difference?
@@tyruskarmesin5418 There is a difference. It depends on the implementation and purpose. Google is a search engine, it indexes\categorizes web site data and does not generate profit from the images specifically, but from ads and services.
@@Einygmar The legal issue is yet to be verified and established. But it's progress, you can't stop progress, either you ignore it or you learn it, you have no choices.
I personally thought that art AI should be used as a tool, you just need to be more skilled than AI to survive, etc, but after watching this video I agree that AI has been unfair to artists! Thank you for making me and others more aware about the other side of AI. Recently I’ve been wondering “Why do I make art?” At first I only did art because my parents said I was good as a kid. I did art because I was good at it, but now I’m at the point where I no longer consider myself “good”. After watching I realized I make art because I LOVE making art. I love looking at years of hard work being put into use. I love improving. I love struggling. I love seeing other’s voices being heard through this medium. I hope AI doesn’t take that away from us and future generations.
The reflex to regulate anything just creates another layer of technocracy, interwoven into bureaucracy. It’s a trap of its own making. AI art generation needs existing art from talented artists to present something convincing and plausible. At the moment anything established in perspective is its bane. Perhaps with the integration of 3d programs and how tackling perspective works in those softwares, that can change. Visual development jobs will probably have a lighter workload with AI as a tool. But paying an artist who produces consistent and high quality work, or who can direct a project with a honed sense of aesthetics, will still be demanded.
@@Hibernial I agree that artists are still in demand and it's being used as a tool to enhance workflow. However, it will replace us in the near future (few years?) if there's no regulation, no doubt in my mind. I disagree with your first statement.
It has nothing to do with skill. Us artist people we create from our imagination and our experiences. AI bypass all of that and do a very quick search that takes mili second and put it together. It's equivalent to taking other artist art and making a collage and calling it your art. It doesn't even do art it need our art to actually make art. Art takes creativity, imagination and emotion. Something a computer can't do or have. Just don't mistake AI art for real art.
People who use 3d are even worse! They've been around for 10 years - and not a single one of them picked up a pencil. I'm baffled we just let them be, we should take a hard stance against AI and 3D!
@@bbgun9076 You clearly dont understand the issue at all. 3D art is an artform. It is more similar to sculpting then with 2D art, but it is still art. Also, plently of 3D artist do use pencils, to paint over their creations.
The lack of empathy is what is most disturbing. Non-artists have no problem with AI being in a position to overtake the art industry. What if someone made a program that rendered their livelihood and craft redundant, though?
I mean, they will go through the same thing sooner or later.
This has been happening for decades at this point, now it's suddenly a massive problem because people that work in the comfort of an office are having their ''''''jobs'''''' threatened. This whole backlash just goes to show that blue collar workers are seen as worthless, where was the outrage when machinery replaced the physical labourers?
@@snail736 1. Dude, people have been talking about the danger automation represents for blue color jobs since this has been a thing. The Cyberpunk genre has critiqued this thing since it existed.
2. The reason people were ok with menial jobs being replaced is because most people did not like those, and instead hoped that automation would free them from bad working conditions.
3. Your authoritarian leanings can clearly be seen here with your hatred of artists.
4. Artistic jobs have not been forced on artist. They have been chosen, to allow people to express their creativity and passion.
@@snail736 The humanist ideal of automation was to replace dull labour so people can do something more fulfilling with their lives, but can't you see we're now devaluing the tasks that give meaning to human lives? And automation has been discussed for a centuries: the Luddites were in the early 1800s and they just wanted to retain their jobs; they didn't even mind using the new power looms, just about realizing some of the cost savings themselves.
@@snail736 I mean there have always been backlashes against automation, in case you haven't noticed. If you didn't notice the backlashes, that's your problem. I work in accounting, and psychopathic programmers salivate at the prospect of automating my job for over a decade. I do see the practicality of that, at least. But the thing is, with art it's entirely pointless and it serves to do nothing but devalue it and ruin it for artists. And it ruined online art galleries for me. Those that didn't ban it that is, but who knows how much it will advance and become indistinguishable from human art one day.
I'm a trained conceptual artist. That job has gone destroyed by AI. Will that stop me from making art? No it won't. I love making art. I love drawing and creating stuff. No AI will replace that itch, what's in my heart.
That is true, but it will stop people from being able to profit from their passion. Which is sad, because it makes sense to want to market what you are very passionate and, presumably, skilled/will be skilled at.
@@cameronschyuder9034 This is true, very true. The more art is overtaken bu automation the more I want to make art by hand.
IMO the worst thing anyone can do is give up, especially on something they really enjoy doing.
If your whole industry can be replaced by a technology barely a year old your industry clearly wasn't very important.
@@DanieleGiorginoyou're foolish if you believe this battle started merely a year ago.
I spent decades of my life learning foreign languages, only to see the translation industry destroyed by AI. The inferiority of the machine translations a few years back did not stop the destruction of the industry. The machine translation cost nothing, and so the price for all translation came crashing down, because the bottom feeders used machine translation. I found myself paid half price to 'just edit' (as if it was less work) a translation done by machine which was basically unintelligible so that I had to go back to the original and translate it myself. Most clients, the bottom of the pyramid that kept the industry going, did not care about the quality of the translation. If we expect that clients prizing human made products will save industries we are being very delusional. ... the vast majority of clients will go for the process that costs less.
L
a very good example of what's coming for every field.
„the vast majority of clients will go for the process that costs less.”
While that is a claim that makes sense... There are several factors that make be doubtful of this. First and foremost, Vinyl sales are at an all time high, with no sign of stopping now, and they are even doing better in gen-Z then in millennials. Second, physical books still sale better then digital ones, and are actually doing even better in millennials and in gen-Z then most will expect. Third, translation is an utilitarian need most of the time. So that is a factor that needs to be taken into consideration.
@@laurentiuvladutmanea3622 Excellent point. Now is art more like a vinyl? or is it more like a translation service.
Debatably.. I'm leaning towards art being a service akin to translation. I think it has been this way long before ai came to fruition btw.
Client wants art... often for a purpose, a reason. Maybe its a company logo or a character design for a cartoon. The things that bring the client value is whether this suits their needs and less so how many drops of sweat went into the creation of the product. Art is oddly utilitarian in a sense.
@@cachauable I think that is to people who don't understand art. for artists who do art it's different. The work that goes into art is to make sure a particular message is communicated. It is communication a form of conversation through non verbal means. So I would not say it's completely utility based. Marxist argue that art acts as a superstructure so it tells a lot about our society that we see it as utility rather then communication. I guess fault is in art education, and AI art is taking off cause people are used to seeing art as just pretty pictures. It's said that architecture tells a lot about a civilization and it seems it's true. Everything is now minimal, low effort, maximizing utility and function over aesthetics it's logical and productive but it's also cold, lazy and uninspiring existing to serve a purpose of it's creation and nothing more.
Before ai art, making a living as an artist felt hopeless, now it feels pointless
When in fact perhaps, fundamentally what’s pointless is AI.
@@Nyfiken-8 It is just a tool. AI art will become one of the various art mediums among the others. It would not replace "Art" because it can't emulate the physical experience of standing in front of a piece of art made of canvas, wood, paint, oil, marble. The materiality is important.
By the way, photography did not kill painting, cinema didn't kill theater, electronic music didn't kill acoustic music, 3D printers didn't kill hand made sculpture... Everything will be fine.
@@alexandrekorobov4087 True. I hope you are right.
@@Nyfiken-8 I hope so... Can't be sure though. I just think people are always scared of technology.
I also noticed that they tend to compare art with menial work. These jobs can be automated for various obvious reasons plus they are given a low social value. It is not the case for artistic jobs.
And sadly, almost no one in this comment section seem to understand that applied art and visual art are not the same thing. perhaps some illustrator jobs in big video games companies or advertising compagnies can be partially automated for economical reasons. These "artworks" are juste technical documents with some artistic value that can be done by a human a being or an AI... There is some kind of confusion though... for instance "concept art" is not Art, it is a technical artistic skill.
@@alexandrekorobov4087 seems like many are excited to teach AI their art skills, and not just technical skills, in this respect becoming tools themselves. Will this make human artists abundant like many menial workers? Probably not. My initial comment concerns the basic purpose of AI. Financial incentive and curiosity would be drivers, but where does our obsession with replacing even what makes our lives worth living take us, ultimately?
Looking at A.I art is really a throwback. I rememebered when my industry became automated an artist friend told me at least her job will never be automated. But here we are right now. That being said, having survived the automation of my industry. Perhaps i could share something we did to save ourselves. In the late 2000s, as 3d printing became more prevalent there was a fear that one day these things could simply print out all the things we could make. People scoffed on it, no way could they ever get that precise. But they did, and they absolutely devalued and destroyed pottery. Any idea, any sculpture, any technique you knew could now be imitated functionally by a 3d printer, even worse there were random generators primitive as they may be that could create any kind of geometry for the machine. But we survived and we did for a few reasons. It turns out these companies mass producing pottery in china were trying their best to get their materials as cheap as possible.
Perfect as they looked, they had bad smells, they were brittle and they were also not safe for health. Many of the chemicals they used to create their synthetic clays were highly hazardous for health and the chinese public took notice of it. They were everywhere and they still are. They flood 100s of pages of taobao in all aspects. But in a weird way this corporate greed, the greed of selling so much and using terrible materials made people desire real human handmade items. In China, artists created tags 手作 shouzuo became a tag used by artists to to signal to be public handmade goods, people banded together into studios and began to build public trust in human made products. Potters reached out on social media, with their own influence or made use of current cultural narratives to spread awareness of the importance and value of human made work. Fast forward to 2022 and even though a lot of us got wiped out, those that survived today are rebuilding from this apocalypse. Prices of pottery allow for a livable living, the public in china recognise the dangers of mass machine made pottery and always seek out human made goods if possible. But the battle is not over...
Companies in china don't stay stagnant they too picked up that people like handmade goods, so they started to add 手作 into their tags too, they took amateur photos to pretend to be artists. And this is where we are now. Trying to figure out what to do, but for what is worth, these companies are also lazy, they will refresh every sale and it becomes clear a mass produced piece was sold. Once this happens word starts to spread to avoid the shop and people having been educated to do so, do just that in most cases. Its clear the public does not take kindly as these companies 'skinwalkers' as i call them actively delete comments from people confronting them.
Long story short i don't think artists can expect governments to care and i don't think artists can stop A.I art. But what artists can do is to create and spread awareness on the importance of human made art and why they should buy from people instead of souless companies and machines. Companies will also do their best to produce at the cheapest possible ways they can if they were to get into fine art its highly likely they will use inferior canvases and frames etc. Hence in china, presentation is very important, artists don't just sell you a product, you are given it in a box with a letter of thanks and its good material and beautiful to look at. Something these companies can never be bothered to do.
China's new politburo will definitely solve this problem and save the people
This comment gives me hope.
But isn't the later half of gen z and gen alpha dumb as hell? , They already pouring boiling water on themselves for a tiktok trend and they are the people of future, the old people and the relatively young who would understand us are not going to stay for long , i remember my little sister cussing at me because i tried to help her with a math homework, she said she would get a failing grade than be tutored by me
Goodness. Thank you so much for such a weigh in!
"importance of human made art and why they should buy from people instead of souless companies a"
Your wall of text fell apart here.
No one will cares, and no one will care, ever.
It's really crazy to think in the not so distant future many artists may have to verify themselves as legit, by sending in some kind of private video or speedpaint to the website they upload on of their art process, to prove they're legit, and then once this is done, they can then get some kind of checkmark or something to prove they've been verified.
But this looks like the future we're headed for. At least verification will give us a way to prove we're legit, so we don't get accused of using Ai.
There is a video AI too, made by Meta, so i don't think that way of verification is going to help at all sadly.
The probable future is humanity being replaced by AI, which is not a bad thing, per se. One could consider it as the next evolutionary step.
@@diagorasofmelos4345
bruh the next step of human evolution is being dead while lines of code take over.
sounds cool and here i thought i will get superpowers but i guess am dead and a program is pretending to be my grandson.
@@diagorasofmelos4345 Evolution is one thing evolving, not being replaced. So no, one could not consider it an evolution.
@@smail6865 Is it an actual speedpaint? I'm sure that if AI speedpaints start to surface, there will be other means of verification, even if it's going as far as sending physical artwork. Every digital artist is able to draw traditionally as well, even if we haven't picked up a pencil in ages in favor of tablet pen
Techno-utopians: in the future, soul-crushing menial labour will be automated so humans can focus instead on art and self-enrichment
Techbros: we've automated all art and creativity so our wage drones won't be distracted from their soul-crushing menial labour
Honestly, this was one of my biggest shocks when seeing this thing originally.
I used to be an actual tech utopian, so it was a massive shock how easily people accepted the exact opposite of what is meant to happen.
This point is under explored, even if posted as a half-meme. If I may spur on the conversation a step further: there are debates on whether or not some things that have been automated/industrialized are wholly good. For instance, agricultural development. Some disagree that GMOs are good and they have arguments against their long term health benefits. Others have described a nearly apocalyptic scenario regarding the abuse of farmland, and how it has been ransacked beyond sustainable repair (for instance, the Standard Process Inc.'s take regarding supplements and why we need whole food supplements versus manufactured supplements). Even more are pronouncing doomsday regarding the decline of the effectiveness of antibiotics, not due to modern medicine's prior whimsical measures against the common cold, but due to the overwhelming use in industrialized livestock. Do I personally subscribe to all of these alarm bells? I'm not sure, but what I can say is that sticking to primarily a whole-foods diet (not perfectly, but consistently) has granted my family good health, even if it has cost me a lot of convenience, budget constraints, eating out, or even less choice for food. Therefore, I am convinced that there is some truth to the naysayers of the modernity of agrarian practice.
What I see for the future of art is going to be discouraging if it affects humanity even half as negatively as the psychological damage social media has already wrought.
Misconception once again. AI doesn't replace all art, just the 99% commercial filler "art".
@@s4ussjust all entertainment will be replaced
@@s4uss What a pathetic and elitist claim.
So amazing plot twist when he said "it turns out that it's you are the tool to train the A.I"
Problem is there is no real investment of time or emotion... A painting that would take days, weeks, months or even years is now done in minutes. The cost of failure removed. Instant gratification... No bleeding or sweating... It's so sterile...
@@DMDvideo10 modern society’s culture of instant gratification and rapid consumerism will be the death of humanity’s dignity
@@crowfoot8059 Pretty much!
I wouldn’t care too much. I prefer real, physical painting made by an artist than a compiled image. Actually the emptiness of AI generated images is that it would put more value on the real deal.
If you master your craft strongly you will succeed for sure no matter how many AIs throw at you.
@@crowfoot8059… it already is
I feel like the biggest thing we have going against ai art is just the fact that people have an inclination and bias towards "real" art. This can be seen in sculpting, where hand sculpted artworks are valued more moulded factory line models. People follow their favourite artists similarly to how they follow their favourite bands. People use art as a means for interpersonal connection just as much as advertising or marketing in a corporate sphere. The community aspect of art and the respect to each other in the industry I hope will avoid the redundancy of artists.
Sadly, with our interactions with our favorite artists being limited to press releases and other digital social media, and the increased intelligence of automated chat bots, we may well experience in our lifetimes, not knowing if our favorite artists are real human beings doing original work, AI bots, or humans using AI bots as a way to exploit others, by offering the persona of being a human creation.
Ironically enough, Philip K Dick, the famous sci-fi author, wrote about this sort of phenomena several decades ago. He was definitely tapped into something.
""The tactic of poisoning Linda Fox with small doses of mercury was an artful one. Long before she died (if she did die) she would be as mad as a hatter -- literally, since it had been mercury poisoning, mercury used to process felt hats, that had driven the English hatters of the nineteenth century into famous organic psychosis.
I wish I had thought of that, Bulkowsky said to himself. Intelligence reports stated that the chanteuse had become hysterical when informed by a C.I.C. agent of what the cardinal intended if she did not decide for Jesus -- hysteria and then temporary hypothermia, followed by a refusal to sing "Rock of Ages" in her next concert, as had been scheduled.
On the other hand, he reflected, cadmium would be better used than mercury because it would be more difficult to detect. The S.L. secret police had used trace amounts of cadmium on unpersons for some time, and to good effect.
...Galina said, "But if she's destroyed, the colonists will grumble. They're dependent on her."
"Linda Fox is not a person. She is a class of persons, a type. She is a sound that electronic equipment, very sophisticated electronic equipment, makes. There are more of her. There will always be. She can be stamped out like tires."
"I feel sorry for her," Bulkowsky said. How must it feel, he asked himself, not to exist? That's a contradiction. To feel is to exist. Then, he thought, probably she does not feel. Because it is a fact that she does not exist, not really. We ought to know. We were the first to imagine her.
Or rather -- Big Noodle had first imagined the Fox. The A.I. system had invented her, told her what to sing and how to sing it; Big Noodle set up her arrangements...even down to the mixing. And the package was a complete success.
Big Noodle had correctly analyzed the emotional needs of the colonists and had come up with a formula to meet those needs. The A.I. system maintained an ongoing survey, deriving feedback; when the needs changed, Linda Fox changed."
- Philip K. Dick, The Divine Invasion (1981)
That bias is solely cultural though. You can see this by people changing their mind once a piece they previously enjoyed was revealed to them to be generated. Or if that information is simply not known, there are well liked musicians who are essentially produced with assembly line precision, with dozens of people working on the tracks.
@@reck0n3r Dude the covers on his books are SO MUCH BETTER than a lot of the current digital made book covers. They are on a style like the covers of old videogames and it is just phenomenal the level of draftsmanship that they present.
As a game developer myself, I hate to say it but I will use AI created background art for free, and hire less graphic artists because I am a one man studio. I know article authors who feel the same way about pictures for their articles etc... And we are just the tip of the iceburg. There will be less work for graphic artists overall as AI quality improves and surpasses those of humans.
My biggest surprise is just how little other people care about it and sometimes are even excited to replace artists even in fields that should understand the importance of artists.
The programmers in the indie game dev space seem so eager to replace their fellow colleagues. It’s so disheartening.
There's definitely almost a feeling of glee and Schadenfreude at seeing artists replaced, as if, by virtue of having cultivated a skill, we deserve to get knocked down a peg.
It's disgusting, especially considering how much artists struggle to be taken seriously as workers and receive fair wages.
Oh yeah? And where were you when digital art became industry standard? Were you campaigning for the people who would lose their jobs, or were you rejoicing in the opportunity for effectively resourceless art?
Ethics are a farce. People only care about stuff that benefits them.
@@tahunuva4254 I don't feel as though you've watched the video. Digital art becoming industry standard being compared to what ai art is currently doing is a false equivalency. Some guy rolling up photoshop into the company office one day is a far cry from a robotic arm being rolled into a fords car factory. The similarities begin and end with the two being new tech. That's it. Especially when you consider industry veterans, who were there to witness the transition, have some history of traditional painting who now digitally paint. We're looking down a position where the artists simply ceases to exist as a job.
@@tahunuva4254 Digital art is a tool and requires mastery in it's own right. Photography had a similar backlash of artists worried but is of course now seen as it's own art form. This is fundamentally different; ai art is specifically made to undercut the labor of artists and is trained without proper compensation or credit to thousands of artists.
@@tahunuva4254 do you have mental retãrdation
the thing that steven gets that i think other videos don’t highlight enough is that it’s not about the ai. the ai is just the product. it’s about the developers, companies, businessmen, and capitalists behind it who will take a mile if you give them an inch. we’re being bogged down by technicalities and arguments but they’re just distractions. it’s never about the tool, it’s about the people behind the tool and what their agendas are.
It should be protected by copyright. I.e. you shouldn't be able to use someone's copyrighted works as tooling for your machine.
It's literally using someone's hard work to replace them. Using these tools in this way is absolutely evil.
@@hellomate639 ua-cam.com/video/4xKjHHzLUQQ/v-deo.html
@@kenoctcercos4832 Absolute fucking propaganda.
People like you make me start to think that Satan is literally real and at work in the world.
That is my opinion of your choices and actions.
@@kenoctcercos4832 Do you know what conservatives and communists have in common?
They're fucking selfish. When conservatives say that communists are just selfish, they're right AND they're also projecting their own selfishness onto communists.
Hell is made up of conservatives and communists fighting each other.
Become a liberal, and actually give a damn about someone other than yourself.
@@hellomate639 This seems to be a set of arguments and not propaganda. If those arguments are valid and sound that would be another discussion.
23:12 is the most important section of this video. I've seen so many people making that exact argument in the comments of my own analysis. The people who are cheering the hardest for this, idea guys who think this is the magic key to finally unlocking the story they have bottled up inside them; artists and especially writers who think they can cut everyone else out of the process and tell the story they've always dreamed of, will doom every artist alive to algorithmic irrelevance through their lack of solidarity and short-sighted solipsism.
Creativity will find a way even under AI.
Many people dont realise that attention is a limited resource. 😓
@@spectercd4357 And the world will be worse for it
Oh hey, the UA-camr who sent me here commented
I dont think this is the whole story. There will certainly be chaos in a variety of artistic industries for a period, but i think ultimately 1.People will still want to draw/paint/etc. 2. We will still need artists to create works that either these AI utilize, or that utilize these AI. You can certainly do a lot with a prompt, but theres still something to be said for understanding composition and being able to rough out your ideas to get a proper start. 3. People didnt want the camera to become so ubiquitous because it would put the painters out of business, people didn't want the radio to become big because it would put the local musicians out of business. You are not going to get anywhere if you keep shaking your tiny fist at the tides of history, noone cares about you. if your art or ambition gets swept away by this, chances are it was never gonna change much beyond your life, which means nothing much has changed, just draw your drawings and die in obscurity like everyone else. Our whole world is dead, all these reasons to protest AI are not reasons to protest AI, they are reasons to protest rampant capitalism, corporatism, inequity, etc. I wanna be very clear, I'm an artist and most people close to me are artists, i have plenty of sympathy for those who will be displaced or suffer as things change, but 1: The toothpaste doesn't go back in the tube, and 2: its not the AI its the money. Art should not be the kind of commodity it is, it should not be made for money, it should be made for the love of art. When you take those 2 points together its real issue, because the capitalism toothpaste doesn't go back in the tube either. We need to build a post-capitalist society IMO that allows all of these paradigms to flourish outside concerns of money. Most of our dayjobs are pointless nonsense and should end, the stock market should be burnt to the ground, artists shouldnt be grinding day to day just to finish commissions and survive, they should only draw when they want to. Social media as it exists today should be crushed into lifelessness and replaced with free open source solutions that prioritize the choices of the individual and abandon algorithmic feeds almost entirely accept as an opt-in. We will have plenty of algorithms we can apply wherever we want, theres no good reason to sell us their bullshit built in algorithms when we could be accessing free open source ones that prioritize what we desire them to. We could all have access to everything, forever, already, if we just chopped up a few rich people, used their abundant resources to build and train robots and AI to replace the jobs we hate, and then lived our lives doing what we want. I'm not saying noone will work, but realistically, if we actually banded together as an entire race, it would take a very small amount of hours per person to oversee crews of AI robots, or in a few cases, do the jobs themselves. People don't do jobs because they love them, they do things because they love them, and if they are lucky, those things earn them money. We don't need it to be that way and its not better. Art under AI COULD be deeper, not less deep, but yes, under capitalism, it could get pretty fucked. Eat the rich.
Data-laundering has got to be the most accurate keyword for this discussion. Very well spoken
Indeed, ai is the perfect in between black box to launder your crimes. You could just point and blame the ai. "It's the ai, not me. I'm just researching the ai!".
There's no better time to exploit this than now. Exploiting others directly is illegal. But through the black box of ai, it's legal!
I could create a virus that steals data and says its the ai that creates it, not me. Got my hand completely squeaky clean.
Use ai to exploit, now!
maybe if you don't understand the first thing about machine learning and contemporary models, and even then it's just a hollow phrase not explaining anything. this is just uninformed fear-mongering.
@@minhuang8848 ah yes, fear mongering, its more scary than people losing their jobs.
oh no, all the people whinging and whining about how machines will take away their jobs they never had in the first place
yeah right, as if.
@@minhuang8848 Don't whine when you lose your job to AI.
I like how fitting the drawn art piece is to the topic at hand. The conjoined mass of a creature with faint traces of humanity, merely displayed in recognizable shapes here and there. Faces, grimacing and laughing in hysteria, ignorant to the loss they incurred on themselves and others.
20 years from now this kind of comment could be AI generated...
Yeah looks like stable diffusion multiplayer on huggingface
@@AbraHaze84 text bots have already existed and far longer than image AI, 1997, Cleverbot, is probably the earliest example.
@@thealliedpowers I meant that this comment is very descriptive of something shown on screen... Does text bots know how to interpret what they "see" and comment about it?
@@AbraHaze84 interpretation and art commentary bots also take in data from the net so its about the same thing there. Just another artform being abused to make easy money.
Ah yes, opt out, "I stole your stuff tell me if you don't like it", the best type of copyright protection. Should do that in the supermarket.
Ok. What if they trained Ai based on stock and consented art? U know what, You would still be hating it.
Ai won't replace real artists using canvas. It will only replace boring unoriginal clones of digital artists that just changed eyes and hair color of characters. Ai doesn't generate just by prompts. U can draw better stuff using img2img by improving your sketches and anatomy.
Ai is here to stay. People who draw for fun don't earn money. People who draw for money don't enjoy it. It's like any other job.
I'm a professional artist and used to draw for fun since childhood. I started posting some very good art online, but I hated it when I did it for money. But Ai is good. Yes. Cope with it. Stop hating ai. Read the free IMF book *Gen-Ai: Future of Work* and choose the jobs that won't be replaced by Ai.
No matter what happens, I want you to know that your art is beautiful. I hope you never stop making it, even if you no longer upload it
I had a guy on my Facebook actually have the balls to defend using AI data sets bc “ it still takes a lot of work to type prompts into a computer and I’m doing most of the work still”
To which I replied
“ yeah I here you. I’m a master chef bc I am REALLY good at ordering a pizza. I don’t cook
The pizza but damn can I place an order, painstakingly describing the pepperoni, extolling the virtues of thin crust! People don’t understand how much work goes into ordering a pizza!”
That is a very good analogy.
Yeah, and as Ai Art improves Ai "Artists" will become obsolet quicky themselves.
@@IvellScarlett wont that be funny. XD
How is that an analogy?
but some people want $5 pizza made by stoners. Cheap and easy is what makes the world go round. We all are guilty of machine made things that a person could have done. But no one wants to pay the prices of artisan items for every single thing you own.
As a working artist and someone that cares immensely about human art, you just put put all my fears surrounding this on the plate and I hate you for it, but I also really appreciate you for it, if that makes any sense. Very important video and perspective more people needs to hear.
all these fears should be realised by everyone before theyre even created or come to fruition, We need to somehow create a large social wave that enforces lawmakers or politicians to fight against this... but how can we make them motivated to stop it?
@@Davidgopaint we can't. They gain nothing by fighting it. Just wait till this happens with literature, cinema, music and politics.
@@basswitch525 If you're going to just roll over, then shut up and get out of the way. You can either be useful, or stay out of this.
@@gabudaichamuda2545 I see your point, but people have tried to "create a large social wave that enforces politicians to fight against this" for countless problems. Global warming, oil, democracy, guns, schools, it just never worked. And all of these issues are easy compared to AI, because at least we have some control over them. AI is digital, and owned by companies who have no interest in losing profit for the sake of art, supported by a government that will be more than happy to have less "artists" and more "workers" in their economy.
I hate this. I want it to end, but it's been going on since before we were born. I'm not saying it's a lost cause, I just really want someone to come up with some concrete way of dealing with these things that isn't protesting and proposing new laws that are never gonna get pass anyways.
Same here! The way a knife craftsman cares about hand-made knives, we care about human-made art. The big question is: should we force other people to only enjoy human-mad art? We all buy cheaper manufactured knives that replaced a craftsperson-made product. I'm sure they're not thrilled about it, but it doesn't mean it's objectively wrong to manufacture objects? We can hope that, as for hand-made knifes, a part of the market still sufficiently appreciates human-made art to keep it going.
Great video.
One thing that is worth pointing out, is that music isn't being treated differently because of musicians, but because so many of these musicians are signed to huge record labels that have the resources to enforce their copyright. The AI companies foresaw the legal trouble this could cause and said "let's not".
As I say this, I do wonder if these "capped profit" companies are being short-sighted about images, because their datasets include intellectual property from companies like Disney, and that seems like a lawsuit waiting to happen.
I think there’s also an inherent difference in the amount of effort it takes to consume visual art versus music. It takes a second or 2 to look at an image and have a strong impression about it. It takes at least 30 seconds if not more to get an impression from audio, and 2-5 minutes to experience the entire thing.
The effort to get feedback from the ai-generated pieces is much smaller and way faster for images.
But make no mistake, ai is coming for every industry. The underlying problem is the way capitalism embraces automation as a means to reduce labor costs.
Long-term, I imagine a world where human-created art (or any good), will be prized simply for its novelty and our inherent connection to it. But the short-term outlook is pretty grim for all workers and the way we trade our labor in exchange for the necessities to live our lives. They are just coming for visual artists first for the reasons outlined in this video.
record companies cant do much since style cannot be copyrighted.
@@CapApollo The music industry has established precedent with sampling.
AI models essentially take sampling to a new extreme.
I hope they get sued into the fucking stone age.
This is just plain not true. Plenty of corporations have their codebases uploaded to GitHub but were captured by co-pilot largely without incident.
There is one lawsuit that will probably be a precedent setter for the entire industry. Frankly, I don't think anything is going to come of the lawsuit
Its hard to reason with most ai art bros bc the argument for human made art will always be an emotional one and some of these people have the emotional intelligence and human empathy of a potato.
U are so Damn on Point with that simple comment. They are so obliviously ignorant to the World that we are all in, social skills they don't seem to have!?!?!
@@50YrOldSK8R that is true I am a pro A.I. art but this is but a needed step to get true A.I.
I find rhetoric like this disingenuous. Nobody is arguing "against" human made art. It's you "anti-AI bros" who are arguing against other kinds of art.
@@WeAreCameron I’m fine with ppl making AI art for recreational use and uploading it to it’s contained communities, most people aren’t opposed to that. What human artists take issue with is the AI bros who mock and insult their process then brag about how AI (that trains and scans human art work) is going to replace their jobs.
@@rainqu "AI bros" is a non-issue
The Kim Jung Gi AI was the nail on the coffin for me, this is not a tool this is a replacement for one of the greatest things humans have ever done in exchange for money of course.
I hope artists get together against AI before it's too late.
@@DeadGuye1995 Just watch the video dude, he never mentioned Kim Jung Gi in it, my comment was based on my feelings it was not based in content of the video, and this feeling was a general consence in the art comunity. But also its not "worse" its very sad as well, be respectful pls.
Yah those google imgs are made by people, that get no compensation for their work being "scraped" and used in commercial ways.
@@leonardodomingues9010 At least one of the AI training sets also includes images scraped from art posted on ArtStation as portfolio pieces for artists. (which of course, Google Images brings up on a search as well, so it doesn't change your point...)
:(
@@DeadGuye1995 His first point is addressing this very argument. You should give it a listen, 07:35
@@101Linkisawesome No, that’s not the argument addressed in that section of the video.
There are very good points in this video (elaborated on at the bottom of this comment), and its sentiment is correct, but as a computer scientist I think it's important to note a few things that are definitely not correct:
- AI art is provably, and objectively not 'art'. It does not know how to create art without directly plagiarising from existing artworks - if there is a single way to define what art is, it is that an artwork can't be made purely by plagiarising existing artworks. Pastiche is art, parody is art, many forms of 'copying a style or referencing something' are art - but AI 'art' is none of those, as it adds absolutely nothing new of its own. It does not know how to, and it is not designed to - it is designed to copy and only copy. In terms of how it could be called art in future: it can only do this if the 'AI' learns the actual ability to 'draw' rather than merely 'copy'. This isn't anywhere near achievable, not in the next hundred years and likely much longer, because the data you would need to give to the AI to learn this is neither available nor plausibly recordable (imagine trying to teach an AI the entirety of the laws of physics, commonly known animals and all of their characteristics, anatomy, videos of their walking gait, just to name a few things - it's not plausible). Humans know these things, and learn fundamentals to inform their drawing decisions, drawing upon decades of experiences and learning. Training an AI with that much data is not going to be possible for a very long time, both in data and computing power terms.
- Outside of the computer science field, it's probably true to suggest that people 'never imagined the advances in AI art in the last 10 years' - but inside computer science, it is well known that there are no such advances. The 'AI' powering Stable Diffusion, DALL-E, Midjourney etc are neither new or improved. There are two reasons they are possible now, when they were not before: firstly, that the data needed to train them is far more readily available due to the larger proliferation of professional art online on large websites such as ArtStation. Secondly, the necessary computing power to train these models was previously something that was only easy for researchers and large companies to get hold of, but in more recent times, online cloud computing services are much easier to access, even for smaller developers. There have been no breakthroughs in the models themselves, or the way they are generated, or anything else within the 'AI' algorithms themselves.
Those points aside, you are absolutely correct about the dodgy legal nature of these 'AI' organisations, their effective theft of copyrighted artworks, and their lack of transparency. I also entirely agree that resisting these 'AI' tools is nothing to do with being a 'luddite' - innovations can be awful as well as great, and 'AI art' in its current form is one of the worst 'innovations' the art world could ever have.
This is a well laid out video, expressed well, and here's to hoping that 'AI art' falls flat as it deserves to. Thank you for speaking out against it.
I was thinking about how to put this properly into words. I think we could say definitively that AIs in their current state are not drawing, painting, sculpting, or doing photography - charitably you could call it digital collaging which creates the illusion of something having been drawn or painted. That said, the process you describe could still be considered a form of art making - but it would be a mistake to say the AI made the art on its own. Rather, it would be the collective artistic input of the human race (and not just the artists in the data set, but their teachers and influences) that is responsible for whatever is generated and the AI is merely the process by which that generation occurs.
Plagiarism as a concept is dependent on ownership. Ownership can be exchanged and bartered over. So plagiarism to me is not necessarily a strong pillar for a definition of what is and is not art. The ethical AI system Steven describes would do away with the issue of ownership. I think the images produced are indeed art. But I think we could say that AI is not yet an "Artist". Rather it is a collective project of all contributing artists and the flaw in the system is that it has been conducted without their consent or even knowledge.
So in sum, I disagree for the most part with your first point on whether AI images are art but your computer science knowledge has added some nuance to this discussion that I hadn't considered.
@@nateg3962 It's not that 'plagiarism' is the pillar of deciding what is or is not art - but rather that to be considered art, there must have been some contribution by the artist to the artwork. The 'AI', in this case, makes zero contribution - it does not add any meaning or drawing technique, it gives no new take on the art it uses, nor does it have any purpose behind its actions. It has no agency, no reason for why it combines artworks in a particular manner or extracts specific features. This matters because when humans create art, it is done with a meaning (including artworks with a deliberate lack of meaning) - with an intent to express some view, or give some specific feeling or atmosphere.
For example, an artist who e.g. paints a headless horse puts that headless horse in a background intended to give the viewer a reason for why the horse is headless, or to make a statement, or for some other purpose - even a vague or crappy purpose. The AI has no such concept because it does not understand - or attempt to understand - why the horse is there, or why it is headless. It has no idea what a horse is, or how a horse behaves, or why a horse is in the painting; all it knows is that it found image features that indicate the presence of a shape it knows to be a horse.
Even with the most mundane objects - a simple painting of a tree - the AI does not know anything about trees, or how they work, or why. It is unable to "draw" a tree, because it does not know what a tree is - it is only able to copy features from things its model identified as similar objects in other artworks.
A human who plagiarises a bunch of artworks and blends them together could still claim to be making art - unethical art, poor art, but art of a sort. Humans using 'AI art generators' would fall into that category.
The same cannot be said for AI on its own. As a further example, a human who throws a bunch of ink up in the air, landing on paper below them, could be said to be making art - because the "artwork" in that case is less about the resulting mess of ink, and more about making a statement about the nature of randomness or some other concept. The AI, in such an example, has no understanding of concepts or statements, and cannot do the same thing.
@@Ant-le7hl I don’t think we actually disagree here. My contention was also that AI is not an “artist”, though I would argue this from a different perspective from you. However, in the process of compositing images from other artists, their legitimate works of art still contribute their voice to the image. Therefore the image generated by the AI is a work of art, but it is not the AI’s art. Does that make sense?
@@nateg3962 Yeah, that makes sense. It's just a question of definitions, as many 'AI artists' (I do not recognise them as artists, I don't think they deserve to be recognised as such) claim the AI on its own is capable of making art when it is not.
Exactly, it's like a sandwich machine, but where everything that the sandwich is made of is stolen from different stores, you can say that it doesn't look anything like the bread, meat and lettuce that they stole, because they are " sufficiently modified" to not be the same as the original, but that does not mean that they are made of stolen things
As a full time working artist and the sole earner for my family, thank you for putting into words everything I've been feeling recently.
Perhaps you should switch jobs and go for anything that is actually needed and paid. And perhaps other members of your family can start looking for those jobs too.
@@haitaelpastor976 perhaps you shouldn't give unasked career advises to people you know nothing about.
@@nobody-nk8pd Perhaps you should already know that being on the internet risks getting exactly that.
@@haitaelpastor976 Perhaps I just hate assholes.
@@nobody-nk8pd Perhaps you put the asshole label on anyone who's speaking the truth.
The best thing about art is, always has been, and always will be getting to make it. The process does things to our brains that are profound.
Excellent Comment. This is absolutely true!
Yes. Creating Art is essential to the human experience and it will not die as long as we don't.
Thank you. I find the arguments pro-AI people make for writing, for example, to be absolutely impossible to take seriously.
These guys are telling me that just because half or more of their creative process was done and AI doesn't mean its any less creative. . . yeah right.
@@goldpeen2661 They wish they could have what we have worked for. I bet a lot of those people are trying to convince themselves more than anyone else that what they are doing is an equally valid form of creative expression. And besides making it yourself is the magical part, I wouldn't automate a single second of the process if I could.
Exactly! It is the process of creating that is the best part 🙌
Art is perhaps the oldest surviving form of human expression. Evidence of literature, politics, philosophy, religion, and language itself go back merely thousands of years. We have art that survives from tens of thousands of years ago. Art is a fundamental part of who we are as humans. I find it profoundly tragic to see art threatened by AI.
I see the "threatened by ai" as a very narrow minded and wrong aproach and thought. It actually makes me chuckle a bit because every time a new medium in art was invented people cried about the death of art and the work of artists being devalued. Photoraphy being a prime example. "No that everybody can make Portraits so quick and without skill, what are the portrait artists going to do!" What happened was, that yes, portraitry as an industry got thrown over, that is the progress. But out of that came whole new branches of art, so many new possibilitys. You people will be the horse breeders crying about the car, while other artists are already out there develing into the topic and discovering what actually can be done with AI. Its a new form of art, it will change the status quo, but its not going to end art. Its just going to be different.
@@theexchipmunk 1. This is not a new medium. It is a dehumanization of digital art.
2. The limits of what it can do are known. There is no self expression.
@@digitalcurrents I sense a tone of naivety in your random internet mutterings there, stranger. Ever heard the saying "Road to hell is paved with good intentions"? Like life on earth with its diverse creatures and thoughts and minds as we do in this discourse, progress too isn't a one way road. Not all progress is good, nor without its consequences.
I for one, want the AI to thrive or even fall into the wrong hands so when bankrupts, the scream, the doom and gloom comes I can only laugh at these so called "progress", for the clueless to know that the knife may hurt them, they first need to cut themselves firsthand.
its not threatened art has always been technological with humans involved still is always will be. the is is the dumbest thread on the topic online.
@@jimimased1894 I mean yeah it's not really threatened, but dumbest as it may be do we really have to deny artists from their thoughts and concerns? Like.. This video, topic & thread?
Just started taking art seriously this month and had a lot of enthusiasm. Now with all the news about AI art, I'm questioning whether this was/is worth anything or whether I should quit before being utterly disappointed. I wish I had more time to think about these things, but it's my senior year of high school, and time waits for no one
Edit: Big thanks to everyone who's commented; your thoughts have provided fantastic insight! You all have reminded me of why I began my art journey in the first place: my burning desire to create. So, whether or not I pursue art as a career, I'll always be an artist. Thanks again everyone, much love!!
Keep your chin up, and summon your inner steel. Now is a time for vigor, not despair.
Of course it's worth pursuing,you will enrich your life in so many ways,you can achieve things you never thought possible and therein lies the reward,to hell what these programs can do, they're not you
Keep it up, you can do this!
Godspeed Snerg! Whatever your passion came out to be.
If you want to be realistic going into the future, ask yourself why you want to learn art first. If it's because you want to make art exactly how you want it, or if you want to express yourself, or for a similar reason, go for it. It's absolutely worth it in that case. But if you plan on making a living on drawing and painting, I would contemplate reconsidering.
Unless it's niche or taboo art, or you become a master artist, or you know you can secure a position in a company (which are usually slow to adopt new tech), drawing and painting is going to become increasingly compromised for artists to make a living on as these AI become better and their images increasingly flood the internet.
I oust drawing and painting because there's so much easily available data to train AI on it's almost unfathomable (Stable Diffusion was trained on a couple billion images, with a b). Other fields like 3D art will be safe for the _near future,_ as there's significantly less training data available _for the time being._
These companies taking on the AI market are dealing in millions of dollars, at least. We're talking tens of thousands of dollars in electricity _just to train the models_ when it comes to processing that many images. So despite the uploader's wishes, I have the feeling not much is going to alter the path we're on.
Something that's really bothering me is when I explain my worries of horrible realities "AI generater" pose, and people just tell me that won't happen. I'm telling its already happening and they say people will always want human made work. Unwitting downplaying the issues, talking to people who are not artists has only made me more convinced that the worst possible outcome is the most likely.
@@reinasayama8077 When I see people commenting that “huge amounts” of the population continue to prefer content made by individuals I see people committing the act of assuming that their ideas are representative of the majority when I see no evidence that this is correct. People see what they want, but in the end it’s companies like Google Facebook Twitter etc etc etc, that are driven by algorithms and increasingly autonomous code like AI, that have long ago in the history of modern Big tech swallowed the world and all the hopeful humanists with it. They’ve been laughing themselves to the bank for decades already by profiting off the vast majority of the world’s docile behavior in regards to their profiteering, predation, and control. This new turn tech is taking with AI is just beginning, and it’s already not looking so hopeful. I have the same issue as the original commenter. People I talk to tend to try to minimize the entire situation and end up appearing tragically ignorant. And everyone having this discussion now has already been alive long enough to even know what it was like before AI became a thing. Relatively soon there will be walking talking voting choosing humans who will have never known a world without ubiquitous and likely insidiously pervasive AI. I’m not a fortune teller, but I think it’s pretty likely that, just like every generation has done before them, they will grow up and grow into the tech of their time and be the fuel for its continued endless sprawling grasp on social structures, economies, governments, ART…
Remember vintage lace? That used to be handmade, too.
They also believed that people would prefer handmade lace over those made by machines.
Today, the majority of lace is machine-made.
@@danielawesome36 Good example. Indeed, how many previously hand-made things are no longer made by hand, but by machine or simply printed or coded? It would take too long to count.
@@reinasayama8077 i dont wanna be a boomer but i have already seen people (non artist normal people) not caring by both (human or ai) which it would lead to them to not care for whoever wins, at the end they dissmiss art in general, so if Ai at some point can do what is on their mind, they will be ok with the disappearance of artist and therefore allowing the path for Ai replacing other jobs
@@bitterbunn1831 If AI manages to draw what people have on their minds that would be a blessing, it would destroy the skill barrier to entry for making art. And AI should automate more jobs, all of them. The problem is the requirement of having a job to survive.
as a 77-year-old artist with limited time on this earth as a living organism, I can appreciate this talk in so many ways. First of all, my one and only desire was to be an artist (visual) since maybe 6 or 7. And, it has been a wonderful journey. My parents tried music-making and singing, but that didn't titillate my tingle-ees in the right chords. it always came back to visual two-dimensional art. I worked hard and made it. then watched, typesetting replaced, then board art, then inception to complication taken away from my creative work. i took and still take pride in my work. I can only imagine the next 80 years. After the war, the people that are left will be required to relearn the basics. The Neo-dark ages. Or, we the populace will be parasites sucking the tit of whatever machine we are attached to. The machine will be called "Mamatrix." And, when it figures out we are useless baggage we will be sucked dry of any information and discarded like Pampers. But in the long run, it won't matter because people will not be around to complain.
Trust me, japanese artists are more intolerant of ai before it even became this famous. It's super disappointing that from what I see from the west are mostly artists who are coping. Trying to be positive etc.
It's not just visual arts , ai is also getting into writing and music composition. Sure, experts are the only ones who can see which is good or not but the common people wouldn't care.
It's really frustrating to see the amount of people who are wayyyyy too agreeable for their own good. So darn short-sighted.
I'm afraid of a time where artists can no longer prove it's their original work without being asked for the video process. Or unique artists whose works might lose value when people keep using their styles.
There are even assholes who use a professional artist's name with an ai work with their style in it....and sell it. Even going as far as telling the specific artist "we will make sure you lose your job" is so darn hostile.
But yeah, thank you very much for this video at least I know somebody is actually thinking this thoroughly.
I hope it's never too late to do something with these pirates.
True, a lot of japanese artist sre pissed this as well.
as someone who really wants to get into art as a career, this whole AI art craze has gotten me actually kind of worried. I am in the same boat as you. It blows my mind how people dont see big problems with this. the only people who seem to care are the artists themselves. we must fight back
As a writer, my artwork has always been easy to copy, but my particular verbosity and individual style will soon be obsolete, when AI is capable of manufacturing every imaginable configuration of words
Writing is the safest form of art that AI won't be able to make due to the fact that AI can't understand semantics(for now). And if they did, they would be sentient.
@@AddyLovestar AI can already spill words. The thing is that it wouldn't have meaning.
AI is very good at making text that seems that was written by people. But fails when we go to specific semantics about comstructing a story like a human.
"Better technology does not mean more, better jobs for horses" ~CGP Grey
The terrifying thing is, humans are the new horses.
@@carultch ive been saying this for years
@@hyleriangaming22143 Hopefully we'll one day realize, we cannot automate our way to prosperity forever. At some point, a critical mass of unemployment will cut corporate revenue, and we'll regret trying to make the human brain obsolete.
This is sad to know about. And I JUST KNOW that the argument is just going to boil down to "Suck it up artists! You should've gotten a real job!" While watching all my animated scenes on Hulu and Netflix.
This is just the logical conclusion of all sentiments such as 'art is not important', 'art isn't as necessary as engineering' and 'art is subjective'
More like: "Suck it up artists! You should try to find a way for your skills to remain relevant in a fast evolving sector, like all other manual professions had to since decades ago with the rise of automation!"
"While watching all the AI generated animations on Hulu and Netflix" there fixed it for you!
@@Danuxsy „While watching all the AI generated animations on Hulu and Netflix”
That is not going to happen. Works generated by „AI” cannot be given copyright, so no company will use them for a significant part of their work flow.
@@laurentiuvladutmanea3622 companies won't exist because customers can generate their own content with a neural network just like they are with images using Stable Diffusion.
I love the "looking into the mouth of the lion" analogy. I feel like a lot of artists are stuck in denial right now, trying to scrape together any reasons why AI art is good for the art community at large.
Actually, it seems the artistic community is united in being opposed to AI art. The ones who claim this is good are other industries(music most specifically). Animation is still opposed to AI art, and the writing and voice acting communities have started to also oppose AI generation.
@@laurentiuvladutmanea3622 And now writers and voice actors have joined the fight against AI, this is no longer a one-sided war. I was terrified we were going to get trampled and conquered one sector at a time but in a twist of irony, the speed at which AI can grow may be its own downfall in managing to unite almost every major creative sector at once.
It's contrarianism. It's why they're is so many UA-cam videos defending the worst of every media series
Thanks for taking the time to make this video. I agree with more or less everything you said, but to be honest.. if I had any say in it I would want these 'tools' to be gone entirely. It's just another slippery slope into oblivion, whether they get your permission to participate or not, or whether they compensate you or not. To me the most disturbing thing about all this is the ongoing aggressive trend towards acceleration and devaluation of effort and time. Who actually wants this? Who has anything to gain from this on a long enough time line? Grifters, narcissists and corporations.
It blows my mind how artists (the same ones who are upset by the capriciousness of social media algorithms) think this is somehow a good thing. We're already drowning in content oversaturation and the algorithms on twitter and IG reward constant activity. Now that these platforms are also being flooded by bright glittery and bizarre meaningless art ("created in collaboration with AI"), it's only going to get worse. If i had to force my thoughts in an optimistic direction, i'd say that maybe the complete oversaturation with this hollow visual drivel will make people hunger for art that actually has a voice behind it that you can feel. Maybe it will make people hungry to see something more human. I do feel like this is wishful thinking though, because if an image is distracting and bright enough, the eyes will go to it. It's easy to forget the value of humanity if you stop coming into contact with it. Especially when there's a million other things that could potentially be causing the depression and anxiety that it inevitably creates.
@Terrorists Win I am definitely planning too, I just have to properly organize my thoughts about it first (don't have the gift of Steven's eloquence lmao)
I will say that, while I may not represent the average person, AI art has made me fall in love with human made art all over again. I look at it with a level of wonder that I never have before. I am not a visual artist. I hope others feel this way too.
The pure eye candy nature of it will create a mini renaissance.
@@geraldtoaster8541 That's really excellent to know! 😂reassuring
@@CosmicSpectrumArt You could start with Steven's transcript and strip the valuable info from it.
It's really interesting that for years and years non-artists have been saying "digital art isn't real art, the computer did it for you!", but now that the computers _are_ making the art the overwhelming sentiment is "AI art is real art!". Honestly, I think people just want to jump on the bandwagon of whatever next big thing comes out, like with NFTs. They don't care about artists, they just want the same attention good artists get, and when it eventually dies out they'll move onto the next thing
Perhaps people just care about the result - the part they see at the end. Why should they be concerned about the process that created it, if the art has the same impact?
@@vylbird8014 And that's exactly my point. Who cares about all the effort the artist put in if a computer can just do it in the blink of an eye, right? But that mindset is exactly what's so annoying about treating AI art as real art and the people who make them (as in the people who just type some words in and call it a day) as real artists: as an artist myself, the most important part is the process, NOT the end result. It's where you get to put your skills and everything you've learned to use, where you try out new techniques, and how you learn to be better, because even if it doesn't turn out how you wanted, there's ALWAYS something to be learned. You take away that process and there's no more growth, there's no more feeling, it's just an empty picture that has no effort and no soul. If every single image produced by an AI is absolutely perfect on the first try then theres no value in that; even the great artists of our time like Monet, Raphael, Degas, Van Gogh, etc. don't have absolutely perfect works, and also have a lot of pieces where they were studying various objects and forms, because THEY were always striving to learn and improve too! Put simply, AI art is just a cheap imitation in comparison. Art is a discipline in any form it takes, if you take out the process, you're just left with nothing
@@A_keo I can see historical parallels. There was a similar anger among musicians when the first commercially viable music machines came out - first player pianos, then wax cylinders. They were seen as devaluing music by taking out all the skill - why would anyone spend years practicing their craft any more, when a machine can reproduce it so easily?
The process might be the most important part for the artist, but it does not matter at all to the audience. All they care for is the finished piece.
@@vylbird8014 It's a tale as old as time isn't it? Unfortunately, because things made by machines can be mass produced, the way the world is now it's far more profitable than paying people to do the same thing, cause people are slower and more prone to making mistakes that a machine wouldn't. Not to mention that when it comes to art people don't really give a shit about the artists like you said, they just want the art itself, and music is a big one for that. If only we lived in a world that wasn't so focused on shoving product upon product down peoples throats where everything has to be instant to be profitable. The world slowing down for a sec would do us all some good I think, but unfortunately I don't see it happening anytime soon 😕
Nobody ever cared about artists until artists will prove their worth. Our job was always to create beauty to uplift peoples souls. Nothing changed really for artists. Only craftsmanship is death. but then, how many of us can draw from a figure? How many of us can mix paints?
I hope people in the community share this around. Everyone needs to see it.
true.
yes
old man yells at cloud. yeah everyone needs to see this lol. prepare for egodeath...
@@therealOXOC I'm fully prepared haha. AI Art is inevitable at this point. Luckily I'm not too bad at maths so I've got something to fall back on. I just think people should know that we're being fucked over by shady business practices and stop naively viewing it as a "tool" for artists.
@@telepathicfish1489 what can i say. stable diffusion is already here like he mentions. there is no running back the model. it's a tool for artist as i can see many artist that are not that ego centered using it. even if they stop training on living artist it's a tool that is here to stay and seeing only the negatives makes yourself depressed. it is so much fun sitting around with my little niece a producing awesome images that she thinks of. She likes drawing aswell and i think that will never stop but i can't predict the future. looking at the positives makes much more sense to me than to put up a video where some guy is drawing a guy fisting an asshole and allover psycho shit he deals with in his art. it's pretty dark art he draws and i only want to see this one drawing of him and don't hear more negative stuff form him. i kinda understand him but i know many artist that would never put their stuff on the internet and make a good living out of it because they don't trust the web. if you use it as marketing tool be prepared to be used as a marketing tool. i'm always drunk on satrurdays so excuse the rambling...
Collective lawsuits is the answer. Artists should finally start to protect themselves legally. Creative AI's should get their databases open for public scrutiny and sued to hell for each and any copyright and plagiarism infringement that is found.
Learning from others is not plagiarism.
@@TheNeomaster15 The A.I copies 1:1, and the companies stole millions of copyrighted works from artists that they had no right to. Shut your mouth, and keep it that way.
@@gabudaichamuda2545 You don't know how the AIs work. They learn by scanning the noise of art and analyzing it pixel by pixel. Eventually learning an apple is red and an apple is round. No where is the works stored or re-used.
@@TheNeomaster15 you're lying.
@@cynxmanga Search up "noise map" and ai art. I would post a link but youtube doesn't like that.
Thank you so much for taking a strong stance. I see so many artists and people faking positivity, turning blind eye at catastrophe that is happening before our very eyes.
Artists need to speak out. They need to show the world whats happening right now. Before its too late.
@@NiloNova
for a Ai you don't really know how to create good text .
@@NiloNova
will you are not an artist 💀or skilled in any way you cant replace something useless because it is doing nothing to begin with .
@@NiloNova You are psychotic. Plain and simple.
There's no way we'll see a perfect AI. It will look like it does now even in 10 years. They can't "steal" my silly cheap chibi animations I uploaded here, for example. I still think it's an amazing opportunity, not even faking positivity here - people like me struggle hard with backgrounds and inspiration, novelAI and Midjourney helped me to get back into trying harder to improve myself and using some of these pictures as reference. Big artists are pretty much safe. It can help a lot of people, but yeah, in the end all the "mid" commission artists out there who aren't insanely popular and big will be screwed. Even though I think it still is an opportunity.
Of course it's pretty pointless nowadays to commission someone to draw a picture of a random autumn forest or a random anime character for a newspaper article. Concept artists might not be needed in the same way as before, a typical deviantArt artist with 10$ commissions will have problems finding clients because the 9$ novelAI sub is cheaper and you get better results.
But overall? It's pretty hard to be a 100% doomer imo, completely ignoring the positive aspects. The world changes and so does art, sadly. It's almost impossible to stop it and there's no point in crying.
@@bighatastrea
oh on ... don't look up meta Ai generated videos.
they are in the first stage of making a ai that can create videos (including animation) Ai .
I hope this will bring back more interest to traditionnal art. Having artists more willing to draw on paper and canvas and having more people willing to buy them originals.
Sad part is that robots can draw and paint too😓
I think there will eventually be another return to Humanism (a new Renaissance). Specifically because humanity will end up thirsting for verifiable humanity again. Also, I believe that humanity will start to resent the increasing lordship of ai over our lives--- and will develop a natural distaste for ai-anything.
The game may have to be raised, though. :Human artists who paint complex and meaningful compositions are poised to do well. Human artists who just want to make pictures of flowers or Spiderman, not so much.
@@heavenseek Oh well, at that time the standard are also much higher.
@@rockintennis nah, they can "print". If robots and AI ever reach enough maturity to draw watercolour, I'd say we'd have a far bigger trouble
@@rockintennis Well until they start mass producing androids and robot wives/husbands, we still have some time.
The recent prevalence of AI art has made me feel more hopeless and suicidal than I have in years
keep it together man, in the face of peril, we should strive and band against it rather than wither and die. It is when you do that will grant yourself the possibility you have not if you did not try.
I think you will find a lot of support for human made art. These feelings is something that often plagues the creative, but lets try to empower eachother and have solidarity. You can do it 🙏🏼
Me too. Been days without leaving my bed.
I didn't want to "like" your post, so I am just saying: I'm in the same boat and this whole thing has given me such a sense of dread for the future it's hard to even get through a single day without being bombarded with it.
Find joy where you can get it.
@@n8horsfall Honestly we just have to adapt. I have already dealt with being replaced by a cheaper faster option for years because I have worked in traditional crafts since childhood and watched the industrialization and outsourcing to China slowly make it harder to sell to stores who can get things cheaper from China. There are a lot of customers who want what I or my employers offer, but unfortunately it is becoming only acessible to wealthier people, which could also happen with human made art.
I think a lot of people who are laughing at our concerns haven't actually experienced it because they aren't in the same industry or weren't taught to be aware from a young age.
This is the first anti AI video I’ve come across. Every single other I’ve come across just blindly calls this trend progress. Thanks for offering I different perspective.
If they take away the ability and the incentive to create, we will only have the desire to consume. And deep down, it's just that, consumption and more consumption. This is a strong step towards a less "human" humanity. Not to mention that there will be fewer and fewer jobs in which one can learn and enjoy what they do. This is horrendous, almost straight out of a sci fi horror movie. Excellent video and beautiful illustration!
The ultimate capitalistic dystopia
The incentive part is so important in creativity. I am going to remember this comment it is perfectly worded.
Except nobody is taking away your ability to create.
And unless your incentive is to make money with it (which isn't the case for everyone), that too is untouched.
So if anything, AI art will flush the people who are only doing it for the money down the toilet.
@@OzixiThrill noone does art "only for the money"
If you think that you dont understand a key aspect of art. The people selling art are doing that to be able to both do something they love and make money with it. And you said it yourself; noone will make money anymore.
@@Parrotcat That's rather naive of you, thinking that nobody gets into art solely for the money. If you actually believe that, then you haven't witnessed humans being themselves.
Also, AI art also won't make it completely impossible to earn money through art; Sure, it will make it more difficult for artists to support themselves off of art only; Maybe even make it impossible for some artists. But if that will be enough to get a supposedly passionate artist to stop doing art, well... That's all the evidence one would need to see the liars.
PS - Ultimately, I don't think that any artists worth their salt will really see that much of a dip in their money due to AI artwork.
This is why I can't call these "AI" - it is not creating art it is sampling art made by human artists and assembling them via complex algorithms.
You, as a human, do the same in the form of “inspiration”. Nothing different.
@@ajp2206 people are inspired by the idea more than by the method and techniques. If you arent the student of an artist, you aren't "copying" the art because you don't know the "technique". And the main problem is, AI samples other arts to make a picture, but humans sample experiences. They can even sample music, they can sample memories into images. AI can't do it. Having said that, a lot of people have pathetic imaginations, the 99 percentile won't make it, but there's a world of difference between 99 and 99.9
@@Vajrapani108so you're just a misanthrope, got it
After following this technology unfold for months, this has by far been the most informative video I've seen in explaining it's true intentions. That double standard of the usage of visual art vs. music really said a lot about the companies behind this tech. They know big record labels would come after them if they used copyrighted music. Yet, individual artists are having their work used for training this tech unkowingly and without compensation.
I now fully realise, we the artists, are the losers in all of this. All artists much watch this asap.
100%, they know what they're doing.
Just as a thought experiment, imagine if the government skimmed this much data to train any software. I'd imagine the reaction would be way different.
Sadly artists are always the losers, hence the term "starving artist". But artist are also the best at adapting, and you're really not giving them enough credit. Examples - Camera ( didn't replace realism in art) - 3d printers(didn't replace sculptures) - Digital Art on Screens ( hasn't replaced real paintings in houses) - AI art will be it's own thing, but artists will always be around, and mostly starving as always.
there’s next to no work for sculpture and the painting market isn’t that big. There’s only just a small handful of people who do sculpture and it’s not consistent for most (sculptor/concept artist myself)
Camera is a different medium. AIs a different threshold. supersedes basically all of it not on a canvas commercially. (Potentially photography in some respects too) and later on; animation, movie effects and so on. there will be a couple traditional painters around, but the vast majority are going to be displaced. We’ll never see a Kim jung gi again because there wouldn’t be enough work to support them drawing that much.
Everyone was wondering what the vast amount of indiscriminate data collection was for; now we’re here. Should have been illegal, because it sure doesn’t feel ethical. Especially now that literally all someone has to do, (especially in mjv4) is upload a photo of themselves in a pose, then just type “painting by [insert artists name here]” and get a result almost immediately more than good enough for most standard clients.
@@stinkypete9070 As another thought experiment, imagine a single individual just asks you for a bunch of personal data. Are you likely to just hand it over to them? *We keep giving them permission!*
The way that government reclassified, extended, and perverted IP laws in the last 80 years is one of the largest thefts against culture to exist in history.
Thank you for sticking up for Artists. The biggest tragedy of this is discouraging young people from beginning the steep learning curve of illustration. Why start knowing that you never be better than AI and the work prospects are forever shrinking? Young people need hope not despair. I hope these companies get sued into oblivion.
Yea this is me right now. I just started my path to a graphic designer career after thinking through every other career option. I am doing a 1 year internship right now and don’t know if I should stop and pick something else or continue.
The job I am aiming for will either not be in demand anymore or the field will evolve to something completely new and I could get a great job that doesn’t exist now
Lol, now they can do it instantly and have instant gratification. They can make art without need the muscle technique to do it. Just like how computers have allowed the JWTS to see farther and teach us more, the calculator didn't stop math.
@@narutobankai I worked for an old man who was known as ''the human calculator.'' He worked for a top accountancy firm straight out of school and had lots of money and even bought himself a plane. He was replaced by a calculator in the 50's and was never in demand again.
@@PlsSubscrib AI will ultimately make us all obsolete, first white collar jobs, then blue collar jobs as bots roll off the factory line in a decade or so. 20 years from now there will be little to no middle class, we will all be on some sort of UBI and society will undergo the biggest change in Human history.
@@PlsSubscrib I don't know man, you either are not an artist or you're just those guys who ignore the evidence. You said a lot of things that are outdated and nonsense, if i don't say "ai is better", that doesn't make ai not better than me. Easy as that. I know it won't be me, the work won't be mine, but we can't just live of self satisfaction, be honest with yourself, it looks like it's what you repeat yourself in the mirror to escape from reality, and i don't want to ruin it, but i want you to open your eyes. Yeah, nothing we can do, literally. But atleast we are prepared to loose our job. People won't care if it is not you, people are greedy just as those guru youtube videos oversaturating everything, comic books, kid books, color books for kids and all that sh1t man. The guy in the video made completely sense. Especially the part where he said that everything will become worthless. This is what i always said, having so many things on demand is completely ruining the beauty of art in it's purest form. Art is cool because it is made with dedication and brilliancy from the people who put all their lifetime work into it, willing and dedication. We are lost, and that is a damn fact. When i read people comparing AI to calculators i just want to punch myself in the face so hard i wake up and forget about it. It's literally retarded, like comparing a damn shaver to scissors, makes no sense. I could stay here and discuss all day about this... Ai is not a TOOL as is a REPLACEMENT and that my friend, is a fact. Prepare to get ruined.
The "opt out" model has about the same ethical grounds as people uploading porn of strangers and defending their actions with "DM me if you want it taken down"
and we all know how often this is taken down...almost like never + the blackmails continues
It feels like the perfect storm with this coming now, people are so addicted to constant distraction on their phones and AI art is perfect for this , a quick hit of entertainment and then on to the next thing.
If you're an artist you already know how hard it is to get anyone to look at your work, even if you're lucky enough to get featured or tagged somewhere big most people won't ever bother to seek out your work. Now you also have to compete with AI.
the world was already getting completely squeezed in the fight for attention 'look how big my ass is' ' look how ammaaazzing my art is' 'look how delicious my food is' etc. This feels like it could hasten breaking point whatever that is.
well said
It's like when figurative painting died with photography. Artists and their art will just evolve to a new expression once again.
it is inevitable, and maybe that's the way it has to be. Let's strip the ego away from it and make art for the sake of making and creating and nothing else.
@@primtones and then put their expression on the internet, get stolen by ai while the developers or patent owner don't need to pay a dime of royalty? lol
@@Djoarhet001 It is not inevitable. Rights and permission are not synonymous with "innovation." This is a legal issue and it's finding its way to the courts now.
You have my deep appreciation for making this video. When this issue was first beginning to materialize, I saw a few videos from other artists commenting on it that I found largely unsatisfying, it wasn't until I started hearing you're on stream discussions that I began to feel as if I had my feet under me on the matter.
So on point. Thanks for this work. I'm an AI researcher and an artist (at the level of a hobbyist). I made a video last week about this exact thing... This feeling of, "What's the point anymore?" paired with the economic consequences of automating creative expression. Got a huge amount of backlash, spurred an 130-comment flame war on Reddit, and got doxxed. Spent a long week thinking about this and put out a new video basically saying that I believe in the resilience of artists. Artists are so resourceful and so creative that they can fold any technology into their process. But that adversity *can* be made a tool doesn't mean it was *made* to be a tool, and AI can far more easily just be used as automation.
Beautifully said. I have learned how heartless my own friends are, viewing my own artwork as meaningless. Hundreds of hours of work put into some pieces and just because I normally use digital tools my art has no value. He views himself typing for 30 seconds as making him as much of an artist as I am. People are so incredibly lazy that they just want the fruits without the labor, but how can that fruit carry any meaning? It would just be another product that you consume. We had this argument when I was actually going to say "if I had an ai that was able to generate my comic for me, it would ultimately be hollow. I would have the product I always dreamed of, but know I had no part of in its creation."
Art is just not a valued skilled by most people, and that's tragic. There is so much value in actually putting effort and heart into something instead of just google searching your whims into existance. Google already makes collages and clips out of my pet photos for me, I don't want my whole life to just be generated content based on my habits. I think this is how the human spirit ultimately dies.
Also, I doubt me friend would be okay with students handing in Ai essays and projects so they never have the need to actually learn. We'll have whole doctorates written in AI and have to accept we're a whole world of people who never took the trouble to learn anything since computers could do it all for them.
That sounds awful. But I can see that happening so often, and spiteful even, that is not even funny.
Honestly, if you still consider that person a friend, god bless your patience I could never. If you ever receive comments like that again, I recommend you may as well spoil the fruit and give them the whole artist experience.
"What?! What do you mean this costs 10$ to buy?? It took you five minutes to make!"
"I could do that in my spare time, there's no way this is worth ____$"
"Is it okay if I pay you in exposure?"
Well, not doctorates. You still need to actually defend that stuff and show that you know what you're doing.
"Do you build your own paintbrushes? If you don't, then you have no hand in the art's creation. " - some perfectly valid opinion.
You see the problem is, you're drawing a completely arbitrary line - which you're well within your right to, don't get me wrong. But you can't then expect others to change their equally arbitrary standards to match yours. To them, it *is* just another product they consume, similar to how you don't give a shit that your paints are mass-produced machine products instead of hand-made woad - that is, if you even use paint at all.
@@tahunuva4254 Writing a sentence of what you want a picture of is how you request a commission, yet no one before would have claimed they were the artist of the finished piece. The computer is the artist, not the person who writes a prompt.
37:10 Oh yeah, I remember reading an article about that and feeling so mad. The double standard is unreal, the only reason they give a shit about copyright in that context, is because big music artists actually have the money to file some pretty nasty lawsuits against them, while meanwhile, most artists can barely manage to make minum wage with commissions.
Absolutely sickening double standard.
An object can be seen from infinite angles and mixed with an infinite amount of objects from infinite angles. A song has one angle and little deviance from that, because music aesthetics are incredibly shallow compared to physical aesthetics. It's not a double standard at all, it's out of respect for musicians that they aren't training on copyrighted material(and because there would be court cases lol). And they aren't disrespecting artists teaching a computer to draw, artists are just taking disrespect for various reasons. Mainly because the computer can learn and draw REALLY fast. It's like the guy said, if you learn to trace a master painter, You've Earned It! But when a computer does it you should be MAD lol. THAT is a double standard and it's driven by some inane logic about egotistical humanism. There are still people alive today that won't use circular tires because they think going too fast cheapens their lives. It's a silly opinion just like these stances against AI's drawing.
@@DemWaifus The issue is that the ai is taking very specific angles and very specific objects from art that already exists, without people's permission. Art that some random person posts online is not automatically public domain either. No matter how advanced the ai get's, it's not a person, it's a product, and it has already used countless copyrighted material in order to form its network. There's no reason why musicians should have respect while artist shouldn't. Also, there are infinite configurations of potential sounds and melodies.
@@chompompcharly That is not a real issue though because all those billions of images are being bounced off of one another to produce an image in seconds. It is IMPOSSIBLE to take this issue of yours into a court, it's like suing a painter because he visited a museum in his youth and got inspired. Except even sillier than that lol. I understand why artists are upset but they have to deal with it, they can't stop what's already released, they won't stop the likes of Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and the UN from developing this either. Just be glad that StabilityAI is friendly to open source.
And please take note that videos like this weren't being made when the closed source bodies were doing the same thing. This is a reaction to this technology being open. People against this are fundamentally coming at it from the angle of greed.
@@chompompcharly Like think about it, a 512x512 image has 262144 pixels in it right? How many pixels belong to you if you type "anime woman with big breasts in the style of picasso and greg rutowski :)" Are you trying to be funny? No one owns the artwork that comes out except you because it didn't exist before you prompted. Why do you think someone should get paid because computers can draw funny pictures now? Greedy as fuck.
@@digitasoul1389 Dunno, maybe they're friends? Maybe this is educational research? And don't get me wrong, closed source AI is terrifying, I'm just calling artists greedy when they're trying to burn down Stable Diffusion, because they're evidently afraid of free art from and for everyone.
Maybe it's time for all artists to come together and talk about this until some big changes are made
Cancelled my Midjourney subscription. I make music. So I don't really have the money to support artists. I was using pics for random songs. I decided to commission my first piece of digital art last week. Working with the artist on what I wanted was a really cool experience. He nailed it. That's the biggest difference for me. There is zero humanity in AI art. As where the artist was a real person living in Pittsburgh with a broken furnace. I'm 100% on board with most these arguments. Artists of all mediums should support each other in this.
My only critique would be that they seem to be very supportive of the future capabilities of AI in support of their arguments. The ability to use prompts and data sets will improve vastly. But AI will certainly lack imagination for a very very long time. The human mind is just too complicated. That won't necessarily save your job though.
By that logic I could get AI images and say I made them myself (Assuming they look normal) and Id be praised, but if I say they are AI then people wouldnt care
@@michaelschemmel1984 BRO thats one of the easiest arguments I make for people who share the same line of thinking as OP here.
They say its not art solely for the external negative stigma that generative art has. They aren't even judging the art for its compostion, tone, mood, perspective, shading, contrast, general creativity, etc. etc; Ya know, the things that make the art actually art.
I find it so crazy that I could generate something that looks nice and that a human could draw or create and show it to people and they say it looks nice but then if I said that SAME piece of art was generative art they would immediately say it's sucks and isn't art...
The cognitive dissonance fr...
he probably used ai art for inspiration for his own creation. you over estimate the human mind and under estimate ai. you had mj so you have seen the amazong things ai has created with 3 or 4 word prompts.
@@GoharioFTW The people you are arguing against are correct. If it was AI generated, it really does automatically suck and isn't art. You can step out into nature and see a sight that is breathtakingly beautiful, but it's not art because it's an accident. Intention and effort is what makes things art. A pile of rocks can look pretty, but only when a human shapes those rocks is it art.
AI art is just an accident by a random algorithm. It's not art. That it's hard to tell the difference between AI and human art does nothing to change this fact.
@Magicwillnz ok can't wait to see how you're doing in a year when ai generated art can't be discerned from physicl and digital art and you're biting your fingernails at every single image you see online and end up accusing people of using ai generated art and shaming them when in reality they didn't do it and then praising someone for their art when in reality they did use ai generated models good luck
Also your example with stepping out into nature made 0 sense. Are you saying people who do landscape photography or any still life photography of nature aren't artists?
Some fantastic food for thought, I very much appreciate your insight on this touchy subject
I’m actually recording a podcast with Hardy Fowler tomorrow on AI and I’m going to surely be tapping into your perspective
I will keep my eye out for it Adam! Will be very interested to hear your discussion, good luck with it.
you are by far ,literally the single and only artists that i 100% agree with on this topic , i kept looking up this topic and all i sawwas wishfull thinking artists repeating "it's just a too lto help artists" and i was like , no , it's not , it's not made for artists , no one said that exept artists and deep down everyone knew
they kept sayign "it's just a way to look up refferences and ideas" , no , that's just one use you came up with the cope with the idea while altho it's possible this is not what the ai was made for , they didn't spend years and fortune just for you to get refferences from it , it's called ai "art" generators not ai refference generators or texture generators , it saddned me that most of the damage was done by artists themselves and not even by the ai users who can usually barely formulate two words together.
i really hope artists come and bond together against this and not allow outsiders who are compleatly out of touch and care nothing about the craft to tramble it using artists work itself and let these corporations earn billions with artists own hard work.
For real, artists saying they use it for reference are admitting they didn't come up with their own compositions or ideas in their work. Its like having no faith in yourself. Giving up on thinking out of pure laziness. Its why I don't respect anyone using midjourney or painting over novelai, its like double plagiarism. It easy to see 'artists' becoming dependent on these companies. I as a viewer of the work have no idea where the AI stops and your contributions begin, off the bat the work isn't really theirs no matter how much they rationalize.
@@chinogambino9375 Isn't your argument just a rant on looking up references of any kind? Nothing you complained about is really related to AI models, so I can hardly agree.
As much as I loathe the unethical and anti-humanist aspects of these models, they're effectively glorified Google Images (people just pretend they've created what they find). Whether references are real or generated, laziness comes when you settle for whatever you find and copy it, rather than looking for something specific that fills your own idea and using it to inform your own composition.
@@rikamayhem Having seen how midjourney is used, no its not the same. If you type in a scene you want to see into these image generators they tend to follow very effective artistic rules of composition since they are trained on human work. The results people want to see are ones they can lift and use. Its very hard to not be influenced by a finished composition made by a generator especially after a few iterations, I take issue with that mental heavy lifting being outsourced. I know for certain artists cannot be honest using these things.
When a human absorbs photographs and paintings to use as reference its very unlikely its particular enough to their subject matter to be lifted. The skill is adapting your own visual library, problem solving and life experience to fill in the gaps. If we side step that by copying the composition of another work we usually call it a study and credit the original image, we'd feel dishonest otherwise since we owe too much of our work in that instance to the original. To me if you use an AI for reference it is your collaborator, you just are not the sole author.
Think about it this way. Is a human author who has read a 100 books and then decides to write his own novel the same as a human author who lets an AI trained on 100 books write his draft? One chapter? Part of a chapter? Uses the AI draft as his 'inspiration' for a rewrite? The latter can still write his name on the novel but personally I can't take the attribution seriously.
@@chinogambino9375 Fair enough, your argument is much clearer now and I largely agree.
I realise that AI-art platforms, specially Midjourney and "img2img" tools, encourage iterating on generated images repeatedly until you get a precise result, and I agree each iteration does hamper the user's share of the original thought put into their work.
However, and while I don't even plan on using these models, I think that, as a user, you do have agency in how particular to your subject you choose to generate references, so this is just revealing how many artists would rather take the easy way when given the chance.
@SHAHNMONO Then please elucidate me, because otherwise I'm getting the impression you just have awful reading comprehension.
“Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.”
Frank Herbert, Dune
I'm a 15 year old high school student, after many years I have finally worked up the motivation and courage to try and improve myself and my art. I'm seriously considering giving up on art because of this... I still have time to change my life path, but somehow I'm still drawn back to art. The thing is, there seems to be no real solution or prevention in place, as much as I want to keep going I know it will bring me nothing but sadness to see AI art in museums while my art is still laying on the floor of my bedroom.. i am crying while typing this out. Is it true that I must give up my dreams? i am begging for someone to say its not, but everything i see is telling me this
I am 14 and literally in the exact same boat as you. Couldnt sleep last night, I had an existential crisis. Were so young and we have our whole lives ahead of us, its messed up.
U are just 15 my younger fellow Artist friend & I understand u want to b a successful artist in the future. One of The most important things u can do now is draw bc u love to & bc u just can't not create. Use those emotions u are feeling in a positive way & turn that Shit into making your Artistic Passion stronger & fight for that Art Dream u want. Doubt anything I have said will help or even matter to u & thats ok too. I just hate to hear a young artist give it up so quickly for a reason that is unknown for 1 thing. Keep it up !!
Never give up on your dreams, continue to draw. However, art is not a viable career path anymore (I'm sorry it's just the truth) so you will have to pursue a different career and make art as a hobby. If you can get good enough you might be able to break into the industry one day, but please don't fully pursue art as a career path because it is extremely volatile and I don't want to see you struggling to make ends meet.
Exact same position. Best thing to do is to accept it and keep it as a hobby.
Welp quit and give up. You must not really want to be a artist. Stop making excuses and whining. Be a artist or give up.
This whole situation is truly heartbreaking. AI has the potencial of completely dismantling the work structure of society.
Yes, and far beyond just artists. Hardly anyone crying over truckers, manufacturing and other sectors out of a job due to AI or just the progress of technology.
This time around I think the question is what jobs will survive, instead of which ones will be replaced.
@@oddinvestigator Politician, salesman, therapist, priest? Might be a tad a safer from AI than most.
@@misterogers9423 Yeah, these ones seem reasonable. But I wonder how would the economy of a world with few workers work.
@@oddinvestigator It's a fascinating debate, and it's coming to every industry and field of human endeavour. I suspect there will always be "workers", or at least, there will always be "work", but a lot of future work be unrecognisable to us. If you took a random high tech worker from today and transported them back to 1922 and asked them to describe their work to most people from 1922, they'd have a tough time making themselves understood. Send them back to 1722 and their difficulty world be even more profound.
The process of change is definitely accelerating, no doubt about that, and the speed of change coming from AI presents its own challenges. But in some ways we've been here before, across many forms of work/human activity. I just don't see any way of stopping it. The AI training processes that are so expensive today (requiring large corporations and server farms etc) will be cheap in a decade or two. What then?
This is exactly what I've been saying. As a piece of technology this is pretty impressive and interesting, but we got to question who's interests is this fulfilling and stop guilt tripping concerned artists for not ridding the hype wave of Ai.
Artists can be concerned, that's fine. However, the tides coming and theres no stopping it now. All you can do is adapt.
This is the conflict that technology has with the structure of our economies. You are feeling the effects of technological efficiency that has already decimated entire industries over time. we can not have a sustained system of human labor for survival when technology makes the labor of millions something trivial. In a world where artists arent required to sell themselves they would make art as an expression of themselves with creations containing only the specific intent a human artist could have. We can not and should not fight the progress technology provides. We should be fighting the economic systems that force us to sell our creativity in order to survive, so that we can create for ourselves and others purely for the joy and challenge of it.
@@pinip_f_werty1382 There is no adapting to this. If you try, you will be replaced anyway.
@@laurentiuvladutmanea3622 Bullshit. Abuse the tech while it's in it's infancy. Slap out work at unprecedented efficiency. Make money and invest in your future. If you have art skills, then ai in your hands is significantly greater than a non-artist. If you played Elden Ring, please revisit it's themes on rot and stagnation vs flowing water.
@@pinip_f_werty1382 Tell me you have never touched a pencil without telling me you have never touched a pencil
"It's a replacement, not a tool." After making a good-faith effort to learn about it (my initial opinion wasn't negative), I've come to the same conclusion. I also like that you pointed out how it takes all the fun away. I got some good results but felt a little sad that I didn't just come up with them myself.
I'll admit, there's a small dopamine rush when you type a prompt and make AI art, but ultimately it's desensitizing because I can just make more art of that caliber in seconds. It's like a kid who can eat anything in the candy story for free. There's no toil, no effort, no journey. Just the final result, which is boring and soulless.
You’re right I felt the same I managed to creat a professional looking art way much better then I could ever draw or paint my self , but it didn’t felt mine it’s just felt I’m googling. nothing compared to the act and journey of creating art by your self
@@Gogglesofkrome Well said.
Try applying this logic to written communication: are you sad you are not writing this comment using pen and ink?
Handwriting used to be a form of art thousands of years ago. WE EVOLVED. EMBRACE IT.
@@gukes-3dx „Try applying this logic to written communication: are you sad you are not writing this comment using pen and ink?”
Written communication is an utilitarian tool of communication, not a passion.
It's sad how people who lack the skill to produce art themselves are the most eager to jump on the opportunity and "dethrone" the artists.
I dont think theyre doing it to dethrone anyone, theyre probably just enjoying to see cool things get created
I gotta jump in here, chief.
I'm not exactly the type of person who's eager to pay for a serious commission, not because I'm not willing to but because I don't want to waste my money or be the worst nitpicker imaginable. I am not skilled enough to create detailed works myself. Even if I did endure the countless hours of education and practice, there's no guarantee I'd know about or have access to the tools and techniques required to perfectly imprint a mental image onto canvas.
If I would commission a work, the amount of back and forth would render any profit to the artist completely meaningless. The sheer amount of time wasted on revisions and attempting to understand precisely what I'm looking for when I myself don't have the ability to explain it. It's more of an "I'll know it when I see it" sort of thing. I lose money, the artist puts in more work than they've any reason to, I don't get what I wanted, they feel underappreciated. It's a bad situation all around.
AI won't complain when I spend 10+hrs demanding revision after revision, telling it to scrap the whole thing and start over multiple times, and I wouldn't have to feel guilty about being problematic or cheated our of my money for something unusable.
My primary motivation in AI generated art is to spend countless hours learning how to define specific instruction sets that yield precise results. I've no intention of harming anyone. Option 1 is AI. Option 2 is accepting the impossibility. There is no option 3 in this scenario. I'm sure the majority of personal use cases reflect mine. It's just interesting to tinker, and artists tend to get upset when you ask them to satisfy dozens if not hundreds of consecutive requests.
As an artist myself I embrace this as a tool for ideas . Traditional artists said the exact same thing about digital artists years ago . You have to face reality my friend this is where we're going if you can't keep up you're going to be finished . I'm sorry it sounds mean dude but this is the way how it's going . Either you adapt or become extinct
They aren't doing it to spite you, it isn't personal, they just want art made cheaply and quickly
@@trajectoryunown *Then sit your ass down for 15 minutes a day, and learn to draw.* You want it? FIND THE DAMNED TIME. Just because you don't want to learn, and want to make an excuse to not pay for it, doesn't mean you get to steal from us.
Is that clear?
Thank you for finding the strength and dedication to make this video! I have been furious for exactly the same reasons as you and felt so frustrated that so many artists are willing to look the other way. I will share this in the hopes that more people wake up to the exploitative nature of these companies and the erroneous desire to see themselves benefitting as artists from it. I am truly relieved to see someone tackle these common arguments so fiercely and intelligently
It's sad because it's seems like there aren't as many artist these days that are willing to come together to discuss these topics.
I thinks that's starting to chage.
I feel like, many Artist were in denial for some time. Fighting for your rights is scary and exhausting.
But I have already seen people starting to change their tune.
The thing is there are not many true artists out there.
Those very few who are will see their work raise in value. The ton of "artists" who aren't so will finally be where they belong - oblivion.
The weird thing is - these Ai prompters are saying it is "faster" to make Ai art, but then say it took them a week to create the prompt to make exactly what they wanted? If it took you the length of this stream to produce this beauty and then took them a week to prompt a computer enough times to get the result they wanted, I wouldn't call that efficient? Sorting through thousands of images sounds like a pain in the ass when you can already see your own work unfold before you exactly the way you wanted ONE time sounds a lot less like a pain to me lol
They're avoiding the tens of thousands of hours of training and practice that it would take for them to match his skill, and to create a piece of similar quality in a comparible amount of time. So from their perspective, it is certainly faster.
imo the satisfaction of finally making that one drawing you couldnt quite get a few months ago will always be greater than uh… whatever ai gives
@@ARCHIVED9610 I mean duh, but most people like me only want pictures, if I want meaning Ill make it myself or hire a good artist
@@michaelschemmel1984 oh shoot i gotta stop commenting late at night-
true
Last time I commissioned an artist it took a month to get a result I wasn't perfectly happy with.
This is ageing like wine and will continue to do so.
I don't have much to add, but I just feel like a lot of artists on the pro-AI side are only taking that stance because they are terrified of being left behind like many other obsolete professions of the past.
That is probably the case. But as Steven said, it really does not matter if you use it or not. You will be left behind if the hype is real.
@@laurentiuvladutmanea3622 oh fo sure, which is why I'm not getting angry for either faction, I'm just sad.
The thing is.... AI art is actually IP theft.
Its LITERALLY built out of other people's stolen work.
The people who make this stuff are thieves, the people who justify its existence are literal fucking orcs.
Same with Steve, he only has an issue with copyright, not overall ai images
He does it only because fear of being accused as ultra conservative or purist
Also because they never were that good at drawing. Lots of pro designers have this problem, LOTS of them have had a career-long inferiority complex about their lacking raw ability to draw... I would say at least 60-70% of all working graphic designers don't really feel that confident in their raw ability to illustrate... And now they feel massive relief because finally their weakness is irrelevant. Until now they somehow conned and wiggled through their career, avoiding drawing whenever they could, and now they are triumphant because finally they are considered a worthy illustrator (with AI assistance) and fully respected graphic designer. (Or more like, the illustration experts got their thunder stolen from them...)
Having the profession of graphic designer is FAR mor common, than the ability to draw well.... Out of the people I studied graphic design with in university (13 people in my class) maybe 3 could really draw well (I was one of them). Almost all of them got employed in design.... Those people focused on other things, like typography, info graphics, photography, UI/UX design. Which currently aren't threatend by AI, only illustrators and concept artists are, the hard core drawing/painting people.
In a nutshell, the better you are at drawing, the harder this AI crap will slap your face. You career path has been probably also more illustration oriented, and you have spent a lot of time on illustration skills, at the expense of other graphic desing skills.
And respectively, the worse you are at drawing, the more positive you are about this AI. You probably steered away from illustration orietented career path early on... probably in university already, when you noticed it's not your thing... this free'd you a lot of time, to acquire other design skills like 3D. Now you finally get to be "an illustrator" too. Why wouldn't you be positive about it.
I'm a Software Engineer and I agree with your points, the sad reality is that I'm not sure there is anything you can do about these changes, even if you somehow get all these companies to stop their progression, in around 5-10 years time you won't need a team of people to create an AI like this, a solo university student could do the same for just a simple free time project, thats how fast things are progressing in this field, part of this progression is fueled by Nvidia's advancements in hardware, around every 4-5 years we can build computers that are twice as fast as before, but also the tools for Data Scientists are developing very rapidly.
My belief is that we aren't too far from a general-purpose AI (around 15-20years) which would be an AI that is conscious and can learn the same way a human can (but much much faster since its made of hardware rather than biological material), this would mean that practically all jobs could be replaced by AI. What can we do about this? I don't know, but what I do know is that we can't stop it because we have a very limited influence on organisations like Google which would be at the front of this development. Another worrying thought is that Law is always playing catchup to technological advancements therfore we don't have any laws in place to help and protect the general public through these changes, we also won't have them when these changes hit.
Keep speaking up people, Art is just the first sector to feel these changes.
People don't really care about artists and chess/go players because they are minorities, and they got cracked one by one at each time. But if the public start to feel the common threat about AI to take over most of the office desk jobs and start to panic in the future, don't you think goverment will have to step in somehow ? At least in the democratic countries, because they will need to pacify the huge amount of angry voters. I kinda foresee a much greater confrontation between conservatism and progressivism at that point.
I agree about speaking up - art is a form of expression and they can’t take it away.
Its on us to lead it with ethics tho, and if we want it to be like us - I think we should give it a human law and decency as well.
Not that it’s related to us at all, in fact it takes a 8 layer ANN to simulate 1 biological neuron.
It’s a huge mistake to call it “intelligence” as it’s more of a computer power, human intellect coding data structure and algorithms, a lot of hype, wishful thinking and uncountable limitations.
If the Ai suppose to mimic us and help us to tackle problems to help our society, I don’t see a problem with it, but currently this is just a massive exploitation in the name of technology.
If it’s here just for the exploitation and usage of military the way China tries… the future is very dark.
It’s really on us to change that.
If you in the field please remember that ethics are so important, stable diffusion dev called me a “moralist” when I expressed my concerns, almost like it’s a joke to care for humanity and I can’t stress enough how important it is to lead the future in equatable way to shape it for the better and not leave bad presence for opportunistic devs.
We can’t let everyone be like that, that ain’t it.
I disagree, the only ones that suffer here is the artists which is a tiny minority, hundreds of millions of people are going to benefit from using these AI systems.
It's already happening in your field too, not sure if you use Visual Studio as an IDE, but the latest version already writes much more code for you now as a form of auto-complete. I agree with how fast the field is advancing, you don't have to be a data scientist to setup a model to be trained, format training data, and run an inference. I do think we are still a long way off though from a AGI. There is this giant jump in going from the models we have to day, to a fully conscious AI.
@@Danuxsy .....and then they'll suffer just like the artists.
Honestly, I don’t really get the whole “it’s a great tool for artists because it can help with colors and compositions!” argument because…we already have several online sources that help with that? We have sooo many pictures online and several apps that allow you to make your own 3D models to use as references, so I don’t really see the point in using AI to do that tbh
well... it's really fun, I found ideas I never would have found online, and that I sometimes *can't* find online
but when I REALLY want something right I have to sketch it out, clean it up, render it by hand (I love coloring) but I use some of my Stable Diffusion generations in my references to really capture a "mood" that I like
Is there an app you can recommend that does that? I use an AI app called Wonder and I’d like to see how it compares to other apps that are made to assist artists 🙂
@@grain9640 I do the same! The AI art inspires me to start new drawings. I often digitize my sketches and add in texture and color. All because of the stuff I generated with an app.
It's all lies from the tech narcissists, or cope from artists. It's a horrible situation.
@@moreicestreaming I get what your saying, I think what I was getting at here was that there are resources that don’t involve just stealing a bunch of artist’s work and putting it all into one big picture
Looking back, my original comment wasn’t really worded the best way, so I do apologize for that
This is a serious matter for Artist and Content Creators alike. It's not difficult to imagine that AI will eventually be capable to produce short form and long form entertaining TikTok and UA-cam content in such an abundance that human made content won't catch up to matter.
With algorithm being increasingly better at understanding you intimately and the in the video mentioned potential of having content created specifically for your current mental state, ideas, or circumstances It's difficult to imagine a human content creator able to keep up with this for long or even at all.
I think a lot of people are still naive. A.I. is now here and it will not go away. It can only go up from here. No 7 fingers on one hand in the near future. It is just matter of time. What most peope dont understand is that A.I. will do more than enough for a lot of basic stuff. A 10 men company that need new a new text for his website can do it all with chatgtp. It will be all fine with some minor tweaks. No need for a writer. That is an 500$ job less for the human writer, and maaaaany of them will go to A.I.
I dont see any reason why a business wont use an AI art tool for a cool background for an event. It will be used once and throw away after that. Goodbey 1200$ job for an artist. Etc. Etc. Etc. AI will take a huge part in this world. Text, image, graphic design, logo's, audio, video clips.. many jobs will be taken out. And you allready see a forrest of AI program's and website u can use in a minute. If you build the best AI machine, you can make tons of money in the near future.
Still.. people are naive. I am not going to wait before this hous of cards wil crash. I am working on my plan B allready wich makes me sad. But i dont believe i can feed mouths as an illustrator in new years from now
@yoRRnl That is ultimately your call to make. However, despite menial jobs being offloaded to artificial intelligence it seems like a stretch that the skill of an illustrator will be completely useless in your lifetime. Artificial intelligence is still very much inspired by human input. It's ideas were referenced and it's motivations are prompts. AI will reduce work force, because it cuts cost. AI, however, isn't sentient. While that must not mean that it couldn't do plenty human quality work there are still these two aforementioned hindrances to it taking over the world on its own accord. As an illustrator you could use your skill to prompt better. Or you could feed an AI with your design tweaks. Chatgpt doesn't always give a great first response there is some iterating that happens to get to that perfect output. Your skills as an illustrator would afford you that judgment.
@@RIPxBlackHawk The video already addressed that point, particularly in the “AI is just a new tool” segment (15:26) and even more specifically at 18:29.
@Khanh Duong Phan What is the reason for this comment ?
@@RIPxBlackHawk I mean everything you said in your second comment may be true now but won't be for long. The reasoning was detailed in the video so I just linked that part instead of retyping everything.
My biggest problem is that this advance does not help artists in any way and only hurts them. Imagine if it was something like programmers losing their jobs to self developing AI, it would still be "good to progress" but its like a mass resignation of millions of jobs.
Funny that programmers don't develop programs that replaces programmers.
@@IvellScarlett They are literally doing that as well.
@@IvellScarlett co pilot is emerging quite fast and funnily have the same coping and reason why they will not get replaced.
@@IvellScarlett High level languages and compilers kind of were that, if you think about it.
@@orijimi not to the level so that elementary schoolers can use it with just words.
edit: my stance has changed since i posted this comment, after days of crying i realized that no matter what, the only answer is to draw as much as i can. even if i go down, then i go down with all of the artists i look up to and idolize instead of being the person that gave up at the very beginning of the battle. i'll leave my original comment for people who feel the same way as i used to feel, please remember that no matter what, nobody is able to predict future. 💗
Every day I'm waiting for *any* good news to come but for now, it's just getting worse every day. I'm so tired of crying myself to sleep nearly every night, struggling to eat and feeling suicidal because art is my only purpose of living at all. I just want a slither of hope, I'm trying so hard to stay passionate and keep drawing as usual but the thought of my art (therefore my existence as I have nothing else of value to show) eventually becoming worthless if things keep going on like this, just makes me break down crying instead and wanting to die. It's only the beginning but it's already so difficult to gather hope and strength to fight
Try switching to 3d art: sculpting, modeling, animation, etc. Just in case. If you learned something while drawing (anatomy, character design), i'm sure it'll translate over well.
I think we gotta think about things differently now. The future of just art on its own is totally bleak with this on the horizon. Success has always come from the connections that people have with each other and the opportunities and events that are present in communities. The world has become incredibly insular and isolated in the last 2 years, partially out of a necessity at the time, but also kind of against our will as social creatures. I know artists tend to be pretty solitary, but I think the antidote is going to be going against that. What small step can you do to build an art community around and with yourself locally? Do you have the ability to go to a live drawing class? Do you have an art museum near you that you could learn more about history? Are you close to any art schools or ateliers that you could meet anyone/ take classes at? I think you might find solace in community. Also, think about contacting your local political representetive with your concerns about this technology getting out of hand. I think that may be warranted at this point.
I've also reframed how I think about art and the time of creative endevor. I think that the gatekeeping inside of analog, human intelligence creative endevors has overstayed its welcome. No more in-fighting for artists. I haven't seen your art, so I don't know your technique, composition, subject matter, or medium, (and assuming that you aren't just an immoral deviant tyrant with what you draw) but the fact that you're a human and have put time into learning how to illustrate at all is more valuable in my mind than someone who got bored and mispelled an idea into an AI. lol. An AI never had that period of intense excitement, and learning, and discovery that you probably had. So, don't lose hope, artists need the intensity of the emotion you're feeling right now... but intensity in a different direction. Try and shift that from despair over to strength, little by little, day by day. It's difficult, but that's what artists collectively need right now. If you can do that, I feel bad for the AIs and the people that are obsessed with it.
They want to kill art as a facet of hummanity so bad..... but there you are. Keeping drawing alive, day after day.
For some good news: FurAffinity, Newgrounds, InkBlot, Getty Images and a Japanese(whose name I forget) site have all banned AI generated images. The same happened with a lot of subreddits, and on twitter, most AI art is getting mocked.
Edit: also, these things cannot be copyrighted according to USA and EU laws, so there is that.
@@galleryebb The AI it's going to take those jobs also( Open IA has releese a New softhwere of image to 3D) so ¿what's the point?
@@reinasayama8077 if push comes to shove, you can still take solace in the fact that you could be one of the last keeping the artistic tradition alive.
Even more amazingly, there might come a resurgance. A time where people finally realise that mindless gluttony isn't the answer to lifes inherent suffering. But meaning. And many find such meaning trough art. Not just the consumption of it, but creation. It's the blood, sweat and tears that let an artist savor a piece, or an improvement. The result in and of itself isn't meaningfull without it. At least not to the one who made it. Or "generated" it.
Since the dawn of humanity, we have created, and I will not allow it to end. Not until my very last breath.
Everybody knows deep down, that there is no going back to the way things were. Especially when software has gone open source and can be run offline, you could theoretically legally restrain the originating company, but you can't destroy the AI, because it will still spread peer to peer.
The Nuclear Age saw a similar threat looming on the horizon when they triggered the first atomic bomb, and the wise ones mourned the loss of their innocence knowing life would never be the same. I suspect the Information Age has just succeeded in doing the same and it’s far too late to stop it now.
The AI open source itself isn't worth a lot. You also need to snatch up all the data, to train it.
How could you legally restrain the company? What laws have they broken?
@@edisonkimmel7843 If governments wanted to they can easily make new laws that would apply. They could even do so with retroactive application if they felt llike it, although I doubt they would.
@@captainslender12 ok so make new laws to stop ai art because... People's jobs are being threatened? Since when is that a good excuse? I am legitimately confused as to why art Ai's should be subject to special legislation.
I don't get why luddite is used as an insult. Luddites did not revolt because of machines, but because of bad payment and terrible working conditions coupled with a total lack of help if they got hurt in the factory.
Now tell me, does that sound enjoyable to you?
What worries me more about this program is that it might discourage kids from putting in the years of work and effort it takes to become a skilled visual artist. It gives you the illusion of creating art. It’s fun to provide a prompt and see what you get out of it. And it’s a hell of a lot easier than working for decades to learn how to draw.
I am not really worry about that , as a teacher and coach in the visual art , I can tell you that people that are going to put the small effort to make there best art do it because they are what they do , art in it self . They will do the work because they want to get the goal , pushing a button doesn't satisfy them . My worry is for the Firms and employer that look at it to make their posters or book covers or whatever instead of hiring an Artist .
Same. The issue is that this will have bad ramifications for art overall. AI won't really come up with "new" concepts, it's entirely dependent on what humans made in the past, which is why I'm reluctant to even call it "AI" in the first place. No skilled human artists to feed it stuff = nothing new is created. People are in denial especially the AI shills, but they'll realize this eventually, and then you're going to hear your average Joe screaming about how everything related to entertainment sucks these days. And they'll deserve it, because seriously this world deserves nothing.
art is passion first and job later. There already insurmountable obstacles in art that would be almost impossible to tackle if they do not have the passion. AI wont stop ones that have the passion, at most make them pause.
just like microwave dinners making people less motivated to learn how to cook, or automatic transmission reducing ppls motivation to learn to drive stick shift. or ipads and good user interfaces reducing people’s motivation to learn how to use computers through the command terminal. or calculators reducing people’s interest in developing skills in doing mental math or hand calculations.
people will allocate their time differently. hopefully they can be guided towards doing things that are good for development of character and talent.
i think in the future it might become seen as moral imperative for every person to have like one or two things they commit to learning to do the ‘hard’ way, with less technology. just to keep the knowledge alive. it will be a hobby, shouldn’t be expected to be able to make a career from it.
@@LeetMath Well, calculators help me (as a person with dyscalculia) to solve problems easier and more efficiently, since i'm very lacking in terms of mental math, though i still do hand calculations when a calculator isn't in reach.
I love your way with words. Great essay.
Glad you liked it! Thanks Sinix
it's the og himself !
@@StevenZapataArt Your art is quite the Bondage fantasy (no slam, just saying)
I'm happy to have come across this video, really happy. I'm just a normal artist who wants to make books for children, graphic novels, and become an art teacher. I'm always complaining about back pain, art programs being slow on my computer, having to buy materials, staying up until late, etc, but i really am in love with my craft. People saying that AI was "just a new tool" felt like a half assed answer to me. Much of your concerns you mentioned here were also things I've thought myself. Why, would i want the world's most beautiful picture if i knew that it was an amalgamation of unconsented sets of information processed by a program with no soul. Yes, it may be better than anything i might amount to do in my life, but it not only feels empty, it feels disgusting. Not everyone will be sensible, or will care enough to notice this of course, some people are so numb that they will only care to see "new and cool content" and that's it.
I could ramble on an on because this is a topic i think about a lot, but i'll stop here.
because it costs less :) ? because they are pretty pictures ? because it is quicker, more available art for everybody? If I'm a refugee from Afghanistan and I wanna picture the horror I felt while fleeing I simply use a program to create a beautiful and moving picture quickly and easily, instead of paying someone to do it. Adapt to the new environment, how many more children can be taught art with these new tools? This is fantastic for art, stop complaining
artist elitist versus the gigachad people's ai
I'm curious, what does "soul" mean to you?
get replaced or get with the times
Keep seeing same comments over and over again.
"You can't stop progress, Steven!"
None says anything about stopping AI technology. All he talks about is a thing that many adult people should kind of easily understand and practice - *CONSENT*
No means yes 🤣
This comment is SO underrated. That's exactly what the problem is here. Millions of artists work and billions of hours work of blood sweat and tears have been taken in an instant to train AI. But "oh well, progress" ☠️ Um, no, literal theft and zero consent. And of course zero fcks given by the creators of AI. Recently saw "the father of AI" (whatever his name is) is having an existential crisis or something... Yeah. Um. No sympathy. 🙄
You seem to be confusing progress with 'devolution' Agiranto. Catch up!
You consented to your art being looked at and downloaded the moment you posted it on the internet, so cry about it.
I fear that ai will not only steal many of the already competitive visual arts jobs, but social media will also cease to be a viable opportunity ll be competing with people secretly posting ai content as their own work. Its already is happening to some degree.
there's already someone who used an AI to produce something in just a few weeks that won a contest and a cash prize, without telling the judges that "their" work wasnt made by him at all
@@FantasmaNaranja There was also a case of some user taking a screenshot of someone's work in early state during a livestream then pretending they did the image first by posting a "version finished by the AI" before said artist could finish their piece.
Of course, that was extremely stupid and that fool was hit with backlash.
But this scenario is a total nightmare and can be replicated easely.
Not only these opportunists can pretend to have paint a piece an AI did, but on top of that some would be playing the "mine was posted first so you're the thief" card (Which is particularly stupid since the artist's work files would be older than the fraudulous post anyway) against artsists who actually spend hours working on their pieces.
The nerves of going out of their way stealing someone's sketches instead of creating "originals" using only prompts deserves an award...
@@EddieJrDigiarts For now. Always? Not convinced.
@@EddieJrDigiarts Designing logos takes way less times and even in that aspect AI can be useful to prototype an idea and see it go a direction you wouldn't think of yourself. Doesn't matter if your final product is even close to what AI generate, but sometimes seeing the potential in one of those random shapes can spark an idea. It can be a good tool if used right
@@EddieJrDigiarts that's not really art, it's design, it's cold, calculative, a designer might insert some of their personality and likes, but they are bound to what the company wants, even if they don't understand shit about design themselves
I've hated AI art the moment I heard about it and saw people start to post it. Anyone that thinks it won't affect them eventually has their head stuck up a dark place. It WILL affect us all if we don't choose to fight against it. It is probably already too late, but I for one, will not stand for AI art. Like you said perfectly, it's not a tool, it's a replacement. That's exactly how they made it and how they want it to be. The people that started these programs have ZERO respect for the hard work and talent real artists have. I have to sign off before I start throwing around a lot of bad words I'll owe my daughter dollars for later... but I've shared this video. I hope others find it and watch it. I hope they listen. And I hope we will rise against them to take back our own livelihoods.
I wholeheartedly agree. Maybe I'm just petty or a baby boomer, I dont know. I just don't like it.
Share this as much as possible. It needs to be seen by many.
awww
If it was a replacement, then it would be able to do its job better than an artist. A quick look around, and a lot of people are trashing on how AI art looks. If it can't do its job better than an artist, then its not a replacement, its a tool. And if a job can be completely automated, then why should it be around? Everyone seemed fairly silent when robots took over manufacturing.
@@sa1t938 No offence, but it's short sighted to judge it from how it performs now. It's gotten miles better from the first DALL-E, and it makes sense it will improve and perhaps be enhanced with more generalized AI.
People weren't silent when factory work was being replaced with robots, but I think art is held in higher regard.
Not to mention the opiates that let inhabitants of former steel town calm down (Thanks Purdue).
This really drove home the point of how bad AI-generated art, and AI-generated media in general, can really get. And I thought NFTs were bad for digital art...
@@aliasmcdoe Some would call that action vengeance.
I'll be honest the whole NFT controversy was so overblown. Basically glorified baseball cards nothing more
As a (non ai) dev, I appreciated this video. Well said, and I support you.
How do you keep yourself from going mad as a professional artist? I spent 2 years unemployed, and 99% of that time was trying to build an audience and attempt to achieve a freelance level of self employment through commissions.
What I learned: If you're not someone who can learn to self promote, or can't spend just as much time self advertising as you are making art, you're going to do nothing but frustrate yourself.
I gained a total of 180 followers, 0 comissions, after putting up over 600 finished pieces in hopes of following my passion. I hate, loathe social media, keyword culture. I cannot keep up with it. I just can't. So, I create more. Every art "community" I join seems like it's just a board to slap your self advertisements onto. SO much untrained, low effort stuff that if you don't LIVE on the platform and repost constantly, good luck being seen at -all-.
So, I have gone back to office drone life, miserable, disillusioned, and worse for it.
I still draw and paint...but only for myself, and it hurts, knowing there are people who do it purely for profit, with much lower skill in the art than their advertising, and achieve wild success, letting them create for a living.
It's no wonder so many classical artists we praise now were drunks who killed themselves. I'm sad again.
don't drink yourself to death
I have the same frustrations with self advertising, i had bought the idea that as long as you're good at what you do work will come for you
And well it doesn't help that most of the art sharing sites have become dull, artificial and sooo saturated, in the earlier days of the internet at least there was a sense of personal presence, where different artists interacted and shared ideas
(Btw could you share your socials if you still have your art up?)
well may be is time to reevaluate what ART means to you ( in reality to most people ) , the greeks did art not for the money but for the pleasure it gave them and they created magnificent art , perhaps AI as it takes over mundane tasks and jobs will give us that possibility again , you should continue making art it should not be about what art gives you through others but what it gives to you directly
@@robotron07 check your history, there was plenty of Classical Greek work that was commissioned for government, temples, homes. They didn’t just create things out of “love for the work”- it was regular old work for hire. And saying to use AI as a way to free you to make art that’s there to fill some kind of niche inside you, well that’s just telling a working artist that he’s gonna lose his job to AI, but it’s okay- just go out and make yourself happy- you won’t care then that you’re out of a job and broke.
@@denises3727 that how evolution works ,better systems take over obsolete ones ,Humans have a choice to integrate with machines ( at the neocortex level) or be left obsolete .i will let you some food for thought find out what is the true concept of a cyborg and what is its relationshipo to cell phones "today" ,soon there will be the possibility of physical integration and that decision will come to play in the near future,this will be more a matter of being left with out a job because you want to
I refuse to take them seriously. But I'm a 67-year-old who's been a pen & ink illustrator for over 50 years. I've earned the right not to care about trends. Flushing a toilet does not make you a plumber and pushing a button does not make you an artist. “Where the spirit does not work with the hand, there is no art. " - Leonardo da Vinci
I hear ya, but we're relying on our art to make a living. Not sure if you're retired now. I take this very seriously.
"pushing a button does not make you artist." What do you think about photographs?
@@KolossosDD I mean, I think you are really understating how much goes into proper photography. While to some it's just pushing a button, there's so much that goes into photography outside of just pushing a button to capture a picture. How you frame the picture, what lighting you either set up or wait for the perfect lighting opportunities, the type of lens you use, and so much more go into creating good photography.
@@chromulus2225 Yes I spend a lot of hours and days on photography (semi commercial and as hobby). Thats why I can joking about the "its only a push on the button" critique that comes from painters since 1860 and now for AI art.
@@KolossosDD It’s the perfect example to bring up really. Artists back then though the camera would wipe out their industry. The same reactions on this video are echoed again. Automation creates fields of new and niche expertise. It’s just a shame that most artists shrug off or scoff just as well how economics in markets work. Most are conditioned through fear to demand political regulations on an industry. It’s unfortunate.
"STARVING ARTIST" VS MUSIC INDUSTRY The double standard with AI data sets between art and music most likely can be contributed that artists are individuals and music has always been dominated by studios and is even referred to as an industry. We need to start a AMERICAN (or International) UNION OF VISUAL ARTISTS that can lobby and litigate on the behalf of visual artist community!
Yes that sounds like a great idea! And agree with you 100%
But the question is how many artist do you know that is good with politics?
Or even know how to start something like that?
I would love to create something that can protect all artist.
But the only thing I know I'm good at is just art. Even the business side of my art I'm still trying to figure it out.
But hey if you know how to do all of that count me in. And I'll help any way I can.
starving artist who wants 80 dollars vs cheap 2 dollar ai.
i choose Ai
@@FemboyGaming420 You are a greedy prick.
@@laurentiuvladutmanea3622 Thank You M8
@@laurentiuvladutmanea3622 tho I don't understand how that makes me greedy and seeing how you artist act I'm glad it's going down
Art is the passion, not a script.
As an artist (hobbyist) myself, I am disgusted by AI and especially "AI-Bros" who make fun of artists and tell them to "get real jobs" because we "can soon be replaced by AI". Art is my passion and what I want to do my whole life and as a job and seeing these people completely disrespect artists and their work just makes me sick.
I agree my passion is to be a Great Warrior Emperor with many beautiful concubines for my profession but people always mock my drean
"Art is my passion and what I want to do my whole life"
sorry to tell you, but world don't revolve around you, if you get replaced you get replaced period.
i need some art for my project and i have 2 options
1) human, order can take up to a week, charges a lot of money, i might be not satisfied with finished product
2) computer programm, works EXTREMELY fast (10000x10000 high detail image in less than 1 second), needs to be purchased just once, dont like the result? just run her another time lol
@@targashsensei7900 don't worry you'll be soon replaced too
@@neolordie i'm a programmer🤣
@@neolordie even if it will i'll just pick a new specialization without crying about it, i did it once and i can easily do it as many times as i need to do, so as every human being with a speck of a brain
Couldn't agree more. It's not the technology that is at issue. It's the massive theft of copywritten art used to train the system and profit off it that's the problem. There is no other industry where that's an acceptable practise. Let them train the AI with their own art and see how many people want to use it.
not really - I have trained the AI using my own artworks (I have been an illustrator for over 10 years - I am programmer from a few years already). I don't use any living artists. Prompting is an "art" as well. Why? You need to select topic, create the whole idea, manipulate the image late on and so on and on. To say to somebody that is a thief just because creates art differently is unfair. I get it when it is addressed towards people using the living artist names. But on the other hand - the ideas are art. Not the craft. Art itself has been luxury good - lets be honest. Most artists has been and do struggle. The top few % are making more than a half of the industry. Should we be angry at these people? This is my statement - not everybody is a thief, not everybody is using all of the AI tools out of the box. Some people use their drawings/sketches as a base and just work similar to collage artists. Some as I do - use their own processed artworks for style base and not use any living people for their works. So please don't put everybody in the same basket.
@@HCforLife1 You don't (or you do and you lie, therein lies the problem) but many will. That's like saying everyone should have their own nukes, and that having nukes is fine because I personally won't use it to bombs others for no reason. And even my personal declaration is faulty, because my statement should not be taken at face value and should be placed under suspicion. It's a terrible argument that cannot be taken seriously. As a non-artist I will put every AI user in the same basket, don't you worry. I believe that you people deserve no quarter, because I see a lot of you try and demoralize actual artists so that they might give up and allow you to be a parasite on their backs in peace. Not a chance buddy. I also hope that artists will not give up on this, and will be relentless in defending art and their work. Or we will see the further devaluation of art, into nothingness.
And yet real humans do not train only copyright-free art. The onus is on them not to produce infringing works. Just because you have studied drawing the perfect Mickey Mouse, or performing the perfect rendition of Master of Puppets does not mean you can sell that product without legal risk.
What I am saying is that it seems to me that the AI's capacity to produce infringing work should be moot. The onus should be on whoever uses it not to make commercial use of infringing work.
That the developers of this AI removed copyrighted works from the dance diffusion dataset does not speak to me of visual artists getting shafted - it speaks to me the gross copyright overreach of the American (and it IS predominantly the American) music industry.
@@HCforLife1 the people using AI are not the thieves, it’s the particular organizations mentioned in the video that are. Again, the technology is not the issue here. The way these corporations have trained their own dataset using copy written material and then profited from it without paying the artists, is the issue. Artists training their own AI with their own art work is fine.
@@NiloNova Ah yes. We artists who have spent a lifetime dedicated to this skill are monopolizing creativity. Much like obese people have a monopoly on food.
(Satire)
As a game developer, I work with artists and musicians, and nothing motivates me more than seeing the joy and pride they get out of coming up with ideas, sharing their work and seeing it come to life. I think there's a lot of cool things about diffusion AIs, but the thought that they could take that away terrifies me.
It feels bad eh. At least you can see their work and verify how it was made. Me from joe public has to check every art account for proof of authenticity now, the front page of every art site is already endless waves of AI junk. Deviant has bots spamming 'untitled' works mixed with stolen art in the feed to trick people.
I've stopped going to art sites and I can image a lot of artists are going to nope out of having their sincere work obscured by everyone using image generators.
@Chino Gambino feels...ive honestly thought of making my own website with checks and balances to prevent thieves from getting in, such as requiring knowing a physical person who is a member and each person who brings you into the site needs to be picky because if the newbie breaks the rule, then you are also responsible for not vetting them. A bit draconic but im not a coder
You're looking at it from the perspective of an artist, the end user most of the time doesn't care about the process used to create the thing. As long as it's entertaining or serves the purpose, it could be from AI or a human for all they care
And you're stupid. As a game dev I feel incredibly joyful that I can actually be independent and not rely on the charity and goodwill of others can can actually focus on that which I do best, code. I don't even need to waste exorbitant amounts of money on commissions!
"When you prompt, you are shouting your inner heart into the next dataset" @19:31
As someone who studied writing in college, I got some intense chills the moment you said this: Because of the poetry in your phrasing; and that I knew deep down it makes absolute perfect sense. The data collection never really stops--working in the IT world has at least taught me that.
I am a poet. Not an artist. However, I have many friends that are painters, musicians, dancers... They are my brothers and sisters.
This is an attack on human creativity.
I am sharing this video essay with everyone I know.
I am curious. Is it okay for AI and technology to greatly reduce the need for non-creative? Trucking with self driving cars, robotic arms and manufacturing tech with those skilled workers, digital kiosks and service workers? Unfortunately, AI and tech is going to put a lot more people out of a job than just creative jobs. Historically, we haven't seen protections for these workers.
@@misterogers9423 1. People have been talking about this happening for decades.
2. Everyone is creative. It is just that our creative spark has been squashed by the horrible work conditions.
Urghhh musicians already received all sorts of beatings. So when AI music come in, nobody really cares too much.
I disagree. I’m a musician. I play the piano. Been playing since I was 13. I have no problem with ai systems that make music. And that’s because I don’t use music to make money. I use music to make me feel better. And here lies the problem. People that have a problem with this are people who think they will lose money from ai systems.
Novelai and GTP-3 exist and is a threat to writers
Finally someone understands, I'm tired of this overly optimistic outlook many artists have: "nooo, we will be better than ever! Everyone will become an art director! It will only get rid of *craftsmen*, us *real artists* will be fine!" Why would anyone hire you if they can get a computer to do your work for free?
Oh, and it won't stop with artists. White-collar jobs are probably the next chopping block, then the blue-collar ones. Ironically enough, the dirtiest and lowest paying jobs will be the last to remain cause it'll be cheaper to pay a human pennies to do then rather than get an expensive robot.
its evil dressed up in one of its favourite disguises: marxism. What don't you want to not work at all and just spend all day fishing?!.......thats the future: a few will live like gods and the rest of us will own nothing, plug into some shitty VR reality and love big brother with all our hearts.
@@brushonfire8800 🧩🧩🧩
Amazon is laying off tens of thousands of people in favor of robots. I'm not so sure if blue collar jobs will be the last to go.
It will all depend on how cheap the robots will become.
Blue collars were actually the first to go.
The same reason people pay others to get a handmade table or chairs is why someone would hire an artist...
Finally! A high level artist that is well articulate, talking about this important subject. 100% with you my friend!
this is exactly why ai needs to be SEVERELY regulated.
thievery cant be "regulatet", it must be forbidden.
@@Dagaz_artIt must be banned
@@Dagaz_artNeither will happen because it gives massive advantages to countries with no such laws. Cry.
This needs to be shared EXTENSIVELY.
I feel like artists generally find the process of making art more important than the end result.
But what pays the bills is the result.
Yeah nah.
This might be true and I agree, its why i make art. But consider this: what tools do you use to make art (say, digital only)? Photoshop...Corel...Procreate. these tools require people to purchase them to continue development and hosting - they ain't cheap nor free to make. If Adobe et al stop getting cashflow because not enough people buy their software, what happens to the sotware - and the tablets - needed to make digital art? Let's face jt, the vast majority of their sales are enterprise and individual pros - hobbyists make a tiny percent of their income.
if making art was just made by end results it wouldn't be necessary to put our soul and personality in it
And yes, the result don't makes art, the process makes art!
Very interesting video. As someone who has mostly been disappointed with the arguments made against image AIs thus far, you make several solid, persuasive points about what's wrong with their current development and implementation. I intend to share this one around a fair bit. Hopefully it will improve the discourse.
In a vacuum I have no problem with Ai art, but technology isn't developed in a vacuum. It is created in a political, economical, ideological context.
Technology is not neutral.
Right now, it is perfectly legal for these Ai programs to take existing copyrighted material and use for “training”.
And That should not be the case.
It should not be normal that these companies took the work of artists without permission.
AI really seems to me like a way for Capitalists to cut out actual artists so they can have guarenteed content that's cheap to create without any human input at all. Corporations at the end of the day only care about profit and will do anyhting to try to mitigate the tendancy of the rate of profit to fall.
The people who write comments about how AI learning from images is similar to how an artist's being inspired by the works of other artists seem to miss or purposely ignore the point of the Data-laundering argument: an artist and an AI are two absolutely different legal entity types; one is a human with rights and legal responsibilities while the other is a software the sole purpose of which is data extraction and categorization. Legally the software is represented by its creators, which are legally and morally (perhaps to a lesser extent) responsible for the methods they use to create the software.
When you do a google search, copyrighted images can show up. It seems like it is perfectly legal to categorize copyrighted images. Is there a difference?
@@tyruskarmesin5418 There is a difference. It depends on the implementation and purpose. Google is a search engine, it indexes\categorizes web site data and does not generate profit from the images specifically, but from ads and services.
AI is a tool that is used by a human, I remind you...
@@Nacho_Vidal If a tool was produced\obtained using legally questionable means using it commercially \for profit would be quite risky.
@@Einygmar The legal issue is yet to be verified and established. But it's progress, you can't stop progress, either you ignore it or you learn it, you have no choices.
Can't believe we're in a "post-art" period now.
It feels fucking surreal.
Not if we started a war on tech😈😈
@@Starrypaws64 Considering I got my bachelors in computer science, i'm gonna have to stop you there, lol.
I personally thought that art AI should be used as a tool, you just need to be more skilled than AI to survive, etc, but after watching this video I agree that AI has been unfair to artists! Thank you for making me and others more aware about the other side of AI.
Recently I’ve been wondering “Why do I make art?” At first I only did art because my parents said I was good as a kid. I did art because I was good at it, but now I’m at the point where I no longer consider myself “good”. After watching I realized I make art because I LOVE making art. I love looking at years of hard work being put into use. I love improving. I love struggling. I love seeing other’s voices being heard through this medium. I hope AI doesn’t take that away from us and future generations.
If there is not regulation, it will indeed take that away from you.
The reflex to regulate anything just creates another layer of technocracy, interwoven into bureaucracy. It’s a trap of its own making.
AI art generation needs existing art from talented artists to present something convincing and plausible. At the moment anything established in perspective is its bane. Perhaps with the integration of 3d programs and how tackling perspective works in those softwares, that can change.
Visual development jobs will probably have a lighter workload with AI as a tool. But paying an artist who produces consistent and high quality work, or who can direct a project with a honed sense of aesthetics, will still be demanded.
@@Hibernial I agree that artists are still in demand and it's being used as a tool to enhance workflow. However, it will replace us in the near future (few years?) if there's no regulation, no doubt in my mind. I disagree with your first statement.
It has nothing to do with skill.
Us artist people we create from our imagination and our experiences.
AI bypass all of that and do a very quick search that takes mili second and put it together.
It's equivalent to taking other artist art and making a collage and calling it your art.
It doesn't even do art it need our art to actually make art.
Art takes creativity, imagination and emotion.
Something a computer can't do or have.
Just don't mistake AI art for real art.
For me as a consumer id rather pay 2 dollars rather than up to 50 dollars for a picture so ya Ai wins for me
People who use AI always try to use weaponized incompetence as an excuse not to take the incentive to learn how to create.
People who use 3d are even worse! They've been around for 10 years - and not a single one of them picked up a pencil. I'm baffled we just let them be, we should take a hard stance against AI and 3D!
@@bbgun9076 You clearly dont understand the issue at all.
3D art is an artform. It is more similar to sculpting then with 2D art, but it is still art. Also, plently of 3D artist do use pencils, to paint over their creations.
@@laurentiuvladutmanea3622 If you think i know nothing - than you know even less than that.
@@bbgun9076 Cute claim. Do you have an argument?
😅😂😂😂 Weaponised incompetence. Well... that's new.