วีดีโอ

Nice

Hi, I'm new subscriber here. Wow! I love your paint, the girl with rabbit looks beautiful ❤

Your video came in my search , congrats as I know as a new artist how hard it is to see less views loved your video , ❤ keep it going girliee

Yay a fellow UI/UX designer who's actually an artist too 😊

Beautiful art there. Well done

Being plagiarized is already terrible, but getting so unnecessarily jumped on with such condescension as well is just cruel. Unbelievable that people write these kind of messages and not once in their mind crosses the idea that they're being so disrespectful for no reason at all. Everyone wants to live in a better world, and yet they keep making it miserable

I feel the ideal course of action would be to push for laws that protect artists, because it's a fact that right now there's nothing to be done about regular people using AI to generate images. But I have no idea how.

Protection is the death of Inspiration. Ai is here, and we have to deal with it. With all the "theft" and "my art" arguments - that is understandable - I always think about how I started to draw. I copied Comics, I used drawings of other artists I could find in books and Magazines, and I bought Books to COPY the Style of the illustration and learn from those people by mimicking them - with the Goal in mind of making things as they did. And with the internet and PC, the resources were growing, Inspirations and the level of Skill … tremendous. And Yes Ai makes this too but 100 times faster. So the Solution will be you are allowed to copy and learn from others when you are human, and it is forbidden to use machines? I assume this will not work. And what if an artist got "His" style protected? Not a specific Piece of work - we are talking about a style. So we will have with everything that is a bit like it, or remotely like it or nearly the same, a big legal problem. It's already hard to sue plagiarism, but protecting the art styles of some famous individuals. What about the not Famous artist that has a similar style? It's not only one Person Styles are like trends, not an exactly defined set of registered elements and forms. I think this will cause more harm than benefit. But sure, when you feel the urge to protect your work, take a look at GLAZE. It is a system designed to protect human artists by disrupting style mimicry. This is an opportunity - but I doubt it's a solution - and yes - I have no other solution than to evolve and adapt to the tides of the time or get a relict in history.

I hate it as well my account was doing great in 2019-2020 then they forced reels on the algorithm and my post went from 4K-3K likes to barely reaching 200 likes and my followers told that they don’t see my posts anymore so I eventually stopped posting but I was posting stories everyday until I stopped when my views in stories dropped

Totally right, it´s sad that artist nowadays are perceived like unnecessary when it´s because of us that people have records of animals from the past, biology, history elements, etc etc. It even feels like an insult, to be replaced by a souless machine.

I would not be so sure that AI isnt going anywhere. It loses money hand over fist, we're talking millions a day, and the main use of it so far is as a buzzword to impress shareholders. Not to mention the lawsuits moving forward against stablediffusion and midjourney. I think as soon as the silicon valley hype cycle wears off and they move on to the next thing, we may see many of these AI softwares go defunct

I love how the dude says procreate is having "unrealistic goals", by..... acknowledging what their target audience wants and don't want? which is usually recognized as a key recipe for success? go figure...

"On the other hand, not supporting AI is like saying 'we don't believe in electricity'..." Nope, this fucker got it so wrong, because no one is denying that AI is a thing, and that it's huge, they're just acknowledging that generative AI "art", has no business being in a drawing software, a drawing software whose target audience is artists, who are largely AGAINST AI "ART". He's like all those corporations who don't seem to understand that not everything in this world needs AI, and instead keep shoving it everywhere just for the sake of having it. "I'm pretty sure the devs are using AI to code" Sure, and guess what, *we have nothing against that* because it's a completely different usage of AI, and most importantly one that IS NOT HARMING ANYONE! Not all AI is equal, not every way of using AI is equal, some are morally acceptable, some are healthy, some are not. Also funny how this guy doesn't know that drawing on a tablet is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT EXPERIENCE AND SKILL from drawing on pen and paper, specially if your tablet is not one of those super expensive ones with a built-in screen, it's a genuine skill to be developed on it's own, on top of all the other artistic skills you'll already need to develop to become a good artist.

Indeed, as another artist, I love this. Any win we can get against AI "art" is huge. I don't want Ai to disappear.... I just want this thing to be regulated ASAP, because right now it's completely out of control and throwing everything out of whack, it's clear that such a impactful technology CANNOT REMAIN UNREGULATED, it's just too dangerous. Also trying to generate art that is as close as possible to someone else, kinda defeats the point of art... doesn't it? I mean sure people get inspired by others all the time, but in the end you're supposed to FIND YOUR OWN VOICE, not just be a clone of someone else.

Nothing would fix this shit until there is some strong copyright laws regarding AI works. Just taking someone's work because you can shouldn't be a thing.

I don't understand why artists are never shown respect. Literally everything around us is made from art down to a pen. I can't believe people act so purposefully disrespectful but then again, I can... Being chronically online deteriorates character...

As an artist myself i would gladly pay for an app that can litteraly block your post. Like snapchat prevent user to make screenshot. I m sure it s possible. As long as you pay, they make it impossible for someone tu use you picture. This will be a very good way to use AI actually.

I do not forgive tracers who've built their business on art. It's not some niche knowledge that you shouldn't trace if you're making profit from your art. It's completely fine to trace for practice, but it's always better to disclose the fact... I'm glad you decided to make this video. It's not always obvious that what goes in the art piese are years of practice and experience, and it's not just about the end result.

Yeah. "With great power must come great responsibility." The bigger an audience you have, I feel, the more responsibility you have to be honest about what you're doing. I think tracing can be helpful in learning but a tracing shouldn't be shown as if it's an original work. Maybe, in a learning video, someone could shown the original, show why they are tracing it and what they are learning, then compare the original and their results. This should only be done if the tracer asks the original artist and gets permission before posting. And gives the original artist credit in the post.

I’m a fine art photographer and it saddens me how much nonsense is pumped out with ai and flooding social media and search engines. A big concern is how this is affecting people, no one trusts anything anymore, I too have become suspicious of everything I see and I never used to be this way. Public trust is eroding at a very quick pace. It’s becoming difficult to even know if the person you’re speaking with online is even human. This technology was unleashed for all to use without any thought of the consequences, or if there was a thought then purposely brushed aside all in the name of profit.

I tried using ai art as a ref and it hasn’t worked out at all, anatomy is generated so parts are anatomically wrong, lighting sources are also spliced and incorrect such as the bounce light, shadow and light source dont have a direction, even backgrounds have two beams merged together and dont look good- so as an artist theres extra additional mental load just to ‘fix’ the art piece. Other than a pallete generator and seeing how to block certain colours and keep it vibrant, theres nothing to take from ai art. Also the fact that most ai bros I’ve seen has been utter scumbags how can they have the formula of; Robot+ Real Art= Ai Art and then shit on the people who created the art the source material to create ai art in the first place- then make these obtuse statement's that ai is the same as a camera. Because even people with cameras need a models permission before taking a photo and have to have some photoshop skills to edit photos and make something good meanwhile people let ai think for them and clap themselves on the back for a job they couldn’t be bothered to do.

Immorality aside, I would still have my reservations about using A.I. in my personal work. Sure, gen A.I. is fast, cheap, effective. After all, why walk when you can drive to where you want to go? You get there faster and you don’t tire yourself out as much. You have much power in your hands to do what you want, how you want. But art posits a different question altogether. A.I. brags about how fast and effective it can get to places, but where are you going so fast with all that technology? Art is the discipline of studying what’s beautiful and replicating it; it is a study of where is worth going in life, with beauty and emotions as our compass. A.I stole the voices of the artists that expressed exactly that and composited something spiritually invalid and false. I’m not willing to listen to an unfeeling, non-sentient machine that’s essentially calculating probabilities of where each pixel or word should go after the next. Art is a language that through the grammar of beauty communicates meaning between the human creator and the human viewer. It feels incredibly lonely to be talking to a cold machine, worse when it’s emulating humans as a soulless impostor. I don’t feel heard at all, because its not a human at the other end that’s feeling what I wish to communicate. The more you remove the human element to art the less of it I consider as art. People often make the argument that A.I. is like how digital art was to traditional art, that it’s a good thing and it makes it easier. However, it’s fundamentally different. When you click generate after simply typing in prompts, maybe do some editing, or trace over it into your own art, it was not you who did the art but the A.I. There’s a lack of artistic intentionality there. You did not choose the lighting, the composition, the line quality, the colours, the shapes, the gesture, the rhythms, the anatomy, the texture, the proportions. You left so much to the A.I. that you might as well not have communicated anything to me as a creator at all, because it is not your voice I hear, but the mangled hallucinations of other artists I hear. While art forms before the gen A.I have various degrees of how much human input and intent is required to achieve a finished piece, i.e photo collages, digital art, traditional art, I feel like A.I. crosses the line by doing all the creative heavy lifting for you. Even if you use A.I. like how ErgoJosh did in his video, you no longer have my confidence that you looked into every aspect of your art and put careful thought into what you find beautiful and where you want my attention. I can no longer trust that you’ve put the required effort, respect, and time into your piece to weave together a story, message, or sentence you wish to communicate. Why use A.I. and shortchange yourself the opportunity to use your authentic voice in every part of your work to communicate? The culture we live in is obsessed with results and surface aesthetics. It matters not how you arrive there, so long as it looks pretty. But when we are concerned with only the superficial we become hollow; to fill that void we engage in hedonistic, vapid consumerism and fill our time with passive entertainment. There’s a reason why artists want to see someone who doesn’t use references, who don’t use 3D models, who doesn’t “cheat”. That’s why people love the late Kim Jung Gi. People can see he was learned, that he had through his mastery given his work and depictions utmost care, respect, and love. His mastery communicated to us that what he saw was so beautiful to him that he gave years of his life to hone his skills to the level where he didn’t need construction lines or references. Mastery was his language, and he communicated well.

Nice video ❤

Yeah, we need to figure out ways to protect ourselves. I suspect that a lot of the love of plagiarism programs is going to die off as the short attention span users move to new forms of instant gratification but we still need safeguards.

There is a program. It’s called Glaze/Nightshade. It’s been out for awhile look it up people.

I'm not sure why he chose to use a perspective grid to draw hair, since I watched this on the assumption that he has enough experience to be well-accomplished... If he can draw hair, he should be able to do it on his own... _"I don't need to have years of experience in perspective to do this-this is a free tool on the internet. _*_It might as well be an A.I., right?"_* No... This is a grid. He can't just make a comparison like this and not expect people to not use it in whatever ways they want, even if it doesn't help them learn or avoid ethical issues... Even if something is free on the internet doesn't mean it's designed to be used ethically OR in a way that helps one learn... so, I hope he addresses this. Personally, working with this many reference pieces would constrain my imagination.

I tried it in my daily work in a game company and it almost ruined the process. This thing sucks ass and solves zero art problems, creating tons of them in return. And then I learned how this garbage works(by stealing art) and now I feel like I stepped into a pile of poo poo. We need to protect ourselves.

With the advent of GenAI, honestly, I'm just disillusioned by how people see artists and how they are willing to treat them. I'm lost on even what is the next step, seeing as people are so unsympathetic to how we as artists feel and truly only care about the product we create. Great video nonetheless!

you're absolutely right ghorl!

Ok, let's start with some points in this video. First, I understand that feels bad that automation remove jobs, but that happened every time technology comes. I understand the passion people put on their work, but, to discuss regulations or laws, feelings aren't a functional parameter, we need something next to the objective truth. Second, after looking for the results of the lawsuits against AI companies, I started to realize that the problem here is that, legally speaking, AI doesn't infringe copyright. Most of the cases were dismissed because to be a copyright infringement someone (person or company) needs to do 5 especific things: "distribute, public display, perform, reproduce or make it in a derivative work without the author consent. Which means that artists are failing on proving AI does any of that, not because there is copyright material in the database, but because, when show what AI really does, it doesn't "fit" on any of possible copyright infringements. Here we need to understand what the machine actually does, it "learns" the information, patterns and styles of images people show by the diffusion process. It doesn't learn like a human does, but it uses information as reference as a human does. To protect a piece of art to be trained into a AI model, artists needed to hold copyright on the information of their material, and, for the sake of art, they don't hold copyright on information, patterns or even their styles. In one of the cases stability AI even said that "if we could give a biological body to the machine, it would give the same final results" which means that, if it could learn as organic as a human, it would learn like one. Thirth, when we deal if AI music, especially in the cases said in the video, we need to understand that, we actually hold copyright on our image and voice, so to not be a copyright infringement, we mustn't use the voice and image of an artist. That could be applicable to images too, but to individual images, if the final results are way to close to a single image created by the artist that could ne classified as derivative work. The difference here is, training AI with your artwork doesn't create something that could be comparable with the original material, and to be classified as a derivative work it's need to be capable of replacing the copyright material on meaning or context. So, in the AI music cases, the artist actually hold the copyright of what is been reproduce, but on the image generation AIs they don't because artists don't hols copyright on information, patterns or even their styles. I hope I could clarify some stuff here and I to discuss further with you would like.

I love your mindset 💖 And I also love your voice, so I'm subscribing 💯

How are smaller creators see the issue that there's no ethical way to use Ai in the process of illustrating while Adam and Josh are blind to it? Make it make sense....

Nice ❤ well done 👍🏽 3:03

the guy spent over 100 hours on that :(..... bro he should try to do some traditional art to learn to draw faster .

AI ART = a person trying to cut in line, so it's funny that ERGOJOSH is mad that people are pushing him away.

your works of art will not be protected because in order for your desire to come true, other peoples art most also be protected from you as an artist. that means no more quote unquote references no more taking inspiration form other art works and no more fair use. you all as artists are literally pots calling the kettle black who don't realize your selfish desires will be your on undoing if your unfortunate to get what you say you want like the dog that finally caught the the car but now doesn't know what to do

You can't have something 'only add to you' and improve you if it was stolen from someone else, any child would tell you that. Just because they stole millions of images and then frankensteined them together with a computer doesn't mean those elements weren't all stolen by a living human artist. It's just wrong, plain and simple.

Sounds like a first amendment problem, artist should file law suits and coordinate together when you do. Your intellectual property is protected by law and if companies are stealing your designs and art to use without permission then you do have the right to sue. You might not win, but at least you'd bring it to the notice of the government. And if you don't live in America then idk what you can do. Also the easy solution is to just enforce the first amendment, no intellectual property can be used without the artists permission. And since a lot of these ai bots charge fees to use you can definitely build a law suit on that. And if companies want to build ai bots using an artists work as reference then they should pay that artist royalties.

At the 14:42 mark in Josh's video: "This isn't just copy and tracing, like you hear and think like a five year-old when you hear the word tracing. And so, I'm saying this again to push the idea that people need to THINK more when they hear certain terms being used. It used to be that certain digital art meant that you weren't sh**, that you didn't know how to paint at all. But now, look, right? It isn't so simple as 'if you use this, you don't know sh**, you're nothing.' It's a lot more complex and I know many people wouldn't have the ability to actually be able to think this critically about their work-I'm not saying you need to or it means anything-but this is me showing how much intention and care I put into this illustration, right? And it's something that people NEED to be able to do if they want to START STANDING OUT, because these tools are going to allow people to do BIGGER and BETTER projects MUCH FASTER. I don't have to have years of learning perspective to be able to do this anymore - this tool is online for free. It might as well be an A.I. as well, right?" His wording is terrible, right? It's awful, not because he used algorithms in a way that...makes the work not authentic, but because regardless of what he does under his explanations there is a culture of exploitation that can very easily run with those words and try to twist them and further enable themselves to just use the tech however they please and get away with it like they don't really understand what he means or they aim to deceive. People could say that since he brought up digital programs, then it must mean that anyone arguing against "A.I." is a bigot and that it's just the same thing as older technologies, which is far from the truth. We know that not every use of technologies is harmless, and the points Josh made, while he was mostly right, it could still be used against him and everyone else because they do not encompass everything. They do not account for the fact that nobody really NEEDS to find ways to use "A.I." if they want to succeed or accomplish their vision... I actually disagree with his quote about "standing out" and having tools ALLOWING people to make "bigger and better projects much faster"-in fact, I would say that Josh's use of "A.I." was indirect, and still it's a very minor benefit. Spending a small fortune on recent hardware just for a reference generator is hardly worth it, for an artist does not NEED to have references that are closer to their vision. Creativity is in the process and the drive. *_No tool ever makes an artist or even makes one better - it's HOW you use something,_* but of course many people simply do not see or respect this truth, which is why it would be preferable to first dismantle the culture of exploitation around the tech because, even though I would not treat this as a fight, the world is not making it easy to avoid making one in which we constantly have to justify ourselves over every little assumptions people make. Some artists do not think, and it's the same problem for non-artists. The problems that would arise, given the direction where it's all heading...are on such a scale that one can hardly wrap their mind around it-artificial intelligence does not even exist, yet everyone is calling it like this by only looking at its output and making abstraction of human intent, intelligence and consciousness. I don't see any harm in using "A.I." as a referential tool or texture generator, provided one doesn't trace it without intention, doesn't use generated material directly in the work (or just copying it entirely--in Josh's case, he only copied an ear by redrawing it from scratch in a different angle) or doesn't leave interpretation as to what one did. Unfortunately, referential use is not the use that companies and their customers alike are promoting. The ghouls who claim "A.I." output as their own do not deserve attention for it whoever they are-they should be punished.

absolutely we as artists should be protecting ourselves against AI thievery. if there was an easier way to do it than just not ever posting my art, i feel like i would feel more comfortable showing off what ive created and attempting to live off of it :')

This video is so good it should have more views

Uhm

I HATE AI ART

nice video, and congrats on 100!

❗️❗️❗️UNDERRATED ARTIST ALERT❗️❗️❗️

I myself fear getting my art stolen and used, so it really discourages me to post anything online. But there are also other ways you can easily tell if the image is ai generated. As you can see 7:39 there are three lighter dots on the girl's shoulder - ai isn't conscious so it cant's tell if it makes stupid mistakes like that. You should look at the lighting, shading or anything that doesn't make sense. It adds random lines arouth the eyes, irises are uneven, ponytails aren't the same lenght, even backgrounds will look melted!

It feels illegal to be this early. And yes its very sad that AI Is taking over,AI is ruinning the art community...

Can you pls do a video on how you read PDFs, take notes and store the notes in different folders with tags. Also some of the best Samsung exclusive aps you have researched.

Being a black woman that wants to pursue the arts, not going to say which cause they might change an I don't like to put out anything that I am not fully confident on yet...the industry is kinda... Dominated by one demographic, to keep it a buck...

non artists are amazed by pretty pictures, to get a lot of popularity you just gotta embrace the most boring and vapid mentality to create your stuff (some people are already like this naturally, so it's easy for them)