Lee is mistaken. AI isn’t a tool it’s a replacement. Steven Zapata said it best on his channel - a new wrench in a factory is a tool. That’s what Photoshop would be in this analogy. However a mechanical arm That can do the job for a human isn’t a cool new tool, it’s a replacement. That’s what AI Art is in this analogy. Artists who are sitting there thinking “ Oh I’m established this won’t effect me” are sadly mistaken and super naive.
To summarize the discussion "Most commercial artists will not be able to survive in the shrinking art market by relying on their art making skills, so they better learn to do other things". Um, yeah, obviously. That's what artists are upset about.
I'm unable to learn programing. I have been born with learning disabelity, that made my math greads, and gremmer and speling a living hell. Luckly I have a paper the disqalafid me from learning math, because it's that bad. So if you want to say, this can be qalafied as a disabelity. So the only thing I'm good at is art, and visual story telling. But you probably don't care, or think that Van Gogh, and other both artist from the past, or still living artists just lazy.
One thing that can stay, is all traditional, handmade stuff. 🌱 So let's not forget our roots! The basics, traditional art.. Somehow, our world seems to always go back from the beginning. AI can do digital art, but humans can do traditional, genuine stuff the best. 🙂
@@Alexandraadftxr7052 Animation can come in many forms! It will be more difficult for digital concept artists, animators, but you have a unique voice and story to tell out there. That will be more valuable than AI 🙂 So let's lean into that, and eventually it will bear fruit. 🌱
@@mariajlmartist Traditional vs. digital doesn't matter to a publisher, company etc. looking for illustrations for their book cover, album cover, indie game, website, magazine pages, product package or whatever. They only care how it looks in printed form, or on the screen. Commercial art has never been about "let's make a painting and sell it to a collector". It's about creating images for printing or digital format. Capitalism + AI = bad news for illustrators
Why are humans trying to replace ourselves? And why artists? We don't need art streamlined, sped up, or mass produced. So why? Eventually humans will not be necessary and then we have the Skynet (Terminator) scenario. And I hate to always bring up this quote from Jurassic Park, but, "we were so consumed with finding out if we could, we never stopped to think if we should". I'm drawing a hard line on AI, it's a hard no and I'm not buying any products that were developed using AI. And we need to be taking a hard stance. If you need idea generation, use image libraries and develop that muscle. Your literally killing you career in the long term for this short term quick fix.
yes, i am agree, at the same time, may be we coud wait and see the future, may be, even whit the IA, people will be able to develope skills, that need to be learned, i dont know, but i think that in the same way we dont need to learn to draw 3d shapes because the pc calculate it, and the pc calculate the shading, ia just will bring new posibilities, and artist will find new ways of creativity.
im also of the thinking that you have to do something AI can't in order to beat it. which if you're optimistic, challenges you to push your creative muscle and to grow as an artist. but you can also see how that might displace a lot of artists who aren't able to keep up. especially young ones still learning their craft. and I don't see another result from that other than those artists embracing AI for market demand. which makes me worry about the future of art and design fundementals. I'm hopeful that "AI makes art made by a person more valuable" is true, but it does come down to whether the people paying for it value it that way? i don't believe AI will only be a production or inspiration tool for artists, it will be used to create final products. and if someone can pay a person less money to achieve that than paying someone to craft it "the hard way" they will absolutely choose the former. capitalists don't value anything we deem as good art the way we do. they'll choose the cheapest thing that's good enough to achieve their goals. artist won't be replaced because AI made better / more creative art, but because it made good enough art faster and cheaper final point, yesterday I saw someone who created a way for Ai to generate color palettes by writing in a prompt like "Tokyo neon". this seems like the least creative way to make anything, but maybe more importantly, i find it odd that artist are finding ways to replace themselves by taking thinking out of the equation and shortcutting to a good enough final result. I'll gladly accept the "old man yelling at clouds" moniker when proven wrong :)
Unfortunately I totally agree. Especially with the capitalist "faster and cheaper as long as it is good enough" thing. Because most consumers are easily satisfied anyway. Or, to put it more bluntly, cannot tell a good image from a bad one. Making a living as an illustrator is hard enough - in Germany anyway - prices dropped significantly over the years or just weren't raised. If an editor sees a chance to produce something cheaper he will grab that opportunity. And that could also mean asking the illustrator to do it for less than usual. Especially in editorial illustration. I also agree that we are creatives and should therefore be able to shift and change. But if I read correctly through the lines of this video, Jake should change his: "Now go, draw something." Into: "Now go, create something."
@@patrickwirbeleit4501 I agree completely. If there is one constant we can always count on. it i that if a company can find a way to save a buck. they will. And if there is one thing i have also learned after 22 years in art industries. is that with the exception of perhaps the highest tier jobs. They value artists little. and perceive them to be a necessary inconvenience in their aggregation of personal wealth. At one of my my Old jobs, The big money higher ups called us. "the kindergarten" and all that that implies. it was a major company as well with an art and creative staff of over 100. but thats another story altogether. while we will see some industries hold out longer than other. there will be downsizing. I think just being aware of this is an advantage. and a good motivator to make whatever changes anyone may feel are necessary going forward. To be in denial of what this tech will bring to art industries is what will spell ones downfall or lack of ability to earn a living. we have some time tho... its not happing today... not yet. but soon my friend.
The thing people dont seem to be capable of understanding... Is that there soon wont be ANYTHING you are capable of, that AI isn't. First it will happen in data based fields, then in the physical world. It's a matter of when you are replaced, not if. Eventually there simply wont be any need for people anymore, its too much for people to believe, but it's the truth.
Great video! One small correction: Michelangelo did almost all of his work on his own. He was one of those artists who believed, if you want it done right, do it yourself! He kept on working up to his death at the age of 89.
It's been about a month and this is already dated- it's such a fast moving field. 3D modeling is happening now. img2img is taking an image and remixing it and happening now. People are now able to add in several specific images (such as from a specific artist) to add additional specific training to the training set to push it in that direction. So last month's tech- no, no threat to art careers. This month's, maybe, maybe not. Next years? More likely.
Midjourney has definitely improved in just past 1 month. They introduced -test and -testp commands, which give much better results (at least if you want realistic outcomes). It's not just scary, but honestly depressing and actively anti-artist
@@shredd5705 AI is a misnomer because there is no creative process, no spark of creativity, just an algorithm. If your design process can be replicated by an algorithm, then your career never really had much of a chance anyways.
Jobs aside the pleasure of creating has a value… it gives joy, the challenge of learning a new skill ( not just to sell but for the feelings of accomplishment) it can be calming for a busy mind, meditation and refreshing. It can be a part of you that family members hold onto long after your gone and think of you. It can be like journaling and help you understand your self and process things like grief and capture memories of special times or places. These values are connected to being human and they are huge! I just love these values also. Oh and love y’all perspective too. Cheers!
I've been using mid journey for a couple of weeks. It's great for generating references and ideas but it rarely produces what I actually have in my mind when I put in the prompts. Right now, if anything, it may be a tool to help artists produce specific art faster, like using 3D models as references, but I just can't see it replacing actual artists anytime soon.
Thank you for highlighting the positives in these softwares! I often listen to your podcast and I find it very valuable! However, here I was disappointed to see basically no mention of some really obvious negatives of this technology. The main one is clearly how this technology was built with complete diregard to real artists' copyrighted work that was fed to it, which is the most infuriating aspect of it, and one that society is seemingly helpless against (although with just proper regulation it would take a second to make programmes that were built like that actually illegal to use). I also don't know if I agree with the comparison between artists imitating someone else's work and the AI doing the same thing, because one thing that is sort of glissed over is the immense scale at which theese models operate, something which is not achievable by any human. The efficiency in these softwares in reorganising enormous amounts of data and their inclination to overfit the data is what makes them so uniquely different to humans. This ultimately means that these models will be super efficient in effectively copying real people's work, or reproducing aspects of work that was fed to them against the owner's will. This is not the same as one artist vaguely copying another artist in 10 images. We're talking about orders of magnitude higher than that. Tech companies tricked us into thinking that technology and progress can't be wished away, a view which you seem to embrace in this discussion. You're most probably right, but I think in the case of this technology, the legal concerns with it are too great to ignore and I want to believe that artists could come together and fight how it was built. I also don't think it was built with real artists in mind as customers, I think it's pretty obvious if you look at many of its applications. Finally, about the point "well if your art was so unoriginal that even an AI could replace, maybe you were never meant to be an artist in the first place, or anyway just step up " I think this is fairly dangerous logic, as what these models can do will only improve with time, and what is considered unoriginal also changes. Also, I think there's still more value in paying a real living human for work that they put time and effort into, than just buying a subscription to an app. Sorry for the really long comment! I know it's really hard to convey in online interactions, but I'm saying these things with the most amicable tone. I just wanted to throw in my thoughts on this. Perhaps your view has also changed a bit, since it's been some time since this video came out! Thank you for all you do!
Thanks for this very much anticipated art topic! I am the same person with the account, "buhay ni maria." I agree with your perspectives about having AI to "make things better and more diverse." Yet the traditional artmaking, personal stories meaning, raw craftsmanship.. those can't be replaced by AI. If that happens, that will be our first humanoid. I also agree how our world has greatly modernized today, but traditional artworks are still more valuable even if we have photography, prints.. Traditional art is incomparable 🌱❣️
really positive and open minded take.. Im not sure if i agree completely with all the points. but a really nice uplifting take nonetheless. . I think what you described only applys to a certain cross section of creatives. essentially what you guys said is. Hey. no problem. just go do something else thats creative! And while. yes. of course...... For those that are masters of what they do. it will likely be less of an issue in the imediate future. As Ai simply isnt there...yet. But not everyone is in a great position to do that. The market for many art jobs will very likely shrink in the coming few years as the AI copyright laws are likely pushed in favor of AI Gen imagery. we will see this effect accelerate. In regard to do something the AI cant do. How do you know what ever that thing is, is not something the AI can do in a year. in two years? in a month? Therein lies much of the uncertainty. I think a really important subject i didnt hear you guys discuss. was how the AI aggregates its datasets. Currently it is legal in USA for it to scrape the internet. In some asian countries it is not. its a situation where copyright and IP law lags far behind technology. And unfortunately the current ruling cited in the US. Was made by a judge who seems disinterested or unable to understand the process of creating art. ( apparently he has been under pressure from the public to reconsider. but we know thats not happening ) Again. i enjoy your positivity. But i think you may have forgot to perhaps project the landscape in 5 years, 10 years etc. . And add a little foresight and extrapolative application. Not everyone is going to become a writer. That is obviously a completely different skill that takes years to become truly proficient. Also not everyone likes typing. Id rather cut my toes off ( seems like a lie considering how long this comment will likely be lol ) Also, Not everyone is an entrepreneur who will use AI to bring new products to market. That is also difficult and could come at substantial personal expense epending on the nature of said item.. A very large cross section of artists are kinda introverted creatives. They will have a hard time transitioning. I think saying if you cant figure out a new career or a way to transition, then you werent a good artist is a bit.. well. not so nice. But i am glad you can see the pathways in your own art journeys to continue to succeed. Lets talk again in 3-5 years when a substantial percent of the creatives and concept artists at most Video game companies have been let go. ( As of today. Ai is now actually making 3 d models from 2 d art. mixed results but improving exponentially of course ) Or, when painters start to have trouble sell paintings because the new"FLEX" is hanging up your own AI generated images in your home. ( granted. there is a huge conversation to be had in the intrinsic value of someones time. or a piece of their finite lifespan ) is sunk into a canvas vs a bot that spits out a bunch of stuff. ) i think its obvious which has more real value. It is obviously an evolving conversation. But i thnk the main takeaway i can agree with. Is for artists to start looking for ways to evolve with the changing landscape. Buy some Tattoo guns. Buy a drone and get a license.. etc etc. Sorry for the semi rant here guys. Again . it was great listen. i love the chemistry and positivity coming from you three!!!
I know that for myself, I will always value human made art no matter how “good“ AI art looks. But I’m not optimistic that businesses and consumers will continue to value like I do. Cost, efficiency and profit have always been the motivation for the industry , and consumers are easily swayed. When it’s not possible for the average consumer to distinguish between AI and human made art, will the average person even value art at all? Would they just think of digital art as“ just input some words into a app and you’re done ? “ On the other hand, everyone can write but not everyone is a writer - when everyone can write, good writing stands out and becomes widely appreciated. However it does mean writing full time is almost impossible for new and aspiring writers. Would artists be like writers in the future? One final thought is that although OpenAI is a thing , I really believe it is inevitable that there will be companies competing to make better AI in order to make money. For artists who are force to “ adopt to AI “ , it’ll be another added expense on top of everything else.
Everyone can breathe, and everyone _needs_ to breathe. Most people can't survive more than a few minutes without breathing. But nobody gets paid to breathe, and very few people savor the experience of breathing. Although breathing is more valuable than almost anything else in the world, it is not valued. In fact, it is taken for granted. The more effortless and abundant a thing becomes, the less valued it is.
AI is a misnomer because there is no creative process, no spark of creativity, just an algorithm. If your design process can be replicated by an algorithm, then your career never really had much of a chance anyways.
@@fotografick No, that's a rubbish 'victim blaming' take on AI art. Plenty of artists' careers have been (and are) completely legitimate, requiring hard work, skill, dedication, etc and those artists have been able to make a living and feed their families on the basis of those skills and processes. The arrival of a new technology does not equate to "your career never really had much of a chance anyways". That's just a way to avoid thinking about the real consequences of these technologies and let the develops of those technologies off the hook.
@@Pneumanon The competitive advantage that creatives have is their creativity. A machine doesn't have that ability. Most creatives won't be affected by this. All I'm saying if you are working in a creative field without being creative, then you aren't operating with that competitive advantage.
@@fotografick Again, that's a naive view of what's happening here. Yes, some percentage of 'creative' work is truly creative in the sense that it involves the generation of novel ideas. But not all creative work competes on being novel and the market often doesn't want the most novel creative ideas. Most clients/customers want things that are very similar to what they have seen before, or what has worked commercially in the past. The film industry is an easy example of this dynamic in action. How many truly new ideas a) get produced in the first place and b) reach a high level of success in the market? The film industry makes billions every year and the films that tend to earn the most- particularly in recent history- belong to IPs that have already had past success in film or other media. A large amount of 'creative' work is technically creative- it requires 'creative' i.e. generative skills of some kind to produce. It's not conceptually creative. Many, many artists' competitive advantage has not been in conceptual creativity at all but in technical skill. The Mona Lisa is more famous than any work of Picasso, Dali, Duchamp, Pollock, etc. In a typical list of the world's most famous sculptures, all are examples of highly skilled craftsmanship and/or depictions of mythic/religious figures- none are conceptually novel. In both cases, the most famous works have existed for hundreds of years and outperform newer, more 'creative' works. Until now, conceptually creative people who didn't have the technical skill to produce their ideas would have to hire other creative people to bring their ideas to life. Again, to use the film industry as an example, a very, very small number of conceptually creative people- as few as one single person- can have a creative vision that requires hundreds of technical artists to produce across numerous areas of expertise. Many of those hundreds stand to have part or all of their work replaced by AI technology in the coming years. Proponents of AI now say that we can, or indeed should, all become creators of novel, original work. By your argument, if artists don't do that, their careers 'never had a chance in the first place', which is just a nonsense statement. But beyond it being simply wrong, it doesn't stack up economically if you think about it for more than 2 seconds. While some creative people may have a competitive advantage based on the strength of their creative ideas, in a market where everyone- creatively skilled people and creatively unskilled people- can now produce their own creative projects, supply immediately exceeds demand, as it already has with video on social media. As a result, the value of creative work _and_ the value of creative projects themselves will be diminished, in many many cases to zero. The number of creative studios, creators and projects will surely increase, but the amount they can earn in exchange for their work will be lower across the board. In other words, many of today's skilled professional creative people- commercial artists- will have to find other sources of income to survive. If you watch this video, that's basically the conclusion that these guys come to as well. The idea that people just need to be 'more creative' to compete with AI technology is simply naive and unrealistic.
Honestly I just see this as big companies trying to monopolize visual art on a whole, When you think about it visual art is an entire industry that for a long time was very difficult for big corporations to fully exploit and there's no denying that there's money in this field despite public perception. Honestly this might sound conspiratorial but I think they just created these apps so that they could just have huge monopoly on the industry and tried to disguise it as a means for everyone to be creative. The big corporations can save money by laying off teams of artists and not hiring freelances and at the same time make even more money by distributing these software to naive people fooling them into thinking they can make money by selling prompt art, but in reality something that takes this little effort to make will have little value as the market oversaturates and even the biased people who were all for this AI art progression will soon realize that the prompt art is worthless due to the fact that anyone can make it by typing a prompt. Meanwhile big corporations just take in all the money they can get with the exploitation of art while simultaneously killing the medium. Don't know if you agree or not but honestly this really seems like the big plan they had...it may offer benefits for people who cant afford freelancers for small projects like book and album cover illustrations but with advent of AI music and literature those facets of art could ultimately meet a similar fate MAYBE with the exception of music since the copyright laws for that are incredibly strict. I just don't get how people don't realize the easier something is to make for the average person the less value it has in the long run, that's why low skilled jobs pay so much less most of the time. To really some it up in my opinion this was really sinister in it's inception, lets create a database with peoples art without their permission for an "AI" that spits out a derivative while we're simultaneously profiting off all the time they spent perfecting their skills and disguise it as a useful tool for everyone. They're also well aware of how slow copyright laws are to catch up so they know by the time laws are put in place to protect artists the damage has already been done. I don't blame the casual people using it but the huge Corporations who funded it as well as the biased tech bros who keep spreading the lie by how useful it is and it's like putting salt in the wound for them to scoff at artists Work while using these AI when it's literally trained off artists work. I guess there's some solace in knowing this "art" is largely worthless as it becomes more mainstream and becomes oversaturated. The real question is though, why do we as humans strive to try and make ourselves obsolete, I can understand the automation of jobs that most people don't really want, but it baffles me why we strive to get rid of the careers we actually strive for. Anyone who does art as a career obviously did that because they love it (I mean we literally have the whole right hemisphere of our brains associated with creativity), and I know society is about progress and efficiency and whatever but I honestly don't see the automation of art as a means of driving society forward at all, all I see is our brains stagnating and becoming creatively bankrupt as big companies turn out content on a conveyor belt and even if you decide to make the difficult choice of somehow transitioning to a new career field, which would obviously require more training how long before an AI takes that away too. Rant aside I wont ever stop making art regardless and art made by your own human expression and life experiences will always be superior to an AI derivative.
The answer is pretty obvious. Will it take artist jobs immediately no eventually yes. I'm sure if you rewound time to 5 years before factories started using assembly line robots and you asked line workers if a robot could ever do their job it would end up being very similar to this video lots of lin workers would say "no my job require too much manual skill" and there would be worlers who say my reuired. I can sympathize as no one is going to have good feelings about having their whole career choice automated.
AI is a misnomer because there is no creative process, no spark of creativity, just an algorithm. If your design process can be replicated by an algorithm, then your career never really had much of a chance anyways.
@@fotografick Is not about creativity, is about the skill, now people whit no skill, but great creativity can go, put some words and get the thing done, so this person that have been studing for years, let say, anatomy, lighting, animation, modeling, rigging just will loose his profesional influence.
Envisioning me avatar AI personality entity. I feed conversate with my AI entity but BEFORE that I create a pre-nup copyright registration of my inception that covers all derivatives, for-hire, and preserve pro-active data progression to be downloaded to my several custom sensory bods and suits. Last night I binged “The Perpheral” based on book by William Gibson. Don’t you think Musk already has plans for his perpetuity bot?
"Will AI Art Kill Artist's Careers?" Looking at the thumbnail with a red rabbit with bizarre wrong anatomy then I thought: Nah, not now, buddy XD. omg those ears haha. Those eyes and skull? I won't even start talking about it. And the composition? The same dull stuff that throws composition rules out the window. And if we ask for emotion in a character, we'll have to fix every single facial muscle later. It's horrendous and only non-artists don't notice these issues. I'm using Stable Diffusion with img2img over my sketches (comic book artist for over 17 years, my "adorable" day job), and got furious with simple tasks not done by the stupid AI, like the body in perspective, or something simpler, like hands. I thought it was my answer to create graphic novels in record time and stop working for others, but no. Right now, crappy AI can only generate decent backgrounds but don't expect it for sequential art. Even if you train AI to follow models, this goddamn-son-of-a-binary-brain AI doesn't understand anything. It speeds up things for illustrations here and there, but do not expect a miracle. You have to fix A TON of things after generating a gazillion of images and photobashing parts you liked it. Let's play as Dr. Frankestein for a while before it really gets decent results. But yeah, eventually, it gets there and we all be replaced by prompts. OR we will be hired to create a new unique style sheet so the client can train AI with it. Like always, we have to study marketing and advertisement because, like now, we have to sell our stuff as artists. What changes? Not much, because only the mainstream-minded artists are popular now, and they'll be popular later. Same different thing.
Brilliant discussion, thank you all so much for this. I think you’re spot-on, it’s actually not about the technology at all, it’s about perspective. I’m using it as an alternative to Pinterest. I get maybe a 20% hit rate with useable ideas; very often they’re not at all what I was going for when I entered the prompt, but the results spark something else instead. There’s some extremely poetic results to be got, *but*: faces can be incredibly samey if they are clear. I think we’ll develop our understanding as viewers; pretty soon we’ll be able to recognise and distinguish ai from handmade. I’m excited to keep developing my skills, I agree, there’s nothing quite like the feeling of a real person making a thing.
Long comment ahead. TLDR: I don't agree with your opinion about copyrights. Those companies laterally use other people's work to train thier software and make profit. Without other people work, the software will be very limited. It's also unclear whether the software really creats something new since there's few examples of the directly copying entire pieces of work. Copyright laws were created in the first place to encourage creativity and make sustainable for the creator. I really think this is a good opportunity to reexamine the law and make it relevant to this day and age. I think the Brittney Lee example isn't that good since all of those people who copy her style could never compete with her. It probably took them years to figure her style and she'll always be more efficient then them. But if you make a bot that can copy her style and make art in matter of seconds, this makes her disposable. Sooner or later we'll find ourself in a situation where it no longer pays off to create new things, new styles etc.
DIGITAL MUSIC AND DIGITAL PAINTING BEFORE WAS STILL DONE BY HUMAN, NOW IDEA'S AND IMAGE ARE GENERATED WITH A.I text to image text to Video.. EVEN THE PROMPTER DONT IMAGIN IT CLEARLY A.I DOES IT FOR THEM! the skill of an artist is VISUALIZING BY DRAWING .......... NOT BY MACHINE!!!
AI is a misnomer because there is no creative process, no spark of creativity, just an algorithm. If your design process can be replicated by an algorithm, then your career never really had much of a chance anyways.
@@fotografick yeah that’s crazy. You shouldn’t have to compete with a machine. Plus some fantastic painters, world class artists like Greg Stokowski are having their work replicated. This is a guy who was worked for major film companies etc. so you are telling me his stuff doesn’t cut the mustard bc an AI can replicate it? Come on. The whole “ well you just gotta adapt bro!” Argument is such a bad take
@@genreartwithjb5095 If you are a director that hires an artist to create conceptual work for your film, there is no way that current AI tech can possibly match that level of creativity. AI can replicate what is already there, but creation requires a spark of creativity that machines don't possess. If you are satisfied with just copying what already exists, then yes, AI does fulfill a purpose.
Art will be appealing only to those in love with the process. Like cooking and enjoying while doing it. AI is in its earliest stage, the new job opening for companies will be AI prompters.
Its interesting watching people in comments refusing to see how fast this is progressing. AI can outperform architects, artists and designers and that has been proven in blind studies judging the work.
I think, that DALLE 2 handles character-based prompts better than Midjourney. I got my beta access and I'm often shocked at how many good pieces it can render, but fortunately, it can't handle comics strips (yet) xD
Don't Worry Darling's bts stuff is probably gonna be a lot better than the movie itself, lol. oh, and AI is only gonna replace us if it comes to Her movie level sentient, but it's gonna take awhile so
From another video. I always see proponents for AI art as another tool to extend and express themselves. They would justify the AI that generates these images from other artists work to create that unique piece which is no different than artist copying the ideas from other artists that has been done for centuries. But that is the difference, people still have to be an artist to create or replicate that work and learn from it. For the proponents, you didn't need to study composition, colours, human anatomy, paint patterns, textures and milliard of other techniques to get to the final products that we see today. To be creative is already a unique human feat unto itself. What I see are text prompts, that is not creative, that is merely a detailed description of what you want to see. You have no control over the final outcome and it is a generative gamble and what looks best. You are not creative, you are merely doing a Google search 2.0.
AI is a misnomer because there is no creative process, no spark of creativity, just an algorithm. If your design process can be replicated by an algorithm, then your career never really had much of a chance anyways.
If AI art can kill your career, it deserved to die. Exactly the same argument as, if an illegal immigrant can take your job, that shows it was a low-skill job that anyone could do.
It's funny to me how artist think they are sooooo smart and sooo creative and sooo important... News flash my dears, you're just making nice looking things that OTHER PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY BUILDING.... No matter how much artistic bullshit and "whatever the heck theory" you put into anything, products, real product, in the real world, still abide by the laws of physics and engineering first, no matter how much you cry about it. Oh, btw, funny thing, since there are so many AI art generators, and music generators, and story generators, where are all the engineering AI generators? That's right, they don't exist, because that's some actual REAL work and not some randomly thrown brush strokes on a canvas, or a banana glued to a canvas (lol, really morons? that's art?)… You can think you're important all you want, and you are, the world would be bleak and boring without artistic input (kind of like the Soviets did things, big square steel blocks) but know your worth and your place, in the end, you can make a building without art but you can't make a building without engineering :)
![ลองสุ่มไอโฟน 990 โกงมั้ย? [ โกงมั้ยครับ ep.101 ] | DOM](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/bfsWe0j492k/mqdefault.jpg)
Lee is mistaken. AI isn’t a tool it’s a replacement. Steven Zapata said it best on his channel - a new wrench in a factory is a tool. That’s what Photoshop would be in this analogy. However a mechanical arm
That can do the job for a human isn’t a cool new tool, it’s a replacement. That’s what AI Art is in this analogy. Artists who are sitting there thinking “
Oh I’m established this won’t effect me” are sadly mistaken and super naive.
100%
It being used as a replacement, IMO, doesn't mean it can't be used as a tool - or that the potential uses as a tool don't exist.
To summarize the discussion "Most commercial artists will not be able to survive in the shrinking art market by relying on their art making skills, so they better learn to do other things". Um, yeah, obviously. That's what artists are upset about.
I'm unable to learn programing. I have been born with learning disabelity, that made my math greads, and gremmer and speling a living hell. Luckly I have a paper the disqalafid me from learning math, because it's that bad. So if you want to say, this can be qalafied as a disabelity. So the only thing I'm good at is art, and visual story telling. But you probably don't care, or think that Van Gogh, and other both artist from the past, or still living artists just lazy.
One thing that can stay, is all traditional, handmade stuff. 🌱 So let's not forget our roots! The basics, traditional art.. Somehow, our world seems to always go back from
the beginning. AI can do digital art, but humans can do traditional, genuine stuff the best. 🙂
@@mariajlmartist well looks like animation is dead thanks to AI. Before you ask. Yes. I want to work with in the future.
@@Alexandraadftxr7052 Animation can come in many forms! It will be more difficult for digital concept artists, animators, but you have a unique voice and story to tell out there. That will be more valuable than AI 🙂 So let's lean into that, and eventually it will bear fruit. 🌱
@@mariajlmartist Traditional vs. digital doesn't matter to a publisher, company etc. looking for illustrations for their book cover, album cover, indie game, website, magazine pages, product package or whatever. They only care how it looks in printed form, or on the screen. Commercial art has never been about "let's make a painting and sell it to a collector". It's about creating images for printing or digital format. Capitalism + AI = bad news for illustrators
Why are humans trying to replace ourselves? And why artists? We don't need art streamlined, sped up, or mass produced. So why? Eventually humans will not be necessary and then we have the Skynet (Terminator) scenario. And I hate to always bring up this quote from Jurassic Park, but, "we were so consumed with finding out if we could, we never stopped to think if we should". I'm drawing a hard line on AI, it's a hard no and I'm not buying any products that were developed using AI. And we need to be taking a hard stance. If you need idea generation, use image libraries and develop that muscle. Your literally killing you career in the long term for this short term quick fix.
yes, i am agree, at the same time, may be we coud wait and see the future, may be, even whit the IA, people will be able to develope skills, that need to be learned, i dont know, but i think that in the same way we dont need to learn to draw 3d shapes because the pc calculate it, and the pc calculate the shading, ia just will bring new posibilities, and artist will find new ways of creativity.
im also of the thinking that you have to do something AI can't in order to beat it. which if you're optimistic, challenges you to push your creative muscle and to grow as an artist. but you can also see how that might displace a lot of artists who aren't able to keep up. especially young ones still learning their craft. and I don't see another result from that other than those artists embracing AI for market demand. which makes me worry about the future of art and design fundementals.
I'm hopeful that "AI makes art made by a person more valuable" is true, but it does come down to whether the people paying for it value it that way? i don't believe AI will only be a production or inspiration tool for artists, it will be used to create final products. and if someone can pay a person less money to achieve that than paying someone to craft it "the hard way" they will absolutely choose the former. capitalists don't value anything we deem as good art the way we do. they'll choose the cheapest thing that's good enough to achieve their goals. artist won't be replaced because AI made better / more creative art, but because it made good enough art faster and cheaper
final point, yesterday I saw someone who created a way for Ai to generate color palettes by writing in a prompt like "Tokyo neon". this seems like the least creative way to make anything, but maybe more importantly, i find it odd that artist are finding ways to replace themselves by taking thinking out of the equation and shortcutting to a good enough final result.
I'll gladly accept the "old man yelling at clouds" moniker when proven wrong :)
Unfortunately I totally agree. Especially with the capitalist "faster and cheaper as long as it is good enough" thing. Because most consumers are easily satisfied anyway. Or, to put it more bluntly, cannot tell a good image from a bad one.
Making a living as an illustrator is hard enough - in Germany anyway - prices dropped significantly over the years or just weren't raised. If an editor sees a chance to produce something cheaper he will grab that opportunity. And that could also mean asking the illustrator to do it for less than usual. Especially in editorial illustration.
I also agree that we are creatives and should therefore be able to shift and change. But if I read correctly through the lines of this video, Jake should change his: "Now go, draw something." Into: "Now go, create something."
@@patrickwirbeleit4501 I agree completely. If there is one constant we can always count on. it i that if a company can find a way to save a buck. they will. And if there is one thing i have also learned after 22 years in art industries. is that with the exception of perhaps the highest tier jobs. They value artists little. and perceive them to be a necessary inconvenience in their aggregation of personal wealth. At one of my my Old jobs, The big money higher ups called us. "the kindergarten" and all that that implies. it was a major company as well with an art and creative staff of over 100. but thats another story altogether. while we will see some industries hold out longer than other. there will be downsizing. I think just being aware of this is an advantage. and a good motivator to make whatever changes anyone may feel are necessary going forward. To be in denial of what this tech will bring to art industries is what will spell ones downfall or lack of ability to earn a living. we have some time tho... its not happing today... not yet. but soon my friend.
Nop, we are DOOMED. Art profesión ( 40000 B.C- 2022 A.C) th-cam.com/video/CfVHXDty5Pk/w-d-xo.html
The society has always been this way
The thing people dont seem to be capable of understanding... Is that there soon wont be ANYTHING you are capable of, that AI isn't. First it will happen in data based fields, then in the physical world. It's a matter of when you are replaced, not if.
Eventually there simply wont be any need for people anymore, its too much for people to believe, but it's the truth.
Great video! One small correction: Michelangelo did almost all of his work on his own. He was one of those artists who believed, if you want it done right, do it yourself! He kept on working up to his death at the age of 89.
It's been about a month and this is already dated- it's such a fast moving field. 3D modeling is happening now. img2img is taking an image and remixing it and happening now. People are now able to add in several specific images (such as from a specific artist) to add additional specific training to the training set to push it in that direction. So last month's tech- no, no threat to art careers. This month's, maybe, maybe not. Next years? More likely.
Midjourney has definitely improved in just past 1 month. They introduced -test and -testp commands, which give much better results (at least if you want realistic outcomes). It's not just scary, but honestly depressing and actively anti-artist
@@shredd5705 AI is a misnomer because there is no creative process, no spark of creativity, just an algorithm. If your design process can be replicated by an algorithm, then your career never really had much of a chance anyways.
Jobs aside the pleasure of creating has a value… it gives joy, the challenge of learning a new skill ( not just to sell but for the feelings of accomplishment) it can be calming for a busy mind, meditation and refreshing. It can be a part of you that family members hold onto long after your gone and think of you. It can be like journaling and help you understand your self and process things like grief and capture memories of special times or places. These values are connected to being human and they are huge! I just love these values also. Oh and love y’all perspective too. Cheers!
And how do AI affect that?
@ I don’t think it does people will always be doing stuff just because they enjoy doing it.
I've been using mid journey for a couple of weeks. It's great for generating references and ideas but it rarely produces what I actually have in my mind when I put in the prompts. Right now, if anything, it may be a tool to help artists produce specific art faster, like using 3D models as references, but I just can't see it replacing actual artists anytime soon.
Anit needs to stay a reference
Try Stable Diffusion with init images.
Thank you for highlighting the positives in these softwares! I often listen to your podcast and I find it very valuable!
However, here I was disappointed to see basically no mention of some really obvious negatives of this technology. The main one is clearly how this technology was built with complete diregard to real artists' copyrighted work that was fed to it, which is the most infuriating aspect of it, and one that society is seemingly helpless against (although with just proper regulation it would take a second to make programmes that were built like that actually illegal to use).
I also don't know if I agree with the comparison between artists imitating someone else's work and the AI doing the same thing, because one thing that is sort of glissed over is the immense scale at which theese models operate, something which is not achievable by any human. The efficiency in these softwares in reorganising enormous amounts of data and their inclination to overfit the data is what makes them so uniquely different to humans. This ultimately means that these models will be super efficient in effectively copying real people's work, or reproducing aspects of work that was fed to them against the owner's will. This is not the same as one artist vaguely copying another artist in 10 images. We're talking about orders of magnitude higher than that.
Tech companies tricked us into thinking that technology and progress can't be wished away, a view which you seem to embrace in this discussion. You're most probably right, but I think in the case of this technology, the legal concerns with it are too great to ignore and I want to believe that artists could come together and fight how it was built.
I also don't think it was built with real artists in mind as customers, I think it's pretty obvious if you look at many of its applications.
Finally, about the point "well if your art was so unoriginal that even an AI could replace, maybe you were never meant to be an artist in the first place, or anyway just step up " I think this is fairly dangerous logic, as what these models can do will only improve with time, and what is considered unoriginal also changes. Also, I think there's still more value in paying a real living human for work that they put time and effort into, than just buying a subscription to an app.
Sorry for the really long comment! I know it's really hard to convey in online interactions, but I'm saying these things with the most amicable tone. I just wanted to throw in my thoughts on this. Perhaps your view has also changed a bit, since it's been some time since this video came out! Thank you for all you do!
Yeah! Something i was thinking about a lot lately! Can't wait to hear what you guys have to say about it ^^
Thanks for this very much anticipated art topic! I am the same person with the account, "buhay ni maria." I agree with your perspectives about having AI to "make things better and more diverse." Yet the traditional artmaking, personal stories meaning, raw craftsmanship.. those can't be replaced by AI. If that happens, that will be our first humanoid.
I also agree how our world has greatly modernized today, but traditional artworks are still more valuable even if we have photography, prints.. Traditional art is incomparable 🌱❣️
really positive and open minded take.. Im not sure if i agree completely with all the points. but a really nice uplifting take nonetheless. . I think what you described only applys to a certain cross section of creatives. essentially what you guys said is. Hey. no problem. just go do something else thats creative! And while. yes. of course...... For those that are masters of what they do. it will likely be less of an issue in the imediate future. As Ai simply isnt there...yet. But not everyone is in a great position to do that. The market for many art jobs will very likely shrink in the coming few years as the AI copyright laws are likely pushed in favor of AI Gen imagery. we will see this effect accelerate.
In regard to do something the AI cant do. How do you know what ever that thing is, is not something the AI can do in a year. in two years? in a month? Therein lies much of the uncertainty.
I think a really important subject i didnt hear you guys discuss. was how the AI aggregates its datasets. Currently it is legal in USA for it to scrape the internet. In some asian countries it is not. its a situation where copyright and IP law lags far behind technology. And unfortunately the current ruling cited in the US. Was made by a judge who seems disinterested or unable to understand the process of creating art. ( apparently he has been under pressure from the public to reconsider. but we know thats not happening )
Again. i enjoy your positivity. But i think you may have forgot to perhaps project the landscape in 5 years, 10 years etc. . And add a little foresight and extrapolative application. Not everyone is going to become a writer. That is obviously a completely different skill that takes years to become truly proficient. Also not everyone likes typing. Id rather cut my toes off ( seems like a lie considering how long this comment will likely be lol ) Also, Not everyone is an entrepreneur who will use AI to bring new products to market. That is also difficult and could come at substantial personal expense epending on the nature of said item.. A very large cross section of artists are kinda introverted creatives. They will have a hard time transitioning. I think saying if you cant figure out a new career or a way to transition, then you werent a good artist is a bit.. well. not so nice. But i am glad you can see the pathways in your own art journeys to continue to succeed.
Lets talk again in 3-5 years when a substantial percent of the creatives and concept artists at most Video game companies have been let go. ( As of today. Ai is now actually making 3 d models from 2 d art. mixed results but improving exponentially of course ) Or, when painters start to have trouble sell paintings because the new"FLEX" is hanging up your own AI generated images in your home. ( granted. there is a huge conversation to be had in the intrinsic value of someones time. or a piece of their finite lifespan ) is sunk into a canvas vs a bot that spits out a bunch of stuff. ) i think its obvious which has more real value.
It is obviously an evolving conversation. But i thnk the main takeaway i can agree with. Is for artists to start looking for ways to evolve with the changing landscape.
Buy some Tattoo guns. Buy a drone and get a license.. etc etc.
Sorry for the semi rant here guys. Again . it was great listen. i love the chemistry and positivity coming from you three!!!
Oh wow, I loved Lee White's initial positive take on it!
I know that for myself, I will always value human made art no matter how “good“ AI art looks. But I’m not optimistic that businesses and consumers will continue to value like I do. Cost, efficiency and profit have always been the motivation for the industry , and consumers are easily swayed. When it’s not possible for the average consumer to distinguish between AI and human made art, will the average person even value art at all? Would they just think of digital art as“ just input some words into a app and you’re done ? “
On the other hand, everyone can write but not everyone is a writer - when everyone can write, good writing stands out and becomes widely appreciated. However it does mean writing full time is almost impossible for new and aspiring writers. Would artists be like writers in the future?
One final thought is that although OpenAI is a thing , I really believe it is inevitable that there will be companies competing to make better AI in order to make money. For artists who are force to “ adopt to AI “ , it’ll be another added expense on top of everything else.
Everyone can breathe, and everyone _needs_ to breathe. Most people can't survive more than a few minutes without breathing. But nobody gets paid to breathe, and very few people savor the experience of breathing. Although breathing is more valuable than almost anything else in the world, it is not valued. In fact, it is taken for granted. The more effortless and abundant a thing becomes, the less valued it is.
AI is a misnomer because there is no creative process, no spark of creativity, just an algorithm. If your design process can be replicated by an algorithm, then your career never really had much of a chance anyways.
@@fotografick No, that's a rubbish 'victim blaming' take on AI art. Plenty of artists' careers have been (and are) completely legitimate, requiring hard work, skill, dedication, etc and those artists have been able to make a living and feed their families on the basis of those skills and processes. The arrival of a new technology does not equate to "your career never really had much of a chance anyways". That's just a way to avoid thinking about the real consequences of these technologies and let the develops of those technologies off the hook.
@@Pneumanon The competitive advantage that creatives have is their creativity. A machine doesn't have that ability. Most creatives won't be affected by this. All I'm saying if you are working in a creative field without being creative, then you aren't operating with that competitive advantage.
@@fotografick Again, that's a naive view of what's happening here. Yes, some percentage of 'creative' work is truly creative in the sense that it involves the generation of novel ideas. But not all creative work competes on being novel and the market often doesn't want the most novel creative ideas.
Most clients/customers want things that are very similar to what they have seen before, or what has worked commercially in the past. The film industry is an easy example of this dynamic in action. How many truly new ideas a) get produced in the first place and b) reach a high level of success in the market? The film industry makes billions every year and the films that tend to earn the most- particularly in recent history- belong to IPs that have already had past success in film or other media.
A large amount of 'creative' work is technically creative- it requires 'creative' i.e. generative skills of some kind to produce. It's not conceptually creative. Many, many artists' competitive advantage has not been in conceptual creativity at all but in technical skill. The Mona Lisa is more famous than any work of Picasso, Dali, Duchamp, Pollock, etc. In a typical list of the world's most famous sculptures, all are examples of highly skilled craftsmanship and/or depictions of mythic/religious figures- none are conceptually novel. In both cases, the most famous works have existed for hundreds of years and outperform newer, more 'creative' works.
Until now, conceptually creative people who didn't have the technical skill to produce their ideas would have to hire other creative people to bring their ideas to life. Again, to use the film industry as an example, a very, very small number of conceptually creative people- as few as one single person- can have a creative vision that requires hundreds of technical artists to produce across numerous areas of expertise. Many of those hundreds stand to have part or all of their work replaced by AI technology in the coming years.
Proponents of AI now say that we can, or indeed should, all become creators of novel, original work. By your argument, if artists don't do that, their careers 'never had a chance in the first place', which is just a nonsense statement. But beyond it being simply wrong, it doesn't stack up economically if you think about it for more than 2 seconds.
While some creative people may have a competitive advantage based on the strength of their creative ideas, in a market where everyone- creatively skilled people and creatively unskilled people- can now produce their own creative projects, supply immediately exceeds demand, as it already has with video on social media. As a result, the value of creative work _and_ the value of creative projects themselves will be diminished, in many many cases to zero. The number of creative studios, creators and projects will surely increase, but the amount they can earn in exchange for their work will be lower across the board.
In other words, many of today's skilled professional creative people- commercial artists- will have to find other sources of income to survive. If you watch this video, that's basically the conclusion that these guys come to as well.
The idea that people just need to be 'more creative' to compete with AI technology is simply naive and unrealistic.
Honestly I just see this as big companies trying to monopolize visual art on a whole, When you think about it visual art is an entire industry that for a long time was very difficult for big corporations to fully exploit and there's no denying that there's money in this field despite public perception. Honestly this might sound conspiratorial but I think they just created these apps so that they could just have huge monopoly on the industry and tried to disguise it as a means for everyone to be creative. The big corporations can save money by laying off teams of artists and not hiring freelances and at the same time make even more money by distributing these software to naive people fooling them into thinking they can make money by selling prompt art, but in reality something that takes this little effort to make will have little value as the market oversaturates and even the biased people who were all for this AI art progression will soon realize that the prompt art is worthless due to the fact that anyone can make it by typing a prompt. Meanwhile big corporations just take in all the money they can get with the exploitation of art while simultaneously killing the medium. Don't know if you agree or not but honestly this really seems like the big plan they had...it may offer benefits for people who cant afford freelancers for small projects like book and album cover illustrations but with advent of AI music and literature those facets of art could ultimately meet a similar fate MAYBE with the exception of music since the copyright laws for that are incredibly strict. I just don't get how people don't realize the easier something is to make for the average person the less value it has in the long run, that's why low skilled jobs pay so much less most of the time. To really some it up in my opinion this was really sinister in it's inception, lets create a database with peoples art without their permission for an "AI" that spits out a derivative while we're simultaneously profiting off all the time they spent perfecting their skills and disguise it as a useful tool for everyone. They're also well aware of how slow copyright laws are to catch up so they know by the time laws are put in place to protect artists the damage has already been done. I don't blame the casual people using it but the huge Corporations who funded it as well as the biased tech bros who keep spreading the lie by how useful it is and it's like putting salt in the wound for them to scoff at artists Work while using these AI when it's literally trained off artists work. I guess there's some solace in knowing this "art" is largely worthless as it becomes more mainstream and becomes oversaturated. The real question is though, why do we as humans strive to try and make ourselves obsolete, I can understand the automation of jobs that most people don't really want, but it baffles me why we strive to get rid of the careers we actually strive for. Anyone who does art as a career obviously did that because they love it (I mean we literally have the whole right hemisphere of our brains associated with creativity), and I know society is about progress and efficiency and whatever but I honestly don't see the automation of art as a means of driving society forward at all, all I see is our brains stagnating and becoming creatively bankrupt as big companies turn out content on a conveyor belt and even if you decide to make the difficult choice of somehow transitioning to a new career field, which would obviously require more training how long before an AI takes that away too. Rant aside I wont ever stop making art regardless and art made by your own human expression and life experiences will always be superior to an AI derivative.
The answer is pretty obvious. Will it take artist jobs immediately no eventually yes. I'm sure if you rewound time to 5 years before factories started using assembly line robots and you asked line workers if a robot could ever do their job it would end up being very similar to this video lots of lin workers would say "no my job require too much manual skill" and there would be worlers who say my reuired. I can sympathize as no one is going to have good feelings about having their whole career choice automated.
AI is a misnomer because there is no creative process, no spark of creativity, just an algorithm. If your design process can be replicated by an algorithm, then your career never really had much of a chance anyways.
@@fotografick Is not about creativity, is about the skill, now people whit no skill, but great creativity can go, put some words and get the thing done, so this person that have been studing for years, let say, anatomy, lighting, animation, modeling, rigging just will loose his profesional influence.
Envisioning me avatar AI personality entity. I feed conversate with my AI entity but BEFORE that I create a pre-nup copyright registration of my inception that covers all derivatives, for-hire, and preserve pro-active data progression to be downloaded to my several custom sensory bods and suits. Last night I binged “The Perpheral” based on book by William Gibson.
Don’t you think Musk already has plans for his perpetuity bot?
"Will AI Art Kill Artist's Careers?" Looking at the thumbnail with a red rabbit with bizarre wrong anatomy then I thought: Nah, not now, buddy XD. omg those ears haha. Those eyes and skull? I won't even start talking about it. And the composition? The same dull stuff that throws composition rules out the window. And if we ask for emotion in a character, we'll have to fix every single facial muscle later. It's horrendous and only non-artists don't notice these issues.
I'm using Stable Diffusion with img2img over my sketches (comic book artist for over 17 years, my "adorable" day job), and got furious with simple tasks not done by the stupid AI, like the body in perspective, or something simpler, like hands. I thought it was my answer to create graphic novels in record time and stop working for others, but no. Right now, crappy AI can only generate decent backgrounds but don't expect it for sequential art. Even if you train AI to follow models, this goddamn-son-of-a-binary-brain AI doesn't understand anything. It speeds up things for illustrations here and there, but do not expect a miracle. You have to fix A TON of things after generating a gazillion of images and photobashing parts you liked it.
Let's play as Dr. Frankestein for a while before it really gets decent results.
But yeah, eventually, it gets there and we all be replaced by prompts. OR we will be hired to create a new unique style sheet so the client can train AI with it. Like always, we have to study marketing and advertisement because, like now, we have to sell our stuff as artists. What changes? Not much, because only the mainstream-minded artists are popular now, and they'll be popular later. Same different thing.
Brilliant discussion, thank you all so much for this. I think you’re spot-on, it’s actually not about the technology at all, it’s about perspective. I’m using it as an alternative to Pinterest. I get maybe a 20% hit rate with useable ideas; very often they’re not at all what I was going for when I entered the prompt, but the results spark something else instead. There’s some extremely poetic results to be got, *but*: faces can be incredibly samey if they are clear.
I think we’ll develop our understanding as viewers; pretty soon we’ll be able to recognise and distinguish ai from handmade. I’m excited to keep developing my skills, I agree, there’s nothing quite like the feeling of a real person making a thing.
Long comment ahead. TLDR: I don't agree with your opinion about copyrights.
Those companies laterally use other people's work to train thier software and make profit. Without other people work, the software will be very limited. It's also unclear whether the software really creats something new since there's few examples of the directly copying entire pieces of work. Copyright laws were created in the first place to encourage creativity and make sustainable for the creator. I really think this is a good opportunity to reexamine the law and make it relevant to this day and age.
I think the Brittney Lee example isn't that good since all of those people who copy her style could never compete with her. It probably took them years to figure her style and she'll always be more efficient then them. But if you make a bot that can copy her style and make art in matter of seconds, this makes her disposable. Sooner or later we'll find ourself in a situation where it no longer pays off to create new things, new styles etc.
In the NATO alphabet, SVS would be "Sierra Victor Sierra"
DIGITAL MUSIC AND DIGITAL PAINTING BEFORE WAS STILL DONE BY HUMAN, NOW IDEA'S AND IMAGE ARE GENERATED WITH A.I text to image text to Video.. EVEN THE PROMPTER DONT IMAGIN IT CLEARLY A.I DOES IT FOR THEM! the skill of an artist is VISUALIZING BY DRAWING .......... NOT BY MACHINE!!!
Lots of artists are prompt creating themselves out of a job. Too dumb to see it though.
ikr, literally further training the AI
AI is a misnomer because there is no creative process, no spark of creativity, just an algorithm. If your design process can be replicated by an algorithm, then your career never really had much of a chance anyways.
@@fotografick yeah that’s crazy. You shouldn’t have to compete with a machine. Plus some fantastic painters, world class artists like Greg Stokowski are having their work replicated. This is a guy who was worked for major film companies etc. so you are telling me his stuff doesn’t cut the mustard bc an AI can replicate it? Come on. The whole “ well you just gotta adapt bro!” Argument is such a bad take
@@genreartwithjb5095 If you are a director that hires an artist to create conceptual work for your film, there is no way that current AI tech can possibly match that level of creativity. AI can replicate what is already there, but creation requires a spark of creativity that machines don't possess. If you are satisfied with just copying what already exists, then yes, AI does fulfill a purpose.
Art will be appealing only to those in love with the process. Like cooking and enjoying while doing it. AI is in its earliest stage, the new job opening for companies will be AI prompters.
Its interesting watching people in comments refusing to see how fast this is progressing. AI can outperform architects, artists and designers and that has been proven in blind studies judging the work.
I think, that DALLE 2 handles character-based prompts better than Midjourney. I got my beta access and I'm often shocked at how many good pieces it can render, but fortunately, it can't handle comics strips (yet) xD
Tokyo already as on-air AI anchor. So, kiddos, podcasts?
Don't Worry Darling's bts stuff is probably gonna be a lot better than the movie itself, lol. oh, and AI is only gonna replace us if it comes to Her movie level sentient, but it's gonna take awhile so
Not only artists
kill artists? probably, kill designers? don't think so
From another video. I always see proponents for AI art as another tool to extend and express themselves. They would justify the AI that generates these images from other artists work to create that unique piece which is no different than artist copying the ideas from other artists that has been done for centuries. But that is the difference, people still have to be an artist to create or replicate that work and learn from it. For the proponents, you didn't need to study composition, colours, human anatomy, paint patterns, textures and milliard of other techniques to get to the final products that we see today. To be creative is already a unique human feat unto itself. What I see are text prompts, that is not creative, that is merely a detailed description of what you want to see. You have no control over the final outcome and it is a generative gamble and what looks best. You are not creative, you are merely doing a Google search 2.0.
AI is a misnomer because there is no creative process, no spark of creativity, just an algorithm. If your design process can be replicated by an algorithm, then your career never really had much of a chance anyways.
If AI art can kill your career, it deserved to die.
Exactly the same argument as, if an illegal immigrant can take your job, that shows it was a low-skill job that anyone could do.
i think that IA will be able to do anything better that any human at leats in the computer envrioment
AI art is a search engine and morpher. If it cant gather images not sure if it can make one.
That's what a lot of people don't realize, unfortunately.
if artists take proactive measures against piracy, AI replacing them is the karma.
Adobe Firefly fixes a lot of the ai art generator issues...at a cost
It's funny to me how artist think they are sooooo smart and sooo creative and sooo important... News flash my dears, you're just making nice looking things that OTHER PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY BUILDING.... No matter how much artistic bullshit and "whatever the heck theory" you put into anything, products, real product, in the real world, still abide by the laws of physics and engineering first, no matter how much you cry about it. Oh, btw, funny thing, since there are so many AI art generators, and music generators, and story generators, where are all the engineering AI generators? That's right, they don't exist, because that's some actual REAL work and not some randomly thrown brush strokes on a canvas, or a banana glued to a canvas (lol, really morons? that's art?)… You can think you're important all you want, and you are, the world would be bleak and boring without artistic input (kind of like the Soviets did things, big square steel blocks) but know your worth and your place, in the end, you can make a building without art but you can't make a building without engineering :)