AI in art has a massive potential to do good if we approach it responsibly, as a new tool in our artist's toolbox. There are a lot of problems with it currently though and we'll all have to come together to get those sorted over time. Your actions matter- our community is massive and we can push for things to change. Let's not screw this up. The Concept Art Association has a gofundme page looking to initiate the fight for regulations gofund.me/2df3dc07, check it out. I contributed to put my money where my mouth is, we gotta push back a bit instead of bending over :)
It's past the point of being a tool when it can crap out finished images. It doesn't belong in actual artists' toolboxes. Unless you use it as one source of inspiration to inspire your own works. Or in photobashing. But any more than that is just taking control from the artist. Although I also do remember seeing custom brushes being generated, I guess that could help.
Indeed, for me.. when it comes to "portfolio" sites like Artstation. As far as I know, you cannot commission someone then post their work as your own on Artstation. So how is AI art any different? The person is "telling" someone/thing else to produce the artwork for them. Thus it isn't their own "work" and shouldn't be allowed in their portfolio.
I DO think it could benefit human small artist more, but there is also nothing really wrong or illegal with what AI is doing right now. Could it be more ideal?…sure. But idealism is something artist have in our souls. It doesn’t necessarily mean anything void of idealism isn’t art.
@YTartschool, you have it backwards. AI doesn't use a prompt to create art. The prompt is a command so it can understand what we humans want. But you can definitely induce it to create art without a prompt. For example, a few hallucination AIs generate art forever randomly, in looping fractals. What these specific AIs do use to generate art is stable diffusion (they use "noise" to generate images) and understanding the essence of objects through "qualia" (which are traits of an object's essence: for example, a car has "wheels", and it's usually "rectangular". We humans can't define those qualities very precisely, but we intuitively know what they are).
Art is still so worth learning. Learning to draw has taught me more than just art. It taught me how to observe, how to improve a skill, how to instill discipline in my life. And I still learn more about the world through art all the time!
i've been an illustrator my whole life. i made drawings all the way from elementary school through college. it helped me to retain information during lectures. i also noticed that i can visualize the mechanics of an idea in 3d better than the average person. so when they cannot understand, i can diagram it for them. unlike many here, i am fortunate to not work in the art world and welcome this innovation - it cannot be stopped
0:37 - What is AI art? 2:09 - Problems with the AI 5:17 - AI argument #1: demotivation 6:23 - AI argument #2: taking jobs from artists 7:21 - AI argument #3: learning to create like humans 8:39 - AI argument #4: inevitable progression => embrace it & learn to adapt 9:42 - AI argument #5: how valuable is art with no (human) artist? 11:19 - Guidelines for artists when dealing with AI (that large portfolio sites will hopefully hear & implement)
At this point I'm gonna be keeping art purely as a hobby and will not be aspiring to go professional. I have played with Midjourney, it can't keep up with my imagination (can't even draw 5 digit hands) so I will still be doing my art for fun. When it gets more advanced, will I make the switch? Maybe, but not on a professional level though becuase I realize even if I did gained a following or got hired by a employer, how secure would my "Creative Job" be IF EVERYONE AND ANYONE CAN FUCKING DO IT!!!!!!! We as a capitalistic society are hired for our skills and expertise, when that is taken away, what do we have left? I would totally back any legislation made towards artist rights but I have little or no faith in our American judicial system which is ran by boomer congressmen and senators who don't even know what a wacom graphics tablet is let alone how AI art algorithms work. I feel this is a losing battle for us as we don't have good lobbying power and the media corporations (Disney, Activision/Blizzard) and even the automotive industries like GM or Toyota will be relying on AI art for concepts which AI art excels in. Hope I'm wrong though. We are at the mercy of the host at this point.
@@CraneStyleNJ Your really missing the forest for the trees. AI art is about more then just static 2D art within a few years you'll be able to create animated sequences and use Ai generated voices. Imagine a single individual creating an entire Anime Series in a fraction of the time it takes now and posting that on TH-cam. We're talking Star Trek Holodeck levels of Innovation Here. AI opens up possibilities for creativity we haven't even dreamt of yet. It's right to be angry about theft and to worry about your job but AI art is fucking amazing.
@@dustinlopez2751 creativity is when you make something with your own hands, with your skills acquired through practice, observation and inspiration. Not when you put some words into a robot and just go along with whatever it outputs. That's just the robot's "creativity" taken from what other creative human creates. Which makes it not creative at all and just plain boring. Imagine watching a fantastic movie which is absolutely just mind blowing just to find out in the end that it was made by an AI. It would be very disappointing because youd know that AI can create flawless things with ease no effort included. that means everyone can create a movie on par with that using the same AI. Now imagine the same movie but made by humans. Now with effort, budget, skills, and time was put into it, now it just feels unique and more impressive. I can imagine how boring the future would be if AI was used in everything and everywhere I would go somewhere in the jungle and be a caveman again XD
My biggest problem is the people who claim AI art is their art, and therefore they are artists. Here I am struggling to develop my skills as an artist for 5 years now, and a random guy I knew, just made a business from selling AI generated art. It sucks...ofc I won't stop drawing because of that, It just feels, obviously, unfair...
Piero Manzoni put his own shit in cans labled "Artist’s Shit" and sold 90 of them for thier weight in gold in 1961. Nothing about life and art is fare.
Musicians = has regulations and are legally protected. Visual artists should get the same rights. Also btw you can directly feed AI generators pics if you upload them.
To be honest, I'd hate to see visual art regulations get as stringent as music. The current copyright system mostly aids the big labels and actually impedes small artists rather than helping them.
Music and Visuals are completely different mediums, and it's a lot easier to write regulations and copyright for because you can only get so much inspiration from a music track before sounding ilke a copy. While EVERY single artist has taken inspiration for their styles from someone else, artists with their new and unique styles are like 1 in a million and if such strict copyright laws as there are in music would be applied it would be a plague 1000 times worse on artists than AI could ever be, people from the Chzeck republic could literally sue Tim Burton because his style is very similar (because he took heavy inspiration from it) to the stop motion czechoslovakian animation from the 50s from artists like Jiri Trnka. And imagine being a small artist that gets his work impossible because his style (very well drawn fantasy paintings) gets copyrighted by Greg Rutkowsky so nobody ever can draw and sell their work in that similar style, is this the world you want to live in?
@@mariozappini7784 Which also means that you can only make so many songs until every possible song that does not sound like a copy of another song has been made.
@@Milkymalk yep, and the case is arbitrary aswell since the star Wars theme have the same few beginning notes as an older song but no copyright was ever enforced there. Imagine a mega corporation like Disney copyright art styles, even though they copied a crapton of styles themselves for their movies
@@mariozappini7784 Ironically, Disney will lose copyright on Mickey Mouse in the specific Steamboat Willie style soon (2023? 2024?) because it is old enough.
@@wnqa-aa5826there have been very many cases in which the original artwork is visible in the output, so regardless of how it works and how similar the end process it is to a human, it is not the same. The AI uses diffusing of noise that is an attempt to “remake” from the original noise based on a prompt. The human brain works significantly different in deeper levels. It hasn’t reached the point where it is sentient to think like a human; heck not even we know how to use our brain fully. First step is to stop the AI from using stolen content, then it is to implement ethical regulations to protect human work
It's kinda funny, AI art is what motivated me to finally learn to draw myself. Not because I want a job on the field, but as a hobby and goal Ive had since primary school.
@@rynsartdon't worry, ai will never be able to properly draw, it can copy shapes in a very shallow way, when you look closely at ai art it looks messy and not right, so pretty much it will never be used in unless some goofy backrounds for serials, your profession is not in danger, ai hype will die and drawing will be normal and stable, same was with photography, it will just be a side thing
We all started art because we love it not because we can make money off of it, people who learns art for money usually gives up on the third step of a 100 set of stairs.
@@timeemperor5631 I really wish you were right but this sounds a bit like a cope. Technology expands FAST and this AI tech didn't even exist until like 3 years ago and it has already changed things a lot. Photography still has a lot of skill behind it and creates something completely different. AI on the other hand does not
On Pixiv, you need to state whether it's AI work or original work. Why did the Japanese react quickly and ArtStation, which Epic Games owns, do nothing.
I think AI is pretty well received on pixiv as it filled certain missing niche and doe not compete with human artists for real. Even without marking it as AI you can identify AI art from the thumbnail already. The bigger reason for marking Ai art is to avoid unnecessary cluttering of newsfeed because not that many people are interested in being spammed with thousands of AI images that are not worth clicking.
I think it should be required to have an AI label. Last week I started following an AI “artist” without knowing on deviantart. I became suspicious when it was so proficient.
DA has been filled with this stuff, it helps looking at the pixels, you can tell a human didn't made it because some renders looks bad and doesn't make sense. DA died as an artistic community these last weeks
I had some of my artwork on Redbubble stolen, and the guy uploaded it to his store just with AI Art as a search criteria. People use it to rip off artists, pretend an AI has done the work, and make money from them. I’m in no way a full time or accomplished artist, but things like this actually dishearten me quite a lot.
As a beginning artstudent my issue is for the most part expectations. Idk if im talking bs rn but i have a feeling that ai art just raises the plank to ridiculous levels. To be a viable artist i would have to be at least on the level of those ai's to even be concidered. In the eye of the commmon person, who dont see all the hours of training i put in, ai art will always look more impressive. How am i supposed to match the billions of practice hours of the artist the ai was fed on, i only have my lifetime. Its not the same as comparing yourself to fullfilled artist, i can learn from them i know they had a similar journey to me, ai does not. And even when we say it will be reduced to a tool, a tool for what? In 3d simulations help you immitate complex processes or in photoshop it spares you time by making a better cutout but this is a finished product with color, composition and perspective. All the choices that an artist takes to develop a picture are already have been made by the ai. Even though im more into 3d i dont doubt that my turn will come sooner rather than later.
Yup. AI is simply waaay cheaper and waaay faster than humans. Huge companies like Disney, Ilumination and others would kill for an AI that can make A+ animated movie about Minions, another braindead princess or a superhero in matter of days, heck, even hours of servers work. It would cut spending on a single movie to the point of licensing fee, server leasing and electricity bill. World will change drastically very, very soon. Humans will not be swapped for robots for tasks that aqquire improvisation and huge athletic abilities, because human is an engineering marvel in case of body. Welders, machinists, all those guys that work daily with crazy complicated machinery in awfull conditions, every day doing different, crazy task, will not loose their job for next 50+ years. All creative thinkers like 3D designers, artists, writers, musicians, will be eventually out of work because computers are wayyy better and wayyy faster thinkers that we are. Computers, artificial neural networks to be precise, are the next step of human evolution. We live in last decades of old world.
@@danielmichalski94 no I disagree. No computer can replace creativity because they live off an algorithm. Which means it can only generate a limited amount of ideas. It will never be able to explore anything outside of that. Also, AI is far from being good enough to do animation, it still struggles with doing art and even turning pre-existing video into animation. AI art is, quite frankly, boring to look at after a while. It's all the same stuff. It's either one generic anime art style or just weird blurry fantasy-like landscapes. Not only that, but I feel no emotions looking at it. There is no life to it. There is no soul to it. You cannot replicate soul, at least right now. But we are very far from being able to replicate human emotion. The final thing is, art is something that has rules that are made to be broken, but we can't necessarily teach when or how to break them. It's something you have to personally judge yourself.
Fundamentally disagree with this. If this were the case, art would have stopped long ago. We already have photo realism, we’ve had very sophisticated art styles in movies and video games, and there’s a reason why we still have things that aren’t this. Yes there is a cost factor to many design choices but being real, not everyone wants to look at realism all the time. Do you think Adventure Time would carry the same charm if it had this hyper realism to it? Maybe, but I don’t think so. There’s space for all styles of art and I honestly think it’s just wrong to say that the bar is being raised to some extreme end that isn’t achievable by humans (which isn’t true either). Edward Hopper is considered one of Americas greatest painters, Picasso, Francis Bacon, manga, the list can go on. AI art also cannot hit certain notes yet either and never will, at least not the understanding of AI as we are using it as a misnomer. Not to get into a huge discussion, but basically this technology isn’t technically AI. It’s not sentient. It’s extremely sophisticated but at the end of the day it’s just an engine that emulates. It has no awareness of what it even is let alone what its function is. That means that for all the prompts you could throw into it, it can never create a story. It has no sense of nuance, it can’t articulate, everything that comes out of it has to be curated by somebody who has zero agency of editing the results to do this UNLESS the person is also an artist and has the capabilities of doing so and uses it as a tool to efficiently create things with, in which case isn’t this just a tool that’s coming along the natural pipeline of actual art development? So the people who can’t create themselves will always be bound by the limitations of what “AI art” can produce. It couldn’t write the story of Evangelion, it couldn’t paint a tree line that alludes to some metaphor in a way that those who know know. And if it ever does it’s by chance that all the prompts it took in just happened to align in a way that was coherent in which case it will be one of the dubs within the even greater failures of these engines failing to produce something meaningful, managed by people incapable of doing so either. So no, “AI art” is not the death of artist. Not even close. Not yet if it ever will be anyway
@@3left_to_snap373 not an expert but that seems like a huge simplification, that the only difference is the concept of time. It's true that the human brain is a neural network, but I'd assume AI would only come close to the human brain if it has consciousness
Always the same contradiction. You can't valuate human art and then dismiss AI art, because AI art is based in all known human art In the first place. It produces pieces of all our creativity mixed, so there are more human art in AI art than in single artist art. If you don't feel anything by AI art, then you are dismissing all the artists that made it possible and are part of it.
This thinking creates a hierarchy of validity in art: At the top, the truest artist gathers plants, mills them and makes pigments, mixes the pigments, crafts the paper from the pulp of tree fibers. Then we have artists who acquire the ingredients but still works in a purely physical medium, with the unlimited level of detail the real world brings. Then we have digital artists who only use basic digital tools/brushes, but nothing algorithmic like copy/pasting, layering, gradients, and certainly no magic selection. Then we have digital artists who use the full gamut of tools in PS.
@@meybi6272 This is such a piece of sophistry, you are saying I should feel connect more to the person typing "girl, elf ears, big tits, Jason Chan, trending on Artistation" and recieving a image than an artist painting a work from scratch. Just give up. You want to decieve people. You deserve to be dismissed.
When rich people start getting "embarrassed" for buying computer generated art thinking it is from an artist then laws may come in but I seriously doubt it. I have no idea how well machines can create art on Canvas,etc and if it looks like people produced art but if they can I could see the modern art world crashing for paintings and drawings.
you pretty much summed up what we artists are actually concerned about. im really happy that bigger artists like you are talking about it and informing smaller artists and giving them hopes based on your own actual research. amazing stuff! also love your tutorials you pretty much teached me how to render stuff from halfway point of my art career (i am drawing and painting for 2 years).
@@wnqa-aa5826 i somewhat agree with you the thing is using nonconsensual content should not be used in any model and has to become illegal and only you yourself can use your works in a model art is not just a project to be replicated its a way of feeling im not saying not to use it but its never the same as a person pouring their emotions and goals on their canvas be it digital or traditional ai art with its aggressive introduction feels hostile disrespectful and scummy. somewhat like nfts. you pointed out some good stuff tho thank you for that :)
Thank you for this! I used to be an AI researcher, and it was always drilled into us that consent is key. You always have to ethically acquire training data and pay people for their work. These AI art companies need regulation because they are ignoring the basic ethics of what they should have been taught in school. I'm so tired of people defending these companies who are just taking advantage of all the little people and letting scammers pass off AI art as their own.
We should go further and start protesting any artist that does it through computers and programs... lets not put a line on AI.. lets put a line in all technology
What makes it even worse for me is that it's not by accident, this was a deliberate move by the corporations to punish citizens who figured out how to work for themselves instead of having to be stuck at the dead end minimum wage corporate jobs, where they want ALL of us to be stuck. It's not just an "oops, sorry we inadvertently hurt freelancers" hurting freelancers was literally the whole point to begin with.
@lapincheriatota if you are trying to alienate digital art uuuh no. Digital art is a valid medium. AI is something else completely different, so yes draw a line for AI and no leave digital art alone.
Questions. What type of AI that you used that need this? And what was the database you used. What would you suggest in case of fan-art, that compose probbly more than 90% of the data in some models, and that the holder of the copyrights are companies owners of the IP and not the artists. Would the artists be sued if they used that to make money indirectly too? (pixiv, patreon, youtube, tweeter)
I understand what you mean with point nº 2: what a human can do can't be replaced by AI. However, it feels like companies don't care about that as long as they can get more money for themselves. Just today in Spain, there was a publisher that announced they would use AI art for posters or covers for books. Thanks to the reaction of the Spanish art community, they deleted the announcement and may change their minds, but still, there was a clear intention to leave artists without job just because AI art was free and good enough for the task.
Yeah without regulations they’ll try anything, that’s why we have to keep coming together and punish them publicly for trying until the laws catch up. Great to hear that had some effects in that case there as well.
@@YTartschool I feel like people are overly confident in the uniqueness of humans. Most people never actually innovate or invent. They simply imitate. A.I already has the potential to create unique works through the merging of all known styles it has studied. It's not far fetched to imagine it will be able to create works different than anything we can imagine one day. There is already A.I that can achieve the correct answer to math problems by using theorems humans haven't invented and now the scientists are trying to work back and find out how the A.I arrived at the correct answer. Right now A.I is like a compass. You use it to lead you to your destination. You give it input and it points you in the right direction, then you have to figure out if you're at the right place or not. But one day it might do it all.
@@ramsaybolton9151 Ppl are not overly confident in uniqueness of humans as it is true if nobody was unique we would have not been able to go to moon and have made hypersonic commercial planes. Most of the AI wroks is still a generic art as it is still bound by the code by which it was created most ppl may not be innovate or invet but there are alot of artists whose works have actually blown me away. Saying artist cannot innovate or invent unique stuff would be like calling scientist can't innovate or invent their stuff. It can never create unique works which we cannot imagine if we cannot imagine then how can it do it when its based upon our own works? AI lacks imagination which is unique to only humans so I dissagree with you
the argument that AI should be banned simply because it leaves artists without jobs pretty much discredists all the idea. because that ws the whole fking point to eliminate the need to pay someone for the job like it is always the case for all kind of automation
The real problem for me is that AI producers (Not Artist) are popping out 400 trillion images per day, and algorithms in all websites are designed to promote quantity, not quality. So real artist are not being promoted because of it, anyone would be discouraged by that. I agree with you about AI not having a place in portfolio websites.
@@WhiteWolfos What I mean is that normally, artist get better with time. Eventually as your talent grows, you are able to work faster, produce work quicker and maintain the high level of quality. This helps you become more desirable for hiring agents. This achievable quality needs time to develop... But not any more. Now with this AI thing, the incentive is not to get better with art or produce more quality work. Your incentive now is to produce quantity, the more you can produce and post online, the higher the chances to get hired, the more you get hired, the more it proves that quantity is the way to get hired. Since talent and quality is no longer required of you as an artist, your value drops. Until eventually, working on the industry as an artist is all about going to an office, and typing on a keyboard for 12 hours a day, 15$ hr. While the studio pays the agency that manages all the "Artist". Pretty economical, as the ones that kicked out the 2D animators from Disney would say. I think the way to go now is to go full on as a freelancer, do your own projects, your own animations and so on. It might still be a numbers game. if it's too saturated, get good at marketing. Forget about working in any art company...(unless it's indie, that could be the exception).
@@obsidianblast9424 Actually, if you want to produce a quality image with AI you need to communicate what you want a little better. That means refining your prompts. Understanding what it is you really want to convey, and sit with it until it produces that image. It's what I do. I spend a lot of time refining my prompts. I don't use the likeness of other artists because that's not where I draw my inspiration. All of that comes from ancestral memory. AI is here to stay. I think the human factor needs to be addressed more than the tool itself. People still train themselves on other people's work. Let's not forget that. Those that have an inherent talent for their craft need very little outside inspiration. Those that need a lot of it are the ones you need to look out for.
That is a horrible problem... I've heard that sites are slowly starting to implement "AI Generated" options when uploading. I honestly wish they'd make that automatic, because most (if not all) AI generated images carry metadata within the file which flags it as AI art.
This issue isn't just the AI models were created through stolen art, but their creations are being spammed in places traditional artists usually share and sell. So, every time you make art, not only do they steal it to improve their own models, then they turn around and push it where you do business. It's lose-lose.
If someone looked at your paintings, liked them, and started painting using some of your art as basis (inspiration), would it be theft? Could you call 911 and get the guy arrested for stealing from you?
Agreed, it’s been making the usual art spots unpleasant to browse because people have uploaded thousands and thousands of the images clogging the site. PIXIV thankfully implemented something to mark if the art was created with AI and a setting to completely filter them (of course people will still ignore tagging their art as ai occasionally)
@@literalghost929 It's not a basis for inspiration, however. It's a mathematical recreation of a style and talent, and that's called plagiarism. You're not making an equivalent argument here.
That is not an issue really is it because firstly nothing is stole, try actually doing some research on how AI works then you will understand no Art was stolen or any artist in particular targeted. Use the AI to your own advantage and stop being some victim to fabricated crap, this is such sheep mentality.
Marc, I am impressed. You are the FIRST big TH-cam art channel to disapprove of AI art in its current form. Literally every other art TH-camr is too afraid of upsetting their fan base or being on the wrong side of history. It’s really refreshing and appreciated. Been a follower for a long time, and this is really great to see someone with over a million subs say what smaller channels like mine have been vocal about
But he doesn't disapprove of it. He just thinks it needs to be better regulated. I do happen to agree it needs some regulation, but since they opened the source code, the cat is out of the bag. It'll be almost impossible to stop this sort of AI, because if you regulate it, you can just move to a country where there's no regulation. That movement China did to force AI art to get watermarked was pathetic, by the way. It's very easy to create another AI to simply remove any watermarks, and if it somehow gets inserted into a file in a way you can't remove it, all you have to do is to trace over it.
@@mandrews817 „It's very easy to create another AI to simply remove any watermarks, ” Then make it illegal to create programs to remove watermarks, or to make programs who make the watermark easy to remove, and that those who break it must pay a big fine per image. This is not complicated. Stope being a defeatist.
@@laurentiuvladutmanea3622, it's not so simple, and making it illegal would create a whole new set of problems, like preventing those images to be used for commercial purposes (which would defeat the purpose of them being created in the first place). And it opens up a nasty precedent: if someone creates a derivative work out of an AI image, should this image be watermarked as well? What if it isn't?
@@mandrews817 „it's not so simple, and making it illegal would create a whole new set of problems, like preventing those images to be used for commercial purposes (which would defeat the purpose of them being created in the first place).” Well, it is already illegal to give copyright to things made by these AIs, so the commercial purposes might be quite limited already, so that will not change much. „And it opens up a nasty precedent: if someone creates a derivative work out of an AI image, should this image be watermarked as well? ” AI generated images are not given copyright, so something being derivative of an AI generated image is actually fair game according to both USA and EU law.
@@laurentiuvladutmanea3622 you can use multiple artists to generate an image the ai just selects what a signature from one of them might look like because it hasn't been trained to ignore signatures. Sometimes it looks close to someone's signature but sometimes it just looks like a blob in the corner.
I think that, despite how cool the technology is, consumers of art have started and will continue to specifically seek out art that *isn't* A.I. generated, because to a lot of people, the connection with the artist is as important as the quality of the art itself. It's not too dissimilar to being an entertainer, or a performer; no one's selling out stadiums to shows where instruments play themselves.
No one's fills up a stadium to listen to an automatic instrument, true. But also no one gives a crap of where the elevator music or the anti fart med commercial's jingle comes from. And for each musician who makes concerts in a stadium, there's a hundred more who make a living out of said jingles. Art is the same, speaking of it as a career.
exactly, the only real people that ai art will have a connection to is the creators and thats far better than some random dude that's winning art contests with ai art
Also, it’s very hard to tell the difference between ai art and the work of digital artists so… some will seek real art out, but most won’t care because they just want a cool pic.
@@a123b123c123d123c123 not true at all. The programmer knows more. The barrier to entry of the philosophy of art is significantly easier to understand that how code works.
@@ulthanesmorkums philosophy of art? AI isn't doing philosophy. Creating art and becoming a skilled artist is just as hard if not harder than becoming a programmer.
Not going to lie, as someone who started my art journey just a month before this technology was made public, seeing how good it gets and how some people are now belittling human artists whithout whom ai art couldn't exist at all got me a little depressed. Even if it's "just" a hobby and not a career choice in my case, I started this journey because it was fun, as a personnal challenge to myself, because it really is the ultime skill of creation, and I want to master it. And ai art won't change that.
Cars replaced horses. Lot of horse masters cry. People just want to get to where they want to go. They don't care about the process. Artists like Vermeer used the latest in technology to "paint" his images. He used a lens from a camera obscura. Yet still reguarded as "The Master of Light"... Please... art isn't going anywhere. It's changing. Adapt or die. Our skills now apply to the vision rather than the awful tedium of brushing a paper with donkey butt hairs.
@@HalkerVeil you don't understand You are not the one doing art with AI, it's AI that does the work for you. It's like... commissioning an artist. What's the point then? We all started drawing because we liked it, not to click on a buttom so a machine can produce an image every 3 seconds.
@@HalkerVeil A lot of, if not most artists, actually love the process. Even if it seems tedious, it is more satisfying than any other type of work. For me, it is very good for my anxiety.
one point that ppl miss so much about how many of us feel so demotivated is that so many of us, small artists, are doing this for a living. A lot of ppl like me, in seccond or third world countries can, usually barelly, but still can, survive from it, and we depent on it. So no matter if AI can't copy my style that well, the passion I have for art, I lose space on informal market, because yeah, some could argue that my work is better for what they want, but AI is way easier and faster, while I took hours upon hours onto rendering. So if I have to go find a 10h job to explore me to pieces, I'll have no energy, but most of all, not time at all, to practice my art, even as a hobby to myself. Together with AI, we're seeing the constant effort in every plataform to "kill" us. And I big are the changes that some ppl may indeed die because they wont be able to afford rent, bills, food. Poorvety is a thing, hunger is a thing. Hell, I've already saw ppl who are 10x bigger than me, who are constantly producing content, unlike me, having to ask desperatelly for help 'cause they didn't had any food at home, they went over 24h without eating cause they just couldn't affort it. We, the big mountant of ppl drawing and painting, traditional and digital, 2d and 3d, informal workers, living on comms and donations, we are the majority of artist here, and we are already suffering the colateral damage of all this shit, and we will suffer even more. Yes, no matter the final result of this fight, art will survive as a whole, as a profession, a hobby and a passion. Ppl will do it for a living or for personal growth, satisfaction, etc. But the vast minority. The minority who were able to reach undeniable success, in vary degrees but undeniable, ppl who made name in the formal industry, from teachers to concept artist, ilustrators, etc. Or those who are privileged enough to sustain this as a hobby (regardless of their desire to make it profitable or not) without affecting their life style, without endangering their capability to affort living. Most ppl don't see it, ppl that have some kind of voice, even those who were in this spot sometime in the past, seens to be blind to it. I believe there must be someone "big" out there who saw it and spoke about it, I hope so, but I didn't saw it yet. The best takes ppl are tending a lot to exclude us completely. The ideia of just "everyone create your own website, this way you have a safe place, and put some ads of it arround" or the "improved and more restricted and protective copyright laws", this will f*ck us over. I don't see a place where I can survive, literally, physically, survive, in the future, if I try keep doing art.
"o no matter if AI can't copy my style that well, the passion I have for art, I lose space on informal market, because yeah, some could argue that my work is better for what they want, but AI is way easier and faster, while I took hours upon hours onto rendering" I gotta be honest here, Artists from second and third world countries, with much lower cost of living and thus able to offer commissions and art on the GLOBAL internet for significantly less than any european or american artist ever could and still survive has been demotivating me far more than AI art has. correct me if iam wrong here, but ive comissioned artists that offered full sketches (that were good) for £1. How am i supposed to compete with that. If AI art makes you feel threatened, thats what being an artist in europe/us has felt like for over a decade now. The same has been true with digital art in professional capacities which have largely been outsourced to southeast asian countries because labour is just cheaper there. Why hire a digital artist that costs you 4k a month here if you can hire 5 with the same skillset or better somewhere else globally without having to build a factory or have any major up front investment to begin with. I just dont know how to feel about any of it, Ai art and global art competition. It all fucking sucks. Artists keep complaining about art not being valued enough but then you see artists every day trying to undercut each other on the internet which is always going to be easier for someone who doesnt need £1500 a month just to scrape by. the whole AI art debate just doesnt feel much different that this issue that previously existed and no one really seemed to care much about so far. We have region locks for stuff like steam, maybe we shoulkd also have region lcoks for digital product contracts/sales idk. I just struggle to empathize with anyone complaining about how this makes them afraid about livelyhood when this has been an issue for high wage/cost of living countries for ages. And if that is a poor point or irrelevant then i dont see how AI art being maybe *more* competitive is any more relevant that the point i just made, now we are all just equally fucked in terms of competition
The most terrifying aspect is that ai can now produce WIP images, making it almost impossible for real artists to have their work be believed as their own. It's not far fetched to think actual timelapses will be the next ai update, probably in just a few months. Making videos recording yourself drawing just so you can prove you made it is extremely sad and unfair to real artists. Especially the ones trying to make a living out of it.
That is worrying… I think this whole situation has been great for discussion and boundaries but someone will take the companies to court … surely. AI has a place but it needs desperately to be regulated to avoid it evolving like you say…
I usually make my wips stand out by using multiple colors during the sketching faze. I noticed AI doesn’t do that, so that can be another way to differentiate from AI to artist.
Unfortunately (?) it is much to late for regulations: The genie is out of the bottle and it is growing & developing so very, very fast : (Stable Diffusion is open source and free). So... You can create good content, bad contend or criminal contend with or without the help of AI.
I think it's better to accept the AI is here to stay & that human artists may need undertake a bit of a different role. Like cleaning up AI images or moving into areas of being creators using art like games, cartoons, etc. Rather than building the art from scratch.
I wish more people would just do this instead of act like their world is melting because they can't make their living selling art. It has been, literally for decades, one of worst possible ways to try and make money. It's an oversaturated market that refuses to adjust. Artists were killing that market before AI ever generated an image.
@@ronswanson1410 it’s not that simple as “you should draw more for fun” there will always be a market for art either through company’s or your average joe and some people do rely on this as a job either as a side or main it’s not people’s fault for wanting to make a hobby there good at into a job
@@Toniestbook Focus for me okay? Ya it's really that simple. Finite opportunities, although consistently available, are still FINITE. You can't eliminate the GURANTEED group of losers from that category in such an oversaturated market. To argue otherwise would be to knowingly promote the idea of participating in a losing battle simply because it is your passion to do so. That doesn't mean you shouldn't try, you should just know how to form your expectations. I would argue you are better off making that artwork a hobby and then slowly turning it into a business instead of putting all your eggs in that basket, Show me any evidence the market of artists of any format isn't oversaturated. Any evidence.
@@ronswanson1410 1. newgrounds 2. I can make the same points in any other market it’s not only art 3.I only disagree with you when you try to put people down as if there in the wrong 4. And it seems you have a vendetta for some reason to tell people other wise but who am I to judge
@@Toniestbook Nope, nope and nope lol damn. Obviously not every market is under the same restrictions and limitations to opportunity because anyone can consider themselves an artist or their work to be art. Not the same as running a cash register or doing brain surgery. But hey, you can't see where you are wrong. I can't see where I am putting people down. Maybe we are just talking past each other. I'm gonna live and let live on this. Adios.
As someone who is deep in the learning process, this video and ones like it mean a lot to me. I was feeling very discouraged about how fast AI art was progressing and felt that I would never be able to catch up or be able to compete against it. I wouldnt say that I had or was even considering to give up, but I was for sure feeling a serious burden when considering what the industry might become if the technology was to become more widely used. Hearing you, long-tenured industry professional, so calmly talk about this subject has eased that burden considerably. Thank you.
It's a bit telling though, when that same channel which survives on teaching art and selling courses etc. wants to encourage you not to lose hope in art. Of course it's in Marc's best interest to do that.
@@Walter5850 Lol the implication that his arguments are without substance and that this video is entirely just to sell more art courses is stupid. My comment was about how his arguments against AI generated art were sound and had given me a sense of relief. If you chose to lose hope in the artist's role in creating art then that's your own business.
@@ipsey4794 No need to be rude. Just to clarify, I didn't dismiss all of his arguments. The arguments he chose were barely relevant though. #1 People shouldn't be demotivated by AI being better because it's always been the case that someone is better. That's not the problem though, because now YOU are better with these tools, changing the way art is done and the skillset required, which can be deeply unsatisfying for current artists. Plus, more importantly, almost anyone has a chance to be better than you. So as you're learning, you're not actually progressing in a sense that you're becoming better than someone else which was a major part of being competitive on the job market. #2 AI won't take people's jobs. First of all, he phrased the problem as ai taking ALL art jobs. That's hardly what people worry about. The worry is that it will take A LOT of jobs. Considering that Bjorn Huri is reporting that people have already started to lose jobs due to ai, and the fact that smaller artists are reporting hits to their commission rates (which I can attest to) pretty much makes this argument pointless. #3 AI can't innovate. This one is probably true and is one of my worries as well. Now, I don't see how this will prevent the greedy individuals and companies utilizing this tech to save money short-term. Also, who will be all these human artists motivated enough to create new styles which will be taken from them the same day, possibly without credit and without them ever gaining anything from it or even be known for it. Another big problem with this argument is that this seems to be the case with CURRENT tools. This is obviously progressing at very fast rates and there is reasons to believe that with the increase of models, there are qualitative changes, not merely incremental improvements. That is already proven with LLMs. #4 He argues that AI will only take people's jobs if the technology is not controlled, just like cloning. Sure... If they start controlling this tech in all countries around the world unanimously and successfully, then people might still keep their jobs. I won't really put my hopes in that one though. #5 As he said himself, not an argument for or against AI. He added a lot more fluff to these even though they're either very weak, based on blind hope or irrelevant, which to me clearly points out that he's not arguing in good faith. None of this makes me feel hopeful.
This guy is a literal grifter lol. I'm not saying to give up but he lied a lot in this video and linked to a straight up scam fundraiser. AI art(not just still images) is going to completely explode in the coming years. The art now is pretty good but it will be mindblowing next year and it will come out even faster than it does now. While also reading your prompts better. And it does innovate, to say an AI can't create something new when you can mix as many styles as you want together is ridiculous. Most artists can hardly do one good style let alone tens of thousands.
Even though @Iz could make the argument better, he is completely right, artists are focusing on the AI art of right now, and pretend it won’t be perfected in 5 or 10 years. Allowing AI art in a any form will eventually make it so artists are obsolete and unable to make money. AI has already won, but everyone pretends like there is hope.
I think Steven Zapata explains wonderfully what AI Art is meant to be, a substitution. What they want is to make it relie on humans as little as possible, which doesn't sound like a tool at all.
A tool is made to solve a problem and protect the user. Knife is made because we need stainless never-rusty appliance to prepare food. Cake is made to treat guests with edibles Scissors are made to cut cleanly. Robot is made to protect the user from hazardous area. Gun is made to keep soldiers away from their enemies. These are the strawman arguments I've met regularly. Art however, there is no problem to begin with. What problem does Art Robot solve other than siphoning money? Art is subjective and practically has no value but people still pay because they want THAT style to prosper and entertaining. Art is there for self improvment other than entertainment. Like making a robot to automate an exercise routine.
@@defaulted9485 It solves the problem of the person wanting something, but not having the ability to d it themselves. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
@@Razumen Except there absolutely is something wrong with it! You used other people’s hard work, time and effort without their consent or compensation. That is theft. That is exploitation. That is wrong, hmkay?
@@jimidoodles Not even as a tool. Reject it whenever possible. Don't give it any positives or benefit of the doubt. Any positives is lost ground for artists in the future.
Yeah, I wouldn't gain too much hope if I were you. Advancements in AI can not be stopped no matter how many cry against it. Pretty much every job can and will get replaced by AI at some point, unless it becomes heavily regulated. Right now artists are on the chopping block, sadly.
@@no2475 Such is the way of progress, I'm afraid. What's happening now has already happened to so many others. But I don't think Traditional Art or Traditional Artists will ever disappear. If anything, they could use it like @doodles8237 is suggesting. Like a tool to improve their work. Some AI can convert images into different styles, so if you ever wanted to make something look older, like a painting, you could draw something yourself and convert it into a more classical format. AI really IS just a tool, and anyone can take advantage of it. The way it's going now, they could combine their skill and the AI's knowledge to make something truly and incredibly exceptional.
A lot of good points. It is hard to disagree with the most of what you have said. I have been telling people that using AI will not make them an artist it will only make them an art commissioner. Thank you for pointing it out in your video.
Instead of loosing motivation, oddly enough I feel more determined to become a better artist. There is a clear difference between an AI generated image and an image carefully crafted by an artist. The amount of work and skill needed to bring an artistic vision to reality and the ability to create something from nothing, an artists ability, in my personal opinion is far more valuable than something like art made by AI. Sure, you can get some amasing results using AI as a tool, but with AI you do not get that feeling of accomplishment only got from finishing an artwork you worked on with pasion and hard earned skill. I think AI can be seen an amasing tool, although I strongly dissagree with it using other artists work without consent, AI is not an artist, we are.
@@artemg9753 No matter. Ppl are already bored with the flood of Midjourney images on their feed. Only the ones that have real artistic eye stand out. Good "real" art always stand out from the mass. Yet, like always: 99% of art before AI was crap. No matter the tools, you still need skills to stand out.
@@digidope "Real art" is just a form of speech that can be filled with any content. It is possible that due to the oversaturation of mass culture with visual AI content, the entire field of fine arts will move into the plane of the ability to achieve "divine revelations" from AI. In addition, three and a half people are interested in "real art". At that time, as in illustration and design, crowds of people are busy. They are already losing orders in the low-budget sector.
@@artemg9753 Indeed they are. Automatization always affect the low level manual work first. But, many of who now use MJ instead "artist" quickly find that same style does not apply to many real world projects.
I still dont use AI generated drawings or pictures cause it never makes that what i imagined, but i see now that AI has a very large impact on art, especially for realistic drawings many people use AI generated pictures and try to sell them online while they cant even draw a single hand. It is unfair ofcourse but i learned to draw and it makes me happy to create my own characters in my world and draw them in real life, that makes me happy to see that i can imagin something and create it, that is something an AI will never give you.
Okay, but that AI is then scooping up your drawing from the internet once you upload to share or advertise it and feeding it into its dataset, meaning it can technically copy it 1:1 and also create other versions of it, meaning your OC or whatever you drew in a different position. It can do all that while its TOS tells their users that whatever they just made using your image's data and a few prompts is open for them to use and sell (as they're already doing if you look at how fiverr is flooded with that crap). All the while they're selling you a service to make more of those images through gathered up, copyrighted image data. Now, if you are an artist as a career path it's 100% fair to say the AI is using your image to outperform you and steal your job without payng you a single cent. If nothing about this is done we're literally giving a precedent by saying personal data in any from, made by you or concerning your personal life, is essentially worth nothing and can be used by anyone to make a profit. And that in a capitalist society where nothing but profit gets any attention. That shit is wild. Honestly, fuck those AI techbros. If anyone were to create an AI to this extend, it shouldn't be those who not only started with the elimination of creative jobs through AI >things people do for fun< but even at all considered doing anything like it to this field in the first place. In their weird ass heads they're calling it the potential for 'utopia' while literally doing their first step toward AI in a way any sane human would call it a dsytopia. "Here you go, artists! We took away your burden of drawing by stealing your stuff, now go get a job in some construction site!"
@@Ew-wth if he decides to share it with the world, where lowlife coding rats and trashy ai bros such as yourself lurk, waiting for their next unsuspecting victim.
@@Ew-wth not to mention all of the laws that they have broken. Someone has taken them to court, but I haven't heard much about it. As just an example, it's illegal to use someone's work for commercial purposes. Publicly displayed images are not public domain and are instead categorized as a form of advertising. Even private images still have copyright
Great video Marc, couldn't agree more. Also wearing a T-shirt with the hands you've drawn yourself is like the biggest subtle art flex I have ever seen.
Came for the topic, stayed for the amazing art! As someone who just enjoys drawing, to actually attempt to create something- has brought me so much joy during the years. My art is crap but I keep trying. I never planned to monetize something, yet I have been asked for commissions a few times. So in a sense, I never had anything to lose. But this year something changed. Something appeared on the internet. People shared videos of Midjourney AI generation on the TH-cams. We laughed at it's horrible attempts at making human faces or anime characters. Half a year later something changed. Suddenly all over the web appeared amazing, albeit flawed creations, all over the web. The AI models were updated with more data (as stated in the video) and has accelerated ever since. People fill entire galleries with AI generated vomit and claim it as their own yet the only thing involved was AI prompting. Words, in a specific order could suddenly deliver pieces of art. Art within hours, within minutes... Art within seconds. All bypassing the the fundamentals of making art: Actually drawing it. Actually trying to realize an idea. To come up with a pose, colourize it and put in the human touch. It's all gone with AI. Now it's all about the dopamine rush when you get hundreds of likes and faves while making as much AI generated works as possible. Art industrialized, Art automated. And here I thought the trucking industry (I'm an ex-trucker) would get automated first, yet the creative jobs are shockingly the first ones being automated out of existence. There is no love, there is no soul to AI-art. It's art reborn into a gambling platform with an almost infinite dice number. I doubt it will ever be used as you wish in the video though. If someone can automate it, they will. Why pay an artist 300 dollars for a commission (saw it yesterday) when you can get almost the same result with minimum effort? I want to continue enjoy drawing, but seeing all this AI generated vomit has made me rather depressed. I'll keep at it since I can see how artists are trying to stand up for each other, to see artists treating others as equals having the same interests brings out the best of us- being human.
If seeing AI art domeralises you then you better not look at artist that draw better than you. If you draw, you do it because its fun and because your like doing it, the final result is of course a part of what makes it enjoyable but if its the only thing you care about then comissions were a thing before AI was there. If you care about the FUN part of art then no matter what kind of AI there is, nobody is stopping you from actually doing the work. If you plan on making money with art then yes, of course AI will forever change the market, but I doubt AI will trully ever automate art because there is only so much you can do with only a prompt. Art in professional environements are all about precision, you can get work rejected for really small details, if anything the work load will get divided, the base being done by a person, and the color/shading done by an AI or the opposite. Of course however its never right to claim AI art as your own, just be honest and say that its AI generated. Adapt and overcome, you can't stop progress, nobody can. Artist are not the first that have been affect by technology and they wont be the last. History repeats itself and we have to live with it.
I think trying to create an entire storyline with characters in various poses and environments is still impossible with AI. I tried briefly and the result was so bad that I preferred hiring an actual artist and do the work properly. It's still the way to go if you want something highly customized and even personal.
@@MegakeepWorks You're talking about in-depth stuff that isn't possible with niji/mid journey or novelAI like specific character poses and environments, meanwhile it can't even give a hand 5 fingers lmao
Ignorant people (the vast majority) think AI art is writing a text and getting an image. Artwork in seconds! That's not the reality. To get a real good work using AI tech you need to sit for hours, generating tons of images, finding the one you roughly like, adjusting with inpainting, generating more, then even tweaking it in image editor software in order to get what you really have in mind. AI is good for setting a base to work with, but it doesn't know exactly where you want your stuff, doesn't know about composition, doesn't know much about perspective, doesn't know what exactly you want to transmit to the viewer. You have to take care of that stuff.
my concern is that it will be 'good enough' to large companies that would otherwise hire artists and that it will replace that labor as a cheaper option. you're right, it is absolutely art theft... but that is a can of worms that other people have opened hundreds of times over.
Of course that will happen. It's also true that more projects will become a possibility which used to need higher budgets and more people. A lot of jobs will be lost, some amount of new jobs will be created. None of which I have any interest in doing anymore.
Thank you for making this video, Marc. As an artist currently studying to enter the field of animation, I was really worried. Seeing all the support and efforts of the art community over these past few days was really encouraging. We have a lot more power than we think.
This AI art is crushing me everyday. Making me think all my hard work will go down the drain. 100 Hours of practice I feel like I don't wanna do art anymore
I also feel this way, but I'm never going to stop doing art. I decided I'm going to keep drawing even if it has no value and nobody else cares, just because I think it's neat. In the future AI is going to be better than humans at everything, but does that mean we should just stop doing anything? I don't know, but since I like drawing I'm going to draw. I hope you keep drawing too.
Imagine a world without artists. Imagine a world where every artist gives up and stop trying. Think of how controlled art would be. Think of how voices would be drowned out and how corporations would control what’s popular. Think of ll the messages put out that people want to hear but never what they need to hear. Let that nightmare be the reason you don’t give up or stop. Once artists stop, it’s really game over.
Don't stop doing art buddy, don't lose hope yet. If you feel like drawing, just do it and express yourselves out in it because the connection you hv to your art is always worth the satisfaction! Art is the journey that we take, enjoy the learning processes of it!
It sucks even for that. AI cannot come up with something "new", so there's no brainstorming to be had there. Assuming dragons were never created as a concept, you can't expect an AI to come up with a creature concept like that. It requires intention and self awareness. It literally cannot come up with new ideas, and it never will. It cannot even come up with new ideas for dragon designs. It's a redundancy, because it takes from other artists, and you have so many artists out there to inspire from there's just no point. Even real life is better.
@@crepooscul agreed. Every AI piece I come across just has this cookie cutter look to it. You can’t tell exactly where it drew inspiration from, but you _kinda_ know where it stole a particular style or technique
I dont get AI cant create something original sentiment. Imagine 3 years old kid and someone tell that kid to draw a dragon. They also look a kid book for reference of dragon which inherently copying. There is nothing original in this world, we human always imitate something or someone.
Yeah but even that 1) kinda already exists for human body poses, for free, and 2) it has to be consenting of the original work. Ask then AI train, you cannot have legal standing to take anything and then pretend "you can just request we not do the theft" after they already stole it...
AI art is also very racist (there’s videos on this). So if AI art replaces art models then artists create racist white washed art. It’s bad enough most white artists already don’t know how to draw faces from other cultures accurately
That’s just using Google images, looking at books, taking your own photos, observing the landscape and weather, there are anatomy books and pose apps etc then you as an artist draw all your own observations onto the paper/canvas
the whole thing about never becoming as good as the AI, making you lose motivation never even once bothered me since ART for me was never about becoming the best, since that is not possible for anyone, rather art for me is about expressing my own thoughts and doing that in the most professional manner that I can! Becoming the best artist that I can be, not becoming someone else.
I think the worry is not about becoming the best, but worried it will not be viable as a career if AI can output better quality much more quickly. A lot of people want to make a living from art, not out of greed, but because they love art so much, they don't want to spend half their time working an unrelated job to survive. Instead, they want to be able to do art with all their time in some manner.
@@Rat_Lord Oh yeah, dont get me wrong there are parts of AI art that do make me feel uncomfortable such as job opportunities, what I wrote was only about the "feeling of never being able to reach the level of AI" deal.
@@Rat_Lord A lot of jobs disappear with technology. Cashiers are disappearing, toll booths have disappeared. Soon probably professional drivers will disappear. Even my job as a software engineer is in danger it feels like.
@@Relseg Yeah I understand jobs disappearing with technology. I feel it's extra tragic in this case because art is something people are really passionate about. If someone is a cashier or toll booth person, it sucks to lose the job but they're probably just as happy to do some other job. For people like me, the idea of having a career I actually have passion for like art is one of the only hopes that keeps me going. As a software engineer, I think you are safe for a long time still personally. It's low stakes to let a machine do art, but people are never going to trust machines without at least reviewing their code. It could do immense damage if it is working with any money or sensitive info.
The worst thing I see is the pure hatred and contempt expressed towards artists by AI endorsers. Many are not hiding it anymore and actively cheering on our downfall
I've seen only the opposite. There's been absolute venom from the anti-AI bandwagon against the comparatively small user base of art AIs. Many of these users feel like they're being treated like they're the scum of the Earth when most use it for a hobby or a visualization aid at most.
Oh yeah there are far too many people gleefully expressing outright hatred of artists for having dedicated our time to gaining skills. It’s almost like jealousy because they don’t have art skills? But those art skills were hard earned for years and decades of long hours of practice and dedication to the craft! They almost seem mad that they didn’t do the work to improve their own art skills, so now they are more than happy to exploit those that did to get their pretty picture. It’s so strange to witness how much people have contempt for artists but want the beautiful art that artists produce. It’s wild.
AI art wouldn't be a problem if it was some kind of sci-fi sentient being trying to learn art from everyone, the problem is that is literally used as a weapon for profit by their users that are literally stealing other's works without the human process of learning from visualization.
I agree with this completely. This is exactly the problem with those developing A.I. at the top. They engineer A.I.s to be profit centric and not even prioritize other possible essential aspects of future A.G.I.s "Weaponizing" an A.I. no matter what kind should be forbidden and if made to make profit it should be sharply regulated!
@@waltlock8805 To clarify my point. I meant that the design and the motive of A.I. development lacks other things that I believe are fundamental to a proper integration of the technology. We see right now how it is upsetting artists. A community once thought to be untouchable by A.I. technologies.
What I don't like about ai art is that it feels pointless. The whole idea behind ai is so that it helps us do the jobs which are not enjoyable and labour-based, so that we can do things that require thought and creativity. Most artists chose this career out of passion. Art as a job is hard, but quite fulfilling at the same time, so ai partially replacing artists is so illogical to me (of course I know it all comes down to money, but still). Imagine if all these funds went to a different kind of ai which could actually help in a field which is dangerous or really stressful
I meant jobs that are labour-based *and* don't leave much room for creativity and thought. Sorry english is not my first language so sometimes I can't explain what I mean very well
"The whole idea behind ai is so that it helps us do the jobs which are not enjoyable and labour-based, so that we can do things that require thought and creativity. " Neah, that's just the general speal industrialists used to defend automating people out of a job. In reality the point of AI is to get as close to or surpass human ability. Generally for a few reasons. Research into Computer Science, and or profit.
Well, buying art feels largely pointless and expensive to a lot of people these days. One medical issue for me, one car accident for the next guy, and either of us might not be able to buy groceries or pay rent. If you have debt, you aren't buying art. We download all sorts of media for free... Every day. It's going to feel difficult for working regular people to feel bad about AI art making things that we want more accessible and affordable to us.
I have waited for so long to see you talk about AI! And, I think you got the perfect timing for posting this, considering all the protest that is going on in the art community
Hey Marc, Im a student which bought your Art School program about two years ago. I wanna say thank you for putting so much work in to it and sharing your knowledge with us ❤ For me it was worth every dollar 💪🏼 A few months ago i heard about aphantasia. Could you consider to make a video about that phenomenon? Im not able to visualize any type of picture inside my head which makes it nearly impossible to build a visual library. Id be absolutely curious if some other people in our community share the same struggles in learning art. I wish you a beautiful christmas 😊 -Manuel
Problem is, that even if current art community solidarily stood against AI art, and were guaranteed that no art will be used without it's creators consent, public domain already provides enough input for AI to learn from. You can't steal from DaVinci, Micheloangelo or from any other classical artist. Every piece of art becomes public after 50 years after death of a creator.
in reality ai is not the true enemy but other people are they take the credit and try to sell something a ai generated thats where its pissing artist off ai cant feel it dont know what emotions are what hate is it cant even understand the concept of being popular what its like to be lonely and a failure to them these ideas dont exist
@@Nogardtist No, the A.I companies ARE the enemy, and that's proven by how they trained and released this technology: They blindsided us with it and expected us to keep our mouths shut.
@@Nogardtist if the machine can't feel those emotions, and still produce something that can fool the consumers and even many artists, probably the emotions are not as fundamental for the results as artists like to think.
@@cristian-bull A lot of the "consumers" seem to only enjoy pretty colors. The issue with what you're saying is that once you realize that it's made by AI, you also realize that it was made without any human emotions, and then it falls flat on its face. All you're left with are the pretty colors, and if you still enjoy the picture after this fact just as much, then you didn't really care about visual art to its full extent, it's only eye candy for you. You're basically saying "well it's fine, because I was tricked so it didn't matter". No, in fact it's even worse.
@@crepooscul You are being pretty elitist here. Nature was created without any emotion by pure chance: Great mountain ranges, lush rainforests, the white desert of Antarctica. Is it less valuable or the view less breathtaking, just because there was no emotion, no intent, no human involved? In my bathroom there is a spot between two tiles where the mortar has dried leaving the "ruins" of seven tiny bubbles that once were there, looking like a flower, and I like to look at it, thinking, "It is impressive that this came into existence by sheer laws of nature and mathematics, and it looks pretty". Look at that AI picture that won an art competition (whether it should have won or even be allowed there is an entirely different question). Tell me you don't feel anything when you look at it, tell me it is not evoking anything. You can't without lying.
My biggest issue with AI generated images is just how antagonistic AI users have become towards real artists. From deliberately insulting and mocking them to make contests about who can steal an artist's job better (I'm not using hyperbole here, "steal" is the word they've actually used) and, of course, just quietly trying to pass off an artist's barely modified work as their own. Just like with NFTs, tech bros have been using potentially good technology for their own nefarious purposes with zero care for how much damage they make and ended up ruining any appeal it could have.
Honestly, it goes the other way as well. It starts with a lack of understanding about how the other works, and a lot of people are just insult-slinging because the other side did it to them first. But what these AI users are failing to recognise is that AI image generation relies on the artist to learn, and on the other side, artists aren't seeing the bigger picture about the creative freedom it will bring non-artists.
I also want to note that AI art and NFTs are fundamentally different, in that one was a impractical concept from the 90s repurposed to evade legal restrictions on money and scam people - basically creative accounting on steroids - whereas the other has real humanitarian and research goals, in which money is a secondary bonus to releasing their product early (although as we have seen with Stable Diffusion, even that is a difficult ask now).
@@NedInYaHead I don't understand that argument. There's nothing that stops people from having creative freedom. Nothing. Everyone already has it. I don't know why people act like this is allwoing people something that was walled out before. It doesn't. All it does is limit the imagination.
@@Dreadjaws > *I don't understand that argument. There's nothing that stops people from having creative freedom. Nothing.* This risks being a very ableist take, given the myriad of physiological and neurological issues that can impact one's creativity, even if it doesn't stop them outright.
Personally I like using ai art as a reference. Cause I know it will never actually be exactly what I want, but it can get me on the right path when I have artist block.
That’s exactly what I use it for. I’m the type of person who enjoys having a reference, but I don’t like using the same images for reference that many others use. I generate unique images to use as references. That’s why I don’t mind if the hands are wonky or there’s extra weird bits here and there, because I’m just using the images as references anyway.
That's a great use case and that's how I see AI art (for now), but most non-artists don't believe that. Even if it's only 70%-80% of the way there, it is good enough and they feel "democratized and empowered (their weasel words)" and feel like artists. This is going to first hurt amateur and pro artists who depend on commissions. Why would anyone pay for commissions when they can use key words to get an image that is good enough. They won't.
You're absolutely right. I started using ai for generating reference and inspiration. After trying it out myself most of my worries went away because it's nothing like a commission. I wanted to designing a clock/time themed sword for an OC a few months ago so I decided to give ai a short instead of google/pinterest. Asking the ai to give me a picture of a full sword was like teaching a snail how to pay taxes. It did make some really cool stuff but none of them were what I asked for. Instead it gave me a picture that inspired another OC's sword design. So after a while I gave up and just did the whole design myself. It's just not something that can replace commissions, at least not the moment. At some point when I wanted to try something it told me that I wrote "too many words" like WDYM TOO MANY WORDS? THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS TOO MANY WORDS! When you commission an artist you can just explain in full detail what exactly you want and they show you the sketch so you can tell if changes are needed. So I think we're safe for now
I think this is the best video to talk about ai art and how it should be/used/regulated I'm so glad to see you explaining the whole thing Amazing video as always marc
Marc, I knew we could count on you! One thing to point though, there was a recent study called "Diffusion Art or Digital Forgery", studying just how much those models jsut copy from their data set, would be interested if that study could be shared around. As always thank you, very articulate and knowledgeble! Will definitely share this video around!
The problem is people thinking ai art will be the end of artists and all human artists won’t be hired anymore. That is not true. However the problem is that a style or art would be taken and sold by people who aren’t artists and the actual artist doesn’t get a dime.
It could very much in the future beat out normal artists when it comes to working for companies or making substantial income, I’ve already seen AI produce things like furry nsfw on a level that can compete with many artists. The fact that this is possible is scary, and it will get better for the AI and worse for the artist.
@@ArlauxWitchdog the ai only copies, it has no soul. But If in the future an ai can create new concepts without copying, learn to be creative on a human level, can create entire video games and movies THEN it would be a cause for concern.
Jobs will be lost especially freelancers that is undeniable. Imo even assuming the dystopian future coming true, like Marc said it is more likely to be a tool for artists. Or people with a similar artistic skill set will dominate the industry.
@@2265Hello that I can agree. Using it a tool is something that will most likely happen, but won’t replace artists. But who really knows? When photos became a thing everyone freaked thinking artists will be replaced, I see this a no different.
I don't know if this has been brought up yet, but there's something even more insidious about the possible future with AI art, especially as it gets more sophisticated. Imagine this. You're contracted to make 200 concept art and background illustrations for a company. The contract says you'll be paid the full amount once you complete the 200 drawings. 100 works in, you are let go. Unbeknownst to you, every part of your artwork was being fed into a specialized AI art tool that specifically inspects and mimics individual art styles. A month later, you see all your artwork and artwork you did not do, in your exact style. There's way more than 200. Every piece of the project includes your art. They hired you with the intent to steal your style the entire time. They were never planning to pay you the whole price. There are things artists can and wiill probably have to do now in the future to protect against these kinds of tactics. But even if you specify in the contract that if they do something like this you still will get paid 100%, what happens with the employers' next project? How many times will we see scummy employers try to sneakily steal art styles, and lie about doing so? This will be another avenue artists will have to deal with in terms of theft now. Can artists truly prove that their style has been stolen? We'll adapt, but it's just another thing to worry about as long as we don't live in a world that organizes itself around something like post-scarcity. None of this would matter if making art wasn't also required to literally survive.
As for the last point people will automate the joy out of drawing for the same reasons people use meal replacements (without illnesses) its just more convenient and easier and tbh tahts what's been driving humanity for its whole existance
there is a person who trained an AI to do art purely based on their own works and style so that it could help them to make thier webtoon updates faster!
Yeah, but you are literally making the same shit always, so it's just mediocrity, Because drawing you can explore things that you've never drew before or unexplored ways to represent something...
Thank you for speaking out about the negatives of AI Art. So many big art influences have been focusing only on the positives, but I think that it's dismissive of our real concerns. Established artists of course have nothing to worry about, but for those just entering the art industry this is really disheartening and worry some.
wasn't art supposed to be fun and self expression rather than money making "industry" ? and you are complaining that "robots are taking out jobs in coal mines" LOL
@@deltaxcd I don't understand what your point is here and I feel like youve missed what I am talking about entirely lol First, Art can be both of those things. Just because art is something that can be fun, doesn't mean it can't also be a career. Second, your comment is super dismissive. Of course people would be upset about losing a job they've worked hard for. Again, I don't understand the point you're trying to make.
@@deltaxcd also if we lived in a world where you don't need to work to survive, I wouldn't mind robots taking over all jobs. But unfortunately, that hasn't happened. Until then, the replacement of jobs is morally wrong and unethical.
@@gerudo_thief well when it is about money it is naturally about competition hard work and suffering when it is about self expression and fun then it is complete opposite. It obviously can't be both because when you do it for money you are pretty much human reincarnation of AI producing output from given prompt money come in art comes out AI does same but rather electric power comes in art come out LOL equal amount of self expression. yes you will lose you job so go find something else maybe some carpeting, it even pays better and gives you same amount of self expression as art industry if not more and do art in spare time as hobby.
@@gerudo_thief By that logic probably wes should also complain that mining robots are replacing human miners in coal mines? And what does it even mean? like we automate everything but don't use it until one day it is announced that from 10PM all jobs will be switched to automated versions? Like in those comunism movies where announcer declares that from the next day money is no longer in use stuff is free LOL
Man I see what you mean now. I was just worried that ai art would go so far to start taking over everything else, like writing and animation. But like- this IS a nonexistent problem that people making the generators tried to solve. I think everyone will get bored of it, or at least there will be guildlines put in place to use it as a tool, so ai art will become less of an issue as it is now. I literally cried when I heard about ai art, I thought it was the end of all creative works, and everyone would just move to ai art instead of creating anymore. So thank you!
I think an effective way to fight against the abuser's of AI-Art ( the people looking to flip generated art for money) Is to understand the existing copyright laws and their arguments that are prohibiting AI Art from being owned -- The Art community needs to be able to debate on this without Waxing on about "souls " and " humanity" , as trying to tackle this from a moral stance is not going to persuade someone who wants to make money...
You make a good point. We need to be speaking on money and legal terms, since emotional stuff wont convince ppl who just look at the money side of things cus they won’t care how we feel. It will be a tough battle i hope theres light at the end of the tunnel
Nice idea but I wonder how it woud work because you can't prove if it was had drawn or made using AI. also AI can easily redraw existing picture to remove its copyright. so I think we may be observing the end of copyright era entirely. or otherwise copyright has to be tightened to the absurd levels. I don't really get why anyone woud be willing to pay for AI art now if they can download the tool themselves and just do it for free.
@@deltaxcd we can actually , The copyright process has Copyright examiners that can ask for information regarding to the creation of a visual piece , everything from what tablet you use or paint brushes to how you held the brush-- while lying may get u the initial copyright, being exposed will quickly result in less than optimal outcomes. redrawing an existing picture doesnt remove the copyright (?) this is why selling fanart is such a muddled subject -- companies just see fanart as free advertisement , they can technically take down any image of their characters they dont like. And AI work is uncopyrightable currently. The closest thing to copywritten AI work is a Comic called " Zarya of the dawn" -- while the art is AI generated the Copyright is only on the graphic novel not the images themselves. TLDR; Copywritten work needs Human authorship -- giving a prompt to a machine doesn't make the resulting art "your creation" ,any more than commissioning a human artist to do so.
@@ji_ji_ I doubt if it woud be reasonable if someone come to your door and demands to provide all information about production of some art piece claiming that it infringes their copyright unless you prove opposite. So far our legal system uses principle that burden of proof lies on the side of accuser not defendant. so it will be your job to prove that I copied your work not my job to prove that i did not. I also wonder how all that is going to work with AI copyright because anyone can claim that your images were produced using AI and you will not be able to prove that it was not the case. and also Most often AI art generation involves quite a lot of editing photobashing and inpainting. I am not talking about fanart, rather that if you have some work I can create something similar what will be ok as a market alternative lIke if you draw black square as art I draw red triangle you can't say that I infringe your copyright. if disney copyrighted a mouse I can replace it with squirrel. AI does exactly that. It will take "soul" of your work and transfer it into another totally different image which is clean from your copyright.
As a tech manager, I found this video to be a thought-provoking and insightful exploration of the fundamental problem with AI art. It's clear that AI has the potential to revolutionize the art world and create some truly unique and innovative works, but it's also important to consider the ethical implications and challenges associated with this technology. The discussion on the role of the human artist and the need for transparency and accountability in AI art was particularly interesting to me, and I appreciate the nuanced perspective provided in the video. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and insights on this complex and important issue.
I read an article where one of the creators of an AI-generated art system said it was his goal to put human artists out of work. I feel there's almost a malicious intent behind AI-generated art. These individuals knew what they were doing was unethical, possibly illegal, but they did it anyway. Either for the reason I mentioned above or in the hopes of some quick bucks before the courts forced them to shut down. (Or they hoped governments would move so slowly in responding by the time laws were in place AI-generated art would be too deeply imbedded to remove.)
It doesn't have the potential to revolutionize the art world, at all. This "tool" is literally not needed. It brings nothing to the table, it doesn't help artists in any way. Every argument for how it can help artists is redundant, because what the AI does is create new pictures of things that already exist, through pictures of artists or photos, etc. If you want to create something new and original, it is better to use your human brain. If you don't want to create something original, it is better to just use the pictures that the AI is already using. The AI would be useful in the scenario where all the pictures that the software is using, wouldn't be available to all us.
Very good perspective. I really appreciate your opinion, as an artist myself that just crossed over from frontend dev in to graphic art, with an extensive background in fine art, AI art has been heart breaking. Thanks for giving me some hope.
@@Cha4k is not a tool if the generated image is the final project, the history about refferences is just that, a history, any Ai users would start to learn nothing to apply the ''tool''
thanks for this video Marc, I completely agree with you on how ai should be implemented, and all of this community movement made me look back to what I did until today as an artist and man... I simply CAN'T stop making art, I love doing it and will never stop. For everyone else who might read this: fall in love with your art too, YOU should put the value on it, doesn't matter your level, it's your vision, your way to make it, and that's why people come to hire us, to see the world through our eyes
I'm extremely glad for your opinions in this matter as someone who thinks both the human and ai should be respected in our interactions going forward. I've used ai art, both as a bounce concept (characters or backgrounds which I change later and redraw myself) or more recently thanks to novel ai, uploading my own work, baking it low (so the original style is mostly kept) and enhancing through its own process AS WELL as my own manual edits in a back and forth conversation to surprising and amazing results. It's helped me to want to try new brushes and techniques, and, as a learning tool its a lot easier to reverse engineer what and how the ai fixed a problem in your original work when you were the one who made it. It upsets me all the hate that ai art gets. There are bad actors who will pretend they made it themselves, and I want an ethically sourced dataset really badly, and I'd even contribute to such. When I create "ai art" its a collaborative effort, so I ALWAYS make note of that and call it a collab with the ai involved. May not be now, and it may not ever truly be human, but artificial intelligence will soon be as valid as the organic kind. And I think instead of teaching it and other people, (especially our artist creatives who are innovatives and telling of our society) fear, spite and hatred, we should instead encourage optimism, adaptability, and cooperation. Artists have needed to make a shift in content to survive for a while now in the current age, and now more than ever, we need to provide something to a community in order to thrive. Embrace the human aspect of your work and find ways to do that, instead of shouting "ai art bad". I'm not afraid of my "style being stolen" because only a narcissist truly believes they are so special and irreplaceable that anything deigning to come near to them in presentation is a threat to their control. People follow me for the story I want to tell, one that is becoming collaborative and expansive in a way that an ai image generator isn't going to be able to do. Posting a copypasta image doesn't solve the problem and similarly requires no effort on your part. As a community, we can do better than this. I'm glad you've kept such a level head in your response.
When that one guy used kim jung gi's artworks to train his ai and post his prompts like not even 1 week after his passing just felt really wrong, these npc brained, ai prompters have no right to take away an artists identity like that and show people that its their own shit.
One of my opinions on AI is that you need some sort of artistic knowledge to make a good piece because masses can say it's fine but other artists can notice that has errors, even more if you feed them with some art that has human errors like anatomy errors, perspective errors, it's like drawing from reference but with wrong references, maybe non artistic people would not care but once you see it you can't unsee it
@ju ju listen, the ai isn't trained on nothing but sparkles and photoshop. It needs artwork to be able to create, it is trained on artwork. It doesn't matter what word we used to describe it.
@@idrawanawfullot Actually u have no idea what you talking about, I could either give u a real answer or leave you to your ignorance and allow you to swim in it, believing a bunch of BS even though you clearly do not have the slightest clue about Machine learning and computer sciences, let alone the true origins of the images used to train the AI models and then also offer complete factual proof that will allow you to see it for yourself and actually give you full access to it, because guess what....it is full accessible to the public, and contrary to what all these idiotic sheep artist are saying - nobody gives a sh*t about their crummy art and what it looks like. They are complaining about AI mimicing a style that they use, well thats not illeagal at all, because guess what you cannot copyright a style -yep that is what the law says. And if this was the case, those same crummy artist would be suing each other because almost every single artist on the planet has work that has been influenced by another artist to some extent, some more obvious than others. So do yourself a favour and stop embarrassing yourself with silly little comments, if you want to have a serious conversation about it, then im here to chat, if not - keep moving.
I feel like some ways where AI art can be a tool (present or future) for artists are 1. Everyone struggles with something when drawing (like I struggle with drawing animals and backgrounds/landscapes) and AI art can become another resource to turn to reference images. 2. I've also heard there's some artists with Aphantasia who use AI art to help visualize their ideas so they can draw their thoughts and ideas as well
I am a begginer artist, started trying this same year, and when I saw AI art I didn't really lose any motivation, in my opinion is worthless, maybe use it as tool like suggested in the video but for me the whole point of art is doing something by yourself and the effort you put on it is what it gives value to the art
this depends on what kind of art you make. many artists were already as worthless as AI so they got replaced others did not notice any competition But if you use AI for suggestions or brainstorming, oh my then you are really shitty artist already LOL as a real artist you should have plenty of fantasies in your head already that are trying to get out, not tracing some AI fantasy because you lack your own.
Exactly man. Give people the opportunity to create art with the option of learning and going through the process if they enjoy so. Once AI art is the norm, it will eliminate the need to get others to make stuff for you, and those artists will then be able to innovate and bring new ideas/styles to the table that didn't exist before. As someone looking to get into game development, once AI can generate images or even animations to more consistent specifications, I will hopefully have a practical solution for realising my ideas without relying on other people to bring it to life.
What keeps throwing me for a loop in this whole discussion is a point a friend of mine mentioned when we were chatting about ai art ethics. He posed the question of whether or not artist would be just as frustrated if a child prodigy were to learn their style by copying them as ludicrously quickly as the ai art did. Would the prodigy need to compensate the artist who’s work they trained on?
Youre comparing 1 person to a software that is distributed to potentially billions of people. The difference is that people doing this is accepted because they are just 1 person. The restriction is already in place when it takes so much effort to actually 1. learn how to paint at a professional level 2. learn how to copy a particular style. 3. create art in a huge manner that would impact the original artist. (4. Not actually tracing images of the original artist and pass it off as their own) Prodigies still need to do training on art. Top "talented" athletes do rigorous training to keep up. People just love putting the label "talent" and "prodigy" on good performance in order to not see that those ppl put in a lot more effort.
The prodigy is at least human. He takes time and goes through mostly the same journey as everyone else. And we make laws to protect vulnerable human beings, not machines.
Fancy high tech clip art wizard generator. Good for the holidays, employees news letters, sales posters, and quick inspirational concept to be forwarded to an actual artist.
Always amazes me to see "artists" seething over AI drawings and calling them theft because they were trained on internet images. If you're concerned about people copying pixels from your works, you should paywall them, or keep them offline. This is no different from a human drawer taking inspiration from someone else's work, or drawing their first draft over it.
The whole point is that it is COMPLETELY different than a human using reference. Tracing is similar but it's also hated in the art community. People that are not artist simply have no clue how people make art and the amount of thought and knowledge of fundamentals that go into it, AI doesn't know any art fundamentals, it just reads good looking art and as a result produces images based on that, so they are gonna look good, but without understanding why it's good, which is the oposite of what artists do, they know what makes things look good and draw around it.
What artists should do is start advertising the fact that it's 100% human made. The fact that art is a tool for communication is what makes it interesting. In a world where you can no longer be sure if an art piece has a creator behind it that is trying to tell you something, a label like "100% human", similar to labels like "100% vegan" or "100% cotton", gains value. Because when consuming art, what humans actually seek is interesting communication with another person. And as long as art bots are not fully sentient, they cannot create real art.
The only kinda ethical way of using these AI generations is for using it as an illustration for a totally different product while heavily altering it (in a way you can basically tell the image was made using AI and algorithms (like fluid simualtion)). I don't know what other case could exist but in mine, I've been using it to make my music cover arts. Basically I would generate abstract image with shapes that form a landscape. Then I would put that into a photo editor and apply some heavy modifications to make it fit my preferences best (changing colors, adding shades and light, blurring to create more depth etc ...) and then I would layer new elements, usually from png copyright free banks, just to fill the image more and make it more personal. In my opinion that's a pretty good way of using AI since I'm basically asking for a landscape image with heavy algorithmic deformation, and actually changing it to create something new. And even with all that, It still doesn't inspire much creativity, and I wish I could pay for something actually good (being a student, you know how it is). On the other hand, I'm basically required to generate something that feels soulless and looks computer generated. I could just give a cool prompt, generate in repeat until I get something I like and call it a day. But even when I first discovered that kind of image generation, I was already thinking about how bad of a usage that can be, and being a student in computer sciences, I knew just too well how they trained their model. Therefore, I think that as long as you are adding value to the generation and not using as a product (In my case, you could argue that a cover art helps selling the recording, which is true, but an image that just looks like a landscape won't sell anything (also I don't sell anyway and that's not cuz of the artwork ☠️), I just use as a placeholder until I either get a job, money and can pay artists for it, or later on making my own (I really want to draw, getting started).) Yeah that was long, I basically made an essay on how I think using AI without (hopefully) hurting anyone could work : not being specific (can lead to have specific art from someone), not using it as it is, not using it as a product to sell, adding value by changing it to transform it in your own way. Anyway, roast me x). n.b : I recently got one of my friend who draws to make it for me and help me start drawing myself, I'll finally feel good about this crap ^^.
just remember that every single artist out there, started their craft by copying other people's artwork to learn how to do it, every single art college graduate had to undergo years of copying and base their work and build up skills based on centuries of previous artwork. All those people are dead so they cant come to cry about their paintings/photographs/sketches being used "without their consent". Absolutely no "professional" artist earned their skills without copying or training on the work of others, who also did not consent for their works to be used for training. I know many artists, for many years, and absolutely every single one of them had to build their skills and start copying others, even professional ones take "inspiration" from other's artwork and instagram accounts endlessly. Most of that activity is without consent but its "okay" because thats how it is. Did Davinci approved of a student in art school to use his drawings to be copied for practice and even posted online on the student's instagram account? is that even possible? is the student stealing art? or is it somehow okay because the artist is dead and humanity as a whole has been doing it since forever? Do you think that 100% of every single training material any artist ever used to train and get skills was obtained with explicit permission from the original creator for that specific purpuose? The answer is absolutely no. It's impossible. It has been a defacto understanding that when you create art is for "others to see", and that is ultimately for the world to keep as historical record and ultimately become mankind's history. So, the hypocrisy of the art community is absolutely evident and crystal clear. they have been doing the same "learning process" based on "art pieces used without consent from the original creator for training purposes" aka "unethical training". did any artist ever said "my art must be only observed by biological lifeforms to produce *feelings* but i never ever authorize that for the future of mankind no one should train, be influenced, learn based on my art piece, and no art student in any country should ever learn skills by trying to reproduce my work? no teacher should ever use my art as example for others to learn?" So, the so called artist can do it, but others cant? why is that so? They are against the fact that now they dont own and control the marketplace. The elite status of an artist at any stage has been made accessible for a wider range. How many people do not have the time and effort to spend years in art school or hours of freetime to "learn to draw" because they have family obligations? but now they can express that creativity by AI means? Thats what the artist community is angry about. That now grandma can finally get her crochet pictures of cats and flowers while shes waiting for the cake to bake or riding the bus, or a construction worker can finally be creative and get those artsy images he always wanted to create, now possible during his 5 minutes toilet break at a construction site on a mobile app. What artists don't like is that now anyone else will be able to produce beautiful imagery. Art has been exclusive to the elites for centuries, and now it's been democratized for poor. Elites don't like that. On top of that, SMART artists will make a lot of money out of this, because now they can ask more money for their "organic fairtrade ethical vegan non GMO human-made art" with new certifications and new labels and new associations and business models being created to certify art as human made. The smart artist will be richer than ever. It has happened with food, it will happen with art. There's always people willing to pay a high price for the subjective value and "name" or "brand" of having an "original" piece from X artist, even when AI could make millions of copies in seconds. Thats why rich people still keep buying original GUCCI and Armani bags when there are many chinese fakes easily available on the market with the exact same materials, design, and branding for a lot less. Artists should now focus on claiming value on the subjective higher value of their origin ceritified human made art, and let AI run its course. There are segments of people and customers. The rich will CONTINUE to pay for comissioned human made art. now more than ever. And let the poor enjoy finally some easier access to expressing their own creativity. The poor, the construction worker, or grandma, wasn't gonna pay for "commissioned art work" from "professional artists" anyway.
@@MarxOrx I think you're missing the point, the thing that now instead of paying an artist to make you a commission, you just enter a prompt and there you go. Then add the fact that depending on the prompt, an artist's artstyle may be copied, or part of their work end up in the generation. With this in mind (and probably more stuff idk about), I think it is understandable that the artist community gets angry ... Also Da Vinci is long dead and copyright doesn't apply anymore but that's another discussion.
@@thomas_n4203 "Also Da Vinci is long dead and copyright doesn't apply anymore but that's another discussion" - I think this opinion sums up really well what @MarxOrx argues against. This opinion shows the absurd assumption of the speaker that copyrights for some reason precede the natural tendency of a man to mime and it's forbidden to use someone else's artistic output. At the same time there are artists to whom we refuse these copyrights. It's very useful that copyright doesn't work backwards, isn't it? Thanks to this, you can legally make a complete rip off of da vinci's work and earn money from it. On the other hand, a modern artist is fortunate enough to live in a globally connected world and thus has the power to grant their works, no matter how influential, copyright preventing from their use. Of course, we are talking here most often about the prohibition of commercial use. So I suspect it's okay to generate images with AI just for your own use with no intent to sell. This aspect is probably not controversial. The one that is, however, is the morally questionable possibility of selling generated images. @MarxOrx's argument is that people use their natural ability in the creative process to collect data from the environment, be it nature or other people and their activities, works of art included. On the basis of this sensual experience, works are created that are an emergent whole of the most diverse influences, all of which have been gathered by the sensory perception of the artist. By sensory perception I mean for example observing nature or being inspired by someone else's work. The artist's work in this sense was glued together, or 'emerged', by the artist, but it contains a huge amount of external influences, of which the artist is not and could not be the author. Art is about the existence of an environment from which inspiration can be gathered and to which one can refer or in which a work of art can be created. I assume you will agree with me that there is nothing wrong with using external influences in the process of creating and calling ourselves the creator of a given work, because we - our unique individuality - are responsible for gluing these external motifs together. That's what I think it means to be an artist. We consider inspiration as fine, and we view plagiarism as immoral. The whole argument boils down to pointing out that artists opposed to the use of their work argue that their work has been used without permission, while their own creative process is based on relying on outside influences without permission. So their own objection should also apply to themselves. But then there would be no creation or art. The structure of AI knowledge is created in the image of the human one, and the way of analyzing the input images that the AI feeds on is also intended to imitate human cognition as much as possible. In this way, the AI also collects very scattered external influences that can be glued together by the input operator of the image generator and, at his command, indeed glue together - a work that does not resemble the input images. A picture is created that contains a thousand very scattered elements from a thousand different pictures. Just like creating a work of art by a man who is inspired by everything around him. The copyright argument is of little use here because, as I mentioned above, we consider inspiration as perfectly acceptable. It is done by getting to know the whole of someone else's work, and then subconsciously extracting some element(s) that we particularly like in order to use it in our work. Why would this not be acceptable in the case of AI? Because AI can create a picture identical to one already created by someone? Humans can also do this carelessly. And if AI is used with the intention of literally copying someone else's work, just like when a human copies something 1:1, it's plagiarism. Nobody argues that such an action is immoral - I think it is. But it is immoral due to the intent to create plagiarism. We have already established that we accept inspiration. AI using motifs from a huge number of different works collects data from them so scattered that the final work cannot be called plagiarism. I'd call collecting this data by AI an inspiration. In the case of AI image generation, plagiarism is a misuse at the hands of an operator who deliberately strives for a effect that is supposed to completely imitate someone else's already existing work. I don't think there is a valid argument to prohibit AI learning from images widely available on the web. If they can be found within seconds by a human, then he can be inspired by them. And in the process of inspiration, copyrights have nothing to say - they are supposed to protect against plagiarism. So you CAN feed the AI with copyrighted images widely available on the web, because the AI is intended to use them for learning and inspiration. We shouldn't ban AI just because it CAN generate plagiarism. After all, the artist too is always in the power to plagiarize. It is the fault of the operator who committed the plagiarism. It is the fault of the artist who plagiarised. Besides, creating complete plagiarism is immoral only if we didn't just create it for our own use. I would consider the sale of plagiarism immoral, but regardless of whether AI was used in its creation process or not. The whole implicit problem of AI artists seems to boil down to the fact that the image generation does not require artistic craftsmanship from the operator, so much time and practice. But there is no moral argument against using AI here! Here, there is only an attempt to find an argument to justify the artist's dissatisfaction with the fact that someone is able to achieve a similar effect in an image generation as an artist who worked for such an effect for many years. But what the artist worked for was not always being the best creator of artistic content, but being a man capable of creating this content himself. The operator of the image generator always has to rely on artificial intelligence, and this is where self-learning makes sense, and the artist's superiority is shown. There's no reason to lose motivation because something that isn't human has the power to create a prettier picture than we can. I would call this dissatisfaction a form of jealousy, or a sense of meaninglessness resulting from wanting to be superior to 'stupid AI'. This AI, by the way, thanks to its extensive database containing various influences, is the most convenient tool for learning to create illustrations and drawings that currently exists, and significantly affects the workflow and efficiency of creation for many actual artists. It's an amazing BENEFIT that we can access so much external influences from imagery that we normally wouldn't be even able to stumble upon. If you don't want your image to even be used for inspiration, then you don't want anyone to look at it. After all, inspiration often comes from prosaic, passive observation. In that case, it is your responsibility as the artist not to make your work publicly available. Only then will you achieve your goal. If you introduce the effect of your work to the Internet, you EXTERNALIZE IT, you make it appear within the range of perception of others. You MUST accept that it can naturally be used as inspiration. Here, in my opinion, also lies the problem - in the fact that artists irresponsibly make their works public. It lies largely on ARTIST'S side. You must accept that putting some of your creations online is inextricably linked to their use. You literally bring a new element to the outside world and distribute it!Depending on where you place them, you will determine their range of influence in different ways. If you want the reach of your works to be as wide as possible, you CANNOT expect that no one will use it as an inspiration. Use AI in your creative process, let it collect the same outside influences as you do, don't use it to plagiarize, and put as much of your influence as possible into the work you're putting together. If you see an AI-created plagiarized image that wasn't made public just to show off operator's proficiency in using the generator, but to make money, then and only then we have a problem. This is the only situation where artists have the right to oppose AI in my opinion. But it makes no sense to talk about banning AI entirely or prohibiting it from using external sources - let's talk about the immorality of an operator who may want to use AI in an inappropriate way.
I absolutely agree with all you said, except one thing. I wouldn't assume that AI cannot develop on its own now. If something is created by merging and mixing already existing art, the new image can serve as a reference for AI after that... and and the cycle continues. New results would probably recycle the same errors even exaggerate them, but still.. I think technically it can be evolving even without new "human-made" art now.
I was 4 months into learning art when it became more popular and I was , oh ! I won't need to learn it for 10 years or so to get the result I have in mind. Tried it, never got what my mind is showing me, not even close. So I continued , feeling down, to learn art, with thinking I can't make any money from it. Turn out after 10 months, the things I have in mind is my art style wich I'm not yet able to make. But the a.i is not able to reproduce what doesn't exist in term of new style or someone style while they don't know it, yet. So I'm continuing my path. I don't want to be even near a.i art. edit : I also see alot of people saying that a.i art doesn't steal art, because artist does the same when using others people art as reference. well, a.i use billion of art piece, human like 4 to maybe 20 at max . a.i pick up pixels on image, your printer doesn't create art, same for a.i, it doesn't create it mix up data and spit up something. we do create thing from nothingness, the a.i can't. only non-artist think that a.i create.
Yea, I also saw some petty AI artist trying to justify their work by saying that it's not art stealing, but using that exact 'reference' reasoning lol. They're braindead...it really makes me sad at this point. Just keep practicing art tho...As we artists always say, art is the journey that we take, enjoy the learning processes and hv fun!
We don't do anything from nothing, all images you make require information that has been taken from the outside world, there is nothing your brain can create without that.
Thats unfair, You doesnt count, all the art human have seen in your life, and that their brain have keep some part and concept from in memory unconsciously. Using reference to create an art is something different, some human do it. But the AI doesnt. Ai only use his memory where there is some concept. Memory of the IA is really better than the human one. But keep in mind, there is no human artwork into the memory of the AI. Only the memory of what it learned. And the AI never use any reference when creating an art.
@@AustinGDesigns so you are saying it can't exist if it doesn't already exist ? well if I draw a dragon , I hope you won't tell me they exist. Oh you will say ( you refered to existing animal + drawing of others ) . If I just draw a cube, that cube doesn't exist, every thing that require at least 1% of imagination comme from nothingness. yes cube exist in others drawing, even in math class, but the moment you picture that cube in your mind that one pop up from nothing ( or your mind) but it didn't exist in a medium that someone else could see until you draw it, and no matter how many time you prompt cube in that a.i art it won't comme out the same. of course, you probably need some art knowledge to understand what I just tried to explain. And I'm not saying that I'm fully right.
Yeah, let's ignore comission artists(many who claim to have fever comissions) or artists for posters, book covers and album covers. The effect may not be apocaliptic(yet) but it is still there. We also cannot know when it will stop and how it will stop.
AI art have made me kinda scared to going searching for new artists. My problem is finding art I enjoy and finding out it was generated. I feel defeated every time. I've grown very skeptical of good artists I haven't heard of and I really don't like this feeling.
I think to prevent this going forward, real artists should have at least one working file of one of their pieces available freely to download, with all the layers and everything. That way anyone who wonders if the artist is real or not can simply download the working file and see "yup, everything is drawn, they are real". For AI devs, ability to create a Clip Studio file, or a Photoshop file that would contain perfectly laid out layers is something that would be not only difficult af, it seems pointless.
I feel like this too. It really does matter to me if it was made by a person or not. I don't care at all for an AI art piece no matter how beautiful it appears. Seeing something I know someone put time and effort and skill into, actually makes me think it's amazing and worthwhile. But as it gets harder to discern, I don't even know what is what and it just makes me lose a lot of joy in looking at art.
The problem is rather that you enjoy AI styled art at all for me it is not really that interesting I do find some images worth saving but not really that much because they are all very similar and get boring quickly
@@OKtheChannel So AI chads can just train on those works? What purpose does this serve? It's just art you dorks, enjoy it instead of trying to criticize it. It doesn't matter who made it.
Few years ago, listened some podcast with scientist who learning AI, and this podcast was about how automisation will replace hard physical jobs or jobs what can easy to replace y robots, and someone ask him a question: "What happen to all this people who lost jobs due to this?". And he answers: "They will go to art" And now artists fears that they will be replaced and heavy labor work don't get replaced by robots in even near 20 years....
AI in art has a massive potential to do good if we approach it responsibly, as a new tool in our artist's toolbox. There are a lot of problems with it currently though and we'll all have to come together to get those sorted over time. Your actions matter- our community is massive and we can push for things to change. Let's not screw this up.
The Concept Art Association has a gofundme page looking to initiate the fight for regulations gofund.me/2df3dc07, check it out. I contributed to put my money where my mouth is, we gotta push back a bit instead of bending over :)
It's past the point of being a tool when it can crap out finished images. It doesn't belong in actual artists' toolboxes. Unless you use it as one source of inspiration to inspire your own works. Or in photobashing. But any more than that is just taking control from the artist. Although I also do remember seeing custom brushes being generated, I guess that could help.
Indeed, for me.. when it comes to "portfolio" sites like Artstation. As far as I know, you cannot commission someone then post their work as your own on Artstation. So how is AI art any different? The person is "telling" someone/thing else to produce the artwork for them. Thus it isn't their own "work" and shouldn't be allowed in their portfolio.
@Marc Brunet this is off topic, but do u teach any classes on perspective that aren’t in ur separate art school term classes
I DO think it could benefit human small artist more, but there is also nothing really wrong or illegal with what AI is doing right now. Could it be more ideal?…sure. But idealism is something artist have in our souls. It doesn’t necessarily mean anything void of idealism isn’t art.
@YTartschool, you have it backwards. AI doesn't use a prompt to create art. The prompt is a command so it can understand what we humans want. But you can definitely induce it to create art without a prompt. For example, a few hallucination AIs generate art forever randomly, in looping fractals. What these specific AIs do use to generate art is stable diffusion (they use "noise" to generate images) and understanding the essence of objects through "qualia" (which are traits of an object's essence: for example, a car has "wheels", and it's usually "rectangular". We humans can't define those qualities very precisely, but we intuitively know what they are).
Art is still so worth learning. Learning to draw has taught me more than just art. It taught me how to observe, how to improve a skill, how to instill discipline in my life. And I still learn more about the world through art all the time!
This somehow made me feel peace with all the time i spent heing an artist
And the best way to do that is with deep learning
@@steve_jabz You ain't gonna see the wonder of color theory if you do that
i've been an illustrator my whole life. i made drawings all the way from elementary school through college. it helped me to retain information during lectures. i also noticed that i can visualize the mechanics of an idea in 3d better than the average person. so when they cannot understand, i can diagram it for them. unlike many here, i am fortunate to not work in the art world and welcome this innovation - it cannot be stopped
@@360.Tapestry "it cannot be stopped"
Companies love people like you.
I draw because it's fun, I enjoy the process, and I enjoy seeing my results, and no AI can take that away from me.
Fr fr.
I like ai because it's fun. I also like to draw.
That's nice for you, but that's no consolation to all the people who are losing their livelihood.
It will! For sure!
I draw for killing time so the ai thing doesn't really affect me
0:37 - What is AI art?
2:09 - Problems with the AI
5:17 - AI argument #1: demotivation
6:23 - AI argument #2: taking jobs from artists
7:21 - AI argument #3: learning to create like humans
8:39 - AI argument #4: inevitable progression => embrace it & learn to adapt
9:42 - AI argument #5: how valuable is art with no (human) artist?
11:19 - Guidelines for artists when dealing with AI (that large portfolio sites will hopefully hear & implement)
using this, thanks
@@YTartschool Go right ahead.
At this point I'm gonna be keeping art purely as a hobby and will not be aspiring to go professional.
I have played with Midjourney, it can't keep up with my imagination (can't even draw 5 digit hands) so I will still be doing my art for fun.
When it gets more advanced, will I make the switch? Maybe, but not on a professional level though becuase I realize even if I did gained a following or got hired by a employer, how secure would my "Creative Job" be IF EVERYONE AND ANYONE CAN FUCKING DO IT!!!!!!!
We as a capitalistic society are hired for our skills and expertise, when that is taken away, what do we have left?
I would totally back any legislation made towards artist rights but I have little or no faith in our American judicial system which is ran by boomer congressmen and senators who don't even know what a wacom graphics tablet is let alone how AI art algorithms work.
I feel this is a losing battle for us as we don't have good lobbying power and the media corporations (Disney, Activision/Blizzard) and even the automotive industries like GM or Toyota will be relying on AI art for concepts which AI art excels in.
Hope I'm wrong though. We are at the mercy of the host at this point.
@@CraneStyleNJ Your really missing the forest for the trees. AI art is about more then just static 2D art within a few years you'll be able to create animated sequences and use Ai generated voices. Imagine a single individual creating an entire Anime Series in a fraction of the time it takes now and posting that on TH-cam. We're talking Star Trek Holodeck levels of Innovation Here. AI opens up possibilities for creativity we haven't even dreamt of yet. It's right to be angry about theft and to worry about your job but AI art is fucking amazing.
@@dustinlopez2751 creativity is when you make something with your own hands, with your skills acquired through practice, observation and inspiration. Not when you put some words into a robot and just go along with whatever it outputs. That's just the robot's "creativity" taken from what other creative human creates. Which makes it not creative at all and just plain boring.
Imagine watching a fantastic movie which is absolutely just mind blowing just to find out in the end that it was made by an AI. It would be very disappointing because youd know that AI can create flawless things with ease no effort included. that means everyone can create a movie on par with that using the same AI.
Now imagine the same movie but made by humans. Now with effort, budget, skills, and time was put into it, now it just feels unique and more impressive.
I can imagine how boring the future would be if AI was used in everything and everywhere
I would go somewhere in the jungle and be a caveman again XD
You know shit's real when the intro doesn't include Marc's head being misplaced somewhere in his room💀
My biggest problem is the people who claim AI art is their art, and therefore they are artists. Here I am struggling to develop my skills as an artist for 5 years now, and a random guy I knew, just made a business from selling AI generated art. It sucks...ofc I won't stop drawing because of that, It just feels, obviously, unfair...
Selling AI generated images is extremely disgusting, AI should not be in the same space as actual art in general
Continue, hand made illustrations one day will reborn from ashes, until my death I will defend human art.
Piero Manzoni put his own shit in cans labled "Artist’s Shit" and sold 90 of them for thier weight in gold in 1961. Nothing about life and art is fare.
@@reinasayama8077You should really read a art history book sometime!
These are the least you should worry about.
Musicians = has regulations and are legally protected. Visual artists should get the same rights. Also btw you can directly feed AI generators pics if you upload them.
To be honest, I'd hate to see visual art regulations get as stringent as music.
The current copyright system mostly aids the big labels and actually impedes small artists rather than helping them.
Music and Visuals are completely different mediums, and it's a lot easier to write regulations and copyright for because you can only get so much inspiration from a music track before sounding ilke a copy.
While EVERY single artist has taken inspiration for their styles from someone else, artists with their new and unique styles are like 1 in a million and if such strict copyright laws as there are in music would be applied it would be a plague 1000 times worse on artists than AI could ever be, people from the Chzeck republic could literally sue Tim Burton because his style is very similar (because he took heavy inspiration from it) to the stop motion czechoslovakian animation from the 50s from artists like Jiri Trnka.
And imagine being a small artist that gets his work impossible because his style (very well drawn fantasy paintings) gets copyrighted by Greg Rutkowsky so nobody ever can draw and sell their work in that similar style, is this the world you want to live in?
@@mariozappini7784 Which also means that you can only make so many songs until every possible song that does not sound like a copy of another song has been made.
@@Milkymalk yep, and the case is arbitrary aswell since the star Wars theme have the same few beginning notes as an older song but no copyright was ever enforced there.
Imagine a mega corporation like Disney copyright art styles, even though they copied a crapton of styles themselves for their movies
@@mariozappini7784 Ironically, Disney will lose copyright on Mickey Mouse in the specific Steamboat Willie style soon (2023? 2024?) because it is old enough.
You know it's serious when Marc doesn't make a silly effects intro
@@wnqa-aa5826there have been very many cases in which the original artwork is visible in the output, so regardless of how it works and how similar the end process it is to a human, it is not the same. The AI uses diffusing of noise that is an attempt to “remake” from the original noise based on a prompt. The human brain works significantly different in deeper levels. It hasn’t reached the point where it is sentient to think like a human; heck not even we know how to use our brain fully. First step is to stop the AI from using stolen content, then it is to implement ethical regulations to protect human work
It's kinda funny, AI art is what motivated me to finally learn to draw myself. Not because I want a job on the field, but as a hobby and goal Ive had since primary school.
I honestly relate, AI motivated me to learn to draw too
@@jackqueslack2339 Could you explain why? As an artist i regret becoming one lol, how does one get motivated by Ai?
@@rynsartdon't worry, ai will never be able to properly draw, it can copy shapes in a very shallow way, when you look closely at ai art it looks messy and not right, so pretty much it will never be used in unless some goofy backrounds for serials, your profession is not in danger, ai hype will die and drawing will be normal and stable, same was with photography, it will just be a side thing
We all started art because we love it not because we can make money off of it, people who learns art for money usually gives up on the third step of a 100 set of stairs.
@@timeemperor5631 I really wish you were right but this sounds a bit like a cope. Technology expands FAST and this AI tech didn't even exist until like 3 years ago and it has already changed things a lot. Photography still has a lot of skill behind it and creates something completely different. AI on the other hand does not
On Pixiv, you need to state whether it's AI work or original work. Why did the Japanese react quickly and ArtStation, which Epic Games owns, do nothing.
money
What do you mean, i got an email from artstyation couple days ago that they updated terms of service and banned AI too
Artstation banned AI 😁
@@NekoNihhal No, its the opposite, Artstation not only defended AI but also updated their terms to start stealing art
I think AI is pretty well received on pixiv as it filled certain missing niche and doe not compete with human artists for real. Even without marking it as AI you can identify AI art from the thumbnail already.
The bigger reason for marking Ai art is to avoid unnecessary cluttering of newsfeed because not that many people are interested in being spammed with thousands of AI images that are not worth clicking.
I think it should be required to have an AI label. Last week I started following an AI “artist” without knowing on deviantart. I became suspicious when it was so proficient.
Wait… you became suspicious when it was “so proficient”… but isn’t that why you followed them in the first place? 🤔
Required by whom?
@Wat Simp I’ve already seen people making patreons and stuff for their AI art lol
@@yury3548 people who post AI generated art on art forums. I don’t mind seeing it but I want to be informed that an artist didn’t create it.
DA has been filled with this stuff, it helps looking at the pixels, you can tell a human didn't made it because some renders looks bad and doesn't make sense. DA died as an artistic community these last weeks
I had some of my artwork on Redbubble stolen, and the guy uploaded it to his store just with AI Art as a search criteria. People use it to rip off artists, pretend an AI has done the work, and make money from them. I’m in no way a full time or accomplished artist, but things like this actually dishearten me quite a lot.
Nahhh I'm pro ai but thats messed up
As a beginning artstudent my issue is for the most part expectations. Idk if im talking bs rn but i have a feeling that ai art just raises the plank to ridiculous levels. To be a viable artist i would have to be at least on the level of those ai's to even be concidered. In the eye of the commmon person, who dont see all the hours of training i put in, ai art will always look more impressive. How am i supposed to match the billions of practice hours of the artist the ai was fed on, i only have my lifetime. Its not the same as comparing yourself to fullfilled artist, i can learn from them i know they had a similar journey to me, ai does not. And even when we say it will be reduced to a tool, a tool for what? In 3d simulations help you immitate complex processes or in photoshop it spares you time by making a better cutout but this is a finished product with color, composition and perspective. All the choices that an artist takes to develop a picture are already have been made by the ai.
Even though im more into 3d i dont doubt that my turn will come sooner rather than later.
Yup. AI is simply waaay cheaper and waaay faster than humans. Huge companies like Disney, Ilumination and others would kill for an AI that can make A+ animated movie about Minions, another braindead princess or a superhero in matter of days, heck, even hours of servers work. It would cut spending on a single movie to the point of licensing fee, server leasing and electricity bill. World will change drastically very, very soon. Humans will not be swapped for robots for tasks that aqquire improvisation and huge athletic abilities, because human is an engineering marvel in case of body. Welders, machinists, all those guys that work daily with crazy complicated machinery in awfull conditions, every day doing different, crazy task, will not loose their job for next 50+ years. All creative thinkers like 3D designers, artists, writers, musicians, will be eventually out of work because computers are wayyy better and wayyy faster thinkers that we are. Computers, artificial neural networks to be precise, are the next step of human evolution. We live in last decades of old world.
@@danielmichalski94 no I disagree. No computer can replace creativity because they live off an algorithm. Which means it can only generate a limited amount of ideas. It will never be able to explore anything outside of that. Also, AI is far from being good enough to do animation, it still struggles with doing art and even turning pre-existing video into animation.
AI art is, quite frankly, boring to look at after a while. It's all the same stuff. It's either one generic anime art style or just weird blurry fantasy-like landscapes. Not only that, but I feel no emotions looking at it. There is no life to it. There is no soul to it. You cannot replicate soul, at least right now. But we are very far from being able to replicate human emotion. The final thing is, art is something that has rules that are made to be broken, but we can't necessarily teach when or how to break them. It's something you have to personally judge yourself.
Fundamentally disagree with this. If this were the case, art would have stopped long ago. We already have photo realism, we’ve had very sophisticated art styles in movies and video games, and there’s a reason why we still have things that aren’t this. Yes there is a cost factor to many design choices but being real, not everyone wants to look at realism all the time. Do you think Adventure Time would carry the same charm if it had this hyper realism to it? Maybe, but I don’t think so. There’s space for all styles of art and I honestly think it’s just wrong to say that the bar is being raised to some extreme end that isn’t achievable by humans (which isn’t true either). Edward Hopper is considered one of Americas greatest painters, Picasso, Francis Bacon, manga, the list can go on.
AI art also cannot hit certain notes yet either and never will, at least not the understanding of AI as we are using it as a misnomer. Not to get into a huge discussion, but basically this technology isn’t technically AI. It’s not sentient. It’s extremely sophisticated but at the end of the day it’s just an engine that emulates. It has no awareness of what it even is let alone what its function is. That means that for all the prompts you could throw into it, it can never create a story. It has no sense of nuance, it can’t articulate, everything that comes out of it has to be curated by somebody who has zero agency of editing the results to do this UNLESS the person is also an artist and has the capabilities of doing so and uses it as a tool to efficiently create things with, in which case isn’t this just a tool that’s coming along the natural pipeline of actual art development? So the people who can’t create themselves will always be bound by the limitations of what “AI art” can produce. It couldn’t write the story of Evangelion, it couldn’t paint a tree line that alludes to some metaphor in a way that those who know know. And if it ever does it’s by chance that all the prompts it took in just happened to align in a way that was coherent in which case it will be one of the dubs within the even greater failures of these engines failing to produce something meaningful, managed by people incapable of doing so either.
So no, “AI art” is not the death of artist. Not even close. Not yet if it ever will be anyway
I'll say give it 3-5 years and we'll be able to render out decent cg sequences in AI. Bye bye career.
@@3left_to_snap373 not an expert but that seems like a huge simplification, that the only difference is the concept of time. It's true that the human brain is a neural network, but I'd assume AI would only come close to the human brain if it has consciousness
I get a warm feeling when I see someone’s art because I know someone has put a lot of effort into it. Ai art, I can’t say the same.
Always the same contradiction. You can't valuate human art and then dismiss AI art, because AI art is based in all known human art In the first place. It produces pieces of all our creativity mixed, so there are more human art in AI art than in single artist art. If you don't feel anything by AI art, then you are dismissing all the artists that made it possible and are part of it.
@@meybi6272 Lewpi is just trying to emotionalize a statement to dramatize it.
I doubt people would be able to tell the difference if both pieces were the same quality.
This thinking creates a hierarchy of validity in art:
At the top, the truest artist gathers plants, mills them and makes pigments, mixes the pigments, crafts the paper from the pulp of tree fibers.
Then we have artists who acquire the ingredients but still works in a purely physical medium, with the unlimited level of detail the real world brings.
Then we have digital artists who only use basic digital tools/brushes, but nothing algorithmic like copy/pasting, layering, gradients, and certainly no magic selection.
Then we have digital artists who use the full gamut of tools in PS.
@@meybi6272 This is such a piece of sophistry, you are saying I should feel connect more to the person typing "girl, elf ears, big tits, Jason Chan, trending on Artistation" and recieving a image than an artist painting a work from scratch. Just give up. You want to decieve people. You deserve to be dismissed.
You can tell Marc means BUSINESS when he doesn't even ask for the class fee of either one like or one sub, it's great value!
@@namelesssoul6766 unless youre piss poor then pirate it until you can pay for it as a thanks for the education
When rich people start getting "embarrassed" for buying computer generated art thinking it is from an artist then laws may come in but I seriously doubt it. I have no idea how well machines can create art on Canvas,etc and if it looks like people produced art but if they can I could see the modern art world crashing for paintings and drawings.
you pretty much summed up what we artists are actually concerned about. im really happy that bigger artists like you are talking about it and informing smaller artists and giving them hopes based on your own actual research.
amazing stuff!
also love your tutorials you pretty much teached me how to render stuff from halfway point of my art career (i am drawing and painting for 2 years).
@@wnqa-aa5826 i somewhat agree with you
the thing is using nonconsensual content should not be used in any model and has to become illegal and only you yourself can use your works in a model
art is not just a project to be replicated its a way of feeling im not saying not to use it but its never the same as a person pouring their emotions and goals on their canvas be it digital or traditional
ai art with its aggressive introduction feels hostile disrespectful and scummy. somewhat like nfts.
you pointed out some good stuff tho thank you for that :)
I draw because I like to make my own videogame assets, the result feels more personal.
Keep doing that.
Thank you for this! I used to be an AI researcher, and it was always drilled into us that consent is key. You always have to ethically acquire training data and pay people for their work. These AI art companies need regulation because they are ignoring the basic ethics of what they should have been taught in school. I'm so tired of people defending these companies who are just taking advantage of all the little people and letting scammers pass off AI art as their own.
We should go further and start protesting any artist that does it through computers and programs... lets not put a line on AI.. lets put a line in all technology
What makes it even worse for me is that it's not by accident, this was a deliberate move by the corporations to punish citizens who figured out how to work for themselves instead of having to be stuck at the dead end minimum wage corporate jobs, where they want ALL of us to be stuck.
It's not just an "oops, sorry we inadvertently hurt freelancers" hurting freelancers was literally the whole point to begin with.
@lapincheriatota if you are trying to alienate digital art uuuh no. Digital art is a valid medium. AI is something else completely different, so yes draw a line for AI and no leave digital art alone.
As someone who works in AI thank you for saying this, the absolute disregard for ethics is completely baffling and disappointing to me.
Questions.
What type of AI that you used that need this? And what was the database you used.
What would you suggest in case of fan-art, that compose probbly more than 90% of the data in some models, and that the holder of the copyrights are companies owners of the IP and not the artists. Would the artists be sued if they used that to make money indirectly too? (pixiv, patreon, youtube, tweeter)
I understand what you mean with point nº 2: what a human can do can't be replaced by AI. However, it feels like companies don't care about that as long as they can get more money for themselves. Just today in Spain, there was a publisher that announced they would use AI art for posters or covers for books. Thanks to the reaction of the Spanish art community, they deleted the announcement and may change their minds, but still, there was a clear intention to leave artists without job just because AI art was free and good enough for the task.
Yeah without regulations they’ll try anything, that’s why we have to keep coming together and punish them publicly for trying until the laws catch up. Great to hear that had some effects in that case there as well.
@@YTartschool I feel like people are overly confident in the uniqueness of humans. Most people never actually innovate or invent. They simply imitate. A.I already has the potential to create unique works through the merging of all known styles it has studied. It's not far fetched to imagine it will be able to create works different than anything we can imagine one day. There is already A.I that can achieve the correct answer to math problems by using theorems humans haven't invented and now the scientists are trying to work back and find out how the A.I arrived at the correct answer. Right now A.I is like a compass. You use it to lead you to your destination. You give it input and it points you in the right direction, then you have to figure out if you're at the right place or not. But one day it might do it all.
@@ramsaybolton9151 Ppl are not overly confident in uniqueness of humans as it is true if nobody was unique we would have not been able to go to moon and have made hypersonic commercial planes. Most of the AI wroks is still a generic art as it is still bound by the code by which it was created most ppl may not be innovate or invet but there are alot of artists whose works have actually blown me away. Saying artist cannot innovate or invent unique stuff would be like calling scientist can't innovate or invent their stuff.
It can never create unique works which we cannot imagine if we cannot imagine then how can it do it when its based upon our own works? AI lacks imagination which is unique to only humans so I dissagree with you
the argument that AI should be banned simply because it leaves artists without jobs pretty much discredists all the idea.
because that ws the whole fking point to eliminate the need to pay someone for the job like it is always the case for all kind of automation
I wonder, did the company remove the post AND change their mind about using AI? Maybe they JUST removed the post, and will still use AI.
The real problem for me is that AI producers (Not Artist) are popping out 400 trillion images per day, and algorithms in all websites are designed to promote quantity, not quality. So real artist are not being promoted because of it, anyone would be discouraged by that. I agree with you about AI not having a place in portfolio websites.
How is it making 400 trillion images a day? You literally need a person to get any output from it.
@@WhiteWolfos maybe he was exaggerating
@@WhiteWolfos What I mean is that normally, artist get better with time. Eventually as your talent grows, you are able to work faster, produce work quicker and maintain the high level of quality. This helps you become more desirable for hiring agents. This achievable quality needs time to develop... But not any more. Now with this AI thing, the incentive is not to get better with art or produce more quality work. Your incentive now is to produce quantity, the more you can produce and post online, the higher the chances to get hired, the more you get hired, the more it proves that quantity is the way to get hired. Since talent and quality is no longer required of you as an artist, your value drops. Until eventually, working on the industry as an artist is all about going to an office, and typing on a keyboard for 12 hours a day, 15$ hr. While the studio pays the agency that manages all the "Artist". Pretty economical, as the ones that kicked out the 2D animators from Disney would say. I think the way to go now is to go full on as a freelancer, do your own projects, your own animations and so on. It might still be a numbers game. if it's too saturated, get good at marketing. Forget about working in any art company...(unless it's indie, that could be the exception).
@@obsidianblast9424 Actually, if you want to produce a quality image with AI you need to communicate what you want a little better. That means refining your prompts. Understanding what it is you really want to convey, and sit with it until it produces that image. It's what I do. I spend a lot of time refining my prompts. I don't use the likeness of other artists because that's not where I draw my inspiration. All of that comes from ancestral memory. AI is here to stay. I think the human factor needs to be addressed more than the tool itself. People still train themselves on other people's work. Let's not forget that. Those that have an inherent talent for their craft need very little outside inspiration. Those that need a lot of it are the ones you need to look out for.
That is a horrible problem... I've heard that sites are slowly starting to implement "AI Generated" options when uploading. I honestly wish they'd make that automatic, because most (if not all) AI generated images carry metadata within the file which flags it as AI art.
Can we take a second and associate how freaking good Marc is at drawing out of thin air?! It's like magic 😆
This issue isn't just the AI models were created through stolen art, but their creations are being spammed in places traditional artists usually share and sell.
So, every time you make art, not only do they steal it to improve their own models, then they turn around and push it where you do business.
It's lose-lose.
If someone looked at your paintings, liked them, and started painting using some of your art as basis (inspiration), would it be theft? Could you call 911 and get the guy arrested for stealing from you?
Agreed, it’s been making the usual art spots unpleasant to browse because people have uploaded thousands and thousands of the images clogging the site. PIXIV thankfully implemented something to mark if the art was created with AI and a setting to completely filter them (of course people will still ignore tagging their art as ai occasionally)
@@literalghost929 It's not a basis for inspiration, however. It's a mathematical recreation of a style and talent, and that's called plagiarism. You're not making an equivalent argument here.
@@literalghost929 for AI it's not an inspiration, it generates it own picture based on your artworks.
That is not an issue really is it because firstly nothing is stole, try actually doing some research on how AI works then you will understand no Art was stolen or any artist in particular targeted. Use the AI to your own advantage and stop being some victim to fabricated crap, this is such sheep mentality.
Marc, I am impressed. You are the FIRST big TH-cam art channel to disapprove of AI art in its current form. Literally every other art TH-camr is too afraid of upsetting their fan base or being on the wrong side of history. It’s really refreshing and appreciated. Been a follower for a long time, and this is really great to see someone with over a million subs say what smaller channels like mine have been vocal about
But he doesn't disapprove of it. He just thinks it needs to be better regulated. I do happen to agree it needs some regulation, but since they opened the source code, the cat is out of the bag. It'll be almost impossible to stop this sort of AI, because if you regulate it, you can just move to a country where there's no regulation.
That movement China did to force AI art to get watermarked was pathetic, by the way. It's very easy to create another AI to simply remove any watermarks, and if it somehow gets inserted into a file in a way you can't remove it, all you have to do is to trace over it.
@@mandrews817 „It's very easy to create another AI to simply remove any watermarks, ”
Then make it illegal to create programs to remove watermarks, or to make programs who make the watermark easy to remove, and that those who break it must pay a big fine per image. This is not complicated. Stope being a defeatist.
@@laurentiuvladutmanea3622, it's not so simple, and making it illegal would create a whole new set of problems, like preventing those images to be used for commercial purposes (which would defeat the purpose of them being created in the first place). And it opens up a nasty precedent: if someone creates a derivative work out of an AI image, should this image be watermarked as well? What if it isn't?
@@mandrews817 „it's not so simple, and making it illegal would create a whole new set of problems, like preventing those images to be used for commercial purposes (which would defeat the purpose of them being created in the first place).”
Well, it is already illegal to give copyright to things made by these AIs, so the commercial purposes might be quite limited already, so that will not change much.
„And it opens up a nasty precedent: if someone creates a derivative work out of an AI image, should this image be watermarked as well? ”
AI generated images are not given copyright, so something being derivative of an AI generated image is actually fair game according to both USA and EU law.
@@laurentiuvladutmanea3622 you can use multiple artists to generate an image the ai just selects what a signature from one of them might look like because it hasn't been trained to ignore signatures. Sometimes it looks close to someone's signature but sometimes it just looks like a blob in the corner.
I think that, despite how cool the technology is, consumers of art have started and will continue to specifically seek out art that *isn't* A.I. generated, because to a lot of people, the connection with the artist is as important as the quality of the art itself. It's not too dissimilar to being an entertainer, or a performer; no one's selling out stadiums to shows where instruments play themselves.
No one's fills up a stadium to listen to an automatic instrument, true. But also no one gives a crap of where the elevator music or the anti fart med commercial's jingle comes from. And for each musician who makes concerts in a stadium, there's a hundred more who make a living out of said jingles.
Art is the same, speaking of it as a career.
exactly, the only real people that ai art will have a connection to is the creators and thats far better than some random dude that's winning art contests with ai art
@@captainufo4587 Thats because most of them use public domain samples, so they get their profit otherwise
Hatsune Miku would like a word...
Also, it’s very hard to tell the difference between ai art and the work of digital artists so… some will seek real art out, but most won’t care because they just want a cool pic.
The problem with discussing AI art is that no one understands it. Artists don't know how AI works and programmers don't know how Art works.
A programmer has an understanding of art. A person who draws doesn't know how Ai algorithms work.
@@ulthanesmorkums your average programmer knows as much about art as your average artist knows about programming.
@@a123b123c123d123c123 not true at all. The programmer knows more. The barrier to entry of the philosophy of art is significantly easier to understand that how code works.
@@ulthanesmorkums philosophy of art? AI isn't doing philosophy. Creating art and becoming a skilled artist is just as hard if not harder than becoming a programmer.
@@a123b123c123d123c123 No, it isn't easier. Go look at what it takes to actually become a kinda ok programmer.
Not going to lie, as someone who started my art journey just a month before this technology was made public, seeing how good it gets and how some people are now belittling human artists whithout whom ai art couldn't exist at all got me a little depressed.
Even if it's "just" a hobby and not a career choice in my case, I started this journey because it was fun, as a personnal challenge to myself, because it really is the ultime skill of creation, and I want to master it. And ai art won't change that.
Well spoken!
Cars replaced horses. Lot of horse masters cry.
People just want to get to where they want to go. They don't care about the process.
Artists like Vermeer used the latest in technology to "paint" his images. He used a lens from a camera obscura. Yet still reguarded as "The Master of Light"...
Please... art isn't going anywhere. It's changing. Adapt or die. Our skills now apply to the vision rather than the awful tedium of brushing a paper with donkey butt hairs.
@@HalkerVeil you don't understand
You are not the one doing art with AI, it's AI that does the work for you. It's like... commissioning an artist. What's the point then? We all started drawing because we liked it, not to click on a buttom so a machine can produce an image every 3 seconds.
@@HalkerVeil A lot of, if not most artists, actually love the process. Even if it seems tedious, it is more satisfying than any other type of work. For me, it is very good for my anxiety.
@@HalkerVeil you’re being replaced, not getting new toys to play with
one point that ppl miss so much about how many of us feel so demotivated is that so many of us, small artists, are doing this for a living. A lot of ppl like me, in seccond or third world countries can, usually barelly, but still can, survive from it, and we depent on it. So no matter if AI can't copy my style that well, the passion I have for art, I lose space on informal market, because yeah, some could argue that my work is better for what they want, but AI is way easier and faster, while I took hours upon hours onto rendering. So if I have to go find a 10h job to explore me to pieces, I'll have no energy, but most of all, not time at all, to practice my art, even as a hobby to myself. Together with AI, we're seeing the constant effort in every plataform to "kill" us. And I big are the changes that some ppl may indeed die because they wont be able to afford rent, bills, food. Poorvety is a thing, hunger is a thing. Hell, I've already saw ppl who are 10x bigger than me, who are constantly producing content, unlike me, having to ask desperatelly for help 'cause they didn't had any food at home, they went over 24h without eating cause they just couldn't affort it.
We, the big mountant of ppl drawing and painting, traditional and digital, 2d and 3d, informal workers, living on comms and donations, we are the majority of artist here, and we are already suffering the colateral damage of all this shit, and we will suffer even more. Yes, no matter the final result of this fight, art will survive as a whole, as a profession, a hobby and a passion. Ppl will do it for a living or for personal growth, satisfaction, etc. But the vast minority. The minority who were able to reach undeniable success, in vary degrees but undeniable, ppl who made name in the formal industry, from teachers to concept artist, ilustrators, etc. Or those who are privileged enough to sustain this as a hobby (regardless of their desire to make it profitable or not) without affecting their life style, without endangering their capability to affort living.
Most ppl don't see it, ppl that have some kind of voice, even those who were in this spot sometime in the past, seens to be blind to it. I believe there must be someone "big" out there who saw it and spoke about it, I hope so, but I didn't saw it yet. The best takes ppl are tending a lot to exclude us completely. The ideia of just "everyone create your own website, this way you have a safe place, and put some ads of it arround" or the "improved and more restricted and protective copyright laws", this will f*ck us over. I don't see a place where I can survive, literally, physically, survive, in the future, if I try keep doing art.
You just wrote all my thoughts
Verdade, concordo com o que você falou.
I guess as many people will look at your heart that will read this. Long-ass comment.
Well you’ll just have to get a normal job and draw , Sucks but that’s life
"o no matter if AI can't copy my style that well, the passion I have for art, I lose space on informal market, because yeah, some could argue that my work is better for what they want, but AI is way easier and faster, while I took hours upon hours onto rendering"
I gotta be honest here, Artists from second and third world countries, with much lower cost of living and thus able to offer commissions and art on the GLOBAL internet for significantly less than any european or american artist ever could and still survive has been demotivating me far more than AI art has.
correct me if iam wrong here, but ive comissioned artists that offered full sketches (that were good) for £1. How am i supposed to compete with that. If AI art makes you feel threatened, thats what being an artist in europe/us has felt like for over a decade now. The same has been true with digital art in professional capacities which have largely been outsourced to southeast asian countries because labour is just cheaper there. Why hire a digital artist that costs you 4k a month here if you can hire 5 with the same skillset or better somewhere else globally without having to build a factory or have any major up front investment to begin with.
I just dont know how to feel about any of it, Ai art and global art competition. It all fucking sucks. Artists keep complaining about art not being valued enough but then you see artists every day trying to undercut each other on the internet which is always going to be easier for someone who doesnt need £1500 a month just to scrape by.
the whole AI art debate just doesnt feel much different that this issue that previously existed and no one really seemed to care much about so far. We have region locks for stuff like steam, maybe we shoulkd also have region lcoks for digital product contracts/sales idk. I just struggle to empathize with anyone complaining about how this makes them afraid about livelyhood when this has been an issue for high wage/cost of living countries for ages.
And if that is a poor point or irrelevant then i dont see how AI art being maybe *more* competitive is any more relevant that the point i just made, now we are all just equally fucked in terms of competition
The most terrifying aspect is that ai can now produce WIP images, making it almost impossible for real artists to have their work be believed as their own. It's not far fetched to think actual timelapses will be the next ai update, probably in just a few months. Making videos recording yourself drawing just so you can prove you made it is extremely sad and unfair to real artists. Especially the ones trying to make a living out of it.
That is worrying… I think this whole situation has been great for discussion and boundaries but someone will take the companies to court … surely. AI has a place but it needs desperately to be regulated to avoid it evolving like you say…
I usually make my wips stand out by using multiple colors during the sketching faze. I noticed AI doesn’t do that, so that can be another way to differentiate from AI to artist.
@@marsmia4869 the problem is that the more artists do something, the quicker the AI will catch up :(
Unfortunately (?) it is much to late for regulations: The genie is out of the bottle and it is growing & developing so very, very fast : (Stable Diffusion is open source and free). So... You can create good content, bad contend or criminal contend with or without the help of AI.
I think it's better to accept the AI is here to stay & that human artists may need undertake a bit of a different role. Like cleaning up AI images or moving into areas of being creators using art like games, cartoons, etc. Rather than building the art from scratch.
I agree with a lot of these points even that art should be a fun thing and not get taken for granted. that’s why I like drawing on my free time
I wish more people would just do this instead of act like their world is melting because they can't make their living selling art. It has been, literally for decades, one of worst possible ways to try and make money. It's an oversaturated market that refuses to adjust. Artists were killing that market before AI ever generated an image.
@@ronswanson1410 it’s not that simple as “you should draw more for fun” there will always be a market for art either through company’s or your average joe and some people do rely on this as a job either as a side or main it’s not people’s fault for wanting to make a hobby there good at into a job
@@Toniestbook Focus for me okay? Ya it's really that simple. Finite opportunities, although consistently available, are still FINITE. You can't eliminate the GURANTEED group of losers from that category in such an oversaturated market. To argue otherwise would be to knowingly promote the idea of participating in a losing battle simply because it is your passion to do so.
That doesn't mean you shouldn't try, you should just know how to form your expectations. I would argue you are better off making that artwork a hobby and then slowly turning it into a business instead of putting all your eggs in that basket,
Show me any evidence the market of artists of any format isn't oversaturated. Any evidence.
@@ronswanson1410 1. newgrounds
2. I can make the same points in any other market it’s not only art
3.I only disagree with you when you try to put people down as if there in the wrong
4. And it seems you have a vendetta for some reason to tell people other wise but who am I to judge
@@Toniestbook Nope, nope and nope lol damn. Obviously not every market is under the same restrictions and limitations to opportunity because anyone can consider themselves an artist or their work to be art. Not the same as running a cash register or doing brain surgery.
But hey, you can't see where you are wrong. I can't see where I am putting people down.
Maybe we are just talking past each other. I'm gonna live and let live on this. Adios.
As someone who is deep in the learning process, this video and ones like it mean a lot to me. I was feeling very discouraged about how fast AI art was progressing and felt that I would never be able to catch up or be able to compete against it. I wouldnt say that I had or was even considering to give up, but I was for sure feeling a serious burden when considering what the industry might become if the technology was to become more widely used. Hearing you, long-tenured industry professional, so calmly talk about this subject has eased that burden considerably. Thank you.
It's a bit telling though, when that same channel which survives on teaching art and selling courses etc. wants to encourage you not to lose hope in art.
Of course it's in Marc's best interest to do that.
@@Walter5850 Lol the implication that his arguments are without substance and that this video is entirely just to sell more art courses is stupid. My comment was about how his arguments against AI generated art were sound and had given me a sense of relief.
If you chose to lose hope in the artist's role in creating art then that's your own business.
@@ipsey4794 No need to be rude.
Just to clarify, I didn't dismiss all of his arguments.
The arguments he chose were barely relevant though.
#1 People shouldn't be demotivated by AI being better because it's always been the case that someone is better.
That's not the problem though, because now YOU are better with these tools, changing the way art is done and the skillset required, which can be deeply unsatisfying for current artists. Plus, more importantly, almost anyone has a chance to be better than you. So as you're learning, you're not actually progressing in a sense that you're becoming better than someone else which was a major part of being competitive on the job market.
#2 AI won't take people's jobs.
First of all, he phrased the problem as ai taking ALL art jobs. That's hardly what people worry about. The worry is that it will take A LOT of jobs. Considering that Bjorn Huri is reporting that people have already started to lose jobs due to ai, and the fact that smaller artists are reporting hits to their commission rates (which I can attest to) pretty much makes this argument pointless.
#3 AI can't innovate. This one is probably true and is one of my worries as well. Now, I don't see how this will prevent the greedy individuals and companies utilizing this tech to save money short-term. Also, who will be all these human artists motivated enough to create new styles which will be taken from them the same day, possibly without credit and without them ever gaining anything from it or even be known for it. Another big problem with this argument is that this seems to be the case with CURRENT tools. This is obviously progressing at very fast rates and there is reasons to believe that with the increase of models, there are qualitative changes, not merely incremental improvements. That is already proven with LLMs.
#4 He argues that AI will only take people's jobs if the technology is not controlled, just like cloning.
Sure... If they start controlling this tech in all countries around the world unanimously and successfully, then people might still keep their jobs. I won't really put my hopes in that one though.
#5 As he said himself, not an argument for or against AI.
He added a lot more fluff to these even though they're either very weak, based on blind hope or irrelevant, which to me clearly points out that he's not arguing in good faith.
None of this makes me feel hopeful.
This guy is a literal grifter lol. I'm not saying to give up but he lied a lot in this video and linked to a straight up scam fundraiser. AI art(not just still images) is going to completely explode in the coming years. The art now is pretty good but it will be mindblowing next year and it will come out even faster than it does now. While also reading your prompts better. And it does innovate, to say an AI can't create something new when you can mix as many styles as you want together is ridiculous. Most artists can hardly do one good style let alone tens of thousands.
Even though @Iz could make the argument better, he is completely right, artists are focusing on the AI art of right now, and pretend it won’t be perfected in 5 or 10 years. Allowing AI art in a any form will eventually make it so artists are obsolete and unable to make money. AI has already won, but everyone pretends like there is hope.
I think Steven Zapata explains wonderfully what AI Art is meant to be, a substitution. What they want is to make it relie on humans as little as possible, which doesn't sound like a tool at all.
A tool is made to solve a problem and protect the user.
Knife is made because we need stainless never-rusty appliance to prepare food. Cake is made to treat guests with edibles Scissors are made to cut cleanly. Robot is made to protect the user from hazardous area. Gun is made to keep soldiers away from their enemies. These are the strawman arguments I've met regularly.
Art however, there is no problem to begin with. What problem does Art Robot solve other than siphoning money?
Art is subjective and practically has no value but people still pay because they want THAT style to prosper and entertaining. Art is there for self improvment other than entertainment. Like making a robot to automate an exercise routine.
@@defaulted9485 That's why people should use it as an exercise bike instead of just pretending they're working out.
It's a powerful tool, after all.
@@defaulted9485 It solves the problem of the person wanting something, but not having the ability to d it themselves. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
@@Razumen they've been able to hire artists, even get it for free. So there is no problem
@@Razumen Except there absolutely is something wrong with it! You used other people’s hard work, time and effort without their consent or compensation. That is theft. That is exploitation. That is wrong, hmkay?
I just thought that we as artists were just doomed now, but after seeing so many people protest against ai I’m gaining hopes back.
Could always use it as a tool to get ideas it could help devolope better art.
@@jimidoodles Not even as a tool. Reject it whenever possible. Don't give it any positives or benefit of the doubt. Any positives is lost ground for artists in the future.
Yeah, I wouldn't gain too much hope if I were you. Advancements in AI can not be stopped no matter how many cry against it. Pretty much every job can and will get replaced by AI at some point, unless it becomes heavily regulated. Right now artists are on the chopping block, sadly.
@@no2475 Such is the way of progress, I'm afraid. What's happening now has already happened to so many others. But I don't think Traditional Art or Traditional Artists will ever disappear. If anything, they could use it like @doodles8237 is suggesting. Like a tool to improve their work. Some AI can convert images into different styles, so if you ever wanted to make something look older, like a painting, you could draw something yourself and convert it into a more classical format. AI really IS just a tool, and anyone can take advantage of it. The way it's going now, they could combine their skill and the AI's knowledge to make something truly and incredibly exceptional.
@@no2475 Cant beat them join them? become Borg or Cybermen XD
A lot of good points. It is hard to disagree with the most of what you have said. I have been telling people that using AI will not make them an artist it will only make them an art commissioner. Thank you for pointing it out in your video.
Instead of loosing motivation, oddly enough I feel more determined to become a better artist. There is a clear difference between an AI generated image and an image carefully crafted by an artist. The amount of work and skill needed to bring an artistic vision to reality and the ability to create something from nothing, an artists ability, in my personal opinion is far more valuable than something like art made by AI. Sure, you can get some amasing results using AI as a tool, but with AI you do not get that feeling of accomplishment only got from finishing an artwork you worked on with pasion and hard earned skill. I think AI can be seen an amasing tool, although I strongly dissagree with it using other artists work without consent, AI is not an artist, we are.
Based
Just by the time you reach the peak of your skill, they will release an update...
lol.
@@artemg9753 No matter. Ppl are already bored with the flood of Midjourney images on their feed. Only the ones that have real artistic eye stand out. Good "real" art always stand out from the mass. Yet, like always: 99% of art before AI was crap. No matter the tools, you still need skills to stand out.
@@digidope "Real art" is just a form of speech that can be filled with any content.
It is possible that due to the oversaturation of mass culture with visual AI content, the entire field of fine arts will move into the plane of the ability to achieve "divine revelations" from AI.
In addition, three and a half people are interested in "real art".
At that time, as in illustration and design, crowds of people are busy.
They are already losing orders in the low-budget sector.
@@artemg9753 Indeed they are. Automatization always affect the low level manual work first. But, many of who now use MJ instead "artist" quickly find that same style does not apply to many real world projects.
AI artists when their client wants a minor change
Best a.i moderate are actual artist they just use it to finish a sketch and now edited it this was a year ago comment but it's different now
I still dont use AI generated drawings or pictures cause it never makes that what i imagined, but i see now that AI has a very large impact on art, especially for realistic drawings many people use AI generated pictures and try to sell them online while they cant even draw a single hand. It is unfair ofcourse but i learned to draw and it makes me happy to create my own characters in my world and draw them in real life, that makes me happy to see that i can imagin something and create it, that is something an AI will never give you.
Okay, but that AI is then scooping up your drawing from the internet once you upload to share or advertise it and feeding it into its dataset, meaning it can technically copy it 1:1 and also create other versions of it, meaning your OC or whatever you drew in a different position. It can do all that while its TOS tells their users that whatever they just made using your image's data and a few prompts is open for them to use and sell (as they're already doing if you look at how fiverr is flooded with that crap). All the while they're selling you a service to make more of those images through gathered up, copyrighted image data. Now, if you are an artist as a career path it's 100% fair to say the AI is using your image to outperform you and steal your job without payng you a single cent.
If nothing about this is done we're literally giving a precedent by saying personal data in any from, made by you or concerning your personal life, is essentially worth nothing and can be used by anyone to make a profit. And that in a capitalist society where nothing but profit gets any attention. That shit is wild.
Honestly, fuck those AI techbros. If anyone were to create an AI to this extend, it shouldn't be those who not only started with the elimination of creative jobs through AI >things people do for fun< but even at all considered doing anything like it to this field in the first place. In their weird ass heads they're calling it the potential for 'utopia' while literally doing their first step toward AI in a way any sane human would call it a dsytopia. "Here you go, artists! We took away your burden of drawing by stealing your stuff, now go get a job in some construction site!"
@@Ew-wth if he decides to share it with the world, where lowlife coding rats and trashy ai bros such as yourself lurk, waiting for their next unsuspecting victim.
@@Ew-wth not to mention all of the laws that they have broken. Someone has taken them to court, but I haven't heard much about it. As just an example, it's illegal to use someone's work for commercial purposes. Publicly displayed images are not public domain and are instead categorized as a form of advertising. Even private images still have copyright
I feel that AI should be used to replace the jobs that we don't want to do. Not hobbies.
I mean... Looking at how the corporate art industry was before ai, I think it's got that going for it.
Great video Marc, couldn't agree more. Also wearing a T-shirt with the hands you've drawn yourself is like the biggest subtle art flex I have ever seen.
Came for the topic, stayed for the amazing art!
As someone who just enjoys drawing, to actually attempt to create something- has brought me so much joy during the years.
My art is crap but I keep trying. I never planned to monetize something, yet I have been asked for commissions a few times.
So in a sense, I never had anything to lose.
But this year something changed. Something appeared on the internet. People shared videos of Midjourney AI generation on the TH-cams.
We laughed at it's horrible attempts at making human faces or anime characters.
Half a year later something changed. Suddenly all over the web appeared amazing, albeit flawed creations, all over the web.
The AI models were updated with more data (as stated in the video) and has accelerated ever since.
People fill entire galleries with AI generated vomit and claim it as their own yet the only thing involved was AI prompting.
Words, in a specific order could suddenly deliver pieces of art. Art within hours, within minutes... Art within seconds.
All bypassing the the fundamentals of making art: Actually drawing it. Actually trying to realize an idea.
To come up with a pose, colourize it and put in the human touch. It's all gone with AI.
Now it's all about the dopamine rush when you get hundreds of likes and faves while making as much AI generated works as possible.
Art industrialized, Art automated.
And here I thought the trucking industry (I'm an ex-trucker) would get automated first, yet the creative jobs are shockingly the first ones being automated out of existence.
There is no love, there is no soul to AI-art. It's art reborn into a gambling platform with an almost infinite dice number.
I doubt it will ever be used as you wish in the video though. If someone can automate it, they will.
Why pay an artist 300 dollars for a commission (saw it yesterday) when you can get almost the same result with minimum effort?
I want to continue enjoy drawing, but seeing all this AI generated vomit has made me rather depressed.
I'll keep at it since I can see how artists are trying to stand up for each other, to see artists treating others as equals having the same interests brings out the best of us- being human.
If seeing AI art domeralises you then you better not look at artist that draw better than you. If you draw, you do it because its fun and because your like doing it, the final result is of course a part of what makes it enjoyable but if its the only thing you care about then comissions were a thing before AI was there. If you care about the FUN part of art then no matter what kind of AI there is, nobody is stopping you from actually doing the work.
If you plan on making money with art then yes, of course AI will forever change the market, but I doubt AI will trully ever automate art because there is only so much you can do with only a prompt. Art in professional environements are all about precision, you can get work rejected for really small details, if anything the work load will get divided, the base being done by a person, and the color/shading done by an AI or the opposite.
Of course however its never right to claim AI art as your own, just be honest and say that its AI generated.
Adapt and overcome, you can't stop progress, nobody can. Artist are not the first that have been affect by technology and they wont be the last. History repeats itself and we have to live with it.
"AI vomit" Shut the fuck up boomer. The future is now, cope.
I think trying to create an entire storyline with characters in various poses and environments is still impossible with AI. I tried briefly and the result was so bad that I preferred hiring an actual artist and do the work properly. It's still the way to go if you want something highly customized and even personal.
@@MegakeepWorks You're talking about in-depth stuff that isn't possible with niji/mid journey or novelAI like specific character poses and environments, meanwhile it can't even give a hand 5 fingers lmao
Ignorant people (the vast majority) think AI art is writing a text and getting an image. Artwork in seconds!
That's not the reality. To get a real good work using AI tech you need to sit for hours, generating tons of images, finding the one you roughly like, adjusting with inpainting, generating more, then even tweaking it in image editor software in order to get what you really have in mind. AI is good for setting a base to work with, but it doesn't know exactly where you want your stuff, doesn't know about composition, doesn't know much about perspective, doesn't know what exactly you want to transmit to the viewer. You have to take care of that stuff.
my concern is that it will be 'good enough' to large companies that would otherwise hire artists and that it will replace that labor as a cheaper option.
you're right, it is absolutely art theft... but that is a can of worms that other people have opened hundreds of times over.
Of course that will happen.
It's also true that more projects will become a possibility which used to need higher budgets and more people.
A lot of jobs will be lost, some amount of new jobs will be created.
None of which I have any interest in doing anymore.
calling AI bros "artists" is a bit of a stretch. I prefer referring to them as Aren'tist
Thank you for making this video, Marc. As an artist currently studying to enter the field of animation, I was really worried. Seeing all the support and efforts of the art community over these past few days was really encouraging. We have a lot more power than we think.
This AI art is crushing me everyday.
Making me think all my hard work will go down the drain. 100 Hours of practice
I feel like I don't wanna do art anymore
I also feel this way, but I'm never going to stop doing art. I decided I'm going to keep drawing even if it has no value and nobody else cares, just because I think it's neat. In the future AI is going to be better than humans at everything, but does that mean we should just stop doing anything? I don't know, but since I like drawing I'm going to draw. I hope you keep drawing too.
5:17 Don’t give up hope!
Imagine a world without artists. Imagine a world where every artist gives up and stop trying. Think of how controlled art would be. Think of how voices would be drowned out and how corporations would control what’s popular. Think of ll the messages put out that people want to hear but never what they need to hear. Let that nightmare be the reason you don’t give up or stop. Once artists stop, it’s really game over.
Don't stop doing art buddy, don't lose hope yet. If you feel like drawing, just do it and express yourselves out in it because the connection you hv to your art is always worth the satisfaction!
Art is the journey that we take, enjoy the learning processes of it!
let's not let an imitation of human expression discourage us and take away our dreams. Do not give up
Agreed! Ai shoul only just be a tool for brainstorming ideas. It sucks when people abuse such great tech and ruin its reputation
It sucks even for that. AI cannot come up with something "new", so there's no brainstorming to be had there. Assuming dragons were never created as a concept, you can't expect an AI to come up with a creature concept like that. It requires intention and self awareness. It literally cannot come up with new ideas, and it never will. It cannot even come up with new ideas for dragon designs. It's a redundancy, because it takes from other artists, and you have so many artists out there to inspire from there's just no point. Even real life is better.
@@crepooscul agreed. Every AI piece I come across just has this cookie cutter look to it. You can’t tell exactly where it drew inspiration from, but you _kinda_ know where it stole a particular style or technique
I dont get AI cant create something original sentiment. Imagine 3 years old kid and someone tell that kid to draw a dragon. They also look a kid book for reference of dragon which inherently copying. There is nothing original in this world, we human always imitate something or someone.
It be cool to have an ai art program for references and specific studies, to help artist
Yeah but even that 1) kinda already exists for human body poses, for free, and 2) it has to be consenting of the original work. Ask then AI train, you cannot have legal standing to take anything and then pretend "you can just request we not do the theft" after they already stole it...
AI art is also very racist (there’s videos on this). So if AI art replaces art models then artists create racist white washed art. It’s bad enough most white artists already don’t know how to draw faces from other cultures accurately
That’s just using Google images, looking at books, taking your own photos, observing the landscape and weather, there are anatomy books and pose apps etc then you as an artist draw all your own observations onto the paper/canvas
@@CuriosityRocks not to mention there are specific websites dedicated to references, and amazing pose artists who post without need of attributes
Yeah
the whole thing about never becoming as good as the AI, making you lose motivation never even once bothered me since ART for me was never about becoming the best, since that is not possible for anyone, rather art for me is about expressing my own thoughts and doing that in the most professional manner that I can! Becoming the best artist that I can be, not becoming someone else.
I think the worry is not about becoming the best, but worried it will not be viable as a career if AI can output better quality much more quickly. A lot of people want to make a living from art, not out of greed, but because they love art so much, they don't want to spend half their time working an unrelated job to survive. Instead, they want to be able to do art with all their time in some manner.
@@Rat_Lord Oh yeah, dont get me wrong there are parts of AI art that do make me feel uncomfortable such as job opportunities, what I wrote was only about the "feeling of never being able to reach the level of AI" deal.
@@Rat_Lord A lot of jobs disappear with technology. Cashiers are disappearing, toll booths have disappeared. Soon probably professional drivers will disappear. Even my job as a software engineer is in danger it feels like.
@@Relseg Yeah I understand jobs disappearing with technology. I feel it's extra tragic in this case because art is something people are really passionate about. If someone is a cashier or toll booth person, it sucks to lose the job but they're probably just as happy to do some other job. For people like me, the idea of having a career I actually have passion for like art is one of the only hopes that keeps me going. As a software engineer, I think you are safe for a long time still personally. It's low stakes to let a machine do art, but people are never going to trust machines without at least reviewing their code. It could do immense damage if it is working with any money or sensitive info.
Marc you're a great inspiration. It's so easy to lose hope with all of this Ai stuff all over the place.
The worst thing I see is the pure hatred and contempt expressed towards artists by AI endorsers. Many are not hiding it anymore and actively cheering on our downfall
I only see the opposite. What is the point to hate actual artists?
I've seen only the opposite. There's been absolute venom from the anti-AI bandwagon against the comparatively small user base of art AIs. Many of these users feel like they're being treated like they're the scum of the Earth when most use it for a hobby or a visualization aid at most.
All I can say to the people in this thread, both AI fans and haters, is: imagine giving a f about what people online think about you.
Oh yeah there are far too many people gleefully expressing outright hatred of artists for having dedicated our time to gaining skills. It’s almost like jealousy because they don’t have art skills? But those art skills were hard earned for years and decades of long hours of practice and dedication to the craft! They almost seem mad that they didn’t do the work to improve their own art skills, so now they are more than happy to exploit those that did to get their pretty picture. It’s so strange to witness how much people have contempt for artists but want the beautiful art that artists produce. It’s wild.
wait theres niggas that actually do that 💀
Your art is so beautiful!
Really wanted to see your take on this subject master!! Thanks for posting 😊
AI art wouldn't be a problem if it was some kind of sci-fi sentient being trying to learn art from everyone, the problem is that is literally used as a weapon for profit by their users that are literally stealing other's works without the human process of learning from visualization.
I agree with this completely. This is exactly the problem with those developing A.I. at the top.
They engineer A.I.s to be profit centric and not even prioritize other possible essential aspects of future A.G.I.s
"Weaponizing" an A.I. no matter what kind should be forbidden and if made to make profit it should be sharply regulated!
@@kharlostique270 If it wasn't for a profit motive, copyright wouldn't exist and everyone would be free to copy all art as soon as it was created.
@@waltlock8805 To clarify my point. I meant that the design and the motive of A.I. development lacks other things that I believe are fundamental to a proper integration of the technology. We see right now how it is upsetting artists. A community once thought to be untouchable by A.I. technologies.
AI Art : *exists
Artists : we're doomed
Marc : finally, a worthy opponent
What I don't like about ai art is that it feels pointless. The whole idea behind ai is so that it helps us do the jobs which are not enjoyable and labour-based, so that we can do things that require thought and creativity.
Most artists chose this career out of passion. Art as a job is hard, but quite fulfilling at the same time, so ai partially replacing artists is so illogical to me (of course I know it all comes down to money, but still). Imagine if all these funds went to a different kind of ai which could actually help in a field which is dangerous or really stressful
isnt painting and sculpting labour based?
bro what are you implying here? at this point even writing is labour based!
I meant jobs that are labour-based *and* don't leave much room for creativity and thought. Sorry english is not my first language so sometimes I can't explain what I mean very well
"The whole idea behind ai is so that it helps us do the jobs which are not enjoyable and labour-based, so that we can do things that require thought and creativity. " Neah, that's just the general speal industrialists used to defend automating people out of a job. In reality the point of AI is to get as close to or surpass human ability. Generally for a few reasons. Research into Computer Science, and or profit.
Well, buying art feels largely pointless and expensive to a lot of people these days. One medical issue for me, one car accident for the next guy, and either of us might not be able to buy groceries or pay rent. If you have debt, you aren't buying art. We download all sorts of media for free... Every day. It's going to feel difficult for working regular people to feel bad about AI art making things that we want more accessible and affordable to us.
I have waited for so long to see you talk about AI! And, I think you got the perfect timing for posting this, considering all the protest that is going on in the art community
Hey Marc,
Im a student which bought your Art School program about two years ago.
I wanna say thank you for putting so much work in to it and sharing your knowledge with us ❤
For me it was worth every dollar 💪🏼
A few months ago i heard about aphantasia.
Could you consider to make a video about that phenomenon?
Im not able to visualize any type of picture inside my head which makes it nearly impossible to build a visual library.
Id be absolutely curious if some other people in our community share the same struggles in learning art.
I wish you a beautiful christmas 😊
-Manuel
I’d actually like to know a bit about this subject too!
I second you two, I hope Marc sees this!
Problem is, that even if current art community solidarily stood against AI art, and were guaranteed that no art will be used without it's creators consent, public domain already provides enough input for AI to learn from. You can't steal from DaVinci, Micheloangelo or from any other classical artist. Every piece of art becomes public after 50 years after death of a creator.
in reality ai is not the true enemy but other people are
they take the credit and try to sell something a ai generated thats where its pissing artist off
ai cant feel it dont know what emotions are what hate is it cant even understand the concept of being popular what its like to be lonely and a failure to them these ideas dont exist
@@Nogardtist No, the A.I companies ARE the enemy, and that's proven by how they trained and released this technology: They blindsided us with it and expected us to keep our mouths shut.
@@Nogardtist if the machine can't feel those emotions, and still produce something that can fool the consumers and even many artists, probably the emotions are not as fundamental for the results as artists like to think.
@@cristian-bull A lot of the "consumers" seem to only enjoy pretty colors. The issue with what you're saying is that once you realize that it's made by AI, you also realize that it was made without any human emotions, and then it falls flat on its face. All you're left with are the pretty colors, and if you still enjoy the picture after this fact just as much, then you didn't really care about visual art to its full extent, it's only eye candy for you. You're basically saying "well it's fine, because I was tricked so it didn't matter". No, in fact it's even worse.
@@crepooscul You are being pretty elitist here. Nature was created without any emotion by pure chance: Great mountain ranges, lush rainforests, the white desert of Antarctica. Is it less valuable or the view less breathtaking, just because there was no emotion, no intent, no human involved? In my bathroom there is a spot between two tiles where the mortar has dried leaving the "ruins" of seven tiny bubbles that once were there, looking like a flower, and I like to look at it, thinking, "It is impressive that this came into existence by sheer laws of nature and mathematics, and it looks pretty".
Look at that AI picture that won an art competition (whether it should have won or even be allowed there is an entirely different question). Tell me you don't feel anything when you look at it, tell me it is not evoking anything. You can't without lying.
This dude is very positive thinking.
My dude. You hit the nail right on the head. As an artist I really appreciate this video.
My biggest issue with AI generated images is just how antagonistic AI users have become towards real artists. From deliberately insulting and mocking them to make contests about who can steal an artist's job better (I'm not using hyperbole here, "steal" is the word they've actually used) and, of course, just quietly trying to pass off an artist's barely modified work as their own. Just like with NFTs, tech bros have been using potentially good technology for their own nefarious purposes with zero care for how much damage they make and ended up ruining any appeal it could have.
Honestly, it goes the other way as well. It starts with a lack of understanding about how the other works, and a lot of people are just insult-slinging because the other side did it to them first. But what these AI users are failing to recognise is that AI image generation relies on the artist to learn, and on the other side, artists aren't seeing the bigger picture about the creative freedom it will bring non-artists.
I also want to note that AI art and NFTs are fundamentally different, in that one was a impractical concept from the 90s repurposed to evade legal restrictions on money and scam people - basically creative accounting on steroids - whereas the other has real humanitarian and research goals, in which money is a secondary bonus to releasing their product early (although as we have seen with Stable Diffusion, even that is a difficult ask now).
@@NedInYaHead I don't understand that argument. There's nothing that stops people from having creative freedom. Nothing. Everyone already has it. I don't know why people act like this is allwoing people something that was walled out before. It doesn't. All it does is limit the imagination.
@@Dreadjaws > *I don't understand that argument. There's nothing that stops people from having creative freedom. Nothing.*
This risks being a very ableist take, given the myriad of physiological and neurological issues that can impact one's creativity, even if it doesn't stop them outright.
@@gondoravalon7540 I don't see how AI would fix that, though. Creativity comes from the mind. If you don't have it, a machine can't do it for you.
Personally I like using ai art as a reference. Cause I know it will never actually be exactly what I want, but it can get me on the right path when I have artist block.
That’s exactly what I use it for. I’m the type of person who enjoys having a reference, but I don’t like using the same images for reference that many others use. I generate unique images to use as references. That’s why I don’t mind if the hands are wonky or there’s extra weird bits here and there, because I’m just using the images as references anyway.
just get good EZ 😀
That's a great use case and that's how I see AI art (for now), but most non-artists don't believe that. Even if it's only 70%-80% of the way there, it is good enough and they feel "democratized and empowered (their weasel words)" and feel like artists. This is going to first hurt amateur and pro artists who depend on commissions. Why would anyone pay for commissions when they can use key words to get an image that is good enough. They won't.
You're absolutely right. I started using ai for generating reference and inspiration. After trying it out myself most of my worries went away because it's nothing like a commission. I wanted to designing a clock/time themed sword for an OC a few months ago so I decided to give ai a short instead of google/pinterest. Asking the ai to give me a picture of a full sword was like teaching a snail how to pay taxes. It did make some really cool stuff but none of them were what I asked for. Instead it gave me a picture that inspired another OC's sword design. So after a while I gave up and just did the whole design myself. It's just not something that can replace commissions, at least not the moment. At some point when I wanted to try something it told me that I wrote "too many words" like WDYM TOO MANY WORDS? THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS TOO MANY WORDS! When you commission an artist you can just explain in full detail what exactly you want and they show you the sketch so you can tell if changes are needed. So I think we're safe for now
I use A.I art for "Personal" use, If you get what I mean😏.
The best thing about art is getting to make it.
I think this is the best video to talk about ai art and how it should be/used/regulated
I'm so glad to see you explaining the whole thing
Amazing video as always marc
IT'S ABOUT TIME, MARC.
I was beginning to believe that you would never talk about this topic.
Glad to see that you didn't disappoint :)
Marc, I knew we could count on you! One thing to point though, there was a recent study called "Diffusion Art or Digital Forgery", studying just how much those models jsut copy from their data set, would be interested if that study could be shared around. As always thank you, very articulate and knowledgeble! Will definitely share this video around!
Do you have a link for it?
Human art: Fun to draw
AI Art: Fun to experiment
Accurate?
The problem is people thinking ai art will be the end of artists and all human artists won’t be hired anymore. That is not true. However the problem is that a style or art would be taken and sold by people who aren’t artists and the actual artist doesn’t get a dime.
It could very much in the future beat out normal artists when it comes to working for companies or making substantial income, I’ve already seen AI produce things like furry nsfw on a level that can compete with many artists. The fact that this is possible is scary, and it will get better for the AI and worse for the artist.
@@ArlauxWitchdog the ai only copies, it has no soul. But If in the future an ai can create new concepts without copying, learn to be creative on a human level, can create entire video games and movies THEN it would be a cause for concern.
Jobs will be lost especially freelancers that is undeniable. Imo even assuming the dystopian future coming true, like Marc said it is more likely to be a tool for artists. Or people with a similar artistic skill set will dominate the industry.
@@2265Hello that I can agree. Using it a tool is something that will most likely happen, but won’t replace artists. But who really knows? When photos became a thing everyone freaked thinking artists will be replaced, I see this a no different.
@@mitthrawnuruodo1730 The A.I. copies no more than artists do.
I don't know if this has been brought up yet, but there's something even more insidious about the possible future with AI art, especially as it gets more sophisticated.
Imagine this. You're contracted to make 200 concept art and background illustrations for a company. The contract says you'll be paid the full amount once you complete the 200 drawings. 100 works in, you are let go. Unbeknownst to you, every part of your artwork was being fed into a specialized AI art tool that specifically inspects and mimics individual art styles. A month later, you see all your artwork and artwork you did not do, in your exact style.
There's way more than 200. Every piece of the project includes your art. They hired you with the intent to steal your style the entire time. They were never planning to pay you the whole price.
There are things artists can and wiill probably have to do now in the future to protect against these kinds of tactics. But even if you specify in the contract that if they do something like this you still will get paid 100%, what happens with the employers' next project? How many times will we see scummy employers try to sneakily steal art styles, and lie about doing so? This will be another avenue artists will have to deal with in terms of theft now. Can artists truly prove that their style has been stolen? We'll adapt, but it's just another thing to worry about as long as we don't live in a world that organizes itself around something like post-scarcity.
None of this would matter if making art wasn't also required to literally survive.
Funny thing, I think there is a Judge Dread comic with this exact premise.
Is it morally wrong? Yes
Will people sacrifice a whole industry just for conveniences sake? Yes
As for the last point people will automate the joy out of drawing for the same reasons people use meal replacements (without illnesses) its just more convenient and easier and tbh tahts what's been driving humanity for its whole existance
Do not be defeatist. It is not healthy.
Seeing how artists hate AI, there would be a lack of people voluntarily contributing to AI prompts.
there is a person who trained an AI to do art purely based on their own works and style so that it could help them to make thier webtoon updates faster!
The only ethical use of AI art I've heard of so far.
Do you maybe know their name? would be super interesting to know how they did that
@@sillupy probably via Dreambooth or LORA
Yeah, but you are literally making the same shit always, so it's just mediocrity,
Because drawing you can explore things that you've never drew before or unexplored ways to represent something...
This is the best way to use ai and most ethical
Thank you for speaking out about the negatives of AI Art. So many big art influences have been focusing only on the positives, but I think that it's dismissive of our real concerns. Established artists of course have nothing to worry about, but for those just entering the art industry this is really disheartening and worry some.
wasn't art supposed to be fun and self expression rather than money making "industry" ?
and you are complaining that "robots are taking out jobs in coal mines" LOL
@@deltaxcd I don't understand what your point is here and I feel like youve missed what I am talking about entirely lol
First, Art can be both of those things. Just because art is something that can be fun, doesn't mean it can't also be a career.
Second, your comment is super dismissive. Of course people would be upset about losing a job they've worked hard for. Again, I don't understand the point you're trying to make.
@@deltaxcd also if we lived in a world where you don't need to work to survive, I wouldn't mind robots taking over all jobs. But unfortunately, that hasn't happened. Until then, the replacement of jobs is morally wrong and unethical.
@@gerudo_thief well when it is about money it is naturally about competition hard work and suffering when it is about self expression and fun then it is complete opposite. It obviously can't be both because when you do it for money you are pretty much human reincarnation of AI producing output from given prompt
money come in art comes out AI does same but rather electric power comes in art come out LOL equal amount of self expression.
yes you will lose you job so go find something else maybe some carpeting, it even pays better and gives you same amount of self expression as art industry if not more and do art in spare time as hobby.
@@gerudo_thief By that logic probably wes should also complain that mining robots are replacing human miners in coal mines?
And what does it even mean? like we automate everything but don't use it until one day it is announced that from 10PM all jobs will be switched to automated versions? Like in those comunism movies where announcer declares that from the next day money is no longer in use stuff is free LOL
Man I see what you mean now.
I was just worried that ai art would go so far to start taking over everything else, like writing and animation.
But like- this IS a nonexistent problem that people making the generators tried to solve.
I think everyone will get bored of it, or at least there will be guildlines put in place to use it as a tool, so ai art will become less of an issue as it is now.
I literally cried when I heard about ai art, I thought it was the end of all creative works, and everyone would just move to ai art instead of creating anymore.
So thank you!
Just as always, the war is not against AI but the companies who sell the service. And again, the issue is "how it is used" over "how it is useful".
I think an effective way to fight against the abuser's of AI-Art ( the people looking to flip generated art for money)
Is to understand the existing copyright laws and their arguments that are prohibiting AI Art from being owned --
The Art community needs to be able to debate on this without Waxing on about "souls " and " humanity" , as trying to tackle this from a moral stance is not going to persuade someone who wants to make money...
You make a good point. We need to be speaking on money and legal terms, since emotional stuff wont convince ppl who just look at the money side of things cus they won’t care how we feel. It will be a tough battle i hope theres light at the end of the tunnel
True. That is the only way. I hate to say this, but there is just non-empathetic people out there.
Nice idea but I wonder how it woud work because you can't prove if it was had drawn or made using AI.
also AI can easily redraw existing picture to remove its copyright.
so I think we may be observing the end of copyright era entirely. or otherwise copyright has to be tightened to the absurd levels.
I don't really get why anyone woud be willing to pay for AI art now if they can download the tool themselves and just do it for free.
@@deltaxcd we can actually , The copyright process has Copyright examiners that can ask for information regarding to the creation of a visual piece , everything from what tablet you use or paint brushes to how you held the brush-- while lying may get u the initial copyright, being exposed will quickly result in less than optimal outcomes.
redrawing an existing picture doesnt remove the copyright (?) this is why selling fanart is such a muddled subject -- companies just see fanart as free advertisement , they can technically take down any image of their characters they dont like.
And AI work is uncopyrightable currently.
The closest thing to copywritten AI work is a Comic called " Zarya of the dawn" -- while the art is AI generated the Copyright is only on the graphic novel not the images themselves.
TLDR; Copywritten work needs Human authorship -- giving a prompt to a machine doesn't make the resulting art "your creation" ,any more than commissioning a human artist to do so.
@@ji_ji_ I doubt if it woud be reasonable if someone come to your door and demands to provide all information about production of some art piece claiming that it infringes their copyright unless you prove opposite. So far our legal system uses principle that burden of proof lies on the side of accuser not defendant.
so it will be your job to prove that I copied your work not my job to prove that i did not.
I also wonder how all that is going to work with AI copyright because anyone can claim that your images were produced using AI and you will not be able to prove that it was not the case. and also Most often AI art generation involves quite a lot of editing photobashing and inpainting.
I am not talking about fanart, rather that if you have some work I can create something similar what will be ok as a market alternative lIke if you draw black square as art I draw red triangle you can't say that I infringe your copyright. if disney copyrighted a mouse I can replace it with squirrel.
AI does exactly that. It will take "soul" of your work and transfer it into another totally different image which is clean from your copyright.
As a tech manager, I found this video to be a thought-provoking and insightful exploration of the fundamental problem with AI art. It's clear that AI has the potential to revolutionize the art world and create some truly unique and innovative works, but it's also important to consider the ethical implications and challenges associated with this technology. The discussion on the role of the human artist and the need for transparency and accountability in AI art was particularly interesting to me, and I appreciate the nuanced perspective provided in the video. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and insights on this complex and important issue.
I read an article where one of the creators of an AI-generated art system said it was his goal to put human artists out of work. I feel there's almost a malicious intent behind AI-generated art. These individuals knew what they were doing was unethical, possibly illegal, but they did it anyway. Either for the reason I mentioned above or in the hopes of some quick bucks before the courts forced them to shut down. (Or they hoped governments would move so slowly in responding by the time laws were in place AI-generated art would be too deeply imbedded to remove.)
@@DezzieYT Got the article to read anywhere?
@@DezzieYT Please give a link to the article.
This reads like it's written by ChatGPT.
It doesn't have the potential to revolutionize the art world, at all. This "tool" is literally not needed. It brings nothing to the table, it doesn't help artists in any way. Every argument for how it can help artists is redundant, because what the AI does is create new pictures of things that already exist, through pictures of artists or photos, etc. If you want to create something new and original, it is better to use your human brain. If you don't want to create something original, it is better to just use the pictures that the AI is already using. The AI would be useful in the scenario where all the pictures that the software is using, wouldn't be available to all us.
Very good perspective. I really appreciate your opinion, as an artist myself that just crossed over from frontend dev in to graphic art, with an extensive background in fine art, AI art has been heart breaking. Thanks for giving me some hope.
@@Cha4k is not a tool if the generated image is the final project, the history about refferences is just that, a history, any Ai users would start to learn nothing to apply the ''tool''
Thanks for this! Best video ive seen on it so far.
thanks for this video Marc, I completely agree with you on how ai should be implemented, and all of this community movement made me look back to what I did until today as an artist and man... I simply CAN'T stop making art, I love doing it and will never stop. For everyone else who might read this: fall in love with your art too, YOU should put the value on it, doesn't matter your level, it's your vision, your way to make it, and that's why people come to hire us, to see the world through our eyes
I'm extremely glad for your opinions in this matter as someone who thinks both the human and ai should be respected in our interactions going forward. I've used ai art, both as a bounce concept (characters or backgrounds which I change later and redraw myself) or more recently thanks to novel ai, uploading my own work, baking it low (so the original style is mostly kept) and enhancing through its own process AS WELL as my own manual edits in a back and forth conversation to surprising and amazing results. It's helped me to want to try new brushes and techniques, and, as a learning tool its a lot easier to reverse engineer what and how the ai fixed a problem in your original work when you were the one who made it. It upsets me all the hate that ai art gets. There are bad actors who will pretend they made it themselves, and I want an ethically sourced dataset really badly, and I'd even contribute to such. When I create "ai art" its a collaborative effort, so I ALWAYS make note of that and call it a collab with the ai involved. May not be now, and it may not ever truly be human, but artificial intelligence will soon be as valid as the organic kind. And I think instead of teaching it and other people, (especially our artist creatives who are innovatives and telling of our society) fear, spite and hatred, we should instead encourage optimism, adaptability, and cooperation.
Artists have needed to make a shift in content to survive for a while now in the current age, and now more than ever, we need to provide something to a community in order to thrive. Embrace the human aspect of your work and find ways to do that, instead of shouting "ai art bad". I'm not afraid of my "style being stolen" because only a narcissist truly believes they are so special and irreplaceable that anything deigning to come near to them in presentation is a threat to their control. People follow me for the story I want to tell, one that is becoming collaborative and expansive in a way that an ai image generator isn't going to be able to do. Posting a copypasta image doesn't solve the problem and similarly requires no effort on your part. As a community, we can do better than this. I'm glad you've kept such a level head in your response.
When that one guy used kim jung gi's artworks to train his ai and post his prompts like not even 1 week after his passing just felt really wrong, these npc brained, ai prompters have no right to take away an artists identity like that and show people that its their own shit.
3 days. He created an AI to feed off his art in just 3 day.
Thanks. This definitely helps re-inspire me to continue drawing!
One of my opinions on AI is that you need some sort of artistic knowledge to make a good piece because masses can say it's fine but other artists can notice that has errors, even more if you feed them with some art that has human errors like anatomy errors, perspective errors, it's like drawing from reference but with wrong references, maybe non artistic people would not care but once you see it you can't unsee it
Ai is not fed art what are you talking about? Do you even understand how AI learning works?
@ju ju listen, the ai isn't trained on nothing but sparkles and photoshop. It needs artwork to be able to create, it is trained on artwork. It doesn't matter what word we used to describe it.
@@idrawanawfullot Actually u have no idea what you talking about, I could either give u a real answer or leave you to your ignorance and allow you to swim in it, believing a bunch of BS even though you clearly do not have the slightest clue about Machine learning and computer sciences, let alone the true origins of the images used to train the AI models and then also offer complete factual proof that will allow you to see it for yourself and actually give you full access to it, because guess what....it is full accessible to the public, and contrary to what all these idiotic sheep artist are saying - nobody gives a sh*t about their crummy art and what it looks like. They are complaining about AI mimicing a style that they use, well thats not illeagal at all, because guess what you cannot copyright a style -yep that is what the law says. And if this was the case, those same crummy artist would be suing each other because almost every single artist on the planet has work that has been influenced by another artist to some extent, some more obvious than others. So do yourself a favour and stop embarrassing yourself with silly little comments, if you want to have a serious conversation about it, then im here to chat, if not - keep moving.
@@Juju_Vidya well how an algorithm and data base would know what a face looks like if it have not seen it before?
@@Juju_Vidya pretty sure you're the one who doesn't understand how AI is trained
Ppl who use AI art should never getting their work published
I feel like some ways where AI art can be a tool (present or future) for artists are 1. Everyone struggles with something when drawing (like I struggle with drawing animals and backgrounds/landscapes) and AI art can become another resource to turn to reference images. 2. I've also heard there's some artists with Aphantasia who use AI art to help visualize their ideas so they can draw their thoughts and ideas as well
I agree Ai should be a tool not a quick road to fame.
Excellent sujet à couvrir! Je n'ai pas encore terminé la vidéo, mais j'approuve déjà les premières minutes 👍🏻
i agree
Content de voir d'autres français qui regardent Marc Brunet !
@@ScientObject40 Je suis Québécoise mais effectivement, il y a beaucoup moins de francophones je crois 😂
@@ScientObject40 t'es pas le seul Français :)
@@makoto7029 ( ╹▽╹ )
I am a begginer artist, started trying this same year, and when I saw AI art I didn't really lose any motivation, in my opinion is worthless, maybe use it as tool like suggested in the video but for me the whole point of art is doing something by yourself and the effort you put on it is what it gives value to the art
You are okay with using it,Just don't spam the AI arts without fixing them and sell them like the bastards on Pixiv
this depends on what kind of art you make. many artists were already as worthless as AI so they got replaced others did not notice any competition
But if you use AI for suggestions or brainstorming, oh my then you are really shitty artist already LOL as a real artist you should have plenty of fantasies in your head already that are trying to get out, not tracing some AI fantasy because you lack your own.
Exactly man. Give people the opportunity to create art with the option of learning and going through the process if they enjoy so. Once AI art is the norm, it will eliminate the need to get others to make stuff for you, and those artists will then be able to innovate and bring new ideas/styles to the table that didn't exist before.
As someone looking to get into game development, once AI can generate images or even animations to more consistent specifications, I will hopefully have a practical solution for realising my ideas without relying on other people to bring it to life.
What keeps throwing me for a loop in this whole discussion is a point a friend of mine mentioned when we were chatting about ai art ethics. He posed the question of whether or not artist would be just as frustrated if a child prodigy were to learn their style by copying them as ludicrously quickly as the ai art did. Would the prodigy need to compensate the artist who’s work they trained on?
Youre comparing 1 person to a software that is distributed to potentially billions of people. The difference is that people doing this is accepted because they are just 1 person. The restriction is already in place when it takes so much effort to actually
1. learn how to paint at a professional level
2. learn how to copy a particular style.
3. create art in a huge manner that would impact the original artist.
(4. Not actually tracing images of the original artist and pass it off as their own)
Prodigies still need to do training on art. Top "talented" athletes do rigorous training to keep up. People just love putting the label "talent" and "prodigy" on good performance in order to not see that those ppl put in a lot more effort.
The prodigy is at least human. He takes time and goes through mostly the same journey as everyone else. And we make laws to protect vulnerable human beings, not machines.
Fancy high tech clip art wizard generator. Good for the holidays, employees news letters, sales posters, and quick inspirational concept to be forwarded to an actual artist.
Always amazes me to see "artists" seething over AI drawings and calling them theft because they were trained on internet images. If you're concerned about people copying pixels from your works, you should paywall them, or keep them offline. This is no different from a human drawer taking inspiration from someone else's work, or drawing their first draft over it.
The whole point is that it is COMPLETELY different than a human using reference. Tracing is similar but it's also hated in the art community. People that are not artist simply have no clue how people make art and the amount of thought and knowledge of fundamentals that go into it, AI doesn't know any art fundamentals, it just reads good looking art and as a result produces images based on that, so they are gonna look good, but without understanding why it's good, which is the oposite of what artists do, they know what makes things look good and draw around it.
What artists should do is start advertising the fact that it's 100% human made. The fact that art is a tool for communication is what makes it interesting. In a world where you can no longer be sure if an art piece has a creator behind it that is trying to tell you something, a label like "100% human", similar to labels like "100% vegan" or "100% cotton", gains value. Because when consuming art, what humans actually seek is interesting communication with another person. And as long as art bots are not fully sentient, they cannot create real art.
The only kinda ethical way of using these AI generations is for using it as an illustration for a totally different product while heavily altering it (in a way you can basically tell the image was made using AI and algorithms (like fluid simualtion)). I don't know what other case could exist but in mine, I've been using it to make my music cover arts. Basically I would generate abstract image with shapes that form a landscape. Then I would put that into a photo editor and apply some heavy modifications to make it fit my preferences best (changing colors, adding shades and light, blurring to create more depth etc ...) and then I would layer new elements, usually from png copyright free banks, just to fill the image more and make it more personal. In my opinion that's a pretty good way of using AI since I'm basically asking for a landscape image with heavy algorithmic deformation, and actually changing it to create something new. And even with all that, It still doesn't inspire much creativity, and I wish I could pay for something actually good (being a student, you know how it is). On the other hand, I'm basically required to generate something that feels soulless and looks computer generated. I could just give a cool prompt, generate in repeat until I get something I like and call it a day. But even when I first discovered that kind of image generation, I was already thinking about how bad of a usage that can be, and being a student in computer sciences, I knew just too well how they trained their model. Therefore, I think that as long as you are adding value to the generation and not using as a product (In my case, you could argue that a cover art helps selling the recording, which is true, but an image that just looks like a landscape won't sell anything (also I don't sell anyway and that's not cuz of the artwork ☠️), I just use as a placeholder until I either get a job, money and can pay artists for it, or later on making my own (I really want to draw, getting started).)
Yeah that was long, I basically made an essay on how I think using AI without (hopefully) hurting anyone could work : not being specific (can lead to have specific art from someone), not using it as it is, not using it as a product to sell, adding value by changing it to transform it in your own way.
Anyway, roast me x).
n.b : I recently got one of my friend who draws to make it for me and help me start drawing myself, I'll finally feel good about this crap ^^.
Glad to know you started to draw! I hope you enjoy the journey buddy
@@joaoaugusto6290 Thank you ^^
just remember that every single artist out there, started their craft by copying other people's artwork to learn how to do it, every single art college graduate had to undergo years of copying and base their work and build up skills based on centuries of previous artwork. All those people are dead so they cant come to cry about their paintings/photographs/sketches being used "without their consent".
Absolutely no "professional" artist earned their skills without copying or training on the work of others, who also did not consent for their works to be used for training.
I know many artists, for many years, and absolutely every single one of them had to build their skills and start copying others, even professional ones take "inspiration" from other's artwork and instagram accounts endlessly. Most of that activity is without consent but its "okay" because thats how it is.
Did Davinci approved of a student in art school to use his drawings to be copied for practice and even posted online on the student's instagram account? is that even possible? is the student stealing art? or is it somehow okay because the artist is dead and humanity as a whole has been doing it since forever?
Do you think that 100% of every single training material any artist ever used to train and get skills was obtained with explicit permission from the original creator for that specific purpuose?
The answer is absolutely no. It's impossible.
It has been a defacto understanding that when you create art is for "others to see", and that is ultimately for the world to keep as historical record and ultimately become mankind's history.
So, the hypocrisy of the art community is absolutely evident and crystal clear. they have been doing the same "learning process" based on "art pieces used without consent from the original creator for training purposes" aka "unethical training".
did any artist ever said "my art must be only observed by biological lifeforms to produce *feelings* but i never ever authorize that for the future of mankind no one should train, be influenced, learn based on my art piece, and no art student in any country should ever learn skills by trying to reproduce my work? no teacher should ever use my art as example for others to learn?"
So, the so called artist can do it, but others cant? why is that so?
They are against the fact that now they dont own and control the marketplace. The elite status of an artist at any stage has been made accessible for a wider range.
How many people do not have the time and effort to spend years in art school or hours of freetime to "learn to draw" because they have family obligations? but now they can express that creativity by AI means?
Thats what the artist community is angry about. That now grandma can finally get her crochet pictures of cats and flowers while shes waiting for the cake to bake or riding the bus, or a construction worker can finally be creative and get those artsy images he always wanted to create, now possible during his 5 minutes toilet break at a construction site on a mobile app.
What artists don't like is that now anyone else will be able to produce beautiful imagery. Art has been exclusive to the elites for centuries, and now it's been democratized for poor. Elites don't like that.
On top of that, SMART artists will make a lot of money out of this, because now they can ask more money for their "organic fairtrade ethical vegan non GMO human-made art" with new certifications and new labels and new associations and business models being created to certify art as human made. The smart artist will be richer than ever.
It has happened with food, it will happen with art.
There's always people willing to pay a high price for the subjective value and "name" or "brand" of having an "original" piece from X artist, even when AI could make millions of copies in seconds.
Thats why rich people still keep buying original GUCCI and Armani bags when there are many chinese fakes easily available on the market with the exact same materials, design, and branding for a lot less.
Artists should now focus on claiming value on the subjective higher value of their origin ceritified human made art, and let AI run its course.
There are segments of people and customers. The rich will CONTINUE to pay for comissioned human made art. now more than ever.
And let the poor enjoy finally some easier access to expressing their own creativity.
The poor, the construction worker, or grandma, wasn't gonna pay for "commissioned art work" from "professional artists" anyway.
@@MarxOrx I think you're missing the point, the thing that now instead of paying an artist to make you a commission, you just enter a prompt and there you go. Then add the fact that depending on the prompt, an artist's artstyle may be copied, or part of their work end up in the generation. With this in mind (and probably more stuff idk about), I think it is understandable that the artist community gets angry ...
Also Da Vinci is long dead and copyright doesn't apply anymore but that's another discussion.
@@thomas_n4203 "Also Da Vinci is long dead and copyright doesn't apply anymore but that's another discussion" - I think this opinion sums up really well what @MarxOrx argues against.
This opinion shows the absurd assumption of the speaker that copyrights for some reason precede the natural tendency of a man to mime and it's forbidden to use someone else's artistic output. At the same time there are artists to whom we refuse these copyrights. It's very useful that copyright doesn't work backwards, isn't it? Thanks to this, you can legally make a complete rip off of da vinci's work and earn money from it. On the other hand, a modern artist is fortunate enough to live in a globally connected world and thus has the power to grant their works, no matter how influential, copyright preventing from their use.
Of course, we are talking here most often about the prohibition of commercial use. So I suspect it's okay to generate images with AI just for your own use with no intent to sell. This aspect is probably not controversial. The one that is, however, is the morally questionable possibility of selling generated images.
@MarxOrx's argument is that people use their natural ability in the creative process to collect data from the environment, be it nature or other people and their activities, works of art included. On the basis of this sensual experience, works are created that are an emergent whole of the most diverse influences, all of which have been gathered by the sensory perception of the artist. By sensory perception I mean for example observing nature or being inspired by someone else's work. The artist's work in this sense was glued together, or 'emerged', by the artist, but it contains a huge amount of external influences, of which the artist is not and could not be the author. Art is about the existence of an environment from which inspiration can be gathered and to which one can refer or in which a work of art can be created. I assume you will agree with me that there is nothing wrong with using external influences in the process of creating and calling ourselves the creator of a given work, because we - our unique individuality - are responsible for gluing these external motifs together. That's what I think it means to be an artist. We consider inspiration as fine, and we view plagiarism as immoral.
The whole argument boils down to pointing out that artists opposed to the use of their work argue that their work has been used without permission, while their own creative process is based on relying on outside influences without permission. So their own objection should also apply to themselves. But then there would be no creation or art.
The structure of AI knowledge is created in the image of the human one, and the way of analyzing the input images that the AI feeds on is also intended to imitate human cognition as much as possible. In this way, the AI also collects very scattered external influences that can be glued together by the input operator of the image generator and, at his command, indeed glue together - a work that does not resemble the input images. A picture is created that contains a thousand very scattered elements from a thousand different pictures. Just like creating a work of art by a man who is inspired by everything around him.
The copyright argument is of little use here because, as I mentioned above, we consider inspiration as perfectly acceptable. It is done by getting to know the whole of someone else's work, and then subconsciously extracting some element(s) that we particularly like in order to use it in our work. Why would this not be acceptable in the case of AI? Because AI can create a picture identical to one already created by someone? Humans can also do this carelessly. And if AI is used with the intention of literally copying someone else's work, just like when a human copies something 1:1, it's plagiarism. Nobody argues that such an action is immoral - I think it is. But it is immoral due to the intent to create plagiarism. We have already established that we accept inspiration. AI using motifs from a huge number of different works collects data from them so scattered that the final work cannot be called plagiarism. I'd call collecting this data by AI an inspiration. In the case of AI image generation, plagiarism is a misuse at the hands of an operator who deliberately strives for a effect that is supposed to completely imitate someone else's already existing work.
I don't think there is a valid argument to prohibit AI learning from images widely available on the web. If they can be found within seconds by a human, then he can be inspired by them. And in the process of inspiration, copyrights have nothing to say - they are supposed to protect against plagiarism. So you CAN feed the AI with copyrighted images widely available on the web, because the AI is intended to use them for learning and inspiration. We shouldn't ban AI just because it CAN generate plagiarism. After all, the artist too is always in the power to plagiarize. It is the fault of the operator who committed the plagiarism. It is the fault of the artist who plagiarised. Besides, creating complete plagiarism is immoral only if we didn't just create it for our own use. I would consider the sale of plagiarism immoral, but regardless of whether AI was used in its creation process or not.
The whole implicit problem of AI artists seems to boil down to the fact that the image generation does not require artistic craftsmanship from the operator, so much time and practice. But there is no moral argument against using AI here! Here, there is only an attempt to find an argument to justify the artist's dissatisfaction with the fact that someone is able to achieve a similar effect in an image generation as an artist who worked for such an effect for many years. But what the artist worked for was not always being the best creator of artistic content, but being a man capable of creating this content himself. The operator of the image generator always has to rely on artificial intelligence, and this is where self-learning makes sense, and the artist's superiority is shown. There's no reason to lose motivation because something that isn't human has the power to create a prettier picture than we can. I would call this dissatisfaction a form of jealousy, or a sense of meaninglessness resulting from wanting to be superior to 'stupid AI'. This AI, by the way, thanks to its extensive database containing various influences, is the most convenient tool for learning to create illustrations and drawings that currently exists, and significantly affects the workflow and efficiency of creation for many actual artists. It's an amazing BENEFIT that we can access so much external influences from imagery that we normally wouldn't be even able to stumble upon.
If you don't want your image to even be used for inspiration, then you don't want anyone to look at it. After all, inspiration often comes from prosaic, passive observation. In that case, it is your responsibility as the artist not to make your work publicly available. Only then will you achieve your goal. If you introduce the effect of your work to the Internet, you EXTERNALIZE IT, you make it appear within the range of perception of others. You MUST accept that it can naturally be used as inspiration. Here, in my opinion, also lies the problem - in the fact that artists irresponsibly make their works public. It lies largely on ARTIST'S side. You must accept that putting some of your creations online is inextricably linked to their use. You literally bring a new element to the outside world and distribute it!Depending on where you place them, you will determine their range of influence in different ways. If you want the reach of your works to be as wide as possible, you CANNOT expect that no one will use it as an inspiration.
Use AI in your creative process, let it collect the same outside influences as you do, don't use it to plagiarize, and put as much of your influence as possible into the work you're putting together.
If you see an AI-created plagiarized image that wasn't made public just to show off operator's proficiency in using the generator, but to make money, then and only then we have a problem. This is the only situation where artists have the right to oppose AI in my opinion. But it makes no sense to talk about banning AI entirely or prohibiting it from using external sources - let's talk about the immorality of an operator who may want to use AI in an inappropriate way.
I absolutely agree with all you said, except one thing. I wouldn't assume that AI cannot develop on its own now. If something is created by merging and mixing already existing art, the new image can serve as a reference for AI after that... and and the cycle continues. New results would probably recycle the same errors even exaggerate them, but still.. I think technically it can be evolving even without new "human-made" art now.
AI art kinda feels like those robots that play video games
It's fun at first but gets boring quick cuz watching isn't quite as fun as doing it.
Capitalists: "Communism/Socialism sucks! Meanwhile, I'm stealing everyone's art to use for for my private capitalist enterprise."
It's not theft
@@ulthanesmorkums you’re about a year late for bootlicking
@@jacksonhunkle2444 Still not theft
I was 4 months into learning art when it became more popular and I was , oh ! I won't need to learn it for 10 years or so to get the result I have in mind. Tried it, never got what my mind is showing me, not even close. So I continued , feeling down, to learn art, with thinking I can't make any money from it. Turn out after 10 months, the things I have in mind is my art style wich I'm not yet able to make. But the a.i is not able to reproduce what doesn't exist in term of new style or someone style while they don't know it, yet. So I'm continuing my path. I don't want to be even near a.i art.
edit : I also see alot of people saying that a.i art doesn't steal art, because artist does the same when using others people art as reference. well, a.i use billion of art piece, human like 4 to maybe 20 at max . a.i pick up pixels on image, your printer doesn't create art, same for a.i, it doesn't create it mix up data and spit up something. we do create thing from nothingness, the a.i can't. only non-artist think that a.i create.
Yea, I also saw some petty AI artist trying to justify their work by saying that it's not art stealing, but using that exact 'reference' reasoning lol. They're braindead...it really makes me sad at this point.
Just keep practicing art tho...As we artists always say, art is the journey that we take, enjoy the learning processes and hv fun!
Your pictures in your mind is special and one of its kind, no AI would ever be able to draw what you have in mind.
We don't do anything from nothing, all images you make require information that has been taken from the outside world, there is nothing your brain can create without that.
Thats unfair, You doesnt count, all the art human have seen in your life, and that their brain have keep some part and concept from in memory unconsciously. Using reference to create an art is something different, some human do it. But the AI doesnt. Ai only use his memory where there is some concept. Memory of the IA is really better than the human one. But keep in mind, there is no human artwork into the memory of the AI. Only the memory of what it learned. And the AI never use any reference when creating an art.
@@AustinGDesigns so you are saying it can't exist if it doesn't already exist ? well if I draw a dragon , I hope you won't tell me they exist. Oh you will say ( you refered to existing animal + drawing of others ) . If I just draw a cube, that cube doesn't exist, every thing that require at least 1% of imagination comme from nothingness. yes cube exist in others drawing, even in math class, but the moment you picture that cube in your mind that one pop up from nothing ( or your mind) but it didn't exist in a medium that someone else could see until you draw it, and no matter how many time you prompt cube in that a.i art it won't comme out the same. of course, you probably need some art knowledge to understand what I just tried to explain. And I'm not saying that I'm fully right.
5.8billion images later, AI still can't do hands. Skynet isn't taking over anytime soon
Hands, it melts hands and skin together, anlso toes knees and glasses usually melt into the hair as well
From what I've seen until now, mostly scammers have been benefitted from AI art, real artists have only been damaged in this whole shenanigans.
Yeah, let's ignore comission artists(many who claim to have fever comissions) or artists for posters, book covers and album covers. The effect may not be apocaliptic(yet) but it is still there. We also cannot know when it will stop and how it will stop.
AI art have made me kinda scared to going searching for new artists.
My problem is finding art I enjoy and finding out it was generated. I feel defeated every time.
I've grown very skeptical of good artists I haven't heard of and I really don't like this feeling.
I think to prevent this going forward, real artists should have at least one working file of one of their pieces available freely to download, with all the layers and everything. That way anyone who wonders if the artist is real or not can simply download the working file and see "yup, everything is drawn, they are real".
For AI devs, ability to create a Clip Studio file, or a Photoshop file that would contain perfectly laid out layers is something that would be not only difficult af, it seems pointless.
I feel like this too. It really does matter to me if it was made by a person or not. I don't care at all for an AI art piece no matter how beautiful it appears. Seeing something I know someone put time and effort and skill into, actually makes me think it's amazing and worthwhile. But as it gets harder to discern, I don't even know what is what and it just makes me lose a lot of joy in looking at art.
The problem is rather that you enjoy AI styled art at all
for me it is not really that interesting I do find some images worth saving but not really that much because they are all very similar and get boring quickly
@@OKtheChannel So AI chads can just train on those works? What purpose does this serve? It's just art you dorks, enjoy it instead of trying to criticize it. It doesn't matter who made it.
@@deltaxcd Then you haven't seen good AI art, like Midjourney.
"AI and robots will be so cool... they will remove the need to work and let us be more creative!"
Meanwhile in reality...
Dumb human "elite" literally created their worst enemy - new race of robots with AI.
Ones are saying that ai is not creative, others that it is, choose one already
Few years ago, listened some podcast with scientist who learning AI, and this podcast was about how automisation will replace hard physical jobs or jobs what can easy to replace y robots, and someone ask him a question: "What happen to all this people who lost jobs due to this?". And he answers: "They will go to art"
And now artists fears that they will be replaced and heavy labor work don't get replaced by robots in even near 20 years....