Absolutely not, I've been through the same freak out with photoshop... it's just a tool of expression like others, it lowers barier of entry witch is GOOD. It just means we'll have more beautiful things to interact with in the future, not less. This freak out is about wealth, not art, suddenly the barrier to make everything lowered and the price will drop like rocks but let's be real, the financial side of the art world was always a fucked up place that stiffles inovation and creativity. I think long run this is good for art, bad for financial gain.
AI? Let's not mix everything up More specifically machine learning systems (MLS). And more specifically, Audio and Image Diffusion models. If we're talking about those, the answer is no. This is an inspiring and majestic innovation straight out of sci-fi. And in a perfect world, it would be an incredible life-enhancing boon for everyone. The individual people who are using it, and especially the direction that Big Corp is pushing it all in, yes! 100% yes! I definitely feel that. (my full thought is among the comments)
Someone who manually touches up their artworks without AI tools can make similar arguments as what you use. I love that making art is now so easy and doesn't require a lot of skill.
No it's not, it's destroying art as a commercial enterprise, but not art itself. Art is expression of the self through a medium. AI can't destroy your capacity for expression, commercialisation on the other hand totally does. So no, AI isn't the enemy, it's a medium as much as wood is, it has a grain and need to be sculpted. Sure you won't make any money with your art, but let's be real, how long as it been since the art world financial side has been a complete fuck up? I'd argue for centuries at this point.
When cameras were first invented, painters thought it would kill their craft. After all, why spend weeks painting when you can just take a quick picture a process it, right?😢 But did it kill painting? No. It simply created another way for people to express themselves. Art is the creative expression of your ideas and emotions. It isn’t painting, it isn’t drawing, it isn’t videography or using AI workflows. It is simply the creative expression of your ideas and emotions. The tools you use don’t matter, and the advent of new tools doesn’t make former methods obsolete. It just means there are new ways of creatively expressing yourself. What people don’t seem to understand about AI art is that it’s not the AIs art; it is your art. You’re essentially directing the AI, the same way a film director manages a team. It takes a lot of knowledge, refinement, skill and creativity to use AI tools effectively. Simply typing in a prompt does not take skill, this would be known as low-effort or low-quality art. You can get this from using a camera, you can get it from using a paintbrush, and you can get it from using AI, again, it doesn’t matter what tool you use. I respect the modern day artist and the medium they use, but what I don’t respect is when they see an extremely effective tool come along and write it off as killing creativity and art. AI is the next stage in creative expression. Again, the old ways are still valuable and they always will be, maybe even more so as people are aware of the skill it takes to do them, but I request that you also recognize the benefits that advancing our tools has. Especially as someone who u uses cameras, which at one point was viewed by creatives in the exact same way creatives are now viewing AI. Edit: I just finished your vid and I like your distinctions. I appreciate that you use AI in your workflow, showing that you’re willing to see the good in it. I will always agree that low-effort art is not something worth celebrating.
If it looks good, I don't care how it's made. AI is just a tool, perfect for an independent creator. I disagree here 3:57, a lot of effort is required if you want a consistent output. Of course if you just want any image then it is as you said.
I keep seeing photographers talking about 'AI Photography' and I understand why, but to call images generated by AI 'Photography' misses an important point- which is that of authenticity. The real problem with AI Generated images that look like photographs is that they are deliberately deceptive. What I mean by this is that the people using AI's to make images can choose a vast variety of styles to create their images with, but many choose to create images that look like they are taken using a camera with a lens-why? The only reason I can think of is because those using AI to make fake photo's want to exploit the trust that people still have in the photographic image- they want to gain the advantages of that trust without actually doing the work of taking actual photographs. So those using AI commercialy to make fake photo's are actively trying to exploit the fact that the public in general are not really aware of how these images are made- they are trying to fool the public into thinking that these fake photo's are real. The irony is that the reason they want to pass off these AI generated images as real is because people trust photographs in a way they don't trust artistic renderings. If you saw an ad for a product but instead of a photo the ad used an artists sketch, how would you feel about buying that product? I suspect that most people would be a little worried that instead of a photo the ad just had a sketch- they might feel that perhaps the sketch was not really that accurate or that the advertiser was trying to hide something- simply put, we all tend to trust photographs in ads more than we trust sketches or paintings. But what is going to happen to that trust when millions and millions of fake AI 'photographs' are produced and used in all sorts of places? Well, pretty soon no one will trust photo's anymore- and the value that photographs add to advertising will be lost. So all those people trying to use AI to make money from photography are slowly killing the value of photography as a medium because that value is all about the trust that people place in the photograph as a depiction of something real. I think of this the same way I think of fake money. Yes- you could 'democratise' wealth by printing up vast amounts of paper money and giving it to all the poor people- but would this really help them in the long run? No- because if you printed vast amounts of paper money then soon paper money would not be worth anything, it would become worthless. The same applies to fake AI generated 'photo's'. Soon, as more and more fakes are made, the value of photography will collapse as people no longer believe that the photo's they see are real- even real photographs will become devalued because most people won't be able to tell the real from the fake. And when those who finally destroy the public's trust in the photographic image using AI reach for a way to regain that trust, how will they do so? The photograph was a unique art form because unlike all other visual arts it had unique relationship to reality- the very concept of the 'PhotoJournalist' was built on the idea that the Photograph could be trusted to speak the truth, to be an accurate depiction of reality. Yes-of course- it has always been possible to create fake photo's- but to do so requried some skill and effort. This is no longer true, now even the unskilled and the lazy can create fake photo's in huge numbers and soon this will bring about the collapse of photography as a source of trusted information in our society- and where will that leave us?
AI? Let's not mix everything up More specifically machine learning systems (MLS). And more specifically, Audio and Image Diffusion models. If we're talking about those, the answer is no. This is an inspiring and majestic innovation straight out of sci-fi. And in a perfect world, it would be an incredible life-enhancing boon for everyone. The individual people who are using it, and especially the direction that Big Corp is pushing it all in, definitely yes! 100% yes! I definitely feel that. My opinion on why Ads soulless art will soon be indistinguishable from the other art. But the purpose of it will be to make you think you need things for happiness, you don't really need. Same as it is now, but this advertising poison will start working much better. The scammers have a great tool and no one can stop them from using it. It's also an incredibly powerful propaganda tool that will make us all look even more like sheep in the hands of our government. People will become even more lazy, in the face of the difficulties that are at the heart of learning any skill. The world will be a darker place because of this marvelous instrument. And greed, lack of middle class and poverty will become more numerous, stifling creativity. And MLS doesn't replace that, in the same art you still need to learn why one composition looks good and another looks bad. Or why one color combination works and another doesn't. Or why the same forms convey different moods. And to understand all this is difficult and time-consuming, but it is necessary, if you want to speak creative language yourself, and not to let others speak for you. So yeah, it destroys creativity. 100%! But art people will continue to fight against it. And if through their efforts the right ethics of utilization are built in people's heads. Since we know (most of us) that no matter what mood you're in, you can't just hit passersby on the street, not because you're afraid of being hit back, but because it's just wrong. When society gets a number of things about MLS that are just wrong, even though they can benefit you right now, then it will be that wonderful discovery from science fiction.
I absolutely despise AI content in general. From an art aspect and on to AI voice generation. I wish there was something in place to keep AI content from being monetized. Sadly that will likely never happen.
I get you but we’re only in the first year. It’s going to improve EXPONENTIALLY in the next 5 years. We won’t even recognize it in 10. It’s going to blow our minds in ways we didn’t even know was possible. Yeah, it’s a trade-off but it’s also going to save millions if not billions of lives. Probably wipe us all out too 🤷♂️
Sure anybody can put random prompt on Midjourney then get something good by luck. In the same way a painter can drop a bucket of paint and get interesting art. Then a photographer can shoot at random and be lucky. The real good image produced by AI are often made by people that were already pretty knowledgeable. There is deception going in both way. Some artist make the AI look better and it is. While the AI also make noobs look better than they are.
AI Art to me is really awful. All the reasons in this video included as well as the fact that it literally is NOT real. A real photo captures an image - a story as said in the video, whereas AI just jumbles a bunch of hoopla to emulate something real, but it simply isn't. It's like when games tried making realistic faces but you just know inside that it's just a mess, and don't see it anything more than something that's rly creepy Also real > fake t🐣ts
@ It’s artificial. It isn’t real. It’s computer generated and wasn’t captured after something real with time, effort, and sacrifices. I think it’s just a big middle finger to wildlife photographers who’ve risked their lives capturing something beautiful when someone types up ‘epic image of butterflies at top of K2 summit please :)’
Sorry, but AI is better than you at creating images. You can still have your hobby, people still go for a run even though we have cars and bikes. I will choose the best images and dont care who made it, and so will everyone else except a few backpeddlers.
OR.... like AI eventually being able to code it breaks down the entry requirements to make something, it allows those without the technical skills to male art. Like the A for awesome setting on a camera. Like DJs dont have to spend years learning to fight against the limits of technics turntables, they have sync but the end result is less techincal limits, more brain to use in creativity, sure everyone can dj now and probably shouldn't but the artists still rise to the top. AI is just a new medium.
What do you think? Is AI slowly destroying Art Communities?
I don't think so. It is just a new tool. I am using it to retouch my photography.
Absolutely not, I've been through the same freak out with photoshop... it's just a tool of expression like others, it lowers barier of entry witch is GOOD. It just means we'll have more beautiful things to interact with in the future, not less. This freak out is about wealth, not art, suddenly the barrier to make everything lowered and the price will drop like rocks but let's be real, the financial side of the art world was always a fucked up place that stiffles inovation and creativity. I think long run this is good for art, bad for financial gain.
So hard to film in FHD?
AI? Let's not mix everything up
More specifically machine learning systems (MLS).
And more specifically, Audio and Image Diffusion models.
If we're talking about those, the answer is no.
This is an inspiring and majestic innovation straight out of sci-fi. And in a perfect world, it would be an incredible life-enhancing boon for everyone.
The individual people who are using it, and especially the direction that Big Corp is pushing it all in, yes! 100% yes! I definitely feel that. (my full thought is among the comments)
I heard similar complaints against stock photography back in the day.
AI is not the biggest threat to photography, though.
Someone who manually touches up their artworks without AI tools can make similar arguments as what you use. I love that making art is now so easy and doesn't require a lot of skill.
Art is ruining AI.
No it's not, it's destroying art as a commercial enterprise, but not art itself. Art is expression of the self through a medium. AI can't destroy your capacity for expression, commercialisation on the other hand totally does. So no, AI isn't the enemy, it's a medium as much as wood is, it has a grain and need to be sculpted. Sure you won't make any money with your art, but let's be real, how long as it been since the art world financial side has been a complete fuck up? I'd argue for centuries at this point.
When cameras were first invented, painters thought it would kill their craft. After all, why spend weeks painting when you can just take a quick picture a process it, right?😢
But did it kill painting? No. It simply created another way for people to express themselves.
Art is the creative expression of your ideas and emotions.
It isn’t painting, it isn’t drawing, it isn’t videography or using AI workflows.
It is simply the creative expression of your ideas and emotions.
The tools you use don’t matter, and the advent of new tools doesn’t make former methods obsolete. It just means there are new ways of creatively expressing yourself.
What people don’t seem to understand about AI art is that it’s not the AIs art; it is your art. You’re essentially directing the AI, the same way a film director manages a team.
It takes a lot of knowledge, refinement, skill and creativity to use AI tools effectively.
Simply typing in a prompt does not take skill, this would be known as low-effort or low-quality art. You can get this from using a camera, you can get it from using a paintbrush, and you can get it from using AI, again, it doesn’t matter what tool you use.
I respect the modern day artist and the medium they use, but what I don’t respect is when they see an extremely effective tool come along and write it off as killing creativity and art.
AI is the next stage in creative expression. Again, the old ways are still valuable and they always will be, maybe even more so as people are aware of the skill it takes to do them, but I request that you also recognize the benefits that advancing our tools has.
Especially as someone who u uses cameras, which at one point was viewed by creatives in the exact same way creatives are now viewing AI.
Edit: I just finished your vid and I like your distinctions. I appreciate that you use AI in your workflow, showing that you’re willing to see the good in it.
I will always agree that low-effort art is not something worth celebrating.
Indeed, this is why impressionism and then expressionism were born - because cameras couldn't do that.
@ Definitely! And it resulted in a boost in creative expression! I’m sure we’ll see a similar story with AI and its use in art.
👋🏻👋🏻👋🏻👋🏻
If it looks good, I don't care how it's made. AI is just a tool, perfect for an independent creator. I disagree here 3:57, a lot of effort is required if you want a consistent output. Of course if you just want any image then it is as you said.
Let's fight an uphill battle rofl
I keep seeing photographers talking about 'AI Photography' and I understand why, but to call images generated by AI 'Photography' misses an important point- which is that of authenticity.
The real problem with AI Generated images that look like photographs is that they are deliberately deceptive. What I mean by this is that the people using AI's to make images can choose a vast variety of styles to create their images with, but many choose to create images that look like they are taken using a camera with a lens-why?
The only reason I can think of is because those using AI to make fake photo's want to exploit the trust that people still have in the photographic image- they want to gain the advantages of that trust without actually doing the work of taking actual photographs.
So those using AI commercialy to make fake photo's are actively trying to exploit the fact that the public in general are not really aware of how these images are made- they are trying to fool the public into thinking that these fake photo's are real. The irony is that the reason they want to pass off these AI generated images as real is because people trust photographs in a way they don't trust artistic renderings. If you saw an ad for a product but instead of a photo the ad used an artists sketch, how would you feel about buying that product?
I suspect that most people would be a little worried that instead of a photo the ad just had a sketch- they might feel that perhaps the sketch was not really that accurate or that the advertiser was trying to hide something- simply put, we all tend to trust photographs in ads more than we trust sketches or paintings.
But what is going to happen to that trust when millions and millions of fake AI 'photographs' are produced and used in all sorts of places? Well, pretty soon no one will trust photo's anymore- and the value that photographs add to advertising will be lost.
So all those people trying to use AI to make money from photography are slowly killing the value of photography as a medium because that value is all about the trust that people place in the photograph as a depiction of something real.
I think of this the same way I think of fake money. Yes- you could 'democratise' wealth by printing up vast amounts of paper money and giving it to all the poor people- but would this really help them in the long run? No- because if you printed vast amounts of paper money then soon paper money would not be worth anything, it would become worthless.
The same applies to fake AI generated 'photo's'. Soon, as more and more fakes are made, the value of photography will collapse as people no longer believe that the photo's they see are real- even real photographs will become devalued because most people won't be able to tell the real from the fake.
And when those who finally destroy the public's trust in the photographic image using AI reach for a way to regain that trust, how will they do so? The photograph was a unique art form because unlike all other visual arts it had unique relationship to reality- the very concept of the 'PhotoJournalist' was built on the idea that the Photograph could be trusted to speak the truth, to be an accurate depiction of reality.
Yes-of course- it has always been possible to create fake photo's- but to do so requried some skill and effort. This is no longer true, now even the unskilled and the lazy can create fake photo's in huge numbers and soon this will bring about the collapse of photography as a source of trusted information in our society- and where will that leave us?
AI? Let's not mix everything up
More specifically machine learning systems (MLS).
And more specifically, Audio and Image Diffusion models.
If we're talking about those, the answer is no.
This is an inspiring and majestic innovation straight out of sci-fi. And in a perfect world, it would be an incredible life-enhancing boon for everyone.
The individual people who are using it, and especially the direction that Big Corp is pushing it all in, definitely yes! 100% yes! I definitely feel that.
My opinion on why
Ads soulless art will soon be indistinguishable from the other art. But the purpose of it will be to make you think you need things for happiness, you don't really need. Same as it is now, but this advertising poison will start working much better.
The scammers have a great tool and no one can stop them from using it.
It's also an incredibly powerful propaganda tool that will make us all look even more like sheep in the hands of our government.
People will become even more lazy, in the face of the difficulties that are at the heart of learning any skill.
The world will be a darker place because of this marvelous instrument.
And greed, lack of middle class and poverty will become more numerous, stifling creativity.
And MLS doesn't replace that, in the same art you still need to learn why one composition looks good and another looks bad.
Or why one color combination works and another doesn't.
Or why the same forms convey different moods.
And to understand all this is difficult and time-consuming, but it is necessary, if you want to speak creative language yourself, and not to let others speak for you.
So yeah, it destroys creativity. 100%!
But art people will continue to fight against it.
And if through their efforts the right ethics of utilization are built in people's heads. Since we know (most of us) that no matter what mood you're in, you can't just hit passersby on the street, not because you're afraid of being hit back, but because it's just wrong. When society gets a number of things about MLS that are just wrong, even though they can benefit you right now, then it will be that wonderful discovery from science fiction.
AI is no t ruining art, because i don't see AI selling bananas on a wall for millions
AI is straight up trash! PERIOD!
BTW, really cool!!
uh no..jeez, that's quite a sweeping statement Once we exit the uncanny valley, you will struggle to tell which way is up that is the reality
I absolutely despise AI content in general. From an art aspect and on to AI voice generation. I wish there was something in place to keep AI content from being monetized. Sadly that will likely never happen.
I get you but we’re only in the first year. It’s going to improve EXPONENTIALLY in the next 5 years. We won’t even recognize it in 10. It’s going to blow our minds in ways we didn’t even know was possible. Yeah, it’s a trade-off but it’s also going to save millions if not billions of lives. Probably wipe us all out too 🤷♂️
Monetization is definitely an issue - there are many channels popping up hosting what is essentially ransacked art and music.
Sure anybody can put random prompt on Midjourney then get something good by luck. In the same way a painter can drop a bucket of paint and get interesting art. Then a photographer can shoot at random and be lucky. The real good image produced by AI are often made by people that were already pretty knowledgeable. There is deception going in both way. Some artist make the AI look better and it is. While the AI also make noobs look better than they are.
Photography is cheating painting is the only true art.
yes, when photography was invented painters probably complained about cheating and soulless images from machines.
AI Art to me is really awful. All the reasons in this video included as well as the fact that it literally is NOT real.
A real photo captures an image - a story as said in the video, whereas AI just jumbles a bunch of hoopla to emulate something real, but it simply isn't. It's like when games tried making realistic faces but you just know inside that it's just a mess, and don't see it anything more than something that's rly creepy
Also real > fake t🐣ts
Because you havent seen good AI art.
Give it 3 years and everything is going to say "AI enhanced" or "AI assisted". Inevitable.
@ It’s artificial. It isn’t real. It’s computer generated and wasn’t captured after something real with time, effort, and sacrifices. I think it’s just a big middle finger to wildlife photographers who’ve risked their lives capturing something beautiful when someone types up ‘epic image of butterflies at top of K2 summit please :)’
photoshop?
@@WarrenDovey There's the most ever obvious line of artificial intelligence created, and artificial intelligence enhanced
@@HikingGnocchiLol. Picasso or Salvador Dali is not an art in your opinion because it is not real XD Do you even know what art is?
Sorry, but AI is better than you at creating images.
You can still have your hobby, people still go for a run even though we have cars and bikes. I will choose the best images and dont care who made it, and so will everyone else except a few backpeddlers.
Weirdo. Though I guess it's not your fault you're apparently a shallow and boring person. People like you just can't help it.
OR.... like AI eventually being able to code it breaks down the entry requirements to make something, it allows those without the technical skills to male art. Like the A for awesome setting on a camera. Like DJs dont have to spend years learning to fight against the limits of technics turntables, they have sync but the end result is less techincal limits, more brain to use in creativity, sure everyone can dj now and probably shouldn't but the artists still rise to the top.
AI is just a new medium.