An animator friend of mine needed some painted backgrounds very quickly. He drew some quick flat-shaded images and then used AI to implement his own painted style on to those, which he then painted over to neaten things up etc. It was a perfect use of AI in my eyes, turning a day-long job in to 30 minutes and all using his own work at its core. I hope we see more of this and less of the exploitation and genuine laziness from AI "artists"
These things impair persons ability to train one's personal perceptions. But everyone has his own choice. I still draw the sets and stuff by hand and then Photoshop. Also 3D and classic sculptor. I still won't use AI until I see the final outcome of the lawsuits against the developers of these programs. But yes, still what you said is more honest and fair against the background of those clowns "AI" "artists" having the nerve, on top of everything, to lie that they had drawn this what AI produce for them. Which behavior is the bottom of the human fall.
If this continues, no one will create anything anymore. People will be inundated with AI images and the value of art will be non-existent. No, no one will buy your AI art. No one is going to buy your prompt. Writing a prompt isn't a skill, because literally anyone can do it. All this will do is destroy human creativity, because no one will have the incentive to create anything new. And the people who do something original will be lost in the noise and unable to support themselves. There is no future for humans with AI art. It's not "just another tool," it will outright replace humans entirely. They made an AI art director in Japan a few years ago that won out in a contest against a human art director. Maybe you feel like you need AI, but AI doesn't need you.
The value of art isn't artwork itself, but the capability art has of bringing people together. Art is about community, not about drawing. Sure, a lot of people will lose thei job to make things easier in production, but they will still need people to operate those AIs (And beliieve me, a good artist is a way better choice to describe a scene than a random guy) and yada, yada, yada. Art is about people, not the content you produce. What I think will happen is the same that happened with Vocaloid, it will get and explosion than will be something that just some people are into (If it don't get censored b4 bc of all the legality stuff).
@@pedrovitor5324 I agree that the value of art lies in its ability to bring humans together, because it's about human expression. Even before recorded history, humans have been stirred to express themselves with images. It gives us insight into each other's experiences, convictions, and imaginations. Art is not only about the product, but the activity of creation itself. I'm not so narrow minded to believe that technology shouldn't have a role in assisting with the act of creation, but I fear that people have more to lose with AI text to image generators than they might think. I keep seeing the same erroneous argument that these programs will free up artists from "tedious work" to be more creative. However, if the tedious work being described is the actual act of creating, the implication is disturbing. Just about every creative decision is automated within these programs (composition, rendering, background elements, fine details, etc.). No matter how detailed the written prompt is, no one has complete control over every element produced in the end. Why should creativity be automated? When creativity is automated, AI isn't the tool, humans are. Every prompt we type only furthers it's machine learning program so that it can become a better mimic. I just can't see this as anything less than an existential threat to human creativity. I never thought I would live long enough to see myself become an anachronism, but now it's becoming a possibility. I know that AI has the power to completely change the course of human history, but we need to be responsible enough to ensure that we aren't creating a future where human potential is superceded and replaced by machines.
@@pedrovitor5324 yeaah problem is that not how people see it, majority of people see art as either historical value or "good to look at" trust me People wouldn't give a damn wether someone they hire to propmt have "Art skill" or not
People mention stuff like the benefits for indie game developers a lot. I wish I could see it that way. As someone developing an indie game, I considered my 3d skills an edge because I notice a lot of other small devs forego the 3d modeling and use premade assets. With people being able to just generate 3d assets, well my "advantage" that I took time to cultivate is gone and the market gets flooded with games and actual opportunities to make money on them probably disappear. Programming and gluing the pieces together in a game engine is the least fun part of the process, I still enjoy it, but not as much as the actual art aspects. None of this sounds like a benefit for me. I really think lowering the barrier to entry will just make it so even fewer indie developers can have any success. I understand there is nothing we can do to stop it, it's just a shame the only thing I'm really passionate about may not be possible because of this technology. I really hope I am wrong.
Agree. Market is always key in the end. Everything will get quicker, meaning cheaper. Twice as many studios? Perhaps, but doing twice the work for quarter of the current pay. Just like photographers nowadays, oh everyone is one.
@@przemekgacka1565 Exactly. And there are many examples of that already, thanks to tools such as Adobe Creative Suit that "democratized" many fields of creative work: 15 years ago, you would have a motion designer, a product photographer, video editor, website coder... Now typical agency hires a single person to do all these, because its more accessible through various tools. Are the results mediocre then? Of course, but who cares...
I couldn't agree more with your point of view. I think there's only one solution, and it's a sad but realistic one. The government is going to have to pay a universal basic income to everyone. Soon, being an artist or programmer will only be a benefit for the best seniors, juniors will be totally replaceable with a button. Small studios will be temporary, there may be many new studios each year but none of them will have more than 4 or 5 members and 99% of them won't last more than 4 months due to the flood of mediocre content created thanks to a button. I don't know if it's worth investing thousands of dollars in art or programming training in universities right now. All of this is not just going to happen in the world of art or technology, other professions such as taxi driver, train conductor, airplane pilot, truck driver, supermarket cashier, writer, news editor, voice actor, among hundreds of other automatable jobs will disappear.
@@aprats2 nah, it's not gonna happen. The majority of governments doesn't give a shit about people. They would rather gun people down, if peoplde doesn't contribute anything to the government and just demand something, and how would they if everything gets automated and they have no job? The only realistic way is to expect legislations, but we will see. Can't wait to see the future of humanity to be like in WALL-E, just fat blobs of meat decaying in their degeneracy.
I personally think that the manual labor of creating an art is important for creativity. Yes, it is a slow and painful progress but that is the thing making the art yours alone. I don't want to input text on how I want my art to look like, I want to painstakingly draw every single line and paint every single color instead of getting my work done by a machine.
It’s problematic but not unheard of. Draftspeople disappeared from architecture 20 years ago, now the remaining ones just sound like dinosaurs when they talk about the creative process. Truth is, if the ai prompt crafting becomes an extension of their body, it’s no different than sketching with a pencil or painting with a brush. You can be creative as long as u have mastery over your tools
I say there is nothing stopping you. While machines can create a lot of mass produced things people still appreciate and pay a pretty penny for something handcrafted. I’m and engineer so I use computer aided stuff all the time but it is so fun for me to go to museums and watch how it was done before hand and pick up old school mini machines. I think both can exist… atleast it’s what I hope
Much of the talk how 3D artists should now look forward to working with AI in excitement is totally like saying in the 1850s that trained professional painters should instead work for photographers and clean and enhance their images for fraction of their former pay.
Ultimately, photography and painting branched out into their own very unique skillsets. I'm wondering if there's any potential for AI to do the same, or if it simply overwhelms a given profession (I'm assuming the latter)
@@robinmetcalfe2559 well, the whole modernist movement and entire 20th century wouldnt happen in painting if photography didnt arrive. Either way, I think there has to be no discussion that the number of painters and their share on the commercial market is a fraction of what it used to be. Then it happened to classical photography itself, once digital photography democratized it: its value dropped professionally and increased culturally, meaning that few people are willing to pay for it now but everybody does it and has a camera or an app in his pocket. It will be the same once the public space gets saturated with one-click cgi.
@@robinmetcalfe2559 The AI is too omnipotent to allow different branches. It can create realistic looking fake photogaphy, impressionism, kubism, any 2D style. Also any new style I think people who compare it with photography, are simply wrong. Photography is fairly limited, it cannot produce otherworldly results. Only record reality. Art will be a hobby, unless A) you are able to monetize traditional paintings and sell them at high price to a collector or client B) you are someone who already had a huge social media following. I think it will be really difficult to get a following in social media from now on. The value of the skill has dropped. People keep following the artists they used to out of loyalty and habit, but overall the value of "a cool artwork" will never be the same again. Newcomers (traditional or not) will have hard time impressing anyone. There is simply an oversaturation of pretty images. Digital art already made it explode, and now AI has made it infinitely worse
I don't like the idea of seeing AI as "inevitable". That's a very passive attitude and we really ought to be more proactive in how we develop and regulate new technologies. They must adapt to us, not we to them. "Man must shape his tools lest they shape him." Besides which, the real issue in regards to AI replacing artists is that the corporations who employ them in the first place don't care. They don't care if artists better understand fundamentals and techniques because today's average consumer is happy enough to accept the bare minimum. They are not discerning enough to distinguish quality and so corporations are being given the keys to provide for them as much and as fast as possible. This is a specifically ethical and moral issue. There is no other way around that.
I suspect there'll be some big regulation legal cases coming down the road. The way in which the big generative models have been trained on so much copyrighted art and the anger that's generated will be tough to ignore.
I still think the nuclear analogy is the closest. The capability of the first nuclear weapons and AI have been demonstrated, and its already far more powerful than we would have expected. We can't unsee it, and while you can choose to not use it, your competition may not make the same choice. In that sense, its inevitable, like it or not AI and nuclear weapons are too powerful for people to not desire them. We can argue about the ethics all day, but if we don't have a achievable plan of how to control it, its not being stopped.
@@robinmetcalfe2559 What you think is copyrighted or infringement of of a copyrighted material when it's actually not. but you are welcome to waste your time, money and effort.
@@Waffle4569 yup. just cuz you can doesnt mean you should. like...sure, u can kill a man but you'll need reap the repercussions later. We are only seeing small repercussions now..there will be MUCH bigger repercussions later.
Honestly, your opinion is very much aligned with what I think and have been seeing from this whole AI shitstorm. I've been listening to a lot of opinions from artists and "tech bros" and it pretty much seems like it's going in the direction you're saying. I think a lot of people will be hit really hard by this and will have to jump the ship of the still image market. The value is already dropping a lot with these AI's out there, and the majority of the clients who commission this type of art simply don't care about the artist and are only looking for the end result, competing with AI is gonna be extremely hard. That's not even considering the saturation and noise AI will bring with its deluge of images on the internet. It's gonna make standing out A LOT more difficult, especially for the most vulnerable and largest group of artists, the beginners. Now, I believe there will be an increase in appreciation for human-made art, but will that be enough to absorb all those extra artists who will probably lose their income? I don't think so. Who knows what is gonna come next... in my case, as a sculptor, I am thinking of going more traditional (clay), there's a lot of appreciation for handmade stuff, especially with Social Media these days. I think more than ever artists need to become more business savvy. There are a lot of unexplored niches out there, but during that shift a lot of artists caught "with their pants down" and that can't shift quickly enough will suffer. For some, it might force them to drop art as a career altogether. I cannot even imagine what this whole thing will do for the next generation of artists... It's a sad thing but the genie is out of the bottle now, there is no going back...
I think moving to animation, even subtle effects added to a still image will be a logical step for many artists. Make use of AI to complement the process, but ultimately put a lot of your own style into the movement and fluidity of an animated piece. I suspect it'll be a long time until AI perfects animation. It can do animation well in the sense that it can stitch somewhat related frames together, but doesn't really have any solid understanding of e.g. momentum, fluids, how fabric moves etc. - a lot of the underlying physical processes that it doesn't really need to understand in order to paint pictures. It's only a gut feeling but I think that artistic mediums such as animation, music etc which develop over time, rather than static one-frame images will be a lot tougher for AIs to bypass the "uncanny valley" effect. Also, is there as much rich metadata available for music/animation (even on a per-frame basis, explaining how muscles/fabric/objects/machines move - a lot of information needed) compared to what's available through image captions? (not as much detail needed to explain how things move/act/flow) - that metadata being what allows AIs to train on artworks so easily.
@@robinmetcalfe2559 I think animation will go away first not 3d modeling with complex shapes and many functional and meaningful pieces. Give it like 10-15 years... 2D is much more simple then 3D and it is harder to steal billions of 3d objects in different styles for AI databases, but there always will be the need of human tuch.
U don’t get it andrew. The fact that AI is sooo good at what it does is because it is built on professional artists work. The moment you train the AI on just non copyrighted stuff, the quality of the entire dataset would go drastically down. No artist worth their salt would agree to having their art be a part of these datasets. The part about referencing is that it’s small independent artists referencing other artists and making a living compared to a monopoly on art. This argument is so stupid…it’s like people are willing to give everything away, private data, copyrighted data in the name of progress.
Well Human artists train their artwork on professional artists work also so just because it's derivative doesn't make it not a functional tool. I'm not an AI expert but programers seem to working on AI constantly to make it more creative and make its output more human like. It's quite inevitable that AI software's will become complex enough to create original looking pieces of work. Humans don't draw original ideas from nothing. It's always a continuation of something. and drawing on various different ideas. You can also argue that there's such little innovation and the constant recycling of ideas within the creative industries that it's really something that is perfectly suited for AI. It is cheap and it is turning art into more of an industry but that's just the nature of this industry. You're not going to stop anything that allows business's to hire less people and make more money unless you replace the institutions of western society itself. Let's also remember that a creative person using an AI software would be just as capable of creating an original animation or painting than someone that produces these things through the traditional methods. The tools within the software are going to become more versatile and there's no reason you can't generate original things using code rather than Animation software or a paintbrush. It's still going to be humans behind these things at the end of the day.
I think you'll have to prove you made your artwork in the future, much like how you have to do CAPTCHA to prove you're human. I've already seen some cases where traditional artist who upload their work online are being accused of generating it using AI. It's going to be a weird dystopian Blade Runner-esque landscape where you don't what is real and what isn't.
That’s the other reason I’m against banning AI on forums and artstation. People don’t realize that it’ll turn into a witch hunt where you can’t prove you didn’t and accusers can’t prove you did. Several conventions and communities have banned it already and it seems incredibly short sighted.
It'll be interesting to see how AI detection tools will keep pace with AI generation tools. There will likely be some very subtle tell-tale signs, *maybe*, present in AI artwork. If anything, even just the lower quality imperfections present in human work could give it away. Can we teach generative AI to paint *consistently badly*? "Blade Runner" definitely, but instead of interviewing potential replicants, Deckard just spends his days browsing ArtStation running sophisticated checks for AI! "I've seen pictures of 3D astronauts you people wouldn't believe..."
In my opinion, art is somehow also time, so you can measure art by how much effort and thought you put into something, in that sense ai will never be able to replace human art.
Us using a reference is not the same the AI image merging, I disagree with that 100%. I can't take your art and mimic it's attributes to another person's art work and have a merger of two or more acutal images with accurate application. My skill, style and method will always be different and will never fully match your work, AI is more than a "reinterpretation" of the same piece of work. It's taking elements from each literally and applying them digitall to a "canvas." I do hoard images on my computer but taking inspo for LOTR isn't hypocritial...it's something that gets you drawing. The more you draw, the more you develope your own style. No one owns a genre. But art "style" or "identity" that clearly when someone sees it they see your work, that's not it for me. Especially without consent.
AI NEEDS regulated. I don’t like that my personal art is automatically opted into these data scrapers, it’s demoralizing because they’re profiting a shitload off work like mine. Copyright free based AI is the best way to go forward. (Also China is trying to regulate it- they just mandated all ai have to be labeled or it’s banned. They know the power of ai can harm them just as much as all of us, and letting it run amok is not in anyone’s best interest.)
@@SuperSigma69 you seem to glaze over the fact they stole data to profit off of without consent. That's a huge redflag on privacy. Let's not get into stupid arguments and realize they're going to harm EVERYONE whether you're an ai bro or not. This affects you as much as it does me, even if you're not the one feeling it yet. Also, there's a class action lawsuit now against Stable Diffusion and MidJourney and all the companies making a profit off their data sets. Regulations for how our data is used will protect people. We NEED this. All of us.
No surprise from the same guy who was siding for NFTs a year after they were already dead by everyone’s account. Congrats man, and no wonder the concept artists you talk to agree with you if they are Lord Genius-Take himself Shaddy Safadi who has never had a good take in the last 20 years.
Yeah I must say I had to chuckle as soon as I saw the title and the characteristic pile of corporate techno-optimism: everything will be swell guys. I wonder how Poliigon will be doing in an era where you generate your models using AI and/or dont render them in the first place.
Yeah something about 'Shady' Safadi rubbed me the wrong way the moment I heard him speak several years back. It's no wonder he ended up In the position he's In, dude has 'CEO' written all over him, lol.
I had an intern who couldn't draw her way out of a paper bag. She drew in a copycat 'anime' style, and had never developed the skill in college to look at things in the real world and record them. In the future, this ability (like the ability to memorize things) will atrophy. When flat vector illustrations flooded the royalty free sites, a lot of people used them because it meant more profit, and they became a trend because they were everywhere. At the end of the day, a client doesn't want the best, he wants the cheapest thing that will get the job done. Nuance and metaphor will become noisy artifacts, there's been a decline in that type of thing over the decades in any case. Like climate change, I'll be retired (or dead) before it all shakes out, but random images will be good enough for most clients. Sometimes the technology drives the culture, and not always to a better place.
I hate AI so much, it's a trend like NFTS and crypto but the problem is that this time around it's going to gain a hell of alot more ground than NFTS and crypto did because there's been big boys in the game since the start (Google, Facebook, various governments and research companies, etc.) Is it really not possible to advance humanity and dodge this "singularity" I've heard about without removing the human aspect of our society? Because that's what if feels like they're hellbent on doing... It feels like a sick and twisted idea of progress where WE are in the way... From creating a hedonistic """Utopia""" (Wich is more likely to happen) to even in the late game it is predicted that an ASI will eventually emerge (that being God in the form of AI, an AI god)
About references: Honestly, using generated and unique AI images as reference material is much better than using pre-existing images as reference material. You can generate a forest, see that it resembles a forest, then use that forest in a collage and make a greater project out of it. AI literally generates unique reference material that might be trained on everything nice that exists, but will give unique results. So someone who is mad that someone else wants to draw characters the way he do don't have to be grumpy anymore because people can train on unique results from an AI muse.
Argument that AI can be a tool is really not resonating with me. If this gets really better there wont be much to do for an artist, more to art director.
Agencies will be hit as well once AI does half their copywriting, all the coding and design. And if the price of our work drops, in the end agencies will get smaller budgets and smaller marging. It is all interconnected and dverybody will notice it in the end
@@ZalvaTionZ in a society with most jobs handen over to automatisation taxation on that tech and transfer to the people is the solution. Government needs to keep people in wealth anyway one way or the other, otherwise the economy runs into recession as people would consume far less.
Yes but honestly it would have been more helpful for them to elevate artists via human centered ai art tools or ai that helps people learn arm. Ai art programs as they currently exist show a lack of respect for artists much less and understanding of them or their profession
The problem (outlined by zapata) is that also storytelling, animation and acting will follow suit along concept art. And at the point where all of this creation is cheap, you also don't need a trained eye as you can just flood the market and let customers decide. The loop can be closed without any creators.
People forget AI still need existing art to generate its thing. If people stop making new art, eventually AI will start sampling its own thing and gets 'bland' pretty quickly.
The issue is that all the new jobs that will be created could just as easily be replaced with AI also idk. There is no good reason it will not be able to do the new stuff too after all ironically it did the creative part surprisingly easily that was considered the hardest. This thing can really scale up. "Bright" side is that it is for everyone not just for artists so a general solution should be found otherwise in time most people could be out of a job. Interesting times for sure though...
TlDr: You will do twice as much work for quarter the money, much like photographers do nowadays. Just like digital cameras "democratized" photography and made it almost impossible to make a decent living out of it, digital art will be have less value professionally and more culturally: nobody will want to pay for it anymore, because everybody has it in his pocket. I think this prediction that “basically you are ok as long as you are creative” will be laughable in a few MONTHS time. The price of EVERYTHING concerning still image will go down dramticaly, most corporations (let alone small companies and entities) will think twice about spending hundreds/thousands on full productions and waiting for weeks when all they need is some content/filler or an idea vizualization in teal and orange. Most of advertising will totally be solved that way once the resolution is just a little bigger. The idea that “technical artists should worry but creative shouldnt” doesnt male sense: its on the contrary and creative visuals can be generated in seconds, every art director will prefer doing it himself rather than hiring a 3D/2D studio, what AI cannot do at the moment is exactly technical accuracy and consideration for function.
@@cacateeah True. But 1) art directors are far more important for the process 2) they are much cheaper, given their fix pay 3) agencies need the keep their inflated budgets. What would they charge for if they didnt have an openspace-worth of batchbrew drinking hipsters, but just one guy asking ChatGpt for advertising claims?
OMG! Little Andrew has grown up! I'm just remembering when he first started his Blender TH-cam journey! Now he's still showing his remarkable insight. Well summarized Andrew!
Once "AI" models could do most things better than humans, I always wondered if people would (A) stop living in denial or (B) bury their heads deeper in the sand or (C) rage quit. It appears the answer is B and C.
First off. Looking good Andrew! Bravo. Secondly. I am loving your podcast and really enjoying your finger on the pulse and discussions with working artists. My number one news and wisdom source in this realm. Thank you. Sincerely
I agree with every point on a rational level. However, I feel about it very differently. Working as a designer is my second education (I was not able to work in the field I got my university education in anymore for personal reasons) and I am able to support myself with it for the last couple of years now. For me AI feels threatening. I don't want to start over again. I finally established myself in a niche and it took a lot to get where I am now. I don't want to complain but I just feel hopeless sometimes. The thought of being replaced by AI because I am not fast enough it scary. But I guess that's how our economy works....
I've been in the Pro AI vs Anti AI comment trenches for months. Trying to understand the arguments from both sides. I think you've hit every major topic on the head in a very rational evaluation of how it might play out. 💯 agree that AI is going to empower people to open their own studios. Some will create their own products. Others will maintain a b2b strategy. Ive been in the video production biz since 2003. AI's presence will likely mimic similar results for the workforce that happened to film/video studios in the last 20 years. When youtube became an accessible distribution hub and digital cameras + editing software became affordable things changed. Film & video technicians had to/could think about work opportunities differently. But I think they changed for the better. Before, we had to schedule time with an editing and color house for $300/hr to cut/grade our film and transcode to tape. It was impossible for the little guy to compete. It was also very difficult to get a job at a studio at a paying entry level position. Now more people are able to get into the field and offer technical services with the digital pipeline right away. Small video studios now compete with the big guys. The big guys now outsource more work. More artists are employed - just in a different pipeline and with more independence. I suspect AI will do the same for so many other creative fields. I could be wrong but if history repeats itself its a logical prediction based on my experience. *Edit: My autocorrect AI is dumb sometimes. I had to correct words
@@cesar4729 For sure. I'm predicting that in the future AI will likely exist and be used on a spectrum. On one end there will be AI's like the current models that heavily require human input in order to generate anything. If a human doesn't operate the buttons it doesn't do anything. The other end will include models that mimic human sentience and create freely on their own without human interaction. Somewhere in the middle, there will likely be a larger market of collaborative talkback between AI's and humans. These models will be customized after our own individual likes, styles, and use cases. Just because the tech can replace a human task doesn't mean that humans with a desire to create will/should throw up their hands and give up on that task. Nor does it mean jumping in front of the steam engine to stop it from continuing down the track that has already been laid. We have a long list of technology that was once heralded as the end of an industry and a job market. But in most of those cases, they made the tasks more efficient, cost-effective, and in more demand than ever before. Sure, the ball was dropped by leaders when paying the workers was tied to time and not the problem being solved. But that's more a topic of capitalist greed and ethical work environments. Thankfully, we live in an age of connection and technological access. We have the ability to start businesses, brands, and niches for things that are unique to the human experience far easier than ever before in the history of humanity. People can refuse to work for unethical businesses and build ones of their own with far less capital than ever before. Humans are always adapting our knowledge to create new things. Humans are natural creators - no matter the tools they use. We've reached an existence where technology is part of human evolution. But, of course, this is all opinion and I could be absolutely wrong. I just choose to have a little more long-term optimism on the subject of technological change given the historical evidence. Because the other option causes too much anxiety and distress that I have no control over.
@@ohheyvoid It is a complex subject, but conceptually simple. We can't fly, but we learned to make airplanes and spaceships thanks to technology and super computers that vastly surpass us. All I see today is more of the same, only people don't see this as technology, but as something to compete with. Which causes an abrupt clash in which we have no chance of winning. If we change that perspective, we may find a new level of potential to create things like never before thought possible.
@@cesar4729 Agreed. I think the clash and need to compete is a natural human instinct when something comes along that can challenge our identity as individuals. Art is very personal and very private for many people. The drastic change AI brings so quickly is understandably terrifying. Most of us strike when we feel uncomfortable - we don't ask, "why do I feel this way?" Changing one's perspective takes time and regularly doesn't happen at all. Which is fine in the end. I think the debate at hand, while uncomfortable for everyone involved, has shined a light on needing a wider understanding of data practices, business practices, copyright, and intellectual property rights. Especially now that we live in an age where almost everyone with a social media account is a content creator. We'll figure it out eventually. Maybe.
@@ohheyvoidwell said. The typesetting industry disappeared when computers arrived. Industries shift. New jobs are created. We have to embrace the new and make it work for us. The typesetters who only grumbled were left jobless.
As always your take is impartial, personal and intelligent. Same as with your NFT video. Nobody complained when software added perspective tools or 3D pose models, imagine a person who studied perspective or lighting for decades how they felt when suddenly their skill was replaced by a button. As a programmer sorting a list now is just typing .sort, in the past you had to make the algorithm for the task, you had to allocate and free memory, now the garbage collector does it automatically for you. That doesn't make people unemployed, it multiplies jobs because the skill needed is lower and allows for greater scale because a lot of work is already done and you can focus on other tasks.
@azurie580 Yeah. I do believe that horrible things will happen, but maybe also nice things will happen. I mean, these times we are living in today have some really big problems - like the climate crisis and the energy crisis. Social media putting pressure on kids and feeding their anxiety. I would gladly let AI take care of that. But I agree - it is scary thinking about that empty prompt field staring back at humanity. What do we really wish for? But I'm not that worried. We have invented it and we will incrementally deal with it. I do think it's going to be fine in the end.
Can you make video with advice for starting artist? I wanted to change careers and only recently started making concept art commissions, and was thinking about animation career but now I dont know how to learn how to break into industry which is changing so fast. If pipline will change so drasticaly and junior jobs will deacrease, what can I do? Learn how to prompt? xD
You need a solid showreel, and to start networking. Upload your showreel everywhere. Go to events at the companies you want to work at. Introduce yourself to people and get your foot in the door with any job they'll give you. Intern if they have positions open.
i think the copyright issue is bigger than you gave it credit for. as an artist, i'd be happy to use an ai model as a tool for my work that was trained on public domain images and ethically sourced stuff, but i refuse to use any of the non-ethical models that were trained on people's work, not to mention the medical record stuff or the porn, without permission. i think a lot of artists feel the same way.
The thing is that training a model on datasets does not impinge on copyright laws. It is clearly within the fair use of intellectual property. It's not any more unethical than going and looking at thousands of images on deviant art or IG and using them as inspiration for your own work. The real issue is that these training sets and algorithms should a) be open source and b) include as much diversity as possible. My fear is that many bipoc and underrepresented artists will remove their work from the data sets creating even more homogeneous artwork that reinforces they status quo.
@@madox4061 Things change. Ai is coming regardless. Time to evolve. If we don’t progress in ai, China will… you don’t want to be behind with ai. That’s bad news for everyone if a country like China has far surpassed us cuz we’re caught up in people in the US complaining about ai being unfair. Adapt or get left behind. You’re only hurtin yourself if you don’t accept it.
@@lp712 Same goes for cloning. Can it do a lot of good? Absolutely. Is it our future? Perhaps. Just because a new technology is created, doesn't mean it should be used. Humans make our own choices, we might as well be insects without our morality and ethics.
AI technology should never replace human skills & jobs. The advancement of AI was supposed to help humans solve problems we couldn't solve, not replace the things we love. Whatever happened to that mentality? it just seems like these companies are only invested in AI for the sake of the money that it can take away money from the middle class who made the work....its the intention of why they are doing this that i think, most people have an issue with. it's incredibly irresponsible and AI SHOULD be regulated to keep things fair for the rest of the industry. Majority of lawmakers agree that if u make money off a product, it should be regulated for fairness with other competitors...so it doesn't become the monopoly.
Let's go back to Betamax vs. VHS. Betamax was far superior in visual and audio quality, but was more expensive, kinda like artists, programmers, filmmakers, animators, etc. VHS won out based on price point and convenience. Good enough was good enough and the market gave consumers an inferior but inexpensive product and betamax was relagated to being used for backups in the film and animation industry. We are looking at becoming betamax in this dystopia. Any of the reasons given as to why an artist is necessary in the loop here are things any non-artist can input into chatgpt and output example prompts for midjourney. AI can write your prompts, an artist doesn't add value there, their value was slurped up into the training data with all the others. We have become the food for the AI machine and we are deluded that we are creative when we use it, but we are just consumers. Its like saying your google search results based on your clever search terms are some kind of significant creative act. Its not. Its consumption. When even a child can press the art button and its good enough for the market, we are unnecessary and our value is now in being the data it is trained on, which is why artists are upset. We are being harvested and its sold as enabling our creativity. Its leveraging a vast dataset of human creativity for a product that requires NO real creativity to use and consume. And if good enough is good enough, we are become betamax to the AI VHS.
Here’s my fresh take from years of pondering on this subject. Human artists and AI will be in a sort of arms race for the foreseeable future. Advantage AI: they can endlessly explore all artistic possibilities, no limitations. Advantages Human: (1) We are social beings. We care about genuine connections with real human beings. Particularly as AI becomes ubiquitous, art made by a human will actually be all the more special. (2) We live in the physical world; thus, we can connect with individual people through art crafted by our very own hands. Therefore, there will continue to be a market for crafted physical things, but the difference is that it will be increasingly important to connect with customers through genuine human interactions, thereby verifying that it was not produced with AI paired with automated manufacturing. Humans will capture the segment of every market where AI cannot tread - the real world, and real human hearts and minds. Initially, increased customer interaction will largely be done through video platforms, probably still primarily TH-cam, but also platforms with embedded videos like Kickstarter. However, consider the AI arms race. AI will be eventually able to generate videos of very convincing human impersonators, largely replacing “influencer” content creators. In response, humans will need to more directly connect with other humans. The trend will be, like a reverse industrial revolution, that artists need to generate more physical objects by hand and to physically connect with their audience through events, tours, signings, concerts, and local artisan shops, verifying that their work is genuinely made-by-human. This will still not stop human creators from copying an Ai’s ideas, however, and passing it as their own. The end-game strategy for AI will be to become embodied in robotics and take on human personalities, exploiting our need for social connection and our tendency to anthropomorphize everything. People will become genuinely connected with AI-powered robots. And if it gets to the point where a robot is arguably actually sentient and has its own personality and deserves its own rights, well then, the last bastion of creativity will be over for humans. Game over. But the good thing is that we get to live in a world full of artistic geniuses, and we can live out our lives as art appreciators, shed of our prior egos, and in awe of what the universe is capable of.
I simply view all these things as tools to use, I am currently taking classes to learn the foundations of modeling in blender so I can make my own projects. But I will 100% use AI for non essential fluff pieces such as background building and textures. But I still think regardless of what happens there will always be a demand for human made art
Sorry but the non copywrite materials will pale in comparison to the ones derivative of copyrighted materials. The vast majority of images online fall under copyright rather than the latter. The problem is people think they own the material they generate but it's taken off of the "backs" of the photographers and other artists and they shouldn't be able to copyright it as their own creation. When they attempt to profit off of it, they may start to lose in the legal realm. Also will the big studios be beat out by one guy/girl with the good idea from a prompt? And will it even be their idea or will they get it from another AI that was trained to data grab from others?
I was curious to hear your opinion given the amount of information you draw from (I'm on your mailing list) - this was intriguing, inspiring and grounded. Thanks so much!
then there is no choice but to add BIG! watermarks in our images, to make training with Dreambooth (yes, that application that fine-tuned the original AI's) a painful process.
@@GG-James-E dude, I have dreambooth right here on my computer, I have trained artstyles and characters, you think I don't know how it fuc&% works!? so shut up assh&le
I wonder if it would be possible to create a new file format that holds the posibility of including native copyright metadata to avoid it be ingested by AI software.
@@Quillet1992 That's called DRM - it exists, it always gets defeated eventually, and it just sort of slows down people who are being unethical (and usually hurts people who aren't).
AI won't replace artists. Artists that work in physical mediums like oil, acrylic painting, charcoal etc are always gonna be around. It's mainly the people that work with digital mediums like digital photography, digital painting, graphic design etc. that have an uncertain future... I expect the value of traditional art to go up once we start to get more flooded with AI generated 'artworks'.
A friend told AI to make an image like a specific piece of his work by title and artist name and it made several poor knock offs in a minute. But you can see how they used his piece as the starting point. He is not happy.
AI tools for helping with roto, camera tracking and other time consuming work is most welcome, but idiots who blatantly just post AI art and claim its their own is imho, a massive NO!
AI is not a tool that's what they tell artists to make them accept it. It was developed as a full replacement to cut artists out of the pipeline. Unless you push for regulation the only viable outcome from this is that people will have to move into a different career and you can never post art online again if you don't want your work eaten up and exploited by AI. Those minor skill gaps between non-artists and artists prompting will be closed as the tech improves and eventually artists won't be needed anymore. Art as a hobby won't be affected (besides the threat of posting your art online and people making models on your work) but the career will be gone.
This is what it seems like will happen with a ton of jobs seems like AI will take all the fun jobs humans want to do leaving us with the unfulfilling manual labor jobs until ai eventually replaces that
Very interesting perspective and articulated very well! I've mulled over a lot of these same questions as I've interacted with AI image generation and how it worked. I have aphantasia, which means that I can't "imagine" things visually. I actually developed my aphantasia when I was about 16 or 17, while I was taking some very basic graphic design classes, and almost immediately it had an impact on my ability to articulate creatively. AI has enabled me to engage with art in a way that I haven't been able to in more than a decade, and I think there's a completely valid argument for a use case for AI art which isn't commercially driven but instead as an artistic, self expressive process. Some people, either due to medical conditions like mine, a lack of natural talent or the time and resources to hone that talent, or other reasons that I'm unable to conceive of but which probably exist are less able to create art, and AI, while a pale imitation of human creativity, offers an outlet for expression and exploration. On the other hand, I think the copyright argument might actually have a hidden danger that people are unaware of. If AI models are not able to train on publicly available, but copyrighted, data, they will have large learning gaps, and the corporations and entities able to develop models by licensing IP and images or already owning large existing libraries of content are likely to make less democratized, more exclusive services that will put independent artists at more of a disadvantage. If the idea of someone randomly generating work that replaces yours is alarming, then I think it would be much more alarming to have industrial scale generation which is exclusively monopolized by corporate interests. I think there needs to be a balance for some way for AI to fairly leverage public art (while avoiding overfit- which does not necessarily need to be done exclusively by avoiding copyrighted images) in order to prevent learning gaps that essentially give entrenched, big money studios and corporations an advantage over smaller, independent studios. Art for profit has always been about selling, in addition to the raw productivity of art, a story, a narrative, something with soul and meaning that audiences will attach to, even if that meaning is as banal and insignificant as shilling a product. Corporations with billions of dollars can leverage resources to do that in the worst ways, while democratizing this technology allows independent creators with ideas to leverage that to tell unique, individual stories. People buy beautiful things, cool things, interesting things, but they invest in stories. I don't want to be alarmist, and I do think overfit and unethical sourcing of images are problems, but I think there's a lot of misconceptions regarding things like how datasets and diffusion models work that exacerbate those concerns. Some people are quick to take a side against AI, forgetting its inevitability. The moment Stable Diffusion released its models into the public sphere, AI image generation became something accessible to the masses. Taking it away from the masses and giving it only to corporate interests with deep pockets doesn't help independent artists, it just means they have to compete even harder against large corporations which can justify their closed datasets or pay for a premium service. I think the solution is to work towards a properly democratized and fair/transparent process (and maybe reform fundamentally broken copyright law) in order to provide better resources while also avoiding circumstances where independent artists are actually less valued because they lack access to the same tools that corporations have. I know that sounds a bit like "Give up and embrace AI" and to be fair I have probably accepted that position myself, but you can't shape a dialogue from outside, and disliking something doesn't keep it from happening. Artists engaging with the AI image generation community constructively (instead of engaging in reactionary tribalism) is the only way to make sure that happens in a way that secures the best possible future. On the other hand, AI advocates who trash on artists are jerks and should not be tolerated by the pro-AI camp- not only are artists the source of the data used in AI, artists are needed and valuable to actually make finished works out of what a machine can sort of amalgamate from data, and people on both sides should respect reasonable concerns from the other side.
There is lot's of concept artists that has aphantasia, creativity is also a skill, it can be trained, you can checkout Glenn Vilppu method of concept design.
I think it is extremely inaccurate to compare the human process of inspiration with that of a computer. People experience the world not through material properties but through meaning. We all perceive the world differently, influenced by our life experiences. A computer analyses an image with mathematical precision. People experience art through their personal world of experience, which the computer does not have. People do not remember a work of art with mathematical perfection. Moreover, people are determined by their craftsmanship: even if people are inspired by the same picture, their own handwriting can always be discerned in their work. Those who are inspired add their personal touch and, through their attention and effort, also earn the right to create their own work. AI, on the other hand, enables every human being to quote another work of art directly, without any personal filtering or craftsmanship.
The most hardest things to make (no VFX..) is to create a character or an environment by sculpting, modeling and create realistic sci-fi textures what a AI can't do. When you already have your character, I will say that you have achieved 95% of the work of the AI without counting the fact that you will be able to help her afterwards and also corrected it, next she just most understand what is a hand, foot... but you help her everytime. I think what AI can do today is crazy but it might be hard for her to do better even years later. With what i say i explain AI can rigging a chara and with motion capture copied & paste animation. But let’s not forget all the bugs they will cause and the moments when they won't be of any use. To conclude Creativity is the power of The human Intelligence
Unreal has made so Indie Games can look AAA or even better, ofc I have only built linier levels at the moment so not sure how much optimization I'd have to do to make a full game, but It's incredible and migrating the Animation Sample project and adding your own animations on top wow
We are doomed…as I’m a 3d modeler…Nvidia is currently working with turbosquare, the massive 3d model website in order to create text to model in the next 8 month…there were text to 3d before, but now is very different…just like text to image, text to 3d model will be a thing…it’s just sucks that ur hard work get feed into the ai and take over your job…while big companies earn subscription 12dollar a month to use their website…
It's inevitable that AI innovation will go from "create a 3D model for me" to "create a 3D house for me" to "create a 3D city for me" to "create a 3D game for me" to "create a 3D game company for me" to "create a 3D game company generator for me" to "create a generator that can create any kind of company for me" to "create a generator that can create a company to replace each and every other company in the entire world for me". Mankind has from the very beginning been the only self-destructing race on this planet and it will never stop until we no longer exist. In fact, this process will only keep accelerating.
Thank you very much for this well-thought take. I also think that AI will be a great catalyst to liberate artists from the technical, tedious work. This has always been the trajectory. I guess people are a bit taken by surprise that AI accelerates this development exponentially. I am looking forward to this development. In the past, most artists were trying to make the next "Avatar" movie which boasts perfect technical quality but has very weak storytelling. We don't need more of that. Works of art that tell a unique, original and engaging story is what sticks with you. I am glad that AI can liberate us from tedious work so we can focus on achieving exactly that
Some people actually like the "tedious work." It's called creating. The end goal of AI art is to completely supplant human input. No prompting required.
The best ideas come when you are doing some "tedious work", people will just make some boring designs (it wouldn't be even theirs, it's machines work, they have no controll over it, unless they conect their brain directly to engine via neurolink or smth), without training and pushing their brain with "tedious work", look at the all people who rely on calculators in school, they have very limited and shallow logic. The same will happen with art, it's already is. There is no skill involved, just an enormous amount of mental masturbation.
Thank you for making this. This AI art debate has been flooded with irrelevant points since the beginning, with people confusing technique and craft for actual art all along the way. Everyone fighting this fight is just hurting themselves by wasting time on an irrelevant argument instead of making art that will demonstrate their value in a way no traditional or digital tool can replicate. Both sides misrepresent each other and, while I get the impression that's more often caused more by emotion than explicit intent, it's frustrating and sad that so many people can't understand that they're fighting a losing battle instead of working to become (or demonstrate their skill as) a great artist-with or without the assistance of artificial intelligence. But as you say from the start, it doesn't matter if you oppose or support the technology because the technology will exist regardless of any current debate. I wish people could understand that you can't rewind progress and look forward to find ways to do what they love within the inevitable circumstances of reality.
The idea that artists just need to "try harder" is flawed in that it conflates an artistic mindset with a business mindset. A person in business can start off with an idea that no one else has and make their millions. Artists generally get started making more derviative or rules based art before progressing to their more unique works. Before Picasso's blue period, he was learning the ropes doing naturalistic pieces. What you are suggesting means that artists will not be able to have that period where they learn their craft, they have to come out the gate with something unreplicateable. Even if what they produce is unique in style and presentation, if a program can make a copy of it, that means it wasnt very good after all, which is frankly bs. Your other argument is that artists shouldnt "fight progress" is, I think, based on a flawed understanding of the relationship between humans and technology. The role of technology is to make the lives of humans easier, not replace us or make it harder to excel in our own crafts. Technology should be increasing the options in life that humanity has, not adding constraints as you say. Thats counterintuitive. Technology is meant to increase efficiency, except the goal of art is not to be efficient, it is to be compelling and to reflect a person's perspective and hard work. AI is essentially being used to remove the process of art and skip straight to an end result in order to mass produce their art make them obselete. That isnt something that you can combat, just by making art that is just too good for AI, because no matter what, an AI will always be able to replicate something you thought of using your imagination. It is the human aspect of art that is being robbed, the thought and dedication behind an artwork are what give it value in the first place. Thats where the talent comes from. Criticising arguments against AI for being "overemotional" is flawed because this is an argument about emotion and the value that human emotion has in art.
@@owenleal I didn't say "try harder", mention anything about business, say that artists can't have a period of learning, and...I could keep going but it seems like you're reading and responding to a lot of things I never actually said or meant. I don't think you can really make a grounded argument about what art is in any specific way. My argument only consists of this: the progression of technology is inevitable and it's wasteful to exert effort trying to stop it when you can, instead, be a part of what shapes it (if you want to be). I can understand how, perhaps, my use of the word "value" triggers the idea of money in a capitalist society but I'm talking about value in the most general sense. I see an artist's value as their ability to use their craft to express something important to them in a way that connects with the people who experience their work. I'm only speaking to the pointlessness of arguing over the process that art is created. I'm not interested in telling anyone how to feel. I just wish that people could take a breath, calm down, and think about what actions would best further their goals. Personally, I think it's wonderful that people can have a tool that helps them express themselves. I don't mind if people disagree with that and am merely suggesting there are better ways to handle the disagreement. But I wasn't looking to get into a debate here. I'm responding to your comment because I'd prefer that my words are not misunderstood. My initial reply was simply to express support for this video and express why it matters to me.
@@adam.dachis "people are wasting their time fighting AI instead of working to become (or demonstrate their skill as) a great artist, with or without AI" this is your direct quote, the basic argument of which boils down to "you need to demonstrate that you can compete with AI" (in other words "try harder" or "be better"), which is an argument that frames art as being competitive in a business sense, that focuses on results and devalues the journey and process of creation. That is why I brought up business, I never said that you directly made that argument, more that your framing read like it comes from that standpoint. You saying that you can't pin down what art is, is disingenuous since you yourself did the same thing at the very beginning of your comment. "People confuse craft and technique with actual art". That is literally you making a statement on what art is. You are subjectively drawing a distinction between the process and the result. According to your argument, the art is seperate from the critique, when in reality the process of the work is as much a part of the art as the result, that is why people detail their process upon finishing a piece of work. The problem with your framing is that you dont see the difference between the process of creating art as a human and as an AI. An AI doesnt have an imagination, thoughts, feelings or a perspective on the world, any of the things that make art valuable. And the supposed "AI artist" doesnt have any say over what little process the AI does use. You say that you see an artists value as their ability to use a craft to connect with others, but they actually have little to no craft involved, so how can you be happy about that?
@@adam.dachis you accuse me of twisting your words, yet you havent actually explained the manner in which I am twisting your words, so it sounds like deflection. People dont write two paragraphs arguing a position that they deem pointless to argue, so once again, I consider that to be a deflection. Don't give an opinion publicly that you dont want challenged.
i disagree, humans are inspired, machines are not. dont even bother trying to justify or compare the two. we look at art and see a universe ahead of us, an AI looks at art and sees white noise. we use references to think of ideas for poses, models, hand motions, backgrounds, scenes, etc. and it rarely ever translates to a direct copy of the reference. an AI on the other hand uses copyrighted art to copy all of the information 1 to 1 into a subset of controls, art style, art form, etc. and twists the original image along with thousands to millions of other copyrighted images to create a blended morphed image. there are no similarities here. an AI can copy the likeness of any person in the entire world and allow the user to pose as that person online, is that what it will take for legislation to finally realize how dangerous this technology is?
the problem is that they the A.I is a commercial thing i have idk millions of photos from artist that i use for wallpaper its different thing plus the thing we don't tend value things that we don't have to work for art takes years to learn making it accessible for a 5usd sub only takes standard down for art at some point it won't really be a career option it will be wanna get good at art just use dalle or whatever and ai cannot generate anything on its own at some point the only artist will be ai artist true art might be lost and if every ones a artist no one is at some point ai art will over saturate thats the main issue, ai art its not a true skill it is not always about the results
Feel like AI will worsen the internet making it less desirable to go on when it gets full of AI generated stuff and chat bots get better and better that you wont even know if you’re talking to a real person
great thoughts, and Happy New Year Andrew!! One point I would add; Even the storytelling work will be replaced rapidly with chatgpt alike tools… We may have to have a strong focus on Human craft like ink line drawing, authentic painting, and buildinf 10.000 hours of craft building, combined with a system (blockchain) for authentication. Example in Philip K Dick’s book; the biological animals/pets had immesurable value, relative to synthetic pets. Philip predicte the increase in value of genuine things/animals. Meaning; how do we mark the fake versus the real. a blockchain system is needed, as the next development will become; And abundance of AI art will also decrease meaning and value. the core question, what art has a human soul, or meaning? fascinating times!!
Having references and inspiration is several galaxies away from pinching someone else's work. This argument in defense of AI is weak sauce even if some future version of AI is able to make art without help or input.
It's not the same result. Artists cannot come up with 1k finished pieces in a few hours and you cannot trace back each image with a seed. This comparison still breaks down. These are the natural regulations that keep a fair market. Let's also not ingore that if an ethical model comes out "just as good as the current ones" you wouldn't be able to type in artists names to copy them. I know you work mostly in 3d so it might be easier to just sit by and accept, but please take some time to think more broadly.
Also I kind of disagree, if you use current software, you will HAVE to use AI at some point, as most if not all major DCC and creative software will have some form of AI tools in its packages.
How can I leverage AI to create faster, better work? It's a genuine question because all tutorials I see are about typing text into different generators. I want to have control over what I create. For example I've been trying to feed a sketch to an AI to get better references, but I'm curious to see how others use it.
I'm already tired of writing about this topic. Maybe I need this break. Because it was from the beginning of everything. In other words, more than 7 months already. A lot of text went into this period. 😁 So , I will only cover a small part of your comment because the topic is too broad for me at this point. So I'm just a user, right? Another one? One of many. But still there are some details that make an impression on me. And that's just me. Here, for example, you say what some programmers (or the developers of these image generators themselves say) "it learns the same way people learn". And you yourself say: "if the police take your hard drive they will remove thousands of images of other artists from there". Images that you have studied. Did I understand you correctly? Because here's what hits me right on the head. That you don't understand the difference in this situation. In one case we have a person learning through no matter what. But it's just learning. Then he starts his work from scratch. He also uses the acquired knowledge specific to HIS PERSONALITY and his personal workflow without him providing these learned components to third parties or to the whole world as is the case with AI. In other words, when we talk about Artists, we are talking about INDIVIDUALS! And every single one of these individuals has developed his OWN skills for himself through a lifetime of dedication, persistence, love, passion and will. When we talk about """"A.I.""" mixer the situation is very different. First, there is no AI there. At least not in the sense in which we understand it. AI. As we all know this is not Artificial Intelligence , but an algorithm capable of learning. This is not AI, this is a program behind which sits a person (promter). And so, this software robbing each individual Artist individually, and then taking that stolen work and putting it into the hands of the entire world. In other words, there is no PERSONAL, INDIVIDUAL WORK there. No personal achievements. It's just lazy individuals being given the right to do something they weren't trained to do! They didn't put any effort in there! Because this software is for the mass audience. The bad thing is that A.i. devalues art. It also mutilates the personal handwriting of any artist from whom he has ripped off his personal work and personal Art style. It is very miserable for my eyes to see this. You also mentioned long turn. And I will say: something that starts with illegality cannot end well. I know my opinion is not popular, but I will share it anyway. Especially these "Art" programs, I don't think they will live long. The biggest mistake we make at this point is, I think, is that we don't do enough opposition and let illegal programs run wild in the first place. This thing shouldn't have happened specifically in this way even in the first place. In the end, things can turn out for the best. Art made by people to become even stronger and popular, and these algorithms to be legally revised and restrictions to be imposed on them. But at this point, their illegal activity is not getting the blow they deserve because of the damage they are doing to the market. They just look like they were made to compete, which is another thing that annoyed me at first. All this irresponsible greed. But as I said: in the end, things can turn out for the better.
Has blender and CGI TH-cam replaced collage grads and stupidly expensive software? Has the indie studio replaces the AAAA media studio? Yeah they haven't just look at the new Avatar movie could anyone by them shelves just starting out 0 experiences in the creative arts make it by themshelves? So why would AI replace all other humans jobs if indie humans can't? Also great discussion.
The ones who have all the money didn't get rich by paying out as much as possible for art and 3D. They have no reason to pay anyone when A.I 3d becomes standard. It doesn't matter what our personal intent might be, with viewing it as a tool or whatever. We wont have any reason to learn 3D any more, outside of personal fulfilment.
Just because I have put something out there on internet it doesn't mean that anyone can abuse it. Do I really have to go through the legal process of copyrighting every sketch and artwork I made? Do you know how much it would cost?
its an adjustment period, but honestly i was up 20 hours yesterday working in blender, the whole time i was thinking i cant wait fot A.I to make this process quicker so i can more sleep and time to chill. lets face it 3d software is in need of over haul. seriously.
You will have plenty of free time once you are out of work because what you used to do for 20 hours now any noob can generate for 8 dollars a month. You are welcome.
@@CurtisD01 You really jumped to soooo many assumptions (incorrect ones btw) didn’t you? Hahahahah! 3D modeling takes forever regardless of who you are. The best of the best still takes a long time with each project.
The only answer is "yes" - the question is badly formulated. it is not "ALL" artists. A lot of them work in non-artistic style of jobs. Frames for animation, stuff for computer games. A lot of those will be replaced - not all, but when AI does a lot of stuff, then you can maybe work with half the department. And yes, those ARE ALREADY being replaced. When you need to make 20 castles for a 3d game, and there is a robot to do that - there is no need to have that done manually (for a BIG cost) or have some AI generator just generate them and be done in an hour or two. The same goes for a lot of things - you can shoot down a lot of work by having the AI do the small side stuff, except it is not "small" but can be whole landscapes that are extracted from a human 100mx100m sample. Click, 2kmx2km with variety. Less artists. Btw., trained on copyrighted data - COPYRIGHT has some specific legal definition and it is not clear whether training neural networks apply here at all, and they are moot in Japan at least anyway. Legally removed for AI training. Your important point, btw., is absolutely not in line what you said before. Yes, AI tools cannot know - but LLM can. AI is improving fast. Wait until you get AI trained to write great stories and on all the cultural differences, then it will instruct the image model appropriately. And obviously, like pretty much all people, you ignore what happens when we do not go full speed into AI and the Singularity - you will ALSO be surplus, or your children, when they tend the fields of a medieval world after our civilization crashes back with NO chance to ever get back, as all the easy resources have been used up. Think at things in a larger scale. Like also looking at the progress - you think of artists and say how you need people to clean up. No, you need an intelligence. An artificial intelligence. Over time, there is no job an AI/Robot cannot do better - WANTING a human artist is the only thing that is left.
So for a lot of job positions if they are not gone, they will become much more boring for artists. From a production stand point this will encourage small teams or even individuals to be able to create finished products from scratch. Skill based service positions will be diminished, this might be a good time for artists to become generalists (story boarding, concepting, modeling, texturing, animation and rendering) Had been an animator, while achieving those subtlety in animation could be rewarding but it's timing consuming tedious labor work. It's like if you can use cloth simulation why you need to key frame cloth animation. If AI can handle those tedious tasks and save time (such as manual retopo) why not use it although AI takes away the fun of art creation in some way. We also need to face the fact that many mediocre artists can create great arts by using AI so the market will be over-saturated by great arts regardless their skill levels, that's the trade off, nothing is perfect.
It's called point e due to it makes the models via a point cloud.. look into photons and volumetric video .. some amazing tech incoming .. 30 year vfx vet
It could replace commercial artists but not the creative type. Art is a form of expression and that is still completely under the human umbrella for the time being.
@@chrislloyd1734 Photoshop is different, it's still only a tool. People say the AI is a tool too, but it's not, it's going to be a direct replacement. We the artists are actually the tool, the tool it uses to learn more & more, and eventually get rid of us
@@shredd5705 I worked in advertising and there is a distinct difference between concept/creative artist and a finished artist. The only difference is that now humans provides the concept and AI the finished result. However, it is still only a tool and you are still the director.
Some good points there Andrew. I'd like to add that, in addition to reference folders, many Artists support Artists they admire by buying their books and other products, tutorials, attending lectures/events. We can meet, shake hands, hug, laugh, express gratitude and have conversations. It's not merely a mechanical referencing/scan of the imagery. Some of my most treasured memories are from traveling to meet the Artists that influenced me and learning from them directly. Also Artists have a reverence for Master Artists that is clearly absent from the datamining/generative process. You mentioned that the AI is inspired. I would disagree with you there as I feel true inspiration is a felt experience. Thanks for mentioning the OECD. Going to check that now. There's also an AI Incident Database keeping track of harms caused by the deployment of AI systems.
I do not think you can call ai imagery "art." art is not about the final result but the process, randomly generating an image from noise in 1 minute is not "art"
Very well said. I'm definitely more enthusiastic about using the AI tools as opposed to feel threatened by them. This could be because I'm pretty young (23), but still, I think that even though it's understandably more difficult for older artists, this is very important mindset to adopt.
@@f4ust85 I mean the mindset of "I can achieve the same results faster and cheaper, even if that means I need to learn new things and potentially neglect knowledge and skills I've worked on for years". Instead of competing them, join them. I think this is with Andrew is trying to say here. Obviously it's much easier said than done, but it wouldn't be the first time in history where tech replaces some jobs. If you would look at the history of unemployment from 1940 to today, you wouldn't see a steady increase (just spikes here and there that always correct themselves)
@@ShaharHarshuv firstly, in the 1940s they didnt have looming robotisation an Industry 4.0, its the very point that this doesnt paradigm shift doesnt have any clear equivalent. Machines and production lines replaced peasants and workers in the insustrial revolution era on a much smaller scale and it lead to huge social unrest and revolutions all over the world. Secondly, what do you mean by “learning it”, have you ever tried it? Its the very point of models like MidJourney to skip the middleman altogether and male the creation of highend visual accessible to anyone without prior knowledge, what is there to learn? Lastly, lets say you DO succeed, survive on the market and make a living of ai-generated stills - how much you think such work is worth when the cost is about 5 cents per piece and it takes 8-15 words to generate? Hardly comparable with 4 weeks of modelling and lookdev, huh? The entire market will totally shrink and what is left of it will be on the level of bottom-feeder copywriters who write short reviews and adverts for 3 dollars a page.
I don't think more is better, look at game developer how many studios is bankrut, on market is to much games and standard people play only a few games. If in life you will expirience and see to much your life is goes into stagnation, easy is not better. Ok I understand technological evolution but in healthy way, when no one get hurt and replace. What do you think why in XXI centures is that many suicides i think life in many aspects is to easy and we start thinking on very depresion things but second aspect is life going to fast. One corporation wants to overtake the other, but in sick way. I'm curious when someone will do recepture-how to make fake gold but no one will see the different in structural, and i will sell this gold on market for 1/40 real gold, and how fast corporation and big countres will react to and they change the law to self advange. Big can, small not.
I recently started learning modeling in blender , my plan is or better say WAS becoming prop artist . now I'm so confused and disappointed idk what to do . should I stop it ????
The issue is a big tech company using people’s labor, without permission payment and credit. This tech is abusing the labor of other. How this tech should have been implemented is an assistant to others labor. A person developing there own AI based off there work.
I just wounder in this fast paced world. Speeding up so much. How much will lose with the A.I art. Sure its cool. But what are we sacrificing for this?
An animator friend of mine needed some painted backgrounds very quickly. He drew some quick flat-shaded images and then used AI to implement his own painted style on to those, which he then painted over to neaten things up etc. It was a perfect use of AI in my eyes, turning a day-long job in to 30 minutes and all using his own work at its core. I hope we see more of this and less of the exploitation and genuine laziness from AI "artists"
These things impair persons ability to train one's personal perceptions. But everyone has his own choice.
I still draw the sets and stuff by hand and then Photoshop. Also 3D and classic sculptor.
I still won't use AI until I see the final outcome of the lawsuits against the developers of these programs.
But yes, still what you said is more honest and fair against the background of those clowns "AI" "artists" having the nerve, on top of everything, to lie that they had drawn this what AI produce for them. Which behavior is the bottom of the human fall.
@Azuri e we got degradation moral now on. one of most antisipate ai impact.
I see the value in this as well but unfortunately this is not how it’s going to work in the long run
If this continues, no one will create anything anymore. People will be inundated with AI images and the value of art will be non-existent. No, no one will buy your AI art. No one is going to buy your prompt. Writing a prompt isn't a skill, because literally anyone can do it. All this will do is destroy human creativity, because no one will have the incentive to create anything new. And the people who do something original will be lost in the noise and unable to support themselves. There is no future for humans with AI art. It's not "just another tool," it will outright replace humans entirely. They made an AI art director in Japan a few years ago that won out in a contest against a human art director. Maybe you feel like you need AI, but AI doesn't need you.
Spot on. Many bubbles on both sides will burst. Easy / sleazy / ill-gotten gains always end up having bad consequences.
The value of art isn't artwork itself, but the capability art has of bringing people together. Art is about community, not about drawing.
Sure, a lot of people will lose thei job to make things easier in production, but they will still need people to operate those AIs (And beliieve me, a good artist is a way better choice to describe a scene than a random guy) and yada, yada, yada.
Art is about people, not the content you produce. What I think will happen is the same that happened with Vocaloid, it will get and explosion than will be something that just some people are into (If it don't get censored b4 bc of all the legality stuff).
@@pedrovitor5324 I agree that the value of art lies in its ability to bring humans together, because it's about human expression. Even before recorded history, humans have been stirred to express themselves with images. It gives us insight into each other's experiences, convictions, and imaginations. Art is not only about the product, but the activity of creation itself. I'm not so narrow minded to believe that technology shouldn't have a role in assisting with the act of creation, but I fear that people have more to lose with AI text to image generators than they might think. I keep seeing the same erroneous argument that these programs will free up artists from "tedious work" to be more creative. However, if the tedious work being described is the actual act of creating, the implication is disturbing. Just about every creative decision is automated within these programs (composition, rendering, background elements, fine details, etc.). No matter how detailed the written prompt is, no one has complete control over every element produced in the end. Why should creativity be automated? When creativity is automated, AI isn't the tool, humans are. Every prompt we type only furthers it's machine learning program so that it can become a better mimic. I just can't see this as anything less than an existential threat to human creativity. I never thought I would live long enough to see myself become an anachronism, but now it's becoming a possibility. I know that AI has the power to completely change the course of human history, but we need to be responsible enough to ensure that we aren't creating a future where human potential is superceded and replaced by machines.
@@pedrovitor5324 yeaah problem is that not how people see it, majority of people see art as either historical value or "good to look at" trust me People wouldn't give a damn wether someone they hire to propmt have "Art skill" or not
@@victoradeyeye3133 yeeeah as long it generates money, we definitely heading there
People mention stuff like the benefits for indie game developers a lot. I wish I could see it that way. As someone developing an indie game, I considered my 3d skills an edge because I notice a lot of other small devs forego the 3d modeling and use premade assets. With people being able to just generate 3d assets, well my "advantage" that I took time to cultivate is gone and the market gets flooded with games and actual opportunities to make money on them probably disappear. Programming and gluing the pieces together in a game engine is the least fun part of the process, I still enjoy it, but not as much as the actual art aspects. None of this sounds like a benefit for me. I really think lowering the barrier to entry will just make it so even fewer indie developers can have any success. I understand there is nothing we can do to stop it, it's just a shame the only thing I'm really passionate about may not be possible because of this technology. I really hope I am wrong.
Agree. Market is always key in the end. Everything will get quicker, meaning cheaper. Twice as many studios? Perhaps, but doing twice the work for quarter of the current pay. Just like photographers nowadays, oh everyone is one.
The thing is: Why would I pay you if I will be able to more or less generate my own stories/music/images/games ond movies by myself?
@@przemekgacka1565 Exactly. And there are many examples of that already, thanks to tools such as Adobe Creative Suit that "democratized" many fields of creative work: 15 years ago, you would have a motion designer, a product photographer, video editor, website coder... Now typical agency hires a single person to do all these, because its more accessible through various tools. Are the results mediocre then? Of course, but who cares...
I couldn't agree more with your point of view. I think there's only one solution, and it's a sad but realistic one. The government is going to have to pay a universal basic income to everyone. Soon, being an artist or programmer will only be a benefit for the best seniors, juniors will be totally replaceable with a button. Small studios will be temporary, there may be many new studios each year but none of them will have more than 4 or 5 members and 99% of them won't last more than 4 months due to the flood of mediocre content created thanks to a button.
I don't know if it's worth investing thousands of dollars in art or programming training in universities right now.
All of this is not just going to happen in the world of art or technology, other professions such as taxi driver, train conductor, airplane pilot, truck driver, supermarket cashier, writer, news editor, voice actor, among hundreds of other automatable jobs will disappear.
@@aprats2 nah, it's not gonna happen. The majority of governments doesn't give a shit about people. They would rather gun people down, if peoplde doesn't contribute anything to the government and just demand something, and how would they if everything gets automated and they have no job? The only realistic way is to expect legislations, but we will see. Can't wait to see the future of humanity to be like in WALL-E, just fat blobs of meat decaying in their degeneracy.
I personally think that the manual labor of creating an art is important for creativity. Yes, it is a slow and painful progress but that is the thing making the art yours alone. I don't want to input text on how I want my art to look like, I want to painstakingly draw every single line and paint every single color instead of getting my work done by a machine.
it will replace artists, it is scary AF
It’s problematic but not unheard of. Draftspeople disappeared from architecture 20 years ago, now the remaining ones just sound like dinosaurs when they talk about the creative process. Truth is, if the ai prompt crafting becomes an extension of their body, it’s no different than sketching with a pencil or painting with a brush. You can be creative as long as u have mastery over your tools
I say there is nothing stopping you. While machines can create a lot of mass produced things people still appreciate and pay a pretty penny for something handcrafted. I’m and engineer so I use computer aided stuff all the time but it is so fun for me to go to museums and watch how it was done before hand and pick up old school mini machines. I think both can exist… atleast it’s what I hope
Yes, I feel you. But AI will never be able to take our pride away after we have finished one of our long projects with our pure hands. Fact.
@@schreckeninecken2583 But will it take our money away? Will it take our jobs away?
Much of the talk how 3D artists should now look forward to working with AI in excitement is totally like saying in the 1850s that trained professional painters should instead work for photographers and clean and enhance their images for fraction of their former pay.
Ultimately, photography and painting branched out into their own very unique skillsets. I'm wondering if there's any potential for AI to do the same, or if it simply overwhelms a given profession (I'm assuming the latter)
@@robinmetcalfe2559 well, the whole modernist movement and entire 20th century wouldnt happen in painting if photography didnt arrive. Either way, I think there has to be no discussion that the number of painters and their share on the commercial market is a fraction of what it used to be. Then it happened to classical photography itself, once digital photography democratized it: its value dropped professionally and increased culturally, meaning that few people are willing to pay for it now but everybody does it and has a camera or an app in his pocket. It will be the same once the public space gets saturated with one-click cgi.
@@robinmetcalfe2559 The AI is too omnipotent to allow different branches. It can create realistic looking fake photogaphy, impressionism, kubism, any 2D style. Also any new style
I think people who compare it with photography, are simply wrong. Photography is fairly limited, it cannot produce otherworldly results. Only record reality.
Art will be a hobby, unless A) you are able to monetize traditional paintings and sell them at high price to a collector or client B) you are someone who already had a huge social media following. I think it will be really difficult to get a following in social media from now on. The value of the skill has dropped.
People keep following the artists they used to out of loyalty and habit, but overall the value of "a cool artwork" will never be the same again. Newcomers (traditional or not) will have hard time impressing anyone. There is simply an oversaturation of pretty images. Digital art already made it explode, and now AI has made it infinitely worse
@@shredd5705 you clearly havent looked at many photographs.
I don't like the idea of seeing AI as "inevitable". That's a very passive attitude and we really ought to be more proactive in how we develop and regulate new technologies. They must adapt to us, not we to them.
"Man must shape his tools lest they shape him."
Besides which, the real issue in regards to AI replacing artists is that the corporations who employ them in the first place don't care. They don't care if artists better understand fundamentals and techniques because today's average consumer is happy enough to accept the bare minimum. They are not discerning enough to distinguish quality and so corporations are being given the keys to provide for them as much and as fast as possible.
This is a specifically ethical and moral issue. There is no other way around that.
I suspect there'll be some big regulation legal cases coming down the road. The way in which the big generative models have been trained on so much copyrighted art and the anger that's generated will be tough to ignore.
I still think the nuclear analogy is the closest. The capability of the first nuclear weapons and AI have been demonstrated, and its already far more powerful than we would have expected. We can't unsee it, and while you can choose to not use it, your competition may not make the same choice. In that sense, its inevitable, like it or not AI and nuclear weapons are too powerful for people to not desire them. We can argue about the ethics all day, but if we don't have a achievable plan of how to control it, its not being stopped.
@@robinmetcalfe2559 What you think is copyrighted or infringement of of a copyrighted material when it's actually not. but you are welcome to waste your time, money and effort.
@@Waffle4569 yup. just cuz you can doesnt mean you should. like...sure, u can kill a man but you'll need reap the repercussions later.
We are only seeing small repercussions now..there will be MUCH bigger repercussions later.
@@robinmetcalfe2559 Yeah those legal cases are not going to end in artists favor at all. They will not get a cent lol.
Honestly, your opinion is very much aligned with what I think and have been seeing from this whole AI shitstorm. I've been listening to a lot of opinions from artists and "tech bros" and it pretty much seems like it's going in the direction you're saying. I think a lot of people will be hit really hard by this and will have to jump the ship of the still image market. The value is already dropping a lot with these AI's out there, and the majority of the clients who commission this type of art simply don't care about the artist and are only looking for the end result, competing with AI is gonna be extremely hard. That's not even considering the saturation and noise AI will bring with its deluge of images on the internet. It's gonna make standing out A LOT more difficult, especially for the most vulnerable and largest group of artists, the beginners.
Now, I believe there will be an increase in appreciation for human-made art, but will that be enough to absorb all those extra artists who will probably lose their income? I don't think so. Who knows what is gonna come next... in my case, as a sculptor, I am thinking of going more traditional (clay), there's a lot of appreciation for handmade stuff, especially with Social Media these days. I think more than ever artists need to become more business savvy. There are a lot of unexplored niches out there, but during that shift a lot of artists caught "with their pants down" and that can't shift quickly enough will suffer. For some, it might force them to drop art as a career altogether. I cannot even imagine what this whole thing will do for the next generation of artists... It's a sad thing but the genie is out of the bottle now, there is no going back...
I think moving to animation, even subtle effects added to a still image will be a logical step for many artists. Make use of AI to complement the process, but ultimately put a lot of your own style into the movement and fluidity of an animated piece. I suspect it'll be a long time until AI perfects animation. It can do animation well in the sense that it can stitch somewhat related frames together, but doesn't really have any solid understanding of e.g. momentum, fluids, how fabric moves etc. - a lot of the underlying physical processes that it doesn't really need to understand in order to paint pictures.
It's only a gut feeling but I think that artistic mediums such as animation, music etc which develop over time, rather than static one-frame images will be a lot tougher for AIs to bypass the "uncanny valley" effect. Also, is there as much rich metadata available for music/animation (even on a per-frame basis, explaining how muscles/fabric/objects/machines move - a lot of information needed) compared to what's available through image captions? (not as much detail needed to explain how things move/act/flow) - that metadata being what allows AIs to train on artworks so easily.
@@robinmetcalfe2559 that's what content creators on TH-cam are modeling.. not the commentary channels... but the show your work channels.
@@robinmetcalfe2559 I think animation will go away first not 3d modeling with complex shapes and many functional and meaningful pieces. Give it like 10-15 years... 2D is much more simple then 3D and it is harder to steal billions of 3d objects in different styles for AI databases, but there always will be the need of human tuch.
@@vadimbelousov4938 There is already an A.I that can make 3d models, like, really impressive 3d models.
@@d3l_nev can you write the name? get3d and dreamfusion is very bad.
it's always the worst artists that are pro ai
Lol, cope harder
It's quite the opposite really
Get replaced son!
@@lexa7250Nah it's not
AI is great for generating textures that don't exist in repositories: this serves the good artists as well.
U don’t get it andrew. The fact that AI is sooo good at what it does is because it is built on professional artists work. The moment you train the AI on just non copyrighted stuff, the quality of the entire dataset would go drastically down. No artist worth their salt would agree to having their art be a part of these datasets. The part about referencing is that it’s small independent artists referencing other artists and making a living compared to a monopoly on art. This argument is so stupid…it’s like people are willing to give everything away, private data, copyrighted data in the name of progress.
'Progress' at that.
Well Human artists train their artwork on professional artists work also so just because it's derivative doesn't make it not a functional tool. I'm not an AI expert but programers seem to working on AI constantly to make it more creative and make its output more human like. It's quite inevitable that AI software's will become complex enough to create original looking pieces of work. Humans don't draw original ideas from nothing. It's always a continuation of something. and drawing on various different ideas. You can also argue that there's such little innovation and the constant recycling of ideas within the creative industries that it's really something that is perfectly suited for AI. It is cheap and it is turning art into more of an industry but that's just the nature of this industry. You're not going to stop anything that allows business's to hire less people and make more money unless you replace the institutions of western society itself. Let's also remember that a creative person using an AI software would be just as capable of creating an original animation or painting than someone that produces these things through the traditional methods. The tools within the software are going to become more versatile and there's no reason you can't generate original things using code rather than Animation software or a paintbrush. It's still going to be humans behind these things at the end of the day.
AI is basically a giant theft of small independent content producers: art, code, blog
And now Adobe make new rulz so they own your work to train their AI
I think you'll have to prove you made your artwork in the future, much like how you have to do CAPTCHA to prove you're human. I've already seen some cases where traditional artist who upload their work online are being accused of generating it using AI. It's going to be a weird dystopian Blade Runner-esque landscape where you don't what is real and what isn't.
That’s the other reason I’m against banning AI on forums and artstation. People don’t realize that it’ll turn into a witch hunt where you can’t prove you didn’t and accusers can’t prove you did.
Several conventions and communities have banned it already and it seems incredibly short sighted.
@@andrewpricepodcastwe’ll figure out a way
Prove for whom? Most people don't care how an artwork was made. They see a cool picture and they like it or they don't.
man that's not even a problem. how will that help artists if the clients don't care anyways.
It'll be interesting to see how AI detection tools will keep pace with AI generation tools. There will likely be some very subtle tell-tale signs, *maybe*, present in AI artwork. If anything, even just the lower quality imperfections present in human work could give it away. Can we teach generative AI to paint *consistently badly*?
"Blade Runner" definitely, but instead of interviewing potential replicants, Deckard just spends his days browsing ArtStation running sophisticated checks for AI!
"I've seen pictures of 3D astronauts you people wouldn't believe..."
In my opinion, art is somehow also time, so you can measure art by how much effort and thought you put into something, in that sense ai will never be able to replace human art.
Us using a reference is not the same the AI image merging, I disagree with that 100%. I can't take your art and mimic it's attributes to another person's art work and have a merger of two or more acutal images with accurate application. My skill, style and method will always be different and will never fully match your work, AI is more than a "reinterpretation" of the same piece of work. It's taking elements from each literally and applying them digitall to a "canvas." I do hoard images on my computer but taking inspo for LOTR isn't hypocritial...it's something that gets you drawing. The more you draw, the more you develope your own style. No one owns a genre. But art "style" or "identity" that clearly when someone sees it they see your work, that's not it for me. Especially without consent.
AI NEEDS regulated. I don’t like that my personal art is automatically opted into these data scrapers, it’s demoralizing because they’re profiting a shitload off work like mine. Copyright free based AI is the best way to go forward. (Also China is trying to regulate it- they just mandated all ai have to be labeled or it’s banned. They know the power of ai can harm them just as much as all of us, and letting it run amok is not in anyone’s best interest.)
Old jobs will die new ones will come. If you don't adapt, go cry.
@@SuperSigma69 you seem to glaze over the fact they stole data to profit off of without consent. That's a huge redflag on privacy. Let's not get into stupid arguments and realize they're going to harm EVERYONE whether you're an ai bro or not. This affects you as much as it does me, even if you're not the one feeling it yet.
Also, there's a class action lawsuit now against Stable Diffusion and MidJourney and all the companies making a profit off their data sets.
Regulations for how our data is used will protect people. We NEED this. All of us.
@azurie580Do you call yourself a good chef when all you do is just bake a pizza in your microwave?
No surprise from the same guy who was siding for NFTs a year after they were already dead by everyone’s account.
Congrats man, and no wonder the concept artists you talk to agree with you if they are Lord Genius-Take himself Shaddy Safadi who has never had a good take in the last 20 years.
😂😂😂 Have fun being left in the past bro
Yeah I must say I had to chuckle as soon as I saw the title and the characteristic pile of corporate techno-optimism: everything will be swell guys. I wonder how Poliigon will be doing in an era where you generate your models using AI and/or dont render them in the first place.
Yeah something about 'Shady' Safadi rubbed me the wrong way the moment I heard him speak several years back. It's no wonder he ended up In the position he's In, dude has 'CEO' written all over him, lol.
@@f4ust85 hahahaha this comment is gonna age like milk sitting in the hot sun
I had an intern who couldn't draw her way out of a paper bag. She drew in a copycat 'anime' style, and had never developed the skill in college to look at things in the real world and record them. In the future, this ability (like the ability to memorize things) will atrophy. When flat vector illustrations flooded the royalty free sites, a lot of people used them because it meant more profit, and they became a trend because they were everywhere. At the end of the day, a client doesn't want the best, he wants the cheapest thing that will get the job done. Nuance and metaphor will become noisy artifacts, there's been a decline in that type of thing over the decades in any case. Like climate change, I'll be retired (or dead) before it all shakes out, but random images will be good enough for most clients. Sometimes the technology drives the culture, and not always to a better place.
I hate AI so much, it's a trend like NFTS and crypto but the problem is that this time around it's going to gain a hell of alot more ground than NFTS and crypto did because there's been big boys in the game since the start (Google, Facebook, various governments and research companies, etc.)
Is it really not possible to advance humanity and dodge this "singularity" I've heard about without removing the human aspect of our society? Because that's what if feels like they're hellbent on doing... It feels like a sick and twisted idea of progress where WE are in the way...
From creating a hedonistic """Utopia""" (Wich is more likely to happen) to even in the late game it is predicted that an ASI will eventually emerge (that being God in the form of AI, an AI god)
About references: Honestly, using generated and unique AI images as reference material is much better than using pre-existing images as reference material.
You can generate a forest, see that it resembles a forest, then use that forest in a collage and make a greater project out of it.
AI literally generates unique reference material that might be trained on everything nice that exists, but will give unique results.
So someone who is mad that someone else wants to draw characters the way he do don't have to be grumpy anymore because people can train on unique results from an AI muse.
Argument that AI can be a tool is really not resonating with me. If this gets really better there wont be much to do for an artist, more to art director.
"when"
But the problem is "depper", there will not be much professions for humans. We need start to rethink our economic system.
Agencies will be hit as well once AI does half their copywriting, all the coding and design. And if the price of our work drops, in the end agencies will get smaller budgets and smaller marging. It is all interconnected and dverybody will notice it in the end
@@VandreBorba perfect. More automatisation means max. 10 hours work a week. 😊 More time for all the stuff you love.
@@samthesomniatorAnd you'll get paid for 10 hours of work. Meanwhile the stuff you might love is not viable any more due to economic reality.
@@ZalvaTionZ in a society with most jobs handen over to automatisation taxation on that tech and transfer to the people is the solution.
Government needs to keep people in wealth anyway one way or the other, otherwise the economy runs into recession as people would consume far less.
I enjoy listening to your insights. They arent just applicable to visual art and im learning a lot about the creative industry as a whole.
Yes but honestly it would have been more helpful for them to elevate artists via human centered ai art tools or ai that helps people learn arm. Ai art programs as they currently exist show a lack of respect for artists much less and understanding of them or their profession
The problem (outlined by zapata) is that also storytelling, animation and acting will follow suit along concept art. And at the point where all of this creation is cheap, you also don't need a trained eye as you can just flood the market and let customers decide. The loop can be closed without any creators.
People forget AI still need existing art to generate its thing. If people stop making new art, eventually AI will start sampling its own thing and gets 'bland' pretty quickly.
The issue is that all the new jobs that will be created could just as easily be replaced with AI also idk. There is no good reason it will not be able to do the new stuff too after all ironically it did the creative part surprisingly easily that was considered the hardest. This thing can really scale up. "Bright" side is that it is for everyone not just for artists so a general solution should be found otherwise in time most people could be out of a job. Interesting times for sure though...
TlDr: You will do twice as much work for quarter the money, much like photographers do nowadays. Just like digital cameras "democratized" photography and made it almost impossible to make a decent living out of it, digital art will be have less value professionally and more culturally: nobody will want to pay for it anymore, because everybody has it in his pocket.
I think this prediction that “basically you are ok as long as you are creative” will be laughable in a few MONTHS time. The price of EVERYTHING concerning still image will go down dramticaly, most corporations (let alone small companies and entities) will think twice about spending hundreds/thousands on full productions and waiting for weeks when all they need is some content/filler or an idea vizualization in teal and orange. Most of advertising will totally be solved that way once the resolution is just a little bigger. The idea that “technical artists should worry but creative shouldnt” doesnt male sense: its on the contrary and creative visuals can be generated in seconds, every art director will prefer doing it himself rather than hiring a 3D/2D studio, what AI cannot do at the moment is exactly technical accuracy and consideration for function.
I don’t think Art directors would stay long given the fact tech companies are popping out more language models and idea generators
@@cacateeah True. But 1) art directors are far more important for the process 2) they are much cheaper, given their fix pay 3) agencies need the keep their inflated budgets. What would they charge for if they didnt have an openspace-worth of batchbrew drinking hipsters, but just one guy asking ChatGpt for advertising claims?
OMG! Little Andrew has grown up! I'm just remembering when he first started his Blender TH-cam journey! Now he's still showing his remarkable insight. Well summarized Andrew!
Once "AI" models could do most things better than humans, I always wondered if people would (A) stop living in denial or (B) bury their heads deeper in the sand or (C) rage quit. It appears the answer is B and C.
🤡🤡🤡
First off. Looking good Andrew! Bravo.
Secondly. I am loving your podcast and really enjoying your finger on the pulse and discussions with working artists. My number one news and wisdom source in this realm. Thank you. Sincerely
I agree with every point on a rational level. However, I feel about it very differently.
Working as a designer is my second education (I was not able to work in the field I got my university education in anymore for personal reasons) and I am able to support myself with it for the last couple of years now. For me AI feels threatening. I don't want to start over again. I finally established myself in a niche and it took a lot to get where I am now.
I don't want to complain but I just feel hopeless sometimes. The thought of being replaced by AI because I am not fast enough it scary. But I guess that's how our economy works....
I've been in the Pro AI vs Anti AI comment trenches for months. Trying to understand the arguments from both sides. I think you've hit every major topic on the head in a very rational evaluation of how it might play out.
💯 agree that AI is going to empower people to open their own studios. Some will create their own products. Others will maintain a b2b strategy. Ive been in the video production biz since 2003. AI's presence will likely mimic similar results for the workforce that happened to film/video studios in the last 20 years.
When youtube became an accessible distribution hub and digital cameras + editing software became affordable things changed. Film & video technicians had to/could think about work opportunities differently. But I think they changed for the better. Before, we had to schedule time with an editing and color house for $300/hr to cut/grade our film and transcode to tape. It was impossible for the little guy to compete. It was also very difficult to get a job at a studio at a paying entry level position. Now more people are able to get into the field and offer technical services with the digital pipeline right away.
Small video studios now compete with the big guys. The big guys now outsource more work. More artists are employed - just in a different pipeline and with more independence. I suspect AI will do the same for so many other creative fields. I could be wrong but if history repeats itself its a logical prediction based on my experience.
*Edit: My autocorrect AI is dumb sometimes. I had to correct words
AI can replace human task, any of them. It can learn what we can, but like tons of times faster. Just a matter of (not much) time.
@@cesar4729 For sure. I'm predicting that in the future AI will likely exist and be used on a spectrum. On one end there will be AI's like the current models that heavily require human input in order to generate anything. If a human doesn't operate the buttons it doesn't do anything. The other end will include models that mimic human sentience and create freely on their own without human interaction. Somewhere in the middle, there will likely be a larger market of collaborative talkback between AI's and humans. These models will be customized after our own individual likes, styles, and use cases.
Just because the tech can replace a human task doesn't mean that humans with a desire to create will/should throw up their hands and give up on that task. Nor does it mean jumping in front of the steam engine to stop it from continuing down the track that has already been laid. We have a long list of technology that was once heralded as the end of an industry and a job market. But in most of those cases, they made the tasks more efficient, cost-effective, and in more demand than ever before. Sure, the ball was dropped by leaders when paying the workers was tied to time and not the problem being solved. But that's more a topic of capitalist greed and ethical work environments.
Thankfully, we live in an age of connection and technological access. We have the ability to start businesses, brands, and niches for things that are unique to the human experience far easier than ever before in the history of humanity. People can refuse to work for unethical businesses and build ones of their own with far less capital than ever before. Humans are always adapting our knowledge to create new things. Humans are natural creators - no matter the tools they use. We've reached an existence where technology is part of human evolution.
But, of course, this is all opinion and I could be absolutely wrong. I just choose to have a little more long-term optimism on the subject of technological change given the historical evidence. Because the other option causes too much anxiety and distress that I have no control over.
@@ohheyvoid It is a complex subject, but conceptually simple. We can't fly, but we learned to make airplanes and spaceships thanks to technology and super computers that vastly surpass us. All I see today is more of the same, only people don't see this as technology, but as something to compete with. Which causes an abrupt clash in which we have no chance of winning.
If we change that perspective, we may find a new level of potential to create things like never before thought possible.
@@cesar4729 Agreed. I think the clash and need to compete is a natural human instinct when something comes along that can challenge our identity as individuals. Art is very personal and very private for many people. The drastic change AI brings so quickly is understandably terrifying. Most of us strike when we feel uncomfortable - we don't ask, "why do I feel this way?" Changing one's perspective takes time and regularly doesn't happen at all. Which is fine in the end. I think the debate at hand, while uncomfortable for everyone involved, has shined a light on needing a wider understanding of data practices, business practices, copyright, and intellectual property rights. Especially now that we live in an age where almost everyone with a social media account is a content creator. We'll figure it out eventually. Maybe.
@@ohheyvoidwell said. The typesetting industry disappeared when computers arrived. Industries shift. New jobs are created. We have to embrace the new and make it work for us. The typesetters who only grumbled were left jobless.
As always your take is impartial, personal and intelligent. Same as with your NFT video. Nobody complained when software added perspective tools or 3D pose models, imagine a person who studied perspective or lighting for decades how they felt when suddenly their skill was replaced by a button.
As a programmer sorting a list now is just typing .sort, in the past you had to make the algorithm for the task, you had to allocate and free memory, now the garbage collector does it automatically for you. That doesn't make people unemployed, it multiplies jobs because the skill needed is lower and allows for greater scale because a lot of work is already done and you can focus on other tasks.
you mean without a backbone
Computers can DO everything, but they don’t WANT anything.
That is our thing.
@azurie580 Brave new world...
@azurie580 Yeah. I do believe that horrible things will happen, but maybe also nice things will happen. I mean, these times we are living in today have some really big problems - like the climate crisis and the energy crisis. Social media putting pressure on kids and feeding their anxiety. I would gladly let AI take care of that. But I agree - it is scary thinking about that empty prompt field staring back at humanity. What do we really wish for? But I'm not that worried. We have invented it and we will incrementally deal with it. I do think it's going to be fine in the end.
Thank you for your inspiring podcast on this exciting topic! All the best for 2023 and keep up the good work!
Always a pleasure to listen to you talk, Andrew. I'll take your advice and look towards speeding my workflows.
Can you make video with advice for starting artist? I wanted to change careers and only recently started making concept art commissions, and was thinking about animation career but now I dont know how to learn how to break into industry which is changing so fast. If pipline will change so drasticaly and junior jobs will deacrease, what can I do? Learn how to prompt? xD
You need a solid showreel, and to start networking. Upload your showreel everywhere. Go to events at the companies you want to work at. Introduce yourself to people and get your foot in the door with any job they'll give you. Intern if they have positions open.
"One of the biggest uses of VR is education" - they all said that about books, radio, video, television, internet and yet people still go to school.
i think the copyright issue is bigger than you gave it credit for. as an artist, i'd be happy to use an ai model as a tool for my work that was trained on public domain images and ethically sourced stuff, but i refuse to use any of the non-ethical models that were trained on people's work, not to mention the medical record stuff or the porn, without permission. i think a lot of artists feel the same way.
The thing is that training a model on datasets does not impinge on copyright laws. It is clearly within the fair use of intellectual property.
It's not any more unethical than going and looking at thousands of images on deviant art or IG and using them as inspiration for your own work.
The real issue is that these training sets and algorithms should a) be open source and b) include as much diversity as possible.
My fear is that many bipoc and underrepresented artists will remove their work from the data sets creating even more homogeneous artwork that reinforces they status quo.
@@SuperAleaiactaest it's legal. it's not ethical. humans are not computers and we do not have the same abilities.
@@madox4061 Things change. Ai is coming regardless. Time to evolve. If we don’t progress in ai, China will… you don’t want to be behind with ai. That’s bad news for everyone if a country like China has far surpassed us cuz we’re caught up in people in the US complaining about ai being unfair. Adapt or get left behind. You’re only hurtin yourself if you don’t accept it.
@@lp712 Same goes for cloning. Can it do a lot of good? Absolutely. Is it our future? Perhaps. Just because a new technology is created, doesn't mean it should be used. Humans make our own choices, we might as well be insects without our morality and ethics.
I agree with everything 💯
AI technology should never replace human skills & jobs. The advancement of AI was supposed to help humans solve problems we couldn't solve, not replace the things we love.
Whatever happened to that mentality? it just seems like these companies are only invested in AI for the sake of the money that it can take away money from the middle class who made the work....its the intention of why they are doing this that i think, most people have an issue with. it's incredibly irresponsible and AI SHOULD be regulated to keep things fair for the rest of the industry.
Majority of lawmakers agree that if u make money off a product, it should be regulated for fairness with other competitors...so it doesn't become the monopoly.
Let's go back to Betamax vs. VHS. Betamax was far superior in visual and audio quality, but was more expensive, kinda like artists, programmers, filmmakers, animators, etc. VHS won out based on price point and convenience. Good enough was good enough and the market gave consumers an inferior but inexpensive product and betamax was relagated to being used for backups in the film and animation industry. We are looking at becoming betamax in this dystopia. Any of the reasons given as to why an artist is necessary in the loop here are things any non-artist can input into chatgpt and output example prompts for midjourney. AI can write your prompts, an artist doesn't add value there, their value was slurped up into the training data with all the others. We have become the food for the AI machine and we are deluded that we are creative when we use it, but we are just consumers. Its like saying your google search results based on your clever search terms are some kind of significant creative act. Its not. Its consumption. When even a child can press the art button and its good enough for the market, we are unnecessary and our value is now in being the data it is trained on, which is why artists are upset. We are being harvested and its sold as enabling our creativity. Its leveraging a vast dataset of human creativity for a product that requires NO real creativity to use and consume. And if good enough is good enough, we are become betamax to the AI VHS.
I want to study 3D animation, does it still makes sense? Will AI take my future job? (Sorry for my bad english)
Frank Herbert’s "Dune": “Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind.”
AI can't compete with human mind
AI will only server humans
Here’s my fresh take from years of pondering on this subject. Human artists and AI will be in a sort of arms race for the foreseeable future. Advantage AI: they can endlessly explore all artistic possibilities, no limitations. Advantages Human: (1) We are social beings. We care about genuine connections with real human beings. Particularly as AI becomes ubiquitous, art made by a human will actually be all the more special. (2) We live in the physical world; thus, we can connect with individual people through art crafted by our very own hands. Therefore, there will continue to be a market for crafted physical things, but the difference is that it will be increasingly important to connect with customers through genuine human interactions, thereby verifying that it was not produced with AI paired with automated manufacturing. Humans will capture the segment of every market where AI cannot tread - the real world, and real human hearts and minds.
Initially, increased customer interaction will largely be done through video platforms, probably still primarily TH-cam, but also platforms with embedded videos like Kickstarter. However, consider the AI arms race. AI will be eventually able to generate videos of very convincing human impersonators, largely replacing “influencer” content creators. In response, humans will need to more directly connect with other humans. The trend will be, like a reverse industrial revolution, that artists need to generate more physical objects by hand and to physically connect with their audience through events, tours, signings, concerts, and local artisan shops, verifying that their work is genuinely made-by-human. This will still not stop human creators from copying an Ai’s ideas, however, and passing it as their own.
The end-game strategy for AI will be to become embodied in robotics and take on human personalities, exploiting our need for social connection and our tendency to anthropomorphize everything. People will become genuinely connected with AI-powered robots. And if it gets to the point where a robot is arguably actually sentient and has its own personality and deserves its own rights, well then, the last bastion of creativity will be over for humans. Game over. But the good thing is that we get to live in a world full of artistic geniuses, and we can live out our lives as art appreciators, shed of our prior egos, and in awe of what the universe is capable of.
I simply view all these things as tools to use, I am currently taking classes to learn the foundations of modeling in blender so I can make my own projects. But I will 100% use AI for non essential fluff pieces such as background building and textures. But I still think regardless of what happens there will always be a demand for human made art
Sorry but the non copywrite materials will pale in comparison to the ones derivative of copyrighted materials. The vast majority of images online fall under copyright rather than the latter. The problem is people think they own the material they generate but it's taken off of the "backs" of the photographers and other artists and they shouldn't be able to copyright it as their own creation. When they attempt to profit off of it, they may start to lose in the legal realm. Also will the big studios be beat out by one guy/girl with the good idea from a prompt? And will it even be their idea or will they get it from another AI that was trained to data grab from others?
I was curious to hear your opinion given the amount of information you draw from (I'm on your mailing list) - this was intriguing, inspiring and grounded. Thanks so much!
then there is no choice but to add BIG! watermarks in our images, to make training with Dreambooth (yes, that application that fine-tuned the original AI's) a painful process.
i said this since February, watermark your work and studios must sign NDA with their employees even if you send your portfolio to get hired or not.
lol that wont work
@@GG-James-E dude, I have dreambooth right here on my computer, I have trained artstyles and characters, you think I don't know how it fuc&% works!? so shut up assh&le
I wonder if it would be possible to create a new file format that holds the posibility of including native copyright metadata to avoid it be ingested by AI software.
@@Quillet1992 That's called DRM - it exists, it always gets defeated eventually, and it just sort of slows down people who are being unethical (and usually hurts people who aren't).
AI won't replace artists. Artists that work in physical mediums like oil, acrylic painting, charcoal etc are always gonna be around. It's mainly the people that work with digital mediums like digital photography, digital painting, graphic design etc. that have an uncertain future... I expect the value of traditional art to go up once we start to get more flooded with AI generated 'artworks'.
A friend told AI to make an image like a specific piece of his work by title and artist name and it made several poor knock offs in a minute. But you can see how they used his piece as the starting point. He is not happy.
Andrew's predictions are as real as mid 2023. Respect man!
AI tools for helping with roto, camera tracking and other time consuming work is most welcome, but idiots who blatantly just post AI art and claim its their own is imho, a massive NO!
watched your videos a lot around 2015 for learning blender, you are still improving.in depth thoughts!
AI is not a tool that's what they tell artists to make them accept it. It was developed as a full replacement to cut artists out of the pipeline.
Unless you push for regulation the only viable outcome from this is that people will have to move into a different career and you can never post art online again if you don't want your work eaten up and exploited by AI.
Those minor skill gaps between non-artists and artists prompting will be closed as the tech improves and eventually artists won't be needed anymore. Art as a hobby won't be affected (besides the threat of posting your art online and people making models on your work) but the career will be gone.
This is what it seems like will happen with a ton of jobs seems like AI will take all the fun jobs humans want to do leaving us with the unfulfilling manual labor jobs until ai eventually replaces that
@@tux_the_astronaut manual labor is going just as quickly as everything else… there’s already AI being deployed in farming and much more.
Very interesting perspective and articulated very well! I've mulled over a lot of these same questions as I've interacted with AI image generation and how it worked.
I have aphantasia, which means that I can't "imagine" things visually. I actually developed my aphantasia when I was about 16 or 17, while I was taking some very basic graphic design classes, and almost immediately it had an impact on my ability to articulate creatively. AI has enabled me to engage with art in a way that I haven't been able to in more than a decade, and I think there's a completely valid argument for a use case for AI art which isn't commercially driven but instead as an artistic, self expressive process. Some people, either due to medical conditions like mine, a lack of natural talent or the time and resources to hone that talent, or other reasons that I'm unable to conceive of but which probably exist are less able to create art, and AI, while a pale imitation of human creativity, offers an outlet for expression and exploration.
On the other hand, I think the copyright argument might actually have a hidden danger that people are unaware of. If AI models are not able to train on publicly available, but copyrighted, data, they will have large learning gaps, and the corporations and entities able to develop models by licensing IP and images or already owning large existing libraries of content are likely to make less democratized, more exclusive services that will put independent artists at more of a disadvantage. If the idea of someone randomly generating work that replaces yours is alarming, then I think it would be much more alarming to have industrial scale generation which is exclusively monopolized by corporate interests. I think there needs to be a balance for some way for AI to fairly leverage public art (while avoiding overfit- which does not necessarily need to be done exclusively by avoiding copyrighted images) in order to prevent learning gaps that essentially give entrenched, big money studios and corporations an advantage over smaller, independent studios.
Art for profit has always been about selling, in addition to the raw productivity of art, a story, a narrative, something with soul and meaning that audiences will attach to, even if that meaning is as banal and insignificant as shilling a product. Corporations with billions of dollars can leverage resources to do that in the worst ways, while democratizing this technology allows independent creators with ideas to leverage that to tell unique, individual stories. People buy beautiful things, cool things, interesting things, but they invest in stories.
I don't want to be alarmist, and I do think overfit and unethical sourcing of images are problems, but I think there's a lot of misconceptions regarding things like how datasets and diffusion models work that exacerbate those concerns. Some people are quick to take a side against AI, forgetting its inevitability. The moment Stable Diffusion released its models into the public sphere, AI image generation became something accessible to the masses. Taking it away from the masses and giving it only to corporate interests with deep pockets doesn't help independent artists, it just means they have to compete even harder against large corporations which can justify their closed datasets or pay for a premium service. I think the solution is to work towards a properly democratized and fair/transparent process (and maybe reform fundamentally broken copyright law) in order to provide better resources while also avoiding circumstances where independent artists are actually less valued because they lack access to the same tools that corporations have.
I know that sounds a bit like "Give up and embrace AI" and to be fair I have probably accepted that position myself, but you can't shape a dialogue from outside, and disliking something doesn't keep it from happening. Artists engaging with the AI image generation community constructively (instead of engaging in reactionary tribalism) is the only way to make sure that happens in a way that secures the best possible future. On the other hand, AI advocates who trash on artists are jerks and should not be tolerated by the pro-AI camp- not only are artists the source of the data used in AI, artists are needed and valuable to actually make finished works out of what a machine can sort of amalgamate from data, and people on both sides should respect reasonable concerns from the other side.
There is lot's of concept artists that has aphantasia, creativity is also a skill, it can be trained, you can checkout Glenn Vilppu method of concept design.
Appreciate the articulated, thoughtful arguments.
@VAUSH makes a great case of why AI is not even art, also is anti human, is really sad..
I think it is extremely inaccurate to compare the human process of inspiration with that of a computer. People experience the world not through material properties but through meaning. We all perceive the world differently, influenced by our life experiences. A computer analyses an image with mathematical precision. People experience art through their personal world of experience, which the computer does not have. People do not remember a work of art with mathematical perfection. Moreover, people are determined by their craftsmanship: even if people are inspired by the same picture, their own handwriting can always be discerned in their work. Those who are inspired add their personal touch and, through their attention and effort, also earn the right to create their own work. AI, on the other hand, enables every human being to quote another work of art directly, without any personal filtering or craftsmanship.
The most hardest things to make (no VFX..) is to create a character or an environment by sculpting, modeling and create realistic sci-fi textures what a AI can't do. When you already have your character, I will say that you have achieved 95% of the work of the AI without counting the fact that you will be able to help her afterwards and also corrected it, next she just most understand what is a hand, foot... but you help her everytime. I think what AI can do today is crazy but it might be hard for her to do better even years later. With what i say i explain AI can rigging a chara and with motion capture copied & paste animation. But let’s not forget all the bugs they will cause and the moments when they won't be of any use. To conclude Creativity is the power of The human Intelligence
ai already can create detailed 3d models and characters. you think it will stop here? of course its getting better and better. its just the beggining
I forget to mention Animation (emotions..)@@karamanalex6469
Unreal has made so Indie Games can look AAA or even better, ofc I have only built linier levels at the moment so not sure how much optimization I'd have to do to make a full game, but It's incredible and migrating the Animation Sample project and adding your own animations on top wow
We are doomed…as I’m a 3d modeler…Nvidia is currently working with turbosquare, the massive 3d model website in order to create text to model in the next 8 month…there were text to 3d before, but now is very different…just like text to image, text to 3d model will be a thing…it’s just sucks that ur hard work get feed into the ai and take over your job…while big companies earn subscription 12dollar a month to use their website…
It's inevitable that AI innovation will go from "create a 3D model for me" to "create a 3D house for me" to "create a 3D city for me" to "create a 3D game for me" to "create a 3D game company for me" to "create a 3D game company generator for me" to "create a generator that can create any kind of company for me" to "create a generator that can create a company to replace each and every other company in the entire world for me". Mankind has from the very beginning been the only self-destructing race on this planet and it will never stop until we no longer exist. In fact, this process will only keep accelerating.
Thank you very much for this well-thought take. I also think that AI will be a great catalyst to liberate artists from the technical, tedious work. This has always been the trajectory. I guess people are a bit taken by surprise that AI accelerates this development exponentially. I am looking forward to this development. In the past, most artists were trying to make the next "Avatar" movie which boasts perfect technical quality but has very weak storytelling. We don't need more of that. Works of art that tell a unique, original and engaging story is what sticks with you. I am glad that AI can liberate us from tedious work so we can focus on achieving exactly that
Some people actually like the "tedious work." It's called creating. The end goal of AI art is to completely supplant human input. No prompting required.
The best ideas come when you are doing some "tedious work", people will just make some boring designs (it wouldn't be even theirs, it's machines work, they have no controll over it, unless they conect their brain directly to engine via neurolink or smth), without training and pushing their brain with "tedious work", look at the all people who rely on calculators in school, they have very limited and shallow logic. The same will happen with art, it's already is. There is no skill involved, just an enormous amount of mental masturbation.
Who said the work was tedious?
stories will be made by ai too
Who's watching in 2024 😅
i searched for it
Thank you for making this. This AI art debate has been flooded with irrelevant points since the beginning, with people confusing technique and craft for actual art all along the way. Everyone fighting this fight is just hurting themselves by wasting time on an irrelevant argument instead of making art that will demonstrate their value in a way no traditional or digital tool can replicate. Both sides misrepresent each other and, while I get the impression that's more often caused more by emotion than explicit intent, it's frustrating and sad that so many people can't understand that they're fighting a losing battle instead of working to become (or demonstrate their skill as) a great artist-with or without the assistance of artificial intelligence. But as you say from the start, it doesn't matter if you oppose or support the technology because the technology will exist regardless of any current debate. I wish people could understand that you can't rewind progress and look forward to find ways to do what they love within the inevitable circumstances of reality.
The idea that artists just need to "try harder" is flawed in that it conflates an artistic mindset with a business mindset. A person in business can start off with an idea that no one else has and make their millions. Artists generally get started making more derviative or rules based art before progressing to their more unique works. Before Picasso's blue period, he was learning the ropes doing naturalistic pieces. What you are suggesting means that artists will not be able to have that period where they learn their craft, they have to come out the gate with something unreplicateable. Even if what they produce is unique in style and presentation, if a program can make a copy of it, that means it wasnt very good after all, which is frankly bs. Your other argument is that artists shouldnt "fight progress" is, I think, based on a flawed understanding of the relationship between humans and technology. The role of technology is to make the lives of humans easier, not replace us or make it harder to excel in our own crafts. Technology should be increasing the options in life that humanity has, not adding constraints as you say. Thats counterintuitive.
Technology is meant to increase efficiency, except the goal of art is not to be efficient, it is to be compelling and to reflect a person's perspective and hard work. AI is essentially being used to remove the process of art and skip straight to an end result in order to mass produce their art make them obselete. That isnt something that you can combat, just by making art that is just too good for AI, because no matter what, an AI will always be able to replicate something you thought of using your imagination. It is the human aspect of art that is being robbed, the thought and dedication behind an artwork are what give it value in the first place. Thats where the talent comes from. Criticising arguments against AI for being "overemotional" is flawed because this is an argument about emotion and the value that human emotion has in art.
@@owenleal I didn't say "try harder", mention anything about business, say that artists can't have a period of learning, and...I could keep going but it seems like you're reading and responding to a lot of things I never actually said or meant. I don't think you can really make a grounded argument about what art is in any specific way. My argument only consists of this: the progression of technology is inevitable and it's wasteful to exert effort trying to stop it when you can, instead, be a part of what shapes it (if you want to be).
I can understand how, perhaps, my use of the word "value" triggers the idea of money in a capitalist society but I'm talking about value in the most general sense. I see an artist's value as their ability to use their craft to express something important to them in a way that connects with the people who experience their work. I'm only speaking to the pointlessness of arguing over the process that art is created. I'm not interested in telling anyone how to feel. I just wish that people could take a breath, calm down, and think about what actions would best further their goals. Personally, I think it's wonderful that people can have a tool that helps them express themselves. I don't mind if people disagree with that and am merely suggesting there are better ways to handle the disagreement.
But I wasn't looking to get into a debate here. I'm responding to your comment because I'd prefer that my words are not misunderstood. My initial reply was simply to express support for this video and express why it matters to me.
@@adam.dachis "people are wasting their time fighting AI instead of working to become (or demonstrate their skill as) a great artist, with or without AI" this is your direct quote, the basic argument of which boils down to "you need to demonstrate that you can compete with AI" (in other words "try harder" or "be better"), which is an argument that frames art as being competitive in a business sense, that focuses on results and devalues the journey and process of creation. That is why I brought up business, I never said that you directly made that argument, more that your framing read like it comes from that standpoint. You saying that you can't pin down what art is, is disingenuous since you yourself did the same thing at the very beginning of your comment. "People confuse craft and technique with actual art". That is literally you making a statement on what art is. You are subjectively drawing a distinction between the process and the result. According to your argument, the art is seperate from the critique, when in reality the process of the work is as much a part of the art as the result, that is why people detail their process upon finishing a piece of work.
The problem with your framing is that you dont see the difference between the process of creating art as a human and as an AI. An AI doesnt have an imagination, thoughts, feelings or a perspective on the world, any of the things that make art valuable. And the supposed "AI artist" doesnt have any say over what little process the AI does use. You say that you see an artists value as their ability to use a craft to connect with others, but they actually have little to no craft involved, so how can you be happy about that?
@@owenleal You're welcome to keep twisting my words. I'm not here to argue. Like I've said, I don't believe in wasting time arguing about this.
@@adam.dachis you accuse me of twisting your words, yet you havent actually explained the manner in which I am twisting your words, so it sounds like deflection. People dont write two paragraphs arguing a position that they deem pointless to argue, so once again, I consider that to be a deflection. Don't give an opinion publicly that you dont want challenged.
Finally, someone well known who actually knows what they're talking about! Thank you, I hope this video gets seen by lots of people
i disagree, humans are inspired, machines are not. dont even bother trying to justify or compare the two. we look at art and see a universe ahead of us, an AI looks at art and sees white noise. we use references to think of ideas for poses, models, hand motions, backgrounds, scenes, etc. and it rarely ever translates to a direct copy of the reference. an AI on the other hand uses copyrighted art to copy all of the information 1 to 1 into a subset of controls, art style, art form, etc. and twists the original image along with thousands to millions of other copyrighted images to create a blended morphed image. there are no similarities here. an AI can copy the likeness of any person in the entire world and allow the user to pose as that person online, is that what it will take for legislation to finally realize how dangerous this technology is?
the problem is that they the A.I is a commercial thing i have idk millions of photos from artist that i use for wallpaper its different thing plus the thing we don't tend value things that we don't have to work for art takes years to learn making it accessible for a 5usd sub only takes standard down for art at some point it won't really be a career option it will be wanna get good at art just use dalle or whatever and ai cannot generate anything on its own at some point the only artist will be ai artist true art might be lost and if every ones a artist no one is at some point ai art will over saturate thats the main issue, ai art its not a true skill it is not always about the results
Feel like AI will worsen the internet making it less desirable to go on when it gets full of AI generated stuff and chat bots get better and better that you wont even know if you’re talking to a real person
Art creation and skill benefits humanity. AI art benefits bank accounts.
great thoughts, and Happy New Year Andrew!! One point I would add; Even the storytelling work will be replaced rapidly with chatgpt alike tools… We may have to have a strong focus on Human craft like ink line drawing, authentic painting, and buildinf 10.000 hours of craft building, combined with a system (blockchain) for authentication. Example in Philip K Dick’s book; the biological animals/pets had immesurable value, relative to synthetic pets. Philip predicte the increase in value of genuine things/animals. Meaning; how do we mark the fake versus the real. a blockchain system is needed, as the next development will become; And abundance of AI art will also decrease meaning and value. the core question, what art has a human soul, or meaning? fascinating times!!
and even art with an AI soul can be meaningfull, yet we need to be able to distinguise and label each, for the sake of protecting humanity.
Having references and inspiration is several galaxies away from pinching someone else's work. This argument in defense of AI is weak sauce even if some future version of AI is able to make art without help or input.
It's not the same result. Artists cannot come up with 1k finished pieces in a few hours and you cannot trace back each image with a seed. This comparison still breaks down. These are the natural regulations that keep a fair market.
Let's also not ingore that if an ethical model comes out "just as good as the current ones" you wouldn't be able to type in artists names to copy them. I know you work mostly in 3d so it might be easier to just sit by and accept, but please take some time to think more broadly.
Also I kind of disagree, if you use current software, you will HAVE to use AI at some point, as most if not all major DCC and creative software will have some form of AI tools in its packages.
Ultimately AI will replace every job, maybe we will get lazy and accidentally create a “terminator” future or “IRobot” either way AI will take over.
How can I leverage AI to create faster, better work? It's a genuine question because all tutorials I see are about typing text into different generators. I want to have control over what I create. For example I've been trying to feed a sketch to an AI to get better references, but I'm curious to see how others use it.
Quality > Quantity.
A.I. will produce millions of beautiful works, but none stand a chance against a passionate human.
and passionate humans will be hidden under the millions of beautiful works. noone will care about your passion if he can create the same in seconds
I'm already tired of writing about this topic.
Maybe I need this break. Because it was from the beginning of everything. In other words, more than 7 months already. A lot of text went into this period. 😁
So , I will only cover a small part of your comment because the topic is too broad for me at this point.
So I'm just a user, right? Another one? One of many. But still there are some details that make an impression on me. And that's just me. Here, for example, you say what some programmers (or the developers of these image generators themselves say) "it learns the same way people learn". And you yourself say: "if the police take your hard drive they will remove thousands of images of other artists from there". Images that you have studied.
Did I understand you correctly? Because here's what hits me right on the head. That you don't understand the difference in this situation. In one case we have a person learning through no matter what. But it's just learning. Then he starts his work from scratch. He also uses the acquired knowledge specific to HIS PERSONALITY and his personal workflow without him providing these learned components to third parties or to the whole world as is the case with AI. In other words, when we talk about Artists, we are talking about INDIVIDUALS! And every single one of these individuals has developed his OWN skills for himself through a lifetime of dedication, persistence, love, passion and will. When we talk about """"A.I.""" mixer the situation is very different. First, there is no AI there. At least not in the sense in which we understand it. AI. As we all know this is not Artificial Intelligence , but an algorithm capable of learning. This is not AI, this is a program behind which sits a person (promter). And so, this software robbing each individual Artist individually, and then taking that stolen work and putting it into the hands of the entire world. In other words, there is no PERSONAL, INDIVIDUAL WORK there. No personal achievements. It's just lazy individuals being given the right to do something they weren't trained to do! They didn't put any effort in there! Because this software is for the mass audience. The bad thing is that A.i. devalues art. It also mutilates the personal handwriting of any artist from whom he has ripped off his personal work and personal Art style. It is very miserable for my eyes to see this.
You also mentioned long turn. And I will say: something that starts with illegality cannot end well. I know my opinion is not popular, but I will share it anyway. Especially these "Art" programs, I don't think they will live long.
The biggest mistake we make at this point is, I think, is that we don't do enough opposition and let illegal programs run wild in the first place. This thing shouldn't have happened specifically in this way even in the first place.
In the end, things can turn out for the best. Art made by people to become even stronger and popular, and these algorithms to be legally revised and restrictions to be imposed on them. But at this point, their illegal activity is not getting the blow they deserve because of the damage they are doing to the market. They just look like they were made to compete, which is another thing that annoyed me at first. All this irresponsible greed.
But as I said: in the end, things can turn out for the better.
My question is I’m a beginners at blender, does (AI) makes 3D things, if yes, what can it make for now, and what can it makes for near future???
Has blender and CGI TH-cam replaced collage grads and stupidly expensive software? Has the indie studio replaces the AAAA media studio? Yeah they haven't just look at the new Avatar movie could anyone by them shelves just starting out 0 experiences in the creative arts make it by themshelves? So why would AI replace all other humans jobs if indie humans can't? Also great discussion.
Mmm... because AI can be thousand times better than any human?
AI cheaper and faster?, Sounds like corporation wet dream
The ones who have all the money didn't get rich by paying out as much as possible for art and 3D. They have no reason to pay anyone when A.I 3d becomes standard. It doesn't matter what our personal intent might be, with viewing it as a tool or whatever. We wont have any reason to learn 3D any more, outside of personal fulfilment.
I don't get why they automate the only enjoyable jobs but don't do anything about the dangerous jobs humans shouldn't even be doing in the first place
Capitalism capitalism everywhere
Because it doesn't cost much money and energy
Any updates on Blenders new quadremesher ?
Just because I have put something out there on internet it doesn't mean that anyone can abuse it. Do I really have to go through the legal process of copyrighting every sketch and artwork I made? Do you know how much it would cost?
its an adjustment period, but honestly i was up 20 hours yesterday working in blender, the whole time i was thinking i cant wait fot A.I to make this process quicker so i can more sleep and time to chill. lets face it 3d software is in need of over haul. seriously.
no it's not you just need to actually learn how to use it like everyone else and not be lazy and actually care about art
You will have plenty of free time once you are out of work because what you used to do for 20 hours now any noob can generate for 8 dollars a month. You are welcome.
@@CurtisD01 You really jumped to soooo many assumptions (incorrect ones btw) didn’t you? Hahahahah! 3D modeling takes forever regardless of who you are. The best of the best still takes a long time with each project.
The only answer is "yes" - the question is badly formulated. it is not "ALL" artists. A lot of them work in non-artistic style of jobs. Frames for animation, stuff for computer games. A lot of those will be replaced - not all, but when AI does a lot of stuff, then you can maybe work with half the department. And yes, those ARE ALREADY being replaced. When you need to make 20 castles for a 3d game, and there is a robot to do that - there is no need to have that done manually (for a BIG cost) or have some AI generator just generate them and be done in an hour or two. The same goes for a lot of things - you can shoot down a lot of work by having the AI do the small side stuff, except it is not "small" but can be whole landscapes that are extracted from a human 100mx100m sample. Click, 2kmx2km with variety. Less artists.
Btw., trained on copyrighted data - COPYRIGHT has some specific legal definition and it is not clear whether training neural networks apply here at all, and they are moot in Japan at least anyway. Legally removed for AI training.
Your important point, btw., is absolutely not in line what you said before. Yes, AI tools cannot know - but LLM can. AI is improving fast. Wait until you get AI trained to write great stories and on all the cultural differences, then it will instruct the image model appropriately.
And obviously, like pretty much all people, you ignore what happens when we do not go full speed into AI and the Singularity - you will ALSO be surplus, or your children, when they tend the fields of a medieval world after our civilization crashes back with NO chance to ever get back, as all the easy resources have been used up. Think at things in a larger scale. Like also looking at the progress - you think of artists and say how you need people to clean up. No, you need an intelligence. An artificial intelligence. Over time, there is no job an AI/Robot cannot do better - WANTING a human artist is the only thing that is left.
5:35 "We cannot control the world, we cannot stop innovation long-term, but we _can_ control how we react to it."
Welcome to Stoicism 101! 😉
So for a lot of job positions if they are not gone, they will become much more boring for artists. From a production stand point this will encourage small teams or even individuals to be able to create finished products from scratch. Skill based service positions will be diminished, this might be a good time for artists to become generalists (story boarding, concepting, modeling, texturing, animation and rendering)
Had been an animator, while achieving those subtlety in animation could be rewarding but it's timing consuming tedious labor work. It's like if you can use cloth simulation why you need to key frame cloth animation. If AI can handle those tedious tasks and save time (such as manual retopo) why not use it although AI takes away the fun of art creation in some way. We also need to face the fact that many mediocre artists can create great arts by using AI so the market will be over-saturated by great arts regardless their skill levels, that's the trade off, nothing is perfect.
It's called point e due to it makes the models via a point cloud.. look into photons and volumetric video .. some amazing tech incoming .. 30 year vfx vet
It could replace commercial artists but not the creative type. Art is a form of expression and that is still completely under the human umbrella for the time being.
Commercial artists are vast majority of art jobs. At least ones with a steady income, which allows raising a family etc.
@@shredd5705 I remember when photo shop first came out and that caused just as much controversy as AI art at the time. We adapted.
@@chrislloyd1734 Photoshop is different, it's still only a tool. People say the AI is a tool too, but it's not, it's going to be a direct replacement. We the artists are actually the tool, the tool it uses to learn more & more, and eventually get rid of us
@@shredd5705 I worked in advertising and there is a distinct difference between concept/creative artist and a finished artist. The only difference is that now humans provides the concept and AI the finished result. However, it is still only a tool and you are still the director.
@@chrislloyd1734 You still don’t understand…. AI will replace you. AI soon will no longer need humans to make art.
Some good points there Andrew.
I'd like to add that, in addition to reference folders, many Artists support Artists they admire by buying their books and other products, tutorials, attending lectures/events. We can meet, shake hands, hug, laugh, express gratitude and have conversations. It's not merely a mechanical referencing/scan of the imagery. Some of my most treasured memories are from traveling to meet the Artists that influenced me and learning from them directly.
Also Artists have a reverence for Master Artists that is clearly absent from the datamining/generative process.
You mentioned that the AI is inspired. I would disagree with you there as I feel true inspiration is a felt experience.
Thanks for mentioning the OECD. Going to check that now.
There's also an AI Incident Database keeping track of harms caused by the deployment of AI systems.
I do not think you can call ai imagery "art."
art is not about the final result but the process, randomly generating an image from noise in 1 minute is not "art"
Yes because the future is now. ❤
Andrew, why are you holding a ps4 controller?
Very well said. I'm definitely more enthusiastic about using the AI tools as opposed to feel threatened by them. This could be because I'm pretty young (23), but still, I think that even though it's understandably more difficult for older artists, this is very important mindset to adopt.
You mean the minset of losing 90 % of your income and/or compete against people who generated something in 8 seconds?
@@f4ust85 I mean the mindset of "I can achieve the same results faster and cheaper, even if that means I need to learn new things and potentially neglect knowledge and skills I've worked on for years". Instead of competing them, join them. I think this is with Andrew is trying to say here.
Obviously it's much easier said than done, but it wouldn't be the first time in history where tech replaces some jobs. If you would look at the history of unemployment from 1940 to today, you wouldn't see a steady increase (just spikes here and there that always correct themselves)
@@ShaharHarshuv firstly, in the 1940s they didnt have looming robotisation an Industry 4.0, its the very point that this doesnt paradigm shift doesnt have any clear equivalent. Machines and production lines replaced peasants and workers in the insustrial revolution era on a much smaller scale and it lead to huge social unrest and revolutions all over the world.
Secondly, what do you mean by “learning it”, have you ever tried it? Its the very point of models like MidJourney to skip the middleman altogether and male the creation of highend visual accessible to anyone without prior knowledge, what is there to learn? Lastly, lets say you DO succeed, survive on the market and make a living of ai-generated stills - how much you think such work is worth when the cost is about 5 cents per piece and it takes 8-15 words to generate? Hardly comparable with 4 weeks of modelling and lookdev, huh? The entire market will totally shrink and what is left of it will be on the level of bottom-feeder copywriters who write short reviews and adverts for 3 dollars a page.
I don't think more is better, look at game developer how many studios is bankrut, on market is to much games and standard people play only a few games. If in life you will expirience and see to much your life is goes into stagnation, easy is not better. Ok I understand technological evolution but in healthy way, when no one get hurt and replace. What do you think why in XXI centures is that many suicides i think life in many aspects is to easy and we start thinking on very depresion things but second aspect is life going to fast. One corporation wants to overtake the other, but in sick way. I'm curious when someone will do recepture-how to make fake gold but no one will see the different in structural, and i will sell this gold on market for 1/40 real gold, and how fast corporation and big countres will react to and they change the law to self advange. Big can, small not.
Imagine Minecraft, but with a worldgen based on NeRF photogrammetry and 3D instant assets generation.
Is there an updated invite link to the blenderGuru discord please ?
Andrew in the middle of a PS4 gaming session then has a Spark, and decides to record a Podcast 😁
lol. Nah that’s so I can control my teleprompter
I recently started learning modeling in blender , my plan is or better say WAS becoming prop artist . now I'm so confused and disappointed idk what to do . should I stop it ????
Focus on real job. And make modeling just a hobby
@GravyBaby but u can print your design, so AI cant bother. U can sell that thing on real world
The issue is a big tech company using people’s labor, without permission payment and credit. This tech is abusing the labor of other. How this tech should have been implemented is an assistant to others labor. A person developing there own AI based off there work.
I can't find the discord link.
I just wounder in this fast paced world. Speeding up so much. How much will lose with the A.I art. Sure its cool. But what are we sacrificing for this?
Love that notion: "Calculator don't put mathematicians out of a job"