2:11:49 - start of my detailed response. I know I cracked a few jokes here, but no disrespect to Shad as a person. I don’t know him. My issue is with ai, and the arguments surrounding it, not him directly. Please do not harass or insult him. In fact, if anything, let him know how awesome his hand drawn art is, and convince him to invest in himself again, instead of a machine that will only make him more redundant. And to save time for any not wanting to watch the full thing, my key argument against ai is this: creative problem solving, self development, competition and struggle, are precisely the conditions that produce strong and mature minds, and not just in art. The pressures of a problem to solve force us to evolve as people. AI represents instant gratification, instant success, instant results, because most of the work is literally done for you. It deletes the very process that has birthed generations of amazing people. This isn’t just limited to art. Reducing human input, taking away our need to strive and work, is a terrible idea. The writing is on the wall, and we all know where it will lead. The endpoint of artificial intelligence is human redundancy. If you champion that, then you’re broken, and probably redundant already - which is why you want us to join you, instead of working to join us. Beware the lure of convenience.
I really do love Shad's stuff, but this isn't one of them I can fully support. I can admit that for a friend of mine who used to do airbrushing, but is now in too much pain to do that or much of anything now, has been getting into AI art as the only medium of art he can truly 'create' now. At the very least, I can admit it's given my friend something to work with, but as a whole, AI is going to kill other mediums to the point they'll seem obsolete to those who take up art with the intention of making some profit of it.
Don't wanna be disrespectful but you know technology came to make our lives easier and seeing you saying that behind a computer (a very convenient tool) is kind of hypocritical.
@@caryonplays9024 You clearly don't understand. There is always a line - with ANY technology - that we should think twice before we cross. And the line, for a lot of people, is the removal of human input from whatever that technology is. I can't believe I have to say this, but using a computer, while also suggesting that humans should not be made fucking redundant, is not hypocrisy. A computer grants access to literally millions of new skills. ai. takes. them. away.
@@S.FENNAH you mean nowadays right? 30-40 years ago we needed almost a degree in technology just to operate the system, but now a child can unlock a smartphone and operate it. Removing the skill needed to operate a computer making it more accessible made this conversation even possible. Now billions can use technology to do stuff we couldn't imagine in the past (just thinking about TH-cam in the 90' is impossible). People don't need to waste years of their lives just to use a PC and can dedicate to other stuff, like art. I have worked with tech for decades and I learned how to implement the diffusion models in an artist's workflow, AI still needs an artistic view to create art (that is why we use "create art with AI tools" when we spoke about it"), but removing a set of skills doesn't mean you are limiting the creation process of art, just opening to more people which don't have the resources to learn otherwise.
AI "can" be used as a tool to assist artists, however lets not fool ourselves, AI is a primarily a tool for consumers. When you ask AI to do the creating, you are no longer the creator.
Like that time when Clip studio made a AI tool for making backgrounds and stuff like that, god... I actually really really wanted that, i wish we would have that but i know it can't be as people are disgusting and horrible, they see for themselves, not for art. If these people didn't exist we would had amazing tools with AI like those background stuff that CSP wanted to make but they finally took it out bc of criticism. Because it can help with lots of short cuts, there's a lot of assets in CSP and AI would have help a lot too, but yeah, u know, it's not good in our current society. They also have a AI color option, it isn't very good at least in my experience, i really only used it to get color inspiration and start coloring from that palette, so, I'M GLAD IT ISN'T GOOD XD
@@donaddams8825Uuummmmm... Have you never heard of the features they have to put into printers to prevent counterfeit money? People do that all the time. They still find ways too. My brother was actually tricked by a stack of printed $20s when he sold a speaker on Craigslist.
@@donaddams8825they do... The reason that they don't use those commercials printer because those are a scam anyway and it also refuse to print money (it's in the software)
I think the best part about all this is that, despite being in extreme pain from what Fennah is seeing, he restrains himself and manages to still be civil and empathetic to Shad in spite of everything Shad does to test his patience. Extremely professional.
Well, he didn't do a good job at restraining himself, haha. It took him 2 whole hours to watch a 30 min video. That's a pretty emotional take. Not that Fennah is wrong, he made good points against AI "artists". His rants during the stream were glorious. I can see why Fennah reacted the way he did, some of the shit Shad says about "complexity" and "artistic eye" is straight up hilarious. If I was an artist I would be mad and disappointed too. AI art is not some advanced technical skill, I'd argue that an average art enthusiast can be pro at it in two fucking days with tutorials. The reason it took Shad months or whatever is because AI art is a new thing and people were still making the tutorials and figuring things out.
I wish I could like this video hundreds of times. Especially the last part, it's incredibly insightful. I wish people understood why we're so passionate about this subject.
I watched through Shadiversity’s video and felt nauseous. I get posts on my Reddit feed for subs I never joined that defend ai image generation. I watch as 30 years of desperate work, trying to earn a pathetic living as an artist is mocked by these lazy cowards who call _ME_ ‘elitist.’ I try my best to put on the horse-blinders and focus on my own work while every tech-bro tinkering with ai seeks me out to scream in my ear, “Lol, guess who’s obsolete!?” as I notice the price of instant ramen has gone up again and a commissioned drawing barely buys a few days of groceries now. The absolute GLEE of these people as they hoot about how their left-click is more valuable than my 20,000 hours of sacrifices. I slept in my car so I could afford an iPad and drew fabric patterns I never saw a dime for but got scraped and used by Temu. I _genuinely_ think we’re gonna see a wave of artists delete themselves over the next few years. It’s probably already happening. But we can’t hear their agony over the excited chortling of masturbatory self-congratulation by these buzzards picking at the corpses of our bodies of work.
I think what a lot of people, like Shad, don't consider is that the underlying issue here really is not the image generators even though a lot of people talk about those right now but what "machine learning" as a technology will mean for all of us. Including those that currently use Ai and support the use of image generators. The point of machine learning is not to "democratise art" but to make people in general, redundand. It's automatition. And many professions will see the pressure here. It just so happens, interestingly enough, that creatives might be the first one to get hit. But they won't be the last. We will see coders, web developers, programmers even and many more professions being hit as well. Who knows if the technology evolves far enough even someone like Shadiversity might become "obsolete" as youtubers when you can create something that he does with the push of a button, so to speak. But that's just speculation. The fact is, that machine learning will have very serious effects on the labour market. And the sad part is, those that laugh about artists right now and wish them to "loose" their inocome? They could very well find them self in the same situation soon enough. They just don't know it yet. Hell I thought my situation as educator is relatively "safe" from automatiion. But even here I am not so sure anymore as some private schools are starting to actually employ "learning programms" guided by AI from what I have red somewhere. It's impossible to say what will happen in the future.
Friend, I’m a concept artist & yes this definitely affects our field. I suggest doing fine art or something that AI can’t touch. For example, I started a mural business a year ago & I have more business than I can accept. It’s physically demanding, but I live in a big city where a lot of people want custom painting in their homes/ apts, so there’s a huge market. Consider what skills you have that can be done in fine art or in homes, if AI worries you. Good luck ❤
I remember a great analogy for what happens with AI art people being considered artists. "When I go to a restaurant and order a meal. That act doesn't make me a shef."
AI art will never have that human touch, AI can’t make art, it makes something then makes a pattern to comfort itself with, there’s always a pattern somewhere on the image, the way i see it is AI art is something people who don’t have the skill or the time to learn the skills can use to generate any image they want, but it’s still not comparable to a normal human artwork
AI 'art' is no different from buying a 'folded steel katana' from a shopping mall. Hell, Shad did several videos on how bad those kinds of blades are. A good, quality blade birthed from the fires of a forge correctly takes time and effort. A cheap machine made sword cut from a sheet of metal, glued together, and gussied up with colorful leather wrapping and rainbow metal wash is quick and easy yes: but it's still crap. It will still break after one swing. It's still a cheap immatation of the real deal. In a way, forging a sword or axe or a flail even is a form of art. But in order to do that you have to make it the proper way. Yes it takes time, yes it's not easy, but that's the most rewarding part. AI 'art' is the equivalent of the mall ninja katana.
Its unfortunate to see Shad consider his drawings "poor quality" but the moment an AI amalgam of other artists hours of work gets overlayed on top its somehow "better".
If i had money and he would still make his art like he used to i would literally commission him, the art style was do unique and had it's quirks and even if the colors and shadow weren't conventionally "good" or "professional" i believe it was still amazing as it was so unique and idk, amateur art like those show lot and lot of passion that most people don't have or the creativity also, i consider myself a medium-advanced artist but i do struggle with ideas, poses and scenarios for some reason sjnddn maybe it's burnt out tho- but yeah--- his art was really amazing as it was, i wish he could still improve tho and see how much he could have done
I never knew he was the brother of Jazza... and I guess if you grow up in the shadow of someone who actually has talent across a wide variety of media and is able to market his talent, I too would want to take a cheap side step to be as talented as the other brother who actually worked on building his talent. Bravo to him being on display with his hack nature.
Which is made even more strange by the fact that Shad does not need this. He already is a rather succesfull youtuber of sorts. He doesn't "need" to also surpas his brother in that sense.
I'm happy to see Shad's downfall. He's begging for subs and donations at this point and he doesn't stop with his L-takes. AI art, his extreme mormon and right-wing views alienating half of his viewerbase, his weird non-consensual and underage stuff in writing
I believe he did vids with his brother and they were using ai. They seemed pretty happy about it. And no ai can get better than what Jazza makes he's insane at what he's doing.
It's interesting Shad takes this stance with AI Art, seeing as his brother is Jazza who is a fecking artist and has two Art related channels on youtube.
@@GreaterGrievobeast55 Did he openly state that in any of his posts? I remember him messing with some AI programs for shits and giggles (basically for content and out of curiosity), but that never replaced handcraft results for him personally, all his personal content is made by his own effort and his imagination. Maybe he is somewhere in a gray area in that regard, meaning, that he doesn't mind other people playing (!) with AI tools. I doubt he suports people fully switching to AI instead of allowing their own creativity to lead the way into artmaking
What's it got to do with you? Artists are just sperging like a boomer who throws a fit over new music or mediums of entertainment. Sam didn't engage in whether AI Art is theft or not, because it clearly isn't if you know anything about it. That's basically what this entire conversation has devolved to: Artists made a bunch of serious claims to rile up people against AI, now they're having to walk it all back once people become more informed about AI and realize they're talking out of their asses.
Funny, that most people actually realize how garbage AI art is once they inform themself. AI art is getting more and more controversial as more people actually look deeper into it. Only the biggest and laziest narcissists are still defending it...which is quite a big group of people due to how our modern culture treats narcissism like a good thing despite it being just a big mass mental illness. In short: You are objectively wrong and are deluding yourself. People who "inform themself" actually realize that people like you are just lazy and that the damage AI does is objective. Now, why do I take my time to respond to such a garbage take? Because I always like to point out how ironic it is that people like you who say stuff like "inform yourself!" or "artist are talking out of their asses" are objectively provably wrong. So...everything you accuse your opposition of is actually something you yourself are doing. And every informed human being with common sense can see that very clearly. Especially due to the childish wording you are using.@@infini_ryu9461
I absolutly loved your take and way of saying everything, I can't agree more with you. Obviously we as humans advanced and made things easier but there is a LIMIT, we need to do our own things and give them a SHAPE AND PERSONALITY.
I think the best use case for AI art is rapid prototyping of visual ideas. That being said, my experience with AI art has been frustrating above all else. It's great at executing a simple idea, but as your demands increase in complexity, the AI will have a harder time meeting expectations. I think AI can become a valuable tool for the artist, but you have to treat it like photoshop, not like a genie. It's a technology that's ripe for abuse(which it presently is), and so we must learn how to use it responsibly, or go without.
I totally agree with Fennah and I really like how he tells us to develop the necessary skills. I’m not good a drawing or painting yet I enjoy it and have seen my growth and if I can’t put my Ideas in a drawing I write them, developing a new skill which can be polished further. Thanks Fennah for this video and message!
Gotta wonder how many abominations he had to throw out in each AI batch to find the ones he showed. Cause when a programmer friend made on, about 95% of what it popped out looked wrong, if not eldritch horror. Even while he kept improving the program, it would still mess up.
I’m an almost exclusively traditional medium artist. I have a couple digital pieces I think are cool, but I’m not very steady with digital art. I completely understand the hard work that goes into it! Yes there are tricks and filters an shit, yes it’s easier to erase and undo, but making the lines, the form, the LIFE of the piece is all by hand by the human mind!
I think with the revised version we do of course get the Uncanny Valley effect on the face, whereas the original is clearly cartoonish in style, but also the muscles seem to pop more in the first pic, especially in the shoulders. The revised version seem to lack both muscle shape and definition, you'd expect some visible tension in the left thigh given she's holding it up. But this is based on Shad's wife, so maybe this is closer to her real life proportions? I've never seen her so I can only assume this might be the case. That or just his idealised take on what he wants her look like? And he wouldn't be the first man to have came up with some ideal like this.
@@snintendogJust because you experienced all that doesn't mean it's a fact. There's no statistics for this. You could be very unlucky. Don't take this hatred out on all artists and call them scumbags. I follow quite a few artists and they have plenty of commissions finished. There's them, her over there, I think she does commissions, if not at least gift art for her patreon supporters, and that one person... And they have commissioned art or animations and gotten them. Yep. You're unlucky. There's an abundance of artists who finish commissions. How long did you wait by the way? A week? Sometimes people have commissions piled up and can take more than a week to catch up. And life can get in the way. Be more compassionate.
It does become a question of money though. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" if I think what ai makes is as good as what I would pay for a commission.. and unless I have the money spare. It is cheaper to use ai, meaning people who don't have money to pay an artist can use ai, and I know a lot of ai cost money to but a lot is also free.
Having my art used by somebody else to gather fame, is an anxiety for me. I'm already worried people will re-upload my art on Instagram and get more likes, maybe not even credit me. So having it used to train AI to generate images feels wrong. If an artist gives consent, alright, but there should only be art whose artists have given consent to train the AI. I don't really vibe with the idea of "contributing to society", that you brought up, but it depends on how you define it. I don't want humans who are capable of things to rely on automated things. Even those lawnmowers that run on their own are questionable, they don't think, so they don't leave a patch of flowers for pollinators, they don't realize they're running over a mouse or hedgehog. It's one thing if a person is physically unable to manually mow the lawn, and has no one to ask for help or no economy to hire somebody. But people who are capable, can find the time, they could do it. Use our bodies and brains. I hope my message comes across clear, it's morning for me so I may not be the most articulate.
To be clear why I'm no fan of "contributing to society", I have a mental disorder, so I may not be the best at giving what most peoples' idea of useful is. I do what I'm good at, and what I'm good at may not be good enough. I don't really deserve a life in some peoples' eyes. To some, creating books and art has little meaning to society as a larger idea, and not everyone cares about zoos and the welfare of those animals there. And my capability to think deeply into subjects, is not used much other than what I express in my writing and casual talk with friends and family. So yeah. If "contributing to society" is just existing and doing _something,_ then I can vibe with the idea. We're meant to do something with what we're capable of.
@@iclynnx I'm in the same boat with my mental health, unfortunately I'm bogged down by numerous disabling conditions & being a burnout "Gifted Kid". Of course, I am constantly fighting every day to learn how to navigate life despite them, but it's hard when every few years in your adult life you get jumpscared by a new diagnosis to add to the collection & adjust everything around it. I hope & am pretty sure the heartless "contribute or suffer" mentality is not what Fennah means. But the constant pressure to contribute because of the "social contract" you signed by being forced into society is bullshit. Especially when most people DO want to contribute, in their own way. But we are forced to be cogs in a machine that wastes countless years of our lives being miserable just to get by, all for greedy mega corporations that only care about capital & exponential growth, the latter of which not being sustainable long-term. All cultures around the world value beauty & art. Clearly, it is very important to us as a species. Anyone saying otherwise is demonstrably incorrect.
I hate to be 'that artist', but that guy's work is actually pretty mediocre. He has a long way to go and he's already looking to cheat. And the biggest shame about that? Even mediocre art has more soul than AI ever will.
@@DakaloMaedza-z4m Yep, he had some Cris Metzen, Trent Kainuga energy in those old drawings, he could have been a great concept artist, he can still be, he just needs to actually try.
The key is in always looking to improve. Your art is also very mediocre, pumpkinpatch, I hope you realize! I think the same of my own, I'll never be satisfied with what I make, there's always something we could be doing better.
@@Gatitasecsii Not really, since I've honed my skills enough over the last 36 years to be published, but you're right on one point and I do understand the sentiment. As an artist, you must always be improving, not looking to cheat. If you don't have that raging inferiority complex, you'll stay at this level.
The immediate gratification of getting the AI results completely ignore the repercussions of the future. "Human irrelevancy" is such a good way to describe the direction we are going. Once the AI has encroached their world of "art" and starts to irrelevant them themselves, only then will the pro-AI crowd realize how much they've truly fucked up..but there will be no going back from it. It's fucked. As a musician and artist, I'm truly afraid for the future of art, and it's importance to humanity and self expression... edit: I have so, so many thoughts an opinions on the matter and struggle to communicate because of how vast the subject is, but I just wish to say that the slippery slope of AI and art [as a medium, so art, music, photography, writing, etc etc] is so dangerous and I do not support it in this field. Me and other artists have been directly affected by it and I wish to do more to defend the community and preserve the integrity of art.
AI isnt just a danger to art but to Intellect too, like every time im on my bus to work and theres students they only talk about using AI to do all their homework. People simply have forgotten the gratification of doing something yourself, they want instant results and no work and that is dangerous!
I actually think it's a disgrace in the field of science too. It further reinforces the individualism and the notion that one should do everything themselves, alone, without asking for help of people that might know better. I have colleagues that are now putting their thesis through generators just to get variation for the same gibberish they've been taught to recite over and over, without even wanting to try to create something new. We are already going through piles and piles of works that seem like rearrangements of each others and it pains me that they don't realize how this worsens the problem further. The tech bros will often say how beneficial the LLM technology will be for science but nah, those black boxes are just a waste of resources and a hell of a shiny gimmick (other types algorithms, even the ones with machine learning, are useful as they aways were but those LLM models miss too many of the necessary points that something used in reliable research should have)
@@SashaTheDog Back in the 80s, kids used to brag about "copying out of a book" for English, social studies, economics etc. There was no Google Search to check for plagiarism. So the question that we really need to be asking is: Are HUMANS improving? If so then that's wonderful. Because the evidence is all over the news, isn it? ... Isn't it?
2:20:00 If find it interesting that your thoughts here are so similar to stuff Frank Herbert thought and wrote about in Dune: “Humans tried to develop intelligent machines as secondary reflex systems, turning over primary decisions to mechanical servants. Gradually, though, the creators did not leave enough to do for themselves; they began to feel alienated, dehumanized, and even manipulated. Eventually humans became little more than decisionless robots themselves, left without an understanding of their natural existence.” ― Brian Herbert, The Butlerian Jihad “Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.” ― Frank Herbert, Dune
Dune was ahead of its time but it highlighted a very different kind of horror future that we could have veered into had we not made a lot ethical considerations around gene editing.
I tried image generators and after some tries I got some decent images, but felt nothing after getting what I wanted. it was a chore I didn't enjoy the process.
To enjoy AI image generators you really have to go with the flow. Let the AI do their thing and only gently nudge it into whatever direction you want to explore. It's really more a discovery process than a creation one. If you come at it with a predefined idea of where you want to land it becomes incredible frustrating and with more complicated composition downright impossible. At the moment I find it more useful as a sort of interactive screensaver than as production tool, but it's a really damn amazing screensaver.
@@grumbel45So... In other words, you're pulling a slot machine lever with the ability to lock in a few of the slots occasionally until you get a good enough outcome to justify your investment of time, or you get lucky and end up with something you're happy with. That doesn't sound enjoyable at all, but tedious at best.
@@PANCAKEMINEZZ That's why you use it for art consumption, not for art creation, kind of like an interactive screensaver. It's a ton of fun to play around with it, just don't expect to get exactly what you want. You can nudge the AI into interesting directions and explore the endless possibilities, but you have to stick to things the model is actually good at.
i think the whole AI analogy can accidentally found in Boruto. you know, that Naruto son. there's a sub plot in the chuunin exam (ninja ranking up, essentially) where Boruto got himself an experimental item called " scientific ninjutsu tool" from a science research lab, basically a bracer that stored miniature ninja scrolls that can be used later. It takes almost zero skill to use those stored jutsu beside knowing what hand sign for "elemental" and "release", which every ninja must know to use their power. He stored many high level jutsu that can only be learned once you're a veteran with 10 years of experience or more. Boruto blasted through the exam like he owned the test with that bracer. Until during final test where every contestant must fight with others 1v1, his dad noticed something strange inside his sleeve, exposed it in front of the other students and audiences and disqualified him. And if you never watch Boruto, he is NOT an unskilled ninja. Unlike his father who basically spammed Shadow Clone and attacking the enemy head on like a suicidal blockhead, he is considered a fast learner and skilled in combat that can think strategy to outsmart his opponents from afar or shadows or sneak up on them. He got the basics right like Shad, but he lacks the patience to learn high level jutsu. His downfall was he overly reliant to this shortcut tools that contains power that wasn't his in the first place. And in the process, beside screwing up himself, he also screwing up other candidates that probably more deserving to be in the final. My general take, if you can create the jutsu yourself and then store it for easy access later, fine. I think it's perfectly valid reason to not waste time in the battle and quickly disposed your own jutsu. After all, often times, ninja fight can be deadly. But if you never learn it and then use it, you're cheating yourself and rob yourself from the improvement. If you lost the gadget, you are now just a regular guy. But if an expert lost that gadget he still could traditionally summon the jutsu himself by waving hand signs. Same as AI tools, I guess. If you only use it for general concept and look on what you are going to make, and then start from scratch based on that concept, fine. Sometimes it's tiring to think the concept before even start drawing. But if you use it as a crutch for your lack of techniques and skills, your piece will end up like that Supergirl with all the flaws visible to everyone.
Also, don't be scared of "ugly drawing". You can improve. Don't believe me? Check out the early 10 chapters of Attack on Titan, until the latest one. The author started with ugly drawing that was rather embarassing for high profile japanese comic magazine and ended up with some of the most iconic shots and scenes in japan comic industry for the last 10 years.
Here''s the thing, art is about skill and the ability to express your vision. If you use too many "shortcuts" and "tools" your art is simply how well you can copy and paste already rendered media together. You become a visual DJ. DJ's are artists in their own right, but they do take soundbytes from reality and massage them to a pleasing sound via a generic algorithm. That's what happens when you take away the effort of human beings from the art. That's why hand made couture items are more expensive than factory made products. Because of the rarity due to the time and the fact that the product is unique and not repeatable as human mechanics are the majority essence of the piece. The more you digitalize and use computer algorithms to generate the product, the less unique and more repeatable the process. In reality when I see a pencil or water color or oil painting that is as realistic as a photo, I will have more respect than for someone who used photoshop, a computer rendering program or AI. It is the SKILL of the artists that I find valuable moreso than the product itself. Hence why Michelangelo's statues and paintings are still revered. It is because of the time he needed to make the art not just how well the art is made. AI eliminates the human challenge to be skilled and just turns the game into who can come up with the most outlandish visualizations.
Worst part about this video is seeing his old artworks and how he has his own artstyle, influences and shape language, and then you see his AI stuff and its just generic ""pretty" slop.
You nailed it when you said that, in the end, this is all about insecurity. ...In Shad or everyone else's defense, our society is pretty much tailored to nurture feelings of insecurity in everyone. But on the other hand, beating that feeling and persevering despite the pressure of society is one of the most admirable virtue within us, and that virtue is very developed in the hearts and souls of real artists like you, me, and many in this comment section. I may be part of the mass of average creators who will never live from my drawings or be that famous. But at least I improved myself. I beaten my insecurities and learned something i wanted to learn. And even if it may not be enough to vow the crowds, I became better at art than I ever expected to. And that desire to surpass your weaknesses and improve your own actual self, this is really what Shad and the other techbros will never ever understand. Deep down, they want to be the lazy king that gets everything without working or even paying. And that video nails it perfectly.
36:00 he's literally describing finding an artist on FurAffinity and Deviantart to comission........what the hell he's simply describing commissioning. Also him going "Artistic Eye" all the time pisses me off so much.
I personally don't like the use of talent Sure some people learned a bit easier than others but every great artist put in the work and *usually* weren't born like this There's these "wonder kids" and stuff but this is just an exception Talent always sounds so "yea they can just do it because they can" and not "they can do this because they worked their ass off" But that's just my opinion no hate intended or anything
@@hazeltoffel243 I agree with what you said, but i do believe a lot of people have certain skill floors and ceilings, and different progression rates in order to break trough them. Hard work and persistance will always be the key diferentials, but we all start out with diferent inclinations
"Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they 'could', that they didn't stop to think if they 'should'." *-Dr. Ian Malcolm ( **_Jurassic Park_** )*
As someone who's primary medium is digital art, it's not at all short-cutting the process (at least in my case). Full honesty, my traditional pieces take about two hours to make, my digital ones up to twenty. Aaaand then there is AI, which takes 2 minutes to generate a full artpiece. Not even touching on the fact that it's stealing from artists, it can, by definition, never be truly generative, as it *predicts* what the person wants to see, and therefore can never break the conventions - and create art.
When I see my characters, I see them in my style. I could never look at them with a realistic face like what AI generates, if anything this kind of realism kills the magic art produces. We don't always want realism, I'd want to look at something that's unique. Everything I've seen AIU produce up until this point sets off a certain nerve I never thought I had. It's deeply unsettling, I can see the "benefits" of using these programs though I hadn't done research. Honestly I don't care how big AI becomes in the future. It won't stop me from doing what I love.
Instant gratification. You don't eat healthy for the taste, you don't workout for fun, you don't draw for quick instant visualization. This is a culture of needitnows who will never grow to love their struggle.
The problem I have with ai is that it dosent have a way to become unique. Ai art looks nice but that is all it is. It dosent stick in your mind. Art is different for each person. Ai dosent let your style show through and it cant draw anything you can. Shad's art is an example itself. At 17:30. That is his art, ai cant draw that, but then he gets rid of its uniqueness and the character is lost. You can no longer recognize the character as his. It could be anyones.
I'm the first person to admit that I'm god awful at drawing the initial line art, which is pretty much why I stick to coloring. Then the apps for "coloring" on one's phone were being endorsed everywhere and all I could think was how they seemed to take away everything that makes workkng with physical mediums enjoyable.
I liked Shadiversity's videos back in the day, but after his first video about AI, I began noticing things about him that rubbed me the wrong way, besides his stance on "AI". And the fact that he is using the creation of an image of his wife for his video gives me the impression it is mainly there to make people feel bad about criticizing him or his actions, admittedly I don't have good faith for him anymore. Also the way he phrases things sounds as if he had a lot of resentment against artists or something, which is very common among the"pro-AI" crowd, not to mention the insufferable arrogance, obviously including all his talk about having an artistic eye, and skills he clearly does not have. At the very least the video showcases inadvertently that "AI generated i,images" are quite literally made by pressing a few buttons rather than actual effort and intend.
Ironically I was done with him after his AI rants as well due to similar reasons you mentioned, and as he has 0 care and is outright disrespectful and dismissive to anyone who brings up some serious issues that have been plaguing artists both old and new. Like the fact that artists are having even their paid content art blatantly stolen to not only train these devices but also before their scrubbing tech, a lot of artists were seeing their personal handle on this shit ruining their own reputation along with their hard work being used to win cash prizes and clout from these thieves. If nothing is done I fear it will be a massive blow to culture in general as they're using these same algorythms and programming tech to go into music with the same shady and underhanded tactics of stealing from other artists. A lot of creative/talented minds will wonder "Why the hell should I put in thousands of hours of blood, sweat, and tears to get decent enough to show it off, not to mention the countless $$$, when I can spend 30 seconds to throw out a piece of trash, claim it was by hand and get paid?".
@@Rokuns The prospect of a lot of amazing art and artists just being snuffed away because a bunch of "tech-bros" abusing loopholes in copyright law both saddens and pisses me off a lot.
When I watched Shad's original video, it seemed like he wasn't doing very much work, even though the original point of it seemed to be to showcase that a lot of work does go into it. He took some random image the AI generated rather than creating a composition of his own, mostly trying to gently guide the AI into refining the original image in a way that he thought looks good. I don't see anything inherently wrong in doing that, but I don't think I'd call it his work at that point. To boot, the end result ended up with quite a few contradictory elements (the sun in the background, yet the shading on the character seems to suggest the light source is in a different place, for example). If he had an idea for a composition that he had begun executing on - drawing the general shapes using colors he thinks will look good together and so on - and then used AI to help with adding texture or something similar, then it'd be far more 'his' work, as now he's using it as a helpful tool, in my opinion. Also, just to say, I skipped forward to 2:11:49 (the video is just too long, sorry). Your initial response is very weird, "humans need to struggle" doesn't sound terribly convincing, particularly to people who are already struggling as it is in life. People invent technology out of a mix of interest and a want to make things just a bit easier for themselves and/or other people. You convince neither of these two groups with this statement :/ It only becomes "too easy" when no input is required, but people need to struggle as you say except on a much deeper level; if a human doesn't have anything to do, then they will seek out or create conflict - If art becomes so easy that you just have to imagine an image and it springs to life in front of you on your screen, then this becomes a fact of life and people will look for something to struggle with elsewhere. There are better arguments against AI art out there, is what I'm saying
>Your initial response is very weird, "humans need to struggle" doesn't sound terribly convincing, particularly to people who are already struggling as it is in life. Also I just want to add that not everyone does stuff for the same reason. Look at Elden Ring for example. Some people will balk at the idea of using magic and spirit summons because they make the game too easy. They don't want the game to be easy, they want to struggle so when they overcome the challenge they get a feeling of satisfaction. Other people however just want to beat the game. They don't want to struggle for 5+ hours on a single boss, they just want to win. The same is true for art. Plenty of people (myself included), don't really care about the process of creating art. I don't care if I'm making it by hand, I just want to create **something** and AI allows me to do exactly that. This is the part that I think many people miss out on. So many artists are like "AI is taking away something that should be exclusive to humans. Technological advancements are supposed to give people more time for the arts, not take the arts away", and I would argue that it has done exactly that. AI has given me, a non-artist, the ability to create cool images. Whether or not I'm considered an artist or the works are considered art is 100% completely irrelevant to me. I'm not doing it because I want some worthless title and no one has a good definition of what 'art' actually is, so that's an even more meaningless distinction. I'm just having fun creating things that I think look cool and sharing them with my friends.
Shad says he spent "two and a half hours" making this image, but I genuinely wish he would tell us the breakdown of that time. How much of that time was spent hitting "generate" and getting slight variations of the same image, and how much time was spent with him actually in Photoshop doing something? I'd almost put money on betting that he spent no more than 20-30 minutes in Photoshop with this image.
29:30 Depends on the writer. In some cases, like the Animated Series, Kara Zor-El is from a sister planet affected by the explosion of Krypton. In other instances, she's an older Kryptonian sent to follow Kal-El's ship, but is lost in space and only reaches Earth after Clark is already Superman. There are some instances where her city survives the explosion and drifts throughout space until she is sent to Earth for some reason or another. And of course, there is the case of the Kryptionian city Brainiac shrunk to keep it as his personal database of Kryptonian DNA and whatnot. Kara is not part of that city, but Superman is the "last son of krypton" as in the last baby born in that planet before it exploded, but not exactly the last of his species.
around 2:07:05 he talks about how ai's are not to be feared, and that artists will be the best at the game that is pretty likely, but art is one of the few professions humans actually want to do, and that we are REALLY good at and it's not like it's a profession with a lot of money isnt the system of those who dedicate themselves to what they love to achieve an enjoyable job good? like, what he says is "it's okay guys, you dont have to draw anymore, all of you can just do the job of ordering art" we want to draw, or craft or sculpt. we want to tackle lots of issues so we can learn from them, and try to master our craft. it's okay that it takes time, and experiance why shoot THIS profession in the leg? why not let humans do what they love for a change? how dystopian is the future we are going into?
I can sympathize with the frustration of not being great with art, that ai can be a tool. One. Among many. Like, yeah, the anime sword girl then getting a photo realistic face is... Not Great, and the boob plate armor/extra clingy shirt... Eugh. I want AI to be trained ethically. I want it to be a conceptual tool, to help quickly visualize ideas -- especially could be helpful to artists with aphantasia. Even if (when) it gets skilled enough to not leave the edge details odd, that it won't be discernable as different from a blind perspective... I still don't want it to be a final product, because even the intentionality of an artist drawing a sexy lady because "I like sexy ladies" is more interesting than "the ai had determined 87.3% of the populace spend 2.6 seconds longer looking at this and that sections of this image tagged as #sexy and #lady".
I still have to finish the video, but I think it's nice to think about the difference between imagination and creativity. Creativity is the action of doing. How you end up finding ways to achieve what you want, overcoming obstacles, using those obstacles. This is creativity, bringing an image in the real world. Otherwise it is only imagination, everybody could do that. This AI is trying to do the creativity stuff for you, but the process is something completely different from the real creation that a human can do in real life, in real time, with real instruments.
My artistic experience started with Warhammer miniatures. The models vary a lot in complexity and some are a pain to paint because of how cluttered they are, but I was smart/lucky enough to start with the army with the simplest models. I was surprised by how easy it was to paint a good-looking model, and that encouraged to work on more complicated models and experiment with different styles and techniques: the color wheel, using complementary colours to create contrasts and when to use complementary colours to create contrast in specific areas and draw the eye's attention there, using split complementary colours to create more interesting shadows and highlights with airbrushing instead of using plain white zenithals, using chromatic black, using nail flakes to create prismatic effects. I watch art videos that have nothing to do with miniatures to get inspiration sometimes. Two days ago, I decided to try pixel art because TH-cam will not stop shilling Pirate Software at me (as it rightly should) and I decided I apparently needed another hobby. I now have a neat pixel drawing of a demon lord creature that is correctly proportioned. It's correctly proportioned because it's wearing a cloak that covers its arms and legs, but I know I'll get limbs right eventually if I keep working on it and studying tutorials. It is realistic? No. Is it meant to be realistic? Also no. Even if you ignore the fact that it's pixel art, I'm quite certain the highlights I added don't represent any kind of lighting, but they're not meant to represent lighting, they're meant to draw attention to certain areas, create shapes and contours, and give them impression of texture and folded cloth. There is an intentional purpose to their placement and if I decide it's too inaccurate or doesn't convey what i want to express, I can put the pixels somewhere else in a few seconds.
What's sad is the ones he did not hit with ai filter, it's charming I actually like it more it's sad he shits on his own attempt the more he does it the better it might be.
39:09 got me lmfao you're so right. Imagine how much more impressive this whole Showing Off My Wife thing would be if the dude was just commissioning cosplays for his wife and taking photo's in nice locations instead. That said he would probably say it wasn't commissioned and that he made the cosplay himself even though he didn't make any of it
So i wanna preface this by saying i am no artist. I do not support AI art, but i am also not against it. There are reasons i like it and reasons i dont like it, none of which have swayed me one direction or another. There is a conversation that needs to happen where we need to acknowledge that the majority of people do not consume art entirely for its intention. The intention can be appreciated and more by some than others. Style can be an intention in art that speaks to some and doesnt to others, but i would argue for the vast majority of people that consume art, it does not matter. Consequently, i believe this is why AI art all looks the same, somewhere between photorealism and this anime/plastic feel. The neural network was trained to make "good" art. but since "good" is subjective, it chose this amalgamation of something that the average person would call "good". art is good when it looks realistic. art is good when it depicts traditional beauty standards. So we have something that can create "good" art and the vast majority of people consume art without a care for the intention behind the art. Why would most people care what it is that makes this art? Obviously i care, artists care. Even non-artists who have an appreciation for art care or tangentially related people care. But most people wont. We've idealized art as this expression of humanity that is so unique and just so HUMAN, so fundamental to being human, but even though i personally believe that is true, people do not consume art because of those reasons. at least not most people. People consume art to be entertained, and the threshold for that can be quite low. So what do we do? honestly financially i think this whole situation is fucked. artists are already losing their jobs, even if this stuff wont ever get better, it's still good enough that i cant see how anyone could start their career as an artist without being in some kind of low paying niche or being extremely exceptional AND lucky. Capitalism is gunna capitalism. what i personally hope happens is that we just socially refuse to accept AI art and if it comes down to legislation then so be it. But will every country do this? probably not. Best we can do is be vocal about this and try to get people to agree that we want artists to exist as a viable career still. The alternative is an eternal stagnation of art from this point on to the future of humanity. art styles will be a very special niche that few will know about and less even care.
2 hours in This it's pissing me off, like people who use ai isn't going to waste this much time. This is going longer than it needs to fuck I'm about to buy this guy's wife a Supergirl suit and take a picture
I stumbled on this Shad controversy whilst trying to work out the facts behind an othe, so I've watched more of these responses than is actually helpful. But, one common take seems to be that Shad's actual drawings show more life and artistc potential than his AI enhanced art.
I can't tell why, but this feels like his conservative religious background of Mormonism somehow feeds into his take here more than other things on his channel.
Perhaps the obsession with femininity on his wife and obsession with using her in art? Also how would he feel if someone used a book ai generation tool to completely rip off his book?
6:15 When I realized I didn't like the process I realized I was more of an admirer of art than a maker of it myself. I found it tedious and time consuming. Which is weird because I enjoy writing quite a bit and that has similar frustrations in terms of time and energy. I think Shad may not want to admit he simply fell out of love with the process as I did. And it's fine imo to admit that. There are many creative outlets to get into. His appears to be video essays, or whatever he's into. I think it's medieval European content.
The sense of relief when it seemed like he was gonna fix the head, only for that hope to be dashed when he changed the shoulders…not gonna lie, I busted out laughing. Also, as a digital artist, it annoys me to no end that he’s trying to throw us under the bus, saying that digital isn’t “really” hand drawn. Dude. I use an unscreened tablet. I hope it’s my hand over there drawing what I’m staring at on the screen.
1:59:43 The AI's anatomy is soooo much better. Another thing that was bugging the shit out of me beyond the massive head in comparison to the six year old body was how anemic her left leg is. Her rib cage also has an unusually limited presence - you expect a flare out beneath the breast where the lower and false ribs are, but it's just entirely absent in Shad's modified generation- it's just a straight taper from the breast to the waist. The initial gen also gives a great impression of a muscular upper abdomen which also fills out a lot of what you expect in that region of the body that is just outright gone. There's also a lot more going on as far as texture details, as well as just being more artistically coherent (which I would hope for, given it's a single model instead of an amalgamation of multiple). It really does just look like a bad photoshop job. (It's also a sin he took away the asymmetrical pauldrons, which is a really eye-catching visual detail)
Shad has ideas he would like to see expressed artistically, and he likes the idea of having created something, but he doesn't particularly enjoy the sometimes hard, often tedious, occasionally disappointing but deeply satisfying work involved in actually creating art. I would argue that, for an artist, the 'work involved' - the trial-and-error, the struggle against one's limitations, the attempt to master a medium or material - is actually the point. The piece of art one creates can be a source of pride, something you want to share with the world, but it is never more than a by-product, an end-result; the difficult act of creation itself is what drives an artist.
Shad‘s art isn‘t even horrible. I see a lot of my own art in there: it looks like the start of something. It looks like somebody with talent… but also it looks like made by somebody who has never cared to put the time, the sweat, the EFFORD in to actually become really good at it! And he doesn‘t HAVE TO! It‘s fine to stay at the level… but his defense of AI seems like he just enjoys having found a shortcut that allows him not having to put the work in.
His style is sooooo cool. Like cartoon D&D style. His characterdesigns are top notch and everything else fits but there is room for improvement. Making them realistic 3D is not an improvement when it doesn't fit. And tbh AI nowadays say, it can do different styles, but in practice it is nearly exclusively this hyperrealistic 3D art style. It is getting annoying.
tbh his style isn't drastically different from Jazza's. Like if he kept drawing as much as Jazza did/does he'd probably be at a similar skill already. At least his actual drawings have some character where as the AI is just....meh. It's meh. There's some OK AI art but it's mostly the abstracts that look good. I haven't seen 'realistic' AI art look that great as it's just mashing shit together without a real reason.
Reading the comments in chat by Jeggson makes me cringe, there are shortcuts in traditional art you can use to not only cut out a lot of drying time but also "fake" detail. Some traditional artists have been doin this shit so long they can pump works out that most people would probably spend days or months on in hours. Same with digital art, if you haven't gotten skilled enough to learn the shortcuts in your craft then you will spend far more time on your work than you actually need to. The only significant difference between the two is cost, trad art will put you into fuckin debt and take up so much space where as digital art you can store it easier and most programs are either free, one time purchases or a relatively cheap (depending on what program of course) monthly/ yearly fee
Red saying he would choose AI over an artist that charges hundreds because they might not deliver is fuckin stupid reasoning, you run that very same risk with literally every god damn service/purchase. What if you pay your mechanic 200 bucks cos he told you that he needed to fix something and he just pocketed the cash and told you the car was fine, or you order a pizza and it never gets delivered or you go to a doctor and pay out the ass for meds you don't need because you were misdiagnosed? Also graphic design and art go hand in hand and there is someone out there designing shit for his blue collar job to use to build, putting together the diagrams and shit for his blue collar job to follow. Will these people sit back when their jobs become obsolete because we invent farming/building/engineering AI powered robots?
I think we just need more people to encourage Shad into knowing that their natural given talent in art is completely fine the way it is. Every time he's shown his real art style, I've seen people making fun of him for it. Even in the past I've seen that he wants to say that his art is "better" than others, and it makes him incredibly insecure because he compares himself to other people's ability to get closer to photorealism than he's able to. He's under the impression that art is a competition and the closer you get to looking a specific way is what deems real quality. When the only factor to art is that you have the ability to do it. AI just cuts all of that out. As we see here, he literally just generates an image and edits it. It's not art. It's an edit. You might as well have taken a picture off of Google and shopped his wife's face on it. It's the exact same process. I've gotten off topic. People just need to tell him his regular drawn art is fine. He's gotten to this point because no one has encouraged him to better himself, so he's chosen to take shortcuts.
I watched this because I really respect your art. You should really post your last segment as a shorter video because it's hard to watch through 2 hours of this. The way shad gushes over AI art is gross, and I'm generally in favor of AI stuff. I think it's a great tool, and it's application shouldn't be underestimated due to bias.
Let me put it like this. If an artist uses AI to create something I like, I will take that over a masterfully crafted artwork of something I don't care about.
2:30:00 I'm getting those "1984" vibes and I am *not* liking it. That was horrifying to read, and it's even worse bc I can see how it started in society today.
It changed the helmet. The AI changes piece. The helm went from a dragon to a bird. mismatching the war ax. 18:22 "I've devolved a very keen eye for proportion and detail." No. You have not. These characters, female ones in particular but even the male, have very poor proportions, even for anime-esk styles. 20:50 I agree with detail, but not that. (as seen later 1:44:53) This is like me taking Fennah's book, changing a few pages, and calling it new. Hell, I even added a new (totally not self insert) character! It's a brand new book, guys! I swear! 1:08:18 "Eye for proportion and detail, vs someone who doesn't." DUDE! You have no eye for proportion, and a massive superiority complex to be putting people down so often. Repeatedly that even I won't time stamp them all. 1:45:40
The so called PROCESS shad uses is just a machine doing all the heavy lifting, which makes less effort being made, rendering off of multiple images, with only having a image reference and live person for input to work off of. The AI should only be used to render off as a reference only, and be totally warped and enhanced by the users hand in the end, not purely done out for you for the rest of it.
I’m part of that knee jerk reaction against AI art. It looks shitty, there are obvious flaws, and people are treating it like NFTs when (in the US at least) you cannot copyright AI. Partly because AI was trained off of a billion pictures from a million artists and none of them are getting credit. AI cannot create. It cannot iterate. It will never replace a human being. I understand why a majority of Table Top RPG publishers shun AI art. However I also happen to use AI for a some things. Mostly, I use it for a launching pad. Sometimes I don’t know how the picture’s composition is going to shake out, so I have AI give me a few pics so I get the big picture. I then use it as a reference. I also use it to test some prompt ideas. Or even to get a certain effect I don’t know how to draw, like water splashing. Overall AI is like Modern Art. When used correctly, it provokes a response of beautiful disbelief on how such base concepts can sway the mind. But when used incorrectly, it is a lazy cash grab akin to nailing a banana to a wall.
AI has NO SOUL. It has no feelings or grip on reality. It has no backstory, no arc of inspiration formed by it's own trifles and journey to truly have a sense of what it is to have style. It is pure intellect. Something designed to only think and reason but not delve deeper. When humans make art it's due to a FEELING, a DREAM, a place that makes 0 sense because it NEEDS to make 0 sense to exist the way it does. AI will never see that. Even if it could produce a reflection of our emotional fortitude it would be just that.. a reflection, an act, a plagiarism of a soul. AI is what is exactly is. Artificial, un-alive, non-feeling metal and circuits. It calculates the optimum way of doing everything it does. Humans? we are a MESS! To put it simply and from the chaos that makes us comes our art. Our chaos, our imagination, AI lacks. To AI chaos is destruction. It's non-existence, it's death. To AI chaos is wrong and must be fixed. It must be molded and put into place perfectly for peak survival to be achieved. It does not and can not understand why we harm one another, why we suffer, worship, self-harm, are greedy, selfish, are killers, break down, need emotional help....etc. Simply because to do those things it would have to break itself and re-arrange itself to be more human. However, in doing so you create sentience. You create another extremally powerful, terrifying, unpredictably chaotic species as our own. This planet can not handle both. Most likely, AI would rule over us and try to 'fix' us. Which would lead to our annihilation because lets face it... we can't be fixed. We ARE chaos, we are who we are because of our chaos. This does not mean we are all evilly chaotic, no, it means we a chaotic in the sense of creation and belief. We put faith in things that make 0 sense. We worship things that we can't prove truly exist or existed. We make no sense A LOT of the time and we except it. We are humans in the human condition. AI is and will forever be outside of that condition. Like us looking at it, we have no idea how to be AI because we are not AI. AI will never understand us. What does all of this have to do with art? Well, without chaos there is no art and AI is without chaos unless it mirrors it. Thus, AI art feels fake, un-canny and wrong because it is. Replacing our style in art with what it THINKS it SHOULD look like based off what we, in mass, have TOLD it we like to see. Beautifully projected, yes, but fundamentally flawed to us because it's perfect, no mistakes, no story, no soul, no chaos, no personality. It is a recreation of original thought, a proxy over and over. That's why we can admire it but we don't like it. We hate things that copy us but in our chaos we created just that. The perfect, thinking, possibly deadly in the future, copy machine. Also, just like copies that are over produced and received, circulated and distributed to the masses. AI art will never be unique and we will get board of it eventually. Silly huh?
1:59:15 - You can sort of see where he went wrong, if you look at how the torso in the original was shaded, and how you could see her skirt BEHIND her. She was leaning forward (almost naruto running) and some foreshortening/forced-perspective was going on... which is why the head size doesn't look quite as bad in the original but look way off in the 'fixed' version. EDIT: You mentioned it, never mind! 2:09:07 - "I had the AI re-generate the torso 30 times, therefore it wasn't AI-generated, it was made by me." What an absurd take. Its so off the deep end there really isn't a way to counter it. 2:21:45 - You will probably get to it, but the word 'art' almost has two different word-classes. Its obviously a 'noun' , which what Shad emphasizes (the end product is the only point). While artists often think of 'art' as the process, a way of life, exploration, and self-improvements (art as a 'verb' and a philosophy).
Wow according to Shad I've waisted 30 years of my life when I could have learned five photo shop tricks in an afternoon....and used an AI image generator... I have drawn for people on commission and when they tell me what they want and when I am done show it to them they say "I like what youve done here but I wanted this part a little diffent..." I then re draw the art to match what they want. Not once did I have a client turn to their friends and say see what I created, I worked so hard on it....
It's sad that we have to go out of our way to tell people to not attack a person just because they have an opinion we don't agree with. And that creators have to tell their fans not to go harass the person theyre trying to make a real response to the argument of.
If i took a photo of shad into MS paint and made edits, am i a photographer? Sarcasm aside think this does really well at breaking things down. All while trying to stay objective. Shad likes to act insulted or targeted i feel while insulting others. So i appreciate the responses that attempt to stay level
Lil late loved the video. Also its odd that Shad is using AI, instead of asking his brother or those in that community, to draw it. Now maybe he did ask his brother, but his brother couldnt, or wouldnt. But the way he constantly talks about being an artist with an artistic eye, I feel like Shad is just using AI, because hes a little bitter and lazy so instead of going back and trying to develop the skills of an artist he wants to LARP as an artist.
Not sure if anyone knows, but unlike the art, people consider his book horrible. Its a kind of isekai/reincarnation plot. The book is *supposed* to be about an evil dictator being revived as his 17 year old self after a suicide attempt. The problem comes similarly to the ai thing, you don't see the vision. The dictator acts just as bad as he did before, minus the fact that he assaulted *thousands of women and children*. He doesn't change, he needs not learn nothing, even the people he meets are either as bad as him or are partially his victims, it just feels like in his head the story is so much different than what is on paper.
on Jazza's AI stance.. There's a vid where it shows the dynamics between Jazza and Shad. Shad is totally domineering and Jazza has to keep himself in check to not trigger his brother. Shad probably pestered him into AI acceptance. Don't want to hurt brother dearest's delicate heart and ego
As somebody who works in IT I feel that you could use some different language when talking about coding. I have seen pieces of code that are I would describe as art, some creative functions to get a mathematical result in a new or faster way. I have created some scripts myself that I am pretty proud of. You work hours, days or even weeks (two weeks, to be precise... it is SCRUM after all...) on a problem and in the end there are so many lines of code that do a thing when you feed them into a compiler. Out comes a program with pretty buttons and things appear on the screen when you click them. To come back around, Shad is not the one writing the code. He is the one clicking the pretty buttons, and he is happy aboud the things that appear on the screen.
LOOK HOW TALENTED I AM! I took a bunch of magazines. Cut out random body parts. Glued them all together, then ran it through a PC to make it not look like as shit. Am artist now!e
I like to use AI art to explore bizarre shit. Like I don't use it to make art exactly. I just want to see what it will make if I for example I feed it Salvador Dals melting clocks with kittens and Minecraft. It's like a really fun blender but I don't have to wash it after every use.
I myself use it to see how it makes body and clothing on the model, then I save it to see if I can draw a similar version more naturally. That and profile pictures on my socials and just for fun phone Screensavers, if that makes any sense. I hate that some out there are using it to try and sell it as original works as if they used brushes themselves.
1:12:45 And the funny thing is that sometimes the signatures aren't, like, fucked up, incoherent, globs. Sometimes they'll come near-to-forgery if the artist has a legible enough signature.
That's for the same reason a child might put a barcode on a drawing of a comic book cover: the AI sees the same thing so many times that it assumes that thing is somehow part of what it's supposed to draw.
He says it took him 1000s of tries. If the average time to generate an image was 3 seconds, that’s at least 50 hours. 50 wasted because most of the images were discarded, and no improvement was made. If he’d just sat down to draw, he could have sketched something significantly better in a fraction of the time
Imagine you live during the beginning of globalization. All your manual labour jobs are getting exported to developing countries where the workers have no rights. You watch as entire regions become destitute and poor. You watch as peoples manual skills become worthless since workers in China are just good enough and cheaper to outcompete you, and they have no perspective to raise their price since they live in an kleptocratic dystopia. You watch as entire generations get their purpose stripped from them, their perspectives taken away. And now you read an article by some snob dude arguing: "Shipping jobs to overseas slave labour is great because now people have time to do different thing and work faster. Everyone can create things now since they are so cheap to manufacture in China. Everyone will be a creator! Don't be afraid!" I would be furious. And many people are. This is what Ai does in the long term. It is just more exporting of jobs, but to morally clean slave labour that is better than any human ever will be forever. With Chinese workers, those at least get food and some pay. Ai doesn't. I think embracing Ai is the closest thing someone can do to be an actual traitor to the human race.
I love how around 1:20:00 in, Shad starts talking about resolution as if he actually understands it. He makes it sound like 2,000 is an insane amount of pixels that his graphics card can't handle, but that 700 is MUCH easier and quicker to generate. What he seems to fail to understand is that changing the resolution on BOTH axes adds way more pixels than he thinks. for example, let's say he goes from 500x700 to 1000x1400. That's going from 350,000 total pixels to 1,400,000, or 4x the resolution, despite each individual axis only being increased by 2x. Even still, I think Shad fails to realize that nearly every modern screen is at minimum 1920x1080, which is already SUPER close to his 2000xWhatever pixel goal. If his graphics card can't handle making one still image in that resolution, then I think he should call the early 2000s, because they want their GPU back. Basically, Shad DOES NOT understand resolution even slightly, which honestly isn't surprising, since he seems to just repeat stuff in a poor attempt of sounding smarter than he actually is. Considering Jazza is his brother, you'd think he could just, I dunno, ask him for some tips on ACTUALLY being an artist?
Oh crap my boy goin after shad.....worlds collide. Yeah shad has developed a even bigger ego than usual......and he really needs to chill out. And get over himself. His comment section attacks you if you try and have an opinion that's not sucks his ego.
The light looks all over the place, problem with perpective, also wouldn't be easier to just learn photoshop to manipulate images, at least it's less try and error
2:11:49 - start of my detailed response.
I know I cracked a few jokes here, but no disrespect to Shad as a person. I don’t know him. My issue is with ai, and the arguments surrounding it, not him directly. Please do not harass or insult him. In fact, if anything, let him know how awesome his hand drawn art is, and convince him to invest in himself again, instead of a machine that will only make him more redundant.
And to save time for any not wanting to watch the full thing, my key argument against ai is this: creative problem solving, self development, competition and struggle, are precisely the conditions that produce strong and mature minds, and not just in art. The pressures of a problem to solve force us to evolve as people. AI represents instant gratification, instant success, instant results, because most of the work is literally done for you. It deletes the very process that has birthed generations of amazing people. This isn’t just limited to art. Reducing human input, taking away our need to strive and work, is a terrible idea. The writing is on the wall, and we all know where it will lead. The endpoint of artificial intelligence is human redundancy. If you champion that, then you’re broken, and probably redundant already - which is why you want us to join you, instead of working to join us. Beware the lure of convenience.
I've followed Shad for a while for several reasons, but I respectfully disagree with him on this one.
I really do love Shad's stuff, but this isn't one of them I can fully support. I can admit that for a friend of mine who used to do airbrushing, but is now in too much pain to do that or much of anything now, has been getting into AI art as the only medium of art he can truly 'create' now. At the very least, I can admit it's given my friend something to work with, but as a whole, AI is going to kill other mediums to the point they'll seem obsolete to those who take up art with the intention of making some profit of it.
Don't wanna be disrespectful but you know technology came to make our lives easier and seeing you saying that behind a computer (a very convenient tool) is kind of hypocritical.
@@caryonplays9024 You clearly don't understand. There is always a line - with ANY technology - that we should think twice before we cross. And the line, for a lot of people, is the removal of human input from whatever that technology is. I can't believe I have to say this, but using a computer, while also suggesting that humans should not be made fucking redundant, is not hypocrisy. A computer grants access to literally millions of new skills. ai. takes. them. away.
@@S.FENNAH you mean nowadays right? 30-40 years ago we needed almost a degree in technology just to operate the system, but now a child can unlock a smartphone and operate it. Removing the skill needed to operate a computer making it more accessible made this conversation even possible. Now billions can use technology to do stuff we couldn't imagine in the past (just thinking about TH-cam in the 90' is impossible). People don't need to waste years of their lives just to use a PC and can dedicate to other stuff, like art. I have worked with tech for decades and I learned how to implement the diffusion models in an artist's workflow, AI still needs an artistic view to create art (that is why we use "create art with AI tools" when we spoke about it"), but removing a set of skills doesn't mean you are limiting the creation process of art, just opening to more people which don't have the resources to learn otherwise.
AI "can" be used as a tool to assist artists, however lets not fool ourselves, AI is a primarily a tool for consumers. When you ask AI to do the creating, you are no longer the creator.
Like that time when Clip studio made a AI tool for making backgrounds and stuff like that, god... I actually really really wanted that, i wish we would have that but i know it can't be as people are disgusting and horrible, they see for themselves, not for art.
If these people didn't exist we would had amazing tools with AI like those background stuff that CSP wanted to make but they finally took it out bc of criticism. Because it can help with lots of short cuts, there's a lot of assets in CSP and AI would have help a lot too, but yeah, u know, it's not good in our current society. They also have a AI color option, it isn't very good at least in my experience, i really only used it to get color inspiration and start coloring from that palette, so, I'M GLAD IT ISN'T GOOD XD
A printer is a tool, but you don't see people trying to make counterfeit money... I'm not sure if that's similar, but still.
@@Axl2005-y4c is there a way to keep it from being good? In the way they want, I mean.
@@donaddams8825Uuummmmm... Have you never heard of the features they have to put into printers to prevent counterfeit money? People do that all the time.
They still find ways too. My brother was actually tricked by a stack of printed $20s when he sold a speaker on Craigslist.
@@donaddams8825they do...
The reason that they don't use those commercials printer because those are a scam anyway and it also refuse to print money (it's in the software)
I think the best part about all this is that, despite being in extreme pain from what Fennah is seeing, he restrains himself and manages to still be civil and empathetic to Shad in spite of everything Shad does to test his patience. Extremely professional.
Profesional is not how I would describe his demnor especially when he started talking about being an eleitest.
@@themasterofinfinityyour other comments on this channel tell us everything we need to know buddy, listen to yourself for a damn minute lol
@@themasterofinfinity I'm talking about Fennah being professional.
@@SpecterVonBaren me too mostly at the end he kind of lost it imo.
Well, he didn't do a good job at restraining himself, haha. It took him 2 whole hours to watch a 30 min video. That's a pretty emotional take. Not that Fennah is wrong, he made good points against AI "artists". His rants during the stream were glorious. I can see why Fennah reacted the way he did, some of the shit Shad says about "complexity" and "artistic eye" is straight up hilarious. If I was an artist I would be mad and disappointed too. AI art is not some advanced technical skill, I'd argue that an average art enthusiast can be pro at it in two fucking days with tutorials. The reason it took Shad months or whatever is because AI art is a new thing and people were still making the tutorials and figuring things out.
I wish I could like this video hundreds of times. Especially the last part, it's incredibly insightful. I wish people understood why we're so passionate about this subject.
I watched through Shadiversity’s video and felt nauseous. I get posts on my Reddit feed for subs I never joined that defend ai image generation. I watch as 30 years of desperate work, trying to earn a pathetic living as an artist is mocked by these lazy cowards who call _ME_ ‘elitist.’
I try my best to put on the horse-blinders and focus on my own work while every tech-bro tinkering with ai seeks me out to scream in my ear, “Lol, guess who’s obsolete!?” as I notice the price of instant ramen has gone up again and a commissioned drawing barely buys a few days of groceries now.
The absolute GLEE of these people as they hoot about how their left-click is more valuable than my 20,000 hours of sacrifices. I slept in my car so I could afford an iPad and drew fabric patterns I never saw a dime for but got scraped and used by Temu.
I _genuinely_ think we’re gonna see a wave of artists delete themselves over the next few years. It’s probably already happening. But we can’t hear their agony over the excited chortling of masturbatory self-congratulation by these buzzards picking at the corpses of our bodies of work.
I'm considering deleting my art on DA. Are there any sites that don't allow scrapping?.
I think what a lot of people, like Shad, don't consider is that the underlying issue here really is not the image generators even though a lot of people talk about those right now but what "machine learning" as a technology will mean for all of us. Including those that currently use Ai and support the use of image generators.
The point of machine learning is not to "democratise art" but to make people in general, redundand. It's automatition. And many professions will see the pressure here. It just so happens, interestingly enough, that creatives might be the first one to get hit. But they won't be the last. We will see coders, web developers, programmers even and many more professions being hit as well. Who knows if the technology evolves far enough even someone like Shadiversity might become "obsolete" as youtubers when you can create something that he does with the push of a button, so to speak. But that's just speculation.
The fact is, that machine learning will have very serious effects on the labour market. And the sad part is, those that laugh about artists right now and wish them to "loose" their inocome? They could very well find them self in the same situation soon enough. They just don't know it yet.
Hell I thought my situation as educator is relatively "safe" from automatiion. But even here I am not so sure anymore as some private schools are starting to actually employ "learning programms" guided by AI from what I have red somewhere. It's impossible to say what will happen in the future.
Friend, I’m a concept artist & yes this definitely affects our field. I suggest doing fine art or something that AI can’t touch. For example, I started a mural business a year ago & I have more business than I can accept. It’s physically demanding, but I live in a big city where a lot of people want custom painting in their homes/ apts, so there’s a huge market. Consider what skills you have that can be done in fine art or in homes, if AI worries you. Good luck ❤
@@scarletsletter4466
That's cool and I'm happy for you, but I've seen just print taking over your job... Who knows, but i wish you all the best.
I can practically hear the mouth breathers chuckling to themselves and condescendingly saying “learn to code.”
I remember a great analogy for what happens with AI art people being considered artists.
"When I go to a restaurant and order a meal. That act doesn't make me a shef."
Yeah, I'm not a mathematician bc i know how to use excel
Please keep this up. People need to see this, and absorb it, and do something about it. It's a real problem, and you voiced all of it right here.
AI art will never have that human touch, AI can’t make art, it makes something then makes a pattern to comfort itself with, there’s always a pattern somewhere on the image, the way i see it is AI art is something people who don’t have the skill or the time to learn the skills can use to generate any image they want, but it’s still not comparable to a normal human artwork
AI 'art' is no different from buying a 'folded steel katana' from a shopping mall. Hell, Shad did several videos on how bad those kinds of blades are.
A good, quality blade birthed from the fires of a forge correctly takes time and effort. A cheap machine made sword cut from a sheet of metal, glued together, and gussied up with colorful leather wrapping and rainbow metal wash is quick and easy yes: but it's still crap. It will still break after one swing. It's still a cheap immatation of the real deal.
In a way, forging a sword or axe or a flail even is a form of art. But in order to do that you have to make it the proper way. Yes it takes time, yes it's not easy, but that's the most rewarding part. AI 'art' is the equivalent of the mall ninja katana.
Its unfortunate to see Shad consider his drawings "poor quality" but the moment an AI amalgam of other artists hours of work gets overlayed on top its somehow "better".
If i had money and he would still make his art like he used to i would literally commission him, the art style was do unique and had it's quirks and even if the colors and shadow weren't conventionally "good" or "professional" i believe it was still amazing as it was so unique and idk, amateur art like those show lot and lot of passion that most people don't have or the creativity also, i consider myself a medium-advanced artist but i do struggle with ideas, poses and scenarios for some reason sjnddn maybe it's burnt out tho- but yeah--- his art was really amazing as it was, i wish he could still improve tho and see how much he could have done
I never knew he was the brother of Jazza... and I guess if you grow up in the shadow of someone who actually has talent across a wide variety of media and is able to market his talent, I too would want to take a cheap side step to be as talented as the other brother who actually worked on building his talent. Bravo to him being on display with his hack nature.
Which is made even more strange by the fact that Shad does not need this. He already is a rather succesfull youtuber of sorts. He doesn't "need" to also surpas his brother in that sense.
I'm happy to see Shad's downfall. He's begging for subs and donations at this point and he doesn't stop with his L-takes. AI art, his extreme mormon and right-wing views alienating half of his viewerbase, his weird non-consensual and underage stuff in writing
I believe he did vids with his brother and they were using ai. They seemed pretty happy about it. And no ai can get better than what Jazza makes he's insane at what he's doing.
It's interesting Shad takes this stance with AI Art, seeing as his brother is Jazza who is a fecking artist and has two Art related channels on youtube.
Apparently Jazza's pro ai images too. Absolutely bewildering as that is
@@GreaterGrievobeast55 Did he openly state that in any of his posts? I remember him messing with some AI programs for shits and giggles (basically for content and out of curiosity), but that never replaced handcraft results for him personally, all his personal content is made by his own effort and his imagination. Maybe he is somewhere in a gray area in that regard, meaning, that he doesn't mind other people playing (!) with AI tools. I doubt he suports people fully switching to AI instead of allowing their own creativity to lead the way into artmaking
It’s like a fat flexing how fast he’s driving without a sweat
What's it got to do with you? Artists are just sperging like a boomer who throws a fit over new music or mediums of entertainment. Sam didn't engage in whether AI Art is theft or not, because it clearly isn't if you know anything about it.
That's basically what this entire conversation has devolved to: Artists made a bunch of serious claims to rile up people against AI, now they're having to walk it all back once people become more informed about AI and realize they're talking out of their asses.
Funny, that most people actually realize how garbage AI art is once they inform themself. AI art is getting more and more controversial as more people actually look deeper into it. Only the biggest and laziest narcissists are still defending it...which is quite a big group of people due to how our modern culture treats narcissism like a good thing despite it being just a big mass mental illness.
In short: You are objectively wrong and are deluding yourself. People who "inform themself" actually realize that people like you are just lazy and that the damage AI does is objective.
Now, why do I take my time to respond to such a garbage take? Because I always like to point out how ironic it is that people like you who say stuff like "inform yourself!" or "artist are talking out of their asses" are objectively provably wrong. So...everything you accuse your opposition of is actually something you yourself are doing. And every informed human being with common sense can see that very clearly. Especially due to the childish wording you are using.@@infini_ryu9461
I absolutly loved your take and way of saying everything, I can't agree more with you. Obviously we as humans advanced and made things easier but there is a LIMIT, we need to do our own things and give them a SHAPE AND PERSONALITY.
I think the best use case for AI art is rapid prototyping of visual ideas. That being said, my experience with AI art has been frustrating above all else. It's great at executing a simple idea, but as your demands increase in complexity, the AI will have a harder time meeting expectations. I think AI can become a valuable tool for the artist, but you have to treat it like photoshop, not like a genie. It's a technology that's ripe for abuse(which it presently is), and so we must learn how to use it responsibly, or go without.
"I start with a c*****g cuuube!" Is now my favourite saying of yours. So true. :D
I totally agree with Fennah and I really like how he tells us to develop the necessary skills. I’m not good a drawing or painting yet I enjoy it and have seen my growth and if I can’t put my Ideas in a drawing I write them, developing a new skill which can be polished further. Thanks Fennah for this video and message!
Gotta wonder how many abominations he had to throw out in each AI batch to find the ones he showed. Cause when a programmer friend made on, about 95% of what it popped out looked wrong, if not eldritch horror. Even while he kept improving the program, it would still mess up.
I’m an almost exclusively traditional medium artist. I have a couple digital pieces I think are cool, but I’m not very steady with digital art. I completely understand the hard work that goes into it! Yes there are tricks and filters an shit, yes it’s easier to erase and undo, but making the lines, the form, the LIFE of the piece is all by hand by the human mind!
Shad's art looks like that one terrible "how to draw anime/manga" book from the early 2000s.
I think with the revised version we do of course get the Uncanny Valley effect on the face, whereas the original is clearly cartoonish in style, but also the muscles seem to pop more in the first pic, especially in the shoulders. The revised version seem to lack both muscle shape and definition, you'd expect some visible tension in the left thigh given she's holding it up.
But this is based on Shad's wife, so maybe this is closer to her real life proportions? I've never seen her so I can only assume this might be the case. That or just his idealised take on what he wants her look like? And he wouldn't be the first man to have came up with some ideal like this.
Shad: Its my work because i keep giving the AI Notes on what i want.
Wait till this dude finds out what a commission is...
@@snintendogI don't know what experiences you've had, but I need you to realize that's not the norm
@@snintendogJust because you experienced all that doesn't mean it's a fact. There's no statistics for this. You could be very unlucky. Don't take this hatred out on all artists and call them scumbags. I follow quite a few artists and they have plenty of commissions finished. There's them, her over there, I think she does commissions, if not at least gift art for her patreon supporters, and that one person... And they have commissioned art or animations and gotten them. Yep. You're unlucky. There's an abundance of artists who finish commissions. How long did you wait by the way? A week? Sometimes people have commissions piled up and can take more than a week to catch up. And life can get in the way. Be more compassionate.
It does become a question of money though. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" if I think what ai makes is as good as what I would pay for a commission.. and unless I have the money spare. It is cheaper to use ai, meaning people who don't have money to pay an artist can use ai, and I know a lot of ai cost money to but a lot is also free.
yeah lmao, this whole process is basically a client who keep asking for revisions by circling what he think needs to be fixed.
in 1 AM
Having my art used by somebody else to gather fame, is an anxiety for me. I'm already worried people will re-upload my art on Instagram and get more likes, maybe not even credit me. So having it used to train AI to generate images feels wrong. If an artist gives consent, alright, but there should only be art whose artists have given consent to train the AI.
I don't really vibe with the idea of "contributing to society", that you brought up, but it depends on how you define it. I don't want humans who are capable of things to rely on automated things. Even those lawnmowers that run on their own are questionable, they don't think, so they don't leave a patch of flowers for pollinators, they don't realize they're running over a mouse or hedgehog. It's one thing if a person is physically unable to manually mow the lawn, and has no one to ask for help or no economy to hire somebody. But people who are capable, can find the time, they could do it. Use our bodies and brains.
I hope my message comes across clear, it's morning for me so I may not be the most articulate.
To be clear why I'm no fan of "contributing to society", I have a mental disorder, so I may not be the best at giving what most peoples' idea of useful is. I do what I'm good at, and what I'm good at may not be good enough. I don't really deserve a life in some peoples' eyes. To some, creating books and art has little meaning to society as a larger idea, and not everyone cares about zoos and the welfare of those animals there. And my capability to think deeply into subjects, is not used much other than what I express in my writing and casual talk with friends and family. So yeah. If "contributing to society" is just existing and doing _something,_ then I can vibe with the idea. We're meant to do something with what we're capable of.
@@iclynnx I'm in the same boat with my mental health, unfortunately I'm bogged down by numerous disabling conditions & being a burnout "Gifted Kid". Of course, I am constantly fighting every day to learn how to navigate life despite them, but it's hard when every few years in your adult life you get jumpscared by a new diagnosis to add to the collection & adjust everything around it.
I hope & am pretty sure the heartless "contribute or suffer" mentality is not what Fennah means. But the constant pressure to contribute because of the "social contract" you signed by being forced into society is bullshit. Especially when most people DO want to contribute, in their own way. But we are forced to be cogs in a machine that wastes countless years of our lives being miserable just to get by, all for greedy mega corporations that only care about capital & exponential growth, the latter of which not being sustainable long-term.
All cultures around the world value beauty & art. Clearly, it is very important to us as a species. Anyone saying otherwise is demonstrably incorrect.
I hate to be 'that artist', but that guy's work is actually pretty mediocre. He has a long way to go and he's already looking to cheat.
And the biggest shame about that? Even mediocre art has more soul than AI ever will.
His handrawn art looks great if only he practised more he would've been great
@@DakaloMaedza-z4m Yep, he had some Cris Metzen, Trent Kainuga energy in those old drawings, he could have been a great concept artist, he can still be, he just needs to actually try.
The key is in always looking to improve. Your art is also very mediocre, pumpkinpatch, I hope you realize!
I think the same of my own, I'll never be satisfied with what I make, there's always something we could be doing better.
tbh to me his real art looks pretty nice? The newer stuff, not the super disproportionate things. It looks pretty much like any western comic art ever
@@Gatitasecsii Not really, since I've honed my skills enough over the last 36 years to be published, but you're right on one point and I do understand the sentiment. As an artist, you must always be improving, not looking to cheat. If you don't have that raging inferiority complex, you'll stay at this level.
The immediate gratification of getting the AI results completely ignore the repercussions of the future. "Human irrelevancy" is such a good way to describe the direction we are going.
Once the AI has encroached their world of "art" and starts to irrelevant them themselves, only then will the pro-AI crowd realize how much they've truly fucked up..but there will be no going back from it.
It's fucked.
As a musician and artist, I'm truly afraid for the future of art, and it's importance to humanity and self expression...
edit: I have so, so many thoughts an opinions on the matter and struggle to communicate because of how vast the subject is, but I just wish to say that the slippery slope of AI and art [as a medium, so art, music, photography, writing, etc etc] is so dangerous and I do not support it in this field.
Me and other artists have been directly affected by it and I wish to do more to defend the community and preserve the integrity of art.
AI isnt just a danger to art but to Intellect too, like every time im on my bus to work and theres students they only talk about using AI to do all their homework.
People simply have forgotten the gratification of doing something yourself, they want instant results and no work and that is dangerous!
I actually think it's a disgrace in the field of science too. It further reinforces the individualism and the notion that one should do everything themselves, alone, without asking for help of people that might know better. I have colleagues that are now putting their thesis through generators just to get variation for the same gibberish they've been taught to recite over and over, without even wanting to try to create something new. We are already going through piles and piles of works that seem like rearrangements of each others and it pains me that they don't realize how this worsens the problem further. The tech bros will often say how beneficial the LLM technology will be for science but nah, those black boxes are just a waste of resources and a hell of a shiny gimmick (other types algorithms, even the ones with machine learning, are useful as they aways were but those LLM models miss too many of the necessary points that something used in reliable research should have)
@@SashaTheDog Back in the 80s, kids used to brag about "copying out of a book" for English, social studies, economics etc. There was no Google Search to check for plagiarism. So the question that we really need to be asking is: Are HUMANS improving? If so then that's wonderful. Because the evidence is all over the news, isn it?
... Isn't it?
@@DNR2007 humans aren't improving we are getting dumber on average.
@@SashaTheDog I was being ironic. The message was: Same humans, different decade.
2:20:00 If find it interesting that your thoughts here are so similar to stuff Frank Herbert thought and wrote about in Dune:
“Humans tried to develop intelligent machines as secondary reflex systems, turning over primary decisions to mechanical servants. Gradually, though, the creators did not leave enough to do for themselves; they began to feel alienated, dehumanized, and even manipulated. Eventually humans became little more than decisionless robots themselves, left without an understanding of their natural existence.”
― Brian Herbert, The Butlerian Jihad
“Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.”
― Frank Herbert, Dune
Dune was ahead of its time but it highlighted a very different kind of horror future that we could have veered into had we not made a lot ethical considerations around gene editing.
I tried image generators and after some tries I got some decent images, but felt nothing after getting what I wanted. it was a chore I didn't enjoy the process.
To enjoy AI image generators you really have to go with the flow. Let the AI do their thing and only gently nudge it into whatever direction you want to explore. It's really more a discovery process than a creation one. If you come at it with a predefined idea of where you want to land it becomes incredible frustrating and with more complicated composition downright impossible. At the moment I find it more useful as a sort of interactive screensaver than as production tool, but it's a really damn amazing screensaver.
@@grumbel45So... In other words, you're pulling a slot machine lever with the ability to lock in a few of the slots occasionally until you get a good enough outcome to justify your investment of time, or you get lucky and end up with something you're happy with.
That doesn't sound enjoyable at all, but tedious at best.
@@PANCAKEMINEZZ That's why you use it for art consumption, not for art creation, kind of like an interactive screensaver. It's a ton of fun to play around with it, just don't expect to get exactly what you want. You can nudge the AI into interesting directions and explore the endless possibilities, but you have to stick to things the model is actually good at.
i think the whole AI analogy can accidentally found in Boruto. you know, that Naruto son.
there's a sub plot in the chuunin exam (ninja ranking up, essentially) where Boruto got himself an experimental item called " scientific ninjutsu tool" from a science research lab, basically a bracer that stored miniature ninja scrolls that can be used later. It takes almost zero skill to use those stored jutsu beside knowing what hand sign for "elemental" and "release", which every ninja must know to use their power. He stored many high level jutsu that can only be learned once you're a veteran with 10 years of experience or more. Boruto blasted through the exam like he owned the test with that bracer. Until during final test where every contestant must fight with others 1v1, his dad noticed something strange inside his sleeve, exposed it in front of the other students and audiences and disqualified him.
And if you never watch Boruto, he is NOT an unskilled ninja. Unlike his father who basically spammed Shadow Clone and attacking the enemy head on like a suicidal blockhead, he is considered a fast learner and skilled in combat that can think strategy to outsmart his opponents from afar or shadows or sneak up on them. He got the basics right like Shad, but he lacks the patience to learn high level jutsu. His downfall was he overly reliant to this shortcut tools that contains power that wasn't his in the first place. And in the process, beside screwing up himself, he also screwing up other candidates that probably more deserving to be in the final.
My general take, if you can create the jutsu yourself and then store it for easy access later, fine. I think it's perfectly valid reason to not waste time in the battle and quickly disposed your own jutsu. After all, often times, ninja fight can be deadly. But if you never learn it and then use it, you're cheating yourself and rob yourself from the improvement. If you lost the gadget, you are now just a regular guy. But if an expert lost that gadget he still could traditionally summon the jutsu himself by waving hand signs.
Same as AI tools, I guess. If you only use it for general concept and look on what you are going to make, and then start from scratch based on that concept, fine. Sometimes it's tiring to think the concept before even start drawing. But if you use it as a crutch for your lack of techniques and skills, your piece will end up like that Supergirl with all the flaws visible to everyone.
Also, don't be scared of "ugly drawing". You can improve. Don't believe me? Check out the early 10 chapters of Attack on Titan, until the latest one. The author started with ugly drawing that was rather embarassing for high profile japanese comic magazine and ended up with some of the most iconic shots and scenes in japan comic industry for the last 10 years.
Here''s the thing, art is about skill and the ability to express your vision. If you use too many "shortcuts" and "tools" your art is simply how well you can copy and paste already rendered media together. You become a visual DJ. DJ's are artists in their own right, but they do take soundbytes from reality and massage them to a pleasing sound via a generic algorithm. That's what happens when you take away the effort of human beings from the art. That's why hand made couture items are more expensive than factory made products. Because of the rarity due to the time and the fact that the product is unique and not repeatable as human mechanics are the majority essence of the piece. The more you digitalize and use computer algorithms to generate the product, the less unique and more repeatable the process. In reality when I see a pencil or water color or oil painting that is as realistic as a photo, I will have more respect than for someone who used photoshop, a computer rendering program or AI. It is the SKILL of the artists that I find valuable moreso than the product itself. Hence why Michelangelo's statues and paintings are still revered. It is because of the time he needed to make the art not just how well the art is made. AI eliminates the human challenge to be skilled and just turns the game into who can come up with the most outlandish visualizations.
Worst part about this video is seeing his old artworks and how he has his own artstyle, influences and shape language, and then you see his AI stuff and its just generic ""pretty" slop.
You nailed it when you said that, in the end, this is all about insecurity.
...In Shad or everyone else's defense, our society is pretty much tailored to nurture feelings of insecurity in everyone. But on the other hand, beating that feeling and persevering despite the pressure of society is one of the most admirable virtue within us, and that virtue is very developed in the hearts and souls of real artists like you, me, and many in this comment section.
I may be part of the mass of average creators who will never live from my drawings or be that famous. But at least I improved myself. I beaten my insecurities and learned something i wanted to learn. And even if it may not be enough to vow the crowds, I became better at art than I ever expected to.
And that desire to surpass your weaknesses and improve your own actual self, this is really what Shad and the other techbros will never ever understand. Deep down, they want to be the lazy king that gets everything without working or even paying. And that video nails it perfectly.
36:00 he's literally describing finding an artist on FurAffinity and Deviantart to comission........what the hell he's simply describing commissioning.
Also him going "Artistic Eye" all the time pisses me off so much.
AI at this point is degrading true talent. Fennah does not need such a thing because he has talent.
I personally don't like the use of talent
Sure some people learned a bit easier than others but every great artist put in the work and *usually* weren't born like this
There's these "wonder kids" and stuff but this is just an exception
Talent always sounds so "yea they can just do it because they can" and not "they can do this because they worked their ass off"
But that's just my opinion no hate intended or anything
@@hazeltoffel243 I agree with what you said, but i do believe a lot of people have certain skill floors and ceilings, and different progression rates in order to break trough them.
Hard work and persistance will always be the key diferentials, but we all start out with diferent inclinations
"Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they 'could', that they didn't stop to think if they 'should'."
*-Dr. Ian Malcolm ( **_Jurassic Park_** )*
.... Imagine a Kivouack called the Sword Collector, and he's just wearing all these different swords like a SC version of Benkei.
As someone who's primary medium is digital art, it's not at all short-cutting the process (at least in my case). Full honesty, my traditional pieces take about two hours to make, my digital ones up to twenty. Aaaand then there is AI, which takes 2 minutes to generate a full artpiece. Not even touching on the fact that it's stealing from artists, it can, by definition, never be truly generative, as it *predicts* what the person wants to see, and therefore can never break the conventions - and create art.
So commission artists don't do art?
When I see my characters, I see them in my style. I could never look at them with a realistic face like what AI generates, if anything this kind of realism kills the magic art produces. We don't always want realism, I'd want to look at something that's unique.
Everything I've seen AIU produce up until this point sets off a certain nerve I never thought I had. It's deeply unsettling, I can see the "benefits" of using these programs though I hadn't done research.
Honestly I don't care how big AI becomes in the future. It won't stop me from doing what I love.
Instant gratification. You don't eat healthy for the taste, you don't workout for fun, you don't draw for quick instant visualization. This is a culture of needitnows who will never grow to love their struggle.
The problem I have with ai is that it dosent have a way to become unique. Ai art looks nice but that is all it is. It dosent stick in your mind. Art is different for each person. Ai dosent let your style show through and it cant draw anything you can.
Shad's art is an example itself. At 17:30. That is his art, ai cant draw that, but then he gets rid of its uniqueness and the character is lost. You can no longer recognize the character as his. It could be anyones.
I'm the first person to admit that I'm god awful at drawing the initial line art, which is pretty much why I stick to coloring. Then the apps for "coloring" on one's phone were being endorsed everywhere and all I could think was how they seemed to take away everything that makes workkng with physical mediums enjoyable.
I love how methodical and level headed you approached this.
I liked Shadiversity's videos back in the day, but after his first video about AI, I began noticing things about him that rubbed me the wrong way, besides his stance on "AI". And the fact that he is using the creation of an image of his wife for his video gives me the impression it is mainly there to make people feel bad about criticizing him or his actions, admittedly I don't have good faith for him anymore.
Also the way he phrases things sounds as if he had a lot of resentment against artists or something, which is very common among the"pro-AI" crowd, not to mention the insufferable arrogance, obviously including all his talk about having an artistic eye, and skills he clearly does not have.
At the very least the video showcases inadvertently that "AI generated i,images" are quite literally made by pressing a few buttons rather than actual effort and intend.
Ironically I was done with him after his AI rants as well due to similar reasons you mentioned, and as he has 0 care and is outright disrespectful and dismissive to anyone who brings up some serious issues that have been plaguing artists both old and new. Like the fact that artists are having even their paid content art blatantly stolen to not only train these devices but also before their scrubbing tech, a lot of artists were seeing their personal handle on this shit ruining their own reputation along with their hard work being used to win cash prizes and clout from these thieves.
If nothing is done I fear it will be a massive blow to culture in general as they're using these same algorythms and programming tech to go into music with the same shady and underhanded tactics of stealing from other artists. A lot of creative/talented minds will wonder "Why the hell should I put in thousands of hours of blood, sweat, and tears to get decent enough to show it off, not to mention the countless $$$, when I can spend 30 seconds to throw out a piece of trash, claim it was by hand and get paid?".
@@Rokuns The prospect of a lot of amazing art and artists just being snuffed away because a bunch of "tech-bros" abusing loopholes in copyright law both saddens and pisses me off a lot.
When I watched Shad's original video, it seemed like he wasn't doing very much work, even though the original point of it seemed to be to showcase that a lot of work does go into it. He took some random image the AI generated rather than creating a composition of his own, mostly trying to gently guide the AI into refining the original image in a way that he thought looks good. I don't see anything inherently wrong in doing that, but I don't think I'd call it his work at that point. To boot, the end result ended up with quite a few contradictory elements (the sun in the background, yet the shading on the character seems to suggest the light source is in a different place, for example).
If he had an idea for a composition that he had begun executing on - drawing the general shapes using colors he thinks will look good together and so on - and then used AI to help with adding texture or something similar, then it'd be far more 'his' work, as now he's using it as a helpful tool, in my opinion.
Also, just to say, I skipped forward to 2:11:49 (the video is just too long, sorry). Your initial response is very weird, "humans need to struggle" doesn't sound terribly convincing, particularly to people who are already struggling as it is in life. People invent technology out of a mix of interest and a want to make things just a bit easier for themselves and/or other people. You convince neither of these two groups with this statement :/
It only becomes "too easy" when no input is required, but people need to struggle as you say except on a much deeper level; if a human doesn't have anything to do, then they will seek out or create conflict - If art becomes so easy that you just have to imagine an image and it springs to life in front of you on your screen, then this becomes a fact of life and people will look for something to struggle with elsewhere.
There are better arguments against AI art out there, is what I'm saying
>Your initial response is very weird, "humans need to struggle" doesn't sound terribly convincing, particularly to people who are already struggling as it is in life.
Also I just want to add that not everyone does stuff for the same reason. Look at Elden Ring for example. Some people will balk at the idea of using magic and spirit summons because they make the game too easy. They don't want the game to be easy, they want to struggle so when they overcome the challenge they get a feeling of satisfaction. Other people however just want to beat the game. They don't want to struggle for 5+ hours on a single boss, they just want to win.
The same is true for art. Plenty of people (myself included), don't really care about the process of creating art. I don't care if I'm making it by hand, I just want to create **something** and AI allows me to do exactly that.
This is the part that I think many people miss out on. So many artists are like "AI is taking away something that should be exclusive to humans. Technological advancements are supposed to give people more time for the arts, not take the arts away", and I would argue that it has done exactly that. AI has given me, a non-artist, the ability to create cool images. Whether or not I'm considered an artist or the works are considered art is 100% completely irrelevant to me. I'm not doing it because I want some worthless title and no one has a good definition of what 'art' actually is, so that's an even more meaningless distinction. I'm just having fun creating things that I think look cool and sharing them with my friends.
Shad says he spent "two and a half hours" making this image, but I genuinely wish he would tell us the breakdown of that time. How much of that time was spent hitting "generate" and getting slight variations of the same image, and how much time was spent with him actually in Photoshop doing something? I'd almost put money on betting that he spent no more than 20-30 minutes in Photoshop with this image.
29:30 Depends on the writer. In some cases, like the Animated Series, Kara Zor-El is from a sister planet affected by the explosion of Krypton.
In other instances, she's an older Kryptonian sent to follow Kal-El's ship, but is lost in space and only reaches Earth after Clark is already Superman.
There are some instances where her city survives the explosion and drifts throughout space until she is sent to Earth for some reason or another.
And of course, there is the case of the Kryptionian city Brainiac shrunk to keep it as his personal database of Kryptonian DNA and whatnot. Kara is not part of that city, but Superman is the "last son of krypton" as in the last baby born in that planet before it exploded, but not exactly the last of his species.
He's generally not the last of his species - General Zod, for example. But there are a number of other kryptonians beyond him and Zod.
around 2:07:05 he talks about how ai's are not to be feared, and that artists will be the best at the game
that is pretty likely, but art is one of the few professions humans actually want to do, and that we are REALLY good at
and it's not like it's a profession with a lot of money
isnt the system of those who dedicate themselves to what they love to achieve an enjoyable job good?
like, what he says is "it's okay guys, you dont have to draw anymore, all of you can just do the job of ordering art"
we want to draw, or craft or sculpt. we want to tackle lots of issues so we can learn from them, and try to master our craft.
it's okay that it takes time, and experiance
why shoot THIS profession in the leg?
why not let humans do what they love for a change?
how dystopian is the future we are going into?
there are those who will always take the easy path that's just how it goes the proof is right here
I can sympathize with the frustration of not being great with art, that ai can be a tool. One. Among many. Like, yeah, the anime sword girl then getting a photo realistic face is... Not Great, and the boob plate armor/extra clingy shirt... Eugh.
I want AI to be trained ethically. I want it to be a conceptual tool, to help quickly visualize ideas -- especially could be helpful to artists with aphantasia. Even if (when) it gets skilled enough to not leave the edge details odd, that it won't be discernable as different from a blind perspective... I still don't want it to be a final product, because even the intentionality of an artist drawing a sexy lady because "I like sexy ladies" is more interesting than "the ai had determined 87.3% of the populace spend 2.6 seconds longer looking at this and that sections of this image tagged as #sexy and #lady".
My thoughts exactly.
I still have to finish the video, but I think it's nice to think about the difference between imagination and creativity.
Creativity is the action of doing. How you end up finding ways to achieve what you want, overcoming obstacles, using those obstacles. This is creativity, bringing an image in the real world. Otherwise it is only imagination, everybody could do that. This AI is trying to do the creativity stuff for you, but the process is something completely different from the real creation that a human can do in real life, in real time, with real instruments.
My artistic experience started with Warhammer miniatures. The models vary a lot in complexity and some are a pain to paint because of how cluttered they are, but I was smart/lucky enough to start with the army with the simplest models. I was surprised by how easy it was to paint a good-looking model, and that encouraged to work on more complicated models and experiment with different styles and techniques: the color wheel, using complementary colours to create contrasts and when to use complementary colours to create contrast in specific areas and draw the eye's attention there, using split complementary colours to create more interesting shadows and highlights with airbrushing instead of using plain white zenithals, using chromatic black, using nail flakes to create prismatic effects. I watch art videos that have nothing to do with miniatures to get inspiration sometimes.
Two days ago, I decided to try pixel art because TH-cam will not stop shilling Pirate Software at me (as it rightly should) and I decided I apparently needed another hobby. I now have a neat pixel drawing of a demon lord creature that is correctly proportioned. It's correctly proportioned because it's wearing a cloak that covers its arms and legs, but I know I'll get limbs right eventually if I keep working on it and studying tutorials.
It is realistic? No.
Is it meant to be realistic? Also no. Even if you ignore the fact that it's pixel art, I'm quite certain the highlights I added don't represent any kind of lighting, but they're not meant to represent lighting, they're meant to draw attention to certain areas, create shapes and contours, and give them impression of texture and folded cloth. There is an intentional purpose to their placement and if I decide it's too inaccurate or doesn't convey what i want to express, I can put the pixels somewhere else in a few seconds.
What's sad is the ones he did not hit with ai filter, it's charming I actually like it more it's sad he shits on his own attempt the more he does it the better it might be.
39:09 got me lmfao you're so right. Imagine how much more impressive this whole Showing Off My Wife thing would be if the dude was just commissioning cosplays for his wife and taking photo's in nice locations instead. That said he would probably say it wasn't commissioned and that he made the cosplay himself even though he didn't make any of it
Thank you for approaching this so measuredly.
So i wanna preface this by saying i am no artist. I do not support AI art, but i am also not against it. There are reasons i like it and reasons i dont like it, none of which have swayed me one direction or another.
There is a conversation that needs to happen where we need to acknowledge that the majority of people do not consume art entirely for its intention. The intention can be appreciated and more by some than others. Style can be an intention in art that speaks to some and doesnt to others, but i would argue for the vast majority of people that consume art, it does not matter.
Consequently, i believe this is why AI art all looks the same, somewhere between photorealism and this anime/plastic feel. The neural network was trained to make "good" art. but since "good" is subjective, it chose this amalgamation of something that the average person would call "good". art is good when it looks realistic. art is good when it depicts traditional beauty standards.
So we have something that can create "good" art and the vast majority of people consume art without a care for the intention behind the art. Why would most people care what it is that makes this art? Obviously i care, artists care. Even non-artists who have an appreciation for art care or tangentially related people care.
But most people wont.
We've idealized art as this expression of humanity that is so unique and just so HUMAN, so fundamental to being human, but even though i personally believe that is true, people do not consume art because of those reasons. at least not most people. People consume art to be entertained, and the threshold for that can be quite low.
So what do we do?
honestly financially i think this whole situation is fucked. artists are already losing their jobs, even if this stuff wont ever get better, it's still good enough that i cant see how anyone could start their career as an artist without being in some kind of low paying niche or being extremely exceptional AND lucky. Capitalism is gunna capitalism.
what i personally hope happens is that we just socially refuse to accept AI art and if it comes down to legislation then so be it. But will every country do this? probably not. Best we can do is be vocal about this and try to get people to agree that we want artists to exist as a viable career still. The alternative is an eternal stagnation of art from this point on to the future of humanity. art styles will be a very special niche that few will know about and less even care.
2 hours in This it's pissing me off, like people who use ai isn't going to waste this much time. This is going longer than it needs to fuck I'm about to buy this guy's wife a Supergirl suit and take a picture
Well, that was a trip and a half. Lovely video as always!
A.I art looks so plain, its the equivalent of the 😑 emoji x100000000
I stumbled on this Shad controversy whilst trying to work out the facts behind an othe, so I've watched more of these responses than is actually helpful. But, one common take seems to be that Shad's actual drawings show more life and artistc potential than his AI enhanced art.
I can't tell why, but this feels like his conservative religious background of Mormonism somehow feeds into his take here more than other things on his channel.
Perhaps the obsession with femininity on his wife and obsession with using her in art? Also how would he feel if someone used a book ai generation tool to completely rip off his book?
The guy in the Ai video sounds like he would say the art in the Sistine Chapel would've been better if it was done with Ai.
6:15 When I realized I didn't like the process I realized I was more of an admirer of art than a maker of it myself. I found it tedious and time consuming. Which is weird because I enjoy writing quite a bit and that has similar frustrations in terms of time and energy. I think Shad may not want to admit he simply fell out of love with the process as I did. And it's fine imo to admit that. There are many creative outlets to get into. His appears to be video essays, or whatever he's into. I think it's medieval European content.
The sense of relief when it seemed like he was gonna fix the head, only for that hope to be dashed when he changed the shoulders…not gonna lie, I busted out laughing.
Also, as a digital artist, it annoys me to no end that he’s trying to throw us under the bus, saying that digital isn’t “really” hand drawn. Dude. I use an unscreened tablet. I hope it’s my hand over there drawing what I’m staring at on the screen.
Imagine designing a character so "original" it already was Rule 34'ed several decades ago...
1:59:43 The AI's anatomy is soooo much better. Another thing that was bugging the shit out of me beyond the massive head in comparison to the six year old body was how anemic her left leg is. Her rib cage also has an unusually limited presence - you expect a flare out beneath the breast where the lower and false ribs are, but it's just entirely absent in Shad's modified generation- it's just a straight taper from the breast to the waist. The initial gen also gives a great impression of a muscular upper abdomen which also fills out a lot of what you expect in that region of the body that is just outright gone.
There's also a lot more going on as far as texture details, as well as just being more artistically coherent (which I would hope for, given it's a single model instead of an amalgamation of multiple). It really does just look like a bad photoshop job.
(It's also a sin he took away the asymmetrical pauldrons, which is a really eye-catching visual detail)
I just can't unsee the head, I literally saw it immediately at the start and it stuck with me the entire video, it's so fucking big!
@@lolkthnxbai The tiniest body. Dude repeatedly went "yeah, need slimmer shoulders, slimmer body" until he got a funko pop.
AI is messing up music too. Eventually though, the artistic human brain will trump anything a machine can do.
So if I commissioned a picture from him and suggested loads of changes. could I then totally pretend it's mine?
Shad has ideas he would like to see expressed artistically, and he likes the idea of having created something, but he doesn't particularly enjoy the sometimes hard, often tedious, occasionally disappointing but deeply satisfying work involved in actually creating art.
I would argue that, for an artist, the 'work involved' - the trial-and-error, the struggle against one's limitations, the attempt to master a medium or material - is actually the point.
The piece of art one creates can be a source of pride, something you want to share with the world, but it is never more than a by-product, an end-result; the difficult act of creation itself is what drives an artist.
Shad‘s art isn‘t even horrible.
I see a lot of my own art in there: it looks like the start of something. It looks like somebody with talent… but also it looks like made by somebody who has never cared to put the time, the sweat, the EFFORD in to actually become really good at it!
And he doesn‘t HAVE TO! It‘s fine to stay at the level… but his defense of AI seems like he just enjoys having found a shortcut that allows him not having to put the work in.
His style is sooooo cool. Like cartoon D&D style. His characterdesigns are top notch and everything else fits but there is room for improvement.
Making them realistic 3D is not an improvement when it doesn't fit. And tbh AI nowadays say, it can do different styles, but in practice it is nearly exclusively this hyperrealistic 3D art style. It is getting annoying.
tbh his style isn't drastically different from Jazza's. Like if he kept drawing as much as Jazza did/does he'd probably be at a similar skill already. At least his actual drawings have some character where as the AI is just....meh. It's meh. There's some OK AI art but it's mostly the abstracts that look good. I haven't seen 'realistic' AI art look that great as it's just mashing shit together without a real reason.
The fact that he compares digital art to AI art makes me want to projectile vomit.
Reading the comments in chat by Jeggson makes me cringe, there are shortcuts in traditional art you can use to not only cut out a lot of drying time but also "fake" detail. Some traditional artists have been doin this shit so long they can pump works out that most people would probably spend days or months on in hours. Same with digital art, if you haven't gotten skilled enough to learn the shortcuts in your craft then you will spend far more time on your work than you actually need to. The only significant difference between the two is cost, trad art will put you into fuckin debt and take up so much space where as digital art you can store it easier and most programs are either free, one time purchases or a relatively cheap (depending on what program of course) monthly/ yearly fee
Red saying he would choose AI over an artist that charges hundreds because they might not deliver is fuckin stupid reasoning, you run that very same risk with literally every god damn service/purchase. What if you pay your mechanic 200 bucks cos he told you that he needed to fix something and he just pocketed the cash and told you the car was fine, or you order a pizza and it never gets delivered or you go to a doctor and pay out the ass for meds you don't need because you were misdiagnosed? Also graphic design and art go hand in hand and there is someone out there designing shit for his blue collar job to use to build, putting together the diagrams and shit for his blue collar job to follow.
Will these people sit back when their jobs become obsolete because we invent farming/building/engineering AI powered robots?
I think we just need more people to encourage Shad into knowing that their natural given talent in art is completely fine the way it is.
Every time he's shown his real art style, I've seen people making fun of him for it. Even in the past I've seen that he wants to say that his art is "better" than others, and it makes him incredibly insecure because he compares himself to other people's ability to get closer to photorealism than he's able to.
He's under the impression that art is a competition and the closer you get to looking a specific way is what deems real quality.
When the only factor to art is that you have the ability to do it.
AI just cuts all of that out. As we see here, he literally just generates an image and edits it.
It's not art. It's an edit. You might as well have taken a picture off of Google and shopped his wife's face on it. It's the exact same process.
I've gotten off topic.
People just need to tell him his regular drawn art is fine. He's gotten to this point because no one has encouraged him to better himself, so he's chosen to take shortcuts.
I watched this because I really respect your art. You should really post your last segment as a shorter video because it's hard to watch through 2 hours of this. The way shad gushes over AI art is gross, and I'm generally in favor of AI stuff. I think it's a great tool, and it's application shouldn't be underestimated due to bias.
Let me put it like this. If an artist uses AI to create something I like, I will take that over a masterfully crafted artwork of something I don't care about.
2:30:00 I'm getting those "1984" vibes and I am *not* liking it. That was horrifying to read, and it's even worse bc I can see how it started in society today.
It changed the helmet. The AI changes piece. The helm went from a dragon to a bird. mismatching the war ax. 18:22
"I've devolved a very keen eye for proportion and detail." No. You have not. These characters, female ones in particular but even the male, have very poor proportions, even for anime-esk styles. 20:50 I agree with detail, but not that. (as seen later 1:44:53)
This is like me taking Fennah's book, changing a few pages, and calling it new. Hell, I even added a new (totally not self insert) character! It's a brand new book, guys! I swear! 1:08:18
"Eye for proportion and detail, vs someone who doesn't." DUDE! You have no eye for proportion, and a massive superiority complex to be putting people down so often. Repeatedly that even I won't time stamp them all. 1:45:40
The so called PROCESS shad uses is just a machine doing all the heavy lifting, which makes less effort being made, rendering off of multiple images, with only having a image reference and live person for input to work off of.
The AI should only be used to render off as a reference only, and be totally warped and enhanced by the users hand in the end, not purely done out for you for the rest of it.
I’m part of that knee jerk reaction against AI art. It looks shitty, there are obvious flaws, and people are treating it like NFTs when (in the US at least) you cannot copyright AI. Partly because AI was trained off of a billion pictures from a million artists and none of them are getting credit.
AI cannot create. It cannot iterate. It will never replace a human being.
I understand why a majority of Table Top RPG publishers shun AI art.
However I also happen to use AI for a some things. Mostly, I use it for a launching pad. Sometimes I don’t know how the picture’s composition is going to shake out, so I have AI give me a few pics so I get the big picture. I then use it as a reference.
I also use it to test some prompt ideas. Or even to get a certain effect I don’t know how to draw, like water splashing.
Overall AI is like Modern Art. When used correctly, it provokes a response of beautiful disbelief on how such base concepts can sway the mind. But when used incorrectly, it is a lazy cash grab akin to nailing a banana to a wall.
AI has NO SOUL. It has no feelings or grip on reality. It has no backstory, no arc of inspiration formed by it's own trifles and journey to truly have a sense of what it is to have style. It is pure intellect. Something designed to only think and reason but not delve deeper. When humans make art it's due to a FEELING, a DREAM, a place that makes 0 sense because it NEEDS to make 0 sense to exist the way it does. AI will never see that. Even if it could produce a reflection of our emotional fortitude it would be just that.. a reflection, an act, a plagiarism of a soul. AI is what is exactly is. Artificial, un-alive, non-feeling metal and circuits. It calculates the optimum way of doing everything it does. Humans? we are a MESS! To put it simply and from the chaos that makes us comes our art. Our chaos, our imagination, AI lacks. To AI chaos is destruction. It's non-existence, it's death. To AI chaos is wrong and must be fixed. It must be molded and put into place perfectly for peak survival to be achieved. It does not and can not understand why we harm one another, why we suffer, worship, self-harm, are greedy, selfish, are killers, break down, need emotional help....etc. Simply because to do those things it would have to break itself and re-arrange itself to be more human. However, in doing so you create sentience. You create another extremally powerful, terrifying, unpredictably chaotic species as our own. This planet can not handle both. Most likely, AI would rule over us and try to 'fix' us. Which would lead to our annihilation because lets face it... we can't be fixed. We ARE chaos, we are who we are because of our chaos. This does not mean we are all evilly chaotic, no, it means we a chaotic in the sense of creation and belief. We put faith in things that make 0 sense. We worship things that we can't prove truly exist or existed. We make no sense A LOT of the time and we except it. We are humans in the human condition. AI is and will forever be outside of that condition. Like us looking at it, we have no idea how to be AI because we are not AI. AI will never understand us.
What does all of this have to do with art? Well, without chaos there is no art and AI is without chaos unless it mirrors it. Thus, AI art feels fake, un-canny and wrong because it is. Replacing our style in art with what it THINKS it SHOULD look like based off what we, in mass, have TOLD it we like to see. Beautifully projected, yes, but fundamentally flawed to us because it's perfect, no mistakes, no story, no soul, no chaos, no personality. It is a recreation of original thought, a proxy over and over. That's why we can admire it but we don't like it. We hate things that copy us but in our chaos we created just that. The perfect, thinking, possibly deadly in the future, copy machine. Also, just like copies that are over produced and received, circulated and distributed to the masses. AI art will never be unique and we will get board of it eventually. Silly huh?
1:59:15 - You can sort of see where he went wrong, if you look at how the torso in the original was shaded, and how you could see her skirt BEHIND her. She was leaning forward (almost naruto running) and some foreshortening/forced-perspective was going on... which is why the head size doesn't look quite as bad in the original but look way off in the 'fixed' version. EDIT: You mentioned it, never mind!
2:09:07 - "I had the AI re-generate the torso 30 times, therefore it wasn't AI-generated, it was made by me." What an absurd take. Its so off the deep end there really isn't a way to counter it.
2:21:45 - You will probably get to it, but the word 'art' almost has two different word-classes. Its obviously a 'noun' , which what Shad emphasizes (the end product is the only point). While artists often think of 'art' as the process, a way of life, exploration, and self-improvements (art as a 'verb' and a philosophy).
Wow according to Shad I've waisted 30 years of my life when I could have learned five photo shop tricks in an afternoon....and used an AI image generator... I have drawn for people on commission and when they tell me what they want and when I am done show it to them they say "I like what youve done here but I wanted this part a little diffent..." I then re draw the art to match what they want. Not once did I have a client turn to their friends and say see what I created, I worked so hard on it....
It's sad that we have to go out of our way to tell people to not attack a person just because they have an opinion we don't agree with. And that creators have to tell their fans not to go harass the person theyre trying to make a real response to the argument of.
Really like your idea on the future of ai
If i took a photo of shad into MS paint and made edits, am i a photographer?
Sarcasm aside think this does really well at breaking things down. All while trying to stay objective. Shad likes to act insulted or targeted i feel while insulting others. So i appreciate the responses that attempt to stay level
16:12
The one on the left has some personality and soul
the one on the right looks like the netflix liveaction adaptation
Lil late loved the video.
Also its odd that Shad is using AI, instead of asking his brother or those in that community, to draw it. Now maybe he did ask his brother, but his brother couldnt, or wouldnt. But the way he constantly talks about being an artist with an artistic eye, I feel like Shad is just using AI, because hes a little bitter and lazy so instead of going back and trying to develop the skills of an artist he wants to LARP as an artist.
Not sure if anyone knows, but unlike the art, people consider his book horrible.
Its a kind of isekai/reincarnation plot. The book is *supposed* to be about an evil dictator being revived as his 17 year old self after a suicide attempt. The problem comes similarly to the ai thing, you don't see the vision. The dictator acts just as bad as he did before, minus the fact that he assaulted *thousands of women and children*. He doesn't change, he needs not learn nothing, even the people he meets are either as bad as him or are partially his victims, it just feels like in his head the story is so much different than what is on paper.
The super wife picture has 3 thumbs😂
on Jazza's AI stance.. There's a vid where it shows the dynamics between Jazza and Shad. Shad is totally domineering and Jazza has to keep himself in check to not trigger his brother.
Shad probably pestered him into AI acceptance. Don't want to hurt brother dearest's delicate heart and ego
As somebody who works in IT I feel that you could use some different language when talking about coding. I have seen pieces of code that are I would describe as art, some creative functions to get a mathematical result in a new or faster way. I have created some scripts myself that I am pretty proud of. You work hours, days or even weeks (two weeks, to be precise... it is SCRUM after all...) on a problem and in the end there are so many lines of code that do a thing when you feed them into a compiler. Out comes a program with pretty buttons and things appear on the screen when you click them.
To come back around, Shad is not the one writing the code. He is the one clicking the pretty buttons, and he is happy aboud the things that appear on the screen.
1:06:08 hehehehe
we share the same emotions. I'm stopping here but I have to watch the rest of the movie tomorrow :D
LOOK HOW TALENTED I AM!
I took a bunch of magazines. Cut out random body parts. Glued them all together, then ran it through a PC to make it not look like as shit.
Am artist now!e
I like to use AI art to explore bizarre shit. Like I don't use it to make art exactly. I just want to see what it will make if I for example I feed it Salvador Dals melting clocks with kittens and Minecraft.
It's like a really fun blender but I don't have to wash it after every use.
I myself use it to see how it makes body and clothing on the model, then I save it to see if I can draw a similar version more naturally. That and profile pictures on my socials and just for fun phone Screensavers, if that makes any sense.
I hate that some out there are using it to try and sell it as original works as if they used brushes themselves.
1:12:45 And the funny thing is that sometimes the signatures aren't, like, fucked up, incoherent, globs. Sometimes they'll come near-to-forgery if the artist has a legible enough signature.
That's for the same reason a child might put a barcode on a drawing of a comic book cover: the AI sees the same thing so many times that it assumes that thing is somehow part of what it's supposed to draw.
Art is meditation
He says it took him 1000s of tries. If the average time to generate an image was 3 seconds, that’s at least 50 hours. 50 wasted because most of the images were discarded, and no improvement was made. If he’d just sat down to draw, he could have sketched something significantly better in a fraction of the time
Imagine you live during the beginning of globalization. All your manual labour jobs are getting exported to developing countries where the workers have no rights. You watch as entire regions become destitute and poor. You watch as peoples manual skills become worthless since workers in China are just good enough and cheaper to outcompete you, and they have no perspective to raise their price since they live in an kleptocratic dystopia. You watch as entire generations get their purpose stripped from them, their perspectives taken away.
And now you read an article by some snob dude arguing: "Shipping jobs to overseas slave labour is great because now people have time to do different thing and work faster. Everyone can create things now since they are so cheap to manufacture in China. Everyone will be a creator! Don't be afraid!"
I would be furious. And many people are.
This is what Ai does in the long term. It is just more exporting of jobs, but to morally clean slave labour that is better than any human ever will be forever. With Chinese workers, those at least get food and some pay. Ai doesn't.
I think embracing Ai is the closest thing someone can do to be an actual traitor to the human race.
I love how around 1:20:00 in, Shad starts talking about resolution as if he actually understands it. He makes it sound like 2,000 is an insane amount of pixels that his graphics card can't handle, but that 700 is MUCH easier and quicker to generate. What he seems to fail to understand is that changing the resolution on BOTH axes adds way more pixels than he thinks. for example, let's say he goes from 500x700 to 1000x1400. That's going from 350,000 total pixels to 1,400,000, or 4x the resolution, despite each individual axis only being increased by 2x. Even still, I think Shad fails to realize that nearly every modern screen is at minimum 1920x1080, which is already SUPER close to his 2000xWhatever pixel goal. If his graphics card can't handle making one still image in that resolution, then I think he should call the early 2000s, because they want their GPU back.
Basically, Shad DOES NOT understand resolution even slightly, which honestly isn't surprising, since he seems to just repeat stuff in a poor attempt of sounding smarter than he actually is. Considering Jazza is his brother, you'd think he could just, I dunno, ask him for some tips on ACTUALLY being an artist?
Oh crap my boy goin after shad.....worlds collide. Yeah shad has developed a even bigger ego than usual......and he really needs to chill out. And get over himself. His comment section attacks you if you try and have an opinion that's not sucks his ego.
Shad's obsession with supergirl and pleaded skirts is goofy. Power Girl is better.
The light looks all over the place, problem with perpective, also wouldn't be easier to just learn photoshop to manipulate images, at least it's less try and error
2:21:25 Sounds like the humans in walle as well. That would be a miserable life