Hope for me will come when more artists realise there’s safety in numbers, we’re better off banding together, forming more independent guilds, collectives, and creator owned businesses
Artists have a great opportunity to leverage the inherent disdain people have towards AI it into a context for the establish the value of human made art by comparison. Simple things like showing process and establishing the value of a work made by a person can leverage AI into an opportunity for artists that didn't exist before.
Great very encouraging take on this! I think most of my questions going forward with AI is how to communicate this difference to clients and people who are easily fooled by AI's "artistic" ability.
Really interesting comments here. The relationship between value and meaning is something we all took for granted before AI, but it turns out that this is not a simple matter. The common sense view is that if an AI can generate a picture that looks as good as a picture created by a human artist then the two are the same and therefore have the same value. But would those who- in the past- paid human artists hundreds or even thousands of dollars for their work be happy to pay the same amount for an AI generated image? No, they would not. But if you asked them why not, I guess they would say something like 'Well, that AI image took zero effort or skill to come up with, so there's no way I'm paying the same rate I would have paid a Human Artist for the same image' This is quite odd in a way- after all it's the image they are buying, not the effort and skill that went into making it- so why has the price suddenly gone down when they know it's an AI image? This is not an easy question to answer but it seems that the value of an image is bound up with the human effort and skill that went into it's creation- and by eliminating that human input the AI has also eliminated the value of the image itself. But why is that human effort and skill so important when it comes to the value of the Art? I think that what is really at issue here is meaning. The reason that it matters that a human artist made the art is because that art then has meaning- it was the result of a process whereby a sentient mind applied itself to an act of intentional communication. The real problem with AI Art is that we know that the AI had nothing to say to us- when it made that image it did not do so in an effort to express anything, or to communicate anything- it has no mind, no sentience- it's outputs have no meaning because no meaning was intended by the thing that generated them. Perhaps the real issue here is we are sentient beings and we value highly the communication and connections we have with other sentient beings. And it may be that the value we find in the work of human artists is not merely in the quality of their rendering but in the fact that we know that their art is an expression of their sentience, their desire and intent to speak to us through the medium of their Art. AI Art, on the other hand, is the product on non sentient machines that have neither the ability or the desire to communicate with us, and no matter how well rendered their outputs we cannot see those output as having any value because they are meaningless to us, and that which has no meaning has no value to us, because we are sentient beings for whom meaning is the measure of all that we value and care about. That's why you are right to say that if my house was on fire it would be the Dog I would save over any valuable object because as a sentient being I place more value on the simple sentience of that animal than on any dead artefact no matter how much it may be 'worth' in terms of money- and I think most people would agree with this- which is quite an optimistic thought to end with.
I don't think the reason AI isn't a threat is because artists are special. We aren't. We don't have some amazing gift. We're just regular old normal flawed people. And that is why AI won't replace them because when people consume art they want to share a human experience. That's why they consume it. You can't get human perspective from a machine. There's room in the world for AI and human art, just like there's room for drum machines and drummers. It doesn't matter how good the machines get, they wont replace you. Some artist will, and have already, used AI as a media for creating really interesting art, just like for decades there have been really creative musicians making new music from nothing but samples. You can't tell me that 'frontier psychiatrist' by the avalanches isn't new and creative, yet there is nothing in that song but pre-recorded bits of previous work. At the same time Jesse Welles is blowin up because people just crave authenticity. It's not black and white, one or the other. Just like how samples and synths in music haven't replaced acoustic instruments, AI will never replace analog art, because people crave the real human experience.
While I agree with most points, I look at AI Flicks (the YT account) ,and I see kids and coworkers listening or watching AI made videos. And as time goes by, humans will become harder to find, as there would be so many such videos. I tried to tell these people that they are AI, but they won't listen.
I still see artists shorts getting more attention and views, the only AI art I've seen framed is cheep Ikea /hobby store art that would have been a stock photo anyway. I haven't seen AI really take the place of anything except the most basic of images that again would have been stock. I think we'll be okay.
@@RoyalsAndRogues Michael Smith, AI Flicks, AI FlickNips, AI Stories, and so many more. Like with TikTok, the algorithm promotes such videos once you click on one.
Correct me if Im wrong. Buying respect, instead of earning it - is ok. But create with AI - is not ok? There is something realy wrong with this logic.Dont get me wrong, Im absolutley against creating with help of AI in all forms.
You miss the point. It's not about the "buying" it's the fact that value isn't in the physical object but the concepts around it. Just like the drill bit example, no one values a bit because it's a bit but because of what it means for them. You might not respect a watch, so for you, it's not of value, just like art, some people will value it others won't but WHAT you value in art isn't the image, the pixels or the paint, it's the meaning, and that's what AI lacks.
@RoyalsAndRogues Sorry, hard to explain myself in non native language. I understand your point, I ment something else. What I mean is, world is already twisted if you can say "you can buy respect". Creating with help of AI dosnt seem worse then we already have. Yes, it is unnaturall, and even unethicall, but is it really worse then " Go buy abit of respect."?
@daniilponomarenko6 I don't think you _ can_ buy respect, I think the _reason_ someone buys a $10K watch, is because they _want_ "respect", not because they want "a watch" that is the argument I am making. I don't respect watches, so I'm not interested in them, but a clerk at a store that thinks you'll spend more... he might. This also works in the inverse, in some places a gaudy watch might actually get you worse service, again it's not because the person hates accurate time pieces, or punctual people, it's because they don't like what the watch means, that this person has money and can flaunt it. It would be a bad idea to wear your Rolex and suite to a punk rock show in the 80s. As far as morals go, I don't really think we can talk morally in the modern tech world. Most of our tech has unpleasant origins and to play "who's the most ethical?" gets messy quick. I am mostly here to say "If you make art, no matter how, what makes it worth something is the meaning it represents which is something AI cannot assign."
@@RoyalsAndRogues no AI company is being sanctioned for stealing art and any content. Businessmen would do anything to save money and if AI can help them design templates then that's that, plus the demand for art in general is declining and AI is making it worse. No one cares expect for the creatives, I'm l an not saying it to be mean but it's what it is. Let's try to adapt
No worries! That's where those businessmen won't have any own intention of creating real and value. Therefore they don't mean anything real for the product they are selling. There is no purpose or meaning for what they are providing to the customers. They don't survive like Rolex
Hope for me will come when more artists realise there’s safety in numbers, we’re better off banding together, forming more independent guilds, collectives, and creator owned businesses
Artists have a great opportunity to leverage the inherent disdain people have towards AI it into a context for the establish the value of human made art by comparison. Simple things like showing process and establishing the value of a work made by a person can leverage AI into an opportunity for artists that didn't exist before.
Great very encouraging take on this! I think most of my questions going forward with AI is how to communicate this difference to clients and people who are easily fooled by AI's "artistic" ability.
Tell them
Really interesting comments here. The relationship between value and meaning is something we all took for granted before AI, but it turns out that this is not a simple matter. The common sense view is that if an AI can generate a picture that looks as good as a picture created by a human artist then the two are the same and therefore have the same value.
But would those who- in the past- paid human artists hundreds or even thousands of dollars for their work be happy to pay the same amount for an AI generated image? No, they would not. But if you asked them why not, I guess they would say something like 'Well, that AI image took zero effort or skill to come up with, so there's no way I'm paying the same rate I would have paid a Human Artist for the same image'
This is quite odd in a way- after all it's the image they are buying, not the effort and skill that went into making it- so why has the price suddenly gone down when they know it's an AI image? This is not an easy question to answer but it seems that the value of an image is bound up with the human effort and skill that went into it's creation- and by eliminating that human input the AI has also eliminated the value of the image itself.
But why is that human effort and skill so important when it comes to the value of the Art? I think that what is really at issue here is meaning. The reason that it matters that a human artist made the art is because that art then has meaning- it was the result of a process whereby a sentient mind applied itself to an act of intentional communication.
The real problem with AI Art is that we know that the AI had nothing to say to us- when it made that image it did not do so in an effort to express anything, or to communicate anything- it has no mind, no sentience- it's outputs have no meaning because no meaning was intended by the thing that generated them.
Perhaps the real issue here is we are sentient beings and we value highly the communication and connections we have with other sentient beings. And it may be that the value we find in the work of human artists is not merely in the quality of their rendering but in the fact that we know that their art is an expression of their sentience, their desire and intent to speak to us through the medium of their Art.
AI Art, on the other hand, is the product on non sentient machines that have neither the ability or the desire to communicate with us, and no matter how well rendered their outputs we cannot see those output as having any value because they are meaningless to us, and that which has no meaning has no value to us, because we are sentient beings for whom meaning is the measure of all that we value and care about.
That's why you are right to say that if my house was on fire it would be the Dog I would save over any valuable object because as a sentient being I place more value on the simple sentience of that animal than on any dead artefact no matter how much it may be 'worth' in terms of money- and I think most people would agree with this- which is quite an optimistic thought to end with.
I don't think the reason AI isn't a threat is because artists are special. We aren't. We don't have some amazing gift. We're just regular old normal flawed people. And that is why AI won't replace them because when people consume art they want to share a human experience. That's why they consume it. You can't get human perspective from a machine. There's room in the world for AI and human art, just like there's room for drum machines and drummers. It doesn't matter how good the machines get, they wont replace you. Some artist will, and have already, used AI as a media for creating really interesting art, just like for decades there have been really creative musicians making new music from nothing but samples. You can't tell me that 'frontier psychiatrist' by the avalanches isn't new and creative, yet there is nothing in that song but pre-recorded bits of previous work. At the same time Jesse Welles is blowin up because people just crave authenticity. It's not black and white, one or the other. Just like how samples and synths in music haven't replaced acoustic instruments, AI will never replace analog art, because people crave the real human experience.
Nailed it.
While I agree with most points, I look at AI Flicks (the YT account) ,and I see kids and coworkers listening or watching AI made videos. And as time goes by, humans will become harder to find, as there would be so many such videos. I tried to tell these people that they are AI, but they won't listen.
I still see artists shorts getting more attention and views, the only AI art I've seen framed is cheep Ikea /hobby store art that would have been a stock photo anyway. I haven't seen AI really take the place of anything except the most basic of images that again would have been stock. I think we'll be okay.
@@RoyalsAndRogues Michael Smith, AI Flicks, AI FlickNips, AI Stories, and so many more. Like with TikTok, the algorithm promotes such videos once you click on one.
@@RoyalsAndRogues Did you remove my reply? Or was it TH-cam? Welp, I'd love to give you more evidence, but YT will remove the comment, good luck!
@@GrimReaperNegi Nope don't believe in deleting non bot/spam/hate comments. I'll see if it is in review.
Correct me if Im wrong. Buying respect, instead of earning it - is ok. But create with AI - is not ok? There is something realy wrong with this logic.Dont get me wrong, Im absolutley against creating with help of AI in all forms.
You miss the point. It's not about the "buying" it's the fact that value isn't in the physical object but the concepts around it. Just like the drill bit example, no one values a bit because it's a bit but because of what it means for them.
You might not respect a watch, so for you, it's not of value, just like art, some people will value it others won't but WHAT you value in art isn't the image, the pixels or the paint, it's the meaning, and that's what AI lacks.
@RoyalsAndRogues Sorry, hard to explain myself in non native language. I understand your point, I ment something else. What I mean is, world is already twisted if you can say "you can buy respect". Creating with help of AI dosnt seem worse then we already have. Yes, it is unnaturall, and even unethicall, but is it really worse then " Go buy abit of respect."?
@daniilponomarenko6 I don't think you _ can_ buy respect, I think the _reason_ someone buys a $10K watch, is because they _want_ "respect", not because they want "a watch" that is the argument I am making. I don't respect watches, so I'm not interested in them, but a clerk at a store that thinks you'll spend more... he might.
This also works in the inverse, in some places a gaudy watch might actually get you worse service, again it's not because the person hates accurate time pieces, or punctual people, it's because they don't like what the watch means, that this person has money and can flaunt it. It would be a bad idea to wear your Rolex and suite to a punk rock show in the 80s.
As far as morals go, I don't really think we can talk morally in the modern tech world. Most of our tech has unpleasant origins and to play "who's the most ethical?" gets messy quick. I am mostly here to say "If you make art, no matter how, what makes it worth something is the meaning it represents which is something AI cannot assign."
Everyone talking, nothing is happening. AI is gonna ruin a segment of this industry
What do you mean by "happening?"
@@RoyalsAndRogues no AI company is being sanctioned for stealing art and any content. Businessmen would do anything to save money and if AI can help them design templates then that's that, plus the demand for art in general is declining and AI is making it worse.
No one cares expect for the creatives, I'm l an not saying it to be mean but it's what it is. Let's try to adapt
No worries! That's where those businessmen won't have any own intention of creating real and value. Therefore they don't mean anything real for the product they are selling. There is no purpose or meaning for what they are providing to the customers. They don't survive like Rolex
May AI overtake all artists 🙏🙏🙏
👆 " that's bait."