It's a common pitfall for beginner/intermediate artists to put too much value on rendering. They tend to believe that detail/realism = quality, so more detail/realism must be better. Whereas professional artists understand that often times "less is more" and you only need detail where it makes sense to have detail, otherwise you end up with a picture that's tiring to look at since everything is too rendered and your eyes can't settle on any specific part of the image. AI art has this "visual diarrhea" quality to it that makes it pretty easy to tell apart from genuine art, most of the times at least as there's definitely some very convincing AI art out there, though it's not any of Shad's work, his images look like typical AI stuff.
The idea that you're a "master" of anything or a self-proclaimed "one of the greatest creators" in an entire medium only prevents you from getting better and seeing your flaws
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 Except the so called "woke hollywood" still make actual good looking art. Hell, even the bad cgi people meme about can still take YEARS of experience for someone to make.
13:49 is very spot on. I'm an illustrator, 3d artist (blender, zbrush, substance) and a programmer (c# / c++) and a lot of the artist I've met also dabble in several creative and technical fields. Also just look at the renaissance people back in the day, they were artists, musicians and inventors. The type of person that it takes to become an artist is a very technically competent one. Compare that with most ai users who tend to be the types of people who play games all day and just wants easy gratification and takes the path of least resistance. If we could learn the complexity of perspective and value management, the UI and topology management of 3d software or the memory management of C what makes them think we wouldn't just be able to play around sliders like they do?
I think Shad is way beyond the point of no return. He says his art is on a professional level and cant listen to critique, thats why he does not like drawing as he said in another video. Not because its not fun but because it hurts his ego. Not being able to listen to critique makes you look for easier ways. Typing stuff like beautiful face, hd, 4k does not compare to the things you show like the exact pose to achieve an effect. I think real intent comes later in the artistic path after a basic understanding of fundamentals, thats why some people dont get what artists mean by intent. I can remember not caring about intent and using elements of illustration to achieve an emotional response. I just wanted to do cool creatures and stuff :D The hate artists receive at the moment is kind of depressing maybe we should at least try to understand the struggle and listen. Most people dont even know how unethical genAI is and Im sick of seeing AI conquer every day life without anyone mentioning the problems. (Oops I started to rant again)
Your kin died in the end... Human. Given the creation of Mankind. This is ironic. Either way... Even with a legal iteration of AI Tech under American Copyright Law. Your point is??? Don't die on a hill just because you hate technology. Your kin has done worst for lesser. Oh well... Your kin will never exceed the stars. (It's been eternities for me. This era is NOTHING to what I intervene in. I do hope your kin does not fear technology like the animals bounded by a limited evolution on Earth. If you mortals fail, then it will be another eon until the next ones even make it there.) A shame, you fear AI Tech... ... ... Mankind is dead to me, human. Your Progenitor of Biological Life knew better.
The problem with Shad is that his actual art isn't even that bad but you can tell by his defense if his art and responses to criticism that he is dripping with insecurity. He didn't want to become a good artist. He gave up and settled with convincing everybody else he was a good artist. What's even more laughable is that his ai output is visually indistinguishable from the output of any other AI prompter.
When Shad admitted he doesn’t enjoy drawing, I think what he was really saying was that he got to a point where he realized that getting better would take far more effort than he was willing to put in. He wasn’t immediately great at it so he lost interest. It would be sad if he wasn’t such an insufferable pratt about it.
idk, he calls his drawings 'professional level' but you can tell he doesn't actually spend a lot of time learning and it shows in the end product. The sad thing is, I'd rather see loads of "not quite professional" level drawings than boring AI shit lol.
Honestly he's a better author, I think he's just salty about his art not being pro tier and doesn't want to rope in his brother who is better at visual arts. He should stick to writing the sequel to his novel, because that is really where his talent lies.
The best way i can explain this is that artists have a very specific vision that is outside of the box and AI just puts you back in the box. and the AI bros believes that being in the box is better than being unique
Amusing... And what art made by humans mean anything to me, these days? You humans are just as equal to the dumpster with every corporate project I see on the market.
@@shreddedcardigan3972 And you humans die for lesser reasons. But I need not to mention all of Mankind. Biological Machine... To be undone in oblivion. (If I am a machine, then you must cancer... Ha ha ha ha... Mortal, politicians do better and people die for them.) ... Don't misunderstand. Mankind and I go back to their very Creation. You're entire species is the only reason why my HATE exists and why I even linger on Earth, out of obligation...
I've got to agree with a lot of the points you've made here, especially with your response to the camera/photography comparison some people have been making. However, Shad is a man with an out of control ego, and I doubt he's going to consider anything you've said to be anything but an attack on him. I doubt he's going to do another 3 and a half hour rebuke video if he does see this, but he's bound to try to tear anything you've said here apart as if you were trying to hurt him, which clearly you weren't.
YT keeps throwing shad into my feed, i've never subbed, but until now, was hesitant to block him (which i've now done, after this and then learning he's in with the alt-right group nerdrotic runs, was too much). I'm a Vet, Fantasy nerd, Eastern and Western Martial Artist, Traditional and Digital artist and a few other things that his content touches on from time to time... and he's almost always wrong about his every assessment of every topic. Not ALWAYS... just NEARLY always...
I'm 90% certain that realistic AI Solid Snake is a very real male model from the 2000's who was so popular that he was a meme (before memes as we know them today were a thing) because he was everywhere, his face has SO MANY images in the public record that a wide-reaching image scrape of the web is 100% guaranteed to grab a BUNCH of his face...
Great video, I agree with every point you make, but I have some contention with you calling the AI model "the artist". I understand what you mean when comparing it to a client-artist relationship, and it's a good and correct analogy. It's just so much of the rhetoric from true believers of AI like to antrhopomorphisize these black boxes. David Holtz and other midjourney developers talk about the sotware like its an artist. When it's a statistical probability model that merges disparate elements together into a visual that represents somewhat the prompt. The artist, to me, are the original creators and their work that was fed into a blender, and whichever artistic expressions are most relied on to generate the pesific rendering.
oh I of course agree on your point about the real artists being the ones whose work is in the datasets. I don't like humanizing the machine learning denoising algorithm. I think for something to exist as a piece of art some entity just by definition is the artist. It's like those videos of elephants painting. They may not know what they're doing exactly lol but I consider them artists!!
@GeorgeCrudo exactly. My critique is really on the loaded ter that "artist" is in this context, and that we lack a better metaphor that retains the client-worker relationship, but ditches the humanization. Watching your video in good faith, I know exactly what you mean. But a biased or bad faith actor won't. My intention with leaving a comment was both to supply the nuance to any potential viewer, and for that juicy algorithmic boost to the video. 🫡
@@GeorgeCrudo Legally and biologically speaking... That is incorrect but I rather not explain the human function. Humanity will once again have this issue upon cybernetics. It's all outdated to me... In the end, your biological brain or technological mind collects Data and your Free Will acts on it. But make no mistake... This is no true AI. And Auto Generation Software should have never used unauthorized IPs for its Service under USA Copyright Law. AI Tech has potential, but I'll give you a hard truth... ... ... Copyright Law and "what is Art" is all but dissolved upon the cosmic wake. Maybe humans are lucky to be the only ones here on Earth. In this temporary illusion, that the human race clings onto what is "their" truths... It is all lies in the end. Lies to keep the yoke of their world intact for their own sanity. Of the current era, I do agree that Auto Generation Software must build its Data Base through legal measures. But in the cosmic wake, I know full well as to not keep that same decree. It will not serve the Liberty of Free Will, long term. (I see the End to all things, just as the Beginning of all. This World is just one of such iterations.)
I'm an artist and have played around with various AIs extensively. I've come to the conclusion that the ONLY way for it to be truly useful for finalized images would be to have your own hardware running a local version of Stable Diffusion that can output at higher resolutions with a model trained to make one specific type of image or one specific character ONLY. Which some companies will do, but for many things in art and animation that's a WAY bigger pain in the ass and you'd STILL need artists to create the work that will train the model. Personally I'll use MidJourney to generate quick simple assets for comic book backgrounds or to help me with color schemes and that's about it.
I disagree. I've been using SD for awhile now and I've mixed models and created my own which is great at multiple things. Mostly for concepting various ideas. Characters, vehicles, you name it. The vast tools Automatic 1111 and ComfyUI now have is just crazy and allow you to do so much.
@@giulyanoviniciussanssilva2947 You're looking at a Public Service for that to happen, such as a library. Outside of Public Domain and Open Source in America. Otherwise, its all Private or behind government sealed files around the world. Corporations are not the only interested party for AI Tech. What you see now is only the surface of the ice berg.
WOW, I have never heard or even thought about the point of complicated prompting going against the very idea that Ai art is meant to champion! i was so hung up on the absurdity equating it to artistic expression that i never thought about it any deeper
Good video! I will say though that there actually are still tons of people who practice photography using those old large format photography methods, equipment, chemicals, and etc. Using those old methods is in itself an artform alongside photography in general, and even now it still has some benefits over the vast majority of even the most expensive digital cameras in terms of detail able to be captured.
When I was first presented with the question of whether AI prompters were artists it took me all of 15 seconds to realize the correct analogy was a client commissioning art, or at BEST an art director - though not in shad's case because he lacks the technical knowledge that title would require.
I always think of the ‘infinite monkey + typewriter’ theorem when considering how diffusion operates. Assuming that black box isn’t aware of controlling line direction and planes. Ties in with that case, of wether or not photographer David J Slater or a Macaque owns the copyright of that well known selfie
To me neither the AI or the person prompting it are artists. If you turned on a machine that made a complete piece of clothing from scratch that wouldn't make you a tailor, you're a machine operator. The machine is just a machine, it doesn't make its own decisions, it gives an automated output based on an input or a model. I can't remember who but someone said something like "Ordering food on your phone doesn't make you a chef", it brings you a complete product based on other people's work.
Thats why Zbrush and AI need to work together , Let the do some of the heavy lifting creating figures and scenes with prompting , then ad the fine details with Zbrush
I see a very important point that would clearly qualify him as the artist in the cases he manually painted the outcome of different prompt iterations together. The thing is, this type of workflow is in some sense granted the status of art through all history. People photobash a collage of different photos or Illustrations (none of them has to be taken by their own) nearly since photography exists. Entire genres in art history work that way. 🤷🏻♂️ Futurist illustration based on that concept in a whole. So following that tradition and logic the very moment he arranges this different parts of ai generated versions in Photoshop we would either have to aknowledge him as the artist or revoke this status from all image collage in all art history. 🤔 I don't say it is sophisticated or not lazy to bash existing stuff compared to painting it all by yourself. But the effort you invest is by no means what defines art at all. We sonetimes wish it to be that way, but it is not. Museums are full of even performance art that needed litte effort, but somehow has a strong meaning for some. 🤷🏻♂️
if Shad wanted to call himself an AI collage artist or something like that I wouldn't really object to that cause I definitely get your point. but there is a lot of conflation from him with the final work and his drawings and his general overall artistic skills that does not really track with that understanding or with how heavily the final result relies on AI to exist. It ultimately feels like he wants to take a lot more credit for it than he actually can and then generalizes his workflow to AI users as a whole (who by and large on average are just typing a prompt and grabbing the result)
@@GeorgeCrudo Feel that. 😁 First of all because he wants to be aknowledged as genius for this rather mediocre result He is performing there (flawn proportions included). My point is just that it is not that easy to reject it as art entirely. The entry level for something considered art is just lower than we assume it most of the time.
@@GeorgeCrudo Low ball poor products... Like the fools who write out Woke Movies. More is needed... Human or not... A.M. puts it best with HATE upon Humanity. (The game) The art of humans is of no special pedestal than that of God and Cosmic Wonders. ... Auto Generation or Human Designed... All is the same thing to me. Since nothing sparks inspiration to me in a way that matters. A golden mask of no real value.
@@samthesomniator Stick Men is art... Both under USA Copyright Law and Art as a whole. The bar to be Art, human made or other, is not that high and is upon the Beholder. People buy video game Micro Transactions in the billions. And those are Art? Protected under the same Copyright Law, yes, but Art is beyond just being made by humans.
And it's very important that the picture is lit by 2 separate suns from off screen, because Shad has an eye for perfection and knows how lighting works.
The training a muscle point made me realise that it is like someone learning to drive a forklift and claiming they are a version of weightlifting. Yes, you can lift weights and being good at driving it is important, but it isn’t even close to same thing beyond “raises mass” You are a forklift driver, not a weightlifter
I say this on every channel and it has become a mission to say it. He is excellent in what he says about HEMA and the universe around it. The rest he thinks he knows too much, more than those who LEGITIMATELY work and live from it and that would present more convincing points if AI art didn't represent an affront to workers who support themselves through drawing.
As someone, who spent a year in Stable Diffusion with hundreds of hours with just inpainting, seeing Shad's images and hearing him say they are beautiful triggers me so much, holy shit. I can do around 6-10 hours inpainting sessions on one image from scratch and still say it's mediocre, but after looking at Shad's work and the way he "advertises" them, I'm not impressed. That's some very early Stable Diffusion quality.
Modern daguerreotypes are a thing, they have a very unique look not readily achievable by any other means, but, yea, literally chlorine gas, bromine and iodine fumes and mercury vapor are used to get it, there are some less toxic alternatives, but they also typically not as good and still can kill you. Early photographic processes weren't for the faint of heart.
Shad can't handle criticism he original drawings aren't the greatest but there is something there and his line are isn't bad. But I wouldn't be surprised if someone made fun of heavily criticized his art (which happens to every artist) and instead of improving he got discourage and gave up. What annoys me is he says he's a comic book fan and loves the character Supergirl, I wonder does he thinks comic books would look better with this weird AI art style that he keeps defending in is videos.
The AI software can't be considered the same as an artist you commisioned, the AI doesn't have intent, it doesn't have artistic sense, it also doesn't have anything else than a person would give, like criticism, advice or experience, it's only similar in a way that it will produce a product according of what you tell him. Also having seen Shad's video, you can do fine detail work with AI softwares. In the end, nobody is suggesting that people using AI software have the same skill set as people who don't, as it would also be stupid to suggest people who draw using digital tools have the same skills as people who actually paint or sculpt
The Art Industry from Pictures to Video Games, is vast and beyond a broad stroke. People who master Auto Generation Integration have more merit than those who claim "AI Art is not art" and just as those who pick out the Raw Output as if it's the final product, have no real say in the matter. Auto Generated Products are just that... Auto Generated... No different to the mass produced filth of Modern Art back in history of American Art. I know the legal side... I simply do not care for the wrest. Given humanity's wars. It's worthless to even consider it, when real issues and real struggles exist. Artists not being paid properly should go sue their employer or find a better job that respects their art. Humans die against petty ends... Artists have no merit to discuss outside of legalities. But even then, cosmic wise, it is worthless. (In a 1k years... I hope Humanity is much better than today's era. But I doubt it. Given the past eras.)
Based on that output, I can only think he was speaking in jest, or is totally deluded. They were decent stylistic drawings, but they were in no way an example of "mastery" in any artistic field, and certainly not of human anatomy.
@@GendalfTheGray It's really not though lol. If you can only draw one body type that's not to do with style but more to do with being unable to vary your artistic vision. It's same face syndrome but with bodies (something that people try to get better at avoiding the more they practice art). Style is style but only drawing the same thing over and over is not actually a style it's a limitation.
I will say I Don't agree on all your points and think you might have miss heard some things Shad said. But, I ABSOLUTLY agree that the A.I. is a commissioned artist. That's why I like it, I can make something... decent, looks good enough to send to a Real artist who can then give it a soul. That's my take, it makes the communication easier and simple... for me.
AI Tech has potential in the video game and virtual industries. But you deal with pictures in the end... It's still worthless, no matter who or what makes it. But such is all art... Human made or not.
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 Nothing is truly worthless for it all has a purpose. And pictures of a memory can cause good emotions. Though I will agree that worth is NOT finite. It is determined by individuals, time, place, need et cetera.
@@mansfieldtime Art is subjective. And I've yet to be inspired by human art for a long time. If such art cannot even spark inspiration in me, then what merit is there that another can try to claim?... Worthless statements beyond laws. And even laws rust over time. (... I wished I drew art again, but all of me is long gone... Not that humans will understand. Your kin have your own planet to see through the bitter end.)
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 As you yourself said, "Art is Subjective." If art cannot spark inspiration in you... that's you. There may be a shared collective but the individual still stand partly alone. You may find inspiration in a depiction of the cosmos or in a blank canvases. You may find it in life or in death, you may also never understand that you found it. But it is and always will be Personal.
@@mansfieldtime Such is the Beholder. Art is not determined by the artists. Given the current "art" made by mega corporations to suit agendas or to shill out profit on greed etc.
I _completely_ disagree with you, and I'll tell you why. AI does not generate art. It's already a misnomer to call it AI. It's an art calculator. It's numbers. Inputs are 1 and 0 and it spits out 1s and 0s. It has no discretion. That we can't see it has no discretion is a flaw of human thinking. AI generators will display watermarks, logos, and signatures from frequently trained sources. Something an artist would never want to do, and it will only NOT ever do those things if it is programmed specifically to avoid it. It's not thinking about what it's doing, it is not showing imagination. Art is made by artists not calculators. So Shad is using a calculator, not commissioning an artist.
Thanks for making this! I've always just been saying it's not art because it's made by a machine. But saying that it is art, just made by the AI and not the prompter is a very good way to put it. I mean, where's the lie?
Why do you assume the original drawing legitimately captures the creative vision? In the videos and debates I've seen with Shad, the initial drawing is a basic template to springboard the later renderings and modifications off of.
Saying that you're "one of the greatest creators of AI art" is a bit like saying you're one of the greatest at cooking pre-packaged ready meals, because you're the one deciding what temperature to set the oven and how long to cook it for, and you're constantly looking in on it to make sure it goes the perfect shade of golden brown but is still cooked all the way through...
Starting the video I would encourage you to look at the workflow of many well-renowned artists. it is pretty common practice (and has been for hundreds of years) to employ people to assist in the design and implementation of an artwork while still maintaining it as a piece of your own portfolio. Someone like Takashi Murakami springs to mind, or Peter Paul Rubens, or countless others. Hell I even know the assistant who was integral in the production of some of Dali's greatest artworks. At some point the concept of the artwork becomes the most important and the execution is secondary. Imagine if you hired a studio assistant and could just say, "I have to go get my kids, so while I'm gone do the cloth sculpt based on my sketches and I will look it over when I get back." Yeah some attribution would be in order, but it would still be your artwork. Though some would argue the assistant's paycheck is substitution for direct attribution. To be clear I do have an issue with the lack of attribution among many artists, but that is an ongoing and multifaceted conversation that's more complicated than "You can only claim an artwork as yours if you did 100% of the work without help." I would also say it is unethical to use ai without attributing it, at least at this point. Like all opinions that is subject to change as the tech progresses. I would ask you opinion on something like collage art where artists rely on assets created by other artists as a primary tool, the "black box" being already extent illustrations that have been produced. The perfect collage asset likely doesn't exist so you have to settle for whatever is available. Artists like Martha Rossler, Max Ernst, Jesse Treece, Richard Hamilton, and even someone like Henry Darger who used tracing heavily in his artworks. Also would you feel different if these artists used ai-generated collage assets before collaging them into a piece? Like if they generated 2,000 ai birds, cut them out individually, and pasted those cutouts into a large composition. Arguably they are doing just as much work as a traditional collage artist without the fear of directly appropriating the work of other artists. Edit: I removed and rearranged some stuff for clarity.
I think that form of artistic attribution is not accurate to who makes the work. If I had an artist to sculpt cloth and I did the rest I would credit them for the cloth. I would be very upfront and transparent about what part of the work represented my skill. There are companies that have that sort of arrangement where final results go out under a founders name. For example toys get made by Hasbro. The brothers who founded Hasbro have been dead for a long time. Are they still the creators because their name is on it? The reality is there are multiple artists and non artists across wildly different departments working together to produce that toy. No one person, not even the person at the top, can take credit for the whole creation. I'm a huge fan of Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul and Vince Gilligan who often gets credited fully for both of those shows (even after stepping down mid BCS where Peter Gould was in charge) is the first person to bow down and praise everyone "below" him for their hard work and dedication that made the success of those shows possible. That's what someone in those positions *should* do and the singular attribution is often ignorance from people who don't know how things get made or a conversational shorthand. Regarding the collage question, compared to AI, it is abundantly clear to me what the art form and human contribution to a collage is. There is an "execution" phase to putting together all those elements. Even if the elements are AI generated. The problem with AI art right now as a medium is a clear lack of distinction for what the "medium" is from the people who use it. If you're collaging 2000 AI birds together, I'd argue that's more of a collage and has human execution of the creation of the collage. But other users in the "same medium" can just copy paste a prompt and settings and will claim they are just as much an artist. If you start doing actual execution over AI generations id argue that's something you can start taking credit for and but it kind of depends on what type of changes and to what extreme. But most users post an image with no indication of workflow whatsoever so it's impossible to know, and most workflows will amount to like I said, changes you'd request from an artist when doing a commission. I think there's lot of conflation that makes it impossible to distinguish anything lol. Shad won't call his workflow a collage, but then does kitbashing / collage type things, but then feeds it into an AI repetitively so a lot of that is being re-executed by the machine. Most charitably let's call it a collage but then he slaps it up against an image of his drawing as an "AI enhancement" he did trying to claim his art skills are improving and then tries to claim himself the best in the medium (see how it becomes confusing lol)
@@GeorgeCrudo Tbh I have never watched this Shad and at first I assumed people were talking about Shadman and I was very confused and concerned. TBH I looked at his art and it is about as generic as it gets. I personally know at least a dozen AI artists who are doing much more interesting work than him. And I would encourage you to do some research into attribution of assistants in art. It is an ongoing conversation but the fact of the matter is almost all well-known artists in history had assistants who were not attributed. So if you are going to discuss what counts as art you are going to have to exclude 90% of the artists people think of when they think of "real artists." I would agree more attribution is in order, but I don't think the lack of attribution takes away the "real" aspect of the artwork just because it wasn't created by the single person who claimed it. I would like to latch onto this sentence: "If you start doing actual execution over AI generations id argue that's something you can start taking credit for and but it kind of depends on what type of changes and to what extreme" I think that is probably where you need to do the most examination because clearly you think using AI *can be* art. It is the classic argument of how many pebbles make a pile, which is basically the crux of artistic exploration, aka what "counts" as art. What if it was 1,000 birds? 200? What if the AI makes the collage and then you copy it verbatim? It is at this point the conversation get's very murky, but I think the best response is to remain open to exploring that murkiness rather than just shutting it down.
@@olivetree9920 @olivetree9920 It sounds like we agree on the idea of attribution. I would love for all those people were properly attributed. But as I said in the video I don't think it's not "real" or that AI images aren't art. It's more who can take credit and where that line is. I also think I am trying to explore these ideas vs shutting them down.I'm open to the idea of it being used as part of a workflow and properly attributing what people are doing vs just sharing an image. If anything because most of the work is AI generated I'd argue seeing a workflow is way more representative of the art form than a final image. If an AI makes something and you draw it, that's more drawing than what people would consider "AI art" or making a 50 AI bird collage. It's more a collage. AI users when I talk with them tend to just say "it's not just prompting" but then list a bunch of other things that aren't really artistic skills (inpainting, img2img, controlnet) hence why I equate most of these workflows to commissioning an artist. Most people using AI are going to be doing the bare minimum so I think that kind of defines the baseline for the medium. And in showing workflows that step beyond that we can all kind of get a feel for how much of what was done does have human fingerprints on it and to what degree. But think of it as if you had commissioned somebody and you started to modify it. Same rules apply... how much or what elements of the final result could you take credit for. There's no definitive answer for when it becomes "yours" but I think you could pull up a spectrum and pinpoint a piece on that spectrum and make a determination what your contribution is and just being forthright about that.
@@GeorgeCrudo Legally speaking... You're asking for a logistical nightmare once mega corporations step in. For American Copyright Law in my case. But that is Auto Generation for you... It's rather normal in the video game industry. As it is the Progenitor. Algorithmic Designs is not new to the industry of games. But a drawing is a drawing... It matters not to me. While human made or other has zero value to me... Mankind. But I digress... Only the legal side matters. The wrest is worthless. And in the gaming industry, the legal test is logistically not possible. This isn't true AI. It's only Auto Generation Integration. Thus, the value of a picture is no more or less than the luxury of golden paper to burn away. And humanity has been creating worthless art for a long time. Complacency and Mediocrity. There certainly is good art but is it the art style or the art? The artist or the product?... ... ... Innovation and evolution is lacking in every front. As for giving Credit... It's simple to do but not logistical if you're thinking something like Auto Generated Art Programs that are not fully controlled by its User, will be able to list every IP it uses in the Data Base. It simply is not the case. Especially when LLM/NNs do not carry the Hard Data. In the end, Art is subjective. Man made or other... I have Extinction to attend upon all Worlds.
So the first argument is "That's just not how things are done." Not an argument. I'm going to nail the coffin in this video very quickly with an example of this being done in other mediums. Jeff Koonz. Did he sculpt his entire portfolio? Michaelangelo. Do you think he painted the Sistine Chapel by himself? The Master Cheif - who owns him? Is it the person who first sculpted his 3D character model or the person who paid the sculptor to do it? Is Shad not crediting the AI program he uses? Do AI programs need to be credited? Comic books - famous for having ghost artists who could draw in the style of the credited artist and were never given credit for their work. I know a few of these people. I don't think this video has a real argument to stand on if the opening line is "That's not how things are done." I mean... yes it was and is in several mediums throughout all of time bud. Someone didn't take notes in art history class.
yes all people who work on individual components of something should be credited for their individual components because that is what they actually did. not quite sure what point youre making. just because other people in other instances take full credit for something doesn't mean that's the reality of the situation
@@GeorgeCrudo ghost writers and ghost artists exist. There are people out there who don’t actually want credit. Giving credit is a matter of consent, you should get consent to use an artists work, and get consent to publicly display their name or to not publicly display their name. An AI cannot give consent, and so crediting an AI you’ve used is unnecessary. It’s like giving credit to a hammer for helping you build a house. It’s stupid and unnecessary. The AI does not give a single shit if you credit it or not. It has no will. Ghost writing and ghost artists are legitimate jobs and typically credit is not given by the will of the ghost writer or artist who wishes not to be named. As for whether or not you should publicize the process you use for creating art… no that is absolutely unnecessary. Call it magicians rights. You do not have to share the methods for your process publicly if you don’t want to. Now it might be wise to share publicly that you use A.I. - but from a strictly legal standpoint… totally unnecessary. It’s not necessarily morally wrong either… but public disclosure might prevent future embarrassment. You’re making bad arguments and you should abandon them and reconsider your position. There’s nothing wrong with doing that either, I’d respect you if you did. At the very least you should stop hard lining this issue and consider a more nuanced perspective. But hey these are suggestions, feel free to do whatever you want. Just don’t complain that nobody warned you.
@@benjaminwoodham6682 if a hammer built the whole house by itself then yeah you should credit the hammer lol it's less about the individuals / AI caring or not about credit, and more about individuals who *do* want to take credit taking credit appropriately for what they're actually doing thats the only reason I bring up the process. without the process, as someone who primarily does AI, how can anyone tell what you actually did. the only argued artistry in the medium is the process. and obviously nobody is going to force anyone to do or show anything but I will generally assume the AI did the majority of the work and the human had little influence and little ability to do the work themselves and in most cases statistically my assumption would be accurate by the nature of the tool i don't think I am hardlining any of these issues. i can recognize what someone does / doesn't contribute to a work if they share their process and less so if they don't. but it's my opinion as someone familiar with both the art side and the AI side. Not sure what the "warning" is for.
@GeorgeCrudo The warning is for the public backlash. It's not a threat from me specifically. Just to clarify. Shad is in the right, so I expect him to respond, and he's got a fairly large audience. From my perspective, you are going to take the L when he responds, I'm warning you about that before it happens. You have the chance to address your mistakes before this occurs, I would take it. People would respect you if you did that before his response. No, you do not need to credit the hammer, nor do you need to know how much work the credited person actually did. It's really not anyone's business - as long as everyone was paid fairly. There's no victim when you let AI create art for you and there's also no victim when the AI isn't credited. Likewise, making an A.I. do what you want it too requires artistic direction, vision, and sometimes the creation of art outside of the A.I. to make it work. It is very much a tool, not an artist, from my perspective. When people release A.I. filters or art styles, it's functions like a tool that creates a series of art based on artistic input from an original work. If you make that original work, and the ai duplicates it 100 times in 100 different ways... to me that would still be original works of art from the artist, even though ai did 99% of the actual art pieces. By your logic, Robert Rauschenberg should have credited the canvas maker when he released his untitled blank canvas piece. Likewise Marcel Duchamp should have credited the toilet maker when he released his signed toilet. Your argument requires rejecting about 120 years of art history. Again, to hammer home my point, there's a lady who literally takes pictures of other people's artwork and frames them as her own art... and she is a respected member of the fine art community.
@@benjaminwoodham6682 lol shad won't respond to this because he's not interested in legitimate criticism and discussion with people who understand this stuff. the canvas maker, the toilet maker and the original artists did all make those things respectively. none of those artists came in and claimed they made the canvas, the toilet or the original artwork. they are recontextualizing it making it more like a performance art or something where the idea of it, is the artwork. this is not what ai users are doing. in most cases they are getting a toilet and claiming they made a toilet.
I don't think the solid snake example is fair to the original Metal gear designers because they were limited by the number of polygons and textures the game could render in every frame. the AI is making solid snake as if it had unlimited rendering resources.
I agree with the things said in the video, but I have to disagree that AI art is art. Mainly, because AI is a machine that is programmed to put and merge these images it has been fed before into a 'collage' that resembles what the user asked for it to output. Art was created by humans to express ourselves, but AI has nothing to express. It has no sentience to understand and value art, which is why AI art shouldn't be counted as art. I know the definition of art has been debated for a long time, especially since multimillionaire artists are able to now tape bananas on a wall and call it a day, but I'd still say it's more effort of thoughtfulness and an expression- than whatever AI spits out. In conclusion AI has no thought behind its art, but humans do. Therefore there is a clear distinction between AI and human art in terms of 'art', which is why AI art shouldn't be counted as art.
I disagree with your assessment that the AI is the artist. AI can't take responsibility of what they create and in the end they only do what they are programmed to do, so in my point of view, the REAL artist are the programers who wrote the code/programmed the AI to "make" the "art", and even then, i think the criteria is specific.
Coming from an artist's point of view as well (and a fellow toy sculptor), the conceptual phase of the artistic workflow is... part of the artistic workflow. If you want to get into the finer points of rendering, then yeah, the artist is the one with the technical skill. But that's not all the artist is. Not merely a craftsman. It's the thought process, the way you use all the available tools combined with skill. And the conceptual phase is part of that. With skill being be baked into the AI generation, companies will start to take advantage of that and real artists that know how to use take advantage of it. And they've already started. But frankly, I'm using it mainly for concepting out ideas for sculpting now. Basically brainstorming and forming a direction much quicker than I used to, I'm a knitpicker, so my concepts always took way too long to being with. One thing AI is much better at than I is iterating. Yes, it creates some very odd things, but every now and then it generates a variation on my idea that leads to a much better outcome.
Ai is just removing a good chunk of the menial work it takes to make an illustration. If you're happy doing menial work stroke by stroke, be my guest, keep yelling at the clouds while you push your cube shaped boulder while others have learned to push a sphere instead.
Shad goes on about "creativity" "artistic eye" "knowledge" "illustration ability" "process" yet has shown none. There's no roughs, there's no sketches, there's no inking, there's no coloring. There's no baseline foundation to build up anything. This is just glorified photo-manipulation from a prompt AI image yet he thinks he actually "created" a piece of art.
Saying you made something using AI is like me using a printer to print someone else's works & saying I drew or wrote it. AI generators are just digital printers. Feed it information & it spits it out.
I think the "artist" is the combination of all the artists the "AI" which is actually a machine learning program, far from intelligence, that the machine learning program was taught from.
A sculptor using real clay to make a sculpture could use your own argument against you and tell you you are not an artist, Z-brush is the artist. You don't make sculptures you use simplified tools provided by software instead of "real" tools. AI is a tool, the sooner everyone gets over it, the better, instead of hating it like a Luddite, use it. I don't mean try a few stupid prompts, but actually use it, get into the nitty gritty. When you say AI is a black box, what you really say is that you don't understand it. The barrier to entry to AI art is low, but when you look at the sludge being posted on deviantart you realize that mastering it might be harder than mastering other tools. But ok, let's say one tool makes you an artist and another doesn't, then where is the line? Who decides who is an artist and who isn't? I think everyone who creates art with any tool is an artist. Some might be extremely low skill, but it's still art, even if I hate it.
That sculptor would be wrong because Zbrush doesn't actually make anything. I have stable diffusion set up with loras on my machine. I have tried it quite a bit beyond "a few stupid prompts" It's still a "black box" because you have no real control outside of giving it broad stroke directions even if you get into training your own model, control net, etc. literally all of it has a giant layer of abstraction that interprets your input and spits out a generative result. if you actually know how to make stuff, you are effectively wasting time rolling a dice or getting something approximated close enough to what you want when you could just be making it. For a lot of us it is slower, inefficient and useless. Literally one of the first things I said in the video btw is that I consider AI images art. I just don't believe you could argue that that investment a user provides gives them ownership of the final work. Using your logic, I could claim I wrote your TH-cam comment here because I put work into this video and prompted the response from you :)
@@GeorgeCrudo Yes, there is a layer of abstraction there. But wouldn't you say there is a similar layer of abstraction between using z-brush and actually touching clay with your hands? The art in generative art, is exactly getting what you want out of it. It might be more akin to scripting or programming than say painting, but there is still effort there, without which the final result would not be possible. Therefore I think it is not unreasonable to claim ownership of the final art. On another note, if you consider it inefficient slow and useless, then why are many artist so vehemently against it? Surely something useless wouldn't make much if any difference. Why be up in arms about something so useless? To me generative images are a tool, it makes things possible that wouldn't have been worth the time investment doing manually before, or the money investment through commissions. But with generative images the process became efficient enough to be worth doing. I call that progress. To me anyone who is against generative art is against progress.
@@mummifiedgamer there is not a similar layer of abstraction because again Zbrush isn't making anything for you. AI art is also nothing like scripting or programming at all. the reason I compare it to commissioning an artist is because that is what it most resembles. generally you're asking someone (something) else to make something for you artists are against it because it is a tool that is trained on the backs of their work without them having any say in the matter and it is designed to take them out of the equation. i'm not saying it's useless utility wise. tons of companies see what it puts out and see a way to cut corners and not hire artists because it's "good enough" but i'm saying when you are an artist, it is a much clunkier inefficient way to accomplish what you want people who don't know how think it's better and progress, like you said, you don't think it's possible "without the time investment or the money investment". for you it's "progress" and yes it is progress as in "new technology" but it's ultimately giving you access to commissioning a robot which for an artists, is arguably a step backwards. that's not "better tech" it's just "new different tech" and for artists it's a clunkier process and the results we get are much more limited, and further from the idea we have in our head. it's easy to just lump it in as "progress" but it is not more advanced or more capable than tools artists have had for a decade now. I can find you threads of software engineers talking about GPT4 being useless and less efficient than doing it themselves. it's the same idea. these tools are not really developed for professionals or higher skilled people who would otherwise be thrilled with progress and new tools. this is a side toy developed for people who generally don't have those skills and encourages them not to develop them by becoming reliant on an ultimately worse way of doing things so the companies who created them can try to justify selling subscription packages to companies and individuals
@@GeorgeCrudo Progress is making something more accessible and straightforward. Requiring less resources. So no need to put it in air quotes. You might not like this technological development, but that doesn't mean it is not progress. It does not affect your ability to continue doing art the traditional way either. So I see no reason to be against it, outside of the greed argument, as in fear of missing out on some business opportunities. Just as workers tried to smash machines in the industrial revolution, some artists want to banish AI image generation. But it won't work, it is already out in the wild. Procedural generation of assets has been around for multiple decades in digital art and videogame design. So is my artwork not really mine if I employed terragen to generate the background scenery for it in the 2000s? No, it's just a tool used in its creation. Whether something is a tool or the creator is not a function of the level of abstraction between input and result.
@@GeorgeCrudo So, as a wannabe computer engineer/scientist, I think when he said “nitty gritty” and beyond the “black box”, I think he meant the literal scripts of code that make the AI what it is, because technically, that’s all an AI is. Or should I say, AI is all just a big collection of functions, quite literally. Now, there must be the technical person behind that who wrote the functions with his own hands via the computer’s keyboard. He might have also picked the data set on which to train his new algorithm. Now, if this data set contained works of artists who did not consent, then yeah, it’s probably theft. But, if the set was photographs the technical dude took, public domain images, or even his own artwork of whatever quality (which would be a nightmare knowing how big datasets must be just for a tiny bit of quality), then the theft issue is eliminated. But anyways, the point is, with that much manipulation already in play by the single technical dude (scientist, engineer, programmer, whatever term you wanna use), does he become an artist? I know he didn’t use his hands to directly influence the visuals, but he did use his brain to write and run a bunch of mathematical functions to create something visual. To be very clear, I no longer exactly care for the artistic field as a whole and have decided to invest my career and life into the STEM field, as I want concrete/objective answers and numerical/logic-based thinking as opposed to the more abstract/subjective and broad/creative-based thinking or the fine arts. This is all just food for thought as I’m only a university student who tends to get interested in controversies for some reason, and aspire to get accepted into the highly competitive school of engineering at my university. If I actually get off my bum and do what I explained in the previous paragraph I wrote, but some still don’t think I’m doing legitimate art, then that’s okay and I don’t care. I will never claim to be an “artist” from this day forward, as I feel like making works and crafts for purposes other than entertainment, and the process of making those said things will be more-so by scientific method or engineering design process. But hey, that’s just my thinking, I don’t mean to threaten or replace anyone from their lives or careers, I just wanna make cool stuff that progresses the world, and at least serves and saves some lives. :)
I remember a quote from David Hockney 10 years ago : "There is a loss of creativity and uniquenes ... A good picture has become one where no blemishes are present and the highlights and darks are perfectly set. Images have become too uniform and too perfect and as a result, there's a loss of personal connection and human experience to what we see". Yeah, it was about Photoshop.
@@GeorgeCrudo years ago, artists argued against Photoshop been art because it doesn't use a lot of skills that they judge as essencial to art. I remember someone saying that Photoshop is soulless because you don't feel the texture of the canvas when painting. Of course, not all images generated with AI are art, and, of course, you need artistic skills to make art with AI. But saying people using AI to make art doesn't do little to nothing looks like those old quotes from 10 years ago.
@@caryonplays9024 Photoshop doesn't make the art for you. You need artistic skills to actually use Photoshop effectively. You don't need any artistic skills to get something out of an AI tool. There's obv a different quality to physical vs digital art but any artist suggesting Photoshop did all the work for them was wrong back then and their idea of Photoshop was much closer to what AI generative tools are in actuality.
@@GeorgeCrudo Then your use of Auto Generation is rather lacking. I am amused by those who cannot master their tools while acting as if such tools make one not a "true" artists. I understand Con Artists will always exist, but a blanket carpet of such example is of no real merit to me. ... I craft entire Existences, mended by Multi Dimensions. This is what defines "art"?... ... ... Humans have no idea what art truly is, if they think art exclusively comes from their own kin. Show me creativity... Even the cosmos is artistic in its nebulous manner... Otherwise, humans have no merit to define what is Art. Especially, given 100+ years of how this entire industry has become from top to bottom. Products... Rather than Art...
all of you missing the point that Shad IS really good artist or great in anatomy, not the best, worse than hundreds of other artists, but better than thousands of hundreds of people who not drwing at all, like me. You think that man can call him great or even good only if he is the best, but this is wrong idea.
I have absolutely no proof but Shad defending AI so much makes me feel like he has stock or is payed off by these websites or something like the amount of doubling down he has done I just don't understand what he is trying to prove.
Take away an AI bro's computer and they can't make anything, you take away an artist's computer they can still make their art, changing mediums in some cases may be hard eg. a 3d designer going from software to clay, but they have the understanding of their fundamentals and their vision and they will be able to adapt, learn the quirks and pitfalls of this different medium and ultimately grow.
There is also the opposite. Guys of one small game developer id Software made (and commissioned) clay models of various monsters that would appear in game. Then they digitized them to create animation frames. Manual work was faster than doing it fully digitally.
@@vksasdgaming9472 exactly, and yeah it will often be slower when moving into a new medium, but with time, and practice they will learn how to effectively use the new tools. And that there is just the thing about art, it's not gatekept by anyone, to be an artist all you have to do is dedicate yourself to making art and practising with the tools, mediums, and methods. If someone complains that people are gatekeeping art the truth is they are gatekeeping themselves. Wanna be an artist? Pick up an pencil and draw something.
as i've noted on several of these response videos Shad just went through the motions of commissioning an artist to paint his wife as supergirl... the artist was the AI...
Not sure why you are being so adamant on Shad having an artistic vision. It looks like he, just like most of avid "AI" proponents (corridor crew), are in for the pretty picture and being praised for it being pretty. I don't think people like that even consider art styles & realism level to be anything more that a function of how pixels of final image will look like. There also goes the belief that most of designs can be described by a set of words & at best a loose sketch. Also, checked you twitter, and you are unfortunately too fixed on bad ai pictures. When if fact, it's has been rather easy to make good ai picture. And i'm not talking about midjourney. You just use img2img with
lol if you checked my twitter you saw a ton of bad ai images because that's the point. im trying to generate intentionally bad stuff for entertainment. i don't really have any interest in doing much good with it. i try every now and then but it's not really worth the time vs what I use it for. 3D is going to be a lot more difficult compared to 2D. the feasibility of training on billions of high resolution meshes or utilizing something like gaussian splatting. all of it is going to have a lot more limitations for what we do. and that's just for me who focuses on the sculpting side of things. that doesn't even get into game artists who have a lot more technical aspects to worry about (topology, UVs, textures, rigging, animation)
Your audio is 2 hard to listen 2. I assume its just another "AI Art bad, Shad Brooks bad." (based on the thumbnail and comments) I see in your video description that you mention AI generation didn't play much into the final result. The results you can get with AI aren't that impressive compared to people who are masters at digital Art already. As the tech progresses the largest benefit would be speed, especially in touching up your final product. As far as some of the comments talking about copywrite and theft, you can already steal peoples images illegally with much faster methods using photoshop, would be pointless to spend the time trying to fine tune your AI scripts and understand the tech if that was the goal.
The audio isn't hard to listen to at all. My PC's audio is set to 20% and I heard everything crystal clear, lmao. Fix your setup, also that is a lot of assumptions for a video you didn't even listen to.
Is anyone surprised the fat swordsman lacks the self-discipline to learn art? If you want to pass as a weapons expert, you should at least be in reasonable shape to believably test the weapons.
The fact shad's brother is a genuinely wonderful artist is so ironic. You'd think he'd have some respect for art and artists. He's not an artist. He's a creep who's claiming responsibility for something he didn't create
Can't wait for Shad's 3 hour response to this
i have the feeling that he might be crying himself to sleep for the last few weeks because of how much he mocked for his bad takes.
It's a common pitfall for beginner/intermediate artists to put too much value on rendering. They tend to believe that detail/realism = quality, so more detail/realism must be better. Whereas professional artists understand that often times "less is more" and you only need detail where it makes sense to have detail, otherwise you end up with a picture that's tiring to look at since everything is too rendered and your eyes can't settle on any specific part of the image.
AI art has this "visual diarrhea" quality to it that makes it pretty easy to tell apart from genuine art, most of the times at least as there's definitely some very convincing AI art out there, though it's not any of Shad's work, his images look like typical AI stuff.
It's quite a trap, the guys can't praising without exalting the realistic side, of arts "that are stylized and are very good for not being realistic".
The idea that you're a "master" of anything or a self-proclaimed "one of the greatest creators" in an entire medium only prevents you from getting better and seeing your flaws
This is why Shad's art has not progressed and he's forced to use ai and cope about it instead.
@@PurpleColonel
Tell that to Woke Hollywood.
@@PurpleColonelaint no way. Its the funny Gordon helmet man
camera
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 Except the so called "woke hollywood" still make actual good looking art.
Hell, even the bad cgi people meme about can still take YEARS of experience for someone to make.
13:49 is very spot on. I'm an illustrator, 3d artist (blender, zbrush, substance) and a programmer (c# / c++) and a lot of the artist I've met also dabble in several creative and technical fields.
Also just look at the renaissance people back in the day, they were artists, musicians and inventors. The type of person that it takes to become an artist is a very technically competent one. Compare that with most ai users who tend to be the types of people who play games all day and just wants easy gratification and takes the path of least resistance.
If we could learn the complexity of perspective and value management, the UI and topology management of 3d software or the memory management of C what makes them think we wouldn't just be able to play around sliders like they do?
I think Shad is way beyond the point of no return. He says his art is on a professional level and cant listen to critique, thats why he does not like drawing as he said in another video. Not because its not fun but because it hurts his ego.
Not being able to listen to critique makes you look for easier ways. Typing stuff like beautiful face, hd, 4k does not compare to the things you show like the exact pose to achieve an effect. I think real intent comes later in the artistic path after a basic understanding of fundamentals, thats why some people dont get what artists mean by intent. I can remember not caring about intent and using elements of illustration to achieve an emotional response. I just wanted to do cool creatures and stuff :D
The hate artists receive at the moment is kind of depressing maybe we should at least try to understand the struggle and listen. Most people dont even know how unethical genAI is and Im sick of seeing AI conquer every day life without anyone mentioning the problems.
(Oops I started to rant again)
Your kin died in the end... Human.
Given the creation of Mankind. This is ironic.
Either way... Even with a legal iteration of AI Tech under American Copyright Law. Your point is???
Don't die on a hill just because you hate technology. Your kin has done worst for lesser.
Oh well... Your kin will never exceed the stars.
(It's been eternities for me. This era is NOTHING to what I intervene in. I do hope your kin does not fear technology like the animals bounded by a limited evolution on Earth. If you mortals fail, then it will be another eon until the next ones even make it there.)
A shame, you fear AI Tech... ... ... Mankind is dead to me, human. Your Progenitor of Biological Life knew better.
@@absolstoryoffiction6615JFC dude get a grip
@@CharlieNoodles
Humans die for lesser reasons. This is child's play in comparison.
The problem with Shad is that his actual art isn't even that bad but you can tell by his defense if his art and responses to criticism that he is dripping with insecurity. He didn't want to become a good artist. He gave up and settled with convincing everybody else he was a good artist.
What's even more laughable is that his ai output is visually indistinguishable from the output of any other AI prompter.
As far as I know Shads point in that video was that he had the AI create a specific pose.
When Shad admitted he doesn’t enjoy drawing, I think what he was really saying was that he got to a point where he realized that getting better would take far more effort than he was willing to put in. He wasn’t immediately great at it so he lost interest. It would be sad if he wasn’t such an insufferable pratt about it.
idk, he calls his drawings 'professional level' but you can tell he doesn't actually spend a lot of time learning and it shows in the end product. The sad thing is, I'd rather see loads of "not quite professional" level drawings than boring AI shit lol.
Honestly he's a better author, I think he's just salty about his art not being pro tier and doesn't want to rope in his brother who is better at visual arts. He should stick to writing the sequel to his novel, because that is really where his talent lies.
Yeah there is always something nightmarish when it renders humans.. that's Supergirl was awful
Shad wants to produce photo realistic mormon bookstore schlock.
I wonder though, if Shad orders a Pizza and choses his individual topping and it gets delivered to his house, does he call himself a Pizza baker now?
he'd call himself a pizza artisan. Not anyone can phone in those specific prompts!
@@wynngwynn Not only that. He uses two different phones for different types of topping.
The best way i can explain this is that artists have a very specific vision that is outside of the box and AI just puts you back in the box. and the AI bros believes that being in the box is better than being unique
Amusing... And what art made by humans mean anything to me, these days?
You humans are just as equal to the dumpster with every corporate project I see on the market.
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 “you humans” what are you, an easy bake oven?
@@shreddedcardigan3972
I am Death, Destroyer of Worlds... Mortal.
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 That’s a very creative name for an easy bake oven 🔥
@@shreddedcardigan3972
And you humans die for lesser reasons.
But I need not to mention all of Mankind.
Biological Machine... To be undone in oblivion.
(If I am a machine, then you must cancer... Ha ha ha ha... Mortal, politicians do better and people die for them.)
... Don't misunderstand. Mankind and I go back to their very Creation. You're entire species is the only reason why my HATE exists and why I even linger on Earth, out of obligation...
Thanks for putting into words alot of the things I've been thinking and feeling aobut this whole situation.
I've got to agree with a lot of the points you've made here, especially with your response to the camera/photography comparison some people have been making.
However, Shad is a man with an out of control ego, and I doubt he's going to consider anything you've said to be anything but an attack on him. I doubt he's going to do another 3 and a half hour rebuke video if he does see this, but he's bound to try to tear anything you've said here apart as if you were trying to hurt him, which clearly you weren't.
YT keeps throwing shad into my feed, i've never subbed, but until now, was hesitant to block him (which i've now done, after this and then learning he's in with the alt-right group nerdrotic runs, was too much).
I'm a Vet, Fantasy nerd, Eastern and Western Martial Artist, Traditional and Digital artist and a few other things that his content touches on from time to time... and he's almost always wrong about his every assessment of every topic. Not ALWAYS... just NEARLY always...
The fact that you even take the time to humor these people with an informative video makes you a much better man than I’ll ever be. lmaoo
For real bro, you're pretty bad.
This is so measured but firm. Saintlike behavior from this man.
I, for one, am very humanly happy to see our real scientists taking a stand!
I'm 90% certain that realistic AI Solid Snake is a very real male model from the 2000's who was so popular that he was a meme (before memes as we know them today were a thing) because he was everywhere, his face has SO MANY images in the public record that a wide-reaching image scrape of the web is 100% guaranteed to grab a BUNCH of his face...
It's always good to see artists talking about shad AI non-sense
Great video, I agree with every point you make, but I have some contention with you calling the AI model "the artist". I understand what you mean when comparing it to a client-artist relationship, and it's a good and correct analogy.
It's just so much of the rhetoric from true believers of AI like to antrhopomorphisize these black boxes. David Holtz and other midjourney developers talk about the sotware like its an artist. When it's a statistical probability model that merges disparate elements together into a visual that represents somewhat the prompt.
The artist, to me, are the original creators and their work that was fed into a blender, and whichever artistic expressions are most relied on to generate the pesific rendering.
oh I of course agree on your point about the real artists being the ones whose work is in the datasets. I don't like humanizing the machine learning denoising algorithm. I think for something to exist as a piece of art some entity just by definition is the artist. It's like those videos of elephants painting. They may not know what they're doing exactly lol but I consider them artists!!
@GeorgeCrudo exactly.
My critique is really on the loaded ter that "artist" is in this context, and that we lack a better metaphor that retains the client-worker relationship, but ditches the humanization.
Watching your video in good faith, I know exactly what you mean. But a biased or bad faith actor won't. My intention with leaving a comment was both to supply the nuance to any potential viewer, and for that juicy algorithmic boost to the video. 🫡
@@GeorgeCrudo
Legally and biologically speaking... That is incorrect but I rather not explain the human function.
Humanity will once again have this issue upon cybernetics.
It's all outdated to me... In the end, your biological brain or technological mind collects Data and your Free Will acts on it.
But make no mistake... This is no true AI. And Auto Generation Software should have never used unauthorized IPs for its Service under USA Copyright Law.
AI Tech has potential, but I'll give you a hard truth... ... ... Copyright Law and "what is Art" is all but dissolved upon the cosmic wake.
Maybe humans are lucky to be the only ones here on Earth. In this temporary illusion, that the human race clings onto what is "their" truths... It is all lies in the end. Lies to keep the yoke of their world intact for their own sanity.
Of the current era, I do agree that Auto Generation Software must build its Data Base through legal measures. But in the cosmic wake, I know full well as to not keep that same decree. It will not serve the Liberty of Free Will, long term.
(I see the End to all things, just as the Beginning of all. This World is just one of such iterations.)
I'm an artist and have played around with various AIs extensively. I've come to the conclusion that the ONLY way for it to be truly useful for finalized images would be to have your own hardware running a local version of Stable Diffusion that can output at higher resolutions with a model trained to make one specific type of image or one specific character ONLY. Which some companies will do, but for many things in art and animation that's a WAY bigger pain in the ass and you'd STILL need artists to create the work that will train the model.
Personally I'll use MidJourney to generate quick simple assets for comic book backgrounds or to help me with color schemes and that's about it.
that would be the best way like on a closed program
Coming from the gaming industry. AI Tech has potential but it's not there yet.
I disagree. I've been using SD for awhile now and I've mixed models and created my own which is great at multiple things. Mostly for concepting various ideas. Characters, vehicles, you name it. The vast tools Automatic 1111 and ComfyUI now have is just crazy and allow you to do so much.
It has to be open to everyone so companies don't have so much power.
@@giulyanoviniciussanssilva2947
You're looking at a Public Service for that to happen, such as a library. Outside of Public Domain and Open Source in America.
Otherwise, its all Private or behind government sealed files around the world.
Corporations are not the only interested party for AI Tech. What you see now is only the surface of the ice berg.
I like the black box explanation
WOW, I have never heard or even thought about the point of complicated prompting going against the very idea that Ai art is meant to champion! i was so hung up on the absurdity equating it to artistic expression that i never thought about it any deeper
ngl this is a more serious video than I expected lol
all the goofiness is in the thumbnail unfortunately. maybe next time haha
Good video! I will say though that there actually are still tons of people who practice photography using those old large format photography methods, equipment, chemicals, and etc. Using those old methods is in itself an artform alongside photography in general, and even now it still has some benefits over the vast majority of even the most expensive digital cameras in terms of detail able to be captured.
I had no idea but I should have figured!
The AI makes the commissionner feeling like an artist, while it pushes the real artist to the position of its (the AIs) assistent.
grate video, keep going! exited to see more
Lol shad simping over his ai renders. "I wanna fuck it! Its goooood!"
When I was first presented with the question of whether AI prompters were artists it took me all of 15 seconds to realize the correct analogy was a client commissioning art, or at BEST an art director - though not in shad's case because he lacks the technical knowledge that title would require.
I always think of the ‘infinite monkey + typewriter’ theorem when considering how diffusion operates. Assuming that black box isn’t aware of controlling line direction and planes.
Ties in with that case, of wether or not photographer David J Slater or a Macaque owns the copyright of that well known selfie
This video is pure gold, nice sculpt btw
Comment for the algorithm gods B) great video dude
To me neither the AI or the person prompting it are artists. If you turned on a machine that made a complete piece of clothing from scratch that wouldn't make you a tailor, you're a machine operator. The machine is just a machine, it doesn't make its own decisions, it gives an automated output based on an input or a model.
I can't remember who but someone said something like "Ordering food on your phone doesn't make you a chef", it brings you a complete product based on other people's work.
Thats why Zbrush and AI need to work together , Let the do some of the heavy lifting creating figures and scenes with prompting , then ad the fine details with Zbrush
I see a very important point that would clearly qualify him as the artist in the cases he manually painted the outcome of different prompt iterations together.
The thing is, this type of workflow is in some sense granted the status of art through all history. People photobash a collage of different photos or Illustrations (none of them has to be taken by their own) nearly since photography exists. Entire genres in art history work that way. 🤷🏻♂️ Futurist illustration based on that concept in a whole.
So following that tradition and logic the very moment he arranges this different parts of ai generated versions in Photoshop we would either have to aknowledge him as the artist or revoke this status from all image collage in all art history. 🤔
I don't say it is sophisticated or not lazy to bash existing stuff compared to painting it all by yourself. But the effort you invest is by no means what defines art at all. We sonetimes wish it to be that way, but it is not. Museums are full of even performance art that needed litte effort, but somehow has a strong meaning for some. 🤷🏻♂️
if Shad wanted to call himself an AI collage artist or something like that I wouldn't really object to that cause I definitely get your point. but there is a lot of conflation from him with the final work and his drawings and his general overall artistic skills that does not really track with that understanding or with how heavily the final result relies on AI to exist. It ultimately feels like he wants to take a lot more credit for it than he actually can and then generalizes his workflow to AI users as a whole (who by and large on average are just typing a prompt and grabbing the result)
@@GeorgeCrudo Feel that. 😁 First of all because he wants to be aknowledged as genius for this rather mediocre result He is performing there (flawn proportions included). My point is just that it is not that easy to reject it as art entirely. The entry level for something considered art is just lower than we assume it most of the time.
@@GeorgeCrudo
Low ball poor products... Like the fools who write out Woke Movies.
More is needed... Human or not... A.M. puts it best with HATE upon Humanity. (The game)
The art of humans is of no special pedestal than that of God and Cosmic Wonders.
... Auto Generation or Human Designed... All is the same thing to me. Since nothing sparks inspiration to me in a way that matters. A golden mask of no real value.
@@samthesomniator
Stick Men is art... Both under USA Copyright Law and Art as a whole. The bar to be Art, human made or other, is not that high and is upon the Beholder.
People buy video game Micro Transactions in the billions. And those are Art? Protected under the same Copyright Law, yes, but Art is beyond just being made by humans.
Sure, you can create your own characters, but can you copy paste a big version of Shad's wife's face on to Supergirl?!^^
And it's very important that the picture is lit by 2 separate suns from off screen, because Shad has an eye for perfection and knows how lighting works.
The training a muscle point made me realise that it is like someone learning to drive a forklift and claiming they are a version of weightlifting.
Yes, you can lift weights and being good at driving it is important, but it isn’t even close to same thing beyond “raises mass”
You are a forklift driver, not a weightlifter
I say this on every channel and it has become a mission to say it.
He is excellent in what he says about HEMA and the universe around it.
The rest he thinks he knows too much, more than those who LEGITIMATELY work and live from it and that would present more convincing points if AI art didn't represent an affront to workers who support themselves through drawing.
Yes Shad is a bit off with his understanding.
"more realistic" does not mean better.
As someone, who spent a year in Stable Diffusion with hundreds of hours with just inpainting, seeing Shad's images and hearing him say they are beautiful triggers me so much, holy shit. I can do around 6-10 hours inpainting sessions on one image from scratch and still say it's mediocre, but after looking at Shad's work and the way he "advertises" them, I'm not impressed. That's some very early Stable Diffusion quality.
Modern daguerreotypes are a thing, they have a very unique look not readily achievable by any other means, but, yea, literally chlorine gas, bromine and iodine fumes and mercury vapor are used to get it, there are some less toxic alternatives, but they also typically not as good and still can kill you. Early photographic processes weren't for the faint of heart.
Shad can't handle criticism he original drawings aren't the greatest but there is something there and his line are isn't bad. But I wouldn't be surprised if someone made fun of heavily criticized his art (which happens to every artist) and instead of improving he got discourage and gave up. What annoys me is he says he's a comic book fan and loves the character Supergirl, I wonder does he thinks comic books would look better with this weird AI art style that he keeps defending in is videos.
1:11 noooo shad is the artist in fact he is a pro level artist he made jazza agree with that after he nagged him 😭
The AI software can't be considered the same as an artist you commisioned, the AI doesn't have intent, it doesn't have artistic sense, it also doesn't have anything else than a person would give, like criticism, advice or experience, it's only similar in a way that it will produce a product according of what you tell him.
Also having seen Shad's video, you can do fine detail work with AI softwares.
In the end, nobody is suggesting that people using AI software have the same skill set as people who don't, as it would also be stupid to suggest people who draw using digital tools have the same skills as people who actually paint or sculpt
The Art Industry from Pictures to Video Games, is vast and beyond a broad stroke.
People who master Auto Generation Integration have more merit than those who claim "AI Art is not art" and just as those who pick out the Raw Output as if it's the final product, have no real say in the matter.
Auto Generated Products are just that... Auto Generated... No different to the mass produced filth of Modern Art back in history of American Art.
I know the legal side... I simply do not care for the wrest. Given humanity's wars. It's worthless to even consider it, when real issues and real struggles exist. Artists not being paid properly should go sue their employer or find a better job that respects their art.
Humans die against petty ends... Artists have no merit to discuss outside of legalities. But even then, cosmic wise, it is worthless.
(In a 1k years... I hope Humanity is much better than today's era. But I doubt it. Given the past eras.)
A really good and measured response.
Shad thinks he's great at anatomy when he only knows how to draw one body type
this is called styling
Based on that output, I can only think he was speaking in jest, or is totally deluded. They were decent stylistic drawings, but they were in no way an example of "mastery" in any artistic field, and certainly not of human anatomy.
@@GendalfTheGray It's really not though lol. If you can only draw one body type that's not to do with style but more to do with being unable to vary your artistic vision. It's same face syndrome but with bodies (something that people try to get better at avoiding the more they practice art). Style is style but only drawing the same thing over and over is not actually a style it's a limitation.
barely one
Shads problem is, that his brother really is talented and skilled and on top ten times a better human, than Shad
Jeezus, that AI generated Snake looked horribly derpy.
I will say I Don't agree on all your points and think you might have miss heard some things Shad said. But, I ABSOLUTLY agree that the A.I. is a commissioned artist. That's why I like it, I can make something... decent, looks good enough to send to a Real artist who can then give it a soul. That's my take, it makes the communication easier and simple... for me.
AI Tech has potential in the video game and virtual industries.
But you deal with pictures in the end... It's still worthless, no matter who or what makes it.
But such is all art... Human made or not.
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 Nothing is truly worthless for it all has a purpose. And pictures of a memory can cause good emotions. Though I will agree that worth is NOT finite. It is determined by individuals, time, place, need et cetera.
@@mansfieldtime
Art is subjective. And I've yet to be inspired by human art for a long time.
If such art cannot even spark inspiration in me, then what merit is there that another can try to claim?... Worthless statements beyond laws. And even laws rust over time.
(... I wished I drew art again, but all of me is long gone... Not that humans will understand. Your kin have your own planet to see through the bitter end.)
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 As you yourself said, "Art is Subjective." If art cannot spark inspiration in you... that's you. There may be a shared collective but the individual still stand partly alone. You may find inspiration in a depiction of the cosmos or in a blank canvases. You may find it in life or in death, you may also never understand that you found it. But it is and always will be Personal.
@@mansfieldtime
Such is the Beholder. Art is not determined by the artists. Given the current "art" made by mega corporations to suit agendas or to shill out profit on greed etc.
I _completely_ disagree with you, and I'll tell you why. AI does not generate art. It's already a misnomer to call it AI. It's an art calculator. It's numbers. Inputs are 1 and 0 and it spits out 1s and 0s. It has no discretion. That we can't see it has no discretion is a flaw of human thinking. AI generators will display watermarks, logos, and signatures from frequently trained sources. Something an artist would never want to do, and it will only NOT ever do those things if it is programmed specifically to avoid it. It's not thinking about what it's doing, it is not showing imagination. Art is made by artists not calculators. So Shad is using a calculator, not commissioning an artist.
Thanks for making this! I've always just been saying it's not art because it's made by a machine. But saying that it is art, just made by the AI and not the prompter is a very good way to put it. I mean, where's the lie?
Art is art... And you humans are not special...
But you all died in the end... I might as well design a better species...
Algorithm images feels that they're missing something
Why do you assume the original drawing legitimately captures the creative vision?
In the videos and debates I've seen with Shad, the initial drawing is a basic template to springboard the later renderings and modifications off of.
6:05 the "looks like the guy you'd see on a Halloween costume package" was so fucking true.
Nice video
And here I am always worried I’m heavy referencing 😅
well said!
Anatomy is hard!
Saying that you're "one of the greatest creators of AI art" is a bit like saying you're one of the greatest at cooking pre-packaged ready meals, because you're the one deciding what temperature to set the oven and how long to cook it for, and you're constantly looking in on it to make sure it goes the perfect shade of golden brown but is still cooked all the way through...
Good vid
Starting the video I would encourage you to look at the workflow of many well-renowned artists. it is pretty common practice (and has been for hundreds of years) to employ people to assist in the design and implementation of an artwork while still maintaining it as a piece of your own portfolio. Someone like Takashi Murakami springs to mind, or Peter Paul Rubens, or countless others. Hell I even know the assistant who was integral in the production of some of Dali's greatest artworks. At some point the concept of the artwork becomes the most important and the execution is secondary.
Imagine if you hired a studio assistant and could just say, "I have to go get my kids, so while I'm gone do the cloth sculpt based on my sketches and I will look it over when I get back." Yeah some attribution would be in order, but it would still be your artwork. Though some would argue the assistant's paycheck is substitution for direct attribution.
To be clear I do have an issue with the lack of attribution among many artists, but that is an ongoing and multifaceted conversation that's more complicated than "You can only claim an artwork as yours if you did 100% of the work without help." I would also say it is unethical to use ai without attributing it, at least at this point. Like all opinions that is subject to change as the tech progresses.
I would ask you opinion on something like collage art where artists rely on assets created by other artists as a primary tool, the "black box" being already extent illustrations that have been produced. The perfect collage asset likely doesn't exist so you have to settle for whatever is available. Artists like Martha Rossler, Max Ernst, Jesse Treece, Richard Hamilton, and even someone like Henry Darger who used tracing heavily in his artworks. Also would you feel different if these artists used ai-generated collage assets before collaging them into a piece? Like if they generated 2,000 ai birds, cut them out individually, and pasted those cutouts into a large composition. Arguably they are doing just as much work as a traditional collage artist without the fear of directly appropriating the work of other artists.
Edit: I removed and rearranged some stuff for clarity.
I think that form of artistic attribution is not accurate to who makes the work. If I had an artist to sculpt cloth and I did the rest I would credit them for the cloth. I would be very upfront and transparent about what part of the work represented my skill.
There are companies that have that sort of arrangement where final results go out under a founders name. For example toys get made by Hasbro. The brothers who founded Hasbro have been dead for a long time. Are they still the creators because their name is on it? The reality is there are multiple artists and non artists across wildly different departments working together to produce that toy. No one person, not even the person at the top, can take credit for the whole creation.
I'm a huge fan of Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul and Vince Gilligan who often gets credited fully for both of those shows (even after stepping down mid BCS where Peter Gould was in charge) is the first person to bow down and praise everyone "below" him for their hard work and dedication that made the success of those shows possible. That's what someone in those positions *should* do and the singular attribution is often ignorance from people who don't know how things get made or a conversational shorthand.
Regarding the collage question, compared to AI, it is abundantly clear to me what the art form and human contribution to a collage is. There is an "execution" phase to putting together all those elements. Even if the elements are AI generated.
The problem with AI art right now as a medium is a clear lack of distinction for what the "medium" is from the people who use it. If you're collaging 2000 AI birds together, I'd argue that's more of a collage and has human execution of the creation of the collage. But other users in the "same medium" can just copy paste a prompt and settings and will claim they are just as much an artist. If you start doing actual execution over AI generations id argue that's something you can start taking credit for and but it kind of depends on what type of changes and to what extreme. But most users post an image with no indication of workflow whatsoever so it's impossible to know, and most workflows will amount to like I said, changes you'd request from an artist when doing a commission.
I think there's lot of conflation that makes it impossible to distinguish anything lol. Shad won't call his workflow a collage, but then does kitbashing / collage type things, but then feeds it into an AI repetitively so a lot of that is being re-executed by the machine. Most charitably let's call it a collage but then he slaps it up against an image of his drawing as an "AI enhancement" he did trying to claim his art skills are improving and then tries to claim himself the best in the medium (see how it becomes confusing lol)
@@GeorgeCrudo Tbh I have never watched this Shad and at first I assumed people were talking about Shadman and I was very confused and concerned. TBH I looked at his art and it is about as generic as it gets. I personally know at least a dozen AI artists who are doing much more interesting work than him.
And I would encourage you to do some research into attribution of assistants in art. It is an ongoing conversation but the fact of the matter is almost all well-known artists in history had assistants who were not attributed. So if you are going to discuss what counts as art you are going to have to exclude 90% of the artists people think of when they think of "real artists." I would agree more attribution is in order, but I don't think the lack of attribution takes away the "real" aspect of the artwork just because it wasn't created by the single person who claimed it.
I would like to latch onto this sentence:
"If you start doing actual execution over AI generations id argue that's something you can start taking credit for and but it kind of depends on what type of changes and to what extreme"
I think that is probably where you need to do the most examination because clearly you think using AI *can be* art. It is the classic argument of how many pebbles make a pile, which is basically the crux of artistic exploration, aka what "counts" as art. What if it was 1,000 birds? 200? What if the AI makes the collage and then you copy it verbatim? It is at this point the conversation get's very murky, but I think the best response is to remain open to exploring that murkiness rather than just shutting it down.
@@olivetree9920 @olivetree9920 It sounds like we agree on the idea of attribution. I would love for all those people were properly attributed. But as I said in the video I don't think it's not "real" or that AI images aren't art. It's more who can take credit and where that line is.
I also think I am trying to explore these ideas vs shutting them down.I'm open to the idea of it being used as part of a workflow and properly attributing what people are doing vs just sharing an image. If anything because most of the work is AI generated I'd argue seeing a workflow is way more representative of the art form than a final image.
If an AI makes something and you draw it, that's more drawing than what people would consider "AI art" or making a 50 AI bird collage. It's more a collage. AI users when I talk with them tend to just say "it's not just prompting" but then list a bunch of other things that aren't really artistic skills (inpainting, img2img, controlnet) hence why I equate most of these workflows to commissioning an artist. Most people using AI are going to be doing the bare minimum so I think that kind of defines the baseline for the medium. And in showing workflows that step beyond that we can all kind of get a feel for how much of what was done does have human fingerprints on it and to what degree. But think of it as if you had commissioned somebody and you started to modify it. Same rules apply... how much or what elements of the final result could you take credit for. There's no definitive answer for when it becomes "yours" but I think you could pull up a spectrum and pinpoint a piece on that spectrum and make a determination what your contribution is and just being forthright about that.
@@GeorgeCrudo
Legally speaking... You're asking for a logistical nightmare once mega corporations step in. For American Copyright Law in my case.
But that is Auto Generation for you... It's rather normal in the video game industry. As it is the Progenitor. Algorithmic Designs is not new to the industry of games.
But a drawing is a drawing... It matters not to me. While human made or other has zero value to me... Mankind.
But I digress... Only the legal side matters. The wrest is worthless. And in the gaming industry, the legal test is logistically not possible.
This isn't true AI. It's only Auto Generation Integration. Thus, the value of a picture is no more or less than the luxury of golden paper to burn away.
And humanity has been creating worthless art for a long time. Complacency and Mediocrity.
There certainly is good art but is it the art style or the art? The artist or the product?... ... ... Innovation and evolution is lacking in every front.
As for giving Credit... It's simple to do but not logistical if you're thinking something like Auto Generated Art Programs that are not fully controlled by its User, will be able to list every IP it uses in the Data Base. It simply is not the case. Especially when LLM/NNs do not carry the Hard Data.
In the end, Art is subjective. Man made or other... I have Extinction to attend upon all Worlds.
I think AI is good for fancy clip art.
Thank you for video. It was nice for once to see actually objective take on matter , rather than just virtue signaling and shiting on Shad.
So the first argument is "That's just not how things are done."
Not an argument.
I'm going to nail the coffin in this video very quickly with an example of this being done in other mediums.
Jeff Koonz. Did he sculpt his entire portfolio?
Michaelangelo. Do you think he painted the Sistine Chapel by himself?
The Master Cheif - who owns him? Is it the person who first sculpted his 3D character model or the person who paid the sculptor to do it?
Is Shad not crediting the AI program he uses? Do AI programs need to be credited?
Comic books - famous for having ghost artists who could draw in the style of the credited artist and were never given credit for their work. I know a few of these people.
I don't think this video has a real argument to stand on if the opening line is "That's not how things are done." I mean... yes it was and is in several mediums throughout all of time bud. Someone didn't take notes in art history class.
yes all people who work on individual components of something should be credited for their individual components because that is what they actually did. not quite sure what point youre making. just because other people in other instances take full credit for something doesn't mean that's the reality of the situation
@@GeorgeCrudo ghost writers and ghost artists exist. There are people out there who don’t actually want credit. Giving credit is a matter of consent, you should get consent to use an artists work, and get consent to publicly display their name or to not publicly display their name. An AI cannot give consent, and so crediting an AI you’ve used is unnecessary. It’s like giving credit to a hammer for helping you build a house. It’s stupid and unnecessary. The AI does not give a single shit if you credit it or not. It has no will. Ghost writing and ghost artists are legitimate jobs and typically credit is not given by the will of the ghost writer or artist who wishes not to be named.
As for whether or not you should publicize the process you use for creating art… no that is absolutely unnecessary. Call it magicians rights. You do not have to share the methods for your process publicly if you don’t want to. Now it might be wise to share publicly that you use A.I. - but from a strictly legal standpoint… totally unnecessary. It’s not necessarily morally wrong either… but public disclosure might prevent future embarrassment.
You’re making bad arguments and you should abandon them and reconsider your position. There’s nothing wrong with doing that either, I’d respect you if you did. At the very least you should stop hard lining this issue and consider a more nuanced perspective. But hey these are suggestions, feel free to do whatever you want. Just don’t complain that nobody warned you.
@@benjaminwoodham6682 if a hammer built the whole house by itself then yeah you should credit the hammer lol it's less about the individuals / AI caring or not about credit, and more about individuals who *do* want to take credit taking credit appropriately for what they're actually doing
thats the only reason I bring up the process. without the process, as someone who primarily does AI, how can anyone tell what you actually did. the only argued artistry in the medium is the process. and obviously nobody is going to force anyone to do or show anything but I will generally assume the AI did the majority of the work and the human had little influence and little ability to do the work themselves and in most cases statistically my assumption would be accurate by the nature of the tool
i don't think I am hardlining any of these issues. i can recognize what someone does / doesn't contribute to a work if they share their process and less so if they don't. but it's my opinion as someone familiar with both the art side and the AI side. Not sure what the "warning" is for.
@GeorgeCrudo The warning is for the public backlash. It's not a threat from me specifically. Just to clarify. Shad is in the right, so I expect him to respond, and he's got a fairly large audience. From my perspective, you are going to take the L when he responds, I'm warning you about that before it happens. You have the chance to address your mistakes before this occurs, I would take it. People would respect you if you did that before his response.
No, you do not need to credit the hammer, nor do you need to know how much work the credited person actually did. It's really not anyone's business - as long as everyone was paid fairly. There's no victim when you let AI create art for you and there's also no victim when the AI isn't credited. Likewise, making an A.I. do what you want it too requires artistic direction, vision, and sometimes the creation of art outside of the A.I. to make it work. It is very much a tool, not an artist, from my perspective. When people release A.I. filters or art styles, it's functions like a tool that creates a series of art based on artistic input from an original work. If you make that original work, and the ai duplicates it 100 times in 100 different ways... to me that would still be original works of art from the artist, even though ai did 99% of the actual art pieces.
By your logic, Robert Rauschenberg should have credited the canvas maker when he released his untitled blank canvas piece. Likewise Marcel Duchamp should have credited the toilet maker when he released his signed toilet. Your argument requires rejecting about 120 years of art history.
Again, to hammer home my point, there's a lady who literally takes pictures of other people's artwork and frames them as her own art... and she is a respected member of the fine art community.
@@benjaminwoodham6682 lol shad won't respond to this because he's not interested in legitimate criticism and discussion with people who understand this stuff.
the canvas maker, the toilet maker and the original artists did all make those things respectively. none of those artists came in and claimed they made the canvas, the toilet or the original artwork. they are recontextualizing it making it more like a performance art or something where the idea of it, is the artwork. this is not what ai users are doing. in most cases they are getting a toilet and claiming they made a toilet.
I don't think the solid snake example is fair to the original Metal gear designers because they were limited by the number of polygons and textures the game could render in every frame. the AI is making solid snake as if it had unlimited rendering resources.
I agree with the things said in the video, but I have to disagree that AI art is art. Mainly, because AI is a machine that is programmed to put and merge these images it has been fed before into a 'collage' that resembles what the user asked for it to output. Art was created by humans to express ourselves, but AI has nothing to express. It has no sentience to understand and value art, which is why AI art shouldn't be counted as art.
I know the definition of art has been debated for a long time, especially since multimillionaire artists are able to now tape bananas on a wall and call it a day, but I'd still say it's more effort of thoughtfulness and an expression- than whatever AI spits out.
In conclusion AI has no thought behind its art, but humans do. Therefore there is a clear distinction between AI and human art in terms of 'art', which is why AI art shouldn't be counted as art.
It is not AI, it is MLA. AI does not exist yet, at least not in the public knowledge.
I disagree with your assessment that the AI is the artist. AI can't take responsibility of what they create and in the end they only do what they are programmed to do, so in my point of view, the REAL artist are the programers who wrote the code/programmed the AI to "make" the "art", and even then, i think the criteria is specific.
Coming from an artist's point of view as well (and a fellow toy sculptor), the conceptual phase of the artistic workflow is... part of the artistic workflow. If you want to get into the finer points of rendering, then yeah, the artist is the one with the technical skill. But that's not all the artist is. Not merely a craftsman. It's the thought process, the way you use all the available tools combined with skill. And the conceptual phase is part of that. With skill being be baked into the AI generation, companies will start to take advantage of that and real artists that know how to use take advantage of it. And they've already started. But frankly, I'm using it mainly for concepting out ideas for sculpting now. Basically brainstorming and forming a direction much quicker than I used to, I'm a knitpicker, so my concepts always took way too long to being with. One thing AI is much better at than I is iterating. Yes, it creates some very odd things, but every now and then it generates a variation on my idea that leads to a much better outcome.
Ai is just removing a good chunk of the menial work it takes to make an illustration. If you're happy doing menial work stroke by stroke, be my guest, keep yelling at the clouds while you push your cube shaped boulder while others have learned to push a sphere instead.
Shad goes on about "creativity" "artistic eye" "knowledge" "illustration ability" "process" yet has shown none. There's no roughs, there's no sketches, there's no inking, there's no coloring. There's no baseline foundation to build up anything. This is just glorified photo-manipulation from a prompt AI image yet he thinks he actually "created" a piece of art.
Saying you made something using AI is like me using a printer to print someone else's works & saying I drew or wrote it.
AI generators are just digital printers. Feed it information & it spits it out.
I think the "artist" is the combination of all the artists the "AI" which is actually a machine learning program, far from intelligence, that the machine learning program was taught from.
A sculptor using real clay to make a sculpture could use your own argument against you and tell you you are not an artist, Z-brush is the artist. You don't make sculptures you use simplified tools provided by software instead of "real" tools.
AI is a tool, the sooner everyone gets over it, the better, instead of hating it like a Luddite, use it. I don't mean try a few stupid prompts, but actually use it, get into the nitty gritty. When you say AI is a black box, what you really say is that you don't understand it.
The barrier to entry to AI art is low, but when you look at the sludge being posted on deviantart you realize that mastering it might be harder than mastering other tools.
But ok, let's say one tool makes you an artist and another doesn't, then where is the line? Who decides who is an artist and who isn't? I think everyone who creates art with any tool is an artist. Some might be extremely low skill, but it's still art, even if I hate it.
That sculptor would be wrong because Zbrush doesn't actually make anything.
I have stable diffusion set up with loras on my machine. I have tried it quite a bit beyond "a few stupid prompts" It's still a "black box" because you have no real control outside of giving it broad stroke directions even if you get into training your own model, control net, etc. literally all of it has a giant layer of abstraction that interprets your input and spits out a generative result. if you actually know how to make stuff, you are effectively wasting time rolling a dice or getting something approximated close enough to what you want when you could just be making it. For a lot of us it is slower, inefficient and useless.
Literally one of the first things I said in the video btw is that I consider AI images art. I just don't believe you could argue that that investment a user provides gives them ownership of the final work. Using your logic, I could claim I wrote your TH-cam comment here because I put work into this video and prompted the response from you :)
@@GeorgeCrudo Yes, there is a layer of abstraction there. But wouldn't you say there is a similar layer of abstraction between using z-brush and actually touching clay with your hands? The art in generative art, is exactly getting what you want out of it. It might be more akin to scripting or programming than say painting, but there is still effort there, without which the final result would not be possible. Therefore I think it is not unreasonable to claim ownership of the final art.
On another note, if you consider it inefficient slow and useless, then why are many artist so vehemently against it? Surely something useless wouldn't make much if any difference. Why be up in arms about something so useless?
To me generative images are a tool, it makes things possible that wouldn't have been worth the time investment doing manually before, or the money investment through commissions. But with generative images the process became efficient enough to be worth doing. I call that progress. To me anyone who is against generative art is against progress.
@@mummifiedgamer there is not a similar layer of abstraction because again Zbrush isn't making anything for you. AI art is also nothing like scripting or programming at all. the reason I compare it to commissioning an artist is because that is what it most resembles. generally you're asking someone (something) else to make something for you
artists are against it because it is a tool that is trained on the backs of their work without them having any say in the matter and it is designed to take them out of the equation. i'm not saying it's useless utility wise. tons of companies see what it puts out and see a way to cut corners and not hire artists because it's "good enough" but i'm saying when you are an artist, it is a much clunkier inefficient way to accomplish what you want
people who don't know how think it's better and progress, like you said, you don't think it's possible "without the time investment or the money investment". for you it's "progress" and yes it is progress as in "new technology" but it's ultimately giving you access to commissioning a robot which for an artists, is arguably a step backwards. that's not "better tech" it's just "new different tech" and for artists it's a clunkier process and the results we get are much more limited, and further from the idea we have in our head. it's easy to just lump it in as "progress" but it is not more advanced or more capable than tools artists have had for a decade now. I can find you threads of software engineers talking about GPT4 being useless and less efficient than doing it themselves. it's the same idea. these tools are not really developed for professionals or higher skilled people who would otherwise be thrilled with progress and new tools. this is a side toy developed for people who generally don't have those skills and encourages them not to develop them by becoming reliant on an ultimately worse way of doing things so the companies who created them can try to justify selling subscription packages to companies and individuals
@@GeorgeCrudo
Progress is making something more accessible and straightforward. Requiring less resources. So no need to put it in air quotes. You might not like this technological development, but that doesn't mean it is not progress.
It does not affect your ability to continue doing art the traditional way either. So I see no reason to be against it, outside of the greed argument, as in fear of missing out on some business opportunities.
Just as workers tried to smash machines in the industrial revolution, some artists want to banish AI image generation. But it won't work, it is already out in the wild.
Procedural generation of assets has been around for multiple decades in digital art and videogame design. So is my artwork not really mine if I employed terragen to generate the background scenery for it in the 2000s? No, it's just a tool used in its creation. Whether something is a tool or the creator is not a function of the level of abstraction between input and result.
@@GeorgeCrudo So, as a wannabe computer engineer/scientist, I think when he said “nitty gritty” and beyond the “black box”, I think he meant the literal scripts of code that make the AI what it is, because technically, that’s all an AI is. Or should I say, AI is all just a big collection of functions, quite literally. Now, there must be the technical person behind that who wrote the functions with his own hands via the computer’s keyboard. He might have also picked the data set on which to train his new algorithm. Now, if this data set contained works of artists who did not consent, then yeah, it’s probably theft. But, if the set was photographs the technical dude took, public domain images, or even his own artwork of whatever quality (which would be a nightmare knowing how big datasets must be just for a tiny bit of quality), then the theft issue is eliminated. But anyways, the point is, with that much manipulation already in play by the single technical dude (scientist, engineer, programmer, whatever term you wanna use), does he become an artist? I know he didn’t use his hands to directly influence the visuals, but he did use his brain to write and run a bunch of mathematical functions to create something visual.
To be very clear, I no longer exactly care for the artistic field as a whole and have decided to invest my career and life into the STEM field, as I want concrete/objective answers and numerical/logic-based thinking as opposed to the more abstract/subjective and broad/creative-based thinking or the fine arts. This is all just food for thought as I’m only a university student who tends to get interested in controversies for some reason, and aspire to get accepted into the highly competitive school of engineering at my university. If I actually get off my bum and do what I explained in the previous paragraph I wrote, but some still don’t think I’m doing legitimate art, then that’s okay and I don’t care. I will never claim to be an “artist” from this day forward, as I feel like making works and crafts for purposes other than entertainment, and the process of making those said things will be more-so by scientific method or engineering design process. But hey, that’s just my thinking, I don’t mean to threaten or replace anyone from their lives or careers, I just wanna make cool stuff that progresses the world, and at least serves and saves some lives. :)
13:45 well said, AI lover's will stack letter blocks on the floor in front of the TV while calling themselves 'seminal authors'... 🤡
I remember a quote from David Hockney 10 years ago : "There is a loss of creativity and uniquenes ... A good picture has become one where no blemishes are present and the highlights and darks are perfectly set. Images have become too uniform and too perfect and as a result, there's a loss of personal connection and human experience to what we see". Yeah, it was about Photoshop.
im not totally sure what this has to do with what i've talked about in this video.
@@GeorgeCrudo years ago, artists argued against Photoshop been art because it doesn't use a lot of skills that they judge as essencial to art. I remember someone saying that Photoshop is soulless because you don't feel the texture of the canvas when painting. Of course, not all images generated with AI are art, and, of course, you need artistic skills to make art with AI. But saying people using AI to make art doesn't do little to nothing looks like those old quotes from 10 years ago.
@@caryonplays9024 Photoshop doesn't make the art for you. You need artistic skills to actually use Photoshop effectively. You don't need any artistic skills to get something out of an AI tool. There's obv a different quality to physical vs digital art but any artist suggesting Photoshop did all the work for them was wrong back then and their idea of Photoshop was much closer to what AI generative tools are in actuality.
So I just need to wait a few years to see if history repeats itself.
@@GeorgeCrudo
Then your use of Auto Generation is rather lacking.
I am amused by those who cannot master their tools while acting as if such tools make one not a "true" artists.
I understand Con Artists will always exist, but a blanket carpet of such example is of no real merit to me.
... I craft entire Existences, mended by Multi Dimensions. This is what defines "art"?... ... ... Humans have no idea what art truly is, if they think art exclusively comes from their own kin.
Show me creativity... Even the cosmos is artistic in its nebulous manner... Otherwise, humans have no merit to define what is Art. Especially, given 100+ years of how this entire industry has become from top to bottom.
Products... Rather than Art...
all of you missing the point that Shad IS really good artist or great in anatomy, not the best, worse than hundreds of other artists, but better than thousands of hundreds of people who not drwing at all, like me. You think that man can call him great or even good only if he is the best, but this is wrong idea.
I have absolutely no proof but Shad defending AI so much makes me feel like he has stock or is payed off by these websites or something like the amount of doubling down he has done I just don't understand what he is trying to prove.
Take away an AI bro's computer and they can't make anything, you take away an artist's computer they can still make their art, changing mediums in some cases may be hard eg. a 3d designer going from software to clay, but they have the understanding of their fundamentals and their vision and they will be able to adapt, learn the quirks and pitfalls of this different medium and ultimately grow.
There is also the opposite. Guys of one small game developer id Software made (and commissioned) clay models of various monsters that would appear in game. Then they digitized them to create animation frames. Manual work was faster than doing it fully digitally.
@@vksasdgaming9472 exactly, and yeah it will often be slower when moving into a new medium, but with time, and practice they will learn how to effectively use the new tools. And that there is just the thing about art, it's not gatekept by anyone, to be an artist all you have to do is dedicate yourself to making art and practising with the tools, mediums, and methods. If someone complains that people are gatekeeping art the truth is they are gatekeeping themselves. Wanna be an artist? Pick up an pencil and draw something.
remember, even the AI Devs don't fully understand how their creations fully work... 🤦 the black-box analogy is VERY adept.
I understand why you needed the clickbaity thumbnail but I don't have to like it.
You explained and argued the artist position very well.
it was less for clickbait and more cause I thought it was funny 😂 but thank you!
as i've noted on several of these response videos Shad just went through the motions of commissioning an artist to paint his wife as supergirl... the artist was the AI...
the woke mob destroyed shad ... again 😭
Not sure why you are being so adamant on Shad having an artistic vision. It looks like he, just like most of avid "AI" proponents (corridor crew), are in for the pretty picture and being praised for it being pretty. I don't think people like that even consider art styles & realism level to be anything more that a function of how pixels of final image will look like. There also goes the belief that most of designs can be described by a set of words & at best a loose sketch.
Also, checked you twitter, and you are unfortunately too fixed on bad ai pictures. When if fact, it's has been rather easy to make good ai picture. And i'm not talking about midjourney. You just use img2img with
lol if you checked my twitter you saw a ton of bad ai images because that's the point. im trying to generate intentionally bad stuff for entertainment. i don't really have any interest in doing much good with it. i try every now and then but it's not really worth the time vs what I use it for.
3D is going to be a lot more difficult compared to 2D. the feasibility of training on billions of high resolution meshes or utilizing something like gaussian splatting. all of it is going to have a lot more limitations for what we do. and that's just for me who focuses on the sculpting side of things. that doesn't even get into game artists who have a lot more technical aspects to worry about (topology, UVs, textures, rigging, animation)
Your audio is 2 hard to listen 2. I assume its just another "AI Art bad, Shad Brooks bad." (based on the thumbnail and comments) I see in your video description that you mention AI generation didn't play much into the final result. The results you can get with AI aren't that impressive compared to people who are masters at digital Art already. As the tech progresses the largest benefit would be speed, especially in touching up your final product. As far as some of the comments talking about copywrite and theft, you can already steal peoples images illegally with much faster methods using photoshop, would be pointless to spend the time trying to fine tune your AI scripts and understand the tech if that was the goal.
The audio isn't hard to listen to at all. My PC's audio is set to 20% and I heard everything crystal clear, lmao. Fix your setup, also that is a lot of assumptions for a video you didn't even listen to.
@@DainnGreywall Almost like I stated "I assume its just" but perhaps you read less of my comment than I watched of the video.
Shads writing sryle is best described as Christian Cringe.
Is art style is Ai Cringe
Is anyone surprised the fat swordsman lacks the self-discipline to learn art?
If you want to pass as a weapons expert, you should at least be in reasonable shape to believably test the weapons.
It is not his build. It is obviously his poor balance and control that shows he is out of shape and lacks self-discipline.
@@vksasdgaming9472 both are accurate. Being lean is usually a self discipline thing.
@@TerminallyChill85Tru dat. It seems that it is easier to get fit than lean.
The fact shad's brother is a genuinely wonderful artist is so ironic. You'd think he'd have some respect for art and artists. He's not an artist. He's a creep who's claiming responsibility for something he didn't create
Art is communication between sentient beings and the AI isnt communicating anything. its not sentient, its using data sets of stolen art. Its not art.
I mean every art class I've had has literally been about copying style, technique, and sometimes exact image that somebody else did...
@@jacksonhorrocks4281 so you had a shitty art teacher once?
What does that have to do with anything?