This video is based somewhat on the essay "Ways of Seeing" by John Berger from 1972. BBC made a famous docuseries out of it that has been uploaded to TH-cam. I highly recommend watching if you are into philosophy & art.
Very interesting how this argument against new technology comes up again and again, now this time with AI. And again and again it’s shown that this “ai art” thing is nothing more than a disaster
Cafe at Night is 100% more interesting when you know that they kicked van gough out and refused to serve him and he retaliated by painting it with most of its tables empty.
The oldest drawing I own (of mine) was from when I was 3 years old. It’s me and my best friend playing on a playground. It’s just us and a very tall playscape, all drawn in wobbly marker lines. It’s not a complicated picture, but that’s how I saw the world back then. All that mattered in that moment was my best friend and playing on the playground behind the daycare. Now, the creases from it being folded up all these years are so old they’re tearing the paper, but the drawing continues to tell a story of friendship and childish joy. As a three-year-old, that drawing was a reflection of my world. That drawing and every other since then has come out of a small part of myself. That’s something AI will never grasp. They can feed as many images into their algorithms as they want. A machine will never be able to connect a stroke of color to an experience. There’s no thoughts behind an AI generated image. There’s only lines of code.
It's not even lines of code. It's just probability. What you get is just the most probable thing for a given prompt plus a little randomness. There's no intention in probability.
The ladies have an air of severity to them: stern, silently looking at the viewer, but also dignified, one of them flashes a half smile to show that while these women were very powerful and held so many matters seriously in their hands, they still kept a layer of emotional connection that only Frans and a few others knew. Edit: Only fans with the grannies
Not attempting to be argumentative or disagree with your point, I agree with it, but couldn’t that also be explained away by them simply posing for the painting? People change drastically in view then they do behind closed doors
@@osamabinwallbanging personally, with the context in mind theyre people in power, such gestures and expressions they have made in the painting will be subconsciously connected to the idea of "power". i also get that you can just ask them to pose specifically in this way or that, but again we have context on who this people were ^^
@@osamabinwallbangingPaintings took a lot longer than photographs. When it comes to catching expressions when laying things out through painting & drawing, facial expressions naturally change over the course of models posing. It's very much the artist catching glimpses and intentionally stitching them together. As an aside more to the full topic, I have a suspicion too that the artist may have gotten along better with some of the women than others. So making them a bit less severe.
@@osamabinwallbanging yeah, but most other figures, say, King Henry the third, look like shit despite his pose in all of his paintings. Posing is a thing, but looking good is another
I was lucky to visit the Louvre in highschool, and seeing "The Raft of 'The Medusa'" in person has stuck with me so long, that I can't imagine AI art ever coming close. I recommend this painting to anyone who wants to "get" art. There's so much drama, context, and intensity to this painting.
AI art has gotten to the point where virtually nobody can distinguish it from human they are both just art and the beauty in art is independent from the artist. AI art and human art are the exact same thing just art
Basically, what A.I. will always lack, is CONTEXT, which is *key* in tons of artists movements, artstyles, art eras, methods, to the stories and people they portrayed. Yes, ai can make "perfect" art at a glance, but does it have a background? Does it have intention? Does it have an intimate relationship with what is displayed in the artwork? No. The answer is always no. And that's why it's souless. It lacks ✨CONTEXT✨ Which is what makes these pieces amazing and more special.
I once asked AI to write a poem about pancakes. I‘m a bit into writing, especially writing poems myself, so I was curious what AI was gonna make. It was a poem that had a great rhythm, a rhyme scheme and it sounded great when you said it out lout. The content was it listing up typical aspects of a pancake, its looks, taste, ect. But it still felt empty, and I could never quite grasp why. But after watching this video I realized that this is exactly what it was missing as well: context So this goes for all kinds of art apparently
@ the point is that AI isn’t capable to have a personal connection or relationship with something. And therefore they aren’t able to embed it into their art. So their art will always feel emotionless, alas it‘s missing context.
It's crazy to me that people who clearly have ZERO knowledge about how A.I. works, make grand sweeping statements about what it will never do. It's a confidence that only ignorance can conjure.
You’re absolutely right. A huge part of the enjoyment of art is in trying to understand the artist through their artistic choices. AI cannot replicate that. Not genuinely.
If enjoyment of art comes from the underlying context, instead of the piece itself, then art is meaningless, also if a human drew something and then AI in a few years will draw something in the same style, and then you showed both of these drawings to another guy without telling which is which made by whom, they wont be able to tell, and then youll just make up stories about what the AI piece was trying to convey, only to realize you were wrong about it. 😂
@@SimoneBellomonteshut up you useless troll, nobody cares about your "ai shit stains". Go be a productive member of society and actually read up on what ai is. Your sources are garbage.
I feel like the erosion of meaning caused by generative AI is going to have absolutely insane consequences as we move foward; I still find it wild people can't understand that the whole point of something being called "art" is that a sentient being is conveying meaning through symbols. If you strip away the meaning and just generate random shapes based on recognizable forms, not only do you make it so that the viewer has to themself generate context for the image to have meaning, but you also strip meaning away from the symbols that are imitated, as the AI will mimic various artistic techniques and stylistic choices without any understanding of *why* and *when* a skilled artist would use those techniques
@dib327 nah because a million different factors that go into professionally taking a photograph is how the artist in this case creates specific symbols that have meanings. Kind of a word salad, but my point is that in photography as art, the photographer makes choices that create different meanings in the picture and is as such art.
@@dib327 you still move things around and adjust lighting, perspective and composition ai art is just the equivalent of ordering mcdonalds and calling yourself a chef because you described what food you wanted
It almost looks like that, what's really important in art, is the feeling and intentions of the artist, instead of "perfect artistic skills". WHO COULD HAVE GUESSED THAT
even before AI i’ve been trying to get people to understand this. it’s ok to enjoy realistic paintings that look like a photograph of a landscape or person for example. but art has always been more than that and people often try to apply these perfect realism standards onto all art when the artists want nothing to do with it. if you can’t understand art beyond technical realism skills then you barely have a grasp on what art is. also, everyone pls report the bots and don’t engage with them. they’re saying gross shit to provoke you, report and ignore.
I cant say for certain how he actually felt about them. I see stern, matronly like in a nanny child or mother child relationship. They also look like they are holding something back.a kind of mild amusement or irritation. And its not really that dark, considering its age and the time period it was painted in. A rooming house probably wouldnt have had many windows and the owners of such a place likely would have held back on too many candles or oil lamps, leaving that mostly to the tenants to handle. And over time the warmer colors of the painting itself have dulled from dust and smoke and pollution and a thousand other minor factors. AI can copy but it can never truly capture the subject in the same way a gifted artist can. And omg it could never envoke the confusion and horror of picasso's "Guernica" or the true warmth of lighting of a Rembrant. Even with photography, it can't match the raw horror of the pulitzer photo of the Vietnamese child covered in flaming napalm. Or the striking gaze of the Afhhani woman with those stark, intense green eyes. Or the first photos of lowland gorillas. Sure it can touch up or swap colors and insert or erase something from the image but their has to be an initial image to draw from.
I suggest you read the very interesting essay “The Death of the Author” (1967) by literary theorist Roland Barthes. He suggested that it is not the “intention” of the - in his case - author that makes a work of art, but the relation between the reader and the object. This could also be reflected on visual arts such as paintings.
I like to call AI "APR" standing for "Artificial Pattern Recognition" because calling AI "Intelligence" is a slap in the face to human intelligence, and most importantly, creativity
@@zimzobit is the interpretation of information including but certainly not limited to patterns. Intelligence is so much broader than the mindless patter recognition most people call AI
@ agreed - I said “most,” not “all.” Dogs for example are great at finding patterns and perceiving explicit associations - perceiving implicit associations between disparate phenomena, not so much.
THIS!! I’m an artist and every single painting you see has a story behind it. People who churn out images using ai always fail to grasp why real art will always be better. You can’t recreate someone’s drive to paint. Edit: 💀 not all the prompters in the comments claiming that AI can recreate emotion
@@GC2Major_Tom There s nothing in the nature of an IA that prevents it from passing a story tho If you ask an IA to produce a narative on a specific topic or philosophy, it can And if you ask him to use that narative to produce the painting... it can too Actualy, an image generating IA should be bound to develop such narative on its own, if the model becomes strong enough I've no idea if it s currently the case, and it would be really hard to determine if the IA is really doing such thing or no (it s really hard to get what s rly going on inside it) But... anything that would make the IA better at fiting its data set should be developped over time by the model, and producing a narative isn't really that complex (current LLMs can already do it)
@@ahnaafarik3623 When should they be a problem then, 1984? We live exactly in the age of bots and will continue to do so for a substantial amount of time.
Bro it just clips together things that were already made. It can’t come up with something of itself. It’s always the same slop. Gives me a feeling of modern day Disney.
All A.I. does is complete a task as quickly and effortlessly as possible, but it also completes the task _as quickly and as effortlessly as possible._ Like when you rush to finish an essay or a presentation without adding any soul into it just to get a passing grade.
Once my art teacher in high school gave an assignment to analyze random pictures and write a paragraph about their meanings. I just realized right now that the ability to do so might be important right now with the emergence of AI.
This is the exact reason why I believe Artist are one of the few jobs A.I can’t replace. Art is the one thing in this world that requires human connection and emotional experience, one thing that A.I can never mimic.
But isn't it a bit pretentious to just assume A.I will never be able to experience emotions and mimic this "human connection" ? How do we know ? We only are at the very beginning of A.I
@@thebrokentable7554 How are you so sure about this ? Not even experts can say with certainty. Do you have any proof the human brain's mecanisms are absolutely irreproductible ?
@@thebrokentable7554 Why? Lab-made diamonds are artificial but also an exact copy with all the same properties, which opens the question of whether the origin matters. The same could be said about emotion, sentience, and life. If we made a bio-android of sorts made of metals and wiring, but also able to self-repair and procreate, would this not be life, even if it's artificial life? And would it matter if the live is artificial? The same could be said about sentience and emotion.
Humans prompting art through the use of an AI is still a human art, though. The AI is just a medium, like paint or a pencil, though obviously a much easier one to use.
@@NicholasHall3000 It's really not because they're just generated images, NOT ART. That art in the video was painted by the artist's VERY OWN HANDS not typed out a prompt and send it to a machine. Ai will never capture the soul and artistic creativity humans have had for thousands of years. And if Pewdiepie is able to pick up a pencil and actually learn to draw by scratch, then y'all can too.
@@cranburreyyes, but then there are several other techniques in art that involve experimenting with materials that do not produce the exact same results. Then there is photo editing and CGI which rely on automation. But when it comes to using neural networks, it seems to trigger some primal existential insecurity in most humans and they get very defensive. AI can emulate this too, because AI is just all about what we want it to do, and by understanding how exactly we arrive at a process, we can make it do that too. Generative Drawing AI will not be able to do it all by itself, but a Generative AI coupled with a reasoning model will be able to do this. If you are insecure because of that, you should be. Real artists do not care what AI can or cannot do. It's about their forms of expression, just like a kid who writes a diary or has a sketchbook. It's all valid on their own.
@@doncoyote68 A tool cannot make art on its own, and arguably it takes a lot more human to operate the tool 'paintbrush' than writing prompts to make a program give you what you want
"has always" Nop, people started to claim that to support the claim that IA's production couildn t be called art I remeber a few years ago artists claiming that their art sometimes had no particular meaning, and that the only point of it was to look good That art COULD have a meaning, but that it didn t need one to be called art
@@skad2058the difference is that they made the art, AI doesn’t make anything, all it does is steal pieces of other people’s work and stitch them together to create something soulless and meaningless
YESSSSSSS this is exactly the thing that separates A.I. art from basically any other form of art/painting. A LOT of the nuances and specific decisions that the artist does is what often brings more to a piece than just feeding it into a machine over and over again. Yes it is very possible that technology will get onto that level, but at that point I'd imagine you would have to do those small changes yourself and not rely on the A.I. to do it.
No matter how many times an AI looks at pictures of old Dutch widowers with massive fortunes, it never has to beg them for a loan. It never hears them belittle you and your work. The Dutch in particular at the time... They believed your material wealth was a reflection of your moral character in a very real sense. Which is of course ridiculous, and wildly anti-christian IMO.
i mean your material wealth is still a huge part of your value in society, look at how people treat homeless people😊 MY BUS JOLTED AND I SENT THAT EMOJI LOL
Well, they were supporters of Calvin. He believed, that god's power in heaven and earth is absolut. Therefore, god rules over earth and heaven, but also over time. That means, that, whatever happens and whoever you are, was predestined before the world began, that means, before god started his creation. There're only two groups of people: the ones that go to heaven and the ones who go to hell. You can't change your faith, naturally, but if you do well on earth, work hard, believe in the lord and you turn out to be a success, you most likely belong to the smaller group of individuals, who are and remain in god's good grace. Unlike the majority of unsuccessful people, who are damned anyway, you hold the golden ticket to heaven in your hands. Your success, your wealth, your health, beauty and good family connections show you and your society, that you're in god's favour. You enjoy heaven on earth and later in heaven. God shows you his eternal mercy. You don't have to feel miserable for being better off than the less fourtunate. It's the people,who have problems, who should ask themselves: am I condemned for eternity?
Unfortunately, that view lives on in a slightly edited version in (parts of) "New Age" spirituality, which claims that your material wealth is a reflection of your energy level and your ability to manifest good things, which again is a sign of being spiritually advanced. Also, they believe that people who are suffering or ill chose it.
I loved this. I’m dutch and know Frans Hals, but i’ve never really appreciated his artwork. He’s always been outshone by Van Gogh and possibly Rembrandt in my opinion, so seeing him in a video like this is really cool ❤
It's the lack of prompt complexity. AI does the heavy lifting not the ideas. I don't know if there is currently an AI that can do this, but if you guide it with tens of prompts you can have a painting that has "drama" in it.
I always thought that the people who think AI art will somehow overtake real, human art, think about it in a way to commercial sense. Every art form is about communication, probably much more as it is about technique or skill and communicating with something that doesn't actually want to tell you anything is just not fulfilling
This is a really interesting take and has been argued over for centuries, "is 'commercial art' art?". My argument is that it is art because otherwise there is a difficult line to draw between, for instance, a bland advertisement and an animation. One is definitely seen more as art than the other but both are still used for commercial purposes. This then underlines the issue and the average consumers apathy with AI art. A lot of people who don't understand or have not studied art simply don't care whether art is generated or not; especially in today's fast paced hyper consumerism society. Artists have to pay rent and when they have to contend with AI artists productivity, the AI unfortunately wins. Most art in today's age is commercial in one way or another and therefore, while real art won't be dead, AI art will still flood our media.
@@ducky_vt3982but you are fundamentally misunderstanding the SOUL of the message. It's about intention. An animation is still art even if the artist monetizes it, because it was made to tell a story not to make money. Art can be commercialized without that changing why it was created and the soul behind the art piece. Those paintings hes talking about are verifiably sold and merchandised right now, that doesnt change the art itself. Just because we need money to survive in a society to fund our art and labor isn't why it was created. It was created with passion, heart, and soul, it just happens to be commercialized. But when "art" is made for the *purpose* of being commercialized and making money it lacks a soul and you end up with something like Disney's "Wish" a hollow empty creepy feeling movie that leaves a bad taste in most viewers mouth. There's no SOUL in it, it was made for the PURPOSE of money, not made for the purpose of telling a story someone is passionate about. This is a bit of a strawman argument. No one in their right mind would say making money off of your art means it isn't art, it is very obvious people are talking about the fundamentals of WHY the art was created and how, not what the artist does with it after. The painting being discussed in the video was a commission, it was made for money, but it still tells a story, a piece of the artists soul is left in it.
@@TamuTamuOnigiri I don't think I necessarily agree with the "Wish" example. Kind of a bad one and ignores the conceptual aspects of the movie making which very much contain a soul. Many of Disney's artists put heart into the film, but the problem was it got horribly stripped out. My experience with college graphic design classes, lots of things you pass everyday in Walmart have hidden souls. Some get lazily slapped together, sure, but still there are so many graphic designers that create whimsical packages and clever containers.
that last painting grounded me pretty often from panic attacks 5 or so years ago. I had a panic attack almost every time I went to my psychologist appointment and talked through my problems. A print of this painting was hanging on the wall and I often got told during the panic attacks to notice 5 things in the painting. Could be anything. Not only was it really helpful, but it was a really pretty artwork in and of itself.
I work with AI and a big problem with people understanding how to work with it is that they imagine it having intentions. It's just a statistical model designed to give you responses you are likely to find valuable for whatever reason. It doesn't ascribe to any particular philosophy and has a knowledgebase only as good as its training data and weightings. Human emotion, creativity, ingenuity, intention and interpretation is exceptionally difficult to fake.
I wish my art teachers in school had talked about art like this. We had to learn all about the different art techniques and the different artistic eras, but we never actually learnt to appreciate artworks itself. I would much rather learn about how an artwork tells a bigger story than about what brush strokes were used
"Vent" art is usually treated as an exercise for the artist, but it's some of my favorite work to see, and I think any great art contains a kernel of that identity. The technical skill that AI tries so hard to replicate is just a delivery for that core, and without it, the work is pointless. I wonder if an AI trained on sloppy, sketchy, brutal vent art could function, and whether what it produces would be recognizable as anything without human intent behind it.
@irmiwolf Bad comparison. I like the texture and (some of) the taste of meat, ways it can be prepared, and social events involving it, but I am morally against putting corpses in my mouth. It’s not some apathy about the product, I genuinely care about it (fast food stuff in general life notwithstanding. Besides that it’s a lifestyle choice based on values).
The way I see it, saying that AI can't make art is like saying a brush can't make art. Generative models are not even in the same category as artists, they're just a tool. It just happens to be a very easy tool to use for making something that is pretty on the surface.
Although I know theres no future in AI due to copyright laws I deeply appreciate you making this video and sincerely hope you make more. People passively consume things especially art and because of the frivolity placed on it by schools, society etc its either seen as something out of reach (purposefully to alienate everyday people) or not important making it so people don’t care. Art and humanities in general is our everyday life, it affects us one way or another and we need to know why we like things, or why we don’t, we NEED to be curious again and part of that is teaching others the importance of art and its meanings in layman’s terms helps us everyday people realize our thoughts, creativity and consumption is important. We aren’t just consumers of things, we are people and there is no art without us. We need to care about these things not even out of threat of it going away, but it helps us understand the world around us more and appreciate the little things we look over. Art is and never will be a product of the elite, its for the people and by the people. Great work ☺️
Honestly i hope so... Art as a whole seems to be overall undervalued and AI simply shouldn't used for such stuff.... And i agree, curiosity really should be retaught
I hate to be abrasive, but you're both wrong about why art is so devalued. Art is devalued by the ideas & opinions of the very artists that make it. Artists often say that they don't make art for its own sake, for objective reasons or meanings, or that their interpretations of their own creations are not objective. In addition, they continually praise legal theories of property ownership that do not allow them to own their own art, once stolen or lost & successfully resold, and do not recompensate them.
Trump won every single part of the government including the supreme court and he owns his soul to Elon Musk, there is no way on earth he is going to block ai advancements with copyright law now that Musk wants to create his own ai.
There is no future in AI due to copyright laws? Oh sweet summer child… The cat is already out of the bag. Even if the big AI companies do face consequences due to copyright laws, it doesn’t matter. They’ll probably just get a fine at most. And even if not, they can just train on AI generated content, because there’s a lot of that already. Besides, not all AI is ChatGPT or Dall-e. There are lots of other kinds of AI that don’t train on copyrighted content. Like AI in healthcare and research.
I went to a Fran’s Hal exhibit, and I have to say that he was an amazing painter. I really liked that he painted normal people from around town, and not just nobles. This gave his paintings a sense of realism in the sense that you can connect with the person in the painting, with similar body positions, and facial expressions, in contrast to the nobles.
There is so many videos, movies, tv shows, art work, games, music, podcast, pictures that have been made that you could consume for the rest of your life never see the same thing
Y'all ever talking with that one friend who clearly doesn't know about the topic you brought up, but decided to act like an expert in that moment? That's AI. No clue what's happening, no real reason for it to be doing what it does and it's obvious.
That's why we should support artists more! These ai are trained by using existing pieces of artworks made my real human artists. The time it took to paint or draw something like that is an art itself. Imagine learning the skills for years just to discover that AI can do them in just seconds. Art isn't just about the visuals but it's also about the story it tells. How human it feels. We're not just viewing a simple piece of painting or drawing but how the artist saw the subject which makes it more special.
"What A.I. doesn't have is a relationship to society that makes it interesting". Describes exactly what is at risk when people start to believe that A.I. can replace human artists: relationships. Think about it; it's an important ability to be able to appreciate each other, and each other's work. To be able to feel and value the connection that effort and care creates between us as people. As a society, we are already very disconnected and consumeristic, with all the consequences that follow. Is it a surprise if these things go hand in hand?
Yes absolutely. Art is human, and that is the one thing AI will never be able to relate to. A fundamental part of arts value is that is is made by our hands. By a fellow human being that we can all relate to.
Only thing wrong about this comment is the "anymore". People have always been the way they are today, you just didn't notice due to the lack of omnipresent social media.
Art has always been the product of a human’s reaction to something that happened to them in the real world. It’s how we artists regulate and communicate our emotions with the world. Whether it’s Van Gogh’s pettiness toward being kicked out of a cafe at night, Monet’s determination and awe at the way the dappled light dressed his wife and gardens, or (and I hate to mention him bc I hate him as a person, but he is a remarkable and important artist) Picasso’s fury for the destruction of Guernica. Art has MEANING, art is always telling a story, and it’s up to You, the viewer, to interact with the art and learn the story-or not, and come to your own conclusions. Art’s job is to elicit an emotional response from the viewer, regardless of whether the viewer resonates with the piece. But for the viewers who do resonate, there is a deeply profound sense of understanding even without knowing the history that brought the piece into existence. You don’t need to know what the artist was feeling to know that they were moved enough to create-the feeling is captured in the paint, the way the brushstrokes curve, the way the light reflects off the texture, and the way the shadows beckon you to look deeper. It speaks to the viewer, begs you to listen. The thing about art is that it has been and always will be the universal language of the human soul, and that’s something AI will never be able to understand or replicate.
It won’t. You’re giving it too much credit. It’s more dangerous to think that AI is some supergenius, evil or not, and giving investors enough hype to coerce us into putting everything on those algorithms until they incompetently cannibalize themselves and destroy the internet, environment, and Third World in the process instead of making spooky stories about Skynet sending killer robots after us.
@3793loop If this guy's video wasn't enough of an explanation, I can only assume that you're a raging teenager or preteen if you're not using an AI. But either way, get the hell outta here because literally no one asked for your unbased opinion of AI actually having emotions when you should know damn well that's a bold-faced lie.
But I was having emotions out the roof while I was writing "pretty woman, red dress, beautiful painting, art by Milo Manara, big chest, 4K, smile, contrasting colors, cute lady, beautiful painting,..."
I knew that painting looked like it was from the same era as the Laughing Cavalier, (which is my new favourite famous painting) but it's also the same artist!
I could never use AI for a finished product. Maybe concept, but even then I have never been satisfied with AI art. Whenever I commission a known/local artist I'm always 10x more excited and happy with the finished product. No matter how much detail you give an AI the only thing that is going to make sense of it is another human that can understand and communicate back with you on your wants and needs.
This is a great take; the only thing that gives menial value to AI imagery is the human perceiving it. A generative algorithm is not capable of instilling meaning in an image, it can only replicate the outermost layer of human creation.
Art is also a cultural product much as it is an aesthetic exercise, hence, art should never be divorced of any cultural and social significations. This, I feel, is what many artists fail to acknowledge, that however you insist your art as mere expression, their milieus will always be apparent even in the smallest ways. AI could only produce, but artists, those who actually understand the nuances of it, emphasizes intent, process, and product.
idk, give it like 10-20 years and it might churn out painting that can outclass what we currently have. but then again, beauty is in the eye of the beholder so who can truly say which is better.
Fascinating concept from the art establishment about 75ish years ago, the artist doesn't need to know the 'meaning' or 'depth' to what they're painting and cans still make fantastic art, like the painting demonstrated we don't need to know how he actually felt because the story is inherent in the work - I don't want to get too sidetracked on psychology but it's very possible he adored those women and didn't see them as you see them because his internal concept of what it means to be a good person had been shifted by knowing them to the point his 'visual concept of virtue' was based to a degree on his relationship with them - thus painting them 'realistically' was not an act of secret spite but genuine respect. Someone entirely devoid of artistic education or totally without deep motive can create what's seen as a very stark and compelling image to the art world because they're reflecting their personal experience into the work, this grew to real prominence in the establishment through people like Basquiat creating what was called 'outsider art' a field which has now grown to somewhat dominate the art world - I've seen Graffiti in all he biggest contemporary galleries and it frequently tops the auction price list, Tracy Emin is another example of outsider art and while the tabloids of course hate anything that isn't conservative values but her work is actually incredibly thought provoking and interesting from an academic perspective and as a visual experience - in a sense it's similar to Warhol's famous works using generic items placed in a way that makes you consider them differently except she isn't showing culturally designed items (product labels) but rather she's showing elements of her own experience expressed in a bluntly compelling visual medium. Had Tracy Emin not been exposed to those elements of life she depicts and not experienced those situations then she would not have been able to express them, indeed as with any artist the things that are experienced become the art and the things you experience are created by other people, an artist simply makes reflections of the world around and them and the people that influence them. Picasso was a set of circumstances, if you took him in a time machine as a baby to any other existence then his entire output would be different - if he even made art at all. Fascinating to think what the smallest change to his life that'd entirely alter art history could be, it might hinge on a single school yard conversation or even a misheard comment. The fact we get Picasso's and Van Gogh's at all is simply a function of probability, with enough stuff going on it's inevitable that sometimes the right forces will point in the same direction and resonate in all the right ways. There's the fascinating question of would an alien with similar visual comprehension and from a culture with art of their own be able to pick Starry Night from any other highly stylistic image of the era? Is it intrinsically better or simply culturally relevant in a way which shifts our very comprehension of the visual image to favor it? Much like the ladies you see has somewhat disgusting or loathsome might to the artist be the very visage of virtue and saintliness. An AI has not just the small milieu that any one person can know it's a probabilistic matrix constructed from literally billions of interactions and inferences between all the microcosms and macrocosms of recorded human history - every single part of that network is tuned through millions of minute details all processed and calculated with levels of complexity far exceeding anything any human could come close to comprehending. If Emin and Basquiat and Warhol and Van Gogh can create great works simply by acting as a conduit for the things the world taught and trained them to perceive then it's absolutely absurd to think for a second that our vast probabilistic networks of human experience can't and won't do similar. I understand a lot of conservative minded modern art haters think that everything after the dutch masters is an affront to god but you can't profess to like Van Gogh while spitting in the eye of everything that it represents and created. That's not to say that there isn't something uniquely personal about some human made art (don't anyone try to pretend the Ikea product diagrams represent an expression of personal self) and i personally love individual stories and journeys but I think it's foolish and crass to act like AI art is incapable of expressing anything meaningful, that's exactly the close minded and prescriptive attitude that led to every single person i've mentioned being derided by contemporaries and it's an insult to all the great artists who genuinely believed and fought to push off the oppressive and constrictive old world conformist viewa and create a world where people are able to respect Picasso, Van Gogh, Cezanne,, Monet, Munch, and everyone else who gets held up as 'real art' but people who care more about pretension than expression.
You can tell he liked the one in the bottom right- she was probably the one that gave him the money. The one in the middle has the least amount of detail and probably the least amount of value added to the white collar- probably hated her
You're all a hivemind, chanting the same thoughts. And I thought you all hated ai, but you're just as predictable if not more predictable than a actual robot. Pathetic
Another thing that I always think about Ai could perfectly recreate the paintings I make to vent, but ai could never FEEL the sorrow that went into it to make it matter to others Ai can replicate your joy, sorrow, anger, but it can never feel your highest highs or lowest lows If you're an artist, don't let ai stop you! Because you'll always have something it can't have that makes your art matter!
Weirdly for me ai has been a tool for exactily this. It has been a tool for emphasizing elements and connections i have. Abstractions i have. If you only use ai using one prompt you cant understand this but the combination of positive and negative prompts aa well as regional editing through prompts enables a deep connection with a social mind for some of us focused around our feelings yet also our connections to a broader context
It can you are just using unpaid cheap ass versions and you are taking out the beauty of communication with those "machines". Learn how to properly prompt and you can get much better results.
This is why ai can never replace artists. Art is personal interpretation of the world around us through the imperfect, often bias human eye. It is often self centered view of the world even if the artist isn't in the work. Ai has no such inclinations.
Of course it cannot replace artists because AI models cannot do anything on their own. They need a human to steer them. Just like Photoshop cannot do anything on its own but can be used to create art.
I remember this discussion about how human art will last because people can discuss for hours on why they drew something in a certain way or used those colours but AI art will die because it has no intentions and thus the answer is already known. That piece was drawn like that because it is statistically correct.
essencialy, AI doesn't have the personal motive that makes paintings so interesting, and it will never have it because an alterior motive to it's actions is the only thing AI will never be given
Sadly most people dont care for this, if basic needs arent met art will always revolve around money, thus you get absolute slop to maintain status quo with no need for inovation cause there is nobody there to appreciate it
I agree firmly that current Ai could never capture the beauty of the human mind and soul. But to say that it will never happen sounds like a stretch no? I feel like so long as humanity keeps developing as it dose then who's to say how far Technology and Ai will go, maybe not in the coming decades or even our lifetimes, but I wouldn't say it's impossible. At least interms of understanding the human mind...the soul is another matter 🤷🏾♂️ Appreciate the video 🙏🏾
Ai art doesn't have meaning. And a feeling that an artist puts into it. You can see the artist through their art, I've heard that somewhere and I agree (it's more than just an art style)
While AI can never capture the story, the intrigue, the drama, AI absolutely could make that painting pixel for pixel, the same expressions and light/dark contrast. Maybe not right now, but there's no reason it couldn't. And it worries me that this would be enough for some people.
AI does not create art, it creates images, and that's it. There is no feeling, there is no concept, just a robot following orders. And it is very good at its job.
@Scooterbeerrun Not in a physical sense. But I say in a psychological sense. In what our formation of neurons defines as art, and what the imaginary interpersonal link that we call society defines as art.
And that is how it will continue to be. Ai is a little worse at exact specifics, but can almost certainly nail most anything you place in front of it and don't look at too closely.
Every time someone attempts to claim a painting can’t be replicated by AI, and then they give the most milquetoast prompts while explaining the painting in immaculate detail, I always think “why didn’t you just make that the prompt?“
@@derfvcderfvc7317no I never have because I've blocked every ai result in Google, rarely use social media, and it's super easy to tell when you're a real artist who actually draws.
@@yaboye3791 There's a very big difference between AI art made by professionals and novices. I've seen a lot of people mistake them for real art. Heck, someone won a photography contest with AI art
Honestly, this video is not only interesting for artists but for psychologists and ai designers. It shows that intelligence is not the only thing important, it's specialness of intelligence, Einstein probably wouldn't be able to create this painting because his special skills weren't connected with art, and this applies even to branches and sub-branches of science, art, etc.
By all means, you could not determine whether its intelligence or something else from this example, because AI lacks that intelligence. It is but a replication of the most shallow parts of humanity, to be poetic.
That’s similar to what I’ve been saying about AI in general. The limitation is not necessarily in what the AI can do, but in how WE are unable to emotionally connect with what an AI does. We are the limitation and there is no way around it. And I am thankful for that.
I think it's a matter of when, because obviously current Ai can't begin to do this, but so long as it keeps being developed who can say how far it will go in being capable of understanding the human thought process. Maybe several decades or generations down the line, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's impossible
Just gotta tell you 99% of people don't care about paintings some guy hung up his garbage painting in a museum and people thought it was great cause it was in a museum
I’ve said this so many times, the main difference between human and ai art is that human art is made from real world experiences while ai cannot have any real world experience
But I think you’re forgetting that ai generators are nothing if a human isn’t using it. It’s a tool like how photoshop is a tool. So the person using it does have the real world experience while ai is just something that helps that person express it.
This is exactly what I CANNOT understand about AI and people who exploit ai for arts. Ai was created to help take over monotonous tasks so that people will have more time for holistic creativity and arts. Yet what's going on now is the complete opposite. Ai, an unfeeling, emontionless machine, is taking over the jobs that require the most feelings and emotions. What is going on with this world.
![[LIVE] BABYMONSTER(베이비몬스터) - DRIP | 두시탈출 컬투쇼](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/UG05pxLGwzc/mqdefault.jpg)
This video is based somewhat on the essay "Ways of Seeing" by John Berger from 1972. BBC made a famous docuseries out of it that has been uploaded to TH-cam. I highly recommend watching if you are into philosophy & art.
Thanks for the heads up!
Very interesting how this argument against new technology comes up again and again, now this time with AI. And again and again it’s shown that this “ai art” thing is nothing more than a disaster
Fantastic recommendations. ❤
Now all I gotta do is write an essay based on this essay.
I would love to see a collab with artlust
Cafe at Night is 100% more interesting when you know that they kicked van gough out and refused to serve him and he retaliated by painting it with most of its tables empty.
Holy shit what I never heard that
That's interesting, like a bad review
“it’s too late! i’ve already painted your cafe as empty and financially struggling!” /ref
XD
@@libbecnoir this is the historic version of "I will draw you pregnant" from nowadays artists
I never was that deep into art but you just gave me more reasons to appreciate art and artists.
Also, why are there so many bots spamming nonsense!?
Don’t translate...😠
भवतः हृदयस्य धड़कनं कतिपयेषु घण्टेषु स्थगयिष्यति, अस्य शापस्य मुक्तिं प्राप्तुं एकमात्रं मार्गं मम चैनलस्य सदस्यतां कुर्वन्तु………
uh..
Reply's haunted
I agree, also jeez that's a lot of bots
Yes
The oldest drawing I own (of mine) was from when I was 3 years old. It’s me and my best friend playing on a playground. It’s just us and a very tall playscape, all drawn in wobbly marker lines. It’s not a complicated picture, but that’s how I saw the world back then. All that mattered in that moment was my best friend and playing on the playground behind the daycare.
Now, the creases from it being folded up all these years are so old they’re tearing the paper, but the drawing continues to tell a story of friendship and childish joy. As a three-year-old, that drawing was a reflection of my world. That drawing and every other since then has come out of a small part of myself.
That’s something AI will never grasp. They can feed as many images into their algorithms as they want. A machine will never be able to connect a stroke of color to an experience. There’s no thoughts behind an AI generated image. There’s only lines of code.
Beautifully said!
It's not even lines of code. It's just probability. What you get is just the most probable thing for a given prompt plus a little randomness. There's no intention in probability.
You can say the same thing about human faith or thoughts.
@@Exorcistt94but we won’t
@@Exorcistt94you can say anything you want!
The ladies have an air of severity to them: stern, silently looking at the viewer, but also dignified, one of them flashes a half smile to show that while these women were very powerful and held so many matters seriously in their hands, they still kept a layer of emotional connection that only Frans and a few others knew.
Edit: Only fans with the grannies
Not attempting to be argumentative or disagree with your point, I agree with it, but couldn’t that also be explained away by them simply posing for the painting? People change drastically in view then they do behind closed doors
@@osamabinwallbanging personally, with the context in mind theyre people in power, such gestures and expressions they have made in the painting will be subconsciously connected to the idea of "power". i also get that you can just ask them to pose specifically in this way or that, but again we have context on who this people were ^^
@@osamabinwallbangingPaintings took a lot longer than photographs. When it comes to catching expressions when laying things out through painting & drawing, facial expressions naturally change over the course of models posing. It's very much the artist catching glimpses and intentionally stitching them together.
As an aside more to the full topic, I have a suspicion too that the artist may have gotten along better with some of the women than others. So making them a bit less severe.
At first I read Only Fans 😭😭😭
@@osamabinwallbanging yeah, but most other figures, say, King Henry the third, look like shit despite his pose in all of his paintings. Posing is a thing, but looking good is another
One positive thing that came out of ai art is that it made me appreciate human art even more.
*the only
I was lucky to visit the Louvre in highschool, and seeing "The Raft of 'The Medusa'" in person has stuck with me so long, that I can't imagine AI art ever coming close.
I recommend this painting to anyone who wants to "get" art. There's so much drama, context, and intensity to this painting.
AI art has gotten to the point where virtually nobody can distinguish it from human they are both just art and the beauty in art is independent from the artist. AI art and human art are the exact same thing just art
@@simonbomgaars7867It's still distinguishable
@simonbomgaars7867 hell no
To me, the process itself of making art and throwing in real emotions is the most important parts, so thank you for this.
Basically, what A.I. will always lack, is CONTEXT, which is *key* in tons of artists movements, artstyles, art eras, methods, to the stories and people they portrayed.
Yes, ai can make "perfect" art at a glance, but does it have a background? Does it have intention? Does it have an intimate relationship with what is displayed in the artwork?
No.
The answer is always no.
And that's why it's souless.
It lacks ✨CONTEXT✨
Which is what makes these pieces amazing and more special.
I once asked AI to write a poem about pancakes. I‘m a bit into writing, especially writing poems myself, so I was curious what AI was gonna make.
It was a poem that had a great rhythm, a rhyme scheme and it sounded great when you said it out lout.
The content was it listing up typical aspects of a pancake, its looks, taste, ect.
But it still felt empty, and I could never quite grasp why.
But after watching this video I realized that this is exactly what it was missing as well: context
So this goes for all kinds of art apparently
But why would it always lack that? Do you believe context for humans is this mystical thing? Why would you believe such a thing?
@ the point is that AI isn’t capable to have a personal connection or relationship with something. And therefore they aren’t able to embed it into their art. So their art will always feel emotionless, alas it‘s missing context.
It's crazy to me that people who clearly have ZERO knowledge about how A.I. works, make grand sweeping statements about what it will never do. It's a confidence that only ignorance can conjure.
You could just ask it to add context to the art
You’re absolutely right. A huge part of the enjoyment of art is in trying to understand the artist through their artistic choices. AI cannot replicate that. Not genuinely.
Yet.
You dont understand the comment
If enjoyment of art comes from the underlying context, instead of the piece itself, then art is meaningless, also if a human drew something and then AI in a few years will draw something in the same style, and then you showed both of these drawings to another guy without telling which is which made by whom, they wont be able to tell, and then youll just make up stories about what the AI piece was trying to convey, only to realize you were wrong about it. 😂
@@valerioharvey7289You dont understand AI.
@@SimoneBellomonteshut up you useless troll, nobody cares about your "ai shit stains". Go be a productive member of society and actually read up on what ai is. Your sources are garbage.
I feel like the erosion of meaning caused by generative AI is going to have absolutely insane consequences as we move foward; I still find it wild people can't understand that the whole point of something being called "art" is that a sentient being is conveying meaning through symbols. If you strip away the meaning and just generate random shapes based on recognizable forms, not only do you make it so that the viewer has to themself generate context for the image to have meaning, but you also strip meaning away from the symbols that are imitated, as the AI will mimic various artistic techniques and stylistic choices without any understanding of *why* and *when* a skilled artist would use those techniques
Ironland sucks tbh
If we shouldn't call it art then, what should we call it. Pretty pictures? Doesn't really roll off the tongue
Then photography isn’t art
@dib327 nah because a million different factors that go into professionally taking a photograph is how the artist in this case creates specific symbols that have meanings. Kind of a word salad, but my point is that in photography as art, the photographer makes choices that create different meanings in the picture and is as such art.
@@dib327 you still move things around and adjust lighting, perspective and composition
ai art is just the equivalent of ordering mcdonalds and calling yourself a chef because you described what food you wanted
It almost looks like that, what's really important in art, is the feeling and intentions of the artist, instead of "perfect artistic skills".
WHO COULD HAVE GUESSED THAT
even before AI i’ve been trying to get people to understand this. it’s ok to enjoy realistic paintings that look like a photograph of a landscape or person for example. but art has always been more than that and people often try to apply these perfect realism standards onto all art when the artists want nothing to do with it. if you can’t understand art beyond technical realism skills then you barely have a grasp on what art is.
also, everyone pls report the bots and don’t engage with them. they’re saying gross shit to provoke you, report and ignore.
I cant say for certain how he actually felt about them. I see stern, matronly like in a nanny child or mother child relationship. They also look like they are holding something back.a kind of mild amusement or irritation. And its not really that dark, considering its age and the time period it was painted in. A rooming house probably wouldnt have had many windows and the owners of such a place likely would have held back on too many candles or oil lamps, leaving that mostly to the tenants to handle. And over time the warmer colors of the painting itself have dulled from dust and smoke and pollution and a thousand other minor factors. AI can copy but it can never truly capture the subject in the same way a gifted artist can. And omg it could never envoke the confusion and horror of picasso's "Guernica" or the true warmth of lighting of a Rembrant. Even with photography, it can't match the raw horror of the pulitzer photo of the Vietnamese child covered in flaming napalm. Or the striking gaze of the Afhhani woman with those stark, intense green eyes. Or the first photos of lowland gorillas. Sure it can touch up or swap colors and insert or erase something from the image but their has to be an initial image to draw from.
Well good artistic skills are just as important. Even if you have feeling and intention, if ur art is ugly and bad, it is just that
Why does your PFP look like a tongue
I suggest you read the very interesting essay “The Death of the Author” (1967) by literary theorist Roland Barthes. He suggested that it is not the “intention” of the - in his case - author that makes a work of art, but the relation between the reader and the object. This could also be reflected on visual arts such as paintings.
I like to call AI "APR" standing for "Artificial Pattern Recognition" because calling AI "Intelligence" is a slap in the face to human intelligence, and most importantly, creativity
good point… however, most of what we consider human “intelligence” is in fact pattern recognition.🤷🏻♂️
@@zimzobit is the interpretation of information including but certainly not limited to patterns. Intelligence is so much broader than the mindless patter recognition most people call AI
@ agreed - I said “most,” not “all.” Dogs for example are great at finding patterns and perceiving explicit associations - perceiving implicit associations between disparate phenomena, not so much.
THIS!! I’m an artist and every single painting you see has a story behind it. People who churn out images using ai always fail to grasp why real art will always be better. You can’t recreate someone’s drive to paint.
Edit: 💀 not all the prompters in the comments claiming that AI can recreate emotion
@@SimoneBellomonteIt's a question of nature
@@SimoneBellomonte dude you are absolutely BOOYLICKING AI in these comments.
Go outside
no you are not an artist
@@GC2Major_Tom There s nothing in the nature of an IA that prevents it from passing a story tho
If you ask an IA to produce a narative on a specific topic or philosophy, it can
And if you ask him to use that narative to produce the painting... it can too
Actualy, an image generating IA should be bound to develop such narative on its own, if the model becomes strong enough
I've no idea if it s currently the case, and it would be really hard to determine if the IA is really doing such thing or no (it s really hard to get what s rly going on inside it)
But... anything that would make the IA better at fiting its data set should be developped over time by the model, and producing a narative isn't really that complex (current LLMs can already do it)
@@skad2058you didn't understand what he meant
A.i. proved the existence of the human soul by showing us art made without one.
I stole that line.
Bots shouldnt be a problem in 2024
@@ahnaafarik3623 When should they be a problem then, 1984? We live exactly in the age of bots and will continue to do so for a substantial amount of time.
2 replies above me is proof ai has no soul
Bro it just clips together things that were already made. It can’t come up with something of itself. It’s always the same slop. Gives me a feeling of modern day Disney.
AI itself comes from the human soul, Google "Neuro-sama VTuber", and so AI is automatically art. Youre welcome :;).
All A.I. does is complete a task as quickly and effortlessly as possible, but it also completes the task _as quickly and as effortlessly as possible._ Like when you rush to finish an essay or a presentation without adding any soul into it just to get a passing grade.
Once my art teacher in high school gave an assignment to analyze random pictures and write a paragraph about their meanings. I just realized right now that the ability to do so might be important right now with the emergence of AI.
And if your teacher gave you an AI image, I’m sure you’d be able to write a paragraph about its meaning.
@@mina86 nice one haha
Lmfao@@mina86
Plot twist, those pictures were AI
This is the exact reason why I believe Artist are one of the few jobs A.I can’t replace. Art is the one thing in this world that requires human connection and emotional experience, one thing that A.I can never mimic.
But isn't it a bit pretentious to just assume A.I will never be able to experience emotions and mimic this "human connection" ? How do we know ? We only are at the very beginning of A.I
@@Osbernsomeone’s been watching too many sci-fi movies, artificial intelligence is still artificial. It cannot and will never have actual emotions
@@thebrokentable7554 How are you so sure about this ? Not even experts can say with certainty. Do you have any proof the human brain's mecanisms are absolutely irreproductible ?
@ what experts are you severely paraphrasing?
@@thebrokentable7554 Why? Lab-made diamonds are artificial but also an exact copy with all the same properties, which opens the question of whether the origin matters. The same could be said about emotion, sentience, and life. If we made a bio-android of sorts made of metals and wiring, but also able to self-repair and procreate, would this not be life, even if it's artificial life? And would it matter if the live is artificial? The same could be said about sentience and emotion.
This guy just single handedly defend the art world by humans, thanks dude 👍
Humans prompting art through the use of an AI is still a human art, though. The AI is just a medium, like paint or a pencil, though obviously a much easier one to use.
@@NicholasHall3000 It's really not because they're just generated images, NOT ART. That art in the video was painted by the artist's VERY OWN HANDS not typed out a prompt and send it to a machine. Ai will never capture the soul and artistic creativity humans have had for thousands of years. And if Pewdiepie is able to pick up a pencil and actually learn to draw by scratch, then y'all can too.
@@cranburreyyes, but then there are several other techniques in art that involve experimenting with materials that do not produce the exact same results. Then there is photo editing and CGI which rely on automation. But when it comes to using neural networks, it seems to trigger some primal existential insecurity in most humans and they get very defensive. AI can emulate this too, because AI is just all about what we want it to do, and by understanding how exactly we arrive at a process, we can make it do that too. Generative Drawing AI will not be able to do it all by itself, but a Generative AI coupled with a reasoning model will be able to do this.
If you are insecure because of that, you should be. Real artists do not care what AI can or cannot do. It's about their forms of expression, just like a kid who writes a diary or has a sketchbook. It's all valid on their own.
waiting for the ai bros to generate their response
Don’t translate...😠
भवतः हृदयस्य धड़कनं कतिपयेषु घण्टेषु स्थगयिष्यति, अस्य शापस्य मुक्तिं प्राप्तुं एकमात्रं मार्गं मम चैनलस्य सदस्यतां कुर्वन्तु………
Welp
I guess it worked, this comment singlehandedly made the uttp bots return
Well holy shit
Seems the ai bros did generate a response, tho not the ones you were expecting 😂
The fact that art is created by human hands has always been fundamental to it's total value.
Most art is created using tools.
Most art is created through tools, not hands.
@@doncoyote68 A tool cannot make art on its own, and arguably it takes a lot more human to operate the tool 'paintbrush' than writing prompts to make a program give you what you want
"has always"
Nop, people started to claim that to support the claim that IA's production couildn t be called art
I remeber a few years ago artists claiming that their art sometimes had no particular meaning, and that the only point of it was to look good
That art COULD have a meaning, but that it didn t need one to be called art
@@skad2058the difference is that they made the art, AI doesn’t make anything, all it does is steal pieces of other people’s work and stitch them together to create something soulless and meaningless
YESSSSSSS this is exactly the thing that separates A.I. art from basically any other form of art/painting. A LOT of the nuances and specific decisions that the artist does is what often brings more to a piece than just feeding it into a machine over and over again. Yes it is very possible that technology will get onto that level, but at that point I'd imagine you would have to do those small changes yourself and not rely on the A.I. to do it.
No matter how many times an AI looks at pictures of old Dutch widowers with massive fortunes, it never has to beg them for a loan. It never hears them belittle you and your work.
The Dutch in particular at the time... They believed your material wealth was a reflection of your moral character in a very real sense. Which is of course ridiculous, and wildly anti-christian IMO.
i mean your material wealth is still a huge part of your value in society, look at how people treat homeless people😊
MY BUS JOLTED AND I SENT THAT EMOJI LOL
Well, they were supporters of Calvin.
He believed, that god's power in heaven and earth is absolut. Therefore, god rules over earth and heaven, but also over time. That means, that, whatever happens and whoever you are, was predestined before the world began, that means, before god started his creation.
There're only two groups of people: the ones that go to heaven and the ones who go to hell.
You can't change your faith, naturally, but if you do well on earth, work hard, believe in the lord and you turn out to be a success, you most likely belong to the smaller group of individuals, who are and remain in god's good grace.
Unlike the majority of unsuccessful people, who are damned anyway, you hold the golden ticket to heaven in your hands. Your success, your wealth, your health, beauty and good family connections show you and your society, that you're in god's favour. You enjoy heaven on earth and later in heaven. God shows you his eternal mercy.
You don't have to feel miserable for being better off than the less fourtunate. It's the people,who have problems, who should ask themselves: am I condemned for eternity?
Unfortunately, that view lives on in a slightly edited version in (parts of) "New Age" spirituality, which claims that your material wealth is a reflection of your energy level and your ability to manifest good things, which again is a sign of being spiritually advanced. Also, they believe that people who are suffering or ill chose it.
@mailill
That's Calvianism.
@@charlottepeukert9095 Neo-Calvinism in "New Age" disguise, perhaps?
AI can never do what we artists can 🖌️
In ten years come back to this comment and reflect
Don’t translate...😠
भवतः हृदयस्य धड़कनं कतिपयेषु घण्टेषु स्थगयिष्यति, अस्य शापस्य मुक्तिं प्राप्तुं एकमात्रं मार्गं मम चैनलस्य सदस्यतां कुर्वन्तु………
@@TrueOracle give it 5. They have no idea what's coming
Well, I'm terrified that AI might be able to, one day.
I'm also somewhat of an artist myself (meme), but AI is AI'ing 🤷
@@crc32-b2fshitty bot
Ai can replicate our pixels, but it will never be able to have our heart
Just so everyone knows he is talking about Haarlem in the Netherlands not new york
Man, if I had a nickel for every Haarlem known for its art
I love that painting, they look like they're trying to keep a serious face for the painting but a warm smile is slipping through
That is a really cool way to think about art and I'm surprised I hadn't been doing before.
I loved this. I’m dutch and know Frans Hals, but i’ve never really appreciated his artwork. He’s always been outshone by Van Gogh and possibly Rembrandt in my opinion, so seeing him in a video like this is really cool ❤
AI art is like cake that's all frosting and no actual cake underneath it
Then you are using a shitty bakery (AI).
Except instead of frosting, you find out it's all synthetic plastic and not even edible.
For now.
Ok, but frosting > cake
i whould like to say more in the realms of...
"Nothing Beats Home Made Cookies"
It's the lack of prompt complexity. AI does the heavy lifting not the ideas. I don't know if there is currently an AI that can do this, but if you guide it with tens of prompts you can have a painting that has "drama" in it.
In before the AI bros get a response from chat gpt telling them how to write a seething comment
Don’t translate...😠
भवतः हृदयस्य धड़कनं कतिपयेषु घण्टेषु स्थगयिष्यति, अस्य शापस्य मुक्तिं प्राप्तुं एकमात्रं मार्गं मम चैनलस्य सदस्यतां कुर्वन्तु………
Don’t translate...😠
भवतः हृदयस्य धड़कनं कतिपयेषु घण्टेषु स्थगयिष्यति, अस्य शापस्य मुक्तिं प्राप्तुं एकमात्रं मार्गं मम चैनलस्य सदस्यतां कुर्वन्तु………
I’m so sorry about all the bots replying to this
I'm bot too trust me
@@hestiaARGit's to be expected. AI bros can't handle the heat. Anyway just report them, otherwise ignore them
I always thought that the people who think AI art will somehow overtake real, human art, think about it in a way to commercial sense. Every art form is about communication, probably much more as it is about technique or skill and communicating with something that doesn't actually want to tell you anything is just not fulfilling
yeah if its purely based off the consumer is it even art? what makes something art is the choices something a ai program cannot make
This is a really interesting take and has been argued over for centuries, "is 'commercial art' art?". My argument is that it is art because otherwise there is a difficult line to draw between, for instance, a bland advertisement and an animation. One is definitely seen more as art than the other but both are still used for commercial purposes. This then underlines the issue and the average consumers apathy with AI art. A lot of people who don't understand or have not studied art simply don't care whether art is generated or not; especially in today's fast paced hyper consumerism society. Artists have to pay rent and when they have to contend with AI artists productivity, the AI unfortunately wins. Most art in today's age is commercial in one way or another and therefore, while real art won't be dead, AI art will still flood our media.
@@ducky_vt3982but you are fundamentally misunderstanding the SOUL of the message. It's about intention. An animation is still art even if the artist monetizes it, because it was made to tell a story not to make money. Art can be commercialized without that changing why it was created and the soul behind the art piece. Those paintings hes talking about are verifiably sold and merchandised right now, that doesnt change the art itself. Just because we need money to survive in a society to fund our art and labor isn't why it was created. It was created with passion, heart, and soul, it just happens to be commercialized.
But when "art" is made for the *purpose* of being commercialized and making money it lacks a soul and you end up with something like Disney's "Wish" a hollow empty creepy feeling movie that leaves a bad taste in most viewers mouth. There's no SOUL in it, it was made for the PURPOSE of money, not made for the purpose of telling a story someone is passionate about.
This is a bit of a strawman argument. No one in their right mind would say making money off of your art means it isn't art, it is very obvious people are talking about the fundamentals of WHY the art was created and how, not what the artist does with it after. The painting being discussed in the video was a commission, it was made for money, but it still tells a story, a piece of the artists soul is left in it.
@ i think art almost always does have a commercial aspect, but i feel like art often loses what makes it great when its made for something else
@@TamuTamuOnigiri I don't think I necessarily agree with the "Wish" example. Kind of a bad one and ignores the conceptual aspects of the movie making which very much contain a soul. Many of Disney's artists put heart into the film, but the problem was it got horribly stripped out.
My experience with college graphic design classes, lots of things you pass everyday in Walmart have hidden souls. Some get lazily slapped together, sure, but still there are so many graphic designers that create whimsical packages and clever containers.
Its like doing infinite things in an infinite amount of time until you get the exact painting
that last painting grounded me pretty often from panic attacks 5 or so years ago. I had a panic attack almost every time I went to my psychologist appointment and talked through my problems. A print of this painting was hanging on the wall and I often got told during the panic attacks to notice 5 things in the painting. Could be anything. Not only was it really helpful, but it was a really pretty artwork in and of itself.
I work with AI and a big problem with people understanding how to work with it is that they imagine it having intentions. It's just a statistical model designed to give you responses you are likely to find valuable for whatever reason. It doesn't ascribe to any particular philosophy and has a knowledgebase only as good as its training data and weightings. Human emotion, creativity, ingenuity, intention and interpretation is exceptionally difficult to fake.
Yes, the AI's response comes from someone input.
AI doesn't sit around doodling all day.
Amen.
I wish my art teachers in school had talked about art like this. We had to learn all about the different art techniques and the different artistic eras, but we never actually learnt to appreciate artworks itself. I would much rather learn about how an artwork tells a bigger story than about what brush strokes were used
"Vent" art is usually treated as an exercise for the artist, but it's some of my favorite work to see, and I think any great art contains a kernel of that identity. The technical skill that AI tries so hard to replicate is just a delivery for that core, and without it, the work is pointless. I wonder if an AI trained on sloppy, sketchy, brutal vent art could function, and whether what it produces would be recognizable as anything without human intent behind it.
If you say “well it still looks the same”, that’s the same as eating nutrient cubes because “its healthy”
Bad comparison, it would be more like eating Vegan meat products. maybe they taste and look the same but its not identical
@@irmiwolf If they'd taste the same, that would be good enough for me. I deem OP's comparison better than yours.
"Well it looks the same" give anyone who says that a fake realistic steak and see what they say
@@asillygoofygoober I'd cry bro gimme real food 😭️
@irmiwolf Bad comparison. I like the texture and (some of) the taste of meat, ways it can be prepared, and social events involving it, but I am morally against putting corpses in my mouth. It’s not some apathy about the product, I genuinely care about it (fast food stuff in general life notwithstanding. Besides that it’s a lifestyle choice based on values).
Dedication and artistic passion can indeed overlap with commercial success or at least community.
The way I see it, saying that AI can't make art is like saying a brush can't make art. Generative models are not even in the same category as artists, they're just a tool. It just happens to be a very easy tool to use for making something that is pretty on the surface.
Although I know theres no future in AI due to copyright laws I deeply appreciate you making this video and sincerely hope you make more. People passively consume things especially art and because of the frivolity placed on it by schools, society etc its either seen as something out of reach (purposefully to alienate everyday people) or not important making it so people don’t care.
Art and humanities in general is our everyday life, it affects us one way or another and we need to know why we like things, or why we don’t, we NEED to be curious again and part of that is teaching others the importance of art and its meanings in layman’s terms helps us everyday people realize our thoughts, creativity and consumption is important.
We aren’t just consumers of things, we are people and there is no art without us. We need to care about these things not even out of threat of it going away, but it helps us understand the world around us more and appreciate the little things we look over. Art is and never will be a product of the elite, its for the people and by the people.
Great work ☺️
Honestly i hope so... Art as a whole seems to be overall undervalued and AI simply shouldn't used for such stuff.... And i agree, curiosity really should be retaught
I hate to be abrasive, but you're both wrong about why art is so devalued. Art is devalued by the ideas & opinions of the very artists that make it.
Artists often say that they don't make art for its own sake, for objective reasons or meanings, or that their interpretations of their own creations are not objective.
In addition, they continually praise legal theories of property ownership that do not allow them to own their own art, once stolen or lost & successfully resold, and do not recompensate them.
Trump won every single part of the government including the supreme court and he owns his soul to Elon Musk, there is no way on earth he is going to block ai advancements with copyright law now that Musk wants to create his own ai.
There is no future in AI due to copyright laws? Oh sweet summer child… The cat is already out of the bag. Even if the big AI companies do face consequences due to copyright laws, it doesn’t matter. They’ll probably just get a fine at most. And even if not, they can just train on AI generated content, because there’s a lot of that already.
Besides, not all AI is ChatGPT or Dall-e. There are lots of other kinds of AI that don’t train on copyrighted content. Like AI in healthcare and research.
Oh I was in the Frans Hals museum in Haarlem last weekend. It's really nice 🥰
I went to a Fran’s Hal exhibit, and I have to say that he was an amazing painter. I really liked that he painted normal people from around town, and not just nobles. This gave his paintings a sense of realism in the sense that you can connect with the person in the painting, with similar body positions, and facial expressions, in contrast to the nobles.
This is such a great encapsulation of what makes human art so important.
There is so many videos, movies, tv shows, art work, games, music, podcast, pictures that have been made that you could consume for the rest of your life never see the same thing
Y'all ever talking with that one friend who clearly doesn't know about the topic you brought up, but decided to act like an expert in that moment?
That's AI. No clue what's happening, no real reason for it to be doing what it does and it's obvious.
😂
I know like 10 people like that it's not even funny.
The comparison hit hard
@@THATBrokeAroSpecWallet Have to remind them it's okay to not know everything lol.
AI’s job is to always give you an answer as quick as possible. The quality of that answer is not a priority
@@sylph8005its not even not a priority it simply isnt a factor at all
That's why we should support artists more! These ai are trained by using existing pieces of artworks made my real human artists. The time it took to paint or draw something like that is an art itself. Imagine learning the skills for years just to discover that AI can do them in just seconds. Art isn't just about the visuals but it's also about the story it tells. How human it feels. We're not just viewing a simple piece of painting or drawing but how the artist saw the subject which makes it more special.
Giant cope
@@Jcrutchok, weirdo
"What A.I. doesn't have is a relationship to society that makes it interesting". Describes exactly what is at risk when people start to believe that A.I. can replace human artists: relationships. Think about it; it's an important ability to be able to appreciate each other, and each other's work. To be able to feel and value the connection that effort and care creates between us as people.
As a society, we are already very disconnected and consumeristic, with all the consequences that follow. Is it a surprise if these things go hand in hand?
Tell me about it. I hear all the time how people used to trust each other in the 50s even in the cities. Not so much now
@@johnnyag1912 I get what you mean. Now people walking down the street don't greet or in any way acknowledge each other. It used to be different.
Literally dehumanising art.
It’s the lack of intention. Ai generated images are literally just meaningless art. There’s nothing to them nothing to think about. It’s just nothing.
Exactly. Jingling keys, now in color and easily mass produced. We need people to care about art again.
Yes absolutely. Art is human, and that is the one thing AI will never be able to relate to. A fundamental part of arts value is that is is made by our hands. By a fellow human being that we can all relate to.
That's 99,99% of art using other tools as well.
Most people don't add anything into their work beyond making it look nice
@@doncoyote68Tell me you're not an artist without telling me you're not an artist
@@KobKoboldlol
I think the issue is that 60% of people wont stop to examine a painting and its significance anymore
Only thing wrong about this comment is the "anymore". People have always been the way they are today, you just didn't notice due to the lack of omnipresent social media.
99% of people don't "examine" paintings, and that is how it has always been, and that's also perfectly okay.
Only 60%?
Much higher that that. The vast majority don't give a rats arse about expensive art.
Art has always been the product of a human’s reaction to something that happened to them in the real world. It’s how we artists regulate and communicate our emotions with the world. Whether it’s Van Gogh’s pettiness toward being kicked out of a cafe at night, Monet’s determination and awe at the way the dappled light dressed his wife and gardens, or (and I hate to mention him bc I hate him as a person, but he is a remarkable and important artist) Picasso’s fury for the destruction of Guernica. Art has MEANING, art is always telling a story, and it’s up to You, the viewer, to interact with the art and learn the story-or not, and come to your own conclusions. Art’s job is to elicit an emotional response from the viewer, regardless of whether the viewer resonates with the piece. But for the viewers who do resonate, there is a deeply profound sense of understanding even without knowing the history that brought the piece into existence. You don’t need to know what the artist was feeling to know that they were moved enough to create-the feeling is captured in the paint, the way the brushstrokes curve, the way the light reflects off the texture, and the way the shadows beckon you to look deeper. It speaks to the viewer, begs you to listen. The thing about art is that it has been and always will be the universal language of the human soul, and that’s something AI will never be able to understand or replicate.
I deeply enjoy how you articulated this difference.
I really hope that A I actually makes us pause and appreciate real art and creations made by humans more.
Nuh uh
"5 WEALTHY ladies who ran a CHARITY" I can smell the embezzlement through the painting
It's all fun and games until the AI draws me getting hanged without being prompted
It won’t. You’re giving it too much credit. It’s more dangerous to think that AI is some supergenius, evil or not, and giving investors enough hype to coerce us into putting everything on those algorithms until they incompetently cannibalize themselves and destroy the internet, environment, and Third World in the process instead of making spooky stories about Skynet sending killer robots after us.
In summary, AI lacks emotion. Which that's literally what THE argument is against the people claiming "AI art" is actual art.
@3793loop Oh god, it's an AI lover with their AI generated response. And yes, it's so obvious just based on how you say "we". Get the hell outta here.
@@3793loopI wish your lot didn't exist to poison art discussion online
@@3793looplook how advanced the ai is getting! it even makes spelling mistakes
@3793loop If this guy's video wasn't enough of an explanation, I can only assume that you're a raging teenager or preteen if you're not using an AI. But either way, get the hell outta here because literally no one asked for your unbased opinion of AI actually having emotions when you should know damn well that's a bold-faced lie.
But I was having emotions out the roof while I was writing "pretty woman, red dress, beautiful painting, art by Milo Manara, big chest, 4K, smile, contrasting colors, cute lady, beautiful painting,..."
I knew that painting looked like it was from the same era as the Laughing Cavalier, (which is my new favourite famous painting) but it's also the same artist!
I could never use AI for a finished product. Maybe concept, but even then I have never been satisfied with AI art.
Whenever I commission a known/local artist I'm always 10x more excited and happy with the finished product.
No matter how much detail you give an AI the only thing that is going to make sense of it is another human that can understand and communicate back with you on your wants and needs.
This is a great take; the only thing that gives menial value to AI imagery is the human perceiving it. A generative algorithm is not capable of instilling meaning in an image, it can only replicate the outermost layer of human creation.
Glad you get super happy when commissioning an artist cause us artists get super happy when someone even likes us enough to ask for our art :]
Art is also a cultural product much as it is an aesthetic exercise, hence, art should never be divorced of any cultural and social significations. This, I feel, is what many artists fail to acknowledge, that however you insist your art as mere expression, their milieus will always be apparent even in the smallest ways. AI could only produce, but artists, those who actually understand the nuances of it, emphasizes intent, process, and product.
idk, give it like 10-20 years and it might churn out painting that can outclass what we currently have. but then again, beauty is in the eye of the beholder so who can truly say which is better.
"Never" is a strong word.
"AI cannot create art because it lacks emotions"
The perfect summary
The only emotion the art community has is lust. Some greed too.
@@user-uo8ny1kj4c you're a really sad little person
Haha who hurt you @@user-uo8ny1kj4c
Fascinating concept from the art establishment about 75ish years ago, the artist doesn't need to know the 'meaning' or 'depth' to what they're painting and cans still make fantastic art, like the painting demonstrated we don't need to know how he actually felt because the story is inherent in the work - I don't want to get too sidetracked on psychology but it's very possible he adored those women and didn't see them as you see them because his internal concept of what it means to be a good person had been shifted by knowing them to the point his 'visual concept of virtue' was based to a degree on his relationship with them - thus painting them 'realistically' was not an act of secret spite but genuine respect.
Someone entirely devoid of artistic education or totally without deep motive can create what's seen as a very stark and compelling image to the art world because they're reflecting their personal experience into the work, this grew to real prominence in the establishment through people like Basquiat creating what was called 'outsider art' a field which has now grown to somewhat dominate the art world - I've seen Graffiti in all he biggest contemporary galleries and it frequently tops the auction price list, Tracy Emin is another example of outsider art and while the tabloids of course hate anything that isn't conservative values but her work is actually incredibly thought provoking and interesting from an academic perspective and as a visual experience - in a sense it's similar to Warhol's famous works using generic items placed in a way that makes you consider them differently except she isn't showing culturally designed items (product labels) but rather she's showing elements of her own experience expressed in a bluntly compelling visual medium.
Had Tracy Emin not been exposed to those elements of life she depicts and not experienced those situations then she would not have been able to express them, indeed as with any artist the things that are experienced become the art and the things you experience are created by other people, an artist simply makes reflections of the world around and them and the people that influence them.
Picasso was a set of circumstances, if you took him in a time machine as a baby to any other existence then his entire output would be different - if he even made art at all. Fascinating to think what the smallest change to his life that'd entirely alter art history could be, it might hinge on a single school yard conversation or even a misheard comment. The fact we get Picasso's and Van Gogh's at all is simply a function of probability, with enough stuff going on it's inevitable that sometimes the right forces will point in the same direction and resonate in all the right ways. There's the fascinating question of would an alien with similar visual comprehension and from a culture with art of their own be able to pick Starry Night from any other highly stylistic image of the era? Is it intrinsically better or simply culturally relevant in a way which shifts our very comprehension of the visual image to favor it? Much like the ladies you see has somewhat disgusting or loathsome might to the artist be the very visage of virtue and saintliness.
An AI has not just the small milieu that any one person can know it's a probabilistic matrix constructed from literally billions of interactions and inferences between all the microcosms and macrocosms of recorded human history - every single part of that network is tuned through millions of minute details all processed and calculated with levels of complexity far exceeding anything any human could come close to comprehending. If Emin and Basquiat and Warhol and Van Gogh can create great works simply by acting as a conduit for the things the world taught and trained them to perceive then it's absolutely absurd to think for a second that our vast probabilistic networks of human experience can't and won't do similar.
I understand a lot of conservative minded modern art haters think that everything after the dutch masters is an affront to god but you can't profess to like Van Gogh while spitting in the eye of everything that it represents and created.
That's not to say that there isn't something uniquely personal about some human made art (don't anyone try to pretend the Ikea product diagrams represent an expression of personal self) and i personally love individual stories and journeys but I think it's foolish and crass to act like AI art is incapable of expressing anything meaningful, that's exactly the close minded and prescriptive attitude that led to every single person i've mentioned being derided by contemporaries and it's an insult to all the great artists who genuinely believed and fought to push off the oppressive and constrictive old world conformist viewa and create a world where people are able to respect Picasso, Van Gogh, Cezanne,, Monet, Munch, and everyone else who gets held up as 'real art' but people who care more about pretension than expression.
You can tell he liked the one in the bottom right- she was probably the one that gave him the money. The one in the middle has the least amount of detail and probably the least amount of value added to the white collar- probably hated her
AI could never replicate the passion of a real human artist
Can you?🤖
Facts!
You're all a hivemind, chanting the same thoughts. And I thought you all hated ai, but you're just as predictable if not more predictable than a actual robot. Pathetic
passion doesn't exist, it's a falsely ascribed meaning
Do you want AI to have feelings/qualia/sapience? I think that road leads to a LOT of suffering
The one thing AI cannot generate actual History and the People who lived in.
Another thing that I always think about
Ai could perfectly recreate the paintings I make to vent, but ai could never FEEL the sorrow that went into it to make it matter to others
Ai can replicate your joy, sorrow, anger, but it can never feel your highest highs or lowest lows
If you're an artist, don't let ai stop you! Because you'll always have something it can't have that makes your art matter!
Do you ... want AI to have feelings? Are you sure this is a good idea?
@@Man_in_Whitehow did you get that out of the comment? lol
Weirdly for me ai has been a tool for exactily this. It has been a tool for emphasizing elements and connections i have. Abstractions i have.
If you only use ai using one prompt you cant understand this but the combination of positive and negative prompts aa well as regional editing through prompts enables a deep connection with a social mind for some of us focused around our feelings yet also our connections to a broader context
It can you are just using unpaid cheap ass versions and you are taking out the beauty of communication with those "machines". Learn how to properly prompt and you can get much better results.
@@Exorcistt94so is your argument that we do, in fact, have ai that can feel? why did you put quotation marks around "machine?"
Saying AI can make art is the same as saying the camera is the artist not the photographer, only humans can make art
Bold to assume the general public is analyzing paintings that deeply when even basic media literacy is severely lacking.
One of the best shorts I've seen today...
This is why ai can never replace artists. Art is personal interpretation of the world around us through the imperfect, often bias human eye. It is often self centered view of the world even if the artist isn't in the work. Ai has no such inclinations.
for you it is for the people buying it not making it all they care for is the result.
Of course it cannot replace artists because AI models cannot do anything on their own. They need a human to steer them. Just like Photoshop cannot do anything on its own but can be used to create art.
@@Keithjustkeithwastaken the ai art craze is going to die down when people realize ai can't create anything fresh or inspired.
Frans Hals is my favorite artist ❤ i love the energy of his paintings
I remember this discussion about how human art will last because people can discuss for hours on why they drew something in a certain way or used those colours but AI art will die because it has no intentions and thus the answer is already known. That piece was drawn like that because it is statistically correct.
essencialy, AI doesn't have the personal motive that makes paintings so interesting, and it will never have it because an alterior motive to it's actions is the only thing AI will never be given
Everyone knows this
Sadly most people dont care for this, if basic needs arent met art will always revolve around money, thus you get absolute slop to maintain status quo with no need for inovation cause there is nobody there to appreciate it
Person who enters the prompt and massages the image does though.
But the AI is guided by a person to create the image they want - like hip hop artists who sample other people music.
I saw someone make a comment somewhere online saying that they "never believed in human spirit, until I saw how art looked without one."
I agree firmly that current Ai could never capture the beauty of the human mind and soul.
But to say that it will never happen sounds like a stretch no? I feel like so long as humanity keeps developing as it dose then who's to say how far Technology and Ai will go, maybe not in the coming decades or even our lifetimes, but I wouldn't say it's impossible. At least interms of understanding the human mind...the soul is another matter 🤷🏾♂️
Appreciate the video 🙏🏾
“AI” “art” is showing us how much art and artist are intertwined.
Make this a series
You can generate a trillion pictures, and not one will have meaning
Ai art doesn't have meaning. And a feeling that an artist puts into it. You can see the artist through their art, I've heard that somewhere and I agree (it's more than just an art style)
While AI can never capture the story, the intrigue, the drama, AI absolutely could make that painting pixel for pixel, the same expressions and light/dark contrast. Maybe not right now, but there's no reason it couldn't. And it worries me that this would be enough for some people.
AI does not create art, it creates images, and that's it. There is no feeling, there is no concept, just a robot following orders. And it is very good at its job.
You are just following the orders of a predetermined universe. Your feelings are an illusion as is your identity
@Scooterbeerrun You're right. But I don't see where your affirmation fits as an answer to mine.
@@sam7wo259making sure you know art doesn't exist then
@Scooterbeerrun Not in a physical sense. But I say in a psychological sense. In what our formation of neurons defines as art, and what the imaginary interpersonal link that we call society defines as art.
@@sam7wo259 an inconsistent definition at its heart. Either it's all art or none of it is
The correct sentence is: "Current AI implementations I have met so far, can't do this."
And that is how it will continue to be. Ai is a little worse at exact specifics, but can almost certainly nail most anything you place in front of it and don't look at too closely.
Every time someone attempts to claim a painting can’t be replicated by AI, and then they give the most milquetoast prompts while explaining the painting in immaculate detail, I always think “why didn’t you just make that the prompt?“
In short, AI is NOT human and never will be.
Absolutely. Every time I see an AI image, it always looks lifeless, feels like I'm looking at the abandoned house with no vegetations
You've probably seen a bunch that you didn't realize. AI is getting better rapidly
@@derfvcderfvc7317no I never have because I've blocked every ai result in Google, rarely use social media, and it's super easy to tell when you're a real artist who actually draws.
@@derfvcderfvc7317 Oh yeah, the melting horrors and twisted fingerarms take 10 seconds to spot instead of 1 💀
@@yaboye3791 There's a very big difference between AI art made by professionals and novices. I've seen a lot of people mistake them for real art. Heck, someone won a photography contest with AI art
I had no idea Frans Hall painted the Mona Lisa...
Ironic his editor is probably using AI to fill in the gaps
Honestly, this video is not only interesting for artists but for psychologists and ai designers. It shows that intelligence is not the only thing important, it's specialness of intelligence, Einstein probably wouldn't be able to create this painting because his special skills weren't connected with art, and this applies even to branches and sub-branches of science, art, etc.
By all means, you could not determine whether its intelligence or something else from this example, because AI lacks that intelligence. It is but a replication of the most shallow parts of humanity, to be poetic.
I mean, intelligence isn't what's being demonstrated in this specific video so that conclusion doesn't make sense.
I don’t think the people replying understand what you’re saying. You make a beautiful and important point.
psychologists understand this is copium so, no
That’s similar to what I’ve been saying about AI in general. The limitation is not necessarily in what the AI can do, but in how WE are unable to emotionally connect with what an AI does. We are the limitation and there is no way around it. And I am thankful for that.
That's why art; being music, paintings, etc, will always be defined to me as human expression.
Well it can't be worm expression can it?
AI is a human tool doing what humans ask it to do.
@Cheepchipsable Like I said it's human expression. It comes directly from a person, not through a machine or anything else.
I love your channel
Anyone insisting that AI can make these paintings didn't understand the video.
I think it's a matter of when, because obviously current Ai can't begin to do this, but so long as it keeps being developed who can say how far it will go in being capable of understanding the human thought process. Maybe several decades or generations down the line, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's impossible
Love that he included Maya Rudolph in the painting!
Just gotta tell you 99% of people don't care about paintings some guy hung up his garbage painting in a museum and people thought it was great cause it was in a museum
All art is equally valuable to the human experience.
AI bro spotted. Opinion rejected
Cope
AI can't make a painting like this because it portrays humans with only 2 hands and only 5 fingers in each hand
AI will never recreate the talent and creativity of the human race.
Art is a medium of emotional communication. AI doesn’t have emotions. AI can’t make art.
Not to mention AI can’t make anything original, it just borrows stuff from across the web and puts it together
AI bros are gonna try to start teaching their bots to be depressed and lonely XD
I’ve said this so many times, the main difference between human and ai art is that human art is made from real world experiences while ai cannot have any real world experience
But I think you’re forgetting that ai generators are nothing if a human isn’t using it. It’s a tool like how photoshop is a tool. So the person using it does have the real world experience while ai is just something that helps that person express it.
Do you want AI to have feelings/qualia/sapience? I think that road leads to a LOT of suffering
This is exactly what I CANNOT understand about AI and people who exploit ai for arts. Ai was created to help take over monotonous tasks so that people will have more time for holistic creativity and arts. Yet what's going on now is the complete opposite. Ai, an unfeeling, emontionless machine, is taking over the jobs that require the most feelings and emotions. What is going on with this world.
Jobs? When AI replaces everyone there will be no jobs, that's the purpose, then you are free to pursue whatever