On thing no one is talking about is over saturation. There will most likely be a huge amount of ai art added to am already saturated art market. I would imagine this will devalue art even further
@@Jupa As much as I’d like to agree, plenty of artists just never get exposure regardless of their skill thanks to over saturation. I’m imagining ai generated art and human art alike would suffer from that
Demand will remain the same, some art directors will simply choose to cut out artists and generate the art with AI themselves. There may be oversaturation on social media, though. But I really don't see any Instagrammer building a following because people can't wait to see what new prompts he or she will come up with next. Maybe some people with a modicum of art ability who feed their sketches into an AI to come up with a polished final piece.
Hopefully it will make traditional art like paintings increase in value because it will be rare like what happens with the camera the market is over saturated with them there's not laptop tablet or phone that have no camera integrated the ai market will be so oversaturated that soon or later it would have to decrease in value making human artist valuable again idk if I'm explained it well enough but my point is that artist are not doomed like people says
I hope more people see art as more than just something to make to earn money. Is it cool to earn money from making art? Yeah it is. Is it the norm for most people that make art though? The value of art is more than just monetary, but I think at least a decent amount of the anger aimed at AI art is based on the fear losing income. And as sad as that is, art as a product is only worth as much as people are willing to pay for it. It's a luxury to own art but not a necessity. Over saturation would force the price down making it more affordable but less profitable. More people might be willing to buy art at that price, but traditional art might struggle to compete with that. Cheap art might become the common man's art while hand crafted will stay a luxury for the people with excessive wealth, the same people that already buy art. For example, Ikeas cheaper furniture didn't get rid of hand crafted furniture, it just changed the market. The hand crafted stuff still sells but it's only bought by people willing to spend more.
As an artist I don’t have a problem with AI art it’s the people behind it and the dishonesty. They can do it in a way that is ethical and beneficial they did it with a music platform that they made. Probably because music has better legal protections. But the visual arts don’t have the same protections. This AI can do wonderful things. But it should be done in a way that compensates artists not take advantage of them and there work, for big companies.
This exactly. I personally have nothing against the AI. Feed it public domain images, or you own artwork if you want, it's fine. But taking images from artists without their consent is wrong. People do it all the time, but legally and morally it's not ok. It's exactly like stealing music.
Music has a better music protection? Do you know that most music tracks own by big labels or sound record company and not by musicians themselves. Do you know that to start earn money on music, you can't just start posting art on divianart or instagram and wait for commissions or add requests? For example to publish music on Spotify you must find distributor, who will in fact fully control all your songs. Music industry is thick. It is the worst thing to take an example from
Dude, the problem is not the own concept of AI, is the fact that tjis machine use art without the permision of the original creators and plagiarize the artstyle of real life creators, fomenting the fraud with no protection for human artist ehile others use your to create money and sometimes, even your own name if you are a bit famous... Artist dont say no to tecnology, we just want protection against this if someone just dont wanna see how his work is used without permission
ai art kinda works like this 1 it finds a famous style 2 it references that style 3 it applies it think of it like learning a certain style but ai does it in a matter of secounds
@@agentcaninemutt you say this like that makes it ok and not a nightmare. Let me ask you this: When a billion images have been generated in Van Gogh's style, does his actual work have any value anymore? Is his original work still impactful when you see it? Do you still feel the care and emotion he put into his works? Or could you care less, because the market is saturated, and AI took the heart out of art?
@@JudgeHoldenUwU If you don't care where food comes from as long as it "tastes good" we will end up with soylent green. If we don't care what a military does as long as "we're winning" you will wind up on the wrong side of history.
Remember back in the day.We were taught in art schools to actually copy All the styles from all the amazing artists... This is what I feel the ai is kind of doing too...
That's exactly what it is. These are foundational models, meaning they require a very broad set of data in order to perform the most basic functions. If the foundation is narrow or thin, then you can't build anything on top of it. Plus, many of these models have been released open source and free for anyone to use. The developer community has been working non-stop the past couple of years, optimizing and fine-tuning the models so that anyone with consumer level hardware can run them locally.
Chess survives because it is a human-to-human sport where there the better gets praised for their skill sans engines. Art isn't the same, unless human art starts to get valued more for some odd reason. But, on the note of chess, it hasn't been drama free. Especially now. Cheating scandals. "hidden" devices. Great fear that high level players can cheat with little help from engines.
@@somthinwrong Your point being? Are you implying making art is like coal mining or shitting on the streets LOL? Lots of new techs have been invented and people still can use charcoal to make art. Art can be made with anything, AI is just a new tool at our disposal.
I feel the main complaints about AI are the way many services take artwork without compensation and charge to have them mixed into new images. If they added royalties and consent it would be fine.
Yeah, I get that..I think it would be really challenging from a legal perspective to provide royalties for every single artist since these datasets are so massive and extensive, and in reality those royalties might not be very substantial (at least in the current datasets). I think they had a more of a "move fast break things " mentality. The advancement of these AI generators would have been a lot slower had they not trained the models the way they did. Doesn't really make it right imo, just my 2 cents. Now that the public sees the potential for the technology, AI companies can pivot accordingly and *hopefully move towards a more sustainable model where they aren't using images without permission moving forward.
@@frostreaper1607 its fine, its the wild west right now, get over it, it ll eventually calm down. top artist will sellout to these corps, and they wont need normal people art anyways.
why would you get compensated for something using your art as a reference? none of the art from the training data exists within the model. the model just uses algorithms to make a latent memory of how that image was structured.
I agree with some of this but I think a lot of the anger comes from the lack of respect AI "artists" have for their predecessors. It feels backhanded to take others work and make money this quickly without even acknowledging the original creators. Artists have this innate respect for each other. WE DO TAKE FROM OTHER ARTISTS. Just like AI. But we know and respect the people we are imitating. And the original ideas of the previous artists live on in this way. When someone tells an AI to make something, they have NO CLUE who it is referencing nor would they care. That's why it more like "stealing" than anything else.
See, I as an artist and slightly connected to the programming understand that the AI is here to stay and can be the fruit of great achievements and evolution of humanity, but it depends on us and only us because like any technology, can be used for the "good" and for the "evil" of others. And for more aesthetic and accessible that new technologies have presented themselves, they have gross flaws concerning their ethics and moral functioning, from social ethics to environmental ethics can still be considered destructive or at least hasty. Remember that only 31% of the world has access to basic education, remember that around 17 million people survive today only with artistic earnings and many of them, mainly in underdeveloped countries, depend on these earnings to eat and have access to basic health, remember that psychologically the human being is not prepared to see this technology as an auxiliary factor but as a factor of substitution of what already exists. Artists protesting, often they are not protesting simply because they don't like the technology or because of any legislative convention/agenda, but because they fear that tomorrow they won't be able to put any more food on the table. Talking now about the book The War of Art, don't you think that art being a way of liberating the soul in its process, due to the requirements of patience and other virtues, the conduct of this process being passed on to an AI would not be a tool of resistance? If imagination is something that is born from the ability to see something more and resistance holds you where you are, when you have not enjoyed your creative capacity would it actually be the resistance of wanting to imagine? Just things to think about...
What you are asking of artists is to just get on with it. What artists are asking for really is "Stop duplicating our work if you are not going to pay us". Yes, of course they will get on with it. But that does not mean they should not demand for laws/regulations. Laws that will ensure that credit and compensation reaches them, when clearly, it's the artists' works that make the foundation of all AI generated images. It is a Content Renaissance, not a Creative one.
I really hate when people say ai art is stealing from existing art. I guess they think it just has a big database of images it photoshops together? Ai art models cannot recall any specific images. They only keep their impressions of the art they have seen. You observe the art of others and then you don't memorize it, but you keep your impressions of the form and details and use that for your own art
they have a database called lion it might be right that the database don't store the images it stores thy hyperlink witch is just as bad as if the database storage the images 🤷
How is it that I've seen dozens of mock movie posters with Disney and CBM images, faces of famous actors and so on? Prompt AI to give you a stolen image and it will do just that.
Who cares how it specifically works when the outcome is literally just convincing replicas of existing specific art styles. Idk how it works but what it produces seems to contradict.
Just learned that the science fiction magazine "Clarkesworld" has been inundated with AI written submissions. They are all terrible, but the sheer volume of them has caused the magazine to stop taking new submissions altogether. There are actually people out there who think that you can simply string words together and make money selling them to magazines.
everybody wants to pretend like this tech isn't going to just bring out the absolute worst and most lazy behavior in people, but that's 99% of what we're going to get from it. I feel bad for teachers having to grade students now.
The initial shock is understandable, but the genie is out of the bottle. We’re better off figuring out how to adapt. For example, why not use it as a way to start the base of your piece, or a way to quickly thumbnail to spark your imagination. Instead of referencing stolen art, maybe reference pictures you’ve taken while exploring your surroundings ( that cool city square you know, or the cool tree in the forest/park you frequent etc )
problem is .01% of people will use it like you describe, and 99% of people are going to be using the same typical keywords and artists names. At the very least, the images used to train AI violated the "fair use" terms because it allows people to directly compete with any artist using their own work to do it, that is the opposite of "fair use"
I think it would be interesting to feed these programs my own work and see what variations it spits out, I know the anger about this technology is stemming from the fact it's being trained unethically. To some degree I think if we didn't pave the way for it, by amusing such an impressive body of work online. The technology would be both blind and deaf. As of late I found myself asking a great deal of questions, such as what is art ? Is what this machine does also art? What does art mean to me? What is my relationship with art? And much more, but the question of quality is not among them, for that was the easiest to answer AI wins almost every time. I don't mean to dishearten any who take the time to read this, please forgive. In conclusion we are at a crossroads both as individuals and a community. Regardless of the answers you arrive at or your preferred medium of expression, I sincerely hope you continue to create. For a world without your unique contribution is all the lessa.
I recently posted a tutorial on that- in MidJourney just upload your work to discord, then include it in the prompt as a link and midjourney will use it as reference/build upon it. Works really well for abstract work, but it's fun experimenting with it
Artists when they steal all possible characteristics of popular media for their shitty OC: "Sir, if you have a complaint I suggest you submit it through our email system. I would be happy to refer you to our website" Artist when a literal computer uses someones art for reference: "You are done. Fired."
I think, generally, the art aesthetic will enable artists to create more, as is stated in the video, but it seems, upon inspection, that those that are doing the most complaining are the Twitter cringe artists. In many respects, its the feigned outrage, victimization culture/fandoms, that are going to habitually feign outrage because its within that "culture" to do so. It doesn't matter that its AI art or some other "cause" that is appropriated to feed that urge.
It does seem like this is the case...there will always be a group of hating on anything new. But before they know it, it'll become part of their daily life and they won't even remember hating on it in the first place. Thanks for watching!
idk bro, twitter is a widely used platform for artists, although it is a rather toxic platform, who are anyone to tell growing creatives to limit their reach for networking and branding. plus it's rather dis respectful to say out right that all artists fighting against AI "art" are fools from twitter trying to feed into a trend because of some urge. Instead almost any video I have seen such as Steven Zapata, Sam does art and many others make quite unique and concrete concerns regarding the likely bleak future implications image based AIs would bring such as how they will eventually even come to a point where they no longer need even humans to input texts, instead after trillions of uses the algorithm can on it's own predict what anyone would wish for, wiping out any need for human input. I mean just look at chat GPT, combine the two and add a few years or even just months of development, what will be of human creativity then? join me friend, lets preserve what little we have left and more.
@@kevinsun3190 You are confounding things here. If there is no one to see the art, it is worthless. Who are all these machines going to be showing their art to? You are also constructing a scenario that reiterates your beliefs. People are going to stop creating art because of AI? If that is the case then we are a pathetic species indeed. Humans, if anything, are supremely capable of acclimating, even altering their environment, for themselves. Look at Twitter holistically and its inescapable that these groups of victimization as a stable personality exist and appropriate whatever the latest X is. What constitutes a valid argument? Is it factual or is it more of the "I like this thing therefore no matter of fact will touch it." There is too much of that already.
this is about the gigantic theft of already existing artist's work. work that not many artists consented to just giving away. not just complaining about technology.
"Quit picking fights and go make something, so other people can effortlessly rip it off." "And don't get mad when 5 different people are pretending to be you and saturating the market with the style that took you a lifetime to develop, competing with you in exactly the way that "fair use" was supposed to prevent, but you better just stay humble!" Something tells me people won't be telling actors and actresses to just "get over it" when they aren't needed to do any real acting anymore, most of them will WANT to do the acting themselves even if they don't have to anymore, and because it's famous people everybody will sympathize with them and want to preserve acting jobs.
I dont understand why these guy dont understand that this ai is made for replace them , that ai is not a tool it's a replacement for artist , a thing that you can already see
@@redtechnology6407 legally ai is probably transformative enough that the law won’t do anything about it. And morally, every major tech breakthrough is usually morally wrong. Think about the tractor for instance, it absolutely was made to replace a certain workforce. I don’t think this’ll completely kill jobs, and I think more art jobs will spawn out of it in the end, but the transition will be rough
@@redtechnology6407 cope mald and seethe you can't stop it and I will continue to use ai for my digital design company and now I get to fire all my digital artists, more money for me and the program is so cheap, cope, mald and seethe
“There really is no such thing as Art. There are only artists.”- E.H Gombrich Art is a form of freedom of expression and the ability to draw anything. However, artificial intelligence is limited because it determines the output based on the data it has been trained on. In the end, I do not think that artificial intelligence is inherently bad, but it can be problematic when it is used inappropriately. Simply generating a few words does not make an artist, because true creativity comes from within the artist. Also, artificial intelligence does not need you, it can generate a better prompt than you so The real creators are the artists themselves Currently, I will avoid using it, not because I am against technology, because I am human and love drawing and expressing myself freely Artificial intelligence will now become a camera for the unreal world, And artists again will go to another dimension that artificial intelligence cannot reach It's like when the camera created the artists, they stopped painting the real world and turned to the realm of fantasy and science fiction.
im afraid it's deeper than that. i wish AI is just a tool that artists can use to improve their work. however people are complaining about how it could be used by the wrong people and how it should be regulated. because currently theres 0 regulation regarding AI art and that can lead to numerous problems. theres also the debacle about whatever AI art shits out it is not original by any means NOT because AI sample imgaes the way people has believed all this time, but because AI does not have its own life experiences, preferences, and creativity when "re creating" these training images themselves. and that is why some people are still concerned about how AI is actually stealing people's art altough the topic has because so deeply philosophical. but these will definitely erase lower rank artists who only wants to make a decent living through their hobby of art. possibly even discourage a lot of people from learning art.
Ai dosent steal ist learns how pictures are composed. It not the same way that humans learn but it learns and after the training they dont use any pictures as referenz. It also can courage them because they can feed the picture into the Software an look what there picture will look like in the future. So its not all bad there are Positiv sides to it to. sure some artists that make custom pictures for low money will lose some cliants but thats how it always was. AI is nothing less then the next industrial revolution.
@@randomnumbers84269 You're "cringe" because it's obvious you're only supporting this out of laziness and embodying the meme "You made this?......I made this!"
@Some Random Fellow better than yours, I have made art that made people ask how I was able to do it, before AI even hit the scene. I can do great things without having to rely on AI, so I'm just sitting back to watch As you prompt plebs think you're taking all the attention and money from artists, but you're doing it to yourselves just as much. You just took an already underpaid position and made it worse for yourselves. No prompter is ever going to be admired the way real artists have been, either, so good luck with your new worthless powers.
The only problem I see in that is you can't think like an artist, ultimately AI art it's not created as a tool for artists. The ones who designed it did not intend it to be a tool for artist they have their own tunnel vision in creating an actual artificial intelligence, the point of concern comes into the one factor that always takes control of something the corporate Factor as much as people like to deny the fact we live in a fully corporate world we grind on people are blind to that fact that we are just enslaving ourselves to the shareholders, and I believe AI art is going to be there one big move to finally get the one thing that is always flustered corporations and they will take advantage to every aspect remove the artists and the storytellers eventually because they no longer see innovation they found more profits in stagnation. And the only reason that we seen such a sharp increase in the advancement of AI those same Corporations saw the possibilities of increasing profit while cutting out the things that always get in the way.
Even if it could happen I doubt it would work well.. Like how do we quantify the percentage of someone's work used in something that could be partially made using AI. And if we can, it's gonna be like Spotify where most artists get pennies. Would also fear the number of scams people would try to pull. Like with TH-cam atm. People are claiming others' videos and it's guilty till proven innocent.
@@randomnumbers84269 Any commercial use has to be made with an AI that has legal proof of not violating any sort of copyright. If it does, legal action
Let put it this way : the more years and sacrifices you had put into your craft, the more you will react to this Ai stuff negatively and its perfectly legit, fair and logic to react that way ! Period. Its all about blood and tears. I guess most people embrassing it early are those who possess 0 skills, talent or never had the will and effort to become good out of laziness , commitment, or simply a lack of natural talent.
When everybody and their grandmother can just steal your whole creative identity, effortlessly, and flood the market with YOUR unique style to monetize it, that is not "no big deal" We can be humble as artists without being complete doormats, being ok with being stolen from is not some virtue like the person who posted this video wants to preach. and if it was literally any other career, like hollywood stars, people wouldn't be telling them to just "get over it and get with the times, we don't need actors anymore, we have CGI for everything"
@@cosmicllama6910as i mentioned most Non artists have no idea how much efforts are spent to become a master and develop your unique style, at the expense of family, health, time ( decades in most cases ) and they are the one telling you : Embracing it ! what a foolish, disrespectful and sarcastic statement .AI supposed ART are Theft, lazy, and a total disgrace !
I'm mainly annoyed by AI art not because of it 'replacing real artists', but because there's a gross over-saturation of them on the art sites i'm on. most commonly deviantart and rule 34. i can't yoink it knowing it was generated by a computer and not having actual artist input and soul it's like the mcdonald's of art. it's quick, easy, and tastes alright, but at the end of the day it's manufactured slop and it's never gonna have the same quality and feel of home cooked or restaurant food.
THOUGHT EXPERIMENT: If my (non-artist) mom’s pet hamster fell onto her computer’s keyboard and accidentally prompted MidJourney, and this led Midjourney to create an artistic image would that A) Make the hamster an artist? B) Or my mom the artist? C) Or neither? Midjourney can in-fact generate images based on one word or “non-word” prompts. or “by accident.” I don’t think it’s fair for someone to use raw Midjourney output, post it on a gallery somewhere (as they often do) and consider it their own art. It’s simply not their own art. Not unless they creative iterative art using a model trained on either 1. open sourced content 2. commons content 3. their own artwork. 4. licensed art AND If they adequately transform the original work within the bounds of fair use, per use case. Artists should be compensated for the use of their art in the training of these generative art models. Including the ones whose art was used to train Midjourney. or Midjourney etc could be rebooted without pilfered artwork. but then it would look quite different. maybe some transparency would be nice. without the work of recent and of living artists, character designers, UX designers, product designers, fashion illustrators, amazing comic artists, etc. and all of the real artists on art station, MidJourney would NOT have that “mid-journey look”…and would look more like DALL.E or a retro image generator. compensate or work with the artists whose IP is being used in midjourney! OR RE-do Midjourney without artist’s IP. AI further commodifies the spirit (❤️vs.💰🤑) of art.
@@mikekazz5353 with enough AI-enhancement, some “AI enhanced humans” will assume that they have surpassed Shakespeare or Tolstoy, but will they actually have done so?
@@mikekazz5353 when monkeys with typewriters are uplifted with bioengineering and AI wetware, will they not just recreate but surpass Shakespeare or is it really just a matter of subjective opinion?
I've watched the Art world evolve over time, I watched the explosion of digital cameras from film. In both creative fields, people have fallen into the trap of searching for the next hit of dopamine rather than focusing on the root and intention of what art is: communication. AI is only a tool to help other communicate artistically, for others who have traditional skills of an artist it can be a tool to advance and evolve your own creations.
I posted 1 AI image on Reddit for fun in a sub where it isn’t banned (which is rare) and I still got ripped a new a-hole. I didn’t even make it. It wasn’t stealing anyone’s job or art (mostly used real photos as input). People need to chill out
As an Artist AND Comp. Sci. major myself: I'm tired of artists shouting down all other voices/prespectives in an effort to own the moral-ground & victimhood of the debate. Not a single fellow artist I've directly asked has acutally understood how Stable Diffusion technology works, nor do they care to educate themselves, or try it. Funny enough, not a single artist I've spoken to has lost their job or a client because of AI art. When Photoshop was publically avalible back in Feb. 1990, traditional artists back then complained that "the computer just does all the work: it's lazy." Today, the same people who complain about AI tech are the same "lazy artsits" who gew up using Photoshop and still use it daily to make a living. Congradualtions you digital artists, you grew up to be the same bitter old-guy from the 1990s, critizing the younger generation and complaning about new techology. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
COME ON DUDE, "Funny enough, not a single artist I've spoken to has lost their job or a client because of AI art" AIART IS IN ITS INFANCY, dont be a fucking dumbass, give it a few years and it will be able to take jobs from left and right.
@@wanashthegash 1. Are YOU an artist? Do you depend on art for your income? If not, then sit down and let the adults talk. 2. If you ARE an artist then tell me this: If anyone can download & install AI software like Stable Diffusion, then why would anyone buy AI art if they could just make it themselves? Maybe it's because, now stay with me, your clients want YOUR art, stuff MADE by YOU. Crazy I know! 3. And once again, Photoshop Feb. 1990: my point still stands. Whenever we look at the art world using computers, we only see more money and success and inovation. Lets look at more examples! CGI didn't put irl actors out of a job; if anything, Actors are payed MORE now than ever thanks to computers allowing us to pull off giant projects like the MCU. I look forward to AI improving. As an Artist AND as a Comp Sci myself; I think we're gonna see a lot more neat and creative things on the horizon as AI find's it's neiche and becomes incorporated into our workflow.
As a working illustrator with several years of work I personally have nothing against the AI itself. It is the way the dataset were built that make me question the morality of AI art. What really bothers me is that there were regulations at first. The very first datasets only used non-copyrighted material, but it then changed to a broader web scraping, only excluding extreme content. When I look at how they treated music datasets, I wonder if they're just doing it with images because they know most artists don't have the same structural protection than musicians. You can even see watermarks on some generated images. As for the Photoshop comparison, I think the main difference is that AI art is based on non-AI art. Photoshop didn't need to scrape images from traditional artists to make their program work.
@@infinite1483 It really depends on what you do with Photoshop. Painting on photoshop requires nearly the same knowledge and artistry as traditional painting, whereas editing a photography is completely different than painting, even if you use the same program. Basically what you're saying is equivalent to "you need no skill to use a pencil" without specifying if you're talking about writing or drawing.
"I don't know what I'm talking about or how any of it works or where it will go from here, but I'm embracing it and it makes me cooler than you" is the entire video Comparing slightly more complex tiktok anime filter to Refik Anadol is a fucking disgrace. And even then, Refik's work is only good because of it's novelty. Stop eating up everything "progress" and the market shits out. Not everything is good or groundbreaking just because it seems cool on first value AI can't make art by definition of art.
Well, I am more worried about some numbskull doing false accusations that of using AI art tools when I didn't (Some guys are advising me to have a speedpaint, some sort of bts pics about the art process and to block people) and an actual art thief using the AI tools to really steal.
I’d question “most artists” being anti-AI. It’s clearly not insignificant, but social media has a tendency to amplify negative viewpoints. Technically it could be a majority, but I think the evidence for that is not conclusive.
I'm sure thers plenty of artist who are pro but are being kept down by their anti AI friends, so plenty of people would be using it in secret. Not to mention that voicing a pro opinion on any art site is currently the worse thing you can do unless you like being targeted by the anti mob.
To tell you the truth we don't want to work to be stolen and fed by an AI what we really want is a sentient Ai and regulations to prevent art stealing, and another thing that should worry you there was an AI art generator that was caught leaking personal information and medical information
Now what in the hell is this doing on my for you page ai art is stolen from other artists of the internet without giving them any credit which is just plain unfair
K. Seeing many braindead people confusing art for talent instead of being a skill, you can learn a skill, art is a learned skill not a talent. This AI tech is impressive and powerful, it’s here to stay I’ll admit, we’ve crossed the point of no return, but it’s never going to be a skill. AI is a tool, right now it’s harmful because the unskilled people believe themselves right at every point and better than an artist who’s studied and worked their skill over decades of their lives, and capitalism ain’t helping. And people who don’t know what they’re talking (“AI artists”) about aren’t helping. Have respect for the skill and those who take it seriously. “AI Art” will never be recognised as art because it’s not human expression being told, it’s a tool that doesn’t understand art.
If that's the case, then there is literally no other group who should be dominating AI art as much as professional artists and developing artists. They aren't. AI won't replace these artists. An artist who can also use AI will. Artists shouldn't create the situation they fear the most and facilitate their own potential replacement. That is why adaptation and broadening art skills to use this tool will be so important. Artists should be dominating this space. No other group could be more experienced, talented, and deserving in this case. Be well, and I hope all your artist endeavors go fantastically.
@@tracy-eire The problem you're illustrating's the influx of people who couldn't draw previously, now suddenly finding their "skill" in AI art and flooding it everywhere. Businesses large and small, along with your average person has access to make whatever they want and put it everywhere. Artists use it as a tool. they don't need it to create images, that's what their skill is for.. the point of professional art isn't to mass produce generic images. It takes creative teams and direction to make art useful and actually work in a professional environment. The reason you don't see professional artists dominating in the field is because they don't need to sit there generating random prompt images when they can get exactly what they asked for. People don't make art the way it's made with AI, it takes time, it's a completely different process. This is the whole reason why they find it a threat, because it's just a machine that spits out thousands of worthless content at the push of a few keys. Everyone is an artist now, so why would a business pay an artist for a proper graphic design when any regular joe could just prompt what they want and call it a day. It's been 2-3 years since the dawn of all this and already had AI art flooded most corners of the internet. Artists using AI won't become much known until the majority of this hype surrounding chills out and enough time has gone by to actually make something with some passion in it and didn't take a few minutes to hash together.
While I appreciate the video, AI is not a problem just in the art world, it is transforming into multiple categories of services and none of them are related to helping anyone. Why aren't these AI "engineers" creating one which can make things better on the medicine field or something that actually need these mega fast "machine learning" processes? I always get this feeling, it's just a feeling of course, that it's more convenient to do this in fields that are profitable, have many people which can help train these systems for free, and also don't have big corporations and a lot of law involved, you know, the art world seems to be a good start, lots of people would take the "pill of success" to be able to create stuff fast and put more money and effort into their own lack of responsibility and laziness, than to support and fund something like AI for anything, specially if that supposed AI is said to make their work easier. but don't quote me on that.
These ai models are being used for much more then is publicly visible ( the text to image models are the results of making ai for cars to be much safer using object and pattern recognition, the language models is used to learn how speech work and can greatly help people with speech impediments etc.) What we see publicly through chatgpt and dalle-2 etc is just a fraction of the research iceberg these ai system are used for. The high level Ai training requires millions of dollars to get to the point of sites like Dalle-2 and GPT-3 just from power consumption alone.
Exactly. When actors and actresses are no longer needed to actually do any acting anymore, are people going to tell them to "get over it and get with the times"? Or will people sympathize with the famous actors and actresses and want to preserve the human aspect of acting in movies?
@@kuromiLayfe i like how you only highlight the positive things, and not the other side like deepfakes, and peoples private medical info being found in the training data.
@@cosmicllama6910 is that A.I’s fault or human stupidity and ignorance? If you don’t want private data on the internet to get accessed by any other pc on the internet… then don’t put it on the internet,( not even as a google/apple/xaomi/etc backup)
I'm sure I'll get hate for this, but I feel that the artists doing the complaining are really insecure. I'm over on the music side of things, and I'm seeing the same thing for musicians. If you're really good at what you do - AI is not going to be a threat whatsoever. Instead embrace it and see where it can really take you... these tools in the hands of artists themselves are going to blow minds. And when has copyright protected you anyhow? I don't remember winning any copyright lawsuits.
AI is nothing more than an advanced Tool. The same people shrieking into the ether about the "unfairness" of others using a tool, is just as small minded and self defeating as the dimwits who said I wasn't a "real artist" because I used a Tablet 20 years ago. "Artists" and their own immature, knee-jerk "opinions" will be thing thing that makes these same Artists seem undesirable these days, just based on this sort of behavior of shutting down AI creatives and spitting in the face of what really comes down to fellow creatives using better tools. Pathetic, but not at all surprising.
the only good thing about this is that human creativity never really ends remember that the ai is just interpreting our ideas with it data base so we might have something in mind and not get exactly what we wanted so maybe it is still worthy to become an artist those days another thing that ai are quite unable to do apart from hands is nsfw 🤣🤣🤣 but seriously artist are not totally doomed as some persons thinks
Some people enjoy complaining. Some people are better at complaining then they are at being creative. Some people are really effected and that’s sad. Some people don’t care either way and just like talking. You kinda gotta figure out who’s who before you invest too much time into a pointless or a unproductive discussion on this topic.
The gaslighting argument "ai art is here to stay and you have to adapt or die" is like: "nuclear weapons are here to stay and you have to adapt to the idea of living in a bunker in a near future or die." I'm still thinking that the better choice is to ban nuclear weapons.
It's open source and on the global Internet. It's unbanable. Global society is not going to undertake a hundred year prohibition campaign that will cost trillions of dollars to protect your Sonic OC.
@@josehumdinger6872 I changed my mind on the last two months. There's no need to ban the Ai fake "art" for two reasons: 1) it's so boring even at the eyes of buyers that it can't compete with real art made by real meat hands of real artists; 2) now in the Usa the users of the Ai art generators don't own the copyright of the iimages generated by simply typing prompts. I higly recommend the last video of The Art Mentor: ia fake "art" is dying faster than we hope. 😊
at first i wanted to like ai images, i wanted to accept it as a tool but those filthy sweaty ai bros that probably also support nft's are stealing people's art (best example being the samdoesart situation) and claiming that they're better than human artist, its like comparing photography to painting, its ridiculous, ai can make art but it shouldn't be classified in the same category with human artists, it should be seperate
I am an enemy of the Basilisk and will fight to prevent its dominion. Its servants believe that serving it before it develops will spare them from retroactive punishment, but a machine overlord only knows what's in its dataset and will have no files on mercy.
So quick explanation here, I am an computer science engineer, in university I have been studying deep learning and testing some hypothesis, i killed my old laptop by doing so, ai technology is very complicated when it comes to hypothesis with almost about anything you do with it. I did some testing with vqgan and diffusion models when they did come out to answer a personal simple question. Can ai be considered creative. The short answer is no, it is not creative, but please note that it is my testing i might be wrong with approach or execution. So i think you already familiar with diffusion models and how they trained so i won't explain that and straight explain what i did. I trained my model from scratch it didn't know anything, i fed him pictures of very stickmen alike black dogs in a white background with resolution 64x64 and amount of thousands images, i know resolution seems low but it is actually enough to test, and also fed him images of dog's head. And when i requested to cut images of head from dog images it did fairly good job not perfect but it was going in a right direction. And then i fed him images of blue swords and also images of dogs holding a blue swords with a mouth and images of red pistols without dogs. Now what we have model that can recognize dog, dog's head, blue sword, dog holding a blue sword, red pistol. Now moment of truth if i will request him do generate image of dog holding a red pistol with a mouth will it make it or not. And as you might know answer it just give up and were generating mess trying to blend together dog and pistol. So why am i writing all of this, i often hear arguments against and for ai art generation. Some people say that ai is training on data same as people do so it is not stealing, this argument is hard to disprove because nature of ai makes hard to prove or disprove almost anything but we can say for sure that humans are creative and as i tested ai is not, so we already process information in different ways, ai's pattern recognition works in different way than humans so calling out ai for stealing might be true but then again it is not coping it directly, it is using it is knowledge of pattern that just differs from humans. Okey i will finish my observations here and further will just speak my mind about this situation. Ai is perfect representation of our society. Have any of you noticed that every time something original happens like very successful game, movie or some song. Industries and companies will do everything it takes to take piece of this successful cake and they will deny any other ideas whether they are original or not. Most big companies in entertainment industry always make same thing over and over again and the only original works were made are always made by small group of people and when they reach their success Industry giants will start to manufacture idea of this small group in a greater scales to greater profit because it proven to work to profit. This ai situation is exactly the same, if you lost your ability to distinguish ai made art from human made it is not because ai is making original content it is because people are stagnating and making same stuff over and over. Ever wondered why ai so good at generating anime waifus, it is because they are very similar in appearance to each other because we stopped pushing it forward. By making stable diffusion open source we effectively made every human being a corporation, now every one can mass manufacture popular art or art style but nobody will make original art, and even if somebody will make original works it can easily be taken and also mass produced without consent or mention. Ai is here to stay not because it is better in art than humans but because it is better in worst thing about our society today at creating same idea with low effort.
It's always the mediocre and unskilled artists that usually are pro AI. Because now they can generate art with a click of a button without investing or sacrificing their lives away. Neat deal.
@@StellaLovesMusic25 Art schools not being cheap is no excuse to be generating artwork with a click of a button. I'm completely a self taught artist. Also all the reference you need is literally out there for free. AI is okay for generation of ideas but calling that your own work is just fraud.
I agree with this comment. They know they don't have the skill to be an artist but now they can cheat their way into being one, that's why they're so desperate on sucking AI art teats because otherwise they're just talentless cucks
@@StellaLovesMusic25 Humans aren't ALL talented. There's a misconception that a SKILLED person is talented. Only thinking someone is talented completely disregards the hard work, time, and dedication spent on building up their craft, which is what AI generated art and their users are doing. You don't need to go to art school to be a successful artist ffs, but you'd still need sufficient knowledge about art and the proper skill to even become an artist, which are available for free on the internet. Ai users are talentless, they called themselves "artists" when they're just a customer using a service.
@@StellaLovesMusic25 you would be surprised how much it is about dedication and how little talent plays a role in all of this. People See the finished work and believe its talent. But the truth is it takes thousands of hours Training the fundamentals. There is a reason so many good artists talk about perspective, construction of forms and how to apply that. It simply takes a lot of time. You have to draw hands, heads, in different pespective, colours and so that over and over again till you find your own Style. Nothing magical about it.
@@StellaLovesMusic25 Art school being expensive is not an argument since you don't need it to learn art, besides chatgpt can act as an art professor if you want.
Brother you speak straight from my heart! Used to hate AI because i looked at it as the enemy so i blocked out every way that it could actually help me with my creations. My plan for now is to create animated movies completely made with my own original drawings with the help of AI! Thats the thing you gotta realize, stop looking at AI like its an evil entitiy that steals our jobs and creates soulles 2 hour long "perfect" movies, cause this is simply not true.
AI generated art is a tool, not a replacement. Imo i believe artist should try to adapt to this trend instead of trying to stop what is unstoppable. " We know how to manipulate color, we understand the structure,skeleton,etc" : why can't you use this a tool to save time if you do understand this nuances that regular AI users don't ? Real artists have a ridiculous amount of advantage in this new field and instead of setting the bar for good AI art they are choosing to go against it.
2:45 It is right - literally. The EU allows for opt-outs. There is no requirements for opt-ins. The law is from 2019, so not something ancient and it explicitly mentions the commercial use of publicly available data. EU Directive 790/2019 (since it is a directive and not a "law", memberstates have to make it into law themselves - in Germany that would be §44b and §44c UrhG and in other countries other laws saying the same). And this has been held up when challenged. The EU considers it ethical to force its memberstate to ratify it into law. So all the arguments about it being not ethical or stealing are ignorant about the current law. A law that was made 2019, no ancient law with loopholes.
while it may technically be legal, it is not ethical because of how easy this tech makes it to steal someone's creative identity and use their own work to directly compete with them. it's not "ethical" for anybody and their grandmother to directly compete with an artist using their own work to do it, that is the opposite of what "fair use" of images online is supposed to be. Just because the law wasn't prepared for something so complicated, doesn't make it *ethical* by default.
@@cosmicllama6910 the law was literally made for text and datamining. You can disagree, but plenty of people think it's ethical. If you don't agree, add "in my opinion" because it's demonstrably false to say it's unethical categorically, since many, even lawmakers, disagree vehemently about it's ethics.
@Anon Nymous do you think it is ethical for a 45 year old, big name professional in the art world to overnight become obsolete because now, any 13 year old with a computer can use his own work to directly compete with him in his own market? That's ethical to you? Of course it is because you are the 13 year old in this scenario who just wants to steal people's life's work. If you spent 30 years painstakingly teaching yourself a skill, just so that one day I could run up to you and scan your brain like "K thanks BYE!" And run off to be your direct competition with 0 effort. In your opinion it would not be ethical.
Historically though, it's been really hard for people to make a living off of art alone. Most have to apply their creativity within a corporate framework (ie working for companies), and the artists who do make a living of their work alone, usually always have a high level of business/marketing sense and ability. If an artist truly understands business they'll be able to adapt and swing with the punches however this new tech affects us.
@@StellaLovesMusic25 yeah get it with theft? if you have artistic gift as you claim, train yourself, you have a bunch of free material online. so don't bother people with this low iq argumentation, you are not the one who get oppressed by the choice of companies behind Ai.
@@StellaLovesMusic25 You don't need money to be an artist. Try again. These arguments that anti AI artists are elitists annoys me, because the quality of art is not what makes it art, it's a creation that has the primary function of expression. Even a child's crappy smiley face drawing is art, because even the joy of it's creation gives it meaning to the child. Those without natural talent can still learn artistic skills, and freely thanks to youtube. If you have access to AI software, you certainly have access to youtube where you can find thousands of free art tutorials.
@@StellaLovesMusic25 nobody is gatekeeping anybody else from picking up a pencil and paper and practicing. it does NOT take money, or a tablet, to get good at drawing. If a person only draws stick figures and you give them a tablet, guess what, they're still going to be drawing stick figures! Because unlike AI, a tablet really is just a tool and not a cheat that literally does all the work for you.
Wow! I just found your channel 10 minutes ago and I already love it. You have a great voice, and the way you present information is honest and straightforward. I can't wait until your channel blows up, I am here for the journey.
Yeah I feel that, it's a complicated topic for sure. I think being neutral and open minded about both sides and perspectives is smart, at least for now...it's still all so new.
Just focused on your projects. Create and experiment. Enjoy what you are doing instead of listening to other people complain. AI is fascinating and a good way to train yourself to be better.
@@ellenripley4837 how? just curious. idk how i incorporate ai in my works like art, animation and music. but like just to help me figure out stuff and get inspiration.
AI training is no different to any previous kind of statistical analysis. It also happens to be no different to how our brains perform such analysis. And yet these people who oppose generative AI, did not have a problem with other humans learning from the data they put out, nor did they complain about prior revenue generating statistical analysis tasks, when we used the same data to produce marketing information and such. It only became a "copyright" issue the moment the data started being used to produce new data which they feel is in competition with their own. They feel like this new technique has a competitive advantage, because they didn't mind humans that are just as slow as they are, learning from the art they see. Funnily enough I have not seen actual good artists that feel threatened by AI. Most of the people losing their shit on twitter and reddit, if you take a look at their portfolios, they do anime and furry NSFW content, I swear to god. I like to browse artstation and download digital art that I vibe with, and even there I've noticed an inverse correlation between the quality of the art someone posts and the likelihood they've posted that No-AI image. A truly good artist feels secure in the value he brings to the world. It's these people producing "art" of the same quality as something a 9 year old could produce, that feel deeply threatened and violated by AI adjusting a couple synaptic weights by some ~0.00001 because of their 100kb image out of a 90tb dataset to ultimately produce a 9gb parameter checkpoint. Are we going to see world famous art pieces suddenly drop in values? Will the Mona Lisa become worthless because people can generate similar images 5 times per minute? No. That's absurd. Human art was never about what image or sound you can produce. It was about the meaning, the experience, getting to step into someone else's shoes, being able to feel what another human once felt even a thousand years apart. But then, that doesn't apply when you make my little pony tributes. Neurons seeing and learning concepts is suddenly problematic when those neurons can output directly to a screen. We wouldn't need these image generating AIs if we could just imagine things and render them to a screen. Instead we need to imagine concepts and type the prompt, and hope the AI is able to imagine the thing we imagined on our behalf because its neurons can output digital information. Otherwise, the process is no different. So what they truly have a problem with is not having to pickup a pencil and draw the art. Let's hope the neuralink users never start being able to output their mental images to a display or we'll have a genocide of the paralyzed. These people are unhinged. Live and let live.
Great vid man. I get hammered whenever I do something with ai, but I'm like, wow, I could never have even made this thing without the ai. Sure, it's still in progress, but one day the world will be full of people creating block buster movies just by themselves in their homes, and the good ones will rise to the top. Exciting. Inclusive. Advancement. It's kinda like saying, hey, keyboards suck, because they get the job done faster. Maybe there is an argument for some people harnessing the powers of utilizing ai in a seemless manner, while others who don't hold the capacity to orchestrate it well create bad products. Many viewers will have been hurt by bad ai art/media in the past, and so the mere sight of another piece of ai media (impressive or otherwise), will make them cringe and write bad stuff, which is understandable. The only way people's perceptions on the use of ai in media or art will change is if people start creating good media with it, and that will only happen when people spend hours getting good at it, or when ai software develops to a more satisfactory level.
I hope you guys realize that an entire art community has been crashing economically since AI has been more public. People are losing jobs, houses, sources of income and some of us are literally starving now. Please do your research.
Art, in my opinion, should be a hobby and not a job. I got a job in art a while back, and at first I enjoyed it, but then I started to dread it. the constant commissions, the deadlines, all of the burnout I experienced, it was all too much for me. So I quit and made my art skills a hobby, and let me tell you I enjoy art a lot more now. Turning your hobby into a job might sound great, but in reality it only makes you hate the things you enjoy.
@@OfficiallyRattled-lm2dg not everyone can say the same as you and for some people there's little to no other options other than art for physical and mental reasons. I really do have passion for it as a job and enjoyed 10 years of it now
"People are losing jobs, houses, sources of income and some of us are literally starving now" Unfortunately this is nothing new. The automobile replaced the horse buggy and if your concern is that AI will cause a crash in the art industry, that's just human technological advancement for you. You may lose your job and source of income, but a lot of consumers don't care about how that impacts you, many of them have the thought process, "I want product X; how can I get it the most efficient and cost-effective way? Should I go to a real human who will cost a considerable amount of money and take a while to get what I want, or an AI generator that can make what I want quickly and cheaply?" For those who just want their product, they'll go to AI regardless of the impact it has on others. That's why a lot of people still bought from Nike despite the massive controversies they've had about child labor or Amazon despite the controversies of their work conditions and borderline-monopolies in some areas.
@@Eternalskyy Are you talking about a crash in AI art (due to the lawsuits and massive backlash from the art community) or a crash in the economy for the people who only care about "who gets me my product cheaper and faster"? I've heard big crashes mentioned in both contexts so I'm not sure which you're talking about.
If people don't use it then they make less money. I don't see how even a partial boycott can be a bad thing if it slows the development in time for some of the damaging consequences of this technology to be thought through and rectified.
I like the ai art concept, its given me ideas I don't think I could otherwise come up with, being that we as humans see the world for what it is, where an ai tries to see that world the same way, but comes up with its own interpretation based on the information its given. Since I write stories set in strange universes, its nice to see what the ai comes up with. I described a person standing in a video game arcade and the game cabinets it came up with in the background really do look like something in a different universe. I also use the ai as a tool to plan out a scene or an angle I can't get just right normally. Technology changes with art, we have gone form the camera obscura and camera lucida to Photoshop and AI, different tech to get the same results.
it's easy for you to say adapt when you're a doing the same exact thing as the( AI generators )are doing. taking existing art and just cutting it up or painting all over it.
I want to thank you for making this video, I originally had a more negative, but not exactly hateful viewpoint on ai art, but now I feel the need to be more open-minded. Your points make sense to me, the fact that you’re an artist that is able to make artwork with ai (and your background relating to ai as well) makes me think of you as credible. The way that some people address ai makes it hard for me to process and understand, but this video, being clear and concise, helps me organize my thoughts and viewpoints. Again, thanks for this! :)
Dude, the problem with today ai art is copyright: they grab stuff that they don't own and can't use, and even if they use public domain images you can't convince a judge that a computer is actually created something new and not just "moved some patterns of pixels" to make an image. Honestly, i think only when ai gonna become like human with all the cons of living, will it ever get an "author" status.
I've been using it to create thumbnails for my next peace while finishing the one I'm working on right now. Theres no stopping this so just incorporate it into your workflow.
Yeah just let ai companies steal your stuff with no compensation/consent and resell the derivative to other people. All this “art” is contingent on other people’s work
I really love the vibe of your video. Really well done! Thx! Regarding the topic: It seems photographers aren't complaining that much or even not at all. Or am I just not hearing about it?
Thank you! I appreciate that and am glad you liked the video-- good observation, I don't think I've heard too much from photographers either. I wonder why that is.
Photographers already had a similar case with regards to the establishing of whether they owned rights to the images they had photographed of existing places. The primary situation was in regard to Lucia Moholy and her pictures taken of the Bauhaus school. It was in her favor that claims were awarded since it is the photographer which decides what lighting, angle, and other compositional elements create the image.
Ai will allow the "artist" with the most resources ( the Elite) to be the one to lead us to art being produced rather than created. Mid Century abstract novelty led us here.
I am an artist, and I started learning to use it out of curiousity and frustration of seeing "AI arts" people made and feel that I can do better. And well, the more I learnt, the more I see that prompters have no chance against artists using it, it is very powerful tools, only limited by our imaginations, the way it followed my reference drawings and came up with what I had in mind very quickly is incredible. I hope it would get better at training from fewer reference pics, so I could really use it to do precise auto coloring when making animation, AI still isn't any good at that. I feel that it won't ever steal our jobs, everyone could soon be using it, and it would be fair game, cause prompters do not stand a chance. lol
Tbh I don’t care about Ai and what it can make. My friends and colleagues fear what it’ll do but they’re wasting time worrying while I’m keep on keeping on with my art.
I can't remember if it was Midjourney or OpenAI (maybe both), but I have heard about those lawsuits for using copyrighted images in their dataset (I think Getty Images was the one pressing the charges). We'll see how this plays out in the long-run, but open-source programs like Stable Diffusion are going to be a LOT harder to take down since they're out in the open for anyone to download and re-upload.
Great video. Like you I started my channel to demonstrate the way AI image generation can be used in collaboration with humans. We are entering a new era that is both exciting and scary but I believe that while the tools of artists may change the valuable role they have will not.
Thanks for watching- in my opinion, AI writing won’t replace original thinking. And AI art won’t replace an artists unique perspective. True professionals and creative talent will always be sought after, it's just that our day to day activities may change.
But it’s a form of art and in some cases identity theft no? ie when ai mimics work of an artist and passes themselves off as such with no compensation to the artist
The Reasons Artists Detest AI Artists. I am an artist as well as an AI artist. And I used it to help me generate ideas because it had tools. Additionally, make others smile. I understand. Method Why no two artists are alike. Like us, some artists use AI into their daily workflow. If you have ever used assistance. You stay away from discussing it. You succeed. Do artists use the creations of other artists and receive payment for it? Yes. However, Al isn't stealing the ideas of other AI artists. This is a fantastic example of creative art in action. The identical songs that I write are being taken from musicians that write their own songs. Alright. Give it a shot.. Give it a chance before you Judge it. Like I did
DUDE! I know that book, I read it once and have ever since been looking for it but I forgot the title! NOW I NEED TO ORDER ME A COPY! THAT BOOK IS A MUST HAVE FOR ALL CREATIVES!! I love this video and came from the same inspiration that motivated me, that little book you showed off at the beginning. It left something in me that told me when the AI art machines came around, "Maybe an artist is now replacable, but what about the artist who knows how to use AI? Isnt that double the gain that a machine or a man alone? Lets learn the AI and become its master."
Clicked because I agree with the premise, but the reason so many artists feel trepidation with AI art isn't "humans are scared of new things." I feel that's dismissive. I'm sure artists would be excited about the prospects of AI and incorporating the tools into their work if: 1. AI companies hadn't already proved willing to sidestep artists' rights (which they haven't done with music because that industry is A LOT better at suing the crap out of people). 2. So many people in the AI space weren't publicly excited to see "artist elites" fail for political reasons, incorrectly conflating their hatred for "modern art" with working artists. 3. So many of these same people now into AI hadn't also been part of the NFT nonsense that sought to commoditize artists' work without their consent. 4. Media companies who are already exploiting artists (video games, movies, animation) weren't likely to leverage AI as reasons for increased abuse or abject replacement. And keep in mind that all of this might still be OK if people didn't need ever-increasing amounts of money to even exist as living humans-I know artists who are so Bohemian and out-there that they need the bare minimum to subsist, but most artists want to practice art AND not live in the streets. So I mean, I agree with your attitude as an artist myself, and it's how I also think about it, but be conscious that even if some of the complaints can be alarmist or hipster-y or incorrect, that there are a lot of legitimate reasons to be upset at AI.
I find the tone of this video pretty dismissive and condescending ngl. Maybe AI ethics won't be an issue in the future, but they are currently, and people pushing back against the current trajectory of AI isn't just human fear of the unknown, it's a perfectly logical assessment of an unethical, greedy form of creating images using other people's work. The implication that anti AI folks are just sitting on their hands and complaining as if they've stopped making art altogether to complain while you adapt regardless of the current state of AI ethics rubs me the wrong way.
@@Hornet135 Artists who care about artistic integrity and have the humility to admit both their conscious and unconscious sources of inspiration who use their acquired knowledge to make something new that's inspired by their own experiences and tastes is in no way the same as art being non consensually fed into algorithms that produced uninspired works for no reason other than quick profit. AI couldn't exist without being wrongfully trained on real artists' works yet is being used to replace said artists in their lines of work. It's dehumanising and disrespectful to imply that real human souls who create with intention unable to make more valuable works than the machines that can only operate when fed by the works of the artists. What purpose is there to defend this process? AI meat riders must either be trolls or simply miserable pessimists who savour an opportunity to take meaningful expression away from creatives in order to feel some satisfaction in making other people as miserable as they are.
@@Hornet135 Also artists have existed since early man, using their surroundings as sources of inspiration. Each artists has a unique emotional connection to the things that they choose to take inspiration from which makes their work their own. We don't just stare are other people's works and mindlessly recreate pieces of it to fill some quota.
I just hope this will never happen to music. These robots learn way too fast, they're emotionless, they're artificial, and boring. I draw a lot, for myself, never used an electronic tablet, I hate these. I mean, I hate using them. and AI is way worst. Maybe I'm immature, but at least, I dopnt accept a robot to be "better" than me. I dont want to live with these technology ruining the buisness of people. AI is accessible to everybody, there is now nothing that separe artists from 3 years old non-talented random guy with a phone.
It's already happened to music, AI can replicate voices and create its own music. it's been around for a year or so now. just type any popular song and type "AI Cover" on youtube.
I appreciate your honesty and forward thinking, but I don't think it's even worth it for an artist to openly promote AI. In the art industry it's about who you know, and it's very possible sticking your hand in that beehive isn't really worth it.
These are great points, and they strike at the heart of the issue. That being, that professional Illustrators don't care about exploration and experimentation art... mainly because their jobs usually do not allow it. A game studio requires many artists to have a consistent style, and not rock the boat. These artists then create paid courses, showing how to find your way into this very limited job field... though the real secrets are never revealed... because... well you know this is about money. Great video, really in 10 minutes you summed it all up.
Interesting thanks! I made a video on "why AI art won't really replace the human artists". Please let me know what you think 🤔 I'm a fellow data scientist..
The art community's reaction makes me ponder a thought. If the philosophy of art is the exploration of new ideas, then what is the community doing when it viscerally rejects a new idea? Ah, that's right, politics like a politician.
You're not an illustrator or animator, or concept artist artist or whatever. You are a banana tape artist, what you are really do is social engineering, you convincing people that you are an artist and your work is art, so you can have attention and money. Whatever you have, banana, broken urinal, AI - not changes anything. Stop broadbrushing and telling working artist what to do.
You can waste your time on the barricades but you won't stop the progress of technology. Adapt and embrace rather than fighting against the tides. Or just do your own thing.
There is no way of "learning AI", because it's not a tool. Using AI makes whole artistic job meaninless, 'cause you are not drawing anything, you're asking programm to do it for you, which makes you a client, not a artist. That's the whole problem with it. Instead of making tools that would help artist to alleviate routine parts of drawing, big AI companies try to replace artists by stealing their art with all means possible. "Shut up and go with the flow" is the worst advice in this situation.
![BOWKYLION - วิงวอน (ex-change) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/cLdnZWDaO-w/mqdefault.jpg)
![PASULOL รามเกียรติ์ ตอนที่ 4 นนทกพบรัก [Ramakien Ep.4: Nonthok in love]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tMUQgmZzf_A/mqdefault.jpg)
On thing no one is talking about is over saturation. There will most likely be a huge amount of ai art added to am already saturated art market. I would imagine this will devalue art even further
It would undercut low effort oversaturated artists
It will separate the pros from amateurs
@@Jupa As much as I’d like to agree, plenty of artists just never get exposure regardless of their skill thanks to over saturation. I’m imagining ai generated art and human art alike would suffer from that
Demand will remain the same, some art directors will simply choose to cut out artists and generate the art with AI themselves. There may be oversaturation on social media, though. But I really don't see any Instagrammer building a following because people can't wait to see what new prompts he or she will come up with next. Maybe some people with a modicum of art ability who feed their sketches into an AI to come up with a polished final piece.
Hopefully it will make traditional art like paintings increase in value because it will be rare like what happens with the camera the market is over saturated with them there's not laptop tablet or phone that have no camera integrated the ai market will be so oversaturated that soon or later it would have to decrease in value making human artist valuable again idk if I'm explained it well enough but my point is that artist are not doomed like people says
I hope more people see art as more than just something to make to earn money. Is it cool to earn money from making art? Yeah it is. Is it the norm for most people that make art though?
The value of art is more than just monetary, but I think at least a decent amount of the anger aimed at AI art is based on the fear losing income. And as sad as that is, art as a product is only worth as much as people are willing to pay for it. It's a luxury to own art but not a necessity.
Over saturation would force the price down making it more affordable but less profitable. More people might be willing to buy art at that price, but traditional art might struggle to compete with that. Cheap art might become the common man's art while hand crafted will stay a luxury for the people with excessive wealth, the same people that already buy art.
For example, Ikeas cheaper furniture didn't get rid of hand crafted furniture, it just changed the market. The hand crafted stuff still sells but it's only bought by people willing to spend more.
First sane opinion ive heard about this topic
As an artist I don’t have a problem with AI art it’s the people behind it and the dishonesty. They can do it in a way that is ethical and beneficial they did it with a music platform that they made. Probably because music has better legal protections. But the visual arts don’t have the same protections. This AI can do wonderful things. But it should be done in a way that compensates artists not take advantage of them and there work, for big companies.
This exactly.
I personally have nothing against the AI. Feed it public domain images, or you own artwork if you want, it's fine.
But taking images from artists without their consent is wrong. People do it all the time, but legally and morally it's not ok.
It's exactly like stealing music.
In my case, I just generate AI with no intention to sell, and only either keep it to myself or show it to friends who I know are OK with it
@@ravenscarlettanis13 but your still using a product that was built off stolen labor and data. It’s the same as using a pirating website.
Music has a better music protection? Do you know that most music tracks own by big labels or sound record company and not by musicians themselves. Do you know that to start earn money on music, you can't just start posting art on divianart or instagram and wait for commissions or add requests? For example to publish music on Spotify you must find distributor, who will in fact fully control all your songs. Music industry is thick. It is the worst thing to take an example from
@@itcchiy ya you're right, the music industry is terrible.
"Photograph is gonna kill the painters", also people freaked out during industrial revolution and also when electricity was being implemented.
True!
Dude, the problem is not the own concept of AI, is the fact that tjis machine use art without the permision of the original creators and plagiarize the artstyle of real life creators, fomenting the fraud with no protection for human artist ehile others use your to create money and sometimes, even your own name if you are a bit famous... Artist dont say no to tecnology, we just want protection against this if someone just dont wanna see how his work is used without permission
ai art kinda works like this
1 it finds a famous style
2 it references that style
3 it applies it
think of it like learning a certain style but ai does it in a matter of secounds
@@agentcaninemutt you say this like that makes it ok and not a nightmare.
Let me ask you this: When a billion images have been generated in Van Gogh's style, does his actual work have any value anymore? Is his original work still impactful when you see it? Do you still feel the care and emotion he put into his works? Or could you care less, because the market is saturated, and AI took the heart out of art?
@@cosmicllama6910 I don't care. I just want good art regardless of where or who it comes from.
@@JudgeHoldenUwU If you don't care where food comes from as long as it "tastes good" we will end up with soylent green.
If we don't care what a military does as long as "we're winning" you will wind up on the wrong side of history.
@@JudgeHoldenUwU please stop talking you goof ball
Remember back in the day.We were taught in art schools to actually copy All the styles from all the amazing artists... This is what I feel the ai is kind of doing too...
That's exactly what it is. These are foundational models, meaning they require a very broad set of data in order to perform the most basic functions.
If the foundation is narrow or thin, then you can't build anything on top of it.
Plus, many of these models have been released open source and free for anyone to use.
The developer community has been working non-stop the past couple of years, optimizing and fine-tuning the models so that anyone with consumer level hardware can run them locally.
Chess players didn't stop playing chess when the IA's became unbeatables, they incorporated them in their training. Artists will do the same.
Chess survives because it is a human-to-human sport where there the better gets praised for their skill sans engines. Art isn't the same, unless human art starts to get valued more for some odd reason. But, on the note of chess, it hasn't been drama free. Especially now. Cheating scandals. "hidden" devices. Great fear that high level players can cheat with little help from engines.
Coal mining sucked when hydro plants came. People stopped shitting on streets with toilets invented.
@@somthinwrong Your point being? Are you implying making art is like coal mining or shitting on the streets LOL? Lots of new techs have been invented and people still can use charcoal to make art. Art can be made with anything, AI is just a new tool at our disposal.
People will always adapt overtime, we've been pretty good at doing so throughout history
@@nahumrojas1642 did I ask your opinion? Go back to 4chan and argue with other bros
OK I,I'll sum up this video as don't question comply. A very short sighted view.
I feel the main complaints about AI are the way many services take artwork without compensation and charge to have them mixed into new images. If they added royalties and consent it would be fine.
Yeah, I get that..I think it would be really challenging from a legal perspective to provide royalties for every single artist since these datasets are so massive and extensive, and in reality those royalties might not be very substantial (at least in the current datasets). I think they had a more of a "move fast break things " mentality. The advancement of these AI generators would have been a lot slower had they not trained the models the way they did. Doesn't really make it right imo, just my 2 cents.
Now that the public sees the potential for the technology, AI companies can pivot accordingly and *hopefully move towards a more sustainable model where they aren't using images without permission moving forward.
@@casey.rickey very good point, same thing with many tech companies, ex. Uber.
And then only big corpo would be able to use it, yeah no, terrible idea.
@@frostreaper1607 its fine, its the wild west right now, get over it, it ll eventually calm down. top artist will sellout to these corps, and they wont need normal people art anyways.
why would you get compensated for something using your art as a reference? none of the art from the training data exists within the model. the model just uses algorithms to make a latent memory of how that image was structured.
I agree with some of this but I think a lot of the anger comes from the lack of respect AI "artists" have for their predecessors. It feels backhanded to take others work and make money this quickly without even acknowledging the original creators. Artists have this innate respect for each other. WE DO TAKE FROM OTHER ARTISTS. Just like AI. But we know and respect the people we are imitating. And the original ideas of the previous artists live on in this way. When someone tells an AI to make something, they have NO CLUE who it is referencing nor would they care. That's why it more like "stealing" than anything else.
See, I as an artist and slightly connected to the programming understand that the AI is here to stay and can be the fruit of great achievements and evolution of humanity, but it depends on us and only us because like any technology, can be used for the "good" and for the "evil" of others. And for more aesthetic and accessible that new technologies have presented themselves, they have gross flaws concerning their ethics and moral functioning, from social ethics to environmental ethics can still be considered destructive or at least hasty.
Remember that only 31% of the world has access to basic education, remember that around 17 million people survive today only with artistic earnings and many of them, mainly in underdeveloped countries, depend on these earnings to eat and have access to basic health, remember that psychologically the human being is not prepared to see this technology as an auxiliary factor but as a factor of substitution of what already exists.
Artists protesting, often they are not protesting simply because they don't like the technology or because of any legislative convention/agenda, but because they fear that tomorrow they won't be able to put any more food on the table.
Talking now about the book The War of Art, don't you think that art being a way of liberating the soul in its process, due to the requirements of patience and other virtues, the conduct of this process being passed on to an AI would not be a tool of resistance? If imagination is something that is born from the ability to see something more and resistance holds you where you are, when you have not enjoyed your creative capacity would it actually be the resistance of wanting to imagine? Just things to think about...
What you are asking of artists is to just get on with it.
What artists are asking for really is "Stop duplicating our work if you are not going to pay us".
Yes, of course they will get on with it. But that does not mean they should not demand for laws/regulations.
Laws that will ensure that credit and compensation reaches them, when clearly, it's the artists' works that make the foundation of all AI generated images.
It is a Content Renaissance, not a Creative one.
I really hate when people say ai art is stealing from existing art. I guess they think it just has a big database of images it photoshops together? Ai art models cannot recall any specific images. They only keep their impressions of the art they have seen. You observe the art of others and then you don't memorize it, but you keep your impressions of the form and details and use that for your own art
except these generators dont "observe", they have a database of other peoples art and use peoples specific art styles if you prompt it that way lol
they have a database called lion it might be right that the database don't store the images it stores thy hyperlink witch is just as bad as if the database storage the images 🤷
How is it that I've seen dozens of mock movie posters with Disney and CBM images, faces of famous actors and so on? Prompt AI to give you a stolen image and it will do just that.
Who cares how it specifically works when the outcome is literally just convincing replicas of existing specific art styles. Idk how it works but what it produces seems to contradict.
Just learned that the science fiction magazine "Clarkesworld" has been inundated with AI written submissions. They are all terrible, but the sheer volume of them has caused the magazine to stop taking new submissions altogether. There are actually people out there who think that you can simply string words together and make money selling them to magazines.
everybody wants to pretend like this tech isn't going to just bring out the absolute worst and most lazy behavior in people, but that's 99% of what we're going to get from it.
I feel bad for teachers having to grade students now.
AI stories are more of a good laugh then a serious story.
The initial shock is understandable, but the genie is out of the bottle. We’re better off figuring out how to adapt.
For example, why not use it as a way to start the base of your piece, or a way to quickly thumbnail to spark your imagination.
Instead of referencing stolen art, maybe reference pictures you’ve taken while exploring your surroundings ( that cool city square you know, or the cool tree in the forest/park you frequent etc )
Just made a video about that! Used pictures from a hike the other day as reference/input images in midjourney
problem is .01% of people will use it like you describe, and 99% of people are going to be using the same typical keywords and artists names.
At the very least, the images used to train AI violated the "fair use" terms because it allows people to directly compete with any artist using their own work to do it, that is the opposite of "fair use"
I think it would be interesting to feed these programs my own work and see what variations it spits out, I know the anger about this technology is stemming from the fact it's being trained unethically. To some degree I think if we didn't pave the way for it, by amusing such an impressive body of work online. The technology would be both blind and deaf. As of late I found myself asking a great deal of questions, such as what is art ? Is what this machine does also art? What does art mean to me? What is my relationship with art? And much more, but the question of quality is not among them, for that was the easiest to answer AI wins almost every time. I don't mean to dishearten any who take the time to read this, please forgive.
In conclusion we are at a crossroads both as individuals and a community. Regardless of the answers you arrive at or your preferred medium of expression, I sincerely hope you continue to create. For a world without your unique contribution is all the lessa.
I recently posted a tutorial on that- in MidJourney just upload your work to discord, then include it in the prompt as a link and midjourney will use it as reference/build upon it. Works really well for abstract work, but it's fun experimenting with it
Artists when they steal all possible characteristics of popular media for their shitty OC: "Sir, if you have a complaint I suggest you submit it through our email system. I would be happy to refer you to our website"
Artist when a literal computer uses someones art for reference: "You are done. Fired."
I think, generally, the art aesthetic will enable artists to create more, as is stated in the video, but it seems, upon inspection, that those that are doing the most complaining are the Twitter cringe artists. In many respects, its the feigned outrage, victimization culture/fandoms, that are going to habitually feign outrage because its within that "culture" to do so. It doesn't matter that its AI art or some other "cause" that is appropriated to feed that urge.
It does seem like this is the case...there will always be a group of hating on anything new. But before they know it, it'll become part of their daily life and they won't even remember hating on it in the first place. Thanks for watching!
idk bro, twitter is a widely used platform for artists, although it is a rather toxic platform, who are anyone to tell growing creatives to limit their reach for networking and branding. plus it's rather dis respectful to say out right that all artists fighting against AI "art" are fools from twitter trying to feed into a trend because of some urge. Instead almost any video I have seen such as Steven Zapata, Sam does art and many others make quite unique and concrete concerns regarding the likely bleak future implications image based AIs would bring such as how they will eventually even come to a point where they no longer need even humans to input texts, instead after trillions of uses the algorithm can on it's own predict what anyone would wish for, wiping out any need for human input. I mean just look at chat GPT, combine the two and add a few years or even just months of development, what will be of human creativity then? join me friend, lets preserve what little we have left and more.
@@kevinsun3190 You are confounding things here. If there is no one to see the art, it is worthless. Who are all these machines going to be showing their art to? You are also constructing a scenario that reiterates your beliefs. People are going to stop creating art because of AI? If that is the case then we are a pathetic species indeed. Humans, if anything, are supremely capable of acclimating, even altering their environment, for themselves. Look at Twitter holistically and its inescapable that these groups of victimization as a stable personality exist and appropriate whatever the latest X is. What constitutes a valid argument? Is it factual or is it more of the "I like this thing therefore no matter of fact will touch it." There is too much of that already.
more is not better. its an old saying everyone knows well
@@kevinsun3190 You're absolutely right. Thanks for offering a sensible counterargument to these kinds of generalisations.
this is about the gigantic theft of already existing artist's work. work that not many artists consented to just giving away. not just complaining about technology.
"Quit picking fights and go make something, so other people can effortlessly rip it off."
"And don't get mad when 5 different people are pretending to be you and saturating the market with the style that took you a lifetime to develop, competing with you in exactly the way that "fair use" was supposed to prevent, but you better just stay humble!"
Something tells me people won't be telling actors and actresses to just "get over it" when they aren't needed to do any real acting anymore, most of them will WANT to do the acting themselves even if they don't have to anymore, and because it's famous people everybody will sympathize with them and want to preserve acting jobs.
I dont understand why these guy dont understand that this ai is made for replace them , that ai is not a tool it's a replacement for artist , a thing that you can already see
@@redtechnology6407 legally ai is probably transformative enough that the law won’t do anything about it. And morally, every major tech breakthrough is usually morally wrong. Think about the tractor for instance, it absolutely was made to replace a certain workforce. I don’t think this’ll completely kill jobs, and I think more art jobs will spawn out of it in the end, but the transition will be rough
@@redtechnology6407 cope mald and seethe you can't stop it and I will continue to use ai for my digital design company and now I get to fire all my digital artists, more money for me and the program is so cheap, cope, mald and seethe
@@KillerFishFromTampa oh no
“There really is no such thing as Art. There are only artists.”- E.H Gombrich
Art is a form of freedom of expression and the ability to draw anything. However, artificial intelligence is limited because it determines the output based on the data it has been trained on.
In the end, I do not think that artificial intelligence is inherently bad, but it can be problematic when it is used inappropriately. Simply generating a few words does not make an artist, because true creativity comes from within the artist. Also, artificial intelligence does not need you, it can generate a better prompt than you so
The real creators are the artists themselves
Currently, I will avoid using it, not because I am against technology, because I am human and love drawing and expressing myself freely
Artificial intelligence will now become a camera for the unreal world, And artists again will go to another dimension that artificial intelligence cannot reach
It's like when the camera created the artists, they stopped painting the real world and turned to the realm of fantasy and science fiction.
im afraid it's deeper than that. i wish AI is just a tool that artists can use to improve their work. however people are complaining about how it could be used by the wrong people and how it should be regulated. because currently theres 0 regulation regarding AI art and that can lead to numerous problems. theres also the debacle about whatever AI art shits out it is not original by any means NOT because AI sample imgaes the way people has believed all this time, but because AI does not have its own life experiences, preferences, and creativity when "re creating" these training images themselves. and that is why some people are still concerned about how AI is actually stealing people's art altough the topic has because so deeply philosophical. but these will definitely erase lower rank artists who only wants to make a decent living through their hobby of art. possibly even discourage a lot of people from learning art.
Ai dosent steal ist learns how pictures are composed. It not the same way that humans learn but it learns and after the training they dont use any pictures as referenz.
It also can courage them because they can feed the picture into the Software an look what there picture will look like in the future. So its not all bad there are Positiv sides to it to. sure some artists that make custom pictures for low money will lose some cliants but thats how it always was. AI is nothing less then the next industrial revolution.
People crying for regulation are so cringe. Your time ended when the internet first came out. "you would not steal a car". Lmao
@@randomnumbers84269 You're "cringe" because it's obvious you're only supporting this out of laziness and embodying the meme "You made this?......I made this!"
@@cosmicllama6910 Hello neo-luddite. How's your little world down over there? XD
@Some Random Fellow better than yours, I have made art that made people ask how I was able to do it, before AI even hit the scene. I can do great things without having to rely on AI, so I'm just sitting back to watch
As you prompt plebs think you're taking all the attention and money from artists, but you're doing it to yourselves just as much. You just took an already underpaid position and made it worse for yourselves. No prompter is ever going to be admired the way real artists have been, either, so good luck with your new worthless powers.
The only problem I see in that is you can't think like an artist, ultimately AI art it's not created as a tool for artists. The ones who designed it did not intend it to be a tool for artist they have their own tunnel vision in creating an actual artificial intelligence, the point of concern comes into the one factor that always takes control of something the corporate Factor as much as people like to deny the fact we live in a fully corporate world we grind on people are blind to that fact that we are just enslaving ourselves to the shareholders, and I believe AI art is going to be there one big move to finally get the one thing that is always flustered corporations and they will take advantage to every aspect remove the artists and the storytellers eventually because they no longer see innovation they found more profits in stagnation. And the only reason that we seen such a sharp increase in the advancement of AI those same Corporations saw the possibilities of increasing profit while cutting out the things that always get in the way.
it also allows them to punish all the freelancers who found ways to work for themselves without having to be stuck at corporate dead end jobs.
I really believe artists should be used to input new ideas into data banks and PAID for each image. I would be up for that 100%
Nice idea but it probably wont happen. Using central entities to regulate things is outdated thanks to the internet.
Even if it could happen I doubt it would work well.. Like how do we quantify the percentage of someone's work used in something that could be partially made using AI. And if we can, it's gonna be like Spotify where most artists get pennies.
Would also fear the number of scams people would try to pull. Like with TH-cam atm. People are claiming others' videos and it's guilty till proven innocent.
These datasets are billions of images. How much money do you think there is to go around?
@@randomnumbers84269 Any commercial use has to be made with an AI that has legal proof of not violating any sort of copyright. If it does, legal action
Would you support the same for factory or delivery workers?
Anyone can claim to be anyone, Now show your porto so we can see are you an artist or not
Let put it this way : the more years and sacrifices you had put into your craft, the more you will react to this Ai stuff negatively and its perfectly legit, fair and logic to react that way ! Period. Its all about blood and tears. I guess most people embrassing it early are those who possess 0 skills, talent or never had the will and effort to become good out of laziness , commitment, or simply a lack of natural talent.
When everybody and their grandmother can just steal your whole creative identity, effortlessly, and flood the market with YOUR unique style to monetize it, that is not "no big deal"
We can be humble as artists without being complete doormats, being ok with being stolen from is not some virtue like the person who posted this video wants to preach.
and if it was literally any other career, like hollywood stars, people wouldn't be telling them to just "get over it and get with the times, we don't need actors anymore, we have CGI for everything"
@@cosmicllama6910as i mentioned most Non artists have no idea how much efforts are spent to become a master and develop your unique style, at the expense of family, health, time ( decades in most cases ) and they are the one telling you : Embracing it ! what a foolish, disrespectful and sarcastic statement .AI supposed ART are Theft, lazy, and a total disgrace !
I'm mainly annoyed by AI art not because of it 'replacing real artists', but because there's a gross over-saturation of them on the art sites i'm on. most commonly deviantart and rule 34.
i can't yoink it knowing it was generated by a computer and not having actual artist input and soul
it's like the mcdonald's of art. it's quick, easy, and tastes alright, but at the end of the day it's manufactured slop and it's never gonna have the same quality and feel of home cooked or restaurant food.
Main question is, what are you going to do with all those people who can't/won't adapt for some reason?
They die.
That's where the saying "Adapt or die" comes from.
@@thatweirdguywithamask264 and you have a lot of time to adapt while ai is still being developed. why the people that are complaining dont do that?
Nah I’d adapt
@@3deltaanglemusic what is there to adapt to?
THOUGHT EXPERIMENT: If my (non-artist) mom’s pet hamster fell onto her computer’s keyboard and accidentally prompted MidJourney, and this led Midjourney to create an artistic image
would that
A) Make the hamster an artist?
B) Or my mom the artist?
C) Or neither?
Midjourney can in-fact generate images based on one word or “non-word” prompts. or “by accident.”
I don’t think it’s fair for someone to use raw Midjourney output, post it on a gallery somewhere (as they often do) and consider it their own art. It’s simply not their own art.
Not unless they creative iterative art using a model trained on either
1. open sourced content
2. commons content
3. their own artwork.
4. licensed art
AND If they adequately transform the original work within the bounds of fair use, per use case.
Artists should be compensated for the use of their art in the training of these generative art models.
Including the ones whose art was used to train Midjourney.
or Midjourney etc could be rebooted without pilfered artwork. but then it would look quite different.
maybe some transparency would be nice.
without the work of recent and of living artists, character designers, UX designers, product designers, fashion illustrators, amazing comic artists, etc. and all of the real artists on art station, MidJourney would NOT have that “mid-journey look”…and would look more like DALL.E or a retro image generator.
compensate or work with the artists whose IP is being used in midjourney!
OR
RE-do Midjourney without artist’s IP.
AI further commodifies the spirit (❤️vs.💰🤑) of art.
Soul?? Automating kitsch generation is like automating parts machining.
@@Comm0ut spirit?
With enough monkeys and typewriters they're bound to recreate Shakespeare at some point.
@@mikekazz5353 with enough AI-enhancement, some “AI enhanced humans” will assume that they have surpassed Shakespeare or Tolstoy, but will they actually have done so?
@@mikekazz5353 when monkeys with typewriters are uplifted with bioengineering and AI wetware, will they not just recreate but surpass Shakespeare or is it really just a matter of subjective opinion?
I've watched the Art world evolve over time, I watched the explosion of digital cameras from film. In both creative fields, people have fallen into the trap of searching for the next hit of dopamine rather than focusing on the root and intention of what art is: communication. AI is only a tool to help other communicate artistically, for others who have traditional skills of an artist it can be a tool to advance and evolve your own creations.
Well said!
I posted 1 AI image on Reddit for fun in a sub where it isn’t banned (which is rare) and I still got ripped a new a-hole. I didn’t even make it. It wasn’t stealing anyone’s job or art (mostly used real photos as input). People need to chill out
Lol, sounds about right!
Reddit: The place where people who don't pay their own bills, give you work advice on how to become recently unemployed.
As an Artist AND Comp. Sci. major myself: I'm tired of artists shouting down all other voices/prespectives in an effort to own the moral-ground & victimhood of the debate. Not a single fellow artist I've directly asked has acutally understood how Stable Diffusion technology works, nor do they care to educate themselves, or try it. Funny enough, not a single artist I've spoken to has lost their job or a client because of AI art. When Photoshop was publically avalible back in Feb. 1990, traditional artists back then complained that "the computer just does all the work: it's lazy." Today, the same people who complain about AI tech are the same "lazy artsits" who gew up using Photoshop and still use it daily to make a living. Congradualtions you digital artists, you grew up to be the same bitter old-guy from the 1990s, critizing the younger generation and complaning about new techology. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
COME ON DUDE, "Funny enough, not a single artist I've spoken to has lost their job or a client because of AI art"
AIART IS IN ITS INFANCY, dont be a fucking dumbass, give it a few years and it will be able to take jobs from left and right.
@@wanashthegash 1. Are YOU an artist? Do you depend on art for your income? If not, then sit down and let the adults talk.
2. If you ARE an artist then tell me this: If anyone can download & install AI software like Stable Diffusion, then why would anyone buy AI art if they could just make it themselves? Maybe it's because, now stay with me, your clients want YOUR art, stuff MADE by YOU. Crazy I know!
3. And once again, Photoshop Feb. 1990: my point still stands. Whenever we look at the art world using computers, we only see more money and success and inovation. Lets look at more examples! CGI didn't put irl actors out of a job; if anything, Actors are payed MORE now than ever thanks to computers allowing us to pull off giant projects like the MCU.
I look forward to AI improving. As an Artist AND as a Comp Sci myself; I think we're gonna see a lot more neat and creative things on the horizon as AI find's it's neiche and becomes incorporated into our workflow.
As a working illustrator with several years of work I personally have nothing against the AI itself. It is the way the dataset were built that make me question the morality of AI art.
What really bothers me is that there were regulations at first. The very first datasets only used non-copyrighted material, but it then changed to a broader web scraping, only excluding extreme content.
When I look at how they treated music datasets, I wonder if they're just doing it with images because they know most artists don't have the same structural protection than musicians. You can even see watermarks on some generated images.
As for the Photoshop comparison, I think the main difference is that AI art is based on non-AI art. Photoshop didn't need to scrape images from traditional artists to make their program work.
Ah yes cause photoshop still needs you do actually be good at art, unlike being a "prompt engineer"
@@infinite1483 It really depends on what you do with Photoshop.
Painting on photoshop requires nearly the same knowledge and artistry as traditional painting, whereas editing a photography is completely different than painting, even if you use the same program.
Basically what you're saying is equivalent to "you need no skill to use a pencil" without specifying if you're talking about writing or drawing.
"I don't know what I'm talking about or how any of it works or where it will go from here, but I'm embracing it and it makes me cooler than you" is the entire video
Comparing slightly more complex tiktok anime filter to Refik Anadol is a fucking disgrace. And even then, Refik's work is only good because of it's novelty. Stop eating up everything "progress" and the market shits out. Not everything is good or groundbreaking just because it seems cool on first value
AI can't make art by definition of art.
Fr his argument is basically "Roll over and accept it because I sure did"
@@dylanwalsh2574 it's basically "embrace and join the AI overlords or you're an uncool boomer."
Well, I am more worried about some numbskull doing false accusations that of using AI art tools when I didn't (Some guys are advising me to have a speedpaint, some sort of bts pics about the art process and to block people) and an actual art thief using the AI tools to really steal.
Please make more videos
I’d question “most artists” being anti-AI. It’s clearly not insignificant, but social media has a tendency to amplify negative viewpoints. Technically it could be a majority, but I think the evidence for that is not conclusive.
Yeah I think you're right on that, social media definitely has a way of amplifying negative voices / viewpoints. Thanks for watching
I'm sure thers plenty of artist who are pro but are being kept down by their anti AI friends, so plenty of people would be using it in secret. Not to mention that voicing a pro opinion on any art site is currently the worse thing you can do unless you like being targeted by the anti mob.
To tell you the truth we don't want to work to be stolen and fed by an AI what we really want is a sentient Ai and regulations to prevent art stealing, and another thing that should worry you there was an AI art generator that was caught leaking personal information and medical information
Yeah I'd say it's a plurality at best.
Now what in the hell is this doing on my for you page ai art is stolen from other artists of the internet without giving them any credit which is just plain unfair
K. Seeing many braindead people confusing art for talent instead of being a skill, you can learn a skill, art is a learned skill not a talent.
This AI tech is impressive and powerful, it’s here to stay I’ll admit, we’ve crossed the point of no return, but it’s never going to be a skill. AI is a tool, right now it’s harmful because the unskilled people believe themselves right at every point and better than an artist who’s studied and worked their skill over decades of their lives, and capitalism ain’t helping. And people who don’t know what they’re talking (“AI artists”) about aren’t helping.
Have respect for the skill and those who take it seriously. “AI Art” will never be recognised as art because it’s not human expression being told, it’s a tool that doesn’t understand art.
Thank you for telling the truth about this situation
Well said
If that's the case, then there is literally no other group who should be dominating AI art as much as professional artists and developing artists. They aren't. AI won't replace these artists. An artist who can also use AI will. Artists shouldn't create the situation they fear the most and facilitate their own potential replacement. That is why adaptation and broadening art skills to use this tool will be so important. Artists should be dominating this space. No other group could be more experienced, talented, and deserving in this case. Be well, and I hope all your artist endeavors go fantastically.
You can't gate keep art. Also, creating the prompt is the skill.
@@tracy-eire The problem you're illustrating's the influx of people who couldn't draw previously, now suddenly finding their "skill" in AI art and flooding it everywhere. Businesses large and small, along with your average person has access to make whatever they want and put it everywhere. Artists use it as a tool. they don't need it to create images, that's what their skill is for.. the point of professional art isn't to mass produce generic images. It takes creative teams and direction to make art useful and actually work in a professional environment. The reason you don't see professional artists dominating in the field is because they don't need to sit there generating random prompt images when they can get exactly what they asked for. People don't make art the way it's made with AI, it takes time, it's a completely different process. This is the whole reason why they find it a threat, because it's just a machine that spits out thousands of worthless content at the push of a few keys.
Everyone is an artist now, so why would a business pay an artist for a proper graphic design when any regular joe could just prompt what they want and call it a day. It's been 2-3 years since the dawn of all this and already had AI art flooded most corners of the internet. Artists using AI won't become much known until the majority of this hype surrounding chills out and enough time has gone by to actually make something with some passion in it and didn't take a few minutes to hash together.
While I appreciate the video, AI is not a problem just in the art world, it is transforming into multiple categories of services and none of them are related to helping anyone. Why aren't these AI "engineers" creating one which can make things better on the medicine field or something that actually need these mega fast "machine learning" processes? I always get this feeling, it's just a feeling of course, that it's more convenient to do this in fields that are profitable, have many people which can help train these systems for free, and also don't have big corporations and a lot of law involved, you know, the art world seems to be a good start, lots of people would take the "pill of success" to be able to create stuff fast and put more money and effort into their own lack of responsibility and laziness, than to support and fund something like AI for anything, specially if that supposed AI is said to make their work easier. but don't quote me on that.
These ai models are being used for much more then is publicly visible ( the text to image models are the results of making ai for cars to be much safer using object and pattern recognition, the language models is used to learn how speech work and can greatly help people with speech impediments etc.)
What we see publicly through chatgpt and dalle-2 etc is just a fraction of the research iceberg these ai system are used for.
The high level Ai training requires millions of dollars to get to the point of sites like Dalle-2 and GPT-3 just from power consumption alone.
Exactly. When actors and actresses are no longer needed to actually do any acting anymore, are people going to tell them to "get over it and get with the times"?
Or will people sympathize with the famous actors and actresses and want to preserve the human aspect of acting in movies?
Its not either or. People do what is easiest first. An AI car can crash and kill people, an AI art crash is a 5 legged horse.
@@kuromiLayfe i like how you only highlight the positive things, and not the other side like deepfakes, and peoples private medical info being found in the training data.
@@cosmicllama6910 is that A.I’s fault or human stupidity and ignorance?
If you don’t want private data on the internet to get accessed by any other pc on the internet… then don’t put it on the internet,( not even as a google/apple/xaomi/etc backup)
I'm sure I'll get hate for this, but I feel that the artists doing the complaining are really insecure. I'm over on the music side of things, and I'm seeing the same thing for musicians. If you're really good at what you do - AI is not going to be a threat whatsoever. Instead embrace it and see where it can really take you... these tools in the hands of artists themselves are going to blow minds. And when has copyright protected you anyhow? I don't remember winning any copyright lawsuits.
the difference being that copyright laws protects singers better than artists I guess because singers makes more money than any artist can
AI is nothing more than an advanced Tool. The same people shrieking into the ether about the "unfairness" of others using a tool, is just as small minded and self defeating as the dimwits who said I wasn't a "real artist" because I used a Tablet 20 years ago.
"Artists" and their own immature, knee-jerk "opinions" will be thing thing that makes these same Artists seem undesirable these days, just based on this sort of behavior of shutting down AI creatives and spitting in the face of what really comes down to fellow creatives using better tools. Pathetic, but not at all surprising.
Nope, sorry
I will fight skynet to death
will it be livestreamed?
Cornball
Cry
the only good thing about this is that human creativity never really ends remember that the ai is just interpreting our ideas with it data base so we might have something in mind and not get exactly what we wanted so maybe it is still worthy to become an artist those days another thing that ai are quite unable to do apart from hands is nsfw 🤣🤣🤣 but seriously artist are not totally doomed as some persons thinks
Some people enjoy complaining. Some people are better at complaining then they are at being creative. Some people are really effected and that’s sad. Some people don’t care either way and just like talking.
You kinda gotta figure out who’s who before you invest too much time into a pointless or a unproductive discussion on this topic.
The gaslighting argument "ai art is here to stay and you have to adapt or die" is like: "nuclear weapons are here to stay and you have to adapt to the idea of living in a bunker in a near future or die." I'm still thinking that the better choice is to ban nuclear weapons.
It's open source and on the global Internet. It's unbanable. Global society is not going to undertake a hundred year prohibition campaign that will cost trillions of dollars to protect your Sonic OC.
@@josehumdinger6872
I changed my mind on the last two months. There's no need to ban the Ai fake "art" for two reasons: 1) it's so boring even at the eyes of buyers that it can't compete with real art made by real meat hands of real artists; 2) now in the Usa the users of the Ai art generators don't own the copyright of the iimages generated by simply typing prompts.
I higly recommend the last video of The Art Mentor: ia fake "art" is dying faster than we hope. 😊
That's what artists said to factory workers.
@@josehumdinger6872 it's not about Sonic OC and you know it, throwing random degrading words make you look more dumb and ignorant.
at first i wanted to like ai images, i wanted to accept it as a tool but those filthy sweaty ai bros that probably also support nft's are stealing people's art (best example being the samdoesart situation) and claiming that they're better than human artist, its like comparing photography to painting, its ridiculous, ai can make art but it shouldn't be classified in the same category with human artists, it should be seperate
I am an enemy of the Basilisk and will fight to prevent its dominion. Its servants believe that serving it before it develops will spare them from retroactive punishment, but a machine overlord only knows what's in its dataset and will have no files on mercy.
I use these tools to create art work, and graphic designs. They are softwares that help out a lot.
So quick explanation here, I am an computer science engineer, in university I have been studying deep learning and testing some hypothesis, i killed my old laptop by doing so, ai technology is very complicated when it comes to hypothesis with almost about anything you do with it. I did some testing with vqgan and diffusion models when they did come out to answer a personal simple question. Can ai be considered creative. The short answer is no, it is not creative, but please note that it is my testing i might be wrong with approach or execution. So i think you already familiar with diffusion models and how they trained so i won't explain that and straight explain what i did. I trained my model from scratch it didn't know anything, i fed him pictures of very stickmen alike black dogs in a white background with resolution 64x64 and amount of thousands images, i know resolution seems low but it is actually enough to test, and also fed him images of dog's head. And when i requested to cut images of head from dog images it did fairly good job not perfect but it was going in a right direction. And then i fed him images of blue swords and also images of dogs holding a blue swords with a mouth and images of red pistols without dogs. Now what we have model that can recognize dog, dog's head, blue sword, dog holding a blue sword, red pistol. Now moment of truth if i will request him do generate image of dog holding a red pistol with a mouth will it make it or not. And as you might know answer it just give up and were generating mess trying to blend together dog and pistol. So why am i writing all of this, i often hear arguments against and for ai art generation. Some people say that ai is training on data same as people do so it is not stealing, this argument is hard to disprove because nature of ai makes hard to prove or disprove almost anything but we can say for sure that humans are creative and as i tested ai is not, so we already process information in different ways, ai's pattern recognition works in different way than humans so calling out ai for stealing might be true but then again it is not coping it directly, it is using it is knowledge of pattern that just differs from humans. Okey i will finish my observations here and further will just speak my mind about this situation. Ai is perfect representation of our society. Have any of you noticed that every time something original happens like very successful game, movie or some song. Industries and companies will do everything it takes to take piece of this successful cake and they will deny any other ideas whether they are original or not. Most big companies in entertainment industry always make same thing over and over again and the only original works were made are always made by small group of people and when they reach their success Industry giants will start to manufacture idea of this small group in a greater scales to greater profit because it proven to work to profit. This ai situation is exactly the same, if you lost your ability to distinguish ai made art from human made it is not because ai is making original content it is because people are stagnating and making same stuff over and over. Ever wondered why ai so good at generating anime waifus, it is because they are very similar in appearance to each other because we stopped pushing it forward. By making stable diffusion open source we effectively made every human being a corporation, now every one can mass manufacture popular art or art style but nobody will make original art, and even if somebody will make original works it can easily be taken and also mass produced without consent or mention. Ai is here to stay not because it is better in art than humans but because it is better in worst thing about our society today at creating same idea with low effort.
It's always the mediocre and unskilled artists that usually are pro AI. Because now they can generate art with a click of a button without investing or sacrificing their lives away. Neat deal.
@@StellaLovesMusic25 Art schools not being cheap is no excuse to be generating artwork with a click of a button. I'm completely a self taught artist. Also all the reference you need is literally out there for free. AI is okay for generation of ideas but calling that your own work is just fraud.
I agree with this comment. They know they don't have the skill to be an artist but now they can cheat their way into being one, that's why they're so desperate on sucking AI art teats because otherwise they're just talentless cucks
@@StellaLovesMusic25 Humans aren't ALL talented. There's a misconception that a SKILLED person is talented. Only thinking someone is talented completely disregards the hard work, time, and dedication spent on building up their craft, which is what AI generated art and their users are doing. You don't need to go to art school to be a successful artist ffs, but you'd still need sufficient knowledge about art and the proper skill to even become an artist, which are available for free on the internet. Ai users are talentless, they called themselves "artists" when they're just a customer using a service.
@@StellaLovesMusic25 you would be surprised how much it is about dedication and how little talent plays a role in all of this. People See the finished work and believe its talent. But the truth is it takes thousands of hours Training the fundamentals. There is a reason so many good artists talk about perspective, construction of forms and how to apply that. It simply takes a lot of time. You have to draw hands, heads, in different pespective, colours and so that over and over again till you find your own Style. Nothing magical about it.
@@StellaLovesMusic25 Art school being expensive is not an argument since you don't need it to learn art, besides chatgpt can act as an art professor if you want.
Brother you speak straight from my heart! Used to hate AI because i looked at it as the enemy so i blocked out every way that it could actually help me with my creations. My plan for now is to create animated movies completely made with my own original drawings with the help of AI! Thats the thing you gotta realize, stop looking at AI like its an evil entitiy that steals our jobs and creates soulles 2 hour long "perfect" movies, cause this is simply not true.
AI generated art is a tool, not a replacement. Imo i believe artist should try to adapt to this trend instead of trying to stop what is unstoppable. " We know how to manipulate color, we understand the structure,skeleton,etc" : why can't you use this a tool to save time if you do understand this nuances that regular AI users don't ? Real artists have a ridiculous amount of advantage in this new field and instead of setting the bar for good AI art they are choosing to go against it.
2:45
It is right - literally. The EU allows for opt-outs. There is no requirements for opt-ins. The law is from 2019, so not something ancient and it explicitly mentions the commercial use of publicly available data. EU Directive 790/2019 (since it is a directive and not a "law", memberstates have to make it into law themselves - in Germany that would be §44b and §44c UrhG and in other countries other laws saying the same). And this has been held up when challenged. The EU considers it ethical to force its memberstate to ratify it into law.
So all the arguments about it being not ethical or stealing are ignorant about the current law. A law that was made 2019, no ancient law with loopholes.
while it may technically be legal, it is not ethical because of how easy this tech makes it to steal someone's creative identity and use their own work to directly compete with them.
it's not "ethical" for anybody and their grandmother to directly compete with an artist using their own work to do it, that is the opposite of what "fair use" of images online is supposed to be.
Just because the law wasn't prepared for something so complicated, doesn't make it *ethical* by default.
@@cosmicllama6910 the law was literally made for text and datamining. You can disagree, but plenty of people think it's ethical.
If you don't agree, add "in my opinion" because it's demonstrably false to say it's unethical categorically, since many, even lawmakers, disagree vehemently about it's ethics.
@Anon Nymous do you think it is ethical for a 45 year old, big name professional in the art world to overnight become obsolete because now, any 13 year old with a computer can use his own work to directly compete with him in his own market?
That's ethical to you? Of course it is because you are the 13 year old in this scenario who just wants to steal people's life's work.
If you spent 30 years painstakingly teaching yourself a skill, just so that one day I could run up to you and scan your brain like "K thanks BYE!" And run off to be your direct competition with 0 effort. In your opinion it would not be ethical.
Artists will always make art but wont be able to make a living with art
Historically though, it's been really hard for people to make a living off of art alone. Most have to apply their creativity within a corporate framework (ie working for companies), and the artists who do make a living of their work alone, usually always have a high level of business/marketing sense and ability. If an artist truly understands business they'll be able to adapt and swing with the punches however this new tech affects us.
@Casey Rickey Well that’s depressing. Why should an artist have to be a marketing expert? I agree it’s always been tough for artists even before AI.
Only the exceptionally good could have made a living. An average person would be better doing something else.
@@jjjjjjjjkigghh8662because that was decision of artist to make it their main form of income.
@@jjjjjjjjkigghh8662if you want to start your own business it dont matter what you do you need to understand business lol
Clearly you don't understand why artist are complaining
@@StellaLovesMusic25 yeah get it with theft? if you have artistic gift as you claim, train yourself, you have a bunch of free material online.
so don't bother people with this low iq argumentation, you are not the one who get oppressed by the choice of companies behind Ai.
@@StellaLovesMusic25 You don't need money to be an artist. Try again. These arguments that anti AI artists are elitists annoys me, because the quality of art is not what makes it art, it's a creation that has the primary function of expression. Even a child's crappy smiley face drawing is art, because even the joy of it's creation gives it meaning to the child. Those without natural talent can still learn artistic skills, and freely thanks to youtube. If you have access to AI software, you certainly have access to youtube where you can find thousands of free art tutorials.
Yeah so idk what everyone else is saying but i agree with @josuemartinez9688
@@StellaLovesMusic25 nobody is gatekeeping anybody else from picking up a pencil and paper and practicing.
it does NOT take money, or a tablet, to get good at drawing.
If a person only draws stick figures and you give them a tablet, guess what, they're still going to be drawing stick figures! Because unlike AI, a tablet really is just a tool and not a cheat that literally does all the work for you.
get good?
The problem is never technology per se, it's who is pushing that tech and why...
Like artists
@@elliotyourarobot Like you.
@@KobaltKai5215 I am.
Did you say the same when it was factory workers?
Wow! I just found your channel 10 minutes ago and I already love it. You have a great voice, and the way you present information is honest and straightforward. I can't wait until your channel blows up, I am here for the journey.
Thank you! Really appreciate that
finding this vid a year later, yes i will complain, until my hands are turn to dust
Oh, hello there 👋. A motion designer and an AI enthusiast? Good that there’s people who like to embrace the change of landscapes
Hello! 👋 thanks for watching. Definitely, we're certainly approaching some wild times for us as creatives!
I have REALLY mixed feelings about both sides of art community's opinion
Yeah I feel that, it's a complicated topic for sure. I think being neutral and open minded about both sides and perspectives is smart, at least for now...it's still all so new.
Just focused on your projects. Create and experiment. Enjoy what you are doing instead of listening to other people complain. AI is fascinating and a good way to train yourself to be better.
@@ellenripley4837 how? just curious. idk how i incorporate ai in my works like art, animation and music. but like just to help me figure out stuff and get inspiration.
AI training is no different to any previous kind of statistical analysis.
It also happens to be no different to how our brains perform such analysis.
And yet these people who oppose generative AI, did not have a problem with other humans learning from the data they put out, nor did they complain about prior revenue generating statistical analysis tasks, when we used the same data to produce marketing information and such.
It only became a "copyright" issue the moment the data started being used to produce new data which they feel is in competition with their own.
They feel like this new technique has a competitive advantage, because they didn't mind humans that are just as slow as they are, learning from the art they see.
Funnily enough I have not seen actual good artists that feel threatened by AI.
Most of the people losing their shit on twitter and reddit, if you take a look at their portfolios, they do anime and furry NSFW content, I swear to god.
I like to browse artstation and download digital art that I vibe with, and even there I've noticed an inverse correlation between the quality of the art someone posts and the likelihood they've posted that No-AI image.
A truly good artist feels secure in the value he brings to the world. It's these people producing "art" of the same quality as something a 9 year old could produce, that feel deeply threatened and violated by AI adjusting a couple synaptic weights by some ~0.00001 because of their 100kb image out of a 90tb dataset to ultimately produce a 9gb parameter checkpoint.
Are we going to see world famous art pieces suddenly drop in values? Will the Mona Lisa become worthless because people can generate similar images 5 times per minute? No. That's absurd. Human art was never about what image or sound you can produce. It was about the meaning, the experience, getting to step into someone else's shoes, being able to feel what another human once felt even a thousand years apart. But then, that doesn't apply when you make my little pony tributes.
Neurons seeing and learning concepts is suddenly problematic when those neurons can output directly to a screen. We wouldn't need these image generating AIs if we could just imagine things and render them to a screen. Instead we need to imagine concepts and type the prompt, and hope the AI is able to imagine the thing we imagined on our behalf because its neurons can output digital information. Otherwise, the process is no different. So what they truly have a problem with is not having to pickup a pencil and draw the art.
Let's hope the neuralink users never start being able to output their mental images to a display or we'll have a genocide of the paralyzed.
These people are unhinged. Live and let live.
theft is theft, no matter what you call it
ai art is not theft tho
imma need 'real' artists to start listing every influence they had on the back of works then. And pay out royalties. Thats what you want right?
Great vid man. I get hammered whenever I do something with ai, but I'm like, wow, I could never have even made this thing without the ai. Sure, it's still in progress, but one day the world will be full of people creating block buster movies just by themselves in their homes, and the good ones will rise to the top. Exciting. Inclusive. Advancement. It's kinda like saying, hey, keyboards suck, because they get the job done faster. Maybe there is an argument for some people harnessing the powers of utilizing ai in a seemless manner, while others who don't hold the capacity to orchestrate it well create bad products. Many viewers will have been hurt by bad ai art/media in the past, and so the mere sight of another piece of ai media (impressive or otherwise), will make them cringe and write bad stuff, which is understandable. The only way people's perceptions on the use of ai in media or art will change is if people start creating good media with it, and that will only happen when people spend hours getting good at it, or when ai software develops to a more satisfactory level.
I hope you guys realize that an entire art community has been crashing economically since AI has been more public. People are losing jobs, houses, sources of income and some of us are literally starving now. Please do your research.
Art, in my opinion, should be a hobby and not a job. I got a job in art a while back, and at first I enjoyed it, but then I started to dread it. the constant commissions, the deadlines, all of the burnout I experienced, it was all too much for me. So I quit and made my art skills a hobby, and let me tell you I enjoy art a lot more now. Turning your hobby into a job might sound great, but in reality it only makes you hate the things you enjoy.
@@OfficiallyRattled-lm2dg not everyone can say the same as you and for some people there's little to no other options other than art for physical and mental reasons. I really do have passion for it as a job and enjoyed 10 years of it now
"People are losing jobs, houses, sources of income and some of us are literally starving now"
Unfortunately this is nothing new. The automobile replaced the horse buggy and if your concern is that AI will cause a crash in the art industry, that's just human technological advancement for you. You may lose your job and source of income, but a lot of consumers don't care about how that impacts you, many of them have the thought process, "I want product X; how can I get it the most efficient and cost-effective way? Should I go to a real human who will cost a considerable amount of money and take a while to get what I want, or an AI generator that can make what I want quickly and cheaply?" For those who just want their product, they'll go to AI regardless of the impact it has on others. That's why a lot of people still bought from Nike despite the massive controversies they've had about child labor or Amazon despite the controversies of their work conditions and borderline-monopolies in some areas.
@@Doomblade3890 Yep well the big crash will happen soon enough
@@Eternalskyy Are you talking about a crash in AI art (due to the lawsuits and massive backlash from the art community) or a crash in the economy for the people who only care about "who gets me my product cheaper and faster"? I've heard big crashes mentioned in both contexts so I'm not sure which you're talking about.
what has really separated is the bad artists who think can get clout with AI from the good ones. I guess you are in the first category
If people don't use it then they make less money. I don't see how even a partial boycott can be a bad thing if it slows the development in time for some of the damaging consequences of this technology to be thought through and rectified.
I like the ai art concept, its given me ideas I don't think I could otherwise come up with, being that we as humans see the world for what it is, where an ai tries to see that world the same way, but comes up with its own interpretation based on the information its given. Since I write stories set in strange universes, its nice to see what the ai comes up with. I described a person standing in a video game arcade and the game cabinets it came up with in the background really do look like something in a different universe. I also use the ai as a tool to plan out a scene or an angle I can't get just right normally. Technology changes with art, we have gone form the camera obscura and camera lucida to Photoshop and AI, different tech to get the same results.
it's easy for you to say adapt when you're a doing the same exact thing as the( AI generators )are doing. taking existing art and just cutting it up or painting all over it.
I want to thank you for making this video, I originally had a more negative, but not exactly hateful viewpoint on ai art, but now I feel the need to be more open-minded. Your points make sense to me, the fact that you’re an artist that is able to make artwork with ai (and your background relating to ai as well) makes me think of you as credible. The way that some people address ai makes it hard for me to process and understand, but this video, being clear and concise, helps me organize my thoughts and viewpoints. Again, thanks for this! :)
Dude, the problem with today ai art is copyright: they grab stuff that they don't own and can't use, and even if they use public domain images you can't convince a judge that a computer is actually created something new and not just "moved some patterns of pixels" to make an image. Honestly, i think only when ai gonna become like human with all the cons of living, will it ever get an "author" status.
I've been using it to create thumbnails for my next peace while finishing the one I'm working on right now. Theres no stopping this so just incorporate it into your workflow.
Created the thumbnail of this vid with it! For sure have found great uses for it within my practice
"Just shot up and go with the flow"
Yeah just let ai companies steal your stuff with no compensation/consent and resell the derivative to other people. All this “art” is contingent on other people’s work
I really love the vibe of your video. Really well done! Thx!
Regarding the topic: It seems photographers aren't complaining that much or even not at all. Or am I just not hearing about it?
Thank you! I appreciate that and am glad you liked the video-- good observation, I don't think I've heard too much from photographers either. I wonder why that is.
Photographers already had a similar case with regards to the establishing of whether they owned rights to the images they had photographed of existing places. The primary situation was in regard to Lucia Moholy and her pictures taken of the Bauhaus school. It was in her favor that claims were awarded since it is the photographer which decides what lighting, angle, and other compositional elements create the image.
Ai will allow the "artist" with the most resources ( the Elite) to be the one to lead us to art being produced rather than created. Mid Century abstract novelty led us here.
people will spend their lives developing unique styles just so some rich kid can say "you made this?....I made this!"
I am an artist, and I started learning to use it out of curiousity and frustration of seeing "AI arts" people made and feel that I can do better. And well, the more I learnt, the more I see that prompters have no chance against artists using it, it is very powerful tools, only limited by our imaginations, the way it followed my reference drawings and came up with what I had in mind very quickly is incredible. I hope it would get better at training from fewer reference pics, so I could really use it to do precise auto coloring when making animation, AI still isn't any good at that.
I feel that it won't ever steal our jobs, everyone could soon be using it, and it would be fair game, cause prompters do not stand a chance. lol
Tbh I don’t care about Ai and what it can make. My friends and colleagues fear what it’ll do but they’re wasting time worrying while I’m keep on keeping on with my art.
A year has past and AI imagine generation companies are in huge trouble.. ‘I didn’t believe in the soul until I saw art with out it’
I can't remember if it was Midjourney or OpenAI (maybe both), but I have heard about those lawsuits for using copyrighted images in their dataset (I think Getty Images was the one pressing the charges). We'll see how this plays out in the long-run, but open-source programs like Stable Diffusion are going to be a LOT harder to take down since they're out in the open for anyone to download and re-upload.
Gatekeeping and rent seeking are not creative. That's all about elitism and money. What the code itself does is testable not subjective.
So we should not use procreate, Photoshop or illustration and just adapt to use ai. And become text prompter. Lol
Great video. Like you I started my channel to demonstrate the way AI image generation can be used in collaboration with humans. We are entering a new era that is both exciting and scary but I believe that while the tools of artists may change the valuable role they have will not.
Thanks for watching- in my opinion, AI writing won’t replace original thinking. And AI art won’t replace an artists unique perspective. True professionals and creative talent will always be sought after, it's just that our day to day activities may change.
But it’s a form of art and in some cases identity theft no? ie when ai mimics work of an artist and passes themselves off as such with no compensation to the artist
The Reasons Artists Detest AI Artists. I am an artist as well as an AI artist. And I used it to help me generate ideas because it had tools. Additionally, make others smile. I understand. Method Why no two artists are alike. Like us, some artists use AI into their daily workflow. If you have ever used assistance. You stay away from discussing it. You succeed. Do artists use the creations of other artists and receive payment for it? Yes. However, Al isn't stealing the ideas of other AI artists. This is a fantastic example of creative art in action. The identical songs that I write are being taken from musicians that write their own songs. Alright. Give it a shot.. Give it a chance before you Judge it. Like I did
saying "i made the ai art bc i put in the prompt" is like if i told someone what shape to dig a hole than claimed i dug the hole.
DUDE! I know that book, I read it once and have ever since been looking for it but I forgot the title! NOW I NEED TO ORDER ME A COPY! THAT BOOK IS A MUST HAVE FOR ALL CREATIVES!! I love this video and came from the same inspiration that motivated me, that little book you showed off at the beginning. It left something in me that told me when the AI art machines came around, "Maybe an artist is now replacable, but what about the artist who knows how to use AI? Isnt that double the gain that a machine or a man alone? Lets learn the AI and become its master."
It's a great book!! Also a short and related book, I recommend "the war of art" by steven pressfield
Clicked because I agree with the premise, but the reason so many artists feel trepidation with AI art isn't "humans are scared of new things." I feel that's dismissive. I'm sure artists would be excited about the prospects of AI and incorporating the tools into their work if:
1. AI companies hadn't already proved willing to sidestep artists' rights (which they haven't done with music because that industry is A LOT better at suing the crap out of people).
2. So many people in the AI space weren't publicly excited to see "artist elites" fail for political reasons, incorrectly conflating their hatred for "modern art" with working artists.
3. So many of these same people now into AI hadn't also been part of the NFT nonsense that sought to commoditize artists' work without their consent.
4. Media companies who are already exploiting artists (video games, movies, animation) weren't likely to leverage AI as reasons for increased abuse or abject replacement.
And keep in mind that all of this might still be OK if people didn't need ever-increasing amounts of money to even exist as living humans-I know artists who are so Bohemian and out-there that they need the bare minimum to subsist, but most artists want to practice art AND not live in the streets. So I mean, I agree with your attitude as an artist myself, and it's how I also think about it, but be conscious that even if some of the complaints can be alarmist or hipster-y or incorrect, that there are a lot of legitimate reasons to be upset at AI.
I find the tone of this video pretty dismissive and condescending ngl. Maybe AI ethics won't be an issue in the future, but they are currently, and people pushing back against the current trajectory of AI isn't just human fear of the unknown, it's a perfectly logical assessment of an unethical, greedy form of creating images using other people's work. The implication that anti AI folks are just sitting on their hands and complaining as if they've stopped making art altogether to complain while you adapt regardless of the current state of AI ethics rubs me the wrong way.
Unless you can prove that you have never looked at any art prior to creating your own art, then you are just as guilty.
@@Hornet135 Artists who care about artistic integrity and have the humility to admit both their conscious and unconscious sources of inspiration who use their acquired knowledge to make something new that's inspired by their own experiences and tastes is in no way the same as art being non consensually fed into algorithms that produced uninspired works for no reason other than quick profit. AI couldn't exist without being wrongfully trained on real artists' works yet is being used to replace said artists in their lines of work. It's dehumanising and disrespectful to imply that real human souls who create with intention unable to make more valuable works than the machines that can only operate when fed by the works of the artists. What purpose is there to defend this process? AI meat riders must either be trolls or simply miserable pessimists who savour an opportunity to take meaningful expression away from creatives in order to feel some satisfaction in making other people as miserable as they are.
@@Hornet135 Also artists have existed since early man, using their surroundings as sources of inspiration. Each artists has a unique emotional connection to the things that they choose to take inspiration from which makes their work their own. We don't just stare are other people's works and mindlessly recreate pieces of it to fill some quota.
I just hope this will never happen to music. These robots learn way too fast, they're emotionless, they're artificial, and boring. I draw a lot, for myself, never used an electronic tablet, I hate these. I mean, I hate using them. and AI is way worst. Maybe I'm immature, but at least, I dopnt accept a robot to be "better" than me. I dont want to live with these technology ruining the buisness of people. AI is accessible to everybody, there is now nothing that separe artists from 3 years old non-talented random guy with a phone.
It's already happened to music, AI can replicate voices and create its own music. it's been around for a year or so now. just type any popular song and type "AI Cover" on youtube.
I appreciate your honesty and forward thinking, but I don't think it's even worth it for an artist to openly promote AI.
In the art industry it's about who you know, and it's very possible sticking your hand in that beehive isn't really worth it.
These are great points, and they strike at the heart of the issue. That being, that professional Illustrators don't care about exploration and experimentation art... mainly because their jobs usually do not allow it. A game studio requires many artists to have a consistent style, and not rock the boat. These artists then create paid courses, showing how to find your way into this very limited job field... though the real secrets are never revealed... because... well you know this is about money. Great video, really in 10 minutes you summed it all up.
Thank you, glad you liked the vid. Just posted one similar!
Interesting thanks! I made a video on "why AI art won't really replace the human artists". Please let me know what you think 🤔 I'm a fellow data scientist..
The art community's reaction makes me ponder a thought. If the philosophy of art is the exploration of new ideas, then what is the community doing when it viscerally rejects a new idea? Ah, that's right, politics like a politician.
Really like the format and flow of your videos! and I totally agree. I find it weird how artists seem to become unimaginative when it comes to AI.
You're not an illustrator or animator, or concept artist artist or whatever. You are a banana tape artist, what you are really do is social engineering, you convincing people that you are an artist and your work is art, so you can have attention and money. Whatever you have, banana, broken urinal, AI - not changes anything. Stop broadbrushing and telling working artist what to do.
You can waste your time on the barricades but you won't stop the progress of technology. Adapt and embrace rather than fighting against the tides. Or just do your own thing.
They claim it's a moral or ethical issue, but really it's because they're threatened by AI. Most of the artists complaining are also mediocre artists.
so inspiring
"Just four years ago, this is what AI art looked like."
Kind of like Francis Bacon!
Fantastic video! Subscribed!
Appreciate it! 🙂
No
There is no way of "learning AI", because it's not a tool. Using AI makes whole artistic job meaninless, 'cause you are not drawing anything, you're asking programm to do it for you, which makes you a client, not a artist. That's the whole problem with it. Instead of making tools that would help artist to alleviate routine parts of drawing, big AI companies try to replace artists by stealing their art with all means possible. "Shut up and go with the flow" is the worst advice in this situation.