ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 ก.ค. 2024
- In this video we’re going to get a glimpse into the future of AI, and why it’s both worse than some artists say, and better than others do.
I’m going to begin by sharing with you a very concrete, hands-on example of the kind of phenomenon we’re going to see in the years to come, and then I’ll give you all the lessons we should learn from it as artists.
Become an insight collector with Napkin, the perfect thought-capturing app :
napkin.one/?via=ArtPostAI
Another somewhat-technical video since you guys seem to like them :)
Let me know your thoughts below, I'll read everything !
I use Napkin every day for both research and personal projects.
It's an effortless and fun insight collection app.
Check it out right here :
napkin.one/?via=ArtPostAI
What happens running the same iterative re-encoding using a human-written compression algorithm?
Actually, the topic is quite triggering for me. As a person who enjoys art and was considering to become an artist, emergence of AI visual models broke my heart. I've seen a bunch of creative ways artists use AI to create art pieces such as paintings, digital illustrations and even works that look like movies... I understand artists who chose to use AI as a tool or integrate it into their art. But for me, it's still so uncomfortable to acknowledge the shift in the future of art. Except the ethics behind this, I'm saddened to imagine that over time we might lose genuineness and authenticity in art, which for me, are basically the reasons why I love the art in the first place...
I feel this so deeply. Even though I work in AI, I will never use AI in my finished pieces.
In my opinion, abandoning art because of the existence of AI is a mistake and a tragedy. That's exactly what I'm trying to fight against on this channel.
I believe we must adapt to AI and not ignore it, but the value of art isn't only in how fast, easy and visually flawless it is.
I used to make art with painstaking slowness, taking months to finish a graphite drawing. Now I spend at most five to six hours on drawings, and I make them on highschool notebooks with a basic ballpoint pen. That's the direction AI has taken me till now. But giving up on art isn't an option :)
The physical feelings of flesh, touch, struggle and pain are too valuable, too inspiring to give up. And even if AI exists, it doesn't negate human nature, and human nature requires flesh, touch, struggle and pain.
These elements will remain, and a world where all art is quickly manufactured using AI as part of the process doesn't exist.
Thank you so much for your comment, I really appreciate it.
imo ai is illigal and should be banned, we've completely destroyed integrity and original ideas with the idea that a computer could do better by combining everything anyone ever did and using it for profit
it should be banned, its theft of intellectual property to a highest degree without having to claim responsibility of copy right problems, it's sickening and will destroy a lot of carreer paths, especially visual ones, companies don't care about what you studied if a computer can do anything you can for 1/1000 of the price, it's all sick and such a shame for humanity
@ArtPostAI beautiful work brother.
Love and blessings.
The topic is quite triggering for me too, but for the exact opposite reason. I don't like those soppy people that think art is dead because a computer can make it. Everyone is talking about how art is about feeling and whatnot, but they don't seem to believe it. If they did, why would they care? It's not like their feelings are now forbidden? The only issue artists have with AI is not that it exists, but that their commisions aren't going to be sought after with the same intensity.
You don't like AI? Then don't use it.
You don't like AI art? Don't watch it.
But all the people that just constantly whine about destruction of everything that's good, as if the world is ending.
"we might lose genuineness and authenticity in art" how? Genuinely, how are you going to lose authenticity in art? Which art? The company logo art? That's already soulless. Or do you think that next time you take out your canvas or a drawing tablet, AI will just come out of your closet and start sucking your soul out?
It's annoying. Nobody that makes art for the feeling would use AI.
@@nati0598 Wow.
What a pragmatic opinion ! Your viewpoint is exactly what's required, and hopefully it becomes more common in the future.
Thank you so much for inspiring me to be a bit more forward about this in future videos.
That's actually amazing! Also, what a great video. I hope more people come to know your channel!
Thank you so much for the support !!
Whats the music at 9:16 called?
Mattia Vlad Morleo - Light Waltz
@@ArtPostAI thank you
If I understand correctly, AI doesn't like to make mistakes so doesn't like to repeat things. I wonder then if that is why the still frames over time "move" when put together as a video.
I went over it a too quickly in the video. Maybe I can do better in text form.
Basically here we're not using the AI in the way it's intended. What we're seeing is the AI's flaws being accentuated by running the model multiple times on its outputs.
So if the model was perfect and making no mistakes, the image wouldn't move at all, it would be the same at iteration 1000 as it was before going into the model.
But here we see the model constantly making mistakes because it isn't perfect at recreating the images. And the reason the frames "move" is because each error doesn't take us too far away from the previous image. So it kind of makes an animation.
It's interesting that (to me at least) the smaller, lower-performance models allow us to get more interesting results this way than do the bigger, industry-ready models.
Showing that as models get more "perfect", huge and industry-ready, they might also become harder to use creatively.
Good video. I'm an artists myself, and while i don't like the general idea of ai companies and how they've treated artists, I do believe there is something that can be found within AI, and that in particular is averageness. For example, I've trained an AI based on my own work, and it's surprising to see what the averageness of your own work is-it's really something between beauty and horror, or even sacred and profane.
Fascinating way to use AI. I keep seeing new ways people are subtly taking advantage of it to empower their own art, without actually using it in the finished result.
Interesting. I'm not surprised that very small errors compounds into the total degradation of the original image. But I am surprised and can't figure out how the autoencoder loses "the plot" on a all white image or black image.
Here's my best guess :
The last operation before the output of the vae is in most cases an activation function (tanh, sigmoid, depending on the case). These have asymptotes in black : 0 (or -1) and 1 : white. But being asymptotes they don't allow the model to reconstruct a perfect zero. So it'll be like 10E-7 or something.
That's how we lose the perfect 0 or the perfect one (in the sigmoid case).
And from then on in my mind there's no difference with the other images, the model makes little errors reconstructing these 10E-7 values, and overtime it compounds into shapes appearing and disappearing.
I honestly dont care about the future of AI, it will collapse eventually when it will start feeding itself its own images or poisoned images. What is the most sickening for artists is that they used our art without our permission to train their AI, basically stealing our art to recreate our style and copy our work to replace us. It is a question of copyright and ethics, not the future of art itself. Us artists will still be vastly superior no matter what, because AI will never be able to create art, especially now when a lot of artists glaze and poison their art images.
If you don't want them to use the free images you post for free on the internet... Then don't? Or try to protect the image in some way ( I ain't no lawyer so idk what to tell you )
@ingrida1121
I don't know about that collapse theory. It seems very unlikely that they'll just collapse and go away.
In the best case scenario, at least the ones that exist right now are going to stay in use. But really, the only case I can see where things don't get at least a little worse is if AI companies run out of ways to keep up the "exponential" improvement they are advertising. (which seems to be happening actually). But that won't make anything collapse. It'll just keep it the way it is right now.
I would take a more pragmatic standpoint akin to @lolcat69 (although with more nuance and less offensive phrasing^^) :
As artists, we do not fight through laws and regulations, nor do we resist change or cling to common morality and idealism. Our main asset as creatives lies in our open-mindedness and ability to adapt.
AI models are a reality, whether we want it or not. Let's start from there, and figure out how to stay ahead, not by moving away from the realm of art to the realm of law and argument, but using our pens, pencils, and more importantly, our minds, bodies and environment.
@@lolcat69 well, every lawyer can tell you, just because something is posted online, does not make it free. It's like saying, just because a song is uploaded on the internet, it makes it free for you to use it in a TH-cam video. In reality the channel will be copyright striked and deleted.
@@lolcat69okay so artists should remove themselves from the number 1 way to get recognition and find clients? You do realise it's not a realistic solution?
@@lolcat69 what if i download this video we all watched above and upload it under my own youtube channel and it surpasses the views it got here? isn't that easy to do? would you still think that is ethical? its free and available on the free internet.
Thank you for showing these examples! There was something strangely mesmerizing about it.
Thank you so much ! Glad you liked it :)
I didn't get anything. Everything here doesn't make sense to me. I guess the texts you're reading in the vids of this channel are AI-generated.
From an analytical perspective it seems that the AI is seeking not to understand the art but to order it into familiar patterns that it recognizes and is comfortable with. It’s as if the machine suffers from extreme OCD and what we humans view as art it views as a complete disorderly mess.
thing also its that it'll never actually be able to predict anything, basing it on everything we already made you're literally confining it to our knowledge, they don't have a proper concept of futures and art evolution is impossible to be predicted
@@KamilDeKerel true. After all some human made contemporary art is literal sh*t in every sense of the word.
Very interesting points in this thread !
"AI has OCD" will definitely be in my thoughts for a while
And that point about future prediction, I'd never thought of it that way
thanks
My theory is that art (the art that we make with our hands) will evolve. Just like it did when photography came out and artist who did portraits were replaced for cameras.
Great video! i liked a lot the experiment
Absolutely agree. This comparison is true on so many levels. Thanks for the comment !