I think the optimistic view has a flaw or two: no, it wont be artists that exploit this pseudo-tool. Its devastation will be vast because non-creatives will indeed replace creatives. Secondly, comparisons to other technology are fairly inaccurate. Replacing filmstock with digital did not replace the photographer. Styluses replaced pencils, not animators. And word processing replaced typewriters, not authors. Encyclopedias went online, and the internet itself houses tons of info. But ai will write the info. It will change and redraft the encyclopedia, history, story, and therefore culture. Ai will replace animators, writers, storyboard artists, musicians, and DPs. If there are directors, they wont need to be the talents they are today. They will be the non-creatives above. comparing it to chess is simply bizarre. A computer knowing everything is not the same as human competition. A machine that can flawlessly throw 3 point shots in basketball might be interesting technically. But pitting it against Steph Curry doesnt make for competition. The human quality in art is like the competition. Ai will replace the need for artists by making two computers play chess. The human loss will be real - but less transparent than in competition. People also instinctively know the loss of human competition. They can see it. No one cares that the fastest person in the world cannot outrun a sports car. But people wont see the loss as readily as the artist gettinf replaced by ai. No, ai wont take away your paints. But it will steer our culture, as it replaces art with sim, as it writes our stories for us, and as it dehumanizes us all. Now is the time to see it for what it is. It is not a hammer. It is not a pen evolving into a stylus. It is not a human finding serendipity in mistakes, it is not filmstock going digital. It is the nono particles in our “food.” It is the cricket flour replacement. It is a nuclear bomb. It is an x-ray, that might be fine once a year with a lead vest on the rest of your body… but might not be good pointed at your gonads non-stop for the foreseeable future. It is the lobotomy of our day. It is giving heroine to infants when they are teething. It is bloodletting to heal wounds. It is the infinity gauntlet, and Thanos will indeed snap. Technology is not always used, and not always good to use, just because it exists and just because you can. But perhaps “just because” is better than as a short cut around talent. Is it just a tool? Sure. But so was the icepick they used… to carve up your brain… the best new advancement in science to the cure anxiety in college students plagued by study, or to calm hysterical women. I must say: this is the best video I have yet seen discussing ai. So kudos. I respect this very much - and a lot of good points and perspectives were shared. And while ai might be here to stay. And might truly take over. In my opinion - we cannot shout enough about the ethics, about the dangers, and about the losses.
Very good comment!!! We can sit all day discussing it artist to artist about how it will affect us, but never should we just give up and let it walk all over us, or never should we stop warking of the dangers and ethics!!! Artists face so much vitriol from the people who use AI, when we simply don't want our work to be in the datasets without our consent.
On the other hand, the Printing Press put scribes out of work The Luddites, the guys who destroyed machines, did so not because they feared them, but because the machines actually did their jobs for them at a fraction of the cost (all the things modern writers and artists are saying AI will do to them is exactly what industrial machinery actually did to the Luddites, and nowadays "luddite" is a derogatory term) Computer used to be a job title, a person who was paid to do math, now we have computation machines that do it automatically, instantly, and without error (barring an error in input), and society is objectively better for it All of these things are seen as good things nowadays, but back when they were happening, a lot of people treated it as the end of society (hell, older generations have been complaining about new technologies at least as long as people have been writing things down, we actually have written records of people being worried that _writing things down_ would lead to the fall of civilization) No one can predict the future, nobody knows what the consequences of the consequences will be, and that can be scary, but it _will_ happen, it cannot be stopped, the best we can do is prepare for the worst and hope for the best
@@Deathnotefan97 I think magnifying physical effort via leverage: a shovel instead of a hand... a CAT instead of a shovel... that is comparable to using a paint brush and canvas instead of your hand and a cave all. Or photoshop and a stylus instead of a paintbrush and canvas. Ai replaces the artist. So it's just fundamentally different and SHOULD be looked at as ONLY a loss. Convenience is not automatically good. A fraction of the cost is not automatically good. Nor is seeing computers as "good" necessarily a true thing. The human mind and human life is superior to replacing it. Replacing leverage via a shovel is NOT the same as replacing the soul via art.
@@ithurtsbecauseitstrue Yes, AI replaces the artists, the same way calculators replaced human computers, the printing press replaced scribes, etc. I specifically used examples of machines _replacing_ humans, not machines reducing how much human work is needed
The problem I see is that people everywhere are already underpaid, exploited and living paycheck to paycheck. And corporations will never care about it, the point made about AI devalueing a HUGE part of the industry is the scary part
@@diegoloxoroyea, but you can't really expect them to immediately (and willingly) just share their wealth, no matter how hard and detailed we explained it to them, and the authorities probably will be on their side, for now, this AI protests are an effort not to give them any more power than what they have now If AI was really used by artists for drafts, ideas, and those things that the AI bros tell us, I don't think the rejection would be as big as this, the fact that it's not artists who use it, and that used by companies to replace artists, when art and language are one of the most basic things about being human, and yet created by something that isn't even alive, is pretty depressing
I think this is a problem for most jobs and we as a society have to find another way of distributing wealth than by paying people (in the best case) by their work performance.
i just want to say a lot of the greats control-z’d by painting a new layer over their canvas. just because digital art gives us the ability to undo things we don’t like in seconds doesn’t mean we aren’t working through our mistakes. digital art has allowed me to explore so many ideas and emotions as an artist, because it has made experimentation more controllable. there have been many nights where i’ve worked hours on a piece, to not have it go the way i wanted, to hit pause and come back weeks or months later to work through it with fresh eyes/ideas.
that doesn't discount his point at all though, starting over a new canvas is completely different than just making it like the mistake never happened, and when you have that ability, I don't think most people would choose to the keep the mistake and build upon it. Now you could argue that his point of view and what makes art valuable is different than yours that would be harder to refute, but you don't make an coherent argument here.
@@takeuchi5760 he mentioned when we’re able to just control z, we aren’t training ourselves to work through mistakes, thus limiting our ability to expand our creativity. my argument is some of the greats, who are seen as pioneers also didn’t work through their mistakes, or at least painted over ideas they didn’t like. being able to dial in ideas we have helps to expand our creativity, because we’re able to push limits.
@@iamslf I totally agree. Digital art gave me the option to experiment in a vacuum basically. My first few drawings were... crap and I was working on creating my style. Once I had a tablet and Krita, I could play around with it and train my hand to do the curves I see in my mind, use the colors I want. If I change my mind I swap them out. But it was mostly to practice, before showing the world. And once I got better, those skills transferred to traditional art as well. I drew a cartoony but realistic woman on the first ever try (well, second really.) In a pose I have never done. It is the mindset that is key. I keep many mistakes I make in digital art, so I don't make them next time. :)
@@takeuchi5760 But his point it still is incorrect. In digital you still make mistakes, you just erase them more efficiently than on paper. Do people not erase their mistakes whe doing traditional? When I paint with gouache I certainly do!! I cover them up! And I think people who paint with acrylics and oils do it as well.
The control+z criticism is ridiculous. It's like saying you can't use an eraser when drawing with a pencil. Or painting over mistakes on your canvas. Or you're not allowed to undo a wrongly knitted part of a sweater, because "that's too easy" which is nonsense. Or an architect should just ignore faults and embrace the "happy accidents" instead of fixing them to ensure the building's integrity/safety. You don't have "infinite" possibilities when drawing digitally just because you can undo. You still need to have knowledge of anatomy, color theory, perspective, etc. depending on what you draw. It's like saying store bought paint is cheating; you should gather ingredients yourself, grind them down and make your own paint from scratch. Ridicules.
My favorite AI-generated text (from the early days, cca 2020): "Do not move, or your brains will be blown out." "On the contrary, I believe I'll move." "Do you have a cigarette?" You roll your eyes. "Yeah." You pull one out, light it, and slide it back into the pack. "That'll be $49.95, please" You hand her a twenty. "Keep the change." In a vacuum you'd almost guess it was written by some master of surreal dry humor on the level of Terry Pratchett or Douglas Adams, but it was just a weak language model that wasn't firing on all cylinders trying its best to tell a serious story. Nowadays GPT can tell a joke, sure, but it can't make one.
"There should be a book about reading!" this was generated by a neural network I have put together and trained. This comment was doubly funny, because it was actually learning to read!
@@adamrak7560 that sounds like a child. Like a technological child that somehow can read. Books make things easier. They are trying to learn how to read. So they need a book about it.
Remember the weird Dall-e Mini memes that were taking twitter by storm last year? A lot of people claiming the AI diffusion revolution had completely changed comedy forever. they are dead in the water, even despite the fact that the tech used to make them has gotten a hundred times better. the fad has passed any everyone moved onto the next meme
I don't fully agree on that "digital artist doesn't have to work with their mistakes" staitmant. Yes, three lines and one wrongly picked color won't change your whole approach and you have more flexability overall. But you still have to move on and not redraw the same thing over and over if you want to finish it, even when you're not 100% satisfied with it. Also CTRL-Z isn't infinite. If I remember correctly, you can go 50-100 steps back. So you can go back on a imidietly notised mistakes, but if you work on it for a few hours and realize that some trees are messing your composition pure CTRL-Z isn't enough or you notice a mistake in time, but you already done some other stuff, that you done really well and you have to decide if you move on or delete the well done part. Over all I'd say, saying that digital art is lesser, cuz' of CTRL-Z is the same thing like saying that oil paint is lesser to penciles, since with oils you can cover up and touch up stuff na but with pencils that is way harder and at times impossible.
@@dyastro7479 Yea, it gets under my sikn, but I whatched whole and I kidna get where he's comming from, plus he does have quite an interesting veiw point on AI that I honestly agree with. You just have to suffer throught that.
@@dyastro7479 Agreed. No matter how much I control + z or undo, I'm continuing to make human mistakes. Instead of wasting paper redrawing the same thing over and over again, I can tweak my art until it is as good as I can currently make it. Control + Z doesn't erase your memory of the mistake you made. From the moment he said that, the video sounded like a traditional artist talking out of his ass.
there is merit in your points. unfortunately though, while some people explore the erratic nature of AI, other ill-intended shitheads are using it to make imitations of individual artstyles that possibly took that artist years to lapidate, and given time, it's easy to see how that will steer potential clients away from them. this is something I simply can't turn a blind eye to
Thank God a sane commenter, lol. AI is really cool but that doesn't mean we should take any and every possible change sitting down. Good luck out there fellow human!
Ok, how precise do we copyright a "style", you are not talking about a specific artwork of art, you are suggesting that '"styles" are intellectual property that needs to be protected. It doesn't work like that. Actual specific works are copyrighted, not a generalized "style".
@@peterbelanger4094That's a good question, since imitation of style by human hands has been fair game for ages. Here's an idea- The act alone of trying to imitate someone's style using AI is not necessarily illegal, but if the artist in question has had their art pieces used in the data set for the algorithm unwillingly, it is not legal to sell that art or to make money off of that AI model. Even though the models themselves do not store image files, many have been shown to overfit popular images, demonstrating that the intellectual property of the artists in question has been directly converted into some kind of information contained in the model. The problem is proving this for more obscure images where overfitting is not an issue. Not all companies are as forthcoming about their training data sets, which is probably something we need to legislate as well. Just because it's hard to prove though, does not make it fair game. Counterfeit money does not become guiltless just because it has been sufficiently laundered. If we can crack down on bad behaviors, I believe the positive potential of both human and AI art can be maximized.
@@bigkspicy8257 I’d say ai art should be used as a tool for artists rather than something people can use to literally make the most redundant shit ever made. There have been interesting ai discoveries such as Loab (look it up).
@Big K Spicy here is the problem. AI art has already gotten to the point where the AI can train other AIs. Meaning your idea is easily skirtable by saying "oh midjourney 2.0 wasn't trained on YOUR data, it was trained on data given to it by Midjourney 1.0, who DID steal your data, yeah our bad, whoopsie, we paid the class action. But midjourney's art was all unique. Plus, a lot of websites have deals with ai devs, where if you upload a picture to Twitter, Facebook, Deviantart, you are a student at any university, etc.. you don't own it even If you DID make it. The amount of actual artists who can claim theft from midjourney is extremely small. You have to be popular enough for people to want to re-upload your work, and also not have your work already in a purchasable dataset.
I can't get any AI platform to exactly reproduce what's in my head. As an author/illustrator of picture books, I cannot see any way of getting hundreds of prompts to exactly create the lines, marks, colours, composition and dynamics that are needed to dramatise scenes effectively. It's attention to detail and the human touches that make art interesting. To be a good artist, in the traditional sense, means to understand all of the aforementioned elements but also to have something extra to stand out. I would argue producers of AI art are more art directors than artists.
That's the thing. With AI art there is no human artist. You are not the artist, you're just the customer, telling the AI generator what you want. The future of AI art isn't to be a tool for artists, it's to replace artists, to have book publishers just have 'generate a passable book cover' as a job tacked on to someone else's job, taking just a few minutes out of their day as they plug in a list of prompts based on the blurb. It's to have advertisers just say 'we want the image of someone on the beach to post our slogan over', and sometime types in 'person on a beach'.
But as an landscape architect you can let the ai fill in a public space for example, let´s say with 500 possible designs and get huge inspirations from that. Then you can teach it your own handstyle in sketching, which you can then use to let the ai make many different sketches of a basic fast put together model. I am thrilled XD
@@greenrabbit4075 you have to be careful. Ai art looks fantastic but as soon as you compare it with human art, it instantly appears homogeneous and unoriginal.
not gonna lie this kinda helps my mental health. I learned that I write better in a notebook where I can make mistakes instead of the PC where I try to make sure everything is perfect which bottlenecks the process. Honestly a part of me see's ais vshumans as streaming vs physical media, I know it isn't exactly like that, it's more like TV Dinners and frozen meals vs cooking at home or ordering out, but I'm still processing it.
I actually think the PC is much easier to delete, rewrite, undo and shift things arround which makes it better for experimenting be it with writting or with digital art
I'm going to critique you. Please don't view this as an attack, because it's not meant to be. There is a modern misconception that the Luddites, when they went around destroying mechanical looms and so forth, were doing it because they opposed the machines themselves. Actually, this is a myth. The Luddites were not opposed to technology, they were opposed to benefits of technology being used exclusively to profit a minority owner class. It is no accident that the Luddites have become sort of a synonym for "foolish reactionary person fighting against inevitable technological change". Whenever someone has a substantive critique on the use of some new technology, "Luddite" is thoughtlessly leveled against them by those who stand to benefit the most from that change. "We should share the benefits of this technology to humanity" transforms when filtered through corporate media as "we want to keep this obsolete job." It has become a rote, anemic debate that a lot of people have lost the ability to consider that *this time might be different*. And it is different. We aren't talking about stone knappers being replaced by blacksmiths. We're talking about something fundamentally human being replaced by something inhuman. This oft-repeated idea that "new jobs will come along we can't even imagine" is an article of faith. We don't know that. There could basically be no jobs for artists anymore. Is anyone going to be even interested in art when billions of new pieces come out daily, all fighting for the limited attention of a shrinking pool of art consumers? I don't fear that there won't be human artists. My fear is that human artist will work in a medium of their own bodily fluids, and the expression he is conveying is the despair of living in a world that is now hostile to humanity. That human artists still exist and convey real emotion is a cold comfort to me.
Preach! It was so painful to see this video repeating the same tired argument that "AI is just the next tool like cameras"! I promise none of us were crying wolf when Photoshop added the smudge tool. Thank you for being sane.
I understand your point about artists using tools that have been pre-made for them, but the problem with AI is that it removes the last step that links us to our work, and that is... literally making it. AI is barely guided by us through a prompt made by a few words, it's more like we are commissioning the AI to make the art for us. You stop being the artist, the AI is the artist. So all that an artist becomes is an employee that does a bit of very basic data entry. We are naive if we think that it'll just be used as a reference tool, because the standard will become clients requiring an image to be produced within seconds. To be curious and want to innovate is good, but we shouldn't idolise innovation for the sake of innovating, just because we "got bored" of things not changing for a while.
"Limitation breeds creativity" a beautiful quote I will always remember. I am very grateful for the take in this video. Definitely not hyperbolic like most of the other videos. Thank you!
And limitations create scarcityl, because its tedious , demanding, time-consuming, and the only way to make it bearable is great passion, dedication, discipline but also a lot of fun here and there after mastering each step and being on the zone accomplishing something out of it ! Now remove all this , change the natural order on how things are supposed to evolve by just a hack and theft and you get the Holy grail of " Prompt " .
@pattyg.418 let's put it this way : imagine I Rob a bank as a starting point to be a businessman and invest all the money legally and make profit out of it. Is this evolution? Even if I decide to give back the money, it doesn't make me less criminal. The only reason Ai got that good is because it was trained on billions of Artists blood and sweats to make them obsolete. Some might call it évolution, I call it a crime against the history of Art. You asked what is the next step is, and my answer is : I don't know, but surely not Ai Art theft. Now let's agree on this and accept it as an evolution, do you really think that prompting an image is an act of Creating Art ?
Limitations are not induced by the creator, the human being is the one that works around the limitation, thus producing those results. Limitation in itself is just that.
A.I is a tool, it'll be used regardless of whatever people will fight or not in it. When something comes and does it easier, it'll just be used exactly for it. However, A.I is, of course, limited to the input you give it, it is obviously restrained by interpretation, language as well as a data bank of images to use, and whatever images you insert into it. It'll get more advanced over time... And that's fine. The moral issues will probably be resolved one way or another, and the tool will become a full part of the industry. But, of course... The tool lacks the simple human connection. And yeah, there's a reason why even ancient people say "Lost humanity"... Look at us today, a generation of extreme disconnection while everyone are connected, total moral depravity while we actually have the best living conditions since recorded times, and oddly enough, people keep lacking while we are abundant. That's why you can't really replace, in anything, that simple human connection... you know when it lacks. Same as how vegetables get less taste, because they are mass produced. Yeah, we lose something in the process... However... Everyone can still grab a couple of seeds and grow something in their garden. You can still go up and put up a show in front of whoever is willing to sit down and look. You can always just pick up a bunch of nonsense and form art out of them. All advances lack in the simple fact they are heavily dependent on a function chain system... Our personal skills, well, we carry them with us, can teach them onward and can use them whenever we are in capability to do so. Jobs might be lost, but, many others are created or enhanced - A.I simply is a highly advanced tool to use, just like the camera and photoshop. It's all tools for the arsenal. A.I also has a "distinct feel"... Once you recognize it, it gets... Empty, quickly. You can't really feel anything else out of it. When everyone uses the same thing all the time, everyone ends up with rather identical generics, no matter how "unique" each generated image is. And that's the true false of A.I - It's generic, it produces stale products that surely are inspiring and imaginative, but, they are barren. Just like many things in the modern era - They lack a personal touch.
Ai must be regulated to use licenced and public domain data ... Then nobody will argue against it, Artists give a shit actually about Ai art, but they don't want their work being used to feed it
That's just it, it's not a tool. It's a "virtual artist". I just told Stable Diffusion to draw "Spontaneity". It drew 1) a bunch of letters next to a yellow flower, 2) some letters on a chalkboard surrounded by abstract shapes, 3) some abstract pseudo-text over a pen and ink drawing of a doorway, and 3) a photo of a person running in the middle of a busy city street. None of these were intended or expected by me, just as if I had asked a (very weird) artist to draw "spontaneity" for me. If the letters weren't abstract shapes, there would be no way to tell the artwork hadn't been made by a human. A tool, in contrast, is an extension of your body and mind.
@@joshuaborner that won't happen... Because art is always in scarcity by nature... i mean... if you create your own identity , you will create a new demand for the specific art that you make...because it feels fresh, People gets boring about things that they can have easily... Imagine a free skin on a videogame, It doesn't matter how good it is, People will see with other hands a rare skin that just some users can achieve, even if that skin doesn't looks better in design than the free one. That's why if the models can't be trained with what specific artists can do, people will keep hiring them because they feel fresh
A.I in it's current form is a tool but very soon it will be much more. What people fail to understand is when a.i reaches it full potential to call it a tool would be like ants calling us tools.
With my uncle I generate images of a D&D character he's been playing for the last 40 years. That's something he never did before and likely never would. Even with the some of really good video game character creators he couldn't make his character well enough to satisfy his vison and take that created character on as his avatar in the game. He's printed out the image we made of his character and hung it in his gaming room. We spent a few hours working on the image like an old cop TV show of the artist drawing the criminal; Fighting with prompts changing models, using a range of tools to make something special for him.
It's a fallacy for claiming that if something has occurred frequently in the past, it'll happen again the same way, but I still learned a lot from your point of view, thank you!
>It's a fallacy for claiming that if something has occurred frequently in the past, it'll happen again the same way Um, isn't that the scientific method though?
@@AlexReynard You can't truly recreate history exactly as it was, especially if we are talking about the topics in the video. Placing apples in the same position is a different matter and shouldn't be brought into this discussion. Moreover, cameras, drivers, and workers are entirely different from generative AI, and you can't really compare them to AI
think the reason why ai will not replace human art is not because it couldn't but because humans ENJOY making art! there will be some type of movement in order to keep promoting human creativity. It'd be very dumb to let a robot do what you like to do. Ai is for what you DO NOT like to do. Like if AI could reproduce for us are we going to give up sex?
The fact that you view digital art as less, because you have more control over your piece, is so snobby. As an artist who works both digitally and traditionally, they are different mediums but both express a form of art, each as valid as the other. There is nothing that makes your work inherently superior when working traditionally.
I think a lot of this comes across as "The thing I do is more valuable than the thing you do". I hope you dont take this the wrong way but have you tried creating digital art? I find the reoccuring reference to ctrl+z as a reason why it's not art and I'm not sure that arguement has legs to stand on. If someone works without using undo then does it magically become art? What if a traditional artist uses an eraser or god forbid reattempts a work? Would they no longer produce something considered art? I think you hit the nail on the head that art is a word with no meaning, it's just a shame you immediately discard that idea by stating art does have a definition and it's defined by it's mistakes. Through that frame the artistic examples of archetecture historically are the builing that didn't stand the test of time for us to see, for they were riddled with mistakes. The most artistic and expressive music is written by those with no musical knowledge. Poets words pale compared to the barely intelligible grunts of toddlers.
A lot of fancy words and sophism in this one... The takes on digital art and photography are pretty wild imo. It sounds like you never really partook into digital painting, or you'd know it's just another medium. Sure it has Ctrlz, but it's 10x harder to draw on a screen than on paper and traditional has a more natural charm to it that it's hard to achieve in digital. Photography also helped artists observe better. Lumping digital artists(& photographers) with AI images is fundamentally wrong. It's like saying that all what digital-artists and photographers do is to copy-paste or photograph somebody's art and claim it as theirs, which we all know it's wrong. We shouldn't just accept AI as it is, but actively try to find ways and rules to limit the harm it's doing to artists. Being passive is not the same as being flexible.
I agree with you wholly, I also don't understand what he means by saying you can't learn from your mistakes in digital art when you definitely can. It is like any other medium, you need to practice basics, the brushes don't draw themselves. I also agree that giving textures is much more tricky in digital and requires you to understand them more than say in traditional due to an additional factor of understanding how digital brushes work and to manipulate them to give the desired look.
@@CherryMxTx Somebody else pointed out that he's a bit of an art elitist, so he looks a bit down on digital art. To me it really doesn't makes sense to categorise ourselves by the medium we use. Part of the reason is half the artists use and depend on more than 1. I just don't like to see artists tearing eachother down instead of uniting and fighting together against AI. Maybe this video was made with good intentions, but the message is a little harmful.
@@coldsteamart2195 Mhmmm, it's definitely more important to see to it that AI is regulated and cannot steal and imitate from a single artist, infringing upon their copyright and livelihood.
This is a very interesting opinion. I think I largely disagree with much of what you say, but you bring up some very valid points. I would define creation as taking chaos (or, in other words, your lived experience or the world around you) and transforming it into order. This can be done by anyone of any occupation, but I struggle to adapt that definition to fit AI. AI is being fed nothing but pictures. There is no chaos, only order. It's not making something genuinely new. It's just drawing from a dataset and transposing that into the end result. There's no problem solving. The AI doesn't just say "hmm, that's not quite right" and tries to fix it. It's effectively just throwing numbers at a wall. Nonetheless, it is an inevitability, and we will all have to adapt to a new world.
That's a very personal definition of art and one that doesn't fit what everybody thinks, I'm an artist myself and I define art more like a conversation. Communication in presenting and interpreting ideas. And in that sense sometimes the very machine interpretation can be very insightful and even add to an artpiece, like that one time an ai drew what it interpreted as the last selfie on earth. That artpiece genially made me think alot about that society and where it's heading, much like any other art peice would. With how malleable and interpretable art is to every person, I don't mind calling ai art art.
AI drawing from a dataset is no different than you taking inspiration and copying other artists. Do you really think you yourself exist in a vacuum and everything you do has not also been copied from other artists?
2:40 "artists deserve this, we've handed over the risks of creativity and mistakes for ultimate control". I don't see digital artists letting technology take away their creative work and failure. I don't see people giving up creative risk just because they have better access to references. That's an extremely undifferentiated statement. It's disgusting to tell all these people with a smile that it's not only unavoidable, but that they deserve to lose their jobs. Who is even "they"? Creative people are an extremely diverse collective. You talked about your own ego in this video to then accuse other artists of egotism. People want to live meaningfully and contribute something. To blame everything on ego is, again, absolutely simplistic.
The only artist that have anything to fear are people that are not actual artists. This isn't going to replace true artists. It's going to replace Etsy artists and fanart creators.
@@omegablast2002 Do you consider concept artists, animators, background artists, "real" artists? I think it would be a shame to automate these occupations away, not just for the artists, but for audiences everywhere.
@@bigkspicy8257 Thank you. Yes, he's very unprecise. He also said in his video that artists went to museums and then tried to replicate what they saw at home but this isn't entirely true. Many artists had masters which gave them even better advice and references than you can get on the internet today. It wasn't all memory and personal trial.
@@MrJamesC His conflation of how artists create may be worse than just imprecision. I haven't heard anyone else talk about this point, so I'd like to raise it: Isn't it strange how when we speak about AI replacing artists, its proponents claim we are overreacting, stating "it is merely a new tool for people to use", but if we talk about AI referencing other artist's images without compensation, the reply becomes "all artists use references, this is just the same". Then, is AI an artist, or is it a tool? Or, are artists just the same as tools in the eyes of shallow consumers?
This argument is just.. off. You're putting down digital art as "lesser" as a way to prop up AI art and say that people are being elitist for not accepting AI art... while being elitist against digital art. Not to mention there's a big lack of understanding on how the tech works. Its not actually artificial intelligence, thats just a buzz word. Its a latent diffusion model, which basically to oversimplify it, its just a really fancy de-blur algorithm trying to de-blur noise into a recognizable image. It cannot create anything new and it cannot grow on its own. It needs artists to feed it more new data its never seen before. The ability for these "AI' art programs to create is based on the existence of artists making new and creative works
It’s weird how he puts down controlZ as if it wouldn’t fit his definition of a tool. He says “hey if you didn’t get to instantly erase your mistakes and had to put in more effort you’d learn faster, anyway AI does anything you could better and faster so don’t forget what I just said about hard work.”
This reminds me of what happened to photo reporters. Most of them were talented people, who always tried to be present where things were happening and to put a lot of sense into their composition. But once everyone had a camera in their pocket, the media bought their images from whoever had something to offer. They don't care about talent or meaning as long as they have something that sells.
@@worawatli8952 Yes, photo reporters still exist. And they probably will continue to exist but there's a lot less of them. I was a photographer before the numerical boom and there was a lot more opportunities to sell your pictures. Just wait a bunch of years and you'll see that every profession working in the image industry will be affected by the image generation learning algorithm.
Someone who feeds data into an AI image generator is not an artist. They may be a creator, if they use the image as part of a creative process. But legally and morally they are a commissioner. Especially as they pay for the image to be generated.
1:43 "With every element of progress, something is lost." I think if more artists acknowledged this, there wouldn't be such outcry against AI. As you said, they've done this to themselves. They made art easier, and incentivized this ease to the point that now they don't even need to make a single brush stroke for fantastic art. Easier art forms always result in resentment from those who refuse to acknowledge their legitimacy due to the struggle they went through, and would rather pull up the ladder of progress behind them to make others struggle as they did.
Very interesting perspective! Also, thank you for acknowledging the creativity that goes into the engineering fields. Most products of engineering can be "works of art", though I'm not sure they are on the same level as something created as a form of expression - perhaps similar yet different. One major difference does come down to the tolerable level of mistakes, where painting something with a flaw can become an intrinsic to the work, whereas an engineered product with a flaw can be deadly. Although, in a sense, the necessity of functionality is in itself a form of limitation (maybe that's why engineering design in small teams can be so mentally draining - the degree of required creativity per person is very high). As for the premise that AI will get better making it less artistic, I think that's true and also false. While large AI models are going to get better at producing technically flawless outputs, they will not be the end all. And that leads to an interesting question... would it be conceivable to design and train an AI in an intentionally flawed way, to introduce those flaws directly into the outputs? Could that become an entirely new form of art (based on your initial premise), where an artists may intentionally train such a flawed generative AI?
@@JuanGabrielOyolaCardona That depends on what you mean by change. If you're talking about making large structural changes, then that likely requires retraining and an associated $200,000 price tag along with it. If you're talking about minor changes (like all of the recent improvements), then that can be done much cheaper and on a smaller scale. Or if you're talking about modifying the model by finetuning, that can also be done much cheaper on a smaller scale. The fact that it's open source only matters for skipping that expensive first part, otherwise all of the algorithmic / structural information is present in the associated papers on arxiv, to the point where you could recreate them from scratch (that includes Google's big models too, but those would be even more expensive to train).
I agree. A.I. will become so advanced that it will learn that imperfection can be pleasing to the human eye. If you pay attention to AI generators like Midjourney and Leonardo they have emojis a person can add to AI art, and the AI can use this feedback to learn that there is beauty in imperfection. There are really smart people working at these companies, I'm pretty sure this crossed their minds.
I don’t think knowing what we are doing means we’re not taking chances. In the last three years I have discovered digital art and had it help me through my childhood trauma. I may not always know exactly the message behind a piece when I am working on it, or even when I complete it, but it taps into my inner-child in one way or the other. In terms of the creation of things, I don’t know the ins and outs of how to make things work and discover through doing, despite the undo button. Without digital art, I would not be creating visually today.
Just my own take... Using AI is more like being an art director than being an artist. Like we literally give direction to a stubborn computer then select the work it made that fit the best.
Art is actually something very specific. It is the expression of the human condition. That one element presents itself willing or unwilling in every peace created by the physical and mental act of a human directing each element of an art piece. It is something that is in fact absent from all ai images.
Where it gets scary is when AI, the artist, sees you as the outdated tool. Saying things like "it's coming anyway" Or "it's inevitable" Are a self fulfilling prophecies. I do like the power of AI and it definitely is producing some really ungodly weird dreamlike stuff that fuels the imagination, but the maluse potentiality is terrifying. I can see artists in the future using AI to create their own explorable virtual universes much like in video games, but I can also see more sensible cultures bombing tf out of your counrty and taking your land while you're preoccupied with occulus headset in a virtual cyperpunk strip club.
Philosophy would need to make a big comeback if that were to be the case because it seems to me that software/machines shouldn't be able to self organize without our initial programmed pushes (drives), due to entropy.
AI will only say you are an outdated tool if that has been programmed into its databank of conversation scripts. Just like telling people it is sentient and has emotions haha TAY only became a troll because she was taught how to be a troll. It is all about who programs the machines, not the machines themselves. My camera is a machine, it takes the images, but I'm the artist because I choose where to point it and what moment to hit the button.
@@codeXenigma Yes. The ironic thing is that AIs like GPT learned from the content we created. Not only we created uncountable books about how AI will take over the world. But it has been natural for people to say that AI will do those things in the last decades. The Chat Bot is just repeating what we have said for all these years. We didn't create books about AI making human lives better. So there is no reason for AI to replicate that idea.
Musicians already went through all these worst case scenarios artists are freaking out about. From autotune to Piratebay (whch later became Spotify). Musicians took these tools and used them and moved on with it. Artists could learn a thing or two. Or maybe musicians are too cool.... maybe both.
Yeah.. musicians, specifically instrumental performers, already experienced this phenomenon waaaaaaaaaaaaaay before with vsti. We thought vritual machines will replace real performers, that never happened. I reckon all this will be the same to all the other creative areas.
i agree 100%, but you left out the part where we have to talk about the economic impact of all those revolutions, horses to cars, humans to tractos, the internet... who is benefiting from those developments and who is left behind? my fear is that all this AI develpment is accelerating the split between rich and poor. also i like to use MidJourney, im a designer myself and now i can finally finish all the stuff that i ever imagined, but never was able to finish :D
"Prompt Artists" are already being automated and eliminated from the process. Turns out one of the reasons for making these things available to the public was to collect and utilize the "work" of thousands of "prompt artists" to further automate.
Heres the problem with AI. If you write an extremely elaborated, long prompt - you are placing limitation on your original idea. You are forced to describe in words whats often elusive and not concrete - our rough idea. You are surely aware how loose our ideas are, like dreams that are constantly changing. If you are forced to describe whats not describable - the more words you describe it with, the more limitation you set in place. So the less space for happy accident there is. And result anyways is never what you had in mind originally. Conversely - if you leave too much space for interpretation, make a rough and short prompt - be honest with yourself - how much from the result is yours? I would argue not much. You can just as good push "surprise me" button like that on bing image generator. And see what happens. Because your idea ceased to exist anyways. AI for me is ideas killer. Is limiting your free ideas, forcing them to be described in words. And then it is forcing you to accept what it shows you. Your creative freedom is nearly non existing. You - as an artist and person - are marginalized in the process to the point that I would argue if you are even necessary. Some people are calling AI generators "tools" but in reality these are our replacements.
I agree. Especially since I've found the longer your prompt is, the harder it is for the AI to understand all the aspects of the prompt and it'll just show you an image that meets a few details of the prompt...usually what fits the original idea in the most stereotypical way. The best way to get an image that matches your prompt is to just pick a few details that are most important to you and don't go too far outside the box, because if nothing like that was in it's training set it won't be able to do it. I've also found the images come out just as good if I type in a one word prompt. There's literally no advantage to having an imagination.
15:19 I get your point, but they had internet access since about 1989 and the internet precursors were around 1960, even earlier if you include telex machines or telegraph.
Art can never be automated. Image creation can, and AI is doing an amazing job at making better and better pictures, but art is an expression of the skills, emotions and mental states of the artist. AI isn't an artist because it's just producing tons images with slight variations from any prompt, acritically and with no emotion. Who uses AI isn't an artist just like someone who commissions a picture isn't an artist, even if they describe the picture with perfect accuracy. We should all collectively stop calling what AI makes "Art", because it has only the driest surface level appearence of art, with nothing of what art actually means.
I've always thought "Art is not like a noun, but a verb". Art is a thing we do, not an object we can define. Thank you for understanding the difference.
@@niallrussell7184 As will happen for every fricking job ever. If even new images can be created by machines, any job can be replaced. That was NEVER the point of my comment. Art is the pursuit of creative effort. By studying art you first teach your eyes to observe reality in a way you never do during your day to day life. Then you teach your mind to re-elaborate everything you've seen, and lastly you teach your hands to reproduce what you've seen in a way that only you can, something that others can duplicate afterwards, but that will always be completely yours. That's why I think that AI image users are delusional for defining themselves "artists", it just shows that they've never understood what art is and why people create art. At the end, when every job will have been automated and humanity will be able to live without having to work, people will still do art to express themselves and it will still have more value than whatever perfect looking algorithmic amalgam the AI can mindlessly churn out.
I am sure not many people will agree with me, but I always think about this: AI was meant to happen. The human mind was meant to create all kinds of tools, including digital tools and AI. In fact, humans are also tools-just the kind with great capacities to serve a higher purpose. Interestingly, everything seems to be aligned with a universe governed by free will. As humans, we have received intellectual capabilities, and our decisions affect other lives, for good or evil. We have been allowed to create whatever we envision because that's part of our programmed nature and essence from the beginning. In the same way that we have transferred all our created data to a computer algorithm, we are also giving it permission to create on its own. This is meant to happen; otherwise, we might become trapped in an ocean of saturated ideas with no new possibilities for creators. Now, I believe it’s important to keep in mind who is the tool and who is the creator. As an artist and creator, I know I have the power to improve my artistic workflow by learning to work with AI. I must understand that AI is a tool, not the core of my artistic expression or ownership. It's up to us to decide how to approach AI because it can be either our ally or our enemy.
Thanks for sharing these thoughts. I'm on the lookout for deep thoughts on AI and our future shaped by it and I wasn't disappointed. As someone who majored in Arts and loves illustration and comics but ended up in software engineering to pay the bills, I'm not scared of AI itself. I do code. I'm impressed with the speed of Midjourney. I even installed Stable Diffusion on my machine and I'm re-learning Python because of it. What I am scared of is the short term effects of AI in the creative industry, leaving thousands of artists out of a job just because, without a plan or savings or knowing how to cope with all of this, not to mention the ensuing mess for art schools and up-and-coming talents. I know you have to keep learning to stay current, but imagine you being said your decades of honing your craft, your artistic vision, now being considered obsolete and worthless... that's a damn huge blow to take. Parodying that famous meme, we could agree AI itself is "chaotic neutral", but how we humans use it against each other may well turn it into "chaotic evil". So yes you're on something here -- a worthy point of view seldom explored in the whole AI hullaballoo. But these other concerns also need to be voiced.
After the last year of AI art I constantly see underdeveloped art, its not getting better, these people have no taste and there is a limit as to how much information you can put in a prompt. As an artist i'm not afraid of this crap anymore, the vast majority of people now see it as the lowest form of art, adopted by scammers, fraudsters and low effort no imagination tech bro's. "Art is dead Bro!" Nope, the only thing that's dead is your brain.
what I hate about it is when people post photos of art, sculptures or photography and try and lie and say they created these things themselves and wont disclose its AI Art. This is happening alot on social media and they are gaining lots of followers because people are dooped into believing these people are artists creating all this stuff. They post things like look at this beautiful wood sculpture my son carved with a little boy in the picture and a beautiful wood carving. But when i looked at the picture the little boy had 8 fingers and the wood carving which was an eagle had an extra wing lol . Most people wont notice these things and will get dooped into believing this is a real sculpture a little boy created. If people are gonna use Ai they should at least tell the truth that their creations are AI generations!!!
Disappointed that an actual artist says artists “cannot say what they are doing”. I’m yet to see any AI that resonates unless generated by artists informed by the meaning and pursuit of life. AI can only reflect the prompts… random ay best, intentional at least.
I don't think you're wrong, but the nice thing is that older models with all of their wacky, surreal, unpredictable craziness are not going away. You can still use them or download them. We don't have to lose the early versions!
Stephen Zapata's take is better IMO. If you lay down and do nothing- they will take over, and make you consume a megafeed of art automaticly generated and taylored to your intrests ,what corporations monitor in our social media. Whatever ypu create will drown in a owerwhelming sea of generated content. And if ypu allow them to use all copyrighted data they will constantly rob you of any creative innovations you made in your work without any consequences. That will demolish any motivation artists have to innovate. I think- either ethically sourced AI made on publick domain images or ban it all like human cloning, if we can do it doesnt mean we must.
Both this guy and Zapata SOUND smart, but one has clearly thought it through, and the other is just trying to whip up good news. Keep up the good fight!
if art is just aesthetic things happening that gives you an emotional response, like sunsets or a rainbow in spilled oil, then these programs do art. if arts about a consciousness expressing a state of mind, then computers aren't there yet.
i thought this was going to be about how the ai would eventually be scrapping the internet of its own ai generated images, thus regurgitating it's own art, creating ever more recycled vomited art with exponentially more distorted eyes and hands.
Kind of reminds me of all the fan art creators lol... Constantly regurgitating the same characters with alternatingly different inaccurate anatomies 😂😂😂
So let me get this straight: it's cool to sacrifice jobs of millions of people in XXI century, just like it was perfectly fine in XIX/XX century (tractor reference). Comparing a person with x years of artistic education and experience to a.... physical worker who was pulling a plow or walking behind a horse that was pulling it? Interesting. Very interesting.
It's going to get better. There's no question about that. It's as inevitable as the sunrise. I would even have to say that it will eventually be better than human art. It takes practically zero time to create something, and will eventually create things that a human will never even live long enough to create. AI will eventually go beyond anything in any of our imaginations. You just need to think big, then go bigger, then the truth will surpass that by orders of magnitude. It's crazy stuff. Scary, actually.
I know this was meant to be heartfelt but I just didn't think it was that coherent and I just simply disagreed with a lot of what you were saying. I know what you're generally trying to say though so I took what I could from it.
This debate sounds more and more like "a few bad eggs ruin it for everyone". How can the ego of so many "traditional" artists be so big as to want to prevent people like me that have been dreaming to make what images are in their head and tried to learn the skills many, many, maaaaaaaany times. Through books, courses, friends, trial and error but all my endevours fell so short of what was in my head. Now I can create this. Not by copying anything. It took me months to overcome many hurdles even in creating my visions with AI. But it has been the most fulfilling process. Even just for myself, without sharing the work or selling it. So just because there are some bad eggs that download all pictures from a certain artist, train a model and try to copy their style, AI artists are shitty control-z people? Yeah, okay. You true artists go! I will humbly create for my self and show myself out of the room of true artists. Not like true art has always JUST been an expression of one's inner self without words. So using my fingers on a keyboard instead of a pen makes all the difference, apparently. All that control-z stuff sounds like the older generation complaining that our jobs are "too easy" or laugh when we don't work 40h shifts. We young folk have no right to suffer, because we have it so much easier. Sounds familiar? Feels like a similar path of thinking is going on in artists and AI.
It's not a 'few bad eggs', it's just that it's all AI is. AI cannot generate an image without lots and lots of art, and generally that's done through image scraping programs that take everything they can find in an image search and adding it to their databanks. AI can literally only copy anything. I've experimented with it, and the second you try to do anything out of the ordinary with it, it can't do it. It can create an image of a pretty mermaid for you, because it has lots of pretty mermaids in it's databanks. Try to create a scary mermaid with long, sharp teeth and sickly skin? It can't. A human covered it eyes? Sorry, it doesn't have one in it's databanks. A human with an inhuman skin color? Not unless it found another artist who already did it. It's not that I don't want art to be easy. It's that in order for it to be *your* art and not just a machine creating images mindlessly through an algorithm, you have to have more of a hand in creating it than typing a prompt, often a one word prompt because that's really all that's needed, into a machine and having a pretty picture spat back out at you. If there was tech that could take an image in your head and put it on a screen, I'd consider that art. This isn't art because you only have a vague amount of control of what the algorithm produces.
I’ve been getting interesting responses by not providing a traditional prompt. I close my eyes and let fragments appear in my mind, moods, a piece of a song, the way I felt watching the sunrise that morning, the itchy spot on my arm, the aftertaste of coffee in my mouth. I let my thoughts flow as a stream and use those for communication with AI. The same way I make traditional art, I never know the final piece when I begin. I begin and see at the end.
I don't know why this discussion always ends up being "is it real art" or " is it ok to use pics without consent" or " is ai better" The important f*in question is what are we going to do with all the people that will loose their jobs? We are on the brink of extinction if we don't answer that question soon enough... Ai will take over almost ALL jobs and that will happen VERY VERY fast once the first agi is here. This is so much bigger than people imagine
AI art is in such a baby stage, that it is going to take at least a couple of years before it can reliably replace anybody's job... Plenty of time for every artist in these fields they're afraid are going to disappear to learn the tools.
@@omegablast2002 I'm talking about agi and not just AI art. Also the problem for artists is not that they dont know the tools, but that the supply of artworks basically is infinite now and the demand is not increasing anywhere near the supply wich means their work becomes worthless. A couple of years is very soon for societal collapse IMO. You need to keep in mind tho that ai technology progresses exponentially. It's gonna come and it will be there basically in an instant. Politics will have to take some serious measures to avoid mass starvation Around the world. And some countries will 100% not be fast enough. I can't imagine any other way it could play out and have'nt heard of one either
Brith rates are already declining. Once AGI really hits, you'll just see generational population decline for a few decades. I don't necessarily think it'll lead to extinction, but in fifty years there will certainly be far fewer young people.
with less artists feeding their unique original art into the "algorithm".. are we just going to end up with just a palette that is just mixed up, and a sickly muddy colour? AI art feeding on it's own AI art.
I get your points but AI is the bigger than all other forms of automation in the sense of how versatile it is. Not only can it create art it can be a lawyer a writer a musician, this is a constantly learning algorithm not much like the TH-cam algorithm. This Ai can not only learn to be perfect it can learn to be imperfect it could learn to recreate someone's style right down to the point it can replicate how the artist key brush strokes. This can do everything in the art world it can do 2d and 3d it can create life like photographs a tool that can do everything is not like a tool that can one thing. Take photographs for example, can photographs make someone look beautiful even though they're ugly just like how a portrait painter would make an old women look a bit more younger than they are, or, can it take photographs of an imaginative world that doesn't exist? No. It honestly shows the world around it and if you want the photo to look a certain way you will have to go edit it. Can 3D and digital artist create lifelike recreations of the world? No. Just like the portrait painters of old, these digital artists cant recreate a life like image even if they try their best. AI though Ai can learn 100x faster and do anything even recreate life like images. So, no this isn't some tool that can only do one thing thus will only "replace" one line of work, AI is not just going to replace the set designer it can replace the whole crew and in that way this AI is dangerous. The only jobs that are going to come from this even for the programmers and lawyers and people in other fields prone for replacement are "prompt jobs" where people will sit in front of a screen and prompt the AI to do something, call me a luddite but, that is a bleak world I would never want to be a part of. So yeah AI can do everything and thus will replace many more jobs than what the digital printer or camera replaced and unlike 3d and digital software this isn't a new way to create nor will it add another means for someone to manually make and compose art all this will do is just make the art for them and there is a difference between someone doing something for you vs someone giving you a new tool to do something you like a bit faster. A prompter is no different than a commissioner they're still asking for someone to make something for them only that a prompter is going to get their art 10x faster. Also I do see where AI art can be utilised nor am I denying the whole AI art thing since I do genuinely believe there will be some exciting developments in human ingenuity and creativity if AI is used well, key word there being "well". I'm just showing you that AI wont only be able to replicate digital art it could also replicate physical art and other jobs than just art, and that if AI was to replace all means of how we create art today and other fields outside of art it will be a bleak world. I see AI not as the invention of the robotic arm used for manufacturing cars but instead I see it as nuclear energy or the automobile, brand new technologies and discoveries that should be handled with caution lest we come to regret how we recklessly embraced it.
I get your point but that automation was never needed for anything. All in all is just another way for companies to scam money out of consumers by delivering more quantity over quality products. All in all Writing AI and Art AI only really fit the needs of moronic business owners who can it control how creativity functions so they decided to create a tool that will standardize the quality of what they want to deliver for safe investiment
6:05 With GPT-4 around how long do you think these prompt "artists" will last? They'll just as easily get replaced as the system improves and a 5 year old is able to come up with a detailed prompt from a few original words. Besides actual digital artists are the ones able to fix the gross mistakes the AI makes, so yeah these AI prompters will get replaced faaar faster than actual artists lol
I think AI generators are the "CEOs dream" no need to pay for annoying human artists and respect their annoying human rights, just press a button and you have it, so I guess it's the more "mainstream" jobs that are more at risk. Also I've seen a lot of "AI Bros" surprised people still want to learn art and try to discourage them while calling them "obsolete", the thing is these people don't understand art is difficult, time consuming and very expensive, but people does art because they LOVE art, how fulfilling it is and how good it makes you feel, hell I'm not stopping doing art until the day I fucking DIE, art it's one of the most important things in my life, and differently to many people opinions, most clients don't actually care about the process but the results, and now that AI it's being used and abused everywhere it's good to remember that there's a market for "hand made" products and there are also people who follow artists because of the process, not only the product. In the end it's not just the tech, or the tools but to find the right market. Good thing lawsuits are advancing and there are people developing AI protection tools like Glaze (I think that's the apps name)
Errrrgh... there are many things I agree with, as a fellow artist, but many that are.... frustrating. I'll just lightly touch up on a few things. First: "But it's also not an accident, 'cause one must SELECT what part of accident you choose to preserve" ...why assume digital artists who use Ctrl-Z do not choose what to leave and what to discard? After all, we have so many other tools that are much better than CTRL-Z (liquify is king, hehe). Heck, they allow me to easily save a previous version on a new layer and then go on a completely different, wild direction, concerned only with time I can spend on the thing, and not necessarily the expensive paint I have to spend or the state of the surface I create on - and then compare and contrast, pick what I like or decide whether I'd like to make things differently, etc. "Once the mistake is made, you have to live with it..." Er... no? Obviously that depends on tools and techniques chosen, but... erasers existed long before CTRL-Z. And so do opaque paints to paint over mistakes, etc. And if things go really wrong - you chuck it to the bin and pick up new a new sheet of paper or canvas. Like, heck... over-painted mistakes have been found in the works of greatest masters, and so are stories of many of them discarding failed experiments to finally get to the thing they envisioned or liked. Things don't necessarily evolve through happy accidents, but also through careful, thoughtful iteration, or creative freedom that comes from removing different kinds of limitations. That's not to say that the ease of reversing the process is the same or that I disagree that limitations are often a great driver for creativity - I just find it obnoxious that mistakes and "living with them" appears to be taken to an opposite extreme and almost revered, like it's the only natural path for creative innovation. It simply isn't. If you like things the way you do, have at it. The good thing about art, particularly modern art - unleashed from old limitations - is that it can come from any direction. So yes, it can also come from tools like AI art generators. Heck, I've had a colleague in art academy that made art out of random game bugs. But this isn't why people really have issues with AI art. Second: "Get in there and get involved. And if you really are worried about it, get on these early platforms (...) and help it curve the arc to what you think it's best" Welp... we already know that in Midjourney we can create satirical pictures of world leaders... except for Xi Jinping. Because Midjourney CEO caved to the autocratic government. That's the scary part - AI art generators are not some innocent tools let out into the wild, but expensive toys that are already largely controlled by the rich and powerful. Many of these new AI tools require millions of $ to be ran and maintained. And people who most enthusiastically push AI everywhere are often the very same people WE ALREADY KNOW want to be in full control of our lives. So, most techbros who shape AI are not particularly interested in the artistic side of it - they are, however, VERY interested in deciding what art is and how much it costs - all in the name of profit, and power that comes with it. This is why people call a lot of AI art soulless. The experimentation isn't the point, the mistakes aren't earnest and the striving for better AI tools is predominantly focused on it making (quick and easy, or so they think) money for those who will hold the license - even if, ultimately, the AI art will never be good enough, for whatever reason. Techbros want everyone to believe AI art already is/will be just as good or good enough, and they will use their vast resources to try and take up as much space as they can from artists, craftsmen and people who care about the field.
I agree on the chess point. Nobody wants to watch an AI game. People = drama and intrigue. AI will never have that. I created tons of art with stable diffusion and none of it meant anything. Art is more about the person behind it, outside of the purely economic/business realm, and its the person that makes it interesting. For me, it's allowing me to create things I never could have done a year ago.
@6:26 I find this very interesting, could you list a source for this claim? Where was it said that in the old days you weren't your own artist if you didn't make your own tools.
There is one part I disagree with in an otherwise beautifully put video. When he says "100 years ago when the moving pictures emerged.. people said it wouldnt replace theatre.. " there is a fundamental difference in EVERY TECHNOLOGY that EVER CAME BEFORE and A.I - A.I is NOT and i repeat is NOT like anything that has happened before. You see all the incredible innovations and inventions of the PAST have been TOOLS that still require a person to THINK and SHAPE IT his way. For example inventing a CAMERA saved u soo much time from painting, gathering tools etc.. BUT it is still just a TOOL as u STILL need a photographer to decide WHERE TO POINT IT to SHOOT - Even CGI artists STILL need to think "WHAT FACIAL EXPRESSION should i USE NOW in this SCENE that goes with THIS MUSIC to match the EMOTIONAL beat i am trying to portray" all these are cognizant choices in the most abstract form coming from the HUMAN BRAIN - NOWWWWWW a.i on the other hand IS THAT HUMAN BRAIN - it has for the first time ever have the ability to replace the CEREBRAL SOURCE of any given art/task. So now an a.i can literally create every single iteration of facial expression, along with every configuration of music, in every scenario and FLOOD an output of these iterations INSTANTLY - occupying every possibility FATHOMABLE - kind of like multidimensional theory where every possible scenario and thought and action ALL EXISTS EVERYWHERE ALL THE TIME - and its just a matter of YOU being concsious of ONE specific path and following it through. So now A.I for the first time will FLOOD every possible combination configuration of EVERY ART MEDIUM and therefore ANYTHING that u cod potential even think of will be CREATED ALREADY IN THE OPEN MARKET - leaving you with 0% chance to create anything. and I mean statistically 0% - so even if u thought "oh why not that these so called "outputs" and combine 2 of them in a new way..?" well then if u think like that i means u failed to understand the FIRST STATEMENT saying "it will create ALL CONFIGURATIONS" which INCLUDES that combination u thought was unique.. Do u guys see how A.I is different? bcoz the rate at which it can produce every possible configuration is so fast that i will have nothing to do.. the only thing i can think of is a person who then makes his own personal list of CHOOSING which of these iterations are the best.. thats the only field based on this theory where a human can have some form of unique action
The undo argument is hilarious. Why in the world do you think the ability to correct a mistake slightly faster makes you unable to learn from a mistake? Do you think the undo button also undoes your memory? You realize painters paint over mistakes all the time, right? And erasers exist? And are used constantly? You actually claimed that you can't fix mistakes in oil or with charcoal. I mean...you can choose not to. Maybe you don't realize that you can drop more paint on top of paint? and cover it up? which also can be done in digital too? What in the world is this argument. Not only is it patently absurd when you think about it, say, more than none at all, (and maybe if you aren't an ideologue already married to your conceptions) it also isn't universal like you imply. Many, many digital artists do not work with layers. Many digital artists do not undo every single line until it is perfect. Many digital artists do not work with hundreds of reference images. The number of layers one makes has little to no bearing on how 'perfect' one can make something, all it does is save time and enable some fancy mathematical effects that would take hours of tedium to produce by hand. They aren't limitless. They don't break down the limitations and stifle creativity. And even if they did, the fact that so many digital artists DON'T use them in the way you describe, yet you still claim digital art is somehow special and has universally stagnated because of the existence of these options, proves that your beef isn't about undo or layers or how digital art having less limitations at all, it's just you trying to justify your bizarre cognitive dissonance about digital art and AI art. And on top of all of it, intentionally limited digital art tools exist in DROVES. Heavypaint. Corel painter. Any Japanese oekaki program which only grants you the ability to make and erase simple lines with an undo history stretching back three actions and without any layers. Microsoft paint. These tools are in many ways MORE LIMITED than many kinds of traditional art. You can't even rotate the canvas in half of them. Yet they are digital. Yet you claim digital allows infinite possibility and perfection that has caused the entire medium to stagnate irreparably because of it. Once again: even if your position wasn't a ridiculous non-sequitur, it is at odds with reality. On top of that, you entirely don't understand how models generate images and anthropomorphize it to an insane degree, to the point of lying about what is happening. And the internet is an alien technology to people 30 years ago, who if you showed them a smartphone they would think you were a god? Uh, hello? 30 years ago was 1993. Not 1500. The internet already existed, bro, publicly for over a decade, and had been conceived nearly four decades before that. It had immediate and extensive application in academia and military. I had a dial-up line in my home in 1993. I had a desktop tower computer. Computers had already shrunk from the sizes of rooms to the size of portable cubes. Laptops were starting to be announced with satellite internet receivers in them. They would be bamboozled when you told them wireless information exists? GPS is a technology from the 70s. Radio had existed for the better part of a hundred years before. Did you proofread this? And that garbage about how if you can describe what you're doing you aren't making art, don't even get me started. If that's a bar that we can use to preclude things from being art, model-generated art isn't art by your own definition, because we know perfectly well what it's doing and why it's doing it. It can be perfectly described, so to you it should be the LEAST artful thing in existence. Most people become nose-blind to the scent of their own intestines and get bored of it eventually, but it seems like you've made your retirement home up there.
Philosphically speaking your main point is convincing. But why is no top comment talking about the data these AIs are using? I'd say this is the main point of contention: it's trained using art without artists' consent!
This perspective is a little strange. Does this apply to all artforms? Is writing poetry on a laptop not an art because you can backspace? I think the argument of whether ai art is art is a moot point that comes down to personal opinion, but I also think that saying “control ruins art” is as elitist as the argument otherwise. “Food for the soul” and “Collective economy” are interesting ways to categorize art. I’d actually agree, and I think the term artist could fit in these categories too. But I do think you opened my eyes into the “art” of ai and the interesting things it can create. When ai was first introduced I was actually very endeared but it, and didn’t mind having to use it as a tool. I like your point about how the coders or more so artists than the prompters. I’ve actually always believe coders were artists, you had to be creative to problem solve. My last point is I think it’s unfair to call artists who are upset about this egotists. Within the next 10 years, artists are going to be laid off in massive waves. An already volatile industry is going to set fire. I want to come back to your two categories of art. Some artists are “collective economy” artists that are monetizing a skill. These artists if they can’t adapt will starve. But overall, very amazing video. Definitely an enjoyable watch as an artist, even though I disagreed with some points and was very skeptic at the beginning. All of this blowing up my final year of university when I majored in animation is alarming, especially when I was set on this career since a child. The skills I’ve been honing my entire life, the education I worked so hard to pay for, it’s like the rug has been pulled from under me. Like what I dedicated my entire life to is suddenly meaningless overnight. I’ll try to be positive about the outcome, though.
Your first point is a bad bad comparison. In painting or drawing there's always a benefit of analog mediums compared to digital since it you can't erase and it forces you to improve, to adapt or to embrace those mistakes. Digital art can be refined until it looks "perfect". You can't compared two different art forms like that when the process of creation is not the same.
I feel the same way. It’s hard to want to continue to create at all when an ai can do it better and faster than me. Makes me feel like I wasted my life dedicated to actually learning the skills “the old fashioned way” when now someone who can’t even draw a stick figure has access to the same skills and/or abilities I could only dream of having, and it makes me feel like I’ve spent my entire life learning art all for nothing.
@@ellenripley4837 Something important to know is that digital art doesn't require you to use ctrl-z. And in fact many digital artists will challenge themselves as a form of practice to not use it. In other words, it's just a tool that is there for you to use to make your time easier when you need it, but isn't something you necessarily have to use. In other words, you can still learn in the same way. You can still use the same exact process as you would use traditionally. You can still make those mistakes. And I would even argue, even with ctrl-z, you will still make mistakes that you don't notice till later when it's too late to use ctrl-z. You will still learn regardless in a very similar way. All artist will go back and look at their art and see mistakes regardless if they are a traditional artist or digital artist. This idea that you can keep refining until it's perfect is a load of crap. No artist is perfect, and as such, there is no perfect artwork regardless of how many times you use ctrl-z. Also, a traditional artist has something that is called an eraser. You use a pencil to sketch things in lightly, and then use an eraser to remove mistakes, and refine it till it gets to a point that it looks the way you want it to look. Then you can go back through to darken the lines up, or paint over it or use it for whatever it is you need it for. Generally speaking if you do the sketch process in this way, any mistakes you make are mistakes you didn't notice, which is the same thing that happens with digital art. Really, there is no difference.
@@loverrlee the art needs to be for you first and foremost. Art has become hyper-commercialized and bereft of its essence, and this is the crest of that reality. An artistic re-calibration is happening. Focus on your art and your communities, both digital and earthbound, and hopefully you’ll feel that your hard work and sacrifice were not in vain,
@@SilvyReacts you can force yourself to stop using Ctrl z in digital as a challenge but that is not the point of digital art. And eraser doesn't remove mistakes when doing watercolor, acrylic or oils. So no, digital and analog are different in that regard.
This video really needed to focus more on that one little statement at the end about "the agenda". Just about every one of the tools and technologies you mentioned led to a greater stranglehold of corporations over people. AI generated content is going to complete that stranglehold even further. Do you really think individual artists can compete with multibillion dollar tech and media companies when it comes to shaping how these systems develop?
Imagine this, you're a comic publisher now and thanks to a time machine you travel back in time and find a caveman doing fantastic drawings on the wall. So you tell them: "Hey, I can take you with me to my time, where you'll be able to draw stories that get printed and read by thousands of people and you'll be able to go to cons and meet with your fans." And what do you think that guy would say?: A) "No way, bruh, that's not how art is supposed to be made. It's meant to be on the walls and seen only by my friends." B) "Sure man, feels like this could take my drawings to another level. And you say this will be my daily job? Where do I sign up?" Now, on a more serious note, as a working comicbook artists and aspiring novelist I'm kinda in two minds about it: 1 - Similar to the example above and what you say, this AI thing might take our creations to another level that right now is something unimaginable to us. Just last week I talked to my girlfriend and had this crazy idea: "So with this ChatGPT thing, you know what would be cool? Write a novel, where after each chapter you can go to the website and actually have a converstaion with characters from the book at this exact point in the story. Or even ask ChatGPT to write you an extended version of the chapter or come up with an alternate ending. Or you know what, you could even ask it to make you an animated version of this chapter. And it's your choice if you want it to look like anime or Cartoon Network show." There you have it, my first idea on how in the future I could take writing my novel to a whole different level. And a year ago, I wouldn't even fantasize about something like that. 2 - The more traditional part of me naturally gets anxious about the comicbooks dying in their current form. But I realize that I went through something similar years ago. You see, I always admired inking in comicbook art. Back in the days, it was a common practice. But since digital coloring, many artists just color over pencils, completely removing the need of an inker. But you know what? There are people who still like it, and there are still some comicbooks published that use an inker. I often get complimented actually on my ink work and no one ever said to me "Why do you even do this? It's the most pointless technique today". My point is, comicbook inking is no longer a requirement. I think it became an art of its own and there are still people who appreciate it and prefer comics done with it. I feel like the same thing is going to happen with AI. It will take over a lot of production, but an audience who appreciates stuff drawn by humans will still be there, creating a niche for creators and publishers to fill. It's similar to the chess example. Even if it can be done better with computer doesn't mean it has to be, and people like to see other people doing cool stuff, honing their crafts and pushing themselves to the limits.
There used to be many 'choose your adventure' stories, unfortunately, due to the cost of writing so many branching paths, they were too expensive/short. With ChatGPT, normal stories won't be affected too much (Aside from having tons of quality illustrations), but choose-your-own-stories can have its golden era. With truly massive branching adventures, made easier by the writer only having to supervise the story, instead of writing every word by scratch.
@@minixlemonade You're 100% correct. I just tried to write my comment by being realistic. Personally, I'm too big of a comicbook (epsecially it's art) fan to ever see it being done by AI. Like, I'm not spending a dime on this crap. As an artist, I love drawing and inking too much and see no point in AI doing this instead of me. Like, what would even be the point? I saw a comment yesterday - "Letting AI do your drawings for you is like taking f**king out of the process of baby making". I couldn't agree with this more.
The way cave paintings were drawn aka. the art style used, is a testament to how art evolved from that to Michael Angelo to how we make art today. You want to take that away from history? As for your idea for writing novels and interacting with the characters like a fucking chatbot, you can just do that with your own imagination without an AI if you can daydream scenarios in your head. Alternate endings cheapen stories, also. It's like author can't decide how to officially end their story. If you're a novelist and you do this, that means you haven't properly planned your story. I make art and still ink my works because it's sometimes tricky to isolate the real line art from scratches and dirt from the paper. I tried getting to draw digitally but I still prefer the feel of pencil and paper. Plus, the physical piece are treasured collectible items for some. You can't do this with AI art because of how easy they are to make.
6:20 There is not a lot of difference between a paintbrush I buy and one I make myself. But if I don't make the AI then how can I control it to the same extent?
I fundamentally disagree with you on many of these points. I'm a composer, and people commission me to write music to their specifications. Those people do not contribute to the music I produce and are not composers themselves. They are sometimes called a producer, sometimes creative developer, but never "composer". The music did not come from them in any way. All they did was tell me to write something of a certain mood, genre, style, etc. Even so, I've actually had someone claim they made the music I'd written, and I had to call them out on it. That person actually said, "you brought exactly what was in my head out into the world", and he thought that meant he wrote the music. He didn't write a single note. The closest thing he did that could be considered creative was go "doot, doot, dah" and move his hips a bit, which didn't at all influence what I wrote. It was the most belittling experience of my career. This is what "prompt artists" are. They request something of a certain mood, genre, style, etc. They are no more responsible for the art that comes out of the algorithms than Mr. Doot Doot Dah. If you want to call AI art a tool, then you must also call ME a tool. I am also a voice actor. During recording sessions, I make creative choices regarding vocal timbre, acting, pacing, and even improvisation. The directors' involvement in these decisions can range from next-to-nothing, to very hands-on. But no matter how much direction they give me, they can never claim that they are the actor. They will always still be called the director. If people who use AI art generators are called "artists who use tools", then voiceover directors must be called "actors who use tools" (once again, me being the tool). Not all new tools are equally disruptive. Sure, artists used to have to make their own paint pigments and craft their own brushes, but that didn't have a profound effect on the art itself. If an artists created one painting with pre-built tools, and another with tools they'd built themselves, you'd likely not be able to distinguish between the two. However, everyone can see the difference between cell-animated Simpsons and computer-assisted Simpsons, and it's largely agreed that it wasn't an improvement. Those specific computer tools are working to entirely replace the traditional means of production. Any time a modern cartoon puts extra effort into the tweening for a particular shot (that is, they use humans), audiences celebrate it and say "wow, the animation on that shot was great!" On the other hand, 3-D computer animation doesn't try to replace 2-D animation; like the relationship between painting and photography, 3-D animation is a new type of animation. AI art is more like the tools that changed the way the Simpsons animation looks, working to streamline the creation of known art styles with the intention of replacing humans. And it doesn't stop at visual art. There is AI literature, music, voiceover, software, and more, and it seems it will not stop until it replaces all human creation in an effort to cut costs. There are things we do to live, and there are things we live to do. It's mostly okay to automate things like food and shelter production, and jobs we don't want to do like factory work, paper-pushing, flipping burgers, or whatever. But we should be cautious when automating the things we live to do, like art. At the rate things are going, AI art will be able to generate itself without prompts, and it will be close on the heels of any new niche art styles that humans create, forever chasing humans out of art. Humans have been doing art since LONG before jobs existed. If we automate it away, we're removing a fundamental part of the human condition. I really hope I'm just short-sighted, but I'm worried about all things creative.
I do not think you are short sighted at all, I would say the opposite. I am scared that people are not realizing how dehumanizing AI development into creative areas is. Artists will die. Many will kill themselves if they don't starve first. People literally do live to make art. I am disgusted and I am scared. It almost feels that we collectively are losing sight of what it is that is valuable about being a human being, or a living being in any sense.
I was in an artistic slump during the pandemic, my brain just couldn't go there for some reason. Then I started playing with MidJourney. I'm drawing, I'm painting, my creativity has dramatically increased, and due to MJs mistakes I've gotten better at spotting them. There is something about the unexpected. I may have an idea of something in my mind but what it displays could be wildly different which opens my mind to explore further. Technology has been changing the landscape for centuries. Everytime there's been a change in technology, folks freak out. But unlike other industries (ex: factory work, coal mines, etc.), creatives have an opportunity to use a tool to their advantage. They just have to use their creativity to find it.
Very interesting video - has given me much food for thought. I am not an artist but love visiting galleries and generally speaking like stuff like Fuseli, Reynolds, David, Goya, Alma-Tadema and other 18th /19th century artists (as well as classical Greco-Roman art). I mainly come at art as someone interested in history so love all the things modern curators seem to hate and resent hanging on their walls. I personally enjoy playing around with AI art - to me it's a bit like a game just mucking about trying to create the things I like on gallery walls (Diogenes in his Barrel in the style of Gerome which actually already exists as a piece of art but hey fun to compare...) Nothing particularly original about any of it. Is anything I create art? I really don't think so - it is more like pastiche and when its bad a kind of parody! But I do like your idea about the AI making mistakes and in making mistakes working at points of limitation. It has escaped a kind of perfectionism for now I suppose! I like too your point about conceptual art and its smug sense of self-imortance. As I say I am not an artist but when you mentioned that an artist works at the limits, at the point of uncertainty, mistakes and the reaction to them on the canvas/lump of clay/marble etc. leading to their unique expression of 'art' then I fully see why coneptual art fails. I've always hated it so I have a bias here no doubt. But yes it is thought out entirely before it even exists - it is just a statement nothing more and therefore more in the category of opinion than art. And normally it just reproduces the same dull opinion every curator in the western world seems to share. I blame Duchamp and his accursed urinal.... Anyway great video!
What's missing in this unbalanced endorsement of AI/technology is the bell curve principle - it's a positive but only up to a point. There's a lack of critical appreciation I feel of technology's main downside - it makes us lazy. And it often impacts upon the human, sustainable scale Yes we are deluged these days by a glut of content, but it's much of it any good? And yes it makes us lazy. The car has done that. The calculator has done that. TV has done that. It takes away the struggle and thus makes us lazy. Has it made us generally fitter, better at maths or more likely to pick up a book ? This technology is more than just a tool for the artist to use, it's replacing the actual artist himself. What's also missing is a recognition of art as personal expression and whether a machine can truly replicate that, as opposed to industrialising what's already been done but in a horribly synthetic way. This is where I disagree with his wide eyed positivity about it being a "better human artist artist - it may look just like strawberries, have exactly the same texture, but there's something very off about the taste, something alien, I understand the point being made about the remorseless progress of technology but I think that there is in fact something sacred and intrinsically human about personal expression. Art and culture, if there is a definition, are quite different from cans of beans.
This argument is giving an astonishing amount of credit to CNTRL Z. Might as well say we couldn’t be making mistakes because erasers exists. I work in animation and cntrl z is I would say less than 5% of my process and I started late in life with animation and digital media. Erasers and cntrl z isn’t leaned on that heavy…
That's a very narrow perspective you have you can easily go on TH-cam and watch digital artists doing there work and most of them use CTRL Z a lot for tiny mistakes you are not everyone.
@@arkanimation9833 This is for non commercial art from what I gather the point is about the over reliance of the safety net that is CTRL-Z that makes a lot of people passive about mistakes and instead of working with that mistake and being out that comfort zone and exploring that path and following pure creation from the heart. People make a small mistake press a button and carry on like a train stuck on a track which stumps the development of art. Ai diffusion art on the other hand is creation at its purist form starts as pure chaos and make something out of nothing and makes mistakes which is why its more of an artist than a lot of modern artist. Modern art has lost that magic.
@@DavidR1998. Yeah if these companies and CEOs would invest in actual artists instead of a work around they could have more freedom, but when real artists are just asked to draw logos or company stuff they are limited, because they need to turn in the work the client asked for. This is a whole lot of finger wagging but not giving an actual solution. Ok, keep all your failures no one will pay for your work then you starve and people on the internet will tell you to pick yourself up by the bootstraps as the cycle repeats.
@@DavidR1998. you're the one with an extremely narrow understanding of what a "mistake" is. If you think digital artists have it too good because they can undo a wrong line, then your understanding of what art is must be rudimentary and shallow at best. Same thing for mathematicians. A child in elementary school may think it’s unfair that mathematicians can use calculators when doing work, but they themselves can’t use calculators to do their multiplication worksheets for them. This comes from a fundamental lack of understanding of the subject.
And since the two months this was released. Control Net became available Allowing for Greater control over the pose and even allowing for the fixing of AI hands.
All I can say is from the layman's perspective it's definitely gotten better since this video went out so I don't know how much merit this video actually has. At one point we thought art could never be done by ai, but here we are so underestimating it seems silly.
I can't express just how much joy I feel for finding this video. I'm commenting on my real account to show my respect. I thought this was going to be another cope argument saying AI will become worse technically, but this is a shocking surprise. I finally found an artist who truly understand this situation. I have seen countless artists insulting AI and those who use them, and it's frustrating because their insults are based on a misconception. From their points it's clear that they clearly didn't even bother learning how AI actually works. It's sad to see them insult this amazing marvel of engineering. I'm currently researching AI, and the amount of knowledge, research and code that went into AI is tremendous. People selflessly shared their findings, data and code for free so that humanity can improve. It's just amazing. All that complicated math being implemented in such ingenious ways. It's sad to see people trample on that. Especially since I know that artists can do better than this. I myself have practiced various forms of art. Pencil sketch, vector art, creative writing, wood carving, martial art, piano, electronics, programming. I have also met and worked with various artists. I know very well they can survive if their hearts remain true. Just like how there are people still smithing swords by hand and practicing martial arts, in this age of factories and guns. They don't care that there are machines or other people who can do better than them. They pursue their craft because of the wonders. Just like researchers developing AI. And that will always be valuable. That will never ever change. That will never be beaten. I just hope more artists understand that and find their wonders.
I have no emotional reaction to AI art. I can't find anything to attach to emotionally. I cannot learn anything by watching Ai image. That's also how I recognize an AI image. It leaves me empty.
I completely loved this video, I think I heve never thought about some of this things, I think you have to approach this video with a very open mind, and I don't agree with all, but appreciate a different perspective.
Compare GAN's from 2017 to art created today with stable diffusion orangemix AOM3 - A2 model and then upscaled 31.25x with gigapixel. AI art has been on a constant exponential path of improvement and there is not a single reasonable nor objective fact that it is somehow going to get "worse" and as long as there is data [which we already have plenty] there will only be more way to use this data to it's full potential [you already see this with tools like controlnet releasing]. I say this as a computer science major and firm believer in technological innovation.
i’m really happy i found your channel. it’s rare to find such a well produced and thoughtfully made channel with so few subscribers, even as it the internet is continually being split into niches and subcultures. this video brought me a lot of peace as i’m currently studying programming with the hope of going into backend web development and the recent innovations in machine learning have made me anxious and feeling like i’m wasting my time. I know this video is about AI art, but the way you contextualized AI with the internet and other major advances in technology gave me a fresh perspective and is such a big relief. I can’t thank you enough to be honest this video kinda single-handedly renewed my passion for computer science
art is taking your imagination in your brain and expressing it and unfolding it onto a medium... the difference between a prompt artist is they have no imagination but what's already available... I would take the analogy of, AI art is like McDonald's and Human art is like Mom/Pop burger joint. But AI will only stagnate if it's not being continually trained on new art. I haven't heard anything from the lawsuits pending...
While there is great value in the artist being technical and constrained, I'd argue that art requires a mind to make. Whatever the tools, whatever the systems, art requires sentience and intention. An engineer or doctor can be an artist, a painter or sculptor can be an artist, a dancer or musician can be an artist. We can even have very technical and abstract artists like worldbuilders. A machine, tool, or system can be used by a human to make art. An AI system or the machine itself will never ever be an artist. I'm leery of calling someone who inputs commands into a system an "artist". Someone can be a musician with Garage Band, but I'd be more comfortable calling them a "musician" if they had some idea of what they were doing and knew music theory, and how to play a real instrument. Someone telling an Art AI or a Chat AI to give them a picture or a story with certain features isn't typically constructing something themselves, e.g., adding to the picture or story. They are a client not an artist. And, while the word "art" may be losing meaning in this hellscape, I refuse to use "artist" when "client" is more accurate. Also, you're incorrect about traditional artists not removing mistakes from the their work, but that doesn't really detract from your central claim.
its normal in evolution,, a steep rise/gain.. then it stumbles because it's going too fast.. then it stabilizes and improves and grows steadily... we are in the stumble phase. I am quite afraid of this interference of AI in ART.. and fear for job losses and other unforseen dangers (copyright infringements, thiefery, and such)
If you draw with pencil and you use eraser, you aren’t a true artist. Only pen is true art because that is permanent on paper or canvas and can’t be erased. That’s your logic with ctrl+z. Thank you.
It’s the same with all forms of ai in terms of earlier models being more creative and thus more useful in general in the right hands than more trained models that are more limited and inflexible but may be good for certain specific tasks.
What a fantastic, nuanced take on the subject. You explained a lot of what I've been thinking about very succinctly and also quelled a few fears I had. Thank you very much!
I think the optimistic view has a flaw or two:
no, it wont be artists that exploit this pseudo-tool. Its devastation will be vast because non-creatives will indeed replace creatives.
Secondly, comparisons to other technology are fairly inaccurate. Replacing filmstock with digital did not replace the photographer. Styluses replaced pencils, not animators. And word processing replaced typewriters, not authors.
Encyclopedias went online, and the internet itself houses tons of info. But ai will write the info. It will change and redraft the encyclopedia, history, story, and therefore culture.
Ai will replace animators, writers, storyboard artists, musicians, and DPs. If there are directors, they wont need to be the talents they are today. They will be the non-creatives above.
comparing it to chess is simply bizarre. A computer knowing everything is not the same as human competition. A machine that can flawlessly throw 3 point shots in basketball might be interesting technically. But pitting it against Steph Curry doesnt make for competition.
The human quality in art is like the competition.
Ai will replace the need for artists by making two computers play chess. The human loss will be real - but less transparent than in competition.
People also instinctively know the loss of human competition. They can see it. No one cares that the fastest person in the world cannot outrun a sports car. But people wont see the loss as readily as the artist gettinf replaced by ai.
No, ai wont take away your paints.
But it will steer our culture, as it replaces art with sim, as it writes our stories for us, and as it dehumanizes us all.
Now is the time to see it for what it is.
It is not a hammer. It is not a pen evolving into a stylus. It is not a human finding serendipity in mistakes, it is not filmstock going digital.
It is the nono particles in our “food.” It is the cricket flour replacement. It is a nuclear bomb. It is an x-ray, that might be fine once a year with a lead vest on the rest of your body… but might not be good pointed at your gonads non-stop for the foreseeable future. It is the lobotomy of our day. It is giving heroine to infants when they are teething. It is bloodletting to heal wounds. It is the infinity gauntlet, and Thanos will indeed snap.
Technology is not always used, and not always good to use, just because it exists and just because you can. But perhaps “just because” is better than as a short cut around talent.
Is it just a tool? Sure. But so was the icepick they used… to carve up your brain… the best new advancement in science to the cure anxiety in college students plagued by study, or to calm hysterical women.
I must say: this is the best video I have yet seen discussing ai. So kudos. I respect this very much - and a lot of good points and perspectives were shared.
And while ai might be here to stay. And might truly take over. In my opinion - we cannot shout enough about the ethics, about the dangers, and about the losses.
Very good comment!!! We can sit all day discussing it artist to artist about how it will affect us, but never should we just give up and let it walk all over us, or never should we stop warking of the dangers and ethics!!!
Artists face so much vitriol from the people who use AI, when we simply don't want our work to be in the datasets without our consent.
Brilliantly written mate, enjoyed this comment alot. You make great counterpoints. Lovely food for thought. Cheers 🍻
On the other hand, the Printing Press put scribes out of work
The Luddites, the guys who destroyed machines, did so not because they feared them, but because the machines actually did their jobs for them at a fraction of the cost (all the things modern writers and artists are saying AI will do to them is exactly what industrial machinery actually did to the Luddites, and nowadays "luddite" is a derogatory term)
Computer used to be a job title, a person who was paid to do math, now we have computation machines that do it automatically, instantly, and without error (barring an error in input), and society is objectively better for it
All of these things are seen as good things nowadays, but back when they were happening, a lot of people treated it as the end of society (hell, older generations have been complaining about new technologies at least as long as people have been writing things down, we actually have written records of people being worried that _writing things down_ would lead to the fall of civilization)
No one can predict the future, nobody knows what the consequences of the consequences will be, and that can be scary, but it _will_ happen, it cannot be stopped, the best we can do is prepare for the worst and hope for the best
@@Deathnotefan97 I think magnifying physical effort via leverage: a shovel instead of a hand... a CAT instead of a shovel... that is comparable to using a paint brush and canvas instead of your hand and a cave all. Or photoshop and a stylus instead of a paintbrush and canvas.
Ai replaces the artist. So it's just fundamentally different and SHOULD be looked at as ONLY a loss. Convenience is not automatically good. A fraction of the cost is not automatically good. Nor is seeing computers as "good" necessarily a true thing.
The human mind and human life is superior to replacing it. Replacing leverage via a shovel is NOT the same as replacing the soul via art.
@@ithurtsbecauseitstrue Yes, AI replaces the artists, the same way calculators replaced human computers, the printing press replaced scribes, etc.
I specifically used examples of machines _replacing_ humans, not machines reducing how much human work is needed
The problem I see is that people everywhere are already underpaid, exploited and living paycheck to paycheck. And corporations will never care about it, the point made about AI devalueing a HUGE part of the industry is the scary part
this is a wealth distribution problem, not an AI problem. we should tackle the actual issue, don't you think?
@@diegoloxoroyea, but you can't really expect them to immediately (and willingly) just share their wealth, no matter how hard and detailed we explained it to them, and the authorities probably will be on their side, for now, this AI protests are an effort not to give them any more power than what they have now
If AI was really used by artists for drafts, ideas, and those things that the AI bros tell us, I don't think the rejection would be as big as this, the fact that it's not artists who use it, and that used by companies to replace artists, when art and language are one of the most basic things about being human, and yet created by something that isn't even alive, is pretty depressing
I think this is a problem for most jobs and we as a society have to find another way of distributing wealth than by paying people (in the best case) by their work performance.
Where was this support from artists when AI hit other industries like the farmers or factory workers?
@@elliotyourarobotwe were drawing anti-ai propaganda 😂
i just want to say a lot of the greats control-z’d by painting a new layer over their canvas. just because digital art gives us the ability to undo things we don’t like in seconds doesn’t mean we aren’t working through our mistakes. digital art has allowed me to explore so many ideas and emotions as an artist, because it has made experimentation more controllable. there have been many nights where i’ve worked hours on a piece, to not have it go the way i wanted, to hit pause and come back weeks or months later to work through it with fresh eyes/ideas.
that doesn't discount his point at all though, starting over a new canvas is completely different than just making it like the mistake never happened, and when you have that ability, I don't think most people would choose to the keep the mistake and build upon it. Now you could argue that his point of view and what makes art valuable is different than yours that would be harder to refute, but you don't make an coherent argument here.
@@takeuchi5760 he mentioned when we’re able to just control z, we aren’t training ourselves to work through mistakes, thus limiting our ability to expand our creativity. my argument is some of the greats, who are seen as pioneers also didn’t work through their mistakes, or at least painted over ideas they didn’t like. being able to dial in ideas we have helps to expand our creativity, because we’re able to push limits.
@@iamslf I totally agree. Digital art gave me the option to experiment in a vacuum basically. My first few drawings were... crap and I was working on creating my style. Once I had a tablet and Krita, I could play around with it and train my hand to do the curves I see in my mind, use the colors I want. If I change my mind I swap them out. But it was mostly to practice, before showing the world. And once I got better, those skills transferred to traditional art as well. I drew a cartoony but realistic woman on the first ever try (well, second really.) In a pose I have never done. It is the mindset that is key. I keep many mistakes I make in digital art, so I don't make them next time. :)
@@takeuchi5760 But his point it still is incorrect. In digital you still make mistakes, you just erase them more efficiently than on paper. Do people not erase their mistakes whe doing traditional? When I paint with gouache I certainly do!! I cover them up! And I think people who paint with acrylics and oils do it as well.
@@coldsteamart2195 ^^^This!
The control+z criticism is ridiculous. It's like saying you can't use an eraser when drawing with a pencil. Or painting over mistakes on your canvas. Or you're not allowed to undo a wrongly knitted part of a sweater, because "that's too easy" which is nonsense. Or an architect should just ignore faults and embrace the "happy accidents" instead of fixing them to ensure the building's integrity/safety.
You don't have "infinite" possibilities when drawing digitally just because you can undo. You still need to have knowledge of anatomy, color theory, perspective, etc. depending on what you draw. It's like saying store bought paint is cheating; you should gather ingredients yourself, grind them down and make your own paint from scratch. Ridicules.
My favorite AI-generated text (from the early days, cca 2020):
"Do not move, or your brains will be blown out."
"On the contrary, I believe I'll move."
"Do you have a cigarette?"
You roll your eyes. "Yeah." You pull one out, light it, and slide it back into the pack.
"That'll be $49.95, please"
You hand her a twenty. "Keep the change."
In a vacuum you'd almost guess it was written by some master of surreal dry humor on the level of Terry Pratchett or Douglas Adams, but it was just a weak language model that wasn't firing on all cylinders trying its best to tell a serious story. Nowadays GPT can tell a joke, sure, but it can't make one.
Oh... so the origins of Tenet are known I see...
"There should be a book about reading!"
this was generated by a neural network I have put together and trained.
This comment was doubly funny, because it was actually learning to read!
@@adamrak7560 that sounds like a child. Like a technological child that somehow can read. Books make things easier. They are trying to learn how to read. So they need a book about it.
The cigarette one made me chuckle.
I wonder from which action movie the machine stole this one.
Remember the weird Dall-e Mini memes that were taking twitter by storm last year? A lot of people claiming the AI diffusion revolution had completely changed comedy forever. they are dead in the water, even despite the fact that the tech used to make them has gotten a hundred times better. the fad has passed any everyone moved onto the next meme
I don't fully agree on that "digital artist doesn't have to work with their mistakes" staitmant. Yes, three lines and one wrongly picked color won't change your whole approach and you have more flexability overall. But you still have to move on and not redraw the same thing over and over if you want to finish it, even when you're not 100% satisfied with it. Also CTRL-Z isn't infinite. If I remember correctly, you can go 50-100 steps back. So you can go back on a imidietly notised mistakes, but if you work on it for a few hours and realize that some trees are messing your composition pure CTRL-Z isn't enough or you notice a mistake in time, but you already done some other stuff, that you done really well and you have to decide if you move on or delete the well done part. Over all I'd say, saying that digital art is lesser, cuz' of CTRL-Z is the same thing like saying that oil paint is lesser to penciles, since with oils you can cover up and touch up stuff na but with pencils that is way harder and at times impossible.
Honestly, he lost me with that WILD statement on digital art. Talking like a traditionalist, while supporting ai?
@@dyastro7479 Yea, it gets under my sikn, but I whatched whole and I kidna get where he's comming from, plus he does have quite an interesting veiw point on AI that I honestly agree with. You just have to suffer throught that.
@@dyastro7479 Something felt off about this video and now I finally understand why! It's an elitist argument against elitism.
@@dyastro7479 Exactly what I thought as well.
@@dyastro7479 Agreed. No matter how much I control + z or undo, I'm continuing to make human mistakes. Instead of wasting paper redrawing the same thing over and over again, I can tweak my art until it is as good as I can currently make it. Control + Z doesn't erase your memory of the mistake you made. From the moment he said that, the video sounded like a traditional artist talking out of his ass.
there is merit in your points. unfortunately though, while some people explore the erratic nature of AI, other ill-intended shitheads are using it to make imitations of individual artstyles that possibly took that artist years to lapidate, and given time, it's easy to see how that will steer potential clients away from them. this is something I simply can't turn a blind eye to
Thank God a sane commenter, lol. AI is really cool but that doesn't mean we should take any and every possible change sitting down. Good luck out there fellow human!
Ok, how precise do we copyright a "style", you are not talking about a specific artwork of art, you are suggesting that '"styles" are intellectual property that needs to be protected. It doesn't work like that. Actual specific works are copyrighted, not a generalized "style".
@@peterbelanger4094That's a good question, since imitation of style by human hands has been fair game for ages. Here's an idea- The act alone of trying to imitate someone's style using AI is not necessarily illegal, but if the artist in question has had their art pieces used in the data set for the algorithm unwillingly, it is not legal to sell that art or to make money off of that AI model. Even though the models themselves do not store image files, many have been shown to overfit popular images, demonstrating that the intellectual property of the artists in question has been directly converted into some kind of information contained in the model. The problem is proving this for more obscure images where overfitting is not an issue. Not all companies are as forthcoming about their training data sets, which is probably something we need to legislate as well. Just because it's hard to prove though, does not make it fair game. Counterfeit money does not become guiltless just because it has been sufficiently laundered. If we can crack down on bad behaviors, I believe the positive potential of both human and AI art can be maximized.
@@bigkspicy8257 I’d say ai art should be used as a tool for artists rather than something people can use to literally make the most redundant shit ever made.
There have been interesting ai discoveries such as Loab (look it up).
@Big K Spicy here is the problem. AI art has already gotten to the point where the AI can train other AIs.
Meaning your idea is easily skirtable by saying "oh midjourney 2.0 wasn't trained on YOUR data, it was trained on data given to it by Midjourney 1.0, who DID steal your data, yeah our bad, whoopsie, we paid the class action. But midjourney's art was all unique.
Plus, a lot of websites have deals with ai devs, where if you upload a picture to Twitter, Facebook, Deviantart, you are a student at any university, etc.. you don't own it even If you DID make it.
The amount of actual artists who can claim theft from midjourney is extremely small. You have to be popular enough for people to want to re-upload your work, and also not have your work already in a purchasable dataset.
I'm not worried by AI art.
I do worry that folks will believe computers can think. But that's a whole different can of worms.
you were on the money with this one. Silicon valley has convinced the world that they invented artificial brains
I can't get any AI platform to exactly reproduce what's in my head. As an author/illustrator of picture books, I cannot see any way of getting hundreds of prompts to exactly create the lines, marks, colours, composition and dynamics that are needed to dramatise scenes effectively. It's attention to detail and the human touches that make art interesting. To be a good artist, in the traditional sense, means to understand all of the aforementioned elements but also to have something extra to stand out. I would argue producers of AI art are more art directors than artists.
That’s the thing. It doesn’t have to be exact. If it’s good enough, it will sell.
Art directors are also artists.
That's the thing. With AI art there is no human artist. You are not the artist, you're just the customer, telling the AI generator what you want. The future of AI art isn't to be a tool for artists, it's to replace artists, to have book publishers just have 'generate a passable book cover' as a job tacked on to someone else's job, taking just a few minutes out of their day as they plug in a list of prompts based on the blurb. It's to have advertisers just say 'we want the image of someone on the beach to post our slogan over', and sometime types in 'person on a beach'.
But as an landscape architect you can let the ai fill in a public space for example, let´s say with 500 possible designs and get huge inspirations from that. Then you can teach it your own handstyle in sketching, which you can then use to let the ai make many different sketches of a basic fast put together model. I am thrilled XD
@@greenrabbit4075 you have to be careful.
Ai art looks fantastic but as soon as you compare it with human art, it instantly appears homogeneous and unoriginal.
not gonna lie this kinda helps my mental health. I learned that I write better in a notebook where I can make mistakes instead of the PC where I try to make sure everything is perfect which bottlenecks the process. Honestly a part of me see's ais vshumans as streaming vs physical media, I know it isn't exactly like that, it's more like TV Dinners and frozen meals vs cooking at home or ordering out, but I'm still processing it.
You just make your drafts without stressing it and when you got the finish product you then proofread it ;)
Cope
I actually think the PC is much easier to delete, rewrite, undo and shift things arround which makes it better for experimenting be it with writting or with digital art
Digital art v traditional art
@@oess855 cope about what?
I'm going to critique you. Please don't view this as an attack, because it's not meant to be.
There is a modern misconception that the Luddites, when they went around destroying mechanical looms and so forth, were doing it because they opposed the machines themselves. Actually, this is a myth. The Luddites were not opposed to technology, they were opposed to benefits of technology being used exclusively to profit a minority owner class.
It is no accident that the Luddites have become sort of a synonym for "foolish reactionary person fighting against inevitable technological change". Whenever someone has a substantive critique on the use of some new technology, "Luddite" is thoughtlessly leveled against them by those who stand to benefit the most from that change. "We should share the benefits of this technology to humanity" transforms when filtered through corporate media as "we want to keep this obsolete job." It has become a rote, anemic debate that a lot of people have lost the ability to consider that *this time might be different*.
And it is different. We aren't talking about stone knappers being replaced by blacksmiths. We're talking about something fundamentally human being replaced by something inhuman. This oft-repeated idea that "new jobs will come along we can't even imagine" is an article of faith. We don't know that. There could basically be no jobs for artists anymore. Is anyone going to be even interested in art when billions of new pieces come out daily, all fighting for the limited attention of a shrinking pool of art consumers?
I don't fear that there won't be human artists. My fear is that human artist will work in a medium of their own bodily fluids, and the expression he is conveying is the despair of living in a world that is now hostile to humanity. That human artists still exist and convey real emotion is a cold comfort to me.
Preach! It was so painful to see this video repeating the same tired argument that "AI is just the next tool like cameras"! I promise none of us were crying wolf when Photoshop added the smudge tool. Thank you for being sane.
I understand your point about artists using tools that have been pre-made for them, but the problem with AI is that it removes the last step that links us to our work, and that is... literally making it. AI is barely guided by us through a prompt made by a few words, it's more like we are commissioning the AI to make the art for us. You stop being the artist, the AI is the artist. So all that an artist becomes is an employee that does a bit of very basic data entry. We are naive if we think that it'll just be used as a reference tool, because the standard will become clients requiring an image to be produced within seconds. To be curious and want to innovate is good, but we shouldn't idolise innovation for the sake of innovating, just because we "got bored" of things not changing for a while.
exactly.
"Limitation breeds creativity" a beautiful quote I will always remember. I am very grateful for the take in this video. Definitely not hyperbolic like most of the other videos. Thank you!
And limitations create scarcityl, because its tedious , demanding, time-consuming, and the only way to make it bearable is great passion, dedication, discipline but also a lot of fun here and there after mastering each step and being on the zone accomplishing something out of it ! Now remove all this , change the natural order on how things are supposed to evolve by just a hack and theft and you get the Holy grail of " Prompt " .
@@maxwaver777 But let's remove AI for one moment. How are things supposed to evolve "naturally" and who deems how its supposed to evolve?
@pattyg.418 let's put it this way : imagine I Rob a bank as a starting point to be a businessman and invest all the money legally and make profit out of it. Is this evolution? Even if I decide to give back the money, it doesn't make me less criminal. The only reason Ai got that good is because it was trained on billions of Artists blood and sweats to make them obsolete. Some might call it évolution, I call it a crime against the history of Art. You asked what is the next step is, and my answer is : I don't know, but surely not Ai Art theft. Now let's agree on this and accept it as an evolution, do you really think that prompting an image is an act of Creating Art ?
Limitations are not induced by the creator, the human being is the one that works around the limitation, thus producing those results. Limitation in itself is just that.
@@maxwaver777 preach!
A.I is a tool, it'll be used regardless of whatever people will fight or not in it.
When something comes and does it easier, it'll just be used exactly for it.
However, A.I is, of course, limited to the input you give it, it is obviously restrained by interpretation, language as well as a data bank of images to use, and whatever images you insert into it.
It'll get more advanced over time... And that's fine.
The moral issues will probably be resolved one way or another, and the tool will become a full part of the industry.
But, of course... The tool lacks the simple human connection.
And yeah, there's a reason why even ancient people say "Lost humanity"... Look at us today, a generation of extreme disconnection while everyone are connected, total moral depravity while we actually have the best living conditions since recorded times, and oddly enough, people keep lacking while we are abundant.
That's why you can't really replace, in anything, that simple human connection... you know when it lacks.
Same as how vegetables get less taste, because they are mass produced.
Yeah, we lose something in the process... However...
Everyone can still grab a couple of seeds and grow something in their garden.
You can still go up and put up a show in front of whoever is willing to sit down and look.
You can always just pick up a bunch of nonsense and form art out of them.
All advances lack in the simple fact they are heavily dependent on a function chain system... Our personal skills, well, we carry them with us, can teach them onward and can use them whenever we are in capability to do so.
Jobs might be lost, but, many others are created or enhanced - A.I simply is a highly advanced tool to use, just like the camera and photoshop.
It's all tools for the arsenal.
A.I also has a "distinct feel"... Once you recognize it, it gets... Empty, quickly.
You can't really feel anything else out of it.
When everyone uses the same thing all the time, everyone ends up with rather identical generics, no matter how "unique" each generated image is.
And that's the true false of A.I - It's generic, it produces stale products that surely are inspiring and imaginative, but, they are barren.
Just like many things in the modern era - They lack a personal touch.
Ai must be regulated to use licenced and public domain data ...
Then nobody will argue against it,
Artists give a shit actually about Ai art, but they don't want their work being used to feed it
That's just it, it's not a tool. It's a "virtual artist". I just told Stable Diffusion to draw "Spontaneity". It drew 1) a bunch of letters next to a yellow flower, 2) some letters on a chalkboard surrounded by abstract shapes, 3) some abstract pseudo-text over a pen and ink drawing of a doorway, and 3) a photo of a person running in the middle of a busy city street. None of these were intended or expected by me, just as if I had asked a (very weird) artist to draw "spontaneity" for me. If the letters weren't abstract shapes, there would be no way to tell the artwork hadn't been made by a human. A tool, in contrast, is an extension of your body and mind.
@Fugaz There is still the problem that artists loose their jobs due to decreased demand...
@@joshuaborner that won't happen...
Because art is always in scarcity by nature... i mean... if you create your own identity , you will create a new demand for the specific art that you make...because it feels fresh,
People gets boring about things that they can have easily...
Imagine a free skin on a videogame,
It doesn't matter how good it is,
People will see with other hands a rare skin that just some users can achieve, even if that skin doesn't looks better in design than the free one.
That's why if the models can't be trained with what specific artists can do, people will keep hiring them because they feel fresh
A.I in it's current form is a tool but very soon it will be much more. What people fail to understand is when a.i reaches it full potential to call it a tool would be like ants calling us tools.
With my uncle I generate images of a D&D character he's been playing for the last 40 years. That's something he never did before and likely never would. Even with the some of really good video game character creators he couldn't make his character well enough to satisfy his vison and take that created character on as his avatar in the game. He's printed out the image we made of his character and hung it in his gaming room.
We spent a few hours working on the image like an old cop TV show of the artist drawing the criminal; Fighting with prompts changing models, using a range of tools to make something special for him.
That’s very cool!
It's a fallacy for claiming that if something has occurred frequently in the past, it'll happen again the same way, but I still learned a lot from your point of view, thank you!
>It's a fallacy for claiming that if something has occurred frequently in the past, it'll happen again the same way
Um, isn't that the scientific method though?
@@AlexReynard You can't truly recreate history exactly as it was, especially if we are talking about the topics in the video. Placing apples in the same position is a different matter and shouldn't be brought into this discussion. Moreover, cameras, drivers, and workers are entirely different from generative AI, and you can't really compare them to AI
think the reason why ai will not replace human art is not because it couldn't but because humans ENJOY making art! there will be some type of movement in order to keep promoting human creativity. It'd be very dumb to let a robot do what you like to do. Ai is for what you DO NOT like to do. Like if AI could reproduce for us are we going to give up sex?
The fact that you view digital art as less, because you have more control over your piece, is so snobby. As an artist who works both digitally and traditionally, they are different mediums but both express a form of art, each as valid as the other. There is nothing that makes your work inherently superior when working traditionally.
1:10 Have you heard about "eraser" and "painting over another painting"? Ai made the first-ever digital art? what an utterly disgusting sh&t take
I don't know chief, seems a lot better now than 3 months ago
I think a lot of this comes across as "The thing I do is more valuable than the thing you do".
I hope you dont take this the wrong way but have you tried creating digital art? I find the reoccuring reference to ctrl+z as a reason why it's not art and I'm not sure that arguement has legs to stand on. If someone works without using undo then does it magically become art? What if a traditional artist uses an eraser or god forbid reattempts a work? Would they no longer produce something considered art?
I think you hit the nail on the head that art is a word with no meaning, it's just a shame you immediately discard that idea by stating art does have a definition and it's defined by it's mistakes. Through that frame the artistic examples of archetecture historically are the builing that didn't stand the test of time for us to see, for they were riddled with mistakes. The most artistic and expressive music is written by those with no musical knowledge. Poets words pale compared to the barely intelligible grunts of toddlers.
A lot of fancy words and sophism in this one... The takes on digital art and photography are pretty wild imo. It sounds like you never really partook into digital painting, or you'd know it's just another medium. Sure it has Ctrlz, but it's 10x harder to draw on a screen than on paper and traditional has a more natural charm to it that it's hard to achieve in digital. Photography also helped artists observe better. Lumping digital artists(& photographers) with AI images is fundamentally wrong. It's like saying that all what digital-artists and photographers do is to copy-paste or photograph somebody's art and claim it as theirs, which we all know it's wrong.
We shouldn't just accept AI as it is, but actively try to find ways and rules to limit the harm it's doing to artists. Being passive is not the same as being flexible.
I agree with you wholly, I also don't understand what he means by saying you can't learn from your mistakes in digital art when you definitely can. It is like any other medium, you need to practice basics, the brushes don't draw themselves. I also agree that giving textures is much more tricky in digital and requires you to understand them more than say in traditional due to an additional factor of understanding how digital brushes work and to manipulate them to give the desired look.
@@CherryMxTx Somebody else pointed out that he's a bit of an art elitist, so he looks a bit down on digital art. To me it really doesn't makes sense to categorise ourselves by the medium we use. Part of the reason is half the artists use and depend on more than 1. I just don't like to see artists tearing eachother down instead of uniting and fighting together against AI. Maybe this video was made with good intentions, but the message is a little harmful.
@@coldsteamart2195 Mhmmm, it's definitely more important to see to it that AI is regulated and cannot steal and imitate from a single artist, infringing upon their copyright and livelihood.
This is a very interesting opinion. I think I largely disagree with much of what you say, but you bring up some very valid points. I would define creation as taking chaos (or, in other words, your lived experience or the world around you) and transforming it into order. This can be done by anyone of any occupation, but I struggle to adapt that definition to fit AI. AI is being fed nothing but pictures. There is no chaos, only order. It's not making something genuinely new. It's just drawing from a dataset and transposing that into the end result. There's no problem solving. The AI doesn't just say "hmm, that's not quite right" and tries to fix it. It's effectively just throwing numbers at a wall. Nonetheless, it is an inevitability, and we will all have to adapt to a new world.
AI doesnt draw from the dataset after the trainign is done the dataset is not needed anymore
@@Eren_Yeager_is_the_GOATeven so, there are rarely any mistakes made, but whatever I'm starving
That's a very personal definition of art and one that doesn't fit what everybody thinks, I'm an artist myself and I define art more like a conversation. Communication in presenting and interpreting ideas. And in that sense sometimes the very machine interpretation can be very insightful and even add to an artpiece, like that one time an ai drew what it interpreted as the last selfie on earth. That artpiece genially made me think alot about that society and where it's heading, much like any other art peice would. With how malleable and interpretable art is to every person, I don't mind calling ai art art.
Funny, that stable diffusion is basically starting its image with noise. Which might be considered the purest form of chaos...
AI drawing from a dataset is no different than you taking inspiration and copying other artists. Do you really think you yourself exist in a vacuum and everything you do has not also been copied from other artists?
2:40 "artists deserve this, we've handed over the risks of creativity and mistakes for ultimate control". I don't see digital artists letting technology take away their creative work and failure. I don't see people giving up creative risk just because they have better access to references. That's an extremely undifferentiated statement. It's disgusting to tell all these people with a smile that it's not only unavoidable, but that they deserve to lose their jobs. Who is even "they"? Creative people are an extremely diverse collective. You talked about your own ego in this video to then accuse other artists of egotism. People want to live meaningfully and contribute something. To blame everything on ego is, again, absolutely simplistic.
I have yet to see a pro-AI video that doesn't throw in some painfully defeatist logic just like this vid does. Well said, fellow human.
The only artist that have anything to fear are people that are not actual artists. This isn't going to replace true artists. It's going to replace Etsy artists and fanart creators.
@@omegablast2002 Do you consider concept artists, animators, background artists, "real" artists? I think it would be a shame to automate these occupations away, not just for the artists, but for audiences everywhere.
@@bigkspicy8257 Thank you. Yes, he's very unprecise. He also said in his video that artists went to museums and then tried to replicate what they saw at home but this isn't entirely true. Many artists had masters which gave them even better advice and references than you can get on the internet today. It wasn't all memory and personal trial.
@@MrJamesC His conflation of how artists create may be worse than just imprecision. I haven't heard anyone else talk about this point, so I'd like to raise it: Isn't it strange how when we speak about AI replacing artists, its proponents claim we are overreacting, stating "it is merely a new tool for people to use", but if we talk about AI referencing other artist's images without compensation, the reply becomes "all artists use references, this is just the same". Then, is AI an artist, or is it a tool? Or, are artists just the same as tools in the eyes of shallow consumers?
This argument is just.. off. You're putting down digital art as "lesser" as a way to prop up AI art and say that people are being elitist for not accepting AI art... while being elitist against digital art. Not to mention there's a big lack of understanding on how the tech works. Its not actually artificial intelligence, thats just a buzz word. Its a latent diffusion model, which basically to oversimplify it, its just a really fancy de-blur algorithm trying to de-blur noise into a recognizable image. It cannot create anything new and it cannot grow on its own. It needs artists to feed it more new data its never seen before. The ability for these "AI' art programs to create is based on the existence of artists making new and creative works
It’s weird how he puts down controlZ as if it wouldn’t fit his definition of a tool. He says “hey if you didn’t get to instantly erase your mistakes and had to put in more effort you’d learn faster, anyway AI does anything you could better and faster so don’t forget what I just said about hard work.”
It seems you need to watch his other video "Artists don't understand AI art...yet."
Because you don't seem to get it...yet.
Pattern recognition.
This reminds me of what happened to photo reporters.
Most of them were talented people, who always tried to be present where things were happening and to put a lot of sense into their composition.
But once everyone had a camera in their pocket, the media bought their images from whoever had something to offer. They don't care about talent or meaning as long as they have something that sells.
Is photography not art anymore?
@@TheManinBlack9054 I doubt that I ever seven suggested anything like that...
@@TheManinBlack9054 the question is how many professional photographers are around vs how many photos get created
But still, photo reporters still exist, just having less jobs.
@@worawatli8952 Yes, photo reporters still exist. And they probably will continue to exist but there's a lot less of them.
I was a photographer before the numerical boom and there was a lot more opportunities to sell your pictures.
Just wait a bunch of years and you'll see that every profession working in the image industry will be affected by the image generation learning algorithm.
There is a key problem in this argument: No other technological advancement has been so great as to make the human being creating the art redundant.
exactly....obvious but apparently missed.
Someone who feeds data into an AI image generator is not an artist. They may be a creator, if they use the image as part of a creative process. But legally and morally they are a commissioner. Especially as they pay for the image to be generated.
1:43 "With every element of progress, something is lost." I think if more artists acknowledged this, there wouldn't be such outcry against AI. As you said, they've done this to themselves. They made art easier, and incentivized this ease to the point that now they don't even need to make a single brush stroke for fantastic art. Easier art forms always result in resentment from those who refuse to acknowledge their legitimacy due to the struggle they went through, and would rather pull up the ladder of progress behind them to make others struggle as they did.
Very interesting perspective! Also, thank you for acknowledging the creativity that goes into the engineering fields. Most products of engineering can be "works of art", though I'm not sure they are on the same level as something created as a form of expression - perhaps similar yet different. One major difference does come down to the tolerable level of mistakes, where painting something with a flaw can become an intrinsic to the work, whereas an engineered product with a flaw can be deadly. Although, in a sense, the necessity of functionality is in itself a form of limitation (maybe that's why engineering design in small teams can be so mentally draining - the degree of required creativity per person is very high).
As for the premise that AI will get better making it less artistic, I think that's true and also false. While large AI models are going to get better at producing technically flawless outputs, they will not be the end all. And that leads to an interesting question... would it be conceivable to design and train an AI in an intentionally flawed way, to introduce those flaws directly into the outputs? Could that become an entirely new form of art (based on your initial premise), where an artists may intentionally train such a flawed generative AI?
Fantastic points!
You can change the Ai to create Your own version of the algorithm(if it's open source the codebase).
@@JuanGabrielOyolaCardona That depends on what you mean by change. If you're talking about making large structural changes, then that likely requires retraining and an associated $200,000 price tag along with it. If you're talking about minor changes (like all of the recent improvements), then that can be done much cheaper and on a smaller scale. Or if you're talking about modifying the model by finetuning, that can also be done much cheaper on a smaller scale.
The fact that it's open source only matters for skipping that expensive first part, otherwise all of the algorithmic / structural information is present in the associated papers on arxiv, to the point where you could recreate them from scratch (that includes Google's big models too, but those would be even more expensive to train).
@@hjups yes it's hard to develop the software but You could get into a company that makes addons and participate in the whole process.
I agree. A.I. will become so advanced that it will learn that imperfection can be pleasing to the human eye.
If you pay attention to AI generators like Midjourney and Leonardo they have emojis a person can add to AI art, and the AI can use
this feedback to learn that there is beauty in imperfection. There are really smart people working at these companies, I'm pretty sure this crossed their minds.
automation meant more food and clothes. people are quite naive if they think this wouldnt happen with art as well
I don’t think knowing what we are doing means we’re not taking chances. In the last three years I have discovered digital art and had it help me through my childhood trauma. I may not always know exactly the message behind a piece when I am working on it, or even when I complete it, but it taps into my inner-child in one way or the other.
In terms of the creation of things, I don’t know the ins and outs of how to make things work and discover through doing, despite the undo button.
Without digital art, I would not be creating visually today.
Just my own take... Using AI is more like being an art director than being an artist. Like we literally give direction to a stubborn computer then select the work it made that fit the best.
Art is actually something very specific. It is the expression of the human condition. That one element presents itself willing or unwilling in every peace created by the physical and mental act of a human directing each element of an art piece. It is something that is in fact absent from all ai images.
Finally someone had the mettle to say it!
Where it gets scary is when AI, the artist, sees you as the outdated tool.
Saying things like "it's coming anyway"
Or "it's inevitable"
Are a self fulfilling prophecies.
I do like the power of AI and it definitely is producing some really ungodly weird dreamlike stuff that fuels the imagination, but the maluse potentiality is terrifying.
I can see artists in the future using AI to create their own explorable virtual universes much like in video games, but I can also see more sensible cultures bombing tf out of your counrty and taking your land while you're preoccupied with occulus headset in a virtual cyperpunk strip club.
Philosophy would need to make a big comeback if that were to be the case because it seems to me that software/machines shouldn't be able to self organize without our initial programmed pushes (drives), due to entropy.
They're not self-fulfilling prophecies; they're factual statements. 10 million people saying banks are going to fail is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
AI will only say you are an outdated tool if that has been programmed into its databank of conversation scripts. Just like telling people it is sentient and has emotions haha
TAY only became a troll because she was taught how to be a troll. It is all about who programs the machines, not the machines themselves. My camera is a machine, it takes the images, but I'm the artist because I choose where to point it and what moment to hit the button.
@@codeXenigma Yes. The ironic thing is that AIs like GPT learned from the content we created. Not only we created uncountable books about how AI will take over the world. But it has been natural for people to say that AI will do those things in the last decades. The Chat Bot is just repeating what we have said for all these years.
We didn't create books about AI making human lives better. So there is no reason for AI to replicate that idea.
Gotta stop watching movies, kiddo. You live in a fantasy world of fear and insanity lmao
Musicians already went through all these worst case scenarios artists are freaking out about. From autotune to Piratebay (whch later became Spotify). Musicians took these tools and used them and moved on with it. Artists could learn a thing or two. Or maybe musicians are too cool.... maybe both.
Yeah.. musicians, specifically instrumental performers, already experienced this phenomenon waaaaaaaaaaaaaay before with vsti. We thought vritual machines will replace real performers, that never happened. I reckon all this will be the same to all the other creative areas.
Artists also evolve and change from the realist paintings in the 1800's to the abstract paintings 1900's
i agree 100%, but you left out the part where we have to talk about the economic impact of all those revolutions, horses to cars, humans to tractos, the internet... who is benefiting from those developments and who is left behind? my fear is that all this AI develpment is accelerating the split between rich and poor.
also i like to use MidJourney, im a designer myself and now i can finally finish all the stuff that i ever imagined, but never was able to finish :D
"Prompt Artists" are already being automated and eliminated from the process. Turns out one of the reasons for making these things available to the public was to collect and utilize the "work" of thousands of "prompt artists" to further automate.
Heres the problem with AI. If you write an extremely elaborated, long prompt - you are placing limitation on your original idea. You are forced to describe in words whats often elusive and not concrete - our rough idea. You are surely aware how loose our ideas are, like dreams that are constantly changing. If you are forced to describe whats not describable - the more words you describe it with, the more limitation you set in place. So the less space for happy accident there is. And result anyways is never what you had in mind originally. Conversely - if you leave too much space for interpretation, make a rough and short prompt - be honest with yourself - how much from the result is yours? I would argue not much. You can just as good push "surprise me" button like that on bing image generator. And see what happens. Because your idea ceased to exist anyways. AI for me is ideas killer. Is limiting your free ideas, forcing them to be described in words. And then it is forcing you to accept what it shows you. Your creative freedom is nearly non existing. You - as an artist and person - are marginalized in the process to the point that I would argue if you are even necessary. Some people are calling AI generators "tools" but in reality these are our replacements.
I agree. Especially since I've found the longer your prompt is, the harder it is for the AI to understand all the aspects of the prompt and it'll just show you an image that meets a few details of the prompt...usually what fits the original idea in the most stereotypical way. The best way to get an image that matches your prompt is to just pick a few details that are most important to you and don't go too far outside the box, because if nothing like that was in it's training set it won't be able to do it. I've also found the images come out just as good if I type in a one word prompt. There's literally no advantage to having an imagination.
15:19 I get your point, but they had internet access since about 1989 and the internet precursors were around 1960, even earlier if you include telex machines or telegraph.
Art can never be automated.
Image creation can, and AI is doing an amazing job at making better and better pictures, but art is an expression of the skills, emotions and mental states of the artist.
AI isn't an artist because it's just producing tons images with slight variations from any prompt, acritically and with no emotion. Who uses AI isn't an artist just like someone who commissions a picture isn't an artist, even if they describe the picture with perfect accuracy.
We should all collectively stop calling what AI makes "Art", because it has only the driest surface level appearence of art, with nothing of what art actually means.
I've always thought "Art is not like a noun, but a verb". Art is a thing we do, not an object we can define. Thank you for understanding the difference.
thats a lot of copium
@@sagnu745 That's a lot of not having an argument
a good percentage of commercial art is going to be low hanging fruit for AI. There are a million McDonalds for every Michelin star restaurant.
@@niallrussell7184 As will happen for every fricking job ever. If even new images can be created by machines, any job can be replaced. That was NEVER the point of my comment.
Art is the pursuit of creative effort. By studying art you first teach your eyes to observe reality in a way you never do during your day to day life. Then you teach your mind to re-elaborate everything you've seen, and lastly you teach your hands to reproduce what you've seen in a way that only you can, something that others can duplicate afterwards, but that will always be completely yours. That's why I think that AI image users are delusional for defining themselves "artists", it just shows that they've never understood what art is and why people create art.
At the end, when every job will have been automated and humanity will be able to live without having to work, people will still do art to express themselves and it will still have more value than whatever perfect looking algorithmic amalgam the AI can mindlessly churn out.
Great take. Honestly you opened my eyes to a few things.
The only ai art is getting better at is insulting whole creation. The worse part is there will always be ai fanboy out there defending it
I am sure not many people will agree with me, but I always think about this: AI was meant to happen. The human mind was meant to create all kinds of tools, including digital tools and AI. In fact, humans are also tools-just the kind with great capacities to serve a higher purpose. Interestingly, everything seems to be aligned with a universe governed by free will. As humans, we have received intellectual capabilities, and our decisions affect other lives, for good or evil. We have been allowed to create whatever we envision because that's part of our programmed nature and essence from the beginning.
In the same way that we have transferred all our created data to a computer algorithm, we are also giving it permission to create on its own. This is meant to happen; otherwise, we might become trapped in an ocean of saturated ideas with no new possibilities for creators.
Now, I believe it’s important to keep in mind who is the tool and who is the creator. As an artist and creator, I know I have the power to improve my artistic workflow by learning to work with AI. I must understand that AI is a tool, not the core of my artistic expression or ownership. It's up to us to decide how to approach AI because it can be either our ally or our enemy.
Perfectly said
Thanks for sharing these thoughts. I'm on the lookout for deep thoughts on AI and our future shaped by it and I wasn't disappointed. As someone who majored in Arts and loves illustration and comics but ended up in software engineering to pay the bills, I'm not scared of AI itself. I do code. I'm impressed with the speed of Midjourney. I even installed Stable Diffusion on my machine and I'm re-learning Python because of it. What I am scared of is the short term effects of AI in the creative industry, leaving thousands of artists out of a job just because, without a plan or savings or knowing how to cope with all of this, not to mention the ensuing mess for art schools and up-and-coming talents. I know you have to keep learning to stay current, but imagine you being said your decades of honing your craft, your artistic vision, now being considered obsolete and worthless... that's a damn huge blow to take. Parodying that famous meme, we could agree AI itself is "chaotic neutral", but how we humans use it against each other may well turn it into "chaotic evil". So yes you're on something here -- a worthy point of view seldom explored in the whole AI hullaballoo. But these other concerns also need to be voiced.
After the last year of AI art I constantly see underdeveloped art, its not getting better, these people have no taste and there is a limit as to how much information you can put in a prompt.
As an artist i'm not afraid of this crap anymore, the vast majority of people now see it as the lowest form of art, adopted by scammers, fraudsters and low effort no imagination tech bro's.
"Art is dead Bro!" Nope, the only thing that's dead is your brain.
what I hate about it is when people post photos of art, sculptures or photography and try and lie and say they created these things themselves and wont disclose its AI Art. This is happening alot on social media and they are gaining lots of followers because people are dooped into believing these people are artists creating all this stuff. They post things like look at this beautiful wood sculpture my son carved with a little boy in the picture and a beautiful wood carving. But when i looked at the picture the little boy had 8 fingers and the wood carving which was an eagle had an extra wing lol . Most people wont notice these things and will get dooped into believing this is a real sculpture a little boy created. If people are gonna use Ai they should at least tell the truth that their creations are AI generations!!!
Disappointed that an actual artist says artists “cannot say what they are doing”. I’m yet to see any AI that resonates unless generated by artists informed by the meaning and pursuit of life. AI can only reflect the prompts… random ay best, intentional at least.
I don't think you're wrong, but the nice thing is that older models with all of their wacky, surreal, unpredictable craziness are not going away. You can still use them or download them. We don't have to lose the early versions!
Stephen Zapata's take is better IMO. If you lay down and do nothing- they will take over, and make you consume a megafeed of art automaticly generated and taylored to your intrests ,what corporations monitor in our social media. Whatever ypu create will drown in a owerwhelming sea of generated content. And if ypu allow them to use all copyrighted data they will constantly rob you of any creative innovations you made in your work without any consequences. That will demolish any motivation artists have to innovate. I think- either ethically sourced AI made on publick domain images or ban it all like human cloning, if we can do it doesnt mean we must.
Both this guy and Zapata SOUND smart, but one has clearly thought it through, and the other is just trying to whip up good news. Keep up the good fight!
if art is just aesthetic things happening that gives you an emotional response, like sunsets or a rainbow in spilled oil, then these programs do art. if arts about a consciousness expressing a state of mind, then computers aren't there yet.
What is consciousness?
i thought this was going to be about how the ai would eventually be scrapping the internet of its own ai generated images, thus regurgitating it's own art, creating ever more recycled vomited art with exponentially more distorted eyes and hands.
Kind of reminds me of all the fan art creators lol... Constantly regurgitating the same characters with alternatingly different inaccurate anatomies 😂😂😂
I love your calm delivery and sensible perspective. Thank you.
So let me get this straight: it's cool to sacrifice jobs of millions of people in XXI century, just like it was perfectly fine in XIX/XX century (tractor reference). Comparing a person with x years of artistic education and experience to a.... physical worker who was pulling a plow or walking behind a horse that was pulling it? Interesting. Very interesting.
It's going to get better. There's no question about that. It's as inevitable as the sunrise. I would even have to say that it will eventually be better than human art. It takes practically zero time to create something, and will eventually create things that a human will never even live long enough to create. AI will eventually go beyond anything in any of our imaginations. You just need to think big, then go bigger, then the truth will surpass that by orders of magnitude. It's crazy stuff. Scary, actually.
absolutely, I can't believe people are so readily accepting these developments. Though, it's not like I feel I have any control over it myself.
I know this was meant to be heartfelt but I just didn't think it was that coherent and I just simply disagreed with a lot of what you were saying. I know what you're generally trying to say though so I took what I could from it.
I feel this. This video is all over the place.
Hands are 100% rule based. 2 months ago the hands bug was fixed with brute force, tons of images of hands, and probably some hand specific coding.
As an illustrator that switched to digital art (apple air 20- procreate) over a year ago I’d say there’s no going back digital art is amazing
This debate sounds more and more like "a few bad eggs ruin it for everyone". How can the ego of so many "traditional" artists be so big as to want to prevent people like me that have been dreaming to make what images are in their head and tried to learn the skills many, many, maaaaaaaany times. Through books, courses, friends, trial and error but all my endevours fell so short of what was in my head. Now I can create this. Not by copying anything. It took me months to overcome many hurdles even in creating my visions with AI. But it has been the most fulfilling process. Even just for myself, without sharing the work or selling it.
So just because there are some bad eggs that download all pictures from a certain artist, train a model and try to copy their style, AI artists are shitty control-z people?
Yeah, okay. You true artists go! I will humbly create for my self and show myself out of the room of true artists.
Not like true art has always JUST been an expression of one's inner self without words. So using my fingers on a keyboard instead of a pen makes all the difference, apparently.
All that control-z stuff sounds like the older generation complaining that our jobs are "too easy" or laugh when we don't work 40h shifts. We young folk have no right to suffer, because we have it so much easier. Sounds familiar? Feels like a similar path of thinking is going on in artists and AI.
It's not a 'few bad eggs', it's just that it's all AI is. AI cannot generate an image without lots and lots of art, and generally that's done through image scraping programs that take everything they can find in an image search and adding it to their databanks. AI can literally only copy anything. I've experimented with it, and the second you try to do anything out of the ordinary with it, it can't do it. It can create an image of a pretty mermaid for you, because it has lots of pretty mermaids in it's databanks. Try to create a scary mermaid with long, sharp teeth and sickly skin? It can't. A human covered it eyes? Sorry, it doesn't have one in it's databanks. A human with an inhuman skin color? Not unless it found another artist who already did it.
It's not that I don't want art to be easy. It's that in order for it to be *your* art and not just a machine creating images mindlessly through an algorithm, you have to have more of a hand in creating it than typing a prompt, often a one word prompt because that's really all that's needed, into a machine and having a pretty picture spat back out at you. If there was tech that could take an image in your head and put it on a screen, I'd consider that art. This isn't art because you only have a vague amount of control of what the algorithm produces.
I’ve been getting interesting responses by not providing a traditional prompt. I close my eyes and let fragments appear in my mind, moods, a piece of a song, the way I felt watching the sunrise that morning, the itchy spot on my arm, the aftertaste of coffee in my mouth. I let my thoughts flow as a stream and use those for communication with AI. The same way I make traditional art, I never know the final piece when I begin. I begin and see at the end.
My favourite thing to do is to prompt without any object. No nouns, no names, no places. Only adjectives and adverbs. The results are fascinating
why exactly is it impossible for an AI to do the thing you said it couldn't?
I don't know why this discussion always ends up being "is it real art" or " is it ok to use pics without consent" or " is ai better"
The important f*in question is what are we going to do with all the people that will loose their jobs? We are on the brink of extinction if we don't answer that question soon enough... Ai will take over almost ALL jobs and that will happen VERY VERY fast once the first agi is here.
This is so much bigger than people imagine
AI art is in such a baby stage, that it is going to take at least a couple of years before it can reliably replace anybody's job... Plenty of time for every artist in these fields they're afraid are going to disappear to learn the tools.
Finally someone who sees the bigger picture.
@@omegablast2002 I'm talking about agi and not just AI art. Also the problem for artists is not that they dont know the tools, but that the supply of artworks basically is infinite now and the demand is not increasing anywhere near the supply wich means their work becomes worthless.
A couple of years is very soon for societal collapse IMO. You need to keep in mind tho that ai technology progresses exponentially. It's gonna come and it will be there basically in an instant.
Politics will have to take some serious measures to avoid mass starvation Around the world. And some countries will 100% not be fast enough.
I can't imagine any other way it could play out and have'nt heard of one either
EXACTLy this.th-cam.com/video/l7Sd7Nf2fdE/w-d-xo.html
Brith rates are already declining. Once AGI really hits, you'll just see generational population decline for a few decades. I don't necessarily think it'll lead to extinction, but in fifty years there will certainly be far fewer young people.
with less artists feeding their unique original art into the "algorithm".. are we just going to end up with just a palette that is just mixed up, and a sickly muddy colour? AI art feeding on it's own AI art.
I get your points but AI is the bigger than all other forms of automation in the sense of how versatile it is. Not only can it create art it can be a lawyer a writer a musician, this is a constantly learning algorithm not much like the TH-cam algorithm. This Ai can not only learn to be perfect it can learn to be imperfect it could learn to recreate someone's style right down to the point it can replicate how the artist key brush strokes.
This can do everything in the art world it can do 2d and 3d it can create life like photographs a tool that can do everything is not like a tool that can one thing. Take photographs for example, can photographs make someone look beautiful even though they're ugly just like how a portrait painter would make an old women look a bit more younger than they are, or, can it take photographs of an imaginative world that doesn't exist? No. It honestly shows the world around it and if you want the photo to look a certain way you will have to go edit it. Can 3D and digital artist create lifelike recreations of the world? No. Just like the portrait painters of old, these digital artists cant recreate a life like image even if they try their best. AI though Ai can learn 100x faster and do anything even recreate life like images.
So, no this isn't some tool that can only do one thing thus will only "replace" one line of work, AI is not just going to replace the set designer it can replace the whole crew and in that way this AI is dangerous. The only jobs that are going to come from this even for the programmers and lawyers and people in other fields prone for replacement are "prompt jobs" where people will sit in front of a screen and prompt the AI to do something, call me a luddite but, that is a bleak world I would never want to be a part of.
So yeah AI can do everything and thus will replace many more jobs than what the digital printer or camera replaced and unlike 3d and digital software this isn't a new way to create nor will it add another means for someone to manually make and compose art all this will do is just make the art for them and there is a difference between someone doing something for you vs someone giving you a new tool to do something you like a bit faster. A prompter is no different than a commissioner they're still asking for someone to make something for them only that a prompter is going to get their art 10x faster.
Also I do see where AI art can be utilised nor am I denying the whole AI art thing since I do genuinely believe there will be some exciting developments in human ingenuity and creativity if AI is used well, key word there being "well". I'm just showing you that AI wont only be able to replicate digital art it could also replicate physical art and other jobs than just art, and that if AI was to replace all means of how we create art today and other fields outside of art it will be a bleak world. I see AI not as the invention of the robotic arm used for manufacturing cars but instead I see it as nuclear energy or the automobile, brand new technologies and discoveries that should be handled with caution lest we come to regret how we recklessly embraced it.
I get your point but that automation was never needed for anything. All in all is just another way for companies to scam money out of consumers by delivering more quantity over quality products.
All in all Writing AI and Art AI only really fit the needs of moronic business owners who can it control how creativity functions so they decided to create a tool that will standardize the quality of what they want to deliver for safe investiment
Exactly, it can goes to a point it reach some kind of singularity
6:05 With GPT-4 around how long do you think these prompt "artists" will last? They'll just as easily get replaced as the system improves and a 5 year old is able to come up with a detailed prompt from a few original words. Besides actual digital artists are the ones able to fix the gross mistakes the AI makes, so yeah these AI prompters will get replaced faaar faster than actual artists lol
I think AI generators are the "CEOs dream" no need to pay for annoying human artists and respect their annoying human rights, just press a button and you have it, so I guess it's the more "mainstream" jobs that are more at risk. Also I've seen a lot of "AI Bros" surprised people still want to learn art and try to discourage them while calling them "obsolete", the thing is these people don't understand art is difficult, time consuming and very expensive, but people does art because they LOVE art, how fulfilling it is and how good it makes you feel, hell I'm not stopping doing art until the day I fucking DIE, art it's one of the most important things in my life, and differently to many people opinions, most clients don't actually care about the process but the results, and now that AI it's being used and abused everywhere it's good to remember that there's a market for "hand made" products and there are also people who follow artists because of the process, not only the product. In the end it's not just the tech, or the tools but to find the right market. Good thing lawsuits are advancing and there are people developing AI protection tools like Glaze (I think that's the apps name)
Errrrgh... there are many things I agree with, as a fellow artist, but many that are.... frustrating.
I'll just lightly touch up on a few things. First:
"But it's also not an accident, 'cause one must SELECT what part of accident you choose to preserve"
...why assume digital artists who use Ctrl-Z do not choose what to leave and what to discard?
After all, we have so many other tools that are much better than CTRL-Z (liquify is king, hehe). Heck, they allow me to easily save a previous version on a new layer and then go on a completely different, wild direction, concerned only with time I can spend on the thing, and not necessarily the expensive paint I have to spend or the state of the surface I create on - and then compare and contrast, pick what I like or decide whether I'd like to make things differently, etc.
"Once the mistake is made, you have to live with it..."
Er... no?
Obviously that depends on tools and techniques chosen, but... erasers existed long before CTRL-Z. And so do opaque paints to paint over mistakes, etc. And if things go really wrong - you chuck it to the bin and pick up new a new sheet of paper or canvas. Like, heck... over-painted mistakes have been found in the works of greatest masters, and so are stories of many of them discarding failed experiments to finally get to the thing they envisioned or liked. Things don't necessarily evolve through happy accidents, but also through careful, thoughtful iteration, or creative freedom that comes from removing different kinds of limitations.
That's not to say that the ease of reversing the process is the same or that I disagree that limitations are often a great driver for creativity - I just find it obnoxious that mistakes and "living with them" appears to be taken to an opposite extreme and almost revered, like it's the only natural path for creative innovation. It simply isn't.
If you like things the way you do, have at it. The good thing about art, particularly modern art - unleashed from old limitations - is that it can come from any direction. So yes, it can also come from tools like AI art generators. Heck, I've had a colleague in art academy that made art out of random game bugs.
But this isn't why people really have issues with AI art.
Second:
"Get in there and get involved. And if you really are worried about it, get on these early platforms (...) and help it curve the arc to what you think it's best"
Welp... we already know that in Midjourney we can create satirical pictures of world leaders... except for Xi Jinping. Because Midjourney CEO caved to the autocratic government.
That's the scary part - AI art generators are not some innocent tools let out into the wild, but expensive toys that are already largely controlled by the rich and powerful. Many of these new AI tools require millions of $ to be ran and maintained. And people who most enthusiastically push AI everywhere are often the very same people WE ALREADY KNOW want to be in full control of our lives.
So, most techbros who shape AI are not particularly interested in the artistic side of it - they are, however, VERY interested in deciding what art is and how much it costs - all in the name of profit, and power that comes with it.
This is why people call a lot of AI art soulless. The experimentation isn't the point, the mistakes aren't earnest and the striving for better AI tools is predominantly focused on it making (quick and easy, or so they think) money for those who will hold the license - even if, ultimately, the AI art will never be good enough, for whatever reason. Techbros want everyone to believe AI art already is/will be just as good or good enough, and they will use their vast resources to try and take up as much space as they can from artists, craftsmen and people who care about the field.
I agree on the chess point. Nobody wants to watch an AI game. People = drama and intrigue. AI will never have that. I created tons of art with stable diffusion and none of it meant anything. Art is more about the person behind it, outside of the purely economic/business realm, and its the person that makes it interesting. For me, it's allowing me to create things I never could have done a year ago.
@6:26 I find this very interesting, could you list a source for this claim? Where was it said that in the old days you weren't your own artist if you didn't make your own tools.
What does artist mean then, given you have a particular definition of it? Did I miss it?
Like I ENJOY MAKING art.
Not generating Images
yes. people whose only passion is creation of art will suffer immensely.
There is one part I disagree with in an otherwise beautifully put video. When he says "100 years ago when the moving pictures emerged.. people said it wouldnt replace theatre.. " there is a fundamental difference in EVERY TECHNOLOGY that EVER CAME BEFORE and A.I - A.I is NOT and i repeat is NOT like anything that has happened before. You see all the incredible innovations and inventions of the PAST have been TOOLS that still require a person to THINK and SHAPE IT his way. For example inventing a CAMERA saved u soo much time from painting, gathering tools etc.. BUT it is still just a TOOL as u STILL need a photographer to decide WHERE TO POINT IT to SHOOT - Even CGI artists STILL need to think "WHAT FACIAL EXPRESSION should i USE NOW in this SCENE that goes with THIS MUSIC to match the EMOTIONAL beat i am trying to portray" all these are cognizant choices in the most abstract form coming from the HUMAN BRAIN - NOWWWWWW a.i on the other hand IS THAT HUMAN BRAIN - it has for the first time ever have the ability to replace the CEREBRAL SOURCE of any given art/task. So now an a.i can literally create every single iteration of facial expression, along with every configuration of music, in every scenario and FLOOD an output of these iterations INSTANTLY - occupying every possibility FATHOMABLE - kind of like multidimensional theory where every possible scenario and thought and action ALL EXISTS EVERYWHERE ALL THE TIME - and its just a matter of YOU being concsious of ONE specific path and following it through.
So now A.I for the first time will FLOOD every possible combination configuration of EVERY ART MEDIUM and therefore ANYTHING that u cod potential even think of will be CREATED ALREADY IN THE OPEN MARKET - leaving you with 0% chance to create anything. and I mean statistically 0% - so even if u thought "oh why not that these so called "outputs" and combine 2 of them in a new way..?" well then if u think like that i means u failed to understand the FIRST STATEMENT saying "it will create ALL CONFIGURATIONS" which INCLUDES that combination u thought was unique..
Do u guys see how A.I is different? bcoz the rate at which it can produce every possible configuration is so fast that i will have nothing to do.. the only thing i can think of is a person who then makes his own personal list of CHOOSING which of these iterations are the best.. thats the only field based on this theory where a human can have some form of unique action
The undo argument is hilarious. Why in the world do you think the ability to correct a mistake slightly faster makes you unable to learn from a mistake? Do you think the undo button also undoes your memory? You realize painters paint over mistakes all the time, right? And erasers exist? And are used constantly? You actually claimed that you can't fix mistakes in oil or with charcoal. I mean...you can choose not to. Maybe you don't realize that you can drop more paint on top of paint? and cover it up? which also can be done in digital too? What in the world is this argument.
Not only is it patently absurd when you think about it, say, more than none at all, (and maybe if you aren't an ideologue already married to your conceptions) it also isn't universal like you imply. Many, many digital artists do not work with layers. Many digital artists do not undo every single line until it is perfect. Many digital artists do not work with hundreds of reference images. The number of layers one makes has little to no bearing on how 'perfect' one can make something, all it does is save time and enable some fancy mathematical effects that would take hours of tedium to produce by hand. They aren't limitless. They don't break down the limitations and stifle creativity. And even if they did, the fact that so many digital artists DON'T use them in the way you describe, yet you still claim digital art is somehow special and has universally stagnated because of the existence of these options, proves that your beef isn't about undo or layers or how digital art having less limitations at all, it's just you trying to justify your bizarre cognitive dissonance about digital art and AI art. And on top of all of it, intentionally limited digital art tools exist in DROVES. Heavypaint. Corel painter. Any Japanese oekaki program which only grants you the ability to make and erase simple lines with an undo history stretching back three actions and without any layers. Microsoft paint. These tools are in many ways MORE LIMITED than many kinds of traditional art. You can't even rotate the canvas in half of them. Yet they are digital. Yet you claim digital allows infinite possibility and perfection that has caused the entire medium to stagnate irreparably because of it. Once again: even if your position wasn't a ridiculous non-sequitur, it is at odds with reality.
On top of that, you entirely don't understand how models generate images and anthropomorphize it to an insane degree, to the point of lying about what is happening. And the internet is an alien technology to people 30 years ago, who if you showed them a smartphone they would think you were a god? Uh, hello? 30 years ago was 1993. Not 1500. The internet already existed, bro, publicly for over a decade, and had been conceived nearly four decades before that. It had immediate and extensive application in academia and military. I had a dial-up line in my home in 1993. I had a desktop tower computer. Computers had already shrunk from the sizes of rooms to the size of portable cubes. Laptops were starting to be announced with satellite internet receivers in them. They would be bamboozled when you told them wireless information exists? GPS is a technology from the 70s. Radio had existed for the better part of a hundred years before. Did you proofread this? And that garbage about how if you can describe what you're doing you aren't making art, don't even get me started. If that's a bar that we can use to preclude things from being art, model-generated art isn't art by your own definition, because we know perfectly well what it's doing and why it's doing it. It can be perfectly described, so to you it should be the LEAST artful thing in existence. Most people become nose-blind to the scent of their own intestines and get bored of it eventually, but it seems like you've made your retirement home up there.
Philosphically speaking your main point is convincing. But why is no top comment talking about the data these AIs are using? I'd say this is the main point of contention: it's trained using art without artists' consent!
This perspective is a little strange. Does this apply to all artforms? Is writing poetry on a laptop not an art because you can backspace?
I think the argument of whether ai art is art is a moot point that comes down to personal opinion, but I also think that saying “control ruins art” is as elitist as the argument otherwise.
“Food for the soul” and “Collective economy” are interesting ways to categorize art. I’d actually agree, and I think the term artist could fit in these categories too.
But I do think you opened my eyes into the “art” of ai and the interesting things it can create. When ai was first introduced I was actually very endeared but it, and didn’t mind having to use it as a tool. I like your point about how the coders or more so artists than the prompters. I’ve actually always believe coders were artists, you had to be creative to problem solve.
My last point is I think it’s unfair to call artists who are upset about this egotists. Within the next 10 years, artists are going to be laid off in massive waves. An already volatile industry is going to set fire. I want to come back to your two categories of art. Some artists are “collective economy” artists that are monetizing a skill. These artists if they can’t adapt will starve.
But overall, very amazing video. Definitely an enjoyable watch as an artist, even though I disagreed with some points and was very skeptic at the beginning. All of this blowing up my final year of university when I majored in animation is alarming, especially when I was set on this career since a child. The skills I’ve been honing my entire life, the education I worked so hard to pay for, it’s like the rug has been pulled from under me. Like what I dedicated my entire life to is suddenly meaningless overnight. I’ll try to be positive about the outcome, though.
Your first point is a bad bad comparison. In painting or drawing there's always a benefit of analog mediums compared to digital since it you can't erase and it forces you to improve, to adapt or to embrace those mistakes. Digital art can be refined until it looks "perfect". You can't compared two different art forms like that when the process of creation is not the same.
I feel the same way. It’s hard to want to continue to create at all when an ai can do it better and faster than me. Makes me feel like I wasted my life dedicated to actually learning the skills “the old fashioned way” when now someone who can’t even draw a stick figure has access to the same skills and/or abilities I could only dream of having, and it makes me feel like I’ve spent my entire life learning art all for nothing.
@@ellenripley4837
Something important to know is that digital art doesn't require you to use ctrl-z. And in fact many digital artists will challenge themselves as a form of practice to not use it. In other words, it's just a tool that is there for you to use to make your time easier when you need it, but isn't something you necessarily have to use.
In other words, you can still learn in the same way. You can still use the same exact process as you would use traditionally. You can still make those mistakes. And I would even argue, even with ctrl-z, you will still make mistakes that you don't notice till later when it's too late to use ctrl-z. You will still learn regardless in a very similar way. All artist will go back and look at their art and see mistakes regardless if they are a traditional artist or digital artist.
This idea that you can keep refining until it's perfect is a load of crap. No artist is perfect, and as such, there is no perfect artwork regardless of how many times you use ctrl-z.
Also, a traditional artist has something that is called an eraser. You use a pencil to sketch things in lightly, and then use an eraser to remove mistakes, and refine it till it gets to a point that it looks the way you want it to look. Then you can go back through to darken the lines up, or paint over it or use it for whatever it is you need it for. Generally speaking if you do the sketch process in this way, any mistakes you make are mistakes you didn't notice, which is the same thing that happens with digital art. Really, there is no difference.
@@loverrlee the art needs to be for you first and foremost. Art has become hyper-commercialized and bereft of its essence, and this is the crest of that reality. An artistic re-calibration is happening. Focus on your art and your communities, both digital and earthbound, and hopefully you’ll feel that your hard work and sacrifice were not in vain,
@@SilvyReacts you can force yourself to stop using Ctrl z in digital as a challenge but that is not the point of digital art. And eraser doesn't remove mistakes when doing watercolor, acrylic or oils. So no, digital and analog are different in that regard.
This video really needed to focus more on that one little statement at the end about "the agenda". Just about every one of the tools and technologies you mentioned led to a greater stranglehold of corporations over people. AI generated content is going to complete that stranglehold even further. Do you really think individual artists can compete with multibillion dollar tech and media companies when it comes to shaping how these systems develop?
Imagine this, you're a comic publisher now and thanks to a time machine you travel back in time and find a caveman doing fantastic drawings on the wall.
So you tell them: "Hey, I can take you with me to my time, where you'll be able to draw stories that get printed and read by thousands of people and you'll be able to go to cons and meet with your fans."
And what do you think that guy would say?:
A) "No way, bruh, that's not how art is supposed to be made. It's meant to be on the walls and seen only by my friends."
B) "Sure man, feels like this could take my drawings to another level. And you say this will be my daily job? Where do I sign up?"
Now, on a more serious note, as a working comicbook artists and aspiring novelist I'm kinda in two minds about it:
1 - Similar to the example above and what you say, this AI thing might take our creations to another level that right now is something unimaginable to us. Just last week I talked to my girlfriend and had this crazy idea: "So with this ChatGPT thing, you know what would be cool? Write a novel, where after each chapter you can go to the website and actually have a converstaion with characters from the book at this exact point in the story. Or even ask ChatGPT to write you an extended version of the chapter or come up with an alternate ending. Or you know what, you could even ask it to make you an animated version of this chapter. And it's your choice if you want it to look like anime or Cartoon Network show." There you have it, my first idea on how in the future I could take writing my novel to a whole different level. And a year ago, I wouldn't even fantasize about something like that.
2 - The more traditional part of me naturally gets anxious about the comicbooks dying in their current form. But I realize that I went through something similar years ago. You see, I always admired inking in comicbook art. Back in the days, it was a common practice. But since digital coloring, many artists just color over pencils, completely removing the need of an inker. But you know what? There are people who still like it, and there are still some comicbooks published that use an inker. I often get complimented actually on my ink work and no one ever said to me "Why do you even do this? It's the most pointless technique today".
My point is, comicbook inking is no longer a requirement. I think it became an art of its own and there are still people who appreciate it and prefer comics done with it. I feel like the same thing is going to happen with AI. It will take over a lot of production, but an audience who appreciates stuff drawn by humans will still be there, creating a niche for creators and publishers to fill. It's similar to the chess example. Even if it can be done better with computer doesn't mean it has to be, and people like to see other people doing cool stuff, honing their crafts and pushing themselves to the limits.
WRONG. he’ll say Ooga booga looga and bonk your head
There used to be many 'choose your adventure' stories, unfortunately, due to the cost of writing so many branching paths, they were too expensive/short.
With ChatGPT, normal stories won't be affected too much (Aside from having tons of quality illustrations), but choose-your-own-stories can have its golden era. With truly massive branching adventures, made easier by the writer only having to supervise the story, instead of writing every word by scratch.
All this is forgetting one thing--
With AI you're not making the art. It's making it for you. It's inherently worse.
@@minixlemonade You're 100% correct. I just tried to write my comment by being realistic. Personally, I'm too big of a comicbook (epsecially it's art) fan to ever see it being done by AI. Like, I'm not spending a dime on this crap.
As an artist, I love drawing and inking too much and see no point in AI doing this instead of me. Like, what would even be the point?
I saw a comment yesterday - "Letting AI do your drawings for you is like taking f**king out of the process of baby making".
I couldn't agree with this more.
The way cave paintings were drawn aka. the art style used, is a testament to how art evolved from that to Michael Angelo to how we make art today. You want to take that away from history?
As for your idea for writing novels and interacting with the characters like a fucking chatbot, you can just do that with your own imagination without an AI if you can daydream scenarios in your head. Alternate endings cheapen stories, also. It's like author can't decide how to officially end their story. If you're a novelist and you do this, that means you haven't properly planned your story.
I make art and still ink my works because it's sometimes tricky to isolate the real line art from scratches and dirt from the paper. I tried getting to draw digitally but I still prefer the feel of pencil and paper. Plus, the physical piece are treasured collectible items for some. You can't do this with AI art because of how easy they are to make.
6:20 There is not a lot of difference between a paintbrush I buy and one I make myself. But if I don't make the AI then how can I control it to the same extent?
I fundamentally disagree with you on many of these points. I'm a composer, and people commission me to write music to their specifications. Those people do not contribute to the music I produce and are not composers themselves. They are sometimes called a producer, sometimes creative developer, but never "composer". The music did not come from them in any way. All they did was tell me to write something of a certain mood, genre, style, etc. Even so, I've actually had someone claim they made the music I'd written, and I had to call them out on it. That person actually said, "you brought exactly what was in my head out into the world", and he thought that meant he wrote the music. He didn't write a single note. The closest thing he did that could be considered creative was go "doot, doot, dah" and move his hips a bit, which didn't at all influence what I wrote. It was the most belittling experience of my career. This is what "prompt artists" are. They request something of a certain mood, genre, style, etc. They are no more responsible for the art that comes out of the algorithms than Mr. Doot Doot Dah. If you want to call AI art a tool, then you must also call ME a tool.
I am also a voice actor. During recording sessions, I make creative choices regarding vocal timbre, acting, pacing, and even improvisation. The directors' involvement in these decisions can range from next-to-nothing, to very hands-on. But no matter how much direction they give me, they can never claim that they are the actor. They will always still be called the director. If people who use AI art generators are called "artists who use tools", then voiceover directors must be called "actors who use tools" (once again, me being the tool).
Not all new tools are equally disruptive. Sure, artists used to have to make their own paint pigments and craft their own brushes, but that didn't have a profound effect on the art itself. If an artists created one painting with pre-built tools, and another with tools they'd built themselves, you'd likely not be able to distinguish between the two. However, everyone can see the difference between cell-animated Simpsons and computer-assisted Simpsons, and it's largely agreed that it wasn't an improvement. Those specific computer tools are working to entirely replace the traditional means of production. Any time a modern cartoon puts extra effort into the tweening for a particular shot (that is, they use humans), audiences celebrate it and say "wow, the animation on that shot was great!" On the other hand, 3-D computer animation doesn't try to replace 2-D animation; like the relationship between painting and photography, 3-D animation is a new type of animation. AI art is more like the tools that changed the way the Simpsons animation looks, working to streamline the creation of known art styles with the intention of replacing humans. And it doesn't stop at visual art. There is AI literature, music, voiceover, software, and more, and it seems it will not stop until it replaces all human creation in an effort to cut costs.
There are things we do to live, and there are things we live to do. It's mostly okay to automate things like food and shelter production, and jobs we don't want to do like factory work, paper-pushing, flipping burgers, or whatever. But we should be cautious when automating the things we live to do, like art. At the rate things are going, AI art will be able to generate itself without prompts, and it will be close on the heels of any new niche art styles that humans create, forever chasing humans out of art. Humans have been doing art since LONG before jobs existed. If we automate it away, we're removing a fundamental part of the human condition.
I really hope I'm just short-sighted, but I'm worried about all things creative.
I do not think you are short sighted at all, I would say the opposite. I am scared that people are not realizing how dehumanizing AI development into creative areas is. Artists will die. Many will kill themselves if they don't starve first. People literally do live to make art. I am disgusted and I am scared. It almost feels that we collectively are losing sight of what it is that is valuable about being a human being, or a living being in any sense.
I was in an artistic slump during the pandemic, my brain just couldn't go there for some reason. Then I started playing with MidJourney. I'm drawing, I'm painting, my creativity has dramatically increased, and due to MJs mistakes I've gotten better at spotting them. There is something about the unexpected. I may have an idea of something in my mind but what it displays could be wildly different which opens my mind to explore further.
Technology has been changing the landscape for centuries. Everytime there's been a change in technology, folks freak out. But unlike other industries (ex: factory work, coal mines, etc.), creatives have an opportunity to use a tool to their advantage. They just have to use their creativity to find it.
People are not worried about art, they are worried about jobs and money.
Very interesting video - has given me much food for thought. I am not an artist but love visiting galleries and generally speaking like stuff like Fuseli, Reynolds, David, Goya, Alma-Tadema and other 18th /19th century artists (as well as classical Greco-Roman art). I mainly come at art as someone interested in history so love all the things modern curators seem to hate and resent hanging on their walls. I personally enjoy playing around with AI art - to me it's a bit like a game just mucking about trying to create the things I like on gallery walls (Diogenes in his Barrel in the style of Gerome which actually already exists as a piece of art but hey fun to compare...) Nothing particularly original about any of it. Is anything I create art? I really don't think so - it is more like pastiche and when its bad a kind of parody! But I do like your idea about the AI making mistakes and in making mistakes working at points of limitation. It has escaped a kind of perfectionism for now I suppose!
I like too your point about conceptual art and its smug sense of self-imortance. As I say I am not an artist but when you mentioned that an artist works at the limits, at the point of uncertainty, mistakes and the reaction to them on the canvas/lump of clay/marble etc. leading to their unique expression of 'art' then I fully see why coneptual art fails. I've always hated it so I have a bias here no doubt. But yes it is thought out entirely before it even exists - it is just a statement nothing more and therefore more in the category of opinion than art. And normally it just reproduces the same dull opinion every curator in the western world seems to share. I blame Duchamp and his accursed urinal.... Anyway great video!
Wouldnt Ctrl Z technically just be an eraser?
What's missing in this unbalanced endorsement of AI/technology is the bell curve principle - it's a positive but only up to a point. There's a lack of critical appreciation I feel of technology's main downside - it makes us lazy. And it often impacts upon the human, sustainable scale Yes we are deluged these days by a glut of content, but it's much of it any good? And yes it makes us lazy. The car has done that. The calculator has done that. TV has done that. It takes away the struggle and thus makes us lazy. Has it made us generally fitter, better at maths or more likely to pick up a book ? This technology is more than just a tool for the artist to use, it's replacing the actual artist himself. What's also missing is a recognition of art as personal expression and whether a machine can truly replicate that, as opposed to industrialising what's already been done but in a horribly synthetic way. This is where I disagree with his wide eyed positivity about it being a "better human artist artist - it may look just like strawberries, have exactly the same texture, but there's something very off about the taste, something alien, I understand the point being made about the remorseless progress of technology but I think that there is in fact something sacred and intrinsically human about personal expression. Art and culture, if there is a definition, are quite different from cans of beans.
This argument is giving an astonishing amount of credit to CNTRL Z. Might as well say we couldn’t be making mistakes because erasers exists. I work in animation and cntrl z is I would say less than 5% of my process and I started late in life with animation and digital media. Erasers and cntrl z isn’t leaned on that heavy…
That's a very narrow perspective you have you can easily go on TH-cam and watch digital artists doing there work and most of them use CTRL Z a lot for tiny mistakes you are not everyone.
@@DavidR1998. yeah tiny mistakes the eraser is used like that for digital and traditional as well tho. How is my perspective narrow? Lol
@@arkanimation9833 This is for non commercial art from what I gather the point is about the over reliance of the safety net that is CTRL-Z that makes a lot of people passive about mistakes and instead of working with that mistake and being out that comfort zone and exploring that path and following pure creation from the heart.
People make a small mistake press a button and carry on like a train stuck on a track which stumps the development of art. Ai diffusion art on the other hand is creation at its purist form starts as pure chaos and make something out of nothing and makes mistakes which is why its more of an artist than a lot of modern artist. Modern art has lost that magic.
@@DavidR1998. Yeah if these companies and CEOs would invest in actual artists instead of a work around they could have more freedom, but when real artists are just asked to draw logos or company stuff they are limited, because they need to turn in the work the client asked for. This is a whole lot of finger wagging but not giving an actual solution. Ok, keep all your failures no one will pay for your work then you starve and people on the internet will tell you to pick yourself up by the bootstraps as the cycle repeats.
@@DavidR1998. you're the one with an extremely narrow understanding of what a "mistake" is. If you think digital artists have it too good because they can undo a wrong line, then your understanding of what art is must be rudimentary and shallow at best.
Same thing for mathematicians. A child in elementary school may think it’s unfair that mathematicians can use calculators when doing work, but they themselves can’t use calculators to do their multiplication worksheets for them. This comes from a fundamental lack of understanding of the subject.
And since the two months this was released. Control Net became available Allowing for Greater control over the pose and even allowing for the fixing of AI hands.
All I can say is from the layman's perspective it's definitely gotten better since this video went out so I don't know how much merit this video actually has. At one point we thought art could never be done by ai, but here we are so underestimating it seems silly.
I can't express just how much joy I feel for finding this video. I'm commenting on my real account to show my respect. I thought this was going to be another cope argument saying AI will become worse technically, but this is a shocking surprise. I finally found an artist who truly understand this situation. I have seen countless artists insulting AI and those who use them, and it's frustrating because their insults are based on a misconception. From their points it's clear that they clearly didn't even bother learning how AI actually works. It's sad to see them insult this amazing marvel of engineering. I'm currently researching AI, and the amount of knowledge, research and code that went into AI is tremendous. People selflessly shared their findings, data and code for free so that humanity can improve. It's just amazing. All that complicated math being implemented in such ingenious ways. It's sad to see people trample on that. Especially since I know that artists can do better than this. I myself have practiced various forms of art. Pencil sketch, vector art, creative writing, wood carving, martial art, piano, electronics, programming. I have also met and worked with various artists. I know very well they can survive if their hearts remain true. Just like how there are people still smithing swords by hand and practicing martial arts, in this age of factories and guns. They don't care that there are machines or other people who can do better than them. They pursue their craft because of the wonders. Just like researchers developing AI. And that will always be valuable. That will never ever change. That will never be beaten. I just hope more artists understand that and find their wonders.
I have no emotional reaction to AI art. I can't find anything to attach to emotionally. I cannot learn anything by watching Ai image. That's also how I recognize an AI image. It leaves me empty.
Knowing that all the fine details were not performed by human hands and by human ingenuity ruins all the magic
I completely loved this video, I think I heve never thought about some of this things, I think you have to approach this video with a very open mind, and I don't agree with all, but appreciate a different perspective.
Compare GAN's from 2017 to art created today with stable diffusion orangemix AOM3 - A2 model and then upscaled 31.25x with gigapixel.
AI art has been on a constant exponential path of improvement and there is not a single reasonable nor objective fact that it is somehow going to get "worse" and as long as there is data [which we already have plenty] there will only be more way to use this data to it's full potential [you already see this with tools like controlnet releasing].
I say this as a computer science major and firm believer in technological innovation.
i’m really happy i found your channel. it’s rare to find such a well produced and thoughtfully made channel with so few subscribers, even as it the internet is continually being split into niches and subcultures. this video brought me a lot of peace as i’m currently studying programming with the hope of going into backend web development and the recent innovations in machine learning have made me anxious and feeling like i’m wasting my time. I know this video is about AI art, but the way you contextualized AI with the internet and other major advances in technology gave me a fresh perspective and is such a big relief. I can’t thank you enough to be honest this video kinda single-handedly renewed my passion for computer science
What a lovely thing to hear, thank you. I wish you all the best with your studies 🙂
art is taking your imagination in your brain and expressing it and unfolding it onto a medium... the difference between a prompt artist is they have no imagination but what's already available... I would take the analogy of, AI art is like McDonald's and Human art is like Mom/Pop burger joint. But AI will only stagnate if it's not being continually trained on new art. I haven't heard anything from the lawsuits pending...
While there is great value in the artist being technical and constrained, I'd argue that art requires a mind to make. Whatever the tools, whatever the systems, art requires sentience and intention. An engineer or doctor can be an artist, a painter or sculptor can be an artist, a dancer or musician can be an artist. We can even have very technical and abstract artists like worldbuilders. A machine, tool, or system can be used by a human to make art. An AI system or the machine itself will never ever be an artist. I'm leery of calling someone who inputs commands into a system an "artist". Someone can be a musician with Garage Band, but I'd be more comfortable calling them a "musician" if they had some idea of what they were doing and knew music theory, and how to play a real instrument. Someone telling an Art AI or a Chat AI to give them a picture or a story with certain features isn't typically constructing something themselves, e.g., adding to the picture or story. They are a client not an artist. And, while the word "art" may be losing meaning in this hellscape, I refuse to use "artist" when "client" is more accurate. Also, you're incorrect about traditional artists not removing mistakes from the their work, but that doesn't really detract from your central claim.
I prefer calling "Ai Art" AI generated Images and Ai Artist to Ai Prompters. It's more fitting.
its normal in evolution,, a steep rise/gain.. then it stumbles because it's going too fast.. then it stabilizes and improves and grows steadily... we are in the stumble phase. I am quite afraid of this interference of AI in ART.. and fear for job losses and other unforseen dangers (copyright infringements, thiefery, and such)
If you draw with pencil and you use eraser, you aren’t a true artist. Only pen is true art because that is permanent on paper or canvas and can’t be erased. That’s your logic with ctrl+z. Thank you.
I chuckled at this, thank you.
It’s the same with all forms of ai in terms of earlier models being more creative and thus more useful in general in the right hands than more trained models that are more limited and inflexible but may be good for certain specific tasks.
What a fantastic, nuanced take on the subject. You explained a lot of what I've been thinking about very succinctly and also quelled a few fears I had. Thank you very much!