Seems to me that the only reason someone would want to use ai for art is that it’s easier and cheaper. For me, art produced for mass consumption and commercial gain never has the same impact.
The future of art lie in AI? It is NOT art so how could that be? AI is not conscious. It takes consciousness to recognize art. And to make it. Marketing liars are all around us and make a living off the gullible, the lazy and insincere. Art is something very different from that. The future of art lies with artists - conscious ones.
It is now quite clear that no industry will be untouched, though I imagine any job that involves very high security risk will go to humans for awhile now. Until there is another Germanwings, of course, and people demand AI oversight.
@@jimharding3639 Yeah, many people seem to think that sort of thing will actually augment and aid creators rather than replacing them. There will need to be someone controlling and supervising the creative AI for many years.
Art is an emotional process, not an end result. Art is one human’s communication of an internal state that transcends the use of words, to another human. We are moved by art because the artist has led us to the place they intended to emote within us. Art at its finest is a spiritual journey about the human experience. Images can be made artificially but art cannot.
If you dont think ai art is art there is no art in nature like mountains trees valleys and so on does something have to think and be alive to be art or is it just a something this is not an opinion this is a question
I have used stable diffusion before and i didn't know who Greg Rutkowski was, but almost everyone used his name while prompting. Later when I found out about him and read Rutkowski's response it felt morally wrong to use his artwork to create similar images without his consent. Problem is that LAION was trained for research purpose and is now being commercially used and this dataset which contains 5B images or more, has scraped pinterest and other places where a lot of artist have put forth their work for public display. And now that all the models are being trained in this dataset, its replicating similar art work to these artists. Tools like textual inversion and dreambooth make it easy for any one to train models in a particular artists images and replicate art that is really close to the original. These artists live on their art work, express themselves through their artwork and honestly if I was in their shoes I would be upset too. It is morally wrong, people should understand their concerns and instead of helping these artist what I have seen in AI art community is toxicity and victim blaming, blaming artists for putting their work out in public and training models on the images of artists who are against AI art. I hope we can see some legal changes made against blatant replication of someone's art work. Also a clean dataset with no images taken without consent of people and artist would help solve copyright issue. Till then I can wait making cultured anime art for myself.
Samething happened to RossDraws... this practice to teach AI is something the public doesnt know. How can we have people understand? Im on the same boat with you. I just dont do digital art anymore and moved back to traditional menthods
@@imberrysandy yes not everyone knows about dreambooth and they also need a beefy system to train, but there are enough tutorials on youtube if they want to learn or use previously trained models. you must have heard about samdoesart, his models are still available in different places. recently midjourney has released nijijourney for manga and anime where they have referenced hundreds of manga artists' names, with midjourney v4 and nijijourney u can just link an image to generate similar art and increase and decrease the effect of that reference image, looking at these trends i dont think ai art community wants to even listen and someone who doesn't want to listen will never understand. And for other people I think what art community is doing is great, there is a great video available at proko regarding this topic, I also think media should stop making ai art fancy and elaborate more on how these models are being trained for art forgery and deepfake porn (which is apparently super easy to make). There is more harm than good people need to understand this.
@@imberrysandy Oh btw midjourney is whole lot messier, in my opinion worse than stable diffusion (because of a difficult entry barrier for getting stable diffusion and diffusion makes shitt hands XD), its clearly robbing commission artists of their jobs. cause its cheaper to pay a big corporate for $10 for like 100 artworks than commission art for higher price and generate art that was probably trained on some of these commission artists work too.
I want art I can touch. Paintings with textured brushstrokes, sculptures with tool marks, textiles with imperfections. Even if AI tricks me by creating something that looks real, my heart will sink the moment I discover its artificial origin.
it depends what a human heart considers to be "art"... for me it is the expression, of my way of seeing and exploring my inner spirit, my heart expressing itself ...
In response to the claim at 5:40 She's dead wrong on that. The name being used in that case, is nothing more than a tag that references learned concepts.. The AI is not taking their original works and "copying" them, it no longer has any access to them, at that stage. And that's IF it even saw them to begin with, as part of training. There's a significant possibility that the AI does NOT need to see an artist's original works, to replicate them. It merely needs to see enough consenting lookalike or copycat artists that have also created works in those styles, or reproduced their own versions of the original artist's art, in order for the AI to recreate close enough approximations that can seem nearly perfect to us. And there's TONS more lookalike art, than original art out there to train on, for it to learn by proxy.
That's not from scratch... The "AI" relies heavily on internet based imagery and visual data that is heavily derived from pre existing material created by thousands of artists without their express permission. It's image recombination software.
Recombination isn't in a shape way or form against the law. Never mind the fact that these artists willingly gave up their work to places they could legally be scraped from. Boohoo. I couldn't feel less sad.
@@edz8659 Right... So the ethical dilemma's dont concern you in anyway? Be that your likeness from an online photo being slapped onto pornography of any variety in the future? Without any consent. Artists dont "Willingly give up their work" They share it on a website, or post it there to build an online portfolio in order to allow employers or clients to gain their services. Websites that are supposed to guarantee copyright protections.
@@Also_sprach_Zarathustra. not really, you don't need to put any effort in using these programs. Maybe thecreators put some efforts in creating those ai, but even in that case it's nothing to be celebrated
This is both interesting and terrifying as a creative person. I constantly have ideas for things that I want to create but don't have the skills, however I don't like the idea of losing the awe of others creativity and skill
Why are you talking about these AI’s like they’re not using every piece of visual data as reference? Including every piece of art available to view online? They’re not making it from scratch they’re building on top of humans creations. Which is completely fine and bloody amazing, this art is great don’t get me wrong! But they’re not just dreaming it up, they’re creating an approximation based on the word inputs and the visual data they have access to.
It's wrong to say that the ai will do this from scratch because they are not they are using already existing images and putting them together to create something new
In that case nothing can be made from scratch, you need to use existing elements to create something new. Makes me think of the quote from Carl Sagan “If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe".
@@benjamindover4337 Yes and no. A painter can look at the real world and paint that AKA "use existing images". But a good painter with knowledge of light, colors, anatomy and other principles of the visual arts can also create designs, poses and styles they've never seen before. An AI cannot rotate a picture of a cow to make a picture of it from behind, if it only has a picture of a cow from the side. An artist aware of animal anatomy can, even if they've never seen a cow's behind in their life.
@@Rettomus Lensa AI takes your photos and creates new ones in new styles and poses even if the AI has never seen you before, because it has learned general human anatomy from its dataset (kind of like how humans learn by seeing the world).
AI “art” isn’t art, point blank. The reason why us artists create art is because we enjoy doing it but if you take the enjoyment out of it with AI, what’s the point. Industry doesn’t care who they attack, by taking away what makes an artist them, only that they make money and etc off it themselves. Just disgusting in its own right, no wonder Russia looks more promising than the US for me
I've been exploring AI tech on my channel and as someone who recently has lost a creative job. It's really got me thinking hard on how this tech is going to displace the whole industry. I'd like to think that even though creative agencies and studios are likely to shrink their workforce, the accessibility will lead to more solo creators/ small studios taking advantage. Money aside, making creative tools more accessible will help more people express themselves and hopefully that's an overall positive for the culture in general.
Why not have AI replace all creativity and all jobs and we can all sit around doing nothing except playing on our phones, hell we wouldn't need spines or legs and just be Obese Slugs .
@Scott Sears There'll definitely be kids in the future creating slug simulator where you can relive your life upto the point you got in the simulator but instead of humans everyone's a slug. The world's going to be a real weird place in the next 100 years. But I think the start of it will be tailored experiences where your media can be anything you can dream of. Want a TV show where you and your family are Marvel superheroes and villains. Just ask it to make it for you. In 10 seconds you'll have a full box set.
@Gulikart- Disegno e Illustrazione That's true but if someone has parkinson's or another disability which makes it difficult to use one. Diffusion in particular allows them to exercise their creative mind without having to worry about their physical limitations.
You point out in the earlier part of the video how AI training and image generation work, and it debunks the claims by the artist interviewed that the technology copies. It doesn't copy when training, it views and learns. That is like saying that opening a website is copying, because it creates a "copy" on the user's end when they do.
Exactly. And it can also learn-by-proxy, by viewing the art of lookalike or "copycat" artists, it can recreate styles and even images (if specifically asked with enough detail), that it never saw the original for.
@@emmeemme2377 Quite frankly, you've fallen for disinformation lies about it, that are obviously nonsense when you think about it. They're the exact same claims made against Photography, when it was invented, history is just repeating itself. Claims that it "doesn't create anything" or that it's non-human or artificial, or just takes a button press, or that it steals work from "real" artists. All were said about photography, and all are laughably now. In reality, it is merely a tool an artist can use to create their art. The intention and effort they put into it, determine that, not you or I. Their experience with and knowledge of art and photography concepts and terminology, determine the skill with which they can create good AI art. They also require skill in descriptive writing, done in a way that best guides the AI and gives the user the most control over what they create. The best AI artists right now, were people who were already artists before, and good prompts can sometimes be whole paragraphs, that took hours of tweaking and failed attempts, just as with any creative endeavor. One can put as little or as much effort into the tool as they want, they can poor their creative decisions into the process and create something that's never existed before. Your comparison is a cruel and ignorant oversimplification, that blindly ignores a ton of context, and if applied to photography and various other forms of digital art, they too shouldn't qualify as art to you, by your definition.
Yes @scottsears4996 artists will no longer be willing to show off or share their works online because they fear that computers AI bots will data mine and steal them.
It's a great opportunity for copy-right law. As everything else it needs to be regulated. To me, it lacks of control, for now this is just a quick way to generate memes.
I prompted michelangelo what came out was trash it can’t do anatomy which most people won’t understand cause now they are all about aesthetics and cuteness.
A.i. by nature is an immitation of an organic entity struggling in itself to extract proper meaning of its own experiences. Art is the confusion of experiences. Art is exploration. And with its essence being artificially manufactured - art is corrupted. So is our understanding.
i love how crypto bros defend those ai programs like "it didn't steal, it uses their style" as if 1: it stole art, that's how the ai is trained 2: copying the style is also an issue, lol
All forms of tool use and skill remain relevant even if new ones come into being. This is why we still practice traditions that are tens of thousands of years old. Computers are a tool and medium. Programs will not substitute human effort and craft but amplify the forms our effort and crafts can take through a new medium.
The artists complaining are kinda making a lot of assumptions and accusations that aren't proven.. They're quick to claim it's mimicking "their" styles, but styles cannot be copyrighted, and countless other human artists draw in very similar styles to theirs.. And some of those lookalike artists WILL consent to being part of the datasets that train these AIs. Actually, that's likely how the AI can already draw certain things, like the famous "afghan girl" image. So many other artists have recreated that image, that the AI never needed to see the original in order to be capable of recreating a similar image that looks just as close to the original as any number of human recreations of it.
Yeah, this is terrible, these programs shouldn't even exist! Their sole purpose is to replace artists so that they can generate images for free and fast
@@emmeemme2377 That's an absurd thing to say. Of course they should exist, they're incredible advancements and very useful tools to have. What do you think the outcome of artificial intelligence is gonna be? The whole goal is to make something as smart as or better than humans.. That automatically includes abilities like art. The problem is, our whole way of thinking, the requirements society places on individuals for their survival, doesn't work in a world of automated intelligence. The very nature of technology is heading in that direction, we cannot stop it, on the short-sighted idea that it will replace people at corporations.. People should be free to do whatever work they find self-fulfilling, and AI will enable a new economic system where that is possible, after a likely shaky transition period.
@@GrumpDog It's not an absurd thing to say, they are already making child books with ai generated images insteado f paying artists, same for book covers. It's not incredible nor advanced, if anything it's recession.
@@emmeemme2377 Who's "they"? Pretty sure the guy that made the children's book, is getting paid for his efforts in creating the piece. It's his work, he assembled it, he chose the story it tells, he prompted the AI for entirely new images depicting exactly what he wanted to depict, then choose which images went into the book and in what order. Whether you like how he did it or not, he IS the creator in that example, an artist in his own way, just as any other.
@@GrumpDog The guy making the book is getting paid by the copies he sold, artists whose stuff has been used did not get paid. He did if effortlessly in a few days he said it himself (and it shows, the girl in the book is deformed) he did not create it, the ai did. Saying he made the book is like saying you cooked when your food arrived with deliveroo... you told a program to do it, stop pretending.
You are just enthralled by how amazingly a piece of art can be generated (through scrapping real arts) within seconds as compared with a real illustrator that requires you to pay and definitely takes time. Man is just fools for new things, in this case, neglecting the fact that it's blatant art theft. AI apologists can fire your slug shots at me, whatever.
I hope not..Although Art & Ai can be good, its a lazy way to use imagination..AI to me means Artificial Imagination. Machines made Man Redundant..now AI is making Mans Brain Redundant. AI is good as long as it doesn`t rule the world for man will become brain dead. So all these companies employing AI artist are basically taking their true imagination away making their brains lazier & lazier. Only companies & programmers who design this are interested in making Big money will promote this to the hilt. Just keep it as it is and lets not go overboard with too much Artificial Tech..Let not leave our great grandchildren without Imagination.
With concept, contemporary and photography (eg: still images), AI is a problem. Even then, AI cannot replicate a collaborative exchange of ideas. And I can't see AI replicating character designs, comics or repeated designs in different images. Yet. There is no way AI will ever get close to graphic design by it's nature.
@@jonatand2045 It's not AI tho, that's the point. It's just a system that's programed to replicated based on finite source of reference on the internet. It doesn't have spatial awareness- just one of several aspects of intelligence used in art. There is no such thing as AI. We haven't the knowledge to create the AI of rat, let alone a creative independance.
@@pitosow6638 No, it's not. You cannot replicate the creative aspects of intelligence, just like I cannot read your mind and guess three-steps ahead what you're going to do. I cannot replace you. Bottom line: it's just not something you can replicate. Ergo: "AI" doesn't exist and will never exist.
The idea of financial adviser aid may seem controversial to some, but according to a recent investopedia survey, demand for financial advisors has increased by over 41.8% since the pandemic, and based on personal experience, I can say with certainty that their skill sets are top-notch. From a sluggish $185K that lacked growth stocks, I raised over $500k in 8 months all credit to Sharon Sue Parker .
I think Hans Christian Andersen addressed this topic already in the fairy tale, The Nightingale. An artificial, mechanical bird made to cheer up the ailing Emperor versus a live Nightingale.
The major problem with AI is that it will distract possible future painters to become them. And as a result, AI which will replace eventually major part of these people, will be just trained on the existing datasets , hence less diversity and no new techniques and styles of those non-born painters. Everything will stagnate and become more homogeneous
I play around with a few ideas that I can draw myself in my own style so that is a lot of fun but I would not really be interested in just prompting and selling. Thats no fun at all.
Artists just needs to agree they’re soon be useless, or they will paint by typing a few words on a computer… As same as calculator men/women who were calculating rockets trajectories now replaced by computers ! For the best ?
Hark! I for one foresee a huge dropping off from online/apps/socials.. I think it has had its time.. Its a bit like the Simpsons halloween ep with the AD monsters... "Just dont look" I Think the generation that are the ipad toddlers of 2012-2022 will be the back to roots, hands on earth, material, tactile, trad 5 sense loving peeps.
Often great artists are horrible a-holes. Guess it comes with the territory - difficult mind and all that. But those a-holes have had interesting lives worth talking about, writing about, making movies about. It takes a person to be an interesting a-hole, a computer simply cannot muster that. Imperfections are interesting. Who is going to write biographies about AI? I think Hans Christian Andersen addressed this topic already in the fairy tale, The Nightingale. An artificial, mechanical bird made to cheer up the ailing Emperor versus a live Nightingale.
I just want to point out that most if not all artists start out by copying other artists. Its how we learn. There isn't such a thing as a unique style anymore. Its all been covered. The most unique you'll get is mashups of different styles but this is all A.I is doing. Its not copying anything. It does not have in its dataset any images from any artist. It just trained on millions of images and now makes them knowing how to make them. Like we do!
Absolutely not, no matter what the computer does, it can not be called art, art is a form of expression, of ones feelings, emotions, of ones soul, machines follow merely a program a set of instructions, what an AI does can not be called art, because it isn't art, it's like calling a banana taped to a wall art, it just isn't
@@jonatand2045 look one thing is someone using a computer/ tool for it, I may not like it, but it still is a person using a tool, but AI art isn't that it's the machine doing everything, that isn't art nour expression
@@JoaoSoares-rs6ec I say it depends on if the result corresponds to what they had in mind. The right prompts are needed for that, it's not only the machine.
@@JoaoSoares-rs6ec Art is very subjective. It is not art to you and it can sometimes be art to me. Perhaps if it was a sentient machine and that inspired its work you would be satisfied.
Seems to me that the only reason someone would want to use ai for art is that it’s easier and cheaper. For me, art produced for mass consumption and commercial gain never has the same impact.
The future of art lie in AI? It is NOT art so how could that be? AI is not conscious. It takes consciousness to recognize art. And to make it. Marketing liars are all around us and make a living off the gullible, the lazy and insincere. Art is something very different from that. The future of art lies with artists - conscious ones.
Many people were thinking a career in creativity would be safe from being taken by tech but I'm not so sure that will continue to be true
It is now quite clear that no industry will be untouched, though I imagine any job that involves very high security risk will go to humans for awhile now. Until there is another Germanwings, of course, and people demand AI oversight.
@@jimharding3639 Yeah, many people seem to think that sort of thing will actually augment and aid creators rather than replacing them. There will need to be someone controlling and supervising the creative AI for many years.
we're in a black mirror episode... one with a bad ending
It is sad that people have surrendered their God given talents to machines. Clicking keys is not the same as actually doing the work.
not even "god given talents" people actually put effort and take years to develop those skills
Art is an emotional process, not an end result.
Art is one human’s communication of an internal state that transcends the use of words, to another human.
We are moved by art because the artist has led us to the place they intended to emote within us.
Art at its finest is a spiritual journey about the human experience.
Images can be made artificially but art cannot.
Shut up dude, Ai ART will take the job to artists
Sadly. I am afraid, only few people understand that.
Copium
If you dont think ai art is art there is no art in nature like mountains trees valleys and so on does something have to think and be alive to be art or is it just a something this is not an opinion this is a question
@@TrapisYT You sound envious of artists. Just an observation.
I have used stable diffusion before and i didn't know who Greg Rutkowski was, but almost everyone used his name while prompting. Later when I found out about him and read Rutkowski's response it felt morally wrong to use his artwork to create similar images without his consent. Problem is that LAION was trained for research purpose and is now being commercially used and this dataset which contains 5B images or more, has scraped pinterest and other places where a lot of artist have put forth their work for public display.
And now that all the models are being trained in this dataset, its replicating similar art work to these artists. Tools like textual inversion and dreambooth make it easy for any one to train models in a particular artists images and replicate art that is really close to the original. These artists live on their art work, express themselves through their artwork and honestly if I was in their shoes I would be upset too. It is morally wrong, people should understand their concerns and instead of helping these artist what I have seen in AI art community is toxicity and victim blaming, blaming artists for putting their work out in public and training models on the images of artists who are against AI art. I hope we can see some legal changes made against blatant replication of someone's art work. Also a clean dataset with no images taken without consent of people and artist would help solve copyright issue. Till then I can wait making cultured anime art for myself.
Samething happened to RossDraws... this practice to teach AI is something the public doesnt know. How can we have people understand? Im on the same boat with you. I just dont do digital art anymore and moved back to traditional menthods
@@imberrysandy yes not everyone knows about dreambooth and they also need a beefy system to train, but there are enough tutorials on youtube if they want to learn or use previously trained models. you must have heard about samdoesart, his models are still available in different places. recently midjourney has released nijijourney for manga and anime where they have referenced hundreds of manga artists' names, with midjourney v4 and nijijourney u can just link an image to generate similar art and increase and decrease the effect of that reference image, looking at these trends i dont think ai art community wants to even listen and someone who doesn't want to listen will never understand. And for other people I think what art community is doing is great, there is a great video available at proko regarding this topic, I also think media should stop making ai art fancy and elaborate more on how these models are being trained for art forgery and deepfake porn (which is apparently super easy to make). There is more harm than good people need to understand this.
@@imberrysandy Oh btw midjourney is whole lot messier, in my opinion worse than stable diffusion (because of a difficult entry barrier for getting stable diffusion and diffusion makes shitt hands XD), its clearly robbing commission artists of their jobs. cause its cheaper to pay a big corporate for $10 for like 100 artworks than commission art for higher price and generate art that was probably trained on some of these commission artists work too.
Neoluddism
This is the first outsider opinion In our favor I read. Thanks Olí!
Fuck that. I’m an artist and I’d be pissed to think a computer can just take my passion
I want art I can touch. Paintings with textured brushstrokes, sculptures with tool marks, textiles with imperfections. Even if AI tricks me by creating something that looks real, my heart will sink the moment I discover its artificial origin.
Great comment!
Ok...I need to test something
Computer. End program.
Nothing? Good, still the real world.
They haven't been created by scratch, they've been scraped and stolen from existing artists.
it depends what a human heart considers to be "art"... for me it is the expression, of my way of seeing and exploring my inner spirit, my heart expressing itself ...
It's not your heart, it's your kidneys.
That is art, it is also why AI done can not be considered art
@@JoaoSoares-rs6ec if you mix AI with humans' you will pick the ones by the AI thinking made by the humans.
Your kidneys will lose
Then a baby crying is also an art, as it an expression of emotion.
@@kavorka8855 if it is AI it's not art in the first place,
In response to the claim at 5:40 She's dead wrong on that. The name being used in that case, is nothing more than a tag that references learned concepts.. The AI is not taking their original works and "copying" them, it no longer has any access to them, at that stage. And that's IF it even saw them to begin with, as part of training. There's a significant possibility that the AI does NOT need to see an artist's original works, to replicate them. It merely needs to see enough consenting lookalike or copycat artists that have also created works in those styles, or reproduced their own versions of the original artist's art, in order for the AI to recreate close enough approximations that can seem nearly perfect to us. And there's TONS more lookalike art, than original art out there to train on, for it to learn by proxy.
That's not from scratch... The "AI" relies heavily on internet based imagery and visual data that is heavily derived from pre existing material created by thousands of artists without their express permission.
It's image recombination software.
Recombination isn't in a shape way or form against the law. Never mind the fact that these artists willingly gave up their work to places they could legally be scraped from. Boohoo. I couldn't feel less sad.
@@edz8659 Right... So the ethical dilemma's dont concern you in anyway? Be that your likeness from an online photo being slapped onto pornography of any variety in the future? Without any consent.
Artists dont "Willingly give up their work" They share it on a website, or post it there to build an online portfolio in order to allow employers or clients to gain their services. Websites that are supposed to guarantee copyright protections.
@@scifiismyjam4387 dude has zero talent, of course he doesn't feel anything.
All art is derived from observation.
@@scifiismyjam4387
The ai doesn't copy their work and doesn't store the images.
These aren't paintings just 2d digital pictures.
Scribes must have been upset like this when the printing press was introduced.
I don't want to celebrate technology, I want to celebrate people's effort.
Technology is people's effort ...
@@Also_sprach_Zarathustra. not really, you don't need to put any effort in using these programs. Maybe thecreators put some efforts in creating those ai, but even in that case it's nothing to be celebrated
The future of art is in people!
Yes, it will; and in a spirit of necessary rebellion.
This is both interesting and terrifying as a creative person. I constantly have ideas for things that I want to create but don't have the skills, however I don't like the idea of losing the awe of others creativity and skill
Why are you talking about these AI’s like they’re not using every piece of visual data as reference? Including every piece of art available to view online? They’re not making it from scratch they’re building on top of humans creations. Which is completely fine and bloody amazing, this art is great don’t get me wrong! But they’re not just dreaming it up, they’re creating an approximation based on the word inputs and the visual data they have access to.
It's wrong to say that the ai will do this from scratch because they are not they are using already existing images and putting them together to create something new
Thats what a painter does too.
In that case nothing can be made from scratch, you need to use existing elements to create something new. Makes me think of the quote from Carl Sagan “If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe".
@@benjamindover4337 Yes and no. A painter can look at the real world and paint that AKA "use existing images". But a good painter with knowledge of light, colors, anatomy and other principles of the visual arts can also create designs, poses and styles they've never seen before.
An AI cannot rotate a picture of a cow to make a picture of it from behind, if it only has a picture of a cow from the side. An artist aware of animal anatomy can, even if they've never seen a cow's behind in their life.
@@Rettomus This might soon change.
@@Rettomus Lensa AI takes your photos and creates new ones in new styles and poses even if the AI has never seen you before, because it has learned general human anatomy from its dataset (kind of like how humans learn by seeing the world).
Perhaps we should stop relying on AI for everything
AI “art” isn’t art, point blank. The reason why us artists create art is because we enjoy doing it but if you take the enjoyment out of it with AI, what’s the point. Industry doesn’t care who they attack, by taking away what makes an artist them, only that they make money and etc off it themselves. Just disgusting in its own right, no wonder Russia looks more promising than the US for me
I've been exploring AI tech on my channel and as someone who recently has lost a creative job. It's really got me thinking hard on how this tech is going to displace the whole industry.
I'd like to think that even though creative agencies and studios are likely to shrink their workforce, the accessibility will lead to more solo creators/ small studios taking advantage.
Money aside, making creative tools more accessible will help more people express themselves and hopefully that's an overall positive for the culture in general.
Why not have AI replace all creativity and all jobs and we can all sit around doing nothing except playing on our phones, hell we wouldn't need spines or legs and just be Obese Slugs .
@Scott Sears There'll definitely be kids in the future creating slug simulator where you can relive your life upto the point you got in the simulator but instead of humans everyone's a slug.
The world's going to be a real weird place in the next 100 years. But I think the start of it will be tailored experiences where your media can be anything you can dream of.
Want a TV show where you and your family are Marvel superheroes and villains.
Just ask it to make it for you. In 10 seconds you'll have a full box set.
@@JCunliffeUK no thanks
A pencil costs cents.
@Gulikart- Disegno e Illustrazione That's true but if someone has parkinson's or another disability which makes it difficult to use one.
Diffusion in particular allows them to exercise their creative mind without having to worry about their physical limitations.
Art is emotional, organic, rely on memories and interactions with minds, interpretation of intentions, language and time...
You point out in the earlier part of the video how AI training and image generation work, and it debunks the claims by the artist interviewed that the technology copies. It doesn't copy when training, it views and learns. That is like saying that opening a website is copying, because it creates a "copy" on the user's end when they do.
Exactly. And it can also learn-by-proxy, by viewing the art of lookalike or "copycat" artists, it can recreate styles and even images (if specifically asked with enough detail), that it never saw the original for.
Except it relies on their art to work, something they never agreed on. This should be illegal
@@emmeemme2377 It actually doesn't. And tools used to create things shouldn't be illegal.
@@GrumpDog It's not creating anything... saying it creates art is like saying deliveroo creates food
@@emmeemme2377 Quite frankly, you've fallen for disinformation lies about it, that are obviously nonsense when you think about it. They're the exact same claims made against Photography, when it was invented, history is just repeating itself. Claims that it "doesn't create anything" or that it's non-human or artificial, or just takes a button press, or that it steals work from "real" artists. All were said about photography, and all are laughably now.
In reality, it is merely a tool an artist can use to create their art. The intention and effort they put into it, determine that, not you or I. Their experience with and knowledge of art and photography concepts and terminology, determine the skill with which they can create good AI art. They also require skill in descriptive writing, done in a way that best guides the AI and gives the user the most control over what they create. The best AI artists right now, were people who were already artists before, and good prompts can sometimes be whole paragraphs, that took hours of tweaking and failed attempts, just as with any creative endeavor. One can put as little or as much effort into the tool as they want, they can poor their creative decisions into the process and create something that's never existed before.
Your comparison is a cruel and ignorant oversimplification, that blindly ignores a ton of context, and if applied to photography and various other forms of digital art, they too shouldn't qualify as art to you, by your definition.
No. No, and stop training these programs
Since it was Artist who brought us out of the Caves, I fear it will be AI that puts us back in.
Yes @scottsears4996 artists will no longer be willing to show off or share their works online because they fear that computers AI bots will data mine and steal them.
Probably how Trump's NFTs were produced.
No.
It's a great opportunity for copy-right law. As everything else it needs to be regulated. To me, it lacks of control, for now this is just a quick way to generate memes.
Give me an original *human* -created Botticelli, Michelangelo, Rembrandt, Van Gogh or Picasso over this stuff any day of the week. 🖼
Sure, gramps, sure.
I prompted michelangelo what came out was trash it can’t do anatomy which most people won’t understand cause now they are all about aesthetics and cuteness.
Ai is not entirely perfect, which is why you also need to learn image editing.
But hand made things are so fantastic .
A.i. by nature is an immitation of an organic entity struggling in itself to extract proper meaning of its own experiences.
Art is the confusion of experiences. Art is exploration. And with its essence being artificially manufactured - art is corrupted. So is our understanding.
A.i. and the future of futility
Viruses; A.I.; V.R./meta-verses;
Collective submission to subliminal conditions.
Thanks…. I don’t know how starving I’m going to be now that computers are coming for my profession….. BIG NO TO AI!!!!
This is a nightmare, what a shameful way to destroy something beautiful like art! Hope these programs will closed and be sued.
So, pictures are NOt from scratch
Why ?
i love how crypto bros defend those ai programs like "it didn't steal, it uses their style" as if 1: it stole art, that's how the ai is trained 2: copying the style is also an issue, lol
No.
If you can't draw you aren't an artist.
No. No it cannot.
All forms of tool use and skill remain relevant even if new ones come into being. This is why we still practice traditions that are tens of thousands of years old. Computers are a tool and medium. Programs will not substitute human effort and craft but amplify the forms our effort and crafts can take through a new medium.
Nope. And stop asking such leading questions with no merit.
Read the title & I can already tell you that the answer is no.
what an insult to art and artists omg
NO
The artists complaining are kinda making a lot of assumptions and accusations that aren't proven.. They're quick to claim it's mimicking "their" styles, but styles cannot be copyrighted, and countless other human artists draw in very similar styles to theirs.. And some of those lookalike artists WILL consent to being part of the datasets that train these AIs. Actually, that's likely how the AI can already draw certain things, like the famous "afghan girl" image. So many other artists have recreated that image, that the AI never needed to see the original in order to be capable of recreating a similar image that looks just as close to the original as any number of human recreations of it.
Yeah, this is terrible, these programs shouldn't even exist! Their sole purpose is to replace artists so that they can generate images for free and fast
@@emmeemme2377 That's an absurd thing to say. Of course they should exist, they're incredible advancements and very useful tools to have. What do you think the outcome of artificial intelligence is gonna be? The whole goal is to make something as smart as or better than humans.. That automatically includes abilities like art.
The problem is, our whole way of thinking, the requirements society places on individuals for their survival, doesn't work in a world of automated intelligence.
The very nature of technology is heading in that direction, we cannot stop it, on the short-sighted idea that it will replace people at corporations.. People should be free to do whatever work they find self-fulfilling, and AI will enable a new economic system where that is possible, after a likely shaky transition period.
@@GrumpDog It's not an absurd thing to say, they are already making child books with ai generated images insteado f paying artists, same for book covers. It's not incredible nor advanced, if anything it's recession.
@@emmeemme2377 Who's "they"? Pretty sure the guy that made the children's book, is getting paid for his efforts in creating the piece. It's his work, he assembled it, he chose the story it tells, he prompted the AI for entirely new images depicting exactly what he wanted to depict, then choose which images went into the book and in what order. Whether you like how he did it or not, he IS the creator in that example, an artist in his own way, just as any other.
@@GrumpDog The guy making the book is getting paid by the copies he sold, artists whose stuff has been used did not get paid. He did if effortlessly in a few days he said it himself (and it shows, the girl in the book is deformed) he did not create it, the ai did. Saying he made the book is like saying you cooked when your food arrived with deliveroo... you told a program to do it, stop pretending.
Click is consistently watchable.
Yes
No
"Some look like clever mashups of existing photos"
Well... They ARE! That's exactly how those systems work.
Merry Christmas everyone
I'm going to buy the Kurds an Oasis CD for Chrimbo, so they don't look back in anger......
Wrong video mate
@@edz8659 Driving home for Christmas would be better, you say?
@@JamesSmith-qs4hx Traidor
@@JamesSmith-qs4hx Oye, te estoy hablando, traidor
@@jeanclaudejunior I'm going to buy the Kurds an Oasis CD for Chrimbo, so they don't look back in anger......
Thanks, I hate it.
Let's support to defeat child labor.
I created a 6th generation jet fighter only a few minutes ago .Looked the part. It had big air intakes.
This is awfully creepy... like... we took one of the best things humans create and found a way to kill it. It's horrible
You are just enthralled by how amazingly a piece of art can be generated (through scrapping real arts) within seconds as compared with a real illustrator that requires you to pay and definitely takes time. Man is just fools for new things, in this case, neglecting the fact that it's blatant art theft. AI apologists can fire your slug shots at me, whatever.
Merry Christmas and Big Hug 💜💚💛❤
This is deeply cursed
Extremely disturbing and worrying that the BBC is pushing AI so hard.
Nice usage of the rainbow pillows.
I hope not..Although Art & Ai can be good, its a lazy way to use imagination..AI to me means Artificial Imagination. Machines made Man Redundant..now AI is making Mans Brain Redundant. AI is good as long as it doesn`t rule the world for man will become brain dead. So all these companies employing AI artist are basically taking their true imagination away making their brains lazier & lazier. Only companies & programmers who design this are interested in making Big money will promote this to the hilt. Just keep it as it is and lets not go overboard with too much Artificial Tech..Let not leave our great grandchildren without Imagination.
With concept, contemporary and photography (eg: still images), AI is a problem. Even then, AI cannot replicate a collaborative exchange of ideas. And I can't see AI replicating character designs, comics or repeated designs in different images. Yet. There is no way AI will ever get close to graphic design by it's nature.
Shouting into the storm
It's just a matter of time.
It will be impossible forever, just like it was impossible for ai to make the images it was asked in the first place.
@@jonatand2045 It's not AI tho, that's the point. It's just a system that's programed to replicated based on finite source of reference on the internet. It doesn't have spatial awareness- just one of several aspects of intelligence used in art. There is no such thing as AI. We haven't the knowledge to create the AI of rat, let alone a creative independance.
@@pitosow6638 No, it's not. You cannot replicate the creative aspects of intelligence, just like I cannot read your mind and guess three-steps ahead what you're going to do. I cannot replace you. Bottom line: it's just not something you can replicate. Ergo: "AI" doesn't exist and will never exist.
That's impressive! I could really use the xpertise of this manager for my dwindling portflio. Who’s the person guiding you?
The idea of financial adviser aid may seem controversial to some, but according to a recent investopedia survey, demand for financial advisors has increased by over 41.8% since the pandemic, and based on personal experience, I can say with certainty that their skill sets are top-notch. From a sluggish $185K that lacked growth stocks, I raised over $500k in 8 months all credit to Sharon Sue Parker .
AI art is amazing. It’s a future, but not the only future.
Hello
it's the bad future
Happy Christmas everyone .
Happy Christmas AI.
Ai may figure out the art style, but it will never figure out the mind of an artist or any other human being.
For now, it is.
I think Hans Christian Andersen addressed this topic already in the fairy tale, The Nightingale. An artificial, mechanical bird made to cheer up the ailing Emperor versus a live Nightingale.
It could also replace ride-sharing app and truck drivers, if the laws and the people allow it
The "good" pictures ARE the weird ones. These are the A.I ones. These are the ones that A.I. does best.
If your using AI, your not the artist.
it's like using deliveroo and say you're a chef
@@emmeemme2377 lol
When you realize that communism and statization is not a bad idea at all to preserve artists and not ai
#allartistslikemearecommunists
I dont care about what's talking about this video except on that 90 second timer that seems to be an old bbc news countdown. A kind of easter egg tho.
The major problem with AI is that it will distract possible future painters to become them. And as a result, AI which will replace eventually major part of these people, will be just trained on the existing datasets , hence less diversity and no new techniques and styles of those non-born painters. Everything will stagnate and become more homogeneous
I looked with great pleasure. thank you!
I play around with a few ideas that I can draw myself in my own style so that is a lot of fun but I would not really be interested in just prompting and selling. Thats no fun at all.
Nope.
could the future of bbc videos possibly not have such clean audio, some people listen on headphones.. its horrid..
Study videos to break stereotypes
Woah!
Ai aren't alive, this I the third AI video this week. It's a load of crap
Learn to work with AI, simple.
what if they like being artists and do art, instead?
I am already bored of it.
I bet you could write a movie script using AI.
Nice
nope, not quite sure what i dont like about the voiceover. its not quite billie eilish asmr, but its definitely too "close"
Artists just needs to agree they’re soon be useless, or they will paint by typing a few words on a computer… As same as calculator men/women who were calculating rockets trajectories now replaced by computers ! For the best ?
except we're talking about art here, an expression of imagination in a beautiful way, and seeing ti being replaced by those programs is awful
could there be a future for ai if bbc has fingers on power button?
I wonder when ai will replace tv presenter
AI can swivel on it.
If you thought Andy Warhol’s artwork was tedious and contrived … Just wait
Hark! I for one foresee a huge dropping off from online/apps/socials.. I think it has had its time.. Its a bit like the Simpsons halloween ep with the AD monsters... "Just dont look" I Think the generation that are the ipad toddlers of 2012-2022 will be the back to roots, hands on earth, material, tactile, trad 5 sense loving peeps.
I ❤️🖤🤍 art 🎭🎨..
Take a good look and check who funds this technology. It's not a law of nature. Copyright is a huge issue here.
so glad there's already a class action against those programs 🙏🙏
Where can I get that globe lamp
Often great artists are horrible a-holes. Guess it comes with the territory - difficult mind and all that. But those a-holes have had interesting lives worth talking about, writing about, making movies about.
It takes a person to be an interesting a-hole, a computer simply cannot muster that. Imperfections are interesting.
Who is going to write biographies about AI?
I think Hans Christian Andersen addressed this topic already in the fairy tale, The Nightingale. An artificial, mechanical bird made to cheer up the ailing Emperor versus a live Nightingale.
I just want to point out that most if not all artists start out by copying other artists. Its how we learn. There isn't such a thing as a unique style anymore. Its all been covered. The most unique you'll get is mashups of different styles but this is all A.I is doing. Its not copying anything. It does not have in its dataset any images from any artist. It just trained on millions of images and now makes them knowing how to make them. Like we do!
no
Thats not art
4:30
Disney Employee that sells NFTs and attacks single users with hate mobs on Twitter. Bad interview partner BBC. Where can one officially complain?
There are many different types of A.I. ... Aishowshand APP is an A.I. learns to read human's hand poses and play simple games..... Enjoy holidays 🎉
Absolutely not, no matter what the computer does, it can not be called art, art is a form of expression, of ones feelings, emotions, of ones soul, machines follow merely a program a set of instructions, what an AI does can not be called art, because it isn't art, it's like calling a banana taped to a wall art, it just isn't
What if that's how the one who uses the tool expreses?
@@jonatand2045 look one thing is someone using a computer/ tool for it, I may not like it, but it still is a person using a tool, but AI art isn't that it's the machine doing everything, that isn't art nour expression
@@JoaoSoares-rs6ec
I say it depends on if the result corresponds to what they had in mind. The right prompts are needed for that, it's not only the machine.
@@jonatand2045 no it's not about the results, it never was, that's not art
@@JoaoSoares-rs6ec
Art is very subjective. It is not art to you and it can sometimes be art to me. Perhaps if it was a sentient machine and that inspired its work you would be satisfied.
It's sec ret
5:16 I hate those pillows, 😒😒😑 why you all like to promote something that is not right for coming generations 😡