i hate how every cool technological innovation has to be followed with "but how are shitty people and business men going to use it fuck everyone". because they will.
A good example for this are Bonsai Trees, I think we can all agree that trees are beautiful but Bonsai tree’s beauty comes from the artistry that goes into it, they are art because of the conscious intent that was put into creating it
This is a great example. If only all art were like bonsai trees, in which skill and humanity mattered most, and those factors couldn't be taken away by a robot.
I'm an illustrator, I do mostly graphite and traditional art, so I feel relatively safe, but this does scare me. I'm already seeing new accounts of AI art that sell prints and sometimes they don't say it's AI unless they are asked, which I think it's pretty dishonest.
"Do not give yourself over to machine men with machine minds and machine hearts." Was supposed to be a figure of speech. Terminally online people who see no value in human interaction, and so see no problem in replacing it with an AI are inhuman to me.
100%. Taking what is becoming a malevolent position of defiantly defending AI art as a direct antagonist to human creative achievement seems fundamentally anti-human to me. Spent my entire life surrounded by such amazing human creativity, that viewpoint is so counter to what I understand that it almost doesn't compute as a possibility.
@@MrArchilus Absolutely - hearing working artistic professionals talk about what it's going to do to the actual creative fields is insanely mentally debilitating. AI art is something that is going to be painted as innocuous, novel, and fun/harmless for 98% of the population to play with, but malevolently-uncreative, resentful middle management at creative companies and likely-psychopathic tech bros are going to use it in the worst ways imaginable. I don't want to be hyperbolic, and this is going to come off that way no matter what, but the more I think about it, AI art is subtly telling people of a specific creative personality and temperament that their existence is obsolete. The tech sector has no problem with this, you're totally right. AI art, movies (scripts), novels, music... It's all around the corner. AI pornography is going to be disastrous to the collective mental health of mankind. I digress. My biggest hope, is that the most influential cultural icons can subtly craft some sort of cultural zeitgeist that paints AI art as being super corny and anti-human, or there's some kind of explosion of contrarians, who previously had no interests in the arts, start learning traditional media. There's probably going to be a bit of a dark age of illustration online here for a while here. Already starting to see a couple of my favorite artists announce that they're done posting their work online. I'm sorry for the manic, tangential wall of text and potentially hot takes, but this has me all riled up haha. Whole situation is pretty goddamn annoying.
@@will4282 Don't apologize, you're completely right. And wow, AI pornography, never even thought of that. That's nightmarish. As if real porn wasn't bad enough. Nothing would be off limits. There'd be a complete detachment between a human a subject of their arousal
I don't want AI to replace high concept art, I want it to be terrible and spit out cursed meme images. It's pretty frustrating to see AI art get refined and try to mimic fancy smanchy art in a souless fasion. I want the G1 AI art that looks like an abien fever dream.
@@wado_ichimonji2311 its not making art you futurinsm pundits. Its replicating it .it has no decision making skill. its just a washing macine of intellectual property. When siri "speaks" its not speaking as much ad imitating / replicating speech. you know that but, will you say "how do you know its not sentient to try to get away with out paying shit ? " yup. For it to make art it needs to be sentient Everyone of you who is sympathetic to ai is either 1.trying profit of not paying artist cause you don't believe artist add any value and are greedy. Or 2. Anthropomorphising a machine cause you have been on tech news that hypes ai too much. I can bet you know nothing about ai research or macine learning other then, tecbro news / videos .I can also bet your source is fucking cgp gray. and i get that you watched blade runner. but oh god please just shut up and stop acting like you are a leading ai researcher and know anything of art. Ai doesn't have its own experience its taking it from old artist ,or what other human artist made; that is it. But it doesnt even understand it as experience cause it doesn't know what it is. This can't even pass the Turing test fuck being sentient. Its just a macine used by greedy aholes who don't want to admit they are greedy. And pin it to futurism.
I’m a computer scientist, I’m taking AI classes right now, and I completely agree with Vaush. AI art is interesting from a technical standpoint, and there are applications I think it’s perfectly reasonable for, but as someone with a rudimentary understanding of how these algorithms and programs work I have to agree that it’s not really art.
@@Dusty2455433 if art is subjective (and of course it is), then the fact of it being produced without the involvement of a subject, but by an automated process, necessarily deems it as not-art
@@Dusty2455433 If something is subjective, then the only thing about it that can matter is what people think and feel about it. It's the very thing that defines it as "subjective".
@@Dusty2455433 Art is subjective, yes, But the definition of art that we have is that It is a form of human self expresión, a computer isn't able to feel so they can't produce real art.
When you draw, YOU draw your art. When you make electronic music, YOU compose your piece. When you do photography, YOU take the photos. ... AI Generator Prompt: Vaush holding Pidgeon for the proletariat
What if you create your own AI art generator and put in your own prompts? Also, how is pushing a button on a camera and letting the camera do all of the work any different than taking time to enter prompts until you get something you like? People will take hundred of photos until they get the one the like. Can I regenerate a hundred times until I get the output I want?
@@asher4268 The difference is a neccessary skillset. Camera won't make a beautiful photo for you. You need to know things like composition, light, angle, focus etc. The point of AI art is that it's accessable to anyone meaning that you need 0 skill to generate good looking image. The fact that you have to polish the prompts to make the images better is only a problem of current limits of that tech. It will keep getting better and be able to do good composition, anatomy, colors and everything else that you'll want.
@@slei4676 You actually don't need to know anything about composition, light, angle, focus, shutter speed, exposure, balance, etc... You assume a photographer has this skillset because you are imagine someone with deep knowledge of their craft. However, cameras have various auto features for focus, balance, color, red eye, and you can even have a grid and level appear for composition. Additionally tools like photoshop have a ton of auto filters and auto corrections. You can give someone that knows nothing about photography a modern camera or phone even and they can take some beautiful photos. Sure they will take plenty more that aren't the best but there will be good ones in there. They may even be more likely to take very unique photos as they are not bound by traditional light, angle, or composition rules.
Is it even possible nowadays to get published and make living from writing in the capitalism dominated world if you want to write something new and creative when the publishers demand to repeat the same crap that is safe for business and sell well?
@Moss imagine the world in a few years when AI will automate all the creative jobs, leaving for us humans the most tedious uncreative and soulcrushing ones like a cashier in McDonald's and stuff.
I write full-time as a career. I've tried at least 4 different writing AIs and none of them work well at all. They need constant prompting, frequently get stuck in loops repeating the same thing over and over. And the amount of time required to keep them on track, I'm better off just writing everything myself. We've got at least 5 more years before writing AI gets to the point of eliminating jobs.
@@ΑρτεμισίαΠλοκαμίδου Yes it's possible. Lots of authors make 6-figures per year self publishing their novels and doing what they love. Think outside the box, stop living in scarcity and blaming lack of initiative on muh capitalism. It's 2022, why do you think we still need publishers, agents, etc?
I'm so glad that Vaush can defend art so well, the only time the youtubers I watch mention art is when they want to hate on modern or abstract art, its annoying and disheartening that they wont even engage with it When I went to art museums I use to just look at the art and never read the commentary or notes that are always next to them because I hate reading, but recently I started reading them all the way through and it makes the experience 10x better, of course the art should be good standing alone, but seeing other peoples interpretations of it makes it more fun and even educational art is communication is such a great way to describe it edit: "The artist derives the greatest satisfaction not from thinking that a painting has succeeded, but when it speaks to someone, when the communication arrives: that is when it has succeeded at a human level." - Wolfgang Lettl, a surrealist painter who I was checking out and had this great quote that reminded me of this!!
Hey thats me too! I had the amazing fortune to be able to visit several well known art museums for school trips and everytime I just got lost in the art. This one time I ended up having a conversation with someone else there for so long I ended up losing track of my group.
"Art is a language, an instrument of knowledge, an instrument of communication." - Jean Dubuffet "Art is a manifestation of emotion, and emotion speaks a language that all may understand." - W. Somerset Maugham "Art is not emotion. Art is the medium in which emotion is expressed." - Nadia Boulanger "Art is the expression of those beauties and emotions that stir the human emotion." - Howard Pyle "A work of art which did not begin in emotion is not art." - Paul Cezanne
I've found that conservatives are the ones who criticize or even denounce modern and abstract art. That kind of stuff is my favorite, actually. I love abstract expressionism, and also, surrealism. Last year, I discovered Yves Tanguy after seeing one of his pieces featured on the cover of a philosophy book.
@@rorybjorkman The robots will take all of our jobs - the missing exposition in Star Trek or The Jetsons must be that good "gay luxury space communism". If we keep a high quality of life alongside technology that has automated lots of our bankable job skills then we'll need income from the government. If the robots are going to take all the work, we need gay luxury space communism or it's all going to go to hell in a hand basket!
If anything this is gonna highlight the bullshit of Meritocracy. "Oh yeah, us directors and producers are disgustingly wealthy because we worked hard enough to achieve our positions." (Crams millions of pre existing scripts/concept arts into a machine without the need to pay a human to write/draw them.)
Meritocracy as a word sounds like it should refer to those of merit being in democratic control of their own directly merited efforts. That which you describe is just capitalism and needs no other word.
I woke up feeling extra nihilistic about AI art this morning. Thought this would help me out; it didn't but I appreciated hearing someone with similar views. There are a surprising number of people who don't understand the problem OR have a vein/malicious view towards artists. "Learn to AI prompt" is the new "learn to code", but about the human-condition instead of people simply losing their jobs. Telling someone who has created art for decades as a means of existing and expression, "you actually used a pencil idiot? learn to prompt bro", is incredibly psychopathic.
Indeed, I just can’t believe there are entire communities dedicated to this on fb, ig, twitter, Reddit, etc, acting as if what they do is completely normal, no one is being hurt, they’re just “artists” using another “tool” In this types of places the more you do with the less effort the more people applaud, some even get excited about promoting entire videogames, movies… I have no words honestly…
I'm baffled at how unlike anything else this is and how it keeps getting compared to photography and it's getting called a "tool" when the reality is absolutely clear that it's a replacement. The fact that this eludes the understanding of so many people is difficult for me to comprehend.
It is a tool. There is a learning curve and also you must know how to determine whether your result is good or not. It is much easier to make art this way, yes. Same as it is much easier to take a photo of something than manually draw it in a hyperrealist way.
@@MyDomesticChiffchaff „It is a tool.” Tools do not create something just because you screamed at them to do it. These AIs do. „here is a learning curve and also you must know how to determine whether your result is good or not.” False. Completely and utterly false. You put a text, and it spits out an image. You do not like it, you tell it to do it again, And so on up until it spits out something you like. If the problem is the text, then you write a slightly different text. „Same as it is much easier to take a photo of something than manually draw it in a hyperrealist way.” The difference is that to make good photos you must actually know things about position, you must have the skill to make the photography at the exact time, etc.
@@MyDomesticChiffchaff Yeah, It's a completely different thing that replaces the other. It's not a tool for artists as much as it's a replacement of artists and a semi-independent generator for some art directors and general consumers. You know what the learning curve of the skill to do something like what the AI gives you looks like? A pretty big learning curve... years-long big. It's not even in the same ballpark or solar system. Photo cameras didn't spit out 20 hyperrealistic paintings of roses by people going " roses, hyperrealistic, 4x3, oils, warm light" and bam! here ya go you big artist! There's a real technical skill to actual photography and a lot of creativity and preparation. AI generators on the other side... If you're not able to draw, paint and create illustrations, that's fine. It's a skill that needs to be learnt and cultivated. It's difficult and complicated but that's another reason why it has value - the experience and expertise.
Vaush is entierely right about this. You don't need to be an artist to realise that the current landscape of algorithm-generated "art" is hurtful to people who's livelyhoods depend on their creative talents.
What’s the meaning of anything if you can be replaced by an Ai robot? Why exist? Why become a basketball player when you can create a robot that throws a perfect shot each time? For us humans, it’s about the meaning. It’s the journey. And companies like midjourney takes the entire journey away. The effort, the emotions it’s all gone and meaningless. And if you can’t connect with it, if it’s your favorite books for a reason, or music or a movie or anything that you find meaning to then I don’t know how you able to live your life day by day without anything you care about at all. What’s the point of it all? I think we need people to start making a genuine conversation about it all and how we handle it, even Elon Musk said that we need regulations on Ai or else people will do stupid things with it and won’t prepare you to transition at all. It’s all about the profit for the few people on top and we should have a say and the option to make the machine to unlearn and opt out if we choose to not be part of it. The right to not participate should be a right.
@@natv6294 why do you guys always talk as if normal human made stuff is going away? AI art doesn’t mean nobody can ever make art again. If people want to do these things in spite of robots that are able to do it then there’s nothing stopping them, and there’s nothing stopping you from consuming their content. Idk why y’all talk as if EVERYTHING needs to have some deeper meaning to enjoy it. You know why I enjoy electronic music? Because it sounds nice and has a catchy beat that I can jam out to. No lyrics, little to no “meaning”, but I and millions upon millions of other people still enjoy it. But if we want to listen to songs with a story and actual meaning, we can too. You need to stop being so dramatic and pretending this is the end of human made art as we know it. If people want to enjoy non-human made things and they do enjoy it, then clearly there is something there to be enjoyed regardless of what you like.
Futurism was the first time I've come across this in the history books, the desire to "rid" the human element of art. You know, the precursor to fascism is futurism.
What I hate is that some people on the internet posting AI art pretend like it's hard. The whole point of AI art is to make it as easy as possible, you literally type what you want to see and wait. It's almost like google search
Indeed and it's not an art form. Art forms have huge amounts books on their complex parts. AI doesn't require that, it just requires knowledge of the layer system and features of the given network, e.g. via a prompt book.
yeah..credit is for the ai who make the art not the human who type it.. idk why its piss me off see ppl post something that they not made and credit it
@@Piemon it's worse when the person who just typed in key words into a AI program go around saying they are an artist - esp when they do it to oil paint portrait artists - oh boy.
Thanks Vaush. Your empathy is appreciated. I seriously can't believe some people have the perspective that art is *only* aesthetic, and has no meaning whatsoever. Wonder if they'd feel the same if their parents were replaced with perfect AI replicas. It's all atoms anyway, right?
@@EllaKarhu sorry Ai does not think for itself. It creates art by using a database of imagery that generates something you put as a code. The database is unethical and corrupted in its core because the way they got the images to look good is by using actual living artists without their consent and without the option to opt out if you wanted to. If you had government regulations and protections about it, I promise you - you wouldn’t been able to get to the imagery it is today and unfortunately no one cares until it gets to field. Can’t wait tillsomeone using it to rip off and profit of a big company like Disney. Also, if it doesn’t have meaning then what’s the point in anything? Let’s just create robots that replace everything and everyone. Maybe we can put a drawing or a picture from a revolution time and create Ai generated outcomes that might even mock it in a way? Is that okay? Technically you can do anything and Ai can probably do it better. And learn faster too. But the difference between us to that is that we put meaning into things and in my opinion - preserving humanity is extremely important. Currently your data is being used without your consent by a big corporation that only cares about profit. And they use it against you to put you out of business, there is no more point of you to exist because Ai can replace you. Right? Are you okay with that? Let’s take your option to consent as well because the law is very slow. It’s one thing to agree that art can be anything, it’s another thing to punish someone like an artist to publish their art online just to be taken advantage off and sale it for 30$ subscription a month for profit. It’s not your place from the beginning to do it and very immoral and if you don’t see that, then def switch to Ai on everything by all means because you definitely can’t connect with your emotions as a human so no reason to give any statements either. The fear for the young generation should be a real concern, and I wish the Ai was solving our environmental issues instead of messing with our society for some capitalism.
one thing worth pointing out is that most artist don't make a living by making "art" art they do it by doing commissions or doing corporate shit. these are absolutely threated by ai .art may be about communication or whatever but sometimes you just need a penguin holding an ice cream cone to market your ice cream shop
@@ThePowerthatbeMedo you mean their full time job? And maybe a lot of people use it as a side hustle but plenty of people work as graphic designers for company’s full time
Do you see the problem now? The current system isn't failing, it's DESIGNED this way... it just took a bit of time to catch up to wealthy nations. This isn't new shit, it's just affecting YOU now, so it's a problem you can't ignore. If the system wasn't built to fuck over other people, and people didn't have to worry about fighting for basic human needs, this wouldn't be a problem. You guys are so worked up about this that you can't separate art as a job and art as a human concept... they're one in the same to you guys. AI isn't going to replace human art, it's just going to end the profiting off it. Nobody's stopping you from becoming the next Bob Ross, you're just not going to make a career out of it anymore. I say it's a good thing. Capitalism, by definition, requires another party to lose. If you're profiting, someone else MUST lose.
As someone who just got into digital art a few months ago, seeing this AI "art" has seriously demotivated me. You verbalized exactly what I thought about this stuff.
That's so sad. Acquiring hard-earned skills like painting, drawing, writing a novel or playing and composing music is valuable in and of itself (and for me as an atheist almost a kind of "spirituality"). If AI discourages people from learning how to make art by themselves -- then all humanity is poorer for it.
@@shrinkhh79 That does sound sad, but that's probably how they felt about photography when it came about... or the printing press, or cars or any major advancement in technology. We can only see the negatives right now but you do have to remember that there will likely be a lot of positive aspects to ai art becoming mainstream. I mean if I had no art skills and suddenly this technology came around that aloud me to accurately visualize my imagination, that'd be pretty cool no? We just have to wait and see what happens.
@@afluffywhitekitty8589 Well, if they (and quite a few others I have heard from) say AI discourages them from learning to make art, it is a negative, isn't it? Also, comparing AI art to photography or the printing press (let alone cars) is a flawed analogy for, at least to me, obvious reasons.
@@afluffywhitekitty8589 The difference with photography is that it didn't require the works from previous mediums of art to function. AI like these are fed with billions artworks from hard working artists without their knowledge or consent. They're taking the work of artists to put them out of a job. Don't compare photography with this blatant copying.
If you asked me this a few years ago I would have guessed that creativity is one of the last things to be automated. Granted, this might not yet be limitless creativity but the result will be similar.
I'm a developer, and the best thing is that this gives me motivation to come after the petite bourgeois, isn't this the objective of the revolution comrade?
you will never be automated out of existence, ever, just like how in the past 100 years when world population skyrockted by 6 billion and you got 6 billion more humans competiting with you, your still around doing art, you havent been pushed out, likewise neither will an AI do so, just make art, nothing is stopping you
@@len3rd376 as a socialist my goal is a world in which nobody has to work, so the concern over an artist not being able to make money is irrelevent to me, if you want to make art, make art, but you shouldnt need to make art to have a living, the eventual goal is to automate everything required for a human to live a comfortable life without working, so that everyone is provided for, for free
As someone who has already had their art stolen, the ability of AI art to be used for art theft is terrifying. And just how much it would affect the media we consume. The arts are so important to me, and the idea of having all of the humanity taken away from it, it’s heartbreaking and depressing
So was the copy and save button. Human art will continue to exist has as long as there not able to make perfect replica of yourself which would open a whole new can of worm.
@@anonymouslee2061 dude I know that’s literally how my art was stolen. But what vaush described is like another form of art theft that in some ways seems a bit more sinister. Using your art to create art exactly in your style that you haven’t created yet? That’s scary, man
You still made that art. No person or machine can take that unique experience away from you. Art as a career path may be reaching a tipping point, but the relationship between you and your creation is undeniable. Even if it is never seen or appreciated by anyone but yourself! Happy painting :)
It's only because of capitalism that we have to worry about this. AI art is a really cool tool, and can create really good art, but only because of the beautiful human culture that created it, and the humans who use it to their ends
I agree. If we had socialism and no profit motive then AI art wouldn’t be a problem. People value authenticity, communication and intentionality in art, so art made by actual artists would still be valued much more highly.
I normally lean in favor of capitalism (modulo the current corruption issues), but I can't help but agree -- it's ridiculous to have to suggest holding back innovation in order to ensure there's enough work for everyone. The idea of not having enough work being a problem is itself absurd. There's no reason to be upset with AI. Human expression will always continue. Instead, society needs to be changed to support people who have lost work to technology.
@@xkozyTV imagine a perfect world, everything is automated and done by robots why tf would there be a profit motive? plz think about the things u say, the point of communism is to have no profit motive
i agree. it should represent a cool but niche tool for people who only need something vaguely similar to what they want, a way of generating interesting images based on freely available source material. instead, the danger lies in the takeover of the already narrow niche that artists occupy under a capitalist system, where it can ruin the livelihoods of many. perhaps there are still issues to be had with the idea behind it even without the issue of job destruction, but that remains the most salient one.
thanks for finally putting my feelings into words more specifically and articulately than i ever could. the guy who entered the art competition with the ai art has been bothering me all week. i can't help but think about this person i watched for *weeks* on tiktok, putting painstaking effort into this gorgeous painting of a duck for the duck stamp contest, and how the entire time they kept reiterating that they were just hoping to get through the first round of voting with a certain number of votes because the competition is so fierce with so many amazing artists putting in just as much time, effort and literal blood, sweat, and tears into their duck paintings. like i keep thinking about that guy with the ai art that won that competition, and thinking about this stupid duck stamp postal service competition and yeah. if i put the kind of time and love and attention into every teeny tiny detail and some jackass who couldn't even paint a stick figure fed a picture of every duck painting that's ever won the competition into a computer, entered, and *beat me*, i would be fucking pissed. i can't draw worth a damn. i admire people who can a lot, and i think it's so cool that people are able to actually put thoughts to images like that. to see people minimize the work that artists do because they cream their pants over technology just because it's new and shiny just makes me sad. there's a skillset in making an algorithm that can generate pictures that look cool as shit. i wouldn't be able to do that either. but comparing those skills to the skills of an artist is insane. they're totally different things.
Yeah the difference being the ability to create basic art is fucking easy. 80% of artists aren't super talented. The people writing up code for AI are some of the smartest people living on earth.
@@shmig_ key word: basic. we're not talking about stuff like that cold, flat corporate clipart. i couldn't care less if we have ai making that. the people making could and SHOULD be doing way better stuff with their time. we're talking about stuff that people actually put time and energy into and has an actual soul. stuff that you would enter into a competition or sell to collectors. literally nobody is complaining if ai is making basic art that nobody bats an eye at. you *cannot* compare artists to programmers without sounding like you don't understand one thing or the other. also, art is entirely subjective. whats considered basic to you could be a priceless masterpiece to someone else. something that a 3 year old scribbles in 60 seconds could sell for hundreds of thousands if you told someone it was an original picasso. personally, i think a lot of classic art in museums is "basic" and boring. my favorite artists are all "amateur" artists drawing fucked up blobby frogs and minecraft fanart. most people disagree. its fine. but i don't want programmers stealing any of it to feed to a soulless computer to churn out copies regardless because it devalues all of it.
There was no need for you to call the dude a jackass imo I see the fact that the person won as an impressive feat of innovation Mankind was able to create a machine that was good enough to mimic what an artist can create is a pretty big leap in ai technology just remember that there was a person behind the ai that created the image and he had to give all the prompts to create the image so creativity still derives from the person which is understandable since ai is just an extension of the human mind if you really think about it
@@chakramx317 ok, but most of the time the people writing the ai scripts are stealing other people's art. that's jackass behavior. if someone wants to write a script and put art that they made into it, be my guest. i don't care. my main problem is with the art theft. my second problem is with people trying and making huge leaps of logic to compare the skillset of an artist with that of a programmer. it just shows a lack of understanding of both art and programming. also, the jackass in question was in a hypothetical scenario, since as far as i know, nobody has tried to enter ai generated art into the us fish and wildlife duck stamp content. however, anyone who *does* enter ai art into a competition for art created by human hand is acting deceptively, and is therefore, a bad person. imo.
@@axelotls_ Still the people who made the ai have no malicious intent on “stealing” peoples art the programmers simply created it on the basis of curiosity and ai advancement just because the process of creating an ai image means going through potentially hundreds and thousands of pre existing art to make something original and fits the criteria doesn’t necessarily mean the people behind the ai are jackasses by any mean the process could be considered questionable at best but the intention was to get a machine to create an image on its own and based on current technology I think they succeeded on that part they shouldn’t be compared to original artists since programmers and artists are two completely separate things which I am at fault for poorly conveying and there is no denying people will use this to do wrong doings like a real jackass like entering it into an art competition to get a advantage since its not fair on the artists that partake but that happens all the time when new innovative things come and go there is no denying ai art does and will have a place in the online landscape
I remember being in TH-cam chat for this stream and being legitimately triggered by some of the responses I was seeing from people. I've never really been good at anything in my life. I've always felt like kind of a failure, as if I were a disappointment to my family and my mentors. C student, never accomplished anything award-worthy, etc. The only thing I've ever been marginally good at is music. So you can imagine my utter joy upon finding my niche: jazz improvisation. Over the past couple years, I've gotten much better at it. Listening to chord changes and playing improvised lines over them has become more intuitive with time, and it's noticable. I've gotten lots of compliments from people on how I sound, which is something I would not have ever imagined happening when I was a depressed high school student. And the idea of someone lazily plugging shit into an algorithm and pressing the "render" button until they get something that sounds good perturbs me on a deeply personal level. It's just so fucking soul-crushing that I could spend so much time developing a skill and putting thought into the things I create, only to be made obsolete by some fucking dipshit thoughtlessly putting numbers into a fucking black box and spitting out something that sounds identical to what a human would have written. And I know that people are going to interpret this as a whiny asshole shaking his fist at the sky, but I think it's genuinely astonishing how many people in chat seemed to be either incapable or unwilling to understand why this kind of thing is deeply disturbing to people who have built their livelihoods around artistic pursuits.
Yep. It's really sad you were lied to or that people were wrong when they said AI couldn't do art. You just need to accept, they you are a unique and special snowflake. Exactly like everyone else, and therefore don't stand out unless you excel and this niche now has electronic competition. It's ok to feel depressed about that, we weren't designed to live in a world of billions.
I as an illustration artist agree with you.... its very disheartening to imagine losing a competion to a machine, and those machines are very good at color and visual compositition already, better than me in many cases, they just lack in lineart and detail as of now. But its just times changing, the chess grandmaster who first got beaten consistently by that chess computer must have felt the same way. Artifically limiting the progression of technology just to not hurt peoples feelings would be worse. We have to adapt and maybe we can find a way to use it as an artists tool. If you only make art to sell, compete or get praise, you are not a real artist in my eyes anyway, it should be about expressing yourself. Maybe someday we cant monetitze our art but nobody can take the act of creating art and our unique expression from us. Of course thats a very idealistic personal view, dont know if i explained it in a way anyone can relate. My personal more pragmatic cope is that this stuff will maybe make handmade art more valuable, like with handcrafted furniture etc, because there will always be many people sentimental & idealistic enough to value the human element, effort and imperfections in a piece, even if AI someday will objectivly produce better results.
Im 100% with you in all of this and horrified at how little people value art and how they seem not able to grasp the arguments being made by Vaush, also while being such confident smug a**holes about it (while they miss the points being made) which makes it worse, also how they go out of their way to bash the people most affected about it too This is basically how a lot of people are going about it rn (while also disregarding what goes into art itself, even digital art, that is lost in AI regurtitations of stolen art): "Though luck, all those people in your life were right and you should have not pursued your dream career, now you are severely set back in life at best and completely fucked at worst, should have kept it as a hobby while you pursue that law degree" It is all really sad and disturbing tbh.
@@erikvale3194 the importance of a skill is on society to decide. the only reason you are saying what you are is cause you lack exposure to art. Maths is only important cause the upperclass benefits from it they don’t want to get rid of the lower class if they did who are they going to rule over. So some people can be special snowflakes in this world I guess as long as it benefits you know who. Also if you are not so special then why not dive of a cliff there are so many like you anyways. But you won’t do it cause I know deep down you don’t believe that.
@@heyy1829 "If you only make art to sell, compete or get praise, you are not a real artist in my eyes anyway, it should be about expressing yourself." So what, the artists of the Renaissance weren't real artists? It was only through commission work that they were even able to secure the time and resources to pursue their craft. They hold the incredible, singular distinction of presenting a high watermark in an extant field that we haven't been able to exceed for centuries despite our advanced knowledge and materials- it isn't practical to reach that level anymore because photography subsumed the need for photorealism. It reduced the time artists are permitted to work on a single piece from months to weeks, and each subsequent advancement shrinks the window further. When your intellectual pursuit is also your means of survival, you do approach it more seriously. Granted I question whether our best art should even exist if it were only made possible through labor exploitation, but the world was generally a richer place for it. There aren't many artists who don't wish they could just work on their own original content and get paid for it. Commercial work is the compromise. That you can't interpret someone else's idea in a commercial context and still call it individual expression is absurd. If we don't have jobs for artists, we're simply going to have far fewer artists. Ironically this puts a hard cap on how far AI art can even take us when there's going to be far less original artwork to train the models with.
It's frustrating, because I absolutely agree that this is different from the panics of past innovations, that it crucially removes the human element of creation that was always still present in the past. But I also know there's nothing that can really stop this, which makes it extra horrifying.
@@claymusicoff5663 that's programming, it isn't present in the actual creation of the art. they give it the starting algorithmic parameters to learn from and build off of, but after that the black box takes over and begins interpreting. and then eventually ai will be programming other ai and we'll really be screwed. there's no gotcha here, op and vaush are correct.
@@claymusicoff5663 Indeed. A person programming and manually editing the AI’s structure and commands will conceive something far more cohesive than an average joe typing in a sentence into a website. AI has a lot of fantastic applications within art I say. I understand where these artists are coming from but the aspect of “AI art becoming indistinguishable from human art with minimal human interaction” is quite speculative. The largest and ugliest problem is part of the larger socio-economic one where capitalism could sue AI as an excuse to further underpay and mistreat artists whilst ignoring the deeper aspects of it
@@ttt5205 well that’s not quite the argument of this particular comment. And no. There are negative aspects about the tool that are highlighted due to our economy. But in actuality it’s a great tool if used in different ways. Even copying peoples art style would require the programmer to not only choose the right words and bank to sample from, but the optimal program. The pick the out of the pictures it generates to the one that best fits what you’re thinking of in your head. Now this process could be quick and cash grabby. But it can also be truly artistic if used in a thoughtful manor. Like literally all art
2:20 as an example all officers in the Royal Navy had art classes so they could draw formations and the quality they get them too is quite impressive for just sketches.
This shit is genuinely scary for me. I'm a concept artist/illustrator working at an art outsourcing studio. Ai can literally do the majority of my entire day's worth of work in seconds. I really don't know digital creatives are going to have jobs in the near future Edit: "ai art will never replace other kinds of art" that is unfortunately where you're wrong.
I feel for y’all. I was going to commission art for my game (D&D) room, to the tune of many dollars. Not something personal, either, just cool unique art to fill the space. This changes so much for me, and I imagine for many members of the public.
@12 34 As an accountant, Excel is saves so much time, but we downsized and have to accomplish more. Never assume management will save workers time and let them keep it.
I think AI could do plenty of good, but the interests that arise in a capitalist society turn it into a net-negative. That's what it's like with plenty of different tech. Capitalist interests alienate and the more powerful our tools become, the better it is at creating alienation.
You’re completely right about the AI art, especially most of Vaush’s (correct) concerns revolve around corporate and professional art unique to a capitalist society, but he also brought up broader applications such as deepfakes and voice/personality simulators, which do not need a profit motive to fuck over human society. I think we really need to have a society wide conversation about these things, but that will never happen with the current system anyway, so we are back to square one, do the revolution, again.
I think a key thing is art education being very poor at least in America. You need buyers still, and with an uneducated population, you can easily dupe them with ai art.
something I can agree with vaush on. It's sucks as I'm someone who is just starting out and I see this shit winning a state art contest... It's just makes you ask yourself "why even try?" You've got competition that is essentially free and will over take you in learning ability and how fast I can work. I have a friend that is a coding nerd and has made is own AI when dabbling and he tells me I have nothing to worry about meanwhile AI turns around and proves him wrong. This isn't even just art either, I am in a band with my friends and you got the ai coders actively trying to replace music as well. I also hate how they tell everyone to their faces that their using it as a tool and then turn around and use it as a replacement. not only do they see art as entertainment and a spectacle to be consumed like vaush said but they also see it as product to be mass produced for the sake of consumption which goes the completely against art as a whole
I literally just saw a post about this by one of my favorite authors. I'm generally a very pro-automation person, but art "automation" looks lile digital art, drawing programs, etc. Things that allow the artist to express further creativity. AI art is not automation, it's depersonalization. It's cheapening a creative field so companies can make a quick buck.
Tbh I'm not even sure these bots were created just for profit. Given they have copyright issues and are openly usable and sometimes the code is even openly usable, it looks more like what the generally good online scene does (free modders, pirates, ...)
@@faarsight Because artwork is created via creative vision as a means to communicate emotion and themes, and enriches/defines different human cultures. Taxis and doctors are an objective means to accomplish something for physical human betterment.
@@boldandbrash1990 I quite sure that's baseless, art is more of a style informed by the culture consumed. Artists always reference this or that like a salesman, but in the end it's a picture. The thing is: AI was believed to not be capable of creativity (and I believed that myself) but these art AIs shine a new light on how the creative process might work. Humans too copy all sorts of stuff and we tend to idolize those (like Lovecraft) that come up with something unique. While AIs are not there yet, what is possible is already remarkable.
@@h4xorzist Essentially, AI generated art are composites of pre-existing are being fed into a machine. There is no theme. There is no creative vision. Philosophy Tube recently created an excellent video about art and art interpret that I think effectively conveys why it is important that art has an intelligent designer. Art is so much more than "pretty picture". Part of what makes art culturally relevant or even good is the meaning behind it, often nebulous and open-ended which makes interpretstion conversations so interesting. But if an AI generated it? There's no point even interpretting. It wasn't created for any reason other than the machine took in a bunch of samples and did what the code told it to do. And there is far more to making art good rather than making it marketable or making it appeal to the masses. I am pro automation, but I hate this muskrat technological fetishism where any automation ever in a capitalist society is always a good thing.
The more AI advances, the more it will hinder the capital gain of creative jobs. Artists will earn less money now that there are free automated alternatives. But also, creativity should not be valued in terms of capital gain. AI is not the problem, capitalism is, and as our tech increases, we will reach a point in which capitalism will have to fight more and more to justify itself from inevitable obsolescence.
Sick and tired of leftists waving problems off because "If we didn't live in capitalism, it wouldn't be a problem" Well, we DO live in Capitalism and we will continue living in it foreseeable future. So excuse people wanting to have a remotely pleasurable life, not soul crushing nightmare that's all about mustering the willpower to finally slit your wrists and end it
Super interesting discussion! I love your take, though I do have some disagreements. I think A.I. art might be threatening to illustrations, but not to art (at least not fine art). I'd love to expand on that one day, either with you or in my own video. Also, as to the real art vs reproductions debate, I made a video on that with a political twist through the lens of the socialist art critic John Berger. I'm sure you might find it interesting.
I think it'll at least push wages down. The AI doesn't need to match the quality of a skilled artist - but it can serve to assist a less-skilled artist. Why pay top-dollar for an experienced and talented illustrator when you can hire someone fresh out of college with some basic skill and let them use AI to augment their abilities? The artist produces a 'meh' sketch, the AI turns it into a professional-quality artwork with a few flaws, and the artist does some touch-up work on the details.
AI art is awesome in a vacuum, a tool to be used. However in our capitalistic reality it just means less money for artists, more stress on professional artists that managed to keep their jobs just making art. Like every new feat of technological innovation, all the added value will be usurped by those up top. We gotta get UBI and make it reflect the standard of living technology should afford us.
9:29 as someone who has drawn from life in nature and also taken photographs, I can say that as a "photographer" you must engage with your "scene" holistically, the subject of your photo cannot be treated as separate from everything else in the photo. You need to consider background elements and how you want them positioned in the final image when considering what angle and distance from the subject you take the photo, and foreground elements require the same care and consideration. If you want separation via blur (bokeh), you need to adjust everything including the physical apparatus of the camera itself, and such a decision could dictate the very time of day that you would need to take the photo. An "artist" on the other hand, tasked with depicting a specific type of flower to be shown in a textbook, merely has to draw the flower, the garden be damned.
I am noticing that people who fight for art know and understand the importance of the living being who created said art. Those who stand by a.i. art are those who keep saying "why pay the artist when you can make it yourself?" Without even realizing they didn't even make it themselves. People fighting to keep art to the artist worry about keeping creativity alive while those who fight for a.i. art, they keep talking about money. I understand, artist who make money have learned how to commercialise their craft, but each artist has spent years discovering their style. In a sense, art is a manifestation of what is within. Who you are, the depths of your mind, your very being is put into what you make. Even if it is something so minor, it holds the essence of the person. A.i. art... it looks good, but it's not about always about looking good. We have art history classes discussing why the artist did what they did. What was going on in their head, what was happening to their life, a great way to see what is happening in history is to look at the artists of the time. With a.i. it might be lost completely. At some point when do we lose our humanity?
Okay... but this could be said of any profession. The shoe cobbler, the suit maker, the dress maker, the sewer, the baker. If a machine can do it better for less money, well, that's that. I'm not saying it doesn't suck for such individuals, it does, but that's life. I don't think it'd matter in the end, but maybe some kind of consumer law saying if it was created by an AI over a human.
@@verager2493 I mean, yeah. Whats the counter argument... people should pay more for art because... humanity. Okay. It's a nice thought, but at the same time a misunderstanding of humanity. Walmarts are a thing, mcdonalds are a thing, sweat shops are a thing. We don't much give a shit about fellow humans, period. The idea we're going to care more about fellow humans because robots can do art faster and at less cost... it's ridiculous. Again, I'm not saying it doesn't suck. I'm just saying its fighting battle that can't be won.
As a working artist with plenty of worried concept art buddies: thank you, you did a good job summing this one up, with a nice little coat of art philosophy on the side.
Ntf where never beneficial for artist tho it only did harm. It was ment as a way for artist to get paied. But turned into people stealing others art and posting it as there own on nft sites to make profit. Even ai was ment as tool to help artist but ... Now here we are
Even more reason why we need advocate for ubi. With one people's livelihoods wouldn't be at risk and they can do what they love even if ai can do it better and not have to worry. All we would need to do is tax the companies that are using ai instead of humans and do a vat tax and then we could fund a ubi. Both would be super easy to do.
I agree in having a UBI in the face of automation but the concerns in this case aren’t just economic, it’s also about human communication and alienation.
@@Rainofskulz true thats only because we tie our worth so much to capitalism. It makes you feel worthless if you cant use it to be productive. With ubi you can do it just cuz you want to and if someone likes the art/product its just a plus but not a necessity. Even without ai you dont just stop doing what you love cuz other humans can do it better then you.
As someone who frequently visited artstation and other websites to watch artwork for inspiration; I now just wonder which one is generated and which one isn't. Websites are being flooded by ai art, It's going to be increasingly difficult to find gold now. Save as much art as you can, it's going to disappear because of fear of being exploited and used in training sets. This is so sad
@@ConsciusVeritasVids you’d have to question why we value anything. But I suspect your anger comes from a place of jealousy and isn’t going to be open. Art is free and open for everyone, it just takes commitment, which so many people lack today unfortunately . Wish you the best.
At my writers co-op one of the members did a PowerPoint presentation about how “good” A.I was for writing stories and art. He was highly dismissive of any criticism and claimed that anyone criticizing ChatGBT simply hadn’t used it yet. When I told him that A.I couldn’t write a complex story that touched on basic human emotions he smiled and dismissed my concerns as nothing substantial, I wanted to honestly vomit.
Have a room mate really into AI art right now, talking at me about it all the time while I am at my desk painting or drawing some story boards or other such, and he doesn't seem to get how offensive that really is. He seems to not even agree with the idea of the dehumanization and theft of creativity because to him the human brain is just an algorithm, so these AI's are no different than say me being inspired by Don Bluth. It just stuns me though how these people so utterly lack tact to basically give me a verbal slap to the face as I work and be like "What I don't get why this upsets you"
Here are some arguments you should try: 1. Explain how it improves their understanding of various topics. 2. Explain how making something your shelf can be more engaging and a greater source of pride then letting an AI do it for you. 3. How human made art is more impressive and can result in actual success for you 4. How it can help them inspire others to follow their dreams and be better persons. 5. How it can be a fun hobby.
I would say that it’s a time to learn and paint so they can resist and share their feelings and statements about it that Ai will never be able to make, because it’s just an algorithm and didn’t went through life like us. Yes you can code it to do anything, but what’s the point of anything or anyone anymore if we can just replace it with a robot? I don’t know if the industry will exist anymore, but artists who have the passion to create will create anyways. I would say to them to not put your art online. At least not currently because we live in crazy times where you will be put in these companies databases and basically be punished for wanting to put your art on Pinterest or whatever databases they currently taking the imagery from. Resist and fight in your own way, ultimately I just hope they bring some regulations on these things because right now they sale copyrighted materials and ripping off actual living artists and the law is not there yet. I believe it will get there one day, but until then it’s hard to say. Just hoping someone ripping of Disney and then a big lawsuit will happen. Currently I don’t even know how these Ai companies are even allowed to sale licenses. I’m gonna sound crazy but watch out with technology. Companies selling our data everyday for their own profits.
I just think it's neat that I can type a promt and get a cool image. That being said, I think AI art should stay separate from hand drawn art in competitions.
it feels infuriating that they already have been allowed to win competitions with ai art. you already didnt do the prompt. its like if you won a sculpting contest by just grabbing a real apple and said yep here's this apple i sculpted what a cool statue amirite haha. you just didn't do the prompt! don't let them win just because its novel! we already proved computers can beat the best humans at chess, but we still have chess competitions and you're not allowed to enter a computer and win! gah!
@@allergiccookies6735 Maybe competitions should start asking artists for proof of their process, that is assuming they will still care about human created art.
even worse, the guy who won an award for submitting an AI generated image won in "photo manipulation" category. there was no photo in the first place! if anything, it would be better if they created a separate category for AI art and let the most creative prompters compete.
Vaush makes some interesting points. Currently AI produced art is considered to have no copyright, as it was assembled by machine not a human being, so if corporations use it, technically they can't copyright (there's no transfer of rights from the artist) it unless they have a human interact heavily with the result and altering it. So at least for a while human has to be in a loop (most of the artworks require some degree of fixing anyway). One way of preventing AI from cannibalizing artists' styles is simply not including them in the training set. These algos can be only trained with big budgets so as long as AI organizations are allowed to use anything, we will have "latest and greatest remix" of human creation represented by them (ie. LAION-Aesthetics). The models themselves can only thrive on the massive collections of images acquired by crawlers and if an artist has too few works exposed online, the AI will fail to represent their style. Currently the limitation of Bayesian inference (which is what these AI generators are based on) is that it also fails at representing out of domain queries... This is clearly the case when you try to generate the prompt with a style of an artist who didn't represent it in their art (ie. a painting of car by an artist who makes mostly landscapes) and when prompting for particular theme AI will return only styles that covered given subject (ie. "painting of a dragon" is most likely to return a mixture of styles of artists who depicted them). There's also the interesting term "AI Artist", however if someone is only providing a prompt and getting a ready made image in return that technically makes him a commissioner or consumer... otherwise we could call anyone who asks for commissions "an artist" (whether ai, digital or traditional). This makes the case of artwork that won the price mentioned in video similar to that of someone commissioning an artist with a prompt and then submitting the result to the contest while claiming the authorship... And if the contest rules allow it, I'm not sure what to think of the contest itself.
I sure am sure what to think of such a contest, it’s a complete and utter fraud. It’s the same difference as biological males being allowed to dominate women’s sports. Modern society is constantly pushing inequities. This is a part of the war on art and artists that started with the ugliness of modern art.
"Currently the limitation of Bayesian inference (which is what these AI generators are based on) is that it also fails at representing out of domain queries..." Great point, but it's not just a current limitation. Any method is limited by the information is has to work with, human creativity included (garbage in, garbage out). Bayesian Inference is just the ideal case of using all the available information and no more. The best methods of inferring illustrations of a prompt are naturally going to be approximations of that ideal with the most computational resources, using the most efficient algorithms, with the most representative data we can get.
I'm pretty sure ai art can be back-end copyright protected like songs are. If you write a book it's copyrighted. You then work with an ai generator to make image headers at the start of each chapter in your book. The art itself isn't individually copyrighted but the book is. The images, only able to be obtained from a copyrighted source, would be protected from use commercially by others. In that context the images would also prolly be able to be copyright protected under the Kashtanova precedent since the book is human generated with the assistance of an ai.
@@Incab The Kashtanova copyright registration has just been revoked. She's going to appeal but I think it's just the beginning of the wave of claims the artists will start making when it comes to violating their laws by AI companies who basically abuse the 'fair use' doctrine and in the process affect the art market substantially, which is violation of the doctrine itself. In the end I didn't realize that 'the smart people' in AI companies would simply ignore the legal implications, just to be first to hit the market. And if it turns true, it's just reckless behavior, which shows how much they are basically for the 'quick buck', consequences be damned rather than "democratization of art" and other lofty claims. I guess the time will tell.
Thank you for talking about this, and you are so right. This is not like photoshop or a camera which can be a tool to involve in the creative process - this Ai technology suppose to entirely replace the thought process and produce you a finished piece and leaving you with what are you suppose to learn? How are you going to teach art education where Ai can easily do everything artists do now. Photoshop doesn’t do the thinking for you, it enable you to do things in a different way but it doesn’t entirely replace the thought process. Photoshop didn’t stopped me from the need to find a book for a reference, but now I can generate it with just a few words. This is totally different. This is not a fishing rod that recognises that you caught a fish and applies exactly the right tension on it to hook it, this Ai is a chip that you put on your head that you think “fish” and it lands on your plate. That’s the difference. There is no physical exercise involved, there is camaraderie of going out with your fishing mates, there is no being in the fresh air, there is no knowing where the fish are and getting to know the nature of how or where the fish is. There is a whole world out there, of fishermen that essentially their purpose for living, people build reasons to exist around being a fisherman or going playing football, or being an artist. And this is not that, This is cutting all of that and just getting to the end result which is a fish on a plate. There is nothing to adapt to because it steals everything and just making you automatically irrelevant and the reason they went with art is because they want to prove that Ai can produce something like art that we perceive as emotion. And if you feel untouched because you don’t do art, don’t worry it’s coming after you too because they plan to venture towards many other areas. Instead of using it for important things like curing cancer, they taking what humans already do masterfully and then crapping it out for some license price. This is not “progress”, and companies had been stealing our data for a whole decade now and the government need to really step in because these companies just try to profit of it and nothing less. This is a huge problem for mental health as and future generations. As an artist who their art is in their database, it also doesn’t give you the option to tap in or tap out and it leaves you feeling like you in the Wild West. I feel very powerless and deeply depressed by this and really don’t know what to do about it anymore besides stop uploading art online.
Honestly I think it’s exactly the same as a camera and photography. Photography can be art, even nature photography where you didn’t make anything you’re taking a picture of can still be art. But think about it, basically all the work is being done by the camera. You just point it in a certain direction, maybe tweak a few settings, and press a button a few times. The camera is the one collecting all the light, adjusting how it collects that light to the settings you inputted, formatting that light into an image, and taking that digital file and displaying it for you to see. The entire process of MAKING something is being done by the camera, you’re effectively just guiding it to do that. And yet it’s both real art and YOUR art. Because of that guidance, because of the decision of settings, because you inputted that button to make the camera take a picture. It’s a tool doing all the real work but the end product is still art and still your art because of that deliberate action you took. Well, so is AI art. Sure it’s a tool doing all the work in terms of making something. But you’re still guiding what it’s making by giving it prompts, you’re still tweaking the settings by adjusting what confines and characteristics the prompt is made with, you’re still pressing the button to decide that what you have lined up is what you want. All that is deliberate meaningful human action that goes into guiding the tool to make something. The prompts you give, the confines of the art, which variations to make further variations on, how many variations to make, whether to upscale an image before or after making a variation which will add details that get changed when making a new variation. All that is a human element. All of that is a process being deliberately made by a human in the furtherance of a goal to create something. If AI art isn’t real art simply because it’s a tool doing effectively all the work with only your guidance determining what it does, well then photography also isn’t since that’s basically the same thing with a camera. And it’s a losing battle to say “it’s not enough human element” or “it’s not enough of a process” because there’s many examples of art that involve little to no actual work or creation on the part of the artist. Some art LITERALLY is taking other people’s creations and simply putting it in a new context with no alterations.
@@gryph0n55 Have you ever worked with photography? Because your comment is very naive. There is a lot of work that goes before and after a photo is taken: configure the camera settings, filters, set the lights - probably in a professional studio- , the model, makeup, the background and outfits, apply the composition and color theories you spent years studying, light composition, ambiance and depth composition, shape language, and then comes the post-production, editing, color balancing, etc. Photography also doesn't run an automated code that steals those qualities algorithmically from other artists and copyrighted material without their consent. I don't believe IA will replace artists completely for there are limitations intrinsic to these codes, but your comparison is not right. Second, someone prompting a work for an AI shouldn't be considered more of an artist than someone who commissions an artist. The machine is the one who is actually combining references, arranging the composition, the color palette, making the texture and brushwork, creating the shape language, framing, etc. I don't know in other areas, but a screenwriter can't be credited if they didn't write at least 33% of the work. Following this logic, an AI "artist" shouldn't really be credited as such if their work stopped simply at the imput.
Thirdly, I do believe AI art is art. That's not the question and I believe Vaush is wrong, I don't think art should be determined by the amount of work put into it nor by a human element intrinsic to it. There is no clear definition for art, but there is a clear definition for artist, which is the one actually producing the art, with or without effort. AI art is produced by a computer, the ones prompting it are commissioners, in the most practical meaning of the terrm. I also believe that the programers are waaaay closer to authotship of these works than the ones prompting it.
@@monnaranzoti732 for some people it’s really hard to grasps the idea that if I tried to actually steal the physical Mona Lisa and paint over it, I would get in trouble. They just think in “Ai” like whatever a robot does means progress lol. This is just a sophisticated art theft. If a machine uses a code to specifically get to your style and been trained on your actual intellectual properties then its the same like stealing. You can see the actual signatures on the outcomes pretty often. You can say “hey, I really like Mona Lisa let me take a picture of it and use it as inspiration or reference on how to draw hands” or whatever - that would be different and in that case, sure. Do it better if you think. But this is a mess production of a none consent work, without the option to opt out as an artist - just because the machine can, and laws are grey, all these companies do is race between each other to power by using our data to create a database, and maybe one day will step on these commenters too. If I sampled the Beatles in my song, it wouldn’t be the same as me getting inspired by it and I would had to pay royalties because it’s not allowed and I need to ask for permission. The camera is not an argument, the camera was actually progress in technology but it didn’t eliminated the creative process nor had the plans to and I can’t believe I have to explain it. Training an Ai to replicate something that without stealing the data from would had never gotten to this point, is not “amazing progress” - its just exploitation and abuse of power. If it’s “such a great technology” then why did it had to go this route? Couldn’t it studied from artists who are at least no longer alive? Inform the actual artists that their style had been ripped off by a specific code that direct the machine to use their actual copyrighted materials and offer to buy their license. There is an actual list of them. And I don’t believe these artists should be punished for simply living in the digital era where you want to put your hard work online and get clients. You should feel protected and not exploited by companies who steals it. Definitely distopian and even the big companies asked for regulations while ago to get an idea of what’s the boundaries are but the law is slow. Also at some point I can see other Ai artists using other Ai artists name, super meta I know. And before long Ai will be able to look at artwork and read books and we won’t need any costumers. So your days are numbered, consumer human. For my fellow real authentic artists who might read this, stay safe other there and mark your artworks. Also don’t forget to support your 100% organic friendly human artist!
I’m really glad that someone who isn’t a working artist or musician has this perspective. If people are going to use AI generated images or sounds by using a compilation of other works the creators of those works should be compensated in the form of publishing or royalties. The same way a musician would be compensated if someone sampled one of their songs.
Tons of songs get sampled and the original song never gets and credit, many famous songs nowadays are covers of already existing music and I’ve never heard the original artist getting credits or royalties for that either. Deep blue didn’t eradicate chess grandmasters, AI art won’t eradicate artists
@@williammckenzie6865 Totally agree AI will never replace artists, but I think it will make it easier to engage in plagiarism. There are obviously songs that use samples that don’t credit the original, but the opposite is more common since most labels would rather give up some publishing and royalties than go through a lawsuit. Just because an artist’s name doesn’t show up in the credits on a streaming platform doesn’t mean they’re not getting paid. This same issue persists when people do covers or remixes. What you’re talking about is more of an issue with streaming platforms and distribution. There are tons of songs you can’t see the full credits for unless you go on a site like AllMusic, Discogs, or Jaxsta.
Then should real artists pay up whenever they get inspired by anyone other than themselves? If AI art involves blending together images/styles/etc from multiple different sources to create something completely new, then real art doesn’t sound too different. But what do I know, I’m not an artist
@@sonofben3322 Well no… Inspiration doesn’t require using the original source. You just need to have an emotional response and an understanding of the art. AI can’t get inspired and requires the direct use of the source material.
As a designer who already can't land a stable job in the industry (partially because visa status) I feel very sad about the whole situation, having spent years to practice both traditional art and digital art, and simply being told there are people who can just cheat the way, steal other people's works and make money out of it
Artist already have a bad rep for being a "useless" profession. Now we going to be triple fucked becuase no one will think we see the point of us existing due to ai art.
@@raingulfdrengot195 idk man, the job market is already pretty fucked as is, with people desperately searching for jobs. Erasing more proffesions will just worsen the problem and leave us all homeless and broke because we live in a society (hehe) where money and jobs are MANDITORY to cover your basic necessities such as food, shelter, medicine and even water.
I'm a traditional artist and I do have my concerns about it. But I'm in too deep at this rate so all I can do is to keep doing my thing and see how this all plays out.
there will be (already is) a group of increasingly more soulless, terminally online people who will scoff at art, they will essentially be severely mentally damaged by thr inhumanity of their lives. i think traditional art will grow in value, as will digital art. ai art is a new category at the bottom of the pyramid, its basically worthless crap that is good for meaningless routine work like corporate art
When I just barely started making art (I've been doing digital paintings since about 2016) a teacher I really admire told this: "When you paint, you should never paint on a canvas. You should paint on a 3-dimensional object that is beyond the canvas." What it really means is that you need to have an understanding over what your subject matter is and where it is located in space, even when doing 2d art. The reason many AI artworks feel so off is that they literally do the opposite. The AI cuts apart pictures and follows a set of steps to rearrange and piece them togehter, then slaps about 1 billion layers of effect layers on them without understanding what it's actually doing. This becomes interesting when you consider that it's only limited to the technical side of it. It's not going to think through any character design, it's just cutting apart characters and slaps them together. It's not thinking about the elements of a phisical space and how they relate to each other, it's just mimicing how people construct a scene and finds a way to make it convincing. It's not constructing objects based on logic, just cuts out and pastes in things that it sees. The only thing AI can do better is that it creates half-abstract images that are visually interesting and pleasing to look at at first glance. Don't get me wrong, eventually AI will be able to do all of it! AI will create a 3d environment, put characters in it, figure out who these characters are and how they relate to each other, etc.. and I can't wait so see it! AI will change art forever, but artists will never be eleminated. Some will figure out how to use AI in their workflow and will manage to add meaningful things to it, effectively using the AI as one tool from their toolkit, others will embrace the older methods and make art traditionally. When I started, digital art was already a huge thing, but people didn't stop making traditional art just because digital is an objectively better medium for convinience, reliability, and multi-functionality. AI will be huge, but artists will be bigger, wether they have AI in their toolkit or not.
no actually. ai that you are talking about is free. i have dall e 2 and it is insanely accurate that there is no difference between a real photo or the image that ai put in front of you.
@@bunnyvillainy I feel that it will be really similar to like the Unity asset store from the video game industry. Tons of indie game developers have access to 3d models that they can use for their games and there are a huge amount of uninspired cashgrabs that are just slapped together for a minimal profit, but nobody will remember them. People only really care and think fondly about things that are well made my passionate creators. For the art block part.. I don't know.. It definitely helps and has value but I mostly struggle with more tidious parts, not with the base that an AI can provide now, but creating visually pleasing textures and elements that you can put in backgrounds or other abstract parts of your works is something can be helpful for that. I can much easily see art commission clients creating moodboards and compositions that they can take to an artist as an extention of their explaination of what they are looking for.
@@pygmalion8952 Convincing and photorealistic? Yes, but it's a shallow fakeing of actually thought out works. It still can't construct an entire environment or a character from scratch or a piece of intentional visual storytelling. Everything an AI can do right now is way too shallow both on a technical point and from a storyteller's perspective. Art is more than recreating photos and slapping together ideas from other artists.
21:30 “it sounds like you’re saying we need to work just for works sake.” What a ridiculous interpretation. This is one of the issues with AI; if it were being used to improve shitty jobs that nobody enjoys and improve the lives of those workers, it would be one thing, but art, animation, graphic design, illustration, etc are jobs that people ACTUALLY WANT TO DO!
To those who don't understand where Vaush is coming from. Try to imagine an AI that can perfectly simulate humans (how they look, how they move, and even how they think and speak). And now imagine someone using the AI to create a new Vaush TH-cam channel with an artificial Vaush that is indistinguishable from the real Vaush, streaming similar things Vaush would talk about throughout the day. Would you be okay with that? Would it make a difference to you if you knew this was not Vaush?
AI art is neat but it absolutely should not be taken as far as it surely is going to be. The fact that it's essentially stealing art just to build the machine that can create lookalikes is incredibly problematic. If there was a way for artists to volunteer their work, refuse access to their work, and to get a negotiable commision for each time the machine uses their sources to make new art, maybe that would make this a more acceptable practice. But realistically that's not going to happen, it's just going to become "you made this? I made this" on the biggest imaginable scale. How do I know this will be the case? Well, look at those "interpolated to 60 fps animations" that are so popular for some reason. They move in a way that the artist(s) never intended because the original art was intended for a lower framerate. New art was essentially created from what the original artists made without permission, and you could argue it's not even real art because a machine just screwed with it in a way it was preprogrammed to. These videos are a good example of how a large part of the general public simply doesn't care. To some it's a slow and unnoticeable decline in artistic intent, and to others it's glaringly obvious that something's off. And it's just going to get worse and worse as time goes on no doubt. As an artist, this sucks. As an art enjoyer, this sucks.
The "it's just stealing art" argument is flawed because that's literally how humans learn. We copy and take inspiration from the work of others all the time and no one would reasonably call that "theft". Everything you know and do is the product of external information that you've received over time, so in a sense it's impossible for even a human to be truly original. "You made this? I made this" describes every artist who has ever existed and just because we perceive our thoughts and actions as somehow "separate" from external reality doesn't change that fact. The animation situation is not really relevant because that's taking a singular artist's work and "defacing" it in a way. Whereas the machine learning model that receives millions of paintings as input can learn small feature representations, say edges, patterns, texture, etc and then later combine those features into something new that doesn't resemble any particular input. I think a lot of the negative reaction towards this is because the average person is not really educated on how machine learning (or neurocognitive processes) even work.
@@annasofienordstrand3235 The issue is that corporations will use AI to make art that way, copyright and trademark it, and will then come down on every actual artist/content creator who would try making fair use of their AI art in turn.
@@user-df4kf6fg7h The legal and economic ramifications are an entirely different issue. No need to make disingenuous arguments about why AI art is inherently inferior to human made art when the primary concern is obviously jobs and the impact on media consumption.
These AIs steal already made images and basically they put your style, your Art identity in the hands of other people. All kinds of people. It's insulting for me to see this. I have nothing against you, them, and whoever wants to draw, let the whole world draw, but draw each person, and not use algorithms that make references to foreign Art styles and give them to third parties. It is very devastating to my eyes and my taste. I feel like my mouth is full of shit from these mixers. So yeah, I hate those AIs too. And maybe not the AIs themselves, but the promoters using them to commit crimes against the artists.
I feel like a big part of enjoying art for a lot of people is learning about the person behind it and trying to understand what they were thinking when they made it. It’s that distinction that’ll make the real difference between human created art and anything an AI could ever make. That’s why, as an aspiring writer, AI made to emulate writing has never really bothered me. For a person to pass off a fully AI generated novel as their own would require so much elaborate lying that I’d honestly be impressed if anyone could. Particularly if they tried to publish multiple works.
I guess that depends how you define art. I mean if video games and films are art, I don't think more than a handful of people care to learn about the hundreds of people behind it.
But why would I care whether something is written by a person or an AI? Not only is the fundamental process by which the work is generated the same, it also doesn't matter what the authorial intent was. A text can create meaning in ways that the author never could have intended. Once it's out there, it speaks for itself and the writer becomes irrelevant. So it doesn't matter whether the text is created by an AI or an acutal human being, it can contain the same amount of meaning to the reader and thus be exactly as much "art".
@@tulkasastaldo4114 Well I think authorial intent isn't the be all and end all, but it adds a layer of discussion. I mean was the intent achieved or fucked? What about things like starship troopers, I think the film has more impact knowing that it's existentially a rebuttal of the book it's based on but I think that needs authorial intent to stand, otherwise it'd just be a questionable adaptation I guess.
It means a lot to hear you say this. I’m 34, and I have spent almost every day of my life since I was a teenager practicing both the craft of drawing to be more expressive and diverse in my artwork. Hearing about A.I art fills me with an existential dread that goes beyond my own concerns relating to being able to earn some money-though that obviously upsets me… But a world without art is truly not one that I would want to live in. I think it’s ghoulish that instead of developing more technology that would allow more people to pursue jobs that were more fulfilling, we’re potentially going to ‘cancel art’. Fucking bullshit.
@@Jeremy-hx7zj If your music can be reproduced by ai... then your music is soulless crap in the first place. There’s more to music than just putting little notes that sounds good together. I know some of the ai music is kinda advanced, but meaningful? Hell no, and it will never be. Like many other area (like translation for example), “ai” will hit a ceiling, and you’ll always need human brain to do the rest of the job.
I think it depends on what we do with it. I think trying to incorporate AI in the process can be neat. One thing I did involved writing several poems, plugging them into an AI generator (admitedly not a great one) multiple times, picking ones I liked, and made a sort of collage out of the results. I like the concept of letting stuff that's not under your control influence the end result.
But you used your own writings and purposely used to AI in an artistic way to get those poems. Would you feel the same way if someone else took your poetry (and then sold it)? Honestly, if someone does those things just for fun, I don't see any issues, and if an artist uses their own art to create the AI, I have no issues, but stealing art to create new art is horrifying to anyone who loves (and especially those who make) art.
@@normalgamergal The thing is that people can already copy your art themselves. It's harder, but they can. Besides AI doesn't have to copy anyone to generate images necessarily. I just don't think we should demonize technology for what people/capitalism are responsible for. I can understand why an artist would feel threatened but the answer here isn't to just demonize the AI itself, it's to take care of the surrounding issues. I wasn't completely dismissing the fact that artist might get hurt by it, my point was that it isn't the tech's fault and that I don't think people should dismiss the artistic nature of what it produces (which vaush kinda-ish did and many conments did also. Generative art has existed for decades and has been accepted as art, it doesn't make sense that AI art would be less valid.
You mean incorporate the hard-work of some other artist's textures, style and form in your work without you even knowing how to achieve it yourself artistically? That is still plagiarism. If you're going to steal from somewhere, let it be royalty-free public domain photography.
I was so excited before Dall.e was released because I thought this was moving in a direction that could help artist and non artist alike visualize their imagination as most technology should. Personally I was hoping it could merge with dream detection technology. However, now that I've seen how invasive, entitled and seemingly intentionally destructive many AI art advocates are towards art - not even as an occupation but as a passion - it is clear to me that these people are not a friend to artist. It's okay if you want to use a new tool to create something. Cool. But to take my art signature and style, is to take away my personhood and my identity. These people (NOT ALL BUT TOO MANY) want artists dead. I can't get behind that.
"ai advocates are entitled" - person who thinks that a group of random people putting prompts to generate backgrounds to their DND campaign "literally want to murder me"
The amount of AI "art" defenders here is just sad. No AI "artist" does art. A digital artist will always be able to draw with pencil, there is a skill there, that is transderrable. If you make ai images, you can't transfer that, because it's not a skill. The moment you take that specific tool away, is the moment the "artist" stops. Even people who trace, have more skill and put in more effort, than any AI "artist". I have more respect for those people, than i have for people who try to pass of their ai images as art.
The "It's about supporting art" crowd will do anything other than pay artists to produce art. Using an AI generated artwork as a basis for making something I can see, but just generating a piece is no different than a videogame sample asset flip.
A veeeery good way to explain this to people who don't understand: People who did not consider photography as art might seems weird, until you consider that there are people who don't consider "modern art" as art. You know, those flat abstract coloured canvases with basic shapes on them. There are a whole lot of people who will say "that's so stupid and simple, I could do that, anyone could do that, where is the art in that?" funnily enough, this exact phrase could also refer to photography. it is "easy", meaning, the tool used to make photography is easier to use that pencil or brush. and there is virtually no barrier of entry. another thing to consider, art is most often engaged with as decoration. refusing to call AI generated paintings does in no way take away from it's worth. As vaush said, there is beauty in the world, that is not to be considered art. Think about it. People will line the walls in their house with beauty. wheter it's a picture with no artistic intent behind it, a photo which personal meaning, or infact a beautiful painting by an artist. once it hangs on the wall, it doesn't matter what you call it, it fullfills its purpose. yet another thing, could you ever engage with AI generated art as if it were painted by a human? There is nothing to interpret. No intent behind it. Everything interesting about AI is on a purely technical level. Think about someone writing about an AI painting. How could they ever write "the artist did this and that here" they would have to at least comment on the fact that it was made by a computer programm sampling other artists work. the only object of interpretation that there could possibly be is to think about what kind of pictures where pulled from. because the AI can't add anything on its own. There is nothing to comment upon. So we would have to talk about, "ah yes, this is influenced by this and that, and the AI works in such a way as to combime this and that"
Except all the AI art is text prompted, so it does have intent to interpret. In fact, skill still plays into it as well. There will be people who can come up with text prompts that produce "brilliant" high level art. Then there's the capacity for editing the image further, of course.
No art can add anything on its own edit: also people can be deceived by AI art in to thinking it was made by a human, and then interpret it as if it was made by a human.
I'm quite sure that time will tell you wrong once the algorithm starts to create new things, and it's not like many of the more abstract pictures created are just copies of other people's art. Yes, the algorithms are learning from all art on the planet, that does not mean it's automatically stolen.
I'm an amateur photographer. I've had photos in a couple juried shows. I also paint... pretty well if I do say so myself... so I think I'm qualified to compare processes. Over the last year, I've taken a bit more than 25,000 photos, maybe a dozen of which I've printed and display in various places. The artistry, IMO, is in the initial selection of the subject matter, and then the selection of the dozen photos out of those 25,000 that are actually worthy of being displayed. The camera records the image without much effort on my part, and I edit very little - intentionally so, as I think that makes the resulting image more authentic, if you get me. I think AI art is similar in that regard. The "artist" chooses the initial subject matter, and then chooses which outputs are worthy of display as art. The fact that the actual creation process was easy, or not especially creative in itself, is irrelevant.
If you can't even fathom how AI art might negatively impact creators, you've got the imagination of a crayfish. Edit: y'all pro ai people need to learn how to steelman an argument, christ. This comment doesn't make any prescriptive statements about ai.
@Cool Cat People will disregard the ways this AI can assist the process of illustration and instead just use it to directly create new illustrations. Art as a medium already doesn't get the respect it deserves especially in a capitalist setting, why wouldn't people use this new technology as a means of further disregarding it?
@@ThatWolfArrow people will do both. People LIKE to make art, that’s not going away. There’s no reason to think AI art is the end of the artistic process, there will still be people just using it to assist the process. But there will also be people using it to create new illustrations on their own. The same way the age of digital art was just a means for more people to create art in a new way, but didn’t spell the end of physically created art because plenty of people still draw and paint and sculpt.
@@gryph0n55 But why go through the time of illustrating something or paying someone to draw something for you when you can just have an AI generate it for you in a matter of seconds, especially if you're a corporation? If it looks good enough for you, who cares if a person drew it or not? Hell, newspapers are already doing this as an alternative for artistic interpretations in their publications. *THIS* is what people are afraid of.
I love this topic and appreciate your nuanced approach, and I disagree with some parts of it. I agree with your point that art is inherently about communication. It's social behavior. It's about intent of expression by someone and interpretation of that expression by someone else. This form of communication can be done in a myriad of ways, hence why artistic expression is so rich with creativity. This leads to the point that there cannot be art if there is no intent, no communication. The pictures of universe illustrate this point perfectly. They may look mind blowingly beautiful, but it's not art. Unless you believe in a god, those images are just unintended features of nature, mindless, without social thought or expression. Same goes with images of fractal patterns for example. But I don't think AI generated "art" falls in the same category. These images don't come from a vacuum. They're not a feature of nature. They're an amalgamation of human descriptions of things. They're inherently human concepts drawn together by an inhuman process. It's a form of expression with the individual artist removed and replaced with the detritus of the interconnected human consciousness. Yes, you cannot seek intent of expression by a human being, or a collection of human beings, but you can find echoes of human expression synthesized together by a mathematical process. It's like subversion of art into something else. I understand if you want to call this not as art, but I think there is still great social value to this. I would consider it an alien observation and categorization of human behavior. If an alien landed on Earth and started compiling examples of human expression in its own methods and presented the final, now-changed product, I think it would be conceptually similar to what this AI "art" is. The essence is still that of human thought. The intent is to express that inhuman compilation of human thought. and we can try to interpret that, though it might be too alien for us to have a social understanding of it. I don't want AI "art" to replace human art, I don't want it to even be categorized in the same way. I want it to develop into its own distinct thing, if there is a word for it, I don't know what it is. But I think it's extremely interesting to see what an inhuman lens displays when its fed human information. I would love to see it become more abstract and complex. As for its possible uses and exploitation of artists under capitalism, yes, it's a nightmare scenario. But under capitalism, what isn't?
Bro thanks for typing this out I was thinking the same thing the whole time. As a musician I appreciate the fact that the art I make comes from dumping material (music I listen to) into my head, shaking it up together, and then playing something new. I think that all art that we produce as people comes from human pattern recognition interacting with whatever we observe from outside, just like feeding giving an ai a task and then feeding it infromation. If you think about humans as using algorithms we develop ourselves it adds a lot of validity to any A.I. art. Fr tho thanks for posting this I'm glad I wasn't the only one thinking this!
You realize the images using copyrighted materials without the artist permissions, right? You don’t have the option to get out if you wanted and it’s a huge problem. Basically everything you do online you should be punished for one day without your constant for real reason and someone’s else profit. We need regulations on these things, right now it’s like gta. You might say that Ai art is just a database of photos and it’s really just that. There is no intent behind it, it’s just about creating “beautiful” final image, no history or a war or any story behind it. So why not replacing everyone and everything? Why having doctors if a machine can do it perfectly? Why young kids who wants to do sports will go to college, build a life around it and use inspiration to practice everyday? Just create a machine that does it. Who cares, right? No. Without meaning what’s the point in anything. What’s the point of going through any struggle or try to achieve anything. This is a scary world and I wish they had better structures around it. We need some government protections and people to step in on this. We all know where the Ai direction is going, by maybe we can focus on actually finding a solution for cancer instead of taking something that people already do masterfully and slap 30$ monthly subscriptions on top of it?
@@natv6294 You're sort of missing my argument and attacking something different. The final tiny paragraph I included mostly addresses your criticism and I agree with how this technology being used for exploitation of artists is nightmare stuff. That's a problem with capitalism, not the technology itself. I want to see the technology utilized for something completely different, something on the same level as language and art, but entirely separate (as in, not replacing them). Please try to engage with the argument I presented without the emotionally charged response.
@@BLooDCoMPleX unfortunately the “emotional charged” response comes from being a human and not an Ai, sorry about that. Currently companies using our data and selling it to eachother to come up with new technology to become the next big thing and profit. It’s a race without our consent either, and I hope you understand that. There are not many laws currently that protects you in any of this and artists right are taking a huge hit. Next, it might be you. I wish to finally see this technology utilised in a good way but currently all I see is that we live in a total capitalism that would try to make a few bucks before the ending itself instead of solving our environmental problems. This technology is not a tool to improve and I struggle to see any “progress” in it. This is a chip that you put on your head and think “fish” and fish fall on your plate. It remove the entire creative process, the camera, printer or 3D did not stopped me from needing to look for a reference by opening a book and then find a way to collaborate it or get inspiration. I still had to think about the composition and learn. Let’s say you are a fisherman. This is not a new tool to help you catch fish. There is no physical practice, no meeting up with friends to do fishing, no studying on how and where to find a fish, no going out and breathing fresh air. There are people that their entire live hood purpose is being a fisherman and this technology suppose to eliminate the entire journey process and just give you a fish on a plate. It’s very concerning as a society to be honest I don’t see the “progress” of how making everything meaningless is helpful. We as humans can put a meaning into things unlike an Ai that just spits out an image with a bunch of words that you program it to do. My fear for the future generation is valid as we are in this current state of the cyber Wild West. It’s the extensional crisis of meaningless and joblessness it leaves many people in, if done incorrectly. Mental health is a huge factor that takes a hit here. Elon Musk said himself that Ai needs to have regulations or else it can be used in a very bad way, and just cause disruption in our society and unfortunately that’s the only thing I currently see. Sorry if it sounds emotional but I really don’t understand how we choose to miss it and keep pushing forward even tho we know where it’s leading us to.
@@natv6294 My friend, I understand your concerns, and as I already said, I agree with them, and I think this is mainly a problem with capitalism. I'm not one of these AI fetishist brainlets who think any technological improvement should be lauded as social progress, if you read my original post you will see that I am advocating for something completely different. I literally called it "an alien observation and categorization of human behavior". I don't see it as art, I see it as something that is entirely new and unprecedented. I don't want it replacing any human activities. I want it to be an inhuman mirror to our collective human expression. It may not be that in it's current form and use (it definitely won't be used in the way I want it to be used), but it has the potential to evolve into that. That's all I've stated. All the associated practical/social problems that you pointed out and Vaush pointed out, I already agreed with.
I agree that having an intent behind a piece of creation necessarily creates art No human artist can be devoid of intent no matter how much you trace to the line It's still your hand, still intent if subconscious
36:00 It's really depressing that Disney is already paving the way for this with Star Wars. Deepfakes of young Leia and Tarkin... AI generated voices for young Luke and Darth Vader... we're already spiraling down into this depressing future.
I know a friend of mine that use Dalle and other stuff to creates what he calls "art", he can't even draw a single thing with a real tool but now with coding and programs he defined himself as artist, judging me for how I draw with my graphic tablet. I mean, what he creates is damn cool but I don't consider it as art, it's soulless and poor. You can call ai a tool but I feel like there's no human input at all. The ai creates and he decides what's cool to keep. But that's not really art, it's soulless, dead, no emotions at all. People can hate me but I would put the ai "art" in the coding stuff, not art. Art is expression/emotions, born from human mind and heart to communicate :/
Your friend is just a prompter. Not a artist. I would call these guys idea guys an idea is nothing without good execution since the same idea could be executed badly. And since they're not executing it, The AI is. The only reason their idea is worthwhile is because of the AI and has nothing to do with them and their ideas. Also, there's AI that can make prompts for you.
god its so good to hear someone else say thing cause god seeing people not get want it means to be human is so depressing. i hope to god we never lose art to this empty consumption.
I do hate how people have a hard time seeing what art is and can be. It seems like most people view it as just spectacle. Someone said something in my college class on banned books that really rubbed me the wrong way, “the purpose of literature is to educate and entertain”. To boil all of literature down to these two principles really simplifies the wide range of reason to why someone would create. There’s an amazing video by Jacob geller called: “ who’s afraid of modern art: vandalism, video games and Facism”. I strongly suggest anybody who reads this comment watch it, it’ll give you something different to think about on the “Merits” of good art. To me art is more than just an amazing anime or a beautiful painting, it’s a fundamental part of the human experience, all art no matter what it’s saying is an expression of the artists soul and I’m not at all inherently religious, but I do think the human touch is incredibly important when it comes to art, and is something AI just can’t replace.
I can't speak to where things will be even a year from now, as a lot of this stuff moves quite quickly, but what are your thoughts on an artist using AI as a shortcut to get reference images or inspiration for a piece of art they are working on? If it saves them time with no drop in quality, and maintains their influence on the style and meaning, would the AI assisted version of their art be worth less than the one completely made by hand in your opinion?
@@jonathan0berg I don’t have a problem with the AI being used to assist with art, after all that’s how we went from hand drawn animation, to cell sheets and computer drawn animation which is great. I do not believe it is the tool which will detract the value of art, but the loss of the human intention and touch that comes from putting it together. The ai can help, but it shouldn’t be the thing that produces art, at that point the expression is lost, because it’s a matter of production now, instead of creating for the sake of it. Using it as reference though I think is actually a good idea, as they can then use the ai as a tool to help them. I guess at the problem at the end of the day is capitalism dilutes the value of art into straight mass production.
@@Smolscream @Jolene the Souls Queen I used to make computer generated fractal artwork, which is pretty, but it's hard to impart artistic meaning into it. I've been using midjourney a lot lately and it feels to me like a halfway point between fractal art and real art in terms of how much meaning comes from me compared to the meaning that is generated without my input. A lot of the discussion around AI art is giving me a weird sense of Deja Vu as it's very similar to the internal questions about fractal art being real art or not that I've struggled with for years. The conclusion I've tentatively arrived at is that art is a spectrum rather than a binary, and AI art is most, but not all of the way towards the Art side of that sliding scale.
I'm an artist myself and I love to use art as one way for emotional expression, that said AI generated drawing that suits the taste of the one who pressed the button, is (looking from an unbiased view) no different from the one made by an artist on canvas philosophically speaking. Only when you compare these two through the bias lens towards human interaction and artist wellbeing can you see the difference between them. Unfortunately, capitalistic machine is sociopathic in nature, so regardless the uproar from the art community, AI generated pictures will become the norm for the sake of time and resource efficiency in the near future.
that can only lead to stagnation. these machines cannot think, they can't function without humans that create art in the first place, remove the artists and you'll evetually get a recursive loop with the same art over and over, A.I art feeding into A.I art, like chat bots
@@1OtherMr except these systems have an infinitely larger data set to work with than a human artist...so can distill and combine millions of stylistic choices in moments that no artist or group have artists can hope to match in there collective lifetimes... if anything A.I systems have the ability to broaden the palette not diminish it because they're not limited by real world practicalities or preconceived notions of what is and is not acceptable art .. If anything I'd argue the human artist is the real source of stagnation.. trapped in fad's and trends that see the same styles and themes repeated ad infinitum throughout the community at large..
I agree a lot, but I think Vaush missed another aspect of art beyond communication, and I think that Art needs to be deliberate. Theres a difference between just a coffee stain on a napkin, and purposely staining a napkin with coffee
@@Facebooker413 the one I remember was a paintbrush being blown across a canvas by the wind versus an artist blindly doing the same thing. I think he repeated it with a scribble machine and an artist drawing scribbles as well.
There's a lot of art and music where being deliberate isn't a large part of the process, and even in works where it is, there are almost always components that are not deliberate.
@@aaronpolichar7936 Deliberate means there was intent behind a decision that was made. The decision to dash a brush across a canvas is still a decision made on purpose by the artist in that moment, and thus it was a deliberate act, even if the movement itself was seemingly senseless or random
They just feed the AI an artist brief and it spits out an image... It is disgusting. As an artist, this just makes me super tired. Other people stealing your style is bad enough, now computers are doing it? gdi.
Vaush getting mad at chat and telling the mods to permaban them never gets old. I hope there's an AI Vaush one day that just randomly insults chat and permabans them.
I just can’t believe there are entire communities dedicated to this on fb, ig, twitter, Reddit, etc, acting as if what they do is completely normal, no one is being hurt, they’re just “artists” using another “tool” In this types of places the more you do with the less effort the more people applaud, some even get excited about prompting entire videogames, movies… I have no words honestly…
I agree with this completely and ai art is fucking dystopic. Edit for clarification, I am an a writer, I've published poems in several publications, and the thought of this happening to poetry is so terrifying. I have a day job, and I don't hate it, but my dream in life has been to write things that allow me to interact with people I will never meet. That's three whole point of art, to speak. What would we be? Why are there lefties championing the further alienation of people from our labor? The fuck
Capitalism be like: (I absolutely understand where you’re coming from but actual effective AI art is not possible without human input. (Such as manual editing of commands and such) Thus, “AI stuff making humans obsolete” is incredibly speculative at best.” The real problem is billionaires and hacks not seeing past the most surface-level things regarding AI and just replacing artists with them for le FuNni manipulative profit. AI art has potential to be something as a great and cool advancement to art and science but golly gee, capitalism ain’t making that easy!)
AI wont replace artists and writers, it just replaces the for-profit business aspect of it. You can still write poetry or create art, you're just not going to make money from it. The point is to replace jobs so that people realize how unsustainable and predatory capitalism is. By definition, capitalism requires someone to LOSE. It's a game in which you profiting requires another person to lose money. In the real world, this looks like extreme poverty, Human rights abuses, starvation, and excess deaths. The more people in wealthy nations that feel the same predatory practices that other people and nations feel, the more they're going to acknowledge how idiotic and unsustainable the current system is. You shouldn't work just to survive, you should work for the betterment of humanity and to advance ourselves and our presence in the universe. Living a life free from the stresses of attending to basic human needs is the goal here, and rich nations are completely blind to the fact that their success comes at the cost of another person's downfall.
Thank you Vaush. You managed to express with words exactly how I feel towards AI “art” as an artist, specifically an aspiring Illustrator, concept artist and Animator. This means so much to me. It warms my heart to see actual empathy from people that don’t illustrate as a life career, I saw a lot of smooth-brained comments by techno fethicists around the internet sadly. I absolutely hate everything about AI “art” and the people who programmed it and trained it with stolen, uncredited art should be sued. Like I’m talking actual class action here. This is the biggest insult to not just us artist but creativity and life in general. As my mentor Hayao Miyazaki said, looking at an AI generated animation, “this is an insult to life itself”.
I'm a professional artist- both trad medium and digital skillset. I think the main premise of this video is entirely correct; ai images are not art. I also agree with the analysis on the effect this will have. Something that perhaps isn't clear is that technology and technological norms have a huge impact on the work of an artist. When photography was invented it changed painting fundamentally from representational to interpretive, or at least initiated that development. This process still happens constantly, because technology warps the culture that produces it. For example, I will complete an illustration then have this subjected to instagram filters etc by the client. This is likely because their perception is influenced by how imagery looks on social media, and the desire to have an image gain 'engagement'. Those are historical points that align closely with the content of this video, but there is another problem with ai imagery that I will attempt to describe. If we recognise that capitalist desire isn't the same as human need, we can see that this technology serves only one of those things. The consumer desire to have images is obviously met, and soon those generated images will be any bit as good as anything I've ever done. But what about the human need buried in that capitalist desire? At the core of it I think that the thing we *want* is to be entertained, but the thing we *need* from out entertainment is... well, ineffable. But would cover the human requirements for 'psychological nourishment'- meaning, feeling, inspiration. A simulation can cause you to project your own onto it, but doing so on a mass level will damage cultural meaning- how our culture communicates the non-literal and the non-real. Historically that has always been the role of art- how something feels, what did this mean, how do I feel about that, given the intentions (although there) are closed off from me? It's important in the long run. I would prefer we not hand our communal dreamspace directly over to capitalist desire like this.
"AI images are not art" is not entirely correct. What constitutes art is entirely debatable. John Cage literally has a composition that is just silence for several minutes and the whole point is that the music was whatever sounds could be heard (people moving, coughing, rain hitting the windows, stuff moving in the next room, etc..), the point being that music never stops, only the listening does (i.e. whatever you decide you´re listening to is music, is music). I agree with what the rest of the comment is saying but saying that "AI images aren't art" is based on really reductive and honestly outdated notions of what art is.
@@shadez123 No, it's not based on reductive or outdated views. It's based on my own categorical understanding that cannot be dismissed this way. By choosing to take silence and present it in the context of a music performance, Cage is making art out of silence. That is an act of artistic transformation, Cage is using silence and incidental sounds as a medium to make art. Do you think every silent concert hall is music?
Luddites destroying production machines were taking issue with the technology, when it was the capitalist exploitation using those tools to increase efficiency but not distributing the benefits that was fundamental to their plight. I think that AI art isn't bad, but it has the potential to be used to decrease the value of artists if the economic benefits of that efficiency are not distributed. If all artists were given a generous UBI and the need to sell their work to survive was removed, AI art would become an ally to an artist in that it could allow them to produce more art and of a higher quality by working with AI rather than doing all of that work by hand.
@@jonathan0berg I understand your argument, but need to point out that this UBI for artists is currently science fiction, so we ought to analyse this technology within the context of its historical moment. Furthermore, as I outlined above, it is my view that the *audience* needs something from art that requires there be an artist/s behind it. The simulation will not satisfy that need, only the capitalist desire for images.
@@grief_hammer Fair point. As much as I like interesting science fiction theoreticals like UBI, I can see how it sidesteps the real world impact of the technology in the here and now. I'm not quite sure I understand what quality you are talking about the audience requiring from the artists. Can you define it, or maybe give me some examples?
As a DM who can't draw (and doesn't have time to learn to draw). I've used AI art tool to get across the general idea of the look and feel of my setting. Clearly it has draw backs but it can be an incredibly useful tool.
I feel like AI tools being used for worldbuilding in rpg's is one of the few acceptable uses of them. Sure, you aren't creating the images yourself, but you personalize them by crafting stories and a settings of your own making. AI paintings does no such thing on their own.
@@Maxpaximus Now if only we can make an AI that does good worldbuilding, the burdensome tasks of art and creativity will be entirely taken up by our kind AI overlords, leaving us with only the most fulfilling jobs humans crave and desire... I was going to finish the joke with "retail customer service" or something, but really Any job no matter how demeaning or fulfilling could eventually be done by AI.
@@TheSquareheadgamer No! Not at all. I'm saying that there are some legitimate concerns if we 100% automate every element of the creative process, but I don't think we're there yet. Maybe the joke was a bit rambling or incoherent.
@@jonathan0berg ah my apoglsies. I actually think TTPRPGS are one of the few areas AI might never master. Too much is built on momentum of group dynamics and memes weaving into the story for a AI to ever really get. Short of us making AI has the same social understanding as humans atleast. But at that point they're just people anyway.
Yeah, and how do you know that the only reason you think it's "hollow" because you KNOW it was made by an AI? If you had samples of mixed art made by humans and AI of similar quality, would you be able to tell which one feels "hollow" and which don't? You probably wouldn't. You want it to feel hollow.
@@benji9107 So there's not objective quality to AI art that actually makes it hollow. Imagine an artist that for years created beautiful art that you enjoyed, but at some point confessed that all his art was actually created by an AI that he passed as his own.
@@Horny_Fruit_Flies that would be disingenuous and it would make people feel hollow why is that wrong humans are biased creatures Maybe the quality is it’s not made by human with out intent ??
@@Horny_Fruit_Flies The knowledge that the art was actually AI generated makes for major changes in how it's perceived. Art will become a lot less interesting once humans arent the ones producing it.
There's a lot of cosmic horror inherent to this whole thing. I think it was sort of brushed over at the end that while Vaush says sentience removes the problem, not only can he not define or determine it, no one really can. In fact, until very recently the ability to independently create novel images was considered evidence of sentience. I think defining and testing for sentience is going to become an increasingly important problem, lest we end up committing severe crimes against sentient beings.
Agree. I’ve seen my name literally fed into that discord art generator. Feels kind of bad. Wish there was a way to protect my images from getting used like this :/
Something to consider, for all you despairing artists: This is a remarkable tool to cheat with but it will not replace actual talent and skill. Corporations looking to cut corners will utilize this for derivative works (there is already so much soullessness in advertising and graphic design) but there will always be the need for originality, which AI can't do. Humanity is Art. An AI can't look at a urinal on it's own and think to sign it and present it as art in order to open a dialogue about artistic elitism and create an entire movement of Found Art, without Marcel DuChamp doing it first. Some asshole applying to art school with a portfolio of AI art will be unable to advance past the audition because you need to demonstrate your skill, creativity, and originality. Why did the guy win a State Fair art contest with AI? Because it's a fucking state fair lmao they aren't going to have high standards and they were not informed as to what tool the con artist was using and the only reason the internet knows is because this guy bragged about it. Any art competition with higher regulations are going to look for an artist statement, for proof that you created the art that you are submitting; this has been the standard because, since the creation of the internet, countless works have been stolen and entered into contests and became a copyright and moral disaster. Plagiarism isn't anything new, it's just taking on a new and interesting form. I expect, going forward, a lot of legal development happening in response to AI Art. Because this is going to happen more often. But it's not talent or skill. Why can you use this technology to create without skill but you can't use performance enhancing drugs to compete in the Olympics? Exclusively because it is new and has yet to be regulated. Not that techbros give a shit about artistic integrity or value lmao
At this point in the US, AI art cannot be copyrighted. So, AI art can be produced but it can also be taken by someone else and sold for profit with no real option for recourse. That's not great for "AI artists" or corporations who use it for marketing. That's not the case for human art which is organically copyrighted by the artist when it is created into existence(in the US).
There is a similar thing here in the European Union. Art needs to be made by a human to be copyrighted. But in Britain it is unnecessary to be a human to make something copyrighted. So that is going to be a headache in the future.
You might be able to get copyright protection depending on medium. If you post your ai art online then someone can take it. If you had ai art made for your Indy Film then the art might not be copyrighted but the only source for it is, your film. Thus the ai art might have copyright protection that way.
There is another danger with AI art. Imagine a fascistic government with its hands on the dials of what is aand is not allowed. What such authority would deny the impressive capacity of automated art for thought control? I actually think this is one technology that should probably be outlawed. It is fr too dangerou, in some ways, more than nucleaar weapons, because of the disastrous implications it could have for other society. Other ways it could be abused: - Corporations push flr legislation with regard to artistic styles, start flooding the market with AI generated art, and sue anyone trying to do it manually. Immediaate control of the market, and implied thought control to boot. This is the lesson of 2001: a spae odyssey. automation, if not strictly controlled, and regulated, can become the saboteur of the society that created it.I don’t normally side with the luddites on things, but on this one, I think there’s good reason to be fearful.
@@shadez123 they wouldn’t need the tables to beat people though. AI Art on the other hand is an instrumental tool in the process OP described. I feel you are just choosing not to understand the message for convenience right now.
Hold on, how is art supposed to control people's thoughts though? Even the most famous art pieces such as Starry Night are interpreted somewhat differently by everyone who looks at them.
The analogy with the suicide hotline was genius. I’m going to use it in my future discussions with people about AI. Thank you Vaush so much for your empathy, for your sharp mind and astounding argumentative skills. Your videos help me so much to broaden my own perspective and critical thinking skills.
I think this whole AI art thing made me appreciate the Synths in Fallout 4 as a concept. The fundamental horror of not knowing weather you are communicating with real people, or if its just an algorithm. The meaning and value of intimacy utterly annihilated as you can no longer be certain that the people you are connecting with really feel things. Imagine if companies used AI that replicates human personality. Deploying them across social media like discord or twitter. Befriending you for the simple purpose of extracting data from you. Or they make synthetic humans that wonder around the world living fake lives to harvest data. You could be married to a fucking wiretap machine. The concept of the inherent value to human communication being destroyed by AI is fucking horrifying.
Re. synths isnt that already the case? You can't prove anything beyond your own thoughts. I think therefore I am, and such. The idea that everyone else might be a robot with no feelings is already true.
@@_Atzin there is a big difference between the theoretical possibility of a Truman show situation and you knowing for a fact that there are actual fake people among us who simulate human life for malicious purposes, but you don't and can't know who is and is not actually human.
@@hellionshark3197 the game kinda leaves that up in the air but it doesn't really matter if they are or aren't. The real problem is that the synth infiltrators integrate themselves in society under false pretenses. They can act identically to a genuine real friend but they don't actually feel the same way about you, it's an act. The only thing they are after is information or social positioning to further the goals of their masters.
@@ExternalDialogue that's not true Danes from the brotherhood of steel was a synth and didn't know it he genuinely thought he was human he had his own thoughts and feelings and cared for his brothers he even became depressed when he learned the truth.
Art is very subjective, but I see a lessening of my own appreciation as art becomes more automated. There is something to be said for style, soul, and the tactility of someone reaching out and expressing themselves in the physical world. There is also a major distinction between someone who really appreciates art and someone who simply consumes art.
just noticed dall-e generated images using my signature... there is literally my name generated on those images.... this depressed me so much i destroyed my canvas i was working on. f*ck that i am out (painted for 15 years) everything is just not worth doing anymore :c
I understand you are angry. But giving up on everything is not the answer. It would be better to keep your art off the internet, and find a way to sue OpenAi.
@@phloxie That is not a healthy way of thinking. Again. I recommend you taking your art off the internet, continuing to draw physically and finding if you can sue OpenAI for this.
@@MyDomesticChiffchaff Dude. It is clear he is not in a good mood. Talking like that helps nobody. And for him it was not about drawing in a similar way, but using his signature. Aka, stealing part of his drawings.
I just hate the fact that there are some programs or other programs being developed which try copy x artist on social media. The attempt alone is very rude.
This is very interesting, art as a concept is very difficult to draw boundaries around but it is still fun to listen to definitive takes on stuff like this rather than listening to a religious commitment that "art is art no matter the implications"
In history lessons the only guy who called "art can mean anything" was Mussolini when he wrote that fascism was inspired by the anti-art sentiments of futurism. Art isn't anything, art just refers to any "human practice/skill", as in accord to Latin, that doesn't mean art is anything. Ironically, AI is futurism.
people will say "AI generated faces" creeps them out because there is no actual human to the face, but soybraim over AI art. Looking at AI images, beautiful as they may be, it makes me feel the same way as AI generated faces. It quite literally creeps me out. You can like it, you can find it interesting, call it art even, but don't tell me that it is not somethow a hollow thing. Looking at AI art is like staring into the abyss.
Is that actually the case or are you projecting that hollowness because you know it's AI generated art? Have you tried doing a blind test to see if you can even tell the difference?
@@_Atzin I think it doesn't matter. the fact that after he knows its ai generated art. makes him feel hollow no matter how good the painting is cause well its imatating a person. I think I'd rather have a person reject me, rather then an ai accept me.
@@_Atzin I think it doesn't matter. the fact that after he knows its ai generated art. makes him feel hollow no matter how good the painting is cause well its imatating a person. I think I'd rather have a person reject me, rather then an ai accept me.
As much as I disagree with many takes of Vaush's takes on things (take a shot every time he says 'arbitrary'), I fully agree with this. There's people I've talked to that legitimately think art does not require imagination, that it's desireable to have a machine do dig deep and come up with compositions for you instead of you needing to doing that yourself. Never before was that fully able to be automated before apart from clever randomizing algorithms. Now we have a visceral example of a machine that can think for us.
Eh? Ai art should definitely be in an entirely separate category. Just like the photographer uses different techniques, like physically manipulating the lighting or whatever and makes the choice that THAT is what the picture will be of, the person making ai art is using different techniques and is the Arbiter of what pic the ai spits out is finally the “art”. That said, ai art is totally a race to the bottom. It’s gonna be all soulless regurgitated crap.
I 100% agree with Vaush on this. Not only is AI generated art something that threatens the livelihood of many people, it's also effectively stealing. An algorithm cannot generate art without first taking a look at someone else's work, and then modeling after it. It's art theft with extra steps. And no doubt it will be used by people who just don't want to pay artists for their hard work. Do people ask for permission to use the artist's work before letting the AI generate an image? I doubt it. (Most, me included) artists would NOT agree to having their art be stolen and then used in something like this. It's something that will hurt artists all around, to see something they've practiced for years and years done in the blink of an eye. Why would you want to create, when whatever you make will no longer be unique to you? What's the point of sports competitions? Would people still be interested in it if the competitors were robots? It's not a human achievement anymore. It's not art because it's not a statement or an engagement. It's just an image, and all the material that was used to create it was stolen.
A human artist also has to look at other people's art in order to learn. Not a single artist alive creates purely from imagination, it is literally possible only in an unrealistic controlled setting. Every human artist takes inspiration, looks at the work of others, not to mention that if you are formally trained by an art school, you are literally taught to copy the masters first and then "find your own style".
@@MyDomesticChiffchaff My brother in christ, this is in no way comparable, as you are supposed to find your own style and evolve as an artist throughout your education. Humans have something called Imagination. A machine does not. This algorithm does not. Trying out techniques and styles to better your own vs copying someone's work to a T is in no way comparable either. An artist outs effort into their work. A fucker who steals that art and then mixes it up with other stolen pieces doesn't. Please use your brain.
i hate how every cool technological innovation has to be followed with "but how are shitty people and business men going to use it fuck everyone".
because they will.
capitalism bad
Shitty people and businessmen are one in the same.
If only the Luddites had won
AI art isn't going to fuck everyone
@@qfjd " It wouldn't fuck me so it's not fucking anyone. "
The one good thing about AI Art for me is that it made me appreciate human made art more.
Same tbh
For me it made me try harder and try to draw better art myself...
As an artist I made me create more out of pure spite. I’m a comic artist.
A good example for this are Bonsai Trees, I think we can all agree that trees are beautiful but Bonsai tree’s beauty comes from the artistry that goes into it, they are art because of the conscious intent that was put into creating it
This is a great example. If only all art were like bonsai trees, in which skill and humanity mattered most, and those factors couldn't be taken away by a robot.
@@Naranylla right like I thought art would be the one field of work that robots wouldn't be able to automate I'm scared lmaooo
@@Naranylla Would help if people could afford. These days a young artist is lucky to not end up in cheap concept art or cheap drawn pornography.
I'm an illustrator, I do mostly graphite and traditional art, so I feel relatively safe, but this does scare me. I'm already seeing new accounts of AI art that sell prints and sometimes they don't say it's AI unless they are asked, which I think it's pretty dishonest.
Learn to code
@@aaronporter2180 how this solve any problem?
@@autumnfrost-art We live in a capitalist world rn, its gonna happen
@@aaronporter2180 Bots will code better lol. Learn to think.
@@aaronporter2180 the market for programmers is oversaturated, and it's not a job for everyone. otherwise there would be 7 billion programmers.
"Do not give yourself over to machine men with machine minds and machine hearts." Was supposed to be a figure of speech. Terminally online people who see no value in human interaction, and so see no problem in replacing it with an AI are inhuman to me.
100%. Taking what is becoming a malevolent position of defiantly defending AI art as a direct antagonist to human creative achievement seems fundamentally anti-human to me. Spent my entire life surrounded by such amazing human creativity, that viewpoint is so counter to what I understand that it almost doesn't compute as a possibility.
Charlie Chaplin... what a man.
@@will4282 It's definitely the attitude in tech sector.
@@MrArchilus Absolutely - hearing working artistic professionals talk about what it's going to do to the actual creative fields is insanely mentally debilitating. AI art is something that is going to be painted as innocuous, novel, and fun/harmless for 98% of the population to play with, but malevolently-uncreative, resentful middle management at creative companies and likely-psychopathic tech bros are going to use it in the worst ways imaginable. I don't want to be hyperbolic, and this is going to come off that way no matter what, but the more I think about it, AI art is subtly telling people of a specific creative personality and temperament that their existence is obsolete. The tech sector has no problem with this, you're totally right. AI art, movies (scripts), novels, music... It's all around the corner. AI pornography is going to be disastrous to the collective mental health of mankind. I digress.
My biggest hope, is that the most influential cultural icons can subtly craft some sort of cultural zeitgeist that paints AI art as being super corny and anti-human, or there's some kind of explosion of contrarians, who previously had no interests in the arts, start learning traditional media. There's probably going to be a bit of a dark age of illustration online here for a while here. Already starting to see a couple of my favorite artists announce that they're done posting their work online.
I'm sorry for the manic, tangential wall of text and potentially hot takes, but this has me all riled up haha. Whole situation is pretty goddamn annoying.
@@will4282 Don't apologize, you're completely right. And wow, AI pornography, never even thought of that. That's nightmarish. As if real porn wasn't bad enough. Nothing would be off limits. There'd be a complete detachment between a human a subject of their arousal
I don't want AI to replace high concept art, I want it to be terrible and spit out cursed meme images. It's pretty frustrating to see AI art get refined and try to mimic fancy smanchy art in a souless fasion. I want the G1 AI art that looks like an abien fever dream.
It has already been done
Why do u get mad that AI is trying to make refined art? Do u hate innovation?
I just want AI to create a hires version of SOUP TIME
@@wado_ichimonji2311 its not making art you futurinsm pundits. Its replicating it .it has no decision making skill. its just a washing macine of intellectual property. When siri "speaks" its not speaking as much ad imitating / replicating speech. you know that but, will you say "how do you know its not sentient to try to get away with out paying shit ? " yup. For it to make art it needs to be sentient Everyone of you who is sympathetic to ai is either
1.trying profit of not paying artist cause you don't believe artist add any value and are greedy.
Or 2. Anthropomorphising a machine cause you have been on tech news that hypes ai too much. I can bet you know nothing about ai research or macine learning other then, tecbro news / videos .I can also bet your source is fucking cgp gray. and i get that you watched blade runner. but oh god please just shut up and stop acting like you are a leading ai researcher and know anything of art. Ai doesn't have its own experience its taking it from old artist ,or what other human artist made; that is it. But it doesnt even understand it as experience cause it doesn't know what it is. This can't even pass the Turing test fuck being sentient. Its just a macine used by greedy aholes who don't want to admit they are greedy. And pin it to futurism.
@@wado_ichimonji2311 soullessly copying what others have done isn't innovation, it's stealing.
I’m a computer scientist, I’m taking AI classes right now, and I completely agree with Vaush. AI art is interesting from a technical standpoint, and there are applications I think it’s perfectly reasonable for, but as someone with a rudimentary understanding of how these algorithms and programs work I have to agree that it’s not really art.
I thought art was subjective? It literally doesn’t matter what YOU want to call it
@@Dusty2455433 if art is subjective (and of course it is), then the fact of it being produced without the involvement of a subject, but by an automated process, necessarily deems it as not-art
@@Dusty2455433 If something is subjective, then the only thing about it that can matter is what people think and feel about it. It's the very thing that defines it as "subjective".
@@Dusty2455433 Art is subjective, yes, But the definition of art that we have is that It is a form of human self expresión, a computer isn't able to feel so they can't produce real art.
You’re a cs student or a cs scientist?
When you draw, YOU draw your art.
When you make electronic music, YOU compose your piece.
When you do photography, YOU take the photos.
...
AI Generator Prompt: Vaush holding Pidgeon for the proletariat
Throw that prompt in, go ahead and bring me the compelling art you think that'll produce 😅
What if you create your own AI art generator and put in your own prompts? Also, how is pushing a button on a camera and letting the camera do all of the work any different than taking time to enter prompts until you get something you like? People will take hundred of photos until they get the one the like. Can I regenerate a hundred times until I get the output I want?
@@OldManShoutsAtClouds oh wait guys he types a bit more words oh no wait I know how about I use trending in art station
@@asher4268 The difference is a neccessary skillset. Camera won't make a beautiful photo for you. You need to know things like composition, light, angle, focus etc. The point of AI art is that it's accessable to anyone meaning that you need 0 skill to generate good looking image. The fact that you have to polish the prompts to make the images better is only a problem of current limits of that tech. It will keep getting better and be able to do good composition, anatomy, colors and everything else that you'll want.
@@slei4676 You actually don't need to know anything about composition, light, angle, focus, shutter speed, exposure, balance, etc... You assume a photographer has this skillset because you are imagine someone with deep knowledge of their craft. However, cameras have various auto features for focus, balance, color, red eye, and you can even have a grid and level appear for composition.
Additionally tools like photoshop have a ton of auto filters and auto corrections. You can give someone that knows nothing about photography a modern camera or phone even and they can take some beautiful photos. Sure they will take plenty more that aren't the best but there will be good ones in there. They may even be more likely to take very unique photos as they are not bound by traditional light, angle, or composition rules.
As someone who wants to be a writer, this gave me an existential crisis
Is it even possible nowadays to get published and make living from writing in the capitalism dominated world if you want to write something new and creative when the publishers demand to repeat the same crap that is safe for business and sell well?
@@ΑρτεμισίαΠλοκαμίδου FUCK I’m gonna end up becoming a video essayist
@Moss imagine the world in a few years when AI will automate all the creative jobs, leaving for us humans the most tedious uncreative and soulcrushing ones like a cashier in McDonald's and stuff.
I write full-time as a career. I've tried at least 4 different writing AIs and none of them work well at all. They need constant prompting, frequently get stuck in loops repeating the same thing over and over. And the amount of time required to keep them on track, I'm better off just writing everything myself. We've got at least 5 more years before writing AI gets to the point of eliminating jobs.
@@ΑρτεμισίαΠλοκαμίδου Yes it's possible. Lots of authors make 6-figures per year self publishing their novels and doing what they love. Think outside the box, stop living in scarcity and blaming lack of initiative on muh capitalism. It's 2022, why do you think we still need publishers, agents, etc?
I'm so glad that Vaush can defend art so well, the only time the youtubers I watch mention art is when they want to hate on modern or abstract art, its annoying and disheartening that they wont even engage with it
When I went to art museums I use to just look at the art and never read the commentary or notes that are always next to them because I hate reading, but recently I started reading them all the way through and it makes the experience 10x better, of course the art should be good standing alone, but seeing other peoples interpretations of it makes it more fun and even educational
art is communication is such a great way to describe it
edit: "The artist derives the greatest satisfaction not from thinking that a painting has succeeded, but when it speaks to someone, when the communication arrives: that is when it has succeeded at a human level." - Wolfgang Lettl, a surrealist painter who I was checking out and had this great quote that reminded me of this!!
this!! it's really refreshing.
Hey thats me too! I had the amazing fortune to be able to visit several well known art museums for school trips and everytime I just got lost in the art. This one time I ended up having a conversation with someone else there for so long I ended up losing track of my group.
"Art is a language, an instrument of knowledge, an instrument of communication." - Jean Dubuffet
"Art is a manifestation of emotion, and emotion speaks a language that all may understand." - W. Somerset Maugham
"Art is not emotion. Art is the medium in which emotion is expressed." - Nadia Boulanger
"Art is the expression of those beauties and emotions that stir the human emotion." - Howard Pyle
"A work of art which did not begin in emotion is not art." - Paul Cezanne
@@YokaiX these are great!! Ill have to check these guys out
I've found that conservatives are the ones who criticize or even denounce modern and abstract art. That kind of stuff is my favorite, actually. I love abstract expressionism, and also, surrealism. Last year, I discovered Yves Tanguy after seeing one of his pieces featured on the cover of a philosophy book.
As an illustrator, the idea of AI art is worrisome & actually kinda depressing.
@@rorybjorkman The robots will take all of our jobs - the missing exposition in Star Trek or The Jetsons must be that good "gay luxury space communism". If we keep a high quality of life alongside technology that has automated lots of our bankable job skills then we'll need income from the government. If the robots are going to take all the work, we need gay luxury space communism or it's all going to go to hell in a hand basket!
AI cannot exist without human input
@@patchymarbling6637 Well let's see how comforting that statement is when your own job is automated.
Don't fear it, learn how to use it.
@@Candy_McK It's not a tool.
If anything this is gonna highlight the bullshit of Meritocracy. "Oh yeah, us directors and producers are disgustingly wealthy because we worked hard enough to achieve our positions." (Crams millions of pre existing scripts/concept arts into a machine without the need to pay a human to write/draw them.)
Meritocracy as a word sounds like it should refer to those of merit being in democratic control of their own directly merited efforts. That which you describe is just capitalism and needs no other word.
I woke up feeling extra nihilistic about AI art this morning. Thought this would help me out; it didn't but I appreciated hearing someone with similar views. There are a surprising number of people who don't understand the problem OR have a vein/malicious view towards artists.
"Learn to AI prompt" is the new "learn to code", but about the human-condition instead of people simply losing their jobs. Telling someone who has created art for decades as a means of existing and expression, "you actually used a pencil idiot? learn to prompt bro", is incredibly psychopathic.
Indeed, I just can’t believe there are entire communities dedicated to this on fb, ig, twitter, Reddit, etc, acting as if what they do is completely normal, no one is being hurt, they’re just “artists” using another “tool”
In this types of places the more you do with the less effort the more people applaud, some even get excited about promoting entire videogames, movies…
I have no words honestly…
I'm baffled at how unlike anything else this is and how it keeps getting compared to photography and it's getting called a "tool" when the reality is absolutely clear that it's a replacement. The fact that this eludes the understanding of so many people is difficult for me to comprehend.
It is a tool. There is a learning curve and also you must know how to determine whether your result is good or not. It is much easier to make art this way, yes. Same as it is much easier to take a photo of something than manually draw it in a hyperrealist way.
@@MyDomesticChiffchaff „It is a tool.”
Tools do not create something just because you screamed at them to do it. These AIs do.
„here is a learning curve and also you must know how to determine whether your result is good or not.”
False. Completely and utterly false. You put a text, and it spits out an image. You do not like it, you tell it to do it again, And so on up until it spits out something you like. If the problem is the text, then you write a slightly different text.
„Same as it is much easier to take a photo of something than manually draw it in a hyperrealist way.”
The difference is that to make good photos you must actually know things about position, you must have the skill to make the photography at the exact time, etc.
@@MyDomesticChiffchaff Yeah, It's a completely different thing that replaces the other.
It's not a tool for artists as much as it's a replacement of artists and a semi-independent generator for some art directors and general consumers.
You know what the learning curve of the skill to do something like what the AI gives you looks like? A pretty big learning curve... years-long big. It's not even in the same ballpark or solar system.
Photo cameras didn't spit out 20 hyperrealistic paintings of roses by people going " roses, hyperrealistic, 4x3, oils, warm light" and bam! here ya go you big artist! There's a real technical skill to actual photography and a lot of creativity and preparation.
AI generators on the other side...
If you're not able to draw, paint and create illustrations, that's fine. It's a skill that needs to be learnt and cultivated. It's difficult and complicated but that's another reason why it has value - the experience and expertise.
Vaush is entierely right about this. You don't need to be an artist to realise that the current landscape of algorithm-generated "art" is hurtful to people who's livelyhoods depend on their creative talents.
very few people and companies will care about that.
I’m sure green energy hurts the livelihoods of coal miners and oil rig workers, and emails hurt the livelihoods of post officers
@@alexandernanitchkov6989 That doesn't mean that we shouldn't, though? Why should your morals be dictated by the economkc incentives of companies?
What’s the meaning of anything if you can be replaced by an Ai robot? Why exist? Why become a basketball player when you can create a robot that throws a perfect shot each time?
For us humans, it’s about the meaning. It’s the journey. And companies like midjourney takes the entire journey away.
The effort, the emotions it’s all gone and meaningless.
And if you can’t connect with it, if it’s your favorite books for a reason, or music or a movie or anything that you find meaning to then I don’t know how you able to live your life day by day without anything you care about at all. What’s the point of it all?
I think we need people to start making a genuine conversation about it all and how we handle it, even Elon Musk said that we need regulations on Ai or else people will do stupid things with it and won’t prepare you to transition at all.
It’s all about the profit for the few people on top and we should have a say and the option to make the machine to unlearn and opt out if we choose to not be part of it. The right to not participate should be a right.
@@natv6294 why do you guys always talk as if normal human made stuff is going away? AI art doesn’t mean nobody can ever make art again. If people want to do these things in spite of robots that are able to do it then there’s nothing stopping them, and there’s nothing stopping you from consuming their content. Idk why y’all talk as if EVERYTHING needs to have some deeper meaning to enjoy it. You know why I enjoy electronic music? Because it sounds nice and has a catchy beat that I can jam out to. No lyrics, little to no “meaning”, but I and millions upon millions of other people still enjoy it. But if we want to listen to songs with a story and actual meaning, we can too. You need to stop being so dramatic and pretending this is the end of human made art as we know it. If people want to enjoy non-human made things and they do enjoy it, then clearly there is something there to be enjoyed regardless of what you like.
I do find the drive to remove the human element from art to be very disturbing...
Futurism was the first time I've come across this in the history books, the desire to "rid" the human element of art. You know, the precursor to fascism is futurism.
What I hate is that some people on the internet posting AI art pretend like it's hard. The whole point of AI art is to make it as easy as possible, you literally type what you want to see and wait. It's almost like google search
Indeed and it's not an art form. Art forms have huge amounts books on their complex parts. AI doesn't require that, it just requires knowledge of the layer system and features of the given network, e.g. via a prompt book.
It’s the future and nothing can stop it I love it I still don’t think it completely replace artists
@SHODAN64 it will and what you're doing is helping it.
yeah..credit is for the ai who make the art not the human who type it.. idk why its piss me off see ppl post something that they not made and credit it
@@Piemon it's worse when the person who just typed in key words into a AI program go around saying they are an artist - esp when they do it to oil paint portrait artists - oh boy.
Thanks Vaush. Your empathy is appreciated. I seriously can't believe some people have the perspective that art is *only* aesthetic, and has no meaning whatsoever. Wonder if they'd feel the same if their parents were replaced with perfect AI replicas. It's all atoms anyway, right?
@@EllaKarhu sorry Ai does not think for itself. It creates art by using a database of imagery that generates something you put as a code. The database is unethical and corrupted in its core because the way they got the images to look good is by using actual living artists without their consent and without the option to opt out if you wanted to.
If you had government regulations and protections about it, I promise you - you wouldn’t been able to get to the imagery it is today and unfortunately no one cares until it gets to field.
Can’t wait tillsomeone using it to rip off and profit of a big company like Disney.
Also, if it doesn’t have meaning then what’s the point in anything? Let’s just create robots that replace everything and everyone.
Maybe we can put a drawing or a picture from a revolution time and create Ai generated outcomes that might even mock it in a way? Is that okay?
Technically you can do anything and Ai can probably do it better. And learn faster too.
But the difference between us to that is that we put meaning into things and in my opinion - preserving humanity is extremely important.
Currently your data is being used without your consent by a big corporation that only cares about profit.
And they use it against you to put you out of business, there is no more point of you to exist because Ai can replace you.
Right?
Are you okay with that? Let’s take your option to consent as well because the law is very slow.
It’s one thing to agree that art can be anything, it’s another thing to punish someone like an artist to publish their art online just to be taken advantage off and sale it for 30$ subscription a month for profit.
It’s not your place from the beginning to do it and very immoral and if you don’t see that, then def switch to Ai on everything by all means because you definitely can’t connect with your emotions as a human so no reason to give any statements either.
The fear for the young generation should be a real concern, and I wish the Ai was solving our environmental issues instead of messing with our society for some capitalism.
one thing worth pointing out is that most artist don't make a living by making "art" art they do it by doing commissions or doing corporate shit. these are absolutely threated by ai .art may be about communication or whatever but sometimes you just need a penguin holding an ice cream cone to market your ice cream shop
Well thankfully it’s not there full time.
@@ThePowerthatbeMedo you mean their full time job? And maybe a lot of people use it as a side hustle but plenty of people work as graphic designers for company’s full time
@@potatoshamcakes yes, sorry for lack of clarity. But I guess it’s the cost of automation.
Do you see the problem now? The current system isn't failing, it's DESIGNED this way... it just took a bit of time to catch up to wealthy nations. This isn't new shit, it's just affecting YOU now, so it's a problem you can't ignore.
If the system wasn't built to fuck over other people, and people didn't have to worry about fighting for basic human needs, this wouldn't be a problem. You guys are so worked up about this that you can't separate art as a job and art as a human concept... they're one in the same to you guys. AI isn't going to replace human art, it's just going to end the profiting off it. Nobody's stopping you from becoming the next Bob Ross, you're just not going to make a career out of it anymore.
I say it's a good thing. Capitalism, by definition, requires another party to lose. If you're profiting, someone else MUST lose.
@@ryanthompson3737 what my dude
As someone who just got into digital art a few months ago, seeing this AI "art" has seriously demotivated me. You verbalized exactly what I thought about this stuff.
I feel you bud, but until the ai can perfectly create the thing you have in your head that you want to make, keep making it.
That's so sad. Acquiring hard-earned skills like painting, drawing, writing a novel or playing and composing music is valuable in and of itself (and for me as an atheist almost a kind of "spirituality").
If AI discourages people from learning how to make art by themselves -- then all humanity is poorer for it.
@@shrinkhh79 That does sound sad, but that's probably how they felt about photography when it came about... or the printing press, or cars or any major advancement in technology. We can only see the negatives right now but you do have to remember that there will likely be a lot of positive aspects to ai art becoming mainstream. I mean if I had no art skills and suddenly this technology came around that aloud me to accurately visualize my imagination, that'd be pretty cool no?
We just have to wait and see what happens.
@@afluffywhitekitty8589 Well, if they (and quite a few others I have heard from) say AI discourages them from learning to make art, it is a negative, isn't it?
Also, comparing AI art to photography or the printing press (let alone cars) is a flawed analogy for, at least to me, obvious reasons.
@@afluffywhitekitty8589 The difference with photography is that it didn't require the works from previous mediums of art to function. AI like these are fed with billions artworks from hard working artists without their knowledge or consent. They're taking the work of artists to put them out of a job. Don't compare photography with this blatant copying.
As an artist, Ai scares me...
I thought I picked a skill, a trade, that could never be automated out of existence. Guess I was wrong.
If you asked me this a few years ago I would have guessed that creativity is one of the last things to be automated. Granted, this might not yet be limitless creativity but the result will be similar.
I'm a developer, and the best thing is that this gives me motivation to come after the petite bourgeois, isn't this the objective of the revolution comrade?
you will never be automated out of existence, ever, just like how in the past 100 years when world population skyrockted by 6 billion and you got 6 billion more humans competiting with you, your still around doing art, you havent been pushed out, likewise neither will an AI do so, just make art, nothing is stopping you
@@XiaoYueMao money is stopping them though. You might want to have a decent live, you know?
@@len3rd376 as a socialist my goal is a world in which nobody has to work, so the concern over an artist not being able to make money is irrelevent to me, if you want to make art, make art, but you shouldnt need to make art to have a living, the eventual goal is to automate everything required for a human to live a comfortable life without working, so that everyone is provided for, for free
As someone who has already had their art stolen, the ability of AI art to be used for art theft is terrifying. And just how much it would affect the media we consume. The arts are so important to me, and the idea of having all of the humanity taken away from it, it’s heartbreaking and depressing
So was the copy and save button. Human art will continue to exist has as long as there not able to make perfect replica of yourself which would open a whole new can of worm.
@@anonymouslee2061 tranhumanist simp detected
@@anonymouslee2061 dude I know that’s literally how my art was stolen. But what vaush described is like another form of art theft that in some ways seems a bit more sinister. Using your art to create art exactly in your style that you haven’t created yet? That’s scary, man
It literally isn't how it works though. Latent space is fundamentally different, diffusion uses pixel by pixel generation from static noise.
You still made that art. No person or machine can take that unique experience away from you. Art as a career path may be reaching a tipping point, but the relationship between you and your creation is undeniable. Even if it is never seen or appreciated by anyone but yourself! Happy painting :)
It's only because of capitalism that we have to worry about this. AI art is a really cool tool, and can create really good art, but only because of the beautiful human culture that created it, and the humans who use it to their ends
I agree. If we had socialism and no profit motive then AI art wouldn’t be a problem. People value authenticity, communication and intentionality in art, so art made by actual artists would still be valued much more highly.
I normally lean in favor of capitalism (modulo the current corruption issues), but I can't help but agree -- it's ridiculous to have to suggest holding back innovation in order to ensure there's enough work for everyone. The idea of not having enough work being a problem is itself absurd.
There's no reason to be upset with AI. Human expression will always continue. Instead, society needs to be changed to support people who have lost work to technology.
@@Ass_of_Amalek yes its literally no money, do u know what de commodification is or did u not even google the definition
@@xkozyTV imagine a perfect world, everything is automated and done by robots
why tf would there be a profit motive? plz think about the things u say, the point of communism is to have no profit motive
i agree. it should represent a cool but niche tool for people who only need something vaguely similar to what they want, a way of generating interesting images based on freely available source material. instead, the danger lies in the takeover of the already narrow niche that artists occupy under a capitalist system, where it can ruin the livelihoods of many. perhaps there are still issues to be had with the idea behind it even without the issue of job destruction, but that remains the most salient one.
thanks for finally putting my feelings into words more specifically and articulately than i ever could. the guy who entered the art competition with the ai art has been bothering me all week. i can't help but think about this person i watched for *weeks* on tiktok, putting painstaking effort into this gorgeous painting of a duck for the duck stamp contest, and how the entire time they kept reiterating that they were just hoping to get through the first round of voting with a certain number of votes because the competition is so fierce with so many amazing artists putting in just as much time, effort and literal blood, sweat, and tears into their duck paintings. like i keep thinking about that guy with the ai art that won that competition, and thinking about this stupid duck stamp postal service competition and yeah. if i put the kind of time and love and attention into every teeny tiny detail and some jackass who couldn't even paint a stick figure fed a picture of every duck painting that's ever won the competition into a computer, entered, and *beat me*, i would be fucking pissed.
i can't draw worth a damn. i admire people who can a lot, and i think it's so cool that people are able to actually put thoughts to images like that. to see people minimize the work that artists do because they cream their pants over technology just because it's new and shiny just makes me sad. there's a skillset in making an algorithm that can generate pictures that look cool as shit. i wouldn't be able to do that either. but comparing those skills to the skills of an artist is insane. they're totally different things.
Yeah the difference being the ability to create basic art is fucking easy. 80% of artists aren't super talented. The people writing up code for AI are some of the smartest people living on earth.
@@shmig_ key word: basic. we're not talking about stuff like that cold, flat corporate clipart. i couldn't care less if we have ai making that. the people making could and SHOULD be doing way better stuff with their time. we're talking about stuff that people actually put time and energy into and has an actual soul. stuff that you would enter into a competition or sell to collectors. literally nobody is complaining if ai is making basic art that nobody bats an eye at. you *cannot* compare artists to programmers without sounding like you don't understand one thing or the other.
also, art is entirely subjective. whats considered basic to you could be a priceless masterpiece to someone else. something that a 3 year old scribbles in 60 seconds could sell for hundreds of thousands if you told someone it was an original picasso. personally, i think a lot of classic art in museums is "basic" and boring. my favorite artists are all "amateur" artists drawing fucked up blobby frogs and minecraft fanart. most people disagree. its fine. but i don't want programmers stealing any of it to feed to a soulless computer to churn out copies regardless because it devalues all of it.
There was no need for you to call the dude a jackass imo I see the fact that the person won as an impressive feat of innovation
Mankind was able to create a machine that was good enough to mimic what an artist can create is a pretty big leap in ai technology just remember
that there was a person behind the ai that created the image and he had to give all the prompts to create the image so creativity still derives from
the person which is understandable since ai is just an extension of the human mind if you really think about it
@@chakramx317 ok, but most of the time the people writing the ai scripts are stealing other people's art. that's jackass behavior. if someone wants to write a script and put art that they made into it, be my guest. i don't care. my main problem is with the art theft. my second problem is with people trying and making huge leaps of logic to compare the skillset of an artist with that of a programmer. it just shows a lack of understanding of both art and programming.
also, the jackass in question was in a hypothetical scenario, since as far as i know, nobody has tried to enter ai generated art into the us fish and wildlife duck stamp content. however, anyone who *does* enter ai art into a competition for art created by human hand is acting deceptively, and is therefore, a bad person. imo.
@@axelotls_ Still the people who made the ai have no malicious intent on “stealing” peoples art the programmers simply created it on the basis of curiosity and ai advancement just because the process of creating an ai image means going through potentially hundreds and thousands of pre existing art to make something original and fits the criteria doesn’t necessarily mean the people behind the ai are jackasses by any mean the process could be considered questionable at best but the intention was to get a machine to create an image on its own and based on current technology I think they succeeded on that part they shouldn’t be compared to original artists since programmers and artists are two completely separate things which I am at fault for poorly conveying and there is no denying people will use this to do wrong doings like a real jackass like entering it into an art competition to get a advantage since its not fair on the artists that partake but that happens all the time when new innovative things come and go there is no denying ai art does and will have a place in the online landscape
I remember being in TH-cam chat for this stream and being legitimately triggered by some of the responses I was seeing from people.
I've never really been good at anything in my life. I've always felt like kind of a failure, as if I were a disappointment to my family and my mentors. C student, never accomplished anything award-worthy, etc.
The only thing I've ever been marginally good at is music. So you can imagine my utter joy upon finding my niche: jazz improvisation.
Over the past couple years, I've gotten much better at it. Listening to chord changes and playing improvised lines over them has become more intuitive with time, and it's noticable. I've gotten lots of compliments from people on how I sound, which is something I would not have ever imagined happening when I was a depressed high school student.
And the idea of someone lazily plugging shit into an algorithm and pressing the "render" button until they get something that sounds good perturbs me on a deeply personal level. It's just so fucking soul-crushing that I could spend so much time developing a skill and putting thought into the things I create, only to be made obsolete by some fucking dipshit thoughtlessly putting numbers into a fucking black box and spitting out something that sounds identical to what a human would have written.
And I know that people are going to interpret this as a whiny asshole shaking his fist at the sky, but I think it's genuinely astonishing how many people in chat seemed to be either incapable or unwilling to understand why this kind of thing is deeply disturbing to people who have built their livelihoods around artistic pursuits.
Yep. It's really sad you were lied to or that people were wrong when they said AI couldn't do art.
You just need to accept, they you are a unique and special snowflake. Exactly like everyone else, and therefore don't stand out unless you excel and this niche now has electronic competition. It's ok to feel depressed about that, we weren't designed to live in a world of billions.
I as an illustration artist agree with you.... its very disheartening to imagine losing a competion to a machine, and those machines are very good at color and visual compositition already, better than me in many cases, they just lack in lineart and detail as of now.
But its just times changing, the chess grandmaster who first got beaten consistently by that chess computer must have felt the same way. Artifically limiting the progression of technology just to not hurt peoples feelings would be worse. We have to adapt and maybe we can find a way to use it as an artists tool. If you only make art to sell, compete or get praise, you are not a real artist in my eyes anyway, it should be about expressing yourself. Maybe someday we cant monetitze our art but nobody can take the act of creating art and our unique expression from us. Of course thats a very idealistic personal view, dont know if i explained it in a way anyone can relate.
My personal more pragmatic cope is that this stuff will maybe make handmade art more valuable, like with handcrafted furniture etc, because there will always be many people sentimental & idealistic enough to value the human element, effort and imperfections in a piece, even if AI someday will objectivly produce better results.
Im 100% with you in all of this and horrified at how little people value art and how they seem not able to grasp the arguments being made by Vaush, also while being such confident smug a**holes about it (while they miss the points being made) which makes it worse, also how they go out of their way to bash the people most affected about it too
This is basically how a lot of people are going about it rn (while also disregarding what goes into art itself, even digital art, that is lost in AI regurtitations of stolen art): "Though luck, all those people in your life were right and you should have not pursued your dream career, now you are severely set back in life at best and completely fucked at worst, should have kept it as a hobby while you pursue that law degree"
It is all really sad and disturbing tbh.
@@erikvale3194 the importance of a skill is on society to decide. the only reason you are saying what you are is cause you lack exposure to art. Maths is only important cause the upperclass benefits from it they don’t want to get rid of the lower class if they did who are they going to rule over. So some people can be special snowflakes in this world I guess as long as it benefits you know who. Also if you are not so special then why not dive of a cliff there are so many like you anyways. But you won’t do it cause I know deep down you don’t believe that.
@@heyy1829 "If you only make art to sell, compete or get praise, you are not a real artist in my eyes anyway, it should be about expressing yourself." So what, the artists of the Renaissance weren't real artists? It was only through commission work that they were even able to secure the time and resources to pursue their craft. They hold the incredible, singular distinction of presenting a high watermark in an extant field that we haven't been able to exceed for centuries despite our advanced knowledge and materials- it isn't practical to reach that level anymore because photography subsumed the need for photorealism. It reduced the time artists are permitted to work on a single piece from months to weeks, and each subsequent advancement shrinks the window further. When your intellectual pursuit is also your means of survival, you do approach it more seriously. Granted I question whether our best art should even exist if it were only made possible through labor exploitation, but the world was generally a richer place for it.
There aren't many artists who don't wish they could just work on their own original content and get paid for it. Commercial work is the compromise. That you can't interpret someone else's idea in a commercial context and still call it individual expression is absurd. If we don't have jobs for artists, we're simply going to have far fewer artists. Ironically this puts a hard cap on how far AI art can even take us when there's going to be far less original artwork to train the models with.
It's frustrating, because I absolutely agree that this is different from the panics of past innovations, that it crucially removes the human element of creation that was always still present in the past. But I also know there's nothing that can really stop this, which makes it extra horrifying.
A human programs the code for the AI tho… so it’s not actually gone
@@claymusicoff5663 that's programming, it isn't present in the actual creation of the art. they give it the starting algorithmic parameters to learn from and build off of, but after that the black box takes over and begins interpreting. and then eventually ai will be programming other ai and we'll really be screwed. there's no gotcha here, op and vaush are correct.
@@claymusicoff5663 Doesn't make these AI any better tho, they're still a net negative.
@@claymusicoff5663 Indeed. A person programming and manually editing the AI’s structure and commands will conceive something far more cohesive than an average joe typing in a sentence into a website. AI has a lot of fantastic applications within art I say. I understand where these artists are coming from but the aspect of “AI art becoming indistinguishable from human art with minimal human interaction” is quite speculative. The largest and ugliest problem is part of the larger socio-economic one where capitalism could sue AI as an excuse to further underpay and mistreat artists whilst ignoring the deeper aspects of it
@@ttt5205 well that’s not quite the argument of this particular comment.
And no. There are negative aspects about the tool that are highlighted due to our economy. But in actuality it’s a great tool if used in different ways.
Even copying peoples art style would require the programmer to not only choose the right words and bank to sample from, but the optimal program. The pick the out of the pictures it generates to the one that best fits what you’re thinking of in your head. Now this process could be quick and cash grabby. But it can also be truly artistic if used in a thoughtful manor. Like literally all art
2:20 as an example all officers in the Royal Navy had art classes so they could draw formations and the quality they get them too is quite impressive for just sketches.
This shit is genuinely scary for me. I'm a concept artist/illustrator working at an art outsourcing studio. Ai can literally do the majority of my entire day's worth of work in seconds. I really don't know digital creatives are going to have jobs in the near future
Edit: "ai art will never replace other kinds of art" that is unfortunately where you're wrong.
Artists are lame anyways 1 artist = 1 less productive citizen back to the mines boyyo
I feel for y’all. I was going to commission art for my game (D&D) room, to the tune of many dollars. Not something personal, either, just cool unique art to fill the space.
This changes so much for me, and I imagine for many members of the public.
@12 34 I am a horse farmer you guys CANNOT start using cars it will put me out of a job
@12 34 As an accountant, Excel is saves so much time, but we downsized and have to accomplish more. Never assume management will save workers time and let them keep it.
Especially knowing how bad companies can be when trying to make money by branching off to more "efficient" way of making art.
I think AI could do plenty of good, but the interests that arise in a capitalist society turn it into a net-negative. That's what it's like with plenty of different tech. Capitalist interests alienate and the more powerful our tools become, the better it is at creating alienation.
You’re completely right about the AI art, especially most of Vaush’s (correct) concerns revolve around corporate and professional art unique to a capitalist society, but he also brought up broader applications such as deepfakes and voice/personality simulators, which do not need a profit motive to fuck over human society. I think we really need to have a society wide conversation about these things, but that will never happen with the current system anyway, so we are back to square one, do the revolution, again.
I think a key thing is art education being very poor at least in America.
You need buyers still, and with an uneducated population, you can easily dupe them with ai art.
@@anarchy-authoritarianneo-t180 How would deep fakes be a big problem without any profit interests or any efforts to exploit others?
something I can agree with vaush on. It's sucks as I'm someone who is just starting out and I see this shit winning a state art contest... It's just makes you ask yourself "why even try?" You've got competition that is essentially free and will over take you in learning ability and how fast I can work.
I have a friend that is a coding nerd and has made is own AI when dabbling and he tells me I have nothing to worry about meanwhile AI turns around and proves him wrong. This isn't even just art either, I am in a band with my friends and you got the ai coders actively trying to replace music as well.
I also hate how they tell everyone to their faces that their using it as a tool and then turn around and use it as a replacement. not only do they see art as entertainment and a spectacle to be consumed like vaush said but they also see it as product to be mass produced for the sake of consumption which goes the completely against art as a whole
I literally just saw a post about this by one of my favorite authors. I'm generally a very pro-automation person, but art "automation" looks lile digital art, drawing programs, etc. Things that allow the artist to express further creativity. AI art is not automation, it's depersonalization. It's cheapening a creative field so companies can make a quick buck.
Tbh I'm not even sure these bots were created just for profit. Given they have copyright issues and are openly usable and sometimes the code is even openly usable, it looks more like what the generally good online scene does (free modders, pirates, ...)
How is that different from the taxi driver or medical doctor being replaced by ai though?
@@faarsight Because artwork is created via creative vision as a means to communicate emotion and themes, and enriches/defines different human cultures. Taxis and doctors are an objective means to accomplish something for physical human betterment.
@@boldandbrash1990 I quite sure that's baseless, art is more of a style informed by the culture consumed. Artists always reference this or that like a salesman, but in the end it's a picture.
The thing is: AI was believed to not be capable of creativity (and I believed that myself) but these art AIs shine a new light on how the creative process might work.
Humans too copy all sorts of stuff and we tend to idolize those (like Lovecraft) that come up with something unique.
While AIs are not there yet, what is possible is already remarkable.
@@h4xorzist Essentially, AI generated art are composites of pre-existing are being fed into a machine. There is no theme. There is no creative vision. Philosophy Tube recently created an excellent video about art and art interpret that I think effectively conveys why it is important that art has an intelligent designer. Art is so much more than "pretty picture". Part of what makes art culturally relevant or even good is the meaning behind it, often nebulous and open-ended which makes interpretstion conversations so interesting. But if an AI generated it? There's no point even interpretting. It wasn't created for any reason other than the machine took in a bunch of samples and did what the code told it to do. And there is far more to making art good rather than making it marketable or making it appeal to the masses. I am pro automation, but I hate this muskrat technological fetishism where any automation ever in a capitalist society is always a good thing.
The more AI advances, the more it will hinder the capital gain of creative jobs. Artists will earn less money now that there are free automated alternatives.
But also, creativity should not be valued in terms of capital gain. AI is not the problem, capitalism is, and as our tech increases, we will reach a point in which capitalism will have to fight more and more to justify itself from inevitable obsolescence.
Sick and tired of leftists waving problems off because "If we didn't live in capitalism, it wouldn't be a problem" Well, we DO live in Capitalism and we will continue living in it foreseeable future. So excuse people wanting to have a remotely pleasurable life, not soul crushing nightmare that's all about mustering the willpower to finally slit your wrists and end it
Super interesting discussion! I love your take, though I do have some disagreements. I think A.I. art might be threatening to illustrations, but not to art (at least not fine art). I'd love to expand on that one day, either with you or in my own video.
Also, as to the real art vs reproductions debate, I made a video on that with a political twist through the lens of the socialist art critic John Berger. I'm sure you might find it interesting.
oh damn. didn't expect to see you here.
Cool to see you here love your stuff dude
I love your stuff!!! So weird to see you here XD
I think it'll at least push wages down. The AI doesn't need to match the quality of a skilled artist - but it can serve to assist a less-skilled artist. Why pay top-dollar for an experienced and talented illustrator when you can hire someone fresh out of college with some basic skill and let them use AI to augment their abilities? The artist produces a 'meh' sketch, the AI turns it into a professional-quality artwork with a few flaws, and the artist does some touch-up work on the details.
I sent an e-mail to Vaush asking to shout you out and I was unsuccesful. I'd love to see you on stream someday!
AI art is awesome in a vacuum, a tool to be used. However in our capitalistic reality it just means less money for artists, more stress on professional artists that managed to keep their jobs just making art.
Like every new feat of technological innovation, all the added value will be usurped by those up top. We gotta get UBI and make it reflect the standard of living technology should afford us.
9:29 as someone who has drawn from life in nature and also taken photographs, I can say that as a "photographer" you must engage with your "scene" holistically, the subject of your photo cannot be treated as separate from everything else in the photo. You need to consider background elements and how you want them positioned in the final image when considering what angle and distance from the subject you take the photo, and foreground elements require the same care and consideration. If you want separation via blur (bokeh), you need to adjust everything including the physical apparatus of the camera itself, and such a decision could dictate the very time of day that you would need to take the photo. An "artist" on the other hand, tasked with depicting a specific type of flower to be shown in a textbook, merely has to draw the flower, the garden be damned.
I am noticing that people who fight for art know and understand the importance of the living being who created said art.
Those who stand by a.i. art are those who keep saying "why pay the artist when you can make it yourself?" Without even realizing they didn't even make it themselves.
People fighting to keep art to the artist worry about keeping creativity alive while those who fight for a.i. art, they keep talking about money.
I understand, artist who make money have learned how to commercialise their craft, but each artist has spent years discovering their style. In a sense, art is a manifestation of what is within. Who you are, the depths of your mind, your very being is put into what you make. Even if it is something so minor, it holds the essence of the person.
A.i. art... it looks good, but it's not about always about looking good. We have art history classes discussing why the artist did what they did. What was going on in their head, what was happening to their life, a great way to see what is happening in history is to look at the artists of the time.
With a.i. it might be lost completely. At some point when do we lose our humanity?
This is what I've been arguing too. I just don't understand why the people standing by AI art can't see or refuse to understand this point
Okay... but this could be said of any profession. The shoe cobbler, the suit maker, the dress maker, the sewer, the baker.
If a machine can do it better for less money, well, that's that. I'm not saying it doesn't suck for such individuals, it does, but that's life.
I don't think it'd matter in the end, but maybe some kind of consumer law saying if it was created by an AI over a human.
Those people are the mind disease that are tech bros
@@ReleaseMyKrakken "the market will decide..."
@@verager2493 I mean, yeah. Whats the counter argument... people should pay more for art because... humanity.
Okay. It's a nice thought, but at the same time a misunderstanding of humanity. Walmarts are a thing, mcdonalds are a thing, sweat shops are a thing. We don't much give a shit about fellow humans, period.
The idea we're going to care more about fellow humans because robots can do art faster and at less cost... it's ridiculous.
Again, I'm not saying it doesn't suck. I'm just saying its fighting battle that can't be won.
As a working artist with plenty of worried concept art buddies: thank you, you did a good job summing this one up, with a nice little coat of art philosophy on the side.
This genuinely fills me with existential dread
Fascism will always ride on the back of its futurism ancestor.
@@ayanari3531 ?
funny how technology went from
"Here's NFTs. It will benefit artists a lot!"
to
"we're replacing artists"
in the span of less than a year.
Ntf where never beneficial for artist tho it only did harm. It was ment as a way for artist to get paied. But turned into people stealing others art and posting it as there own on nft sites to make profit. Even ai was ment as tool to help artist but ... Now here we are
This doesn't discredit the issues with the AI discussion, but NFT isn't really related at all to it, and yeah NFTs were always bad news
Even more reason why we need advocate for ubi. With one people's livelihoods wouldn't be at risk and they can do what they love even if ai can do it better and not have to worry. All we would need to do is tax the companies that are using ai instead of humans and do a vat tax and then we could fund a ubi. Both would be super easy to do.
YanGang
@@someone3542 Perhapes a bit
I agree in having a UBI in the face of automation but the concerns in this case aren’t just economic, it’s also about human communication and alienation.
@@Rainofskulz true thats only because we tie our worth so much to capitalism. It makes you feel worthless if you cant use it to be productive. With ubi you can do it just cuz you want to and if someone likes the art/product its just a plus but not a necessity. Even without ai you dont just stop doing what you love cuz other humans can do it better then you.
UBI? You mean "Pod in a slum, protein mash and access to Steam and Netflix so you don't rebel"
As someone who frequently visited artstation and other websites to watch artwork for inspiration; I now just wonder which one is generated and which one isn't. Websites are being flooded by ai art, It's going to be increasingly difficult to find gold now. Save as much art as you can, it's going to disappear because of fear of being exploited and used in training sets. This is so sad
I know the artists there are protesting the a.i "art"
@@ConsciusVeritasVids you’d have to question why we value anything. But I suspect your anger comes from a place of jealousy and isn’t going to be open. Art is free and open for everyone, it just takes commitment, which so many people lack today unfortunately . Wish you the best.
At my writers co-op one of the members did a PowerPoint presentation about how “good” A.I was for writing stories and art. He was highly dismissive of any criticism and claimed that anyone criticizing ChatGBT simply hadn’t used it yet.
When I told him that A.I couldn’t write a complex story that touched on basic human emotions he smiled and dismissed my concerns as nothing substantial, I wanted to honestly vomit.
Have a room mate really into AI art right now, talking at me about it all the time while I am at my desk painting or drawing some story boards or other such, and he doesn't seem to get how offensive that really is. He seems to not even agree with the idea of the dehumanization and theft of creativity because to him the human brain is just an algorithm, so these AI's are no different than say me being inspired by Don Bluth. It just stuns me though how these people so utterly lack tact to basically give me a verbal slap to the face as I work and be like "What I don't get why this upsets you"
@@ConsciusVeritasVids You are exactly the type of ignorant techy bro I am talking about. Thanks.
I'm going into art education and now I'm dreading the question from my students about why learning art is necessary while AI exists :/
Here are some arguments you should try:
1. Explain how it improves their understanding of various topics.
2. Explain how making something your shelf can be more engaging and a greater source of pride then letting an AI do it for you.
3. How human made art is more impressive and can result in actual success for you
4. How it can help them inspire others to follow their dreams and be better persons.
5. How it can be a fun hobby.
I would say that it’s a time to learn and paint so they can resist and share their feelings and statements about it that Ai will never be able to make, because it’s just an algorithm and didn’t went through life like us.
Yes you can code it to do anything, but what’s the point of anything or anyone anymore if we can just replace it with a robot?
I don’t know if the industry will exist anymore, but artists who have the passion to create will create anyways.
I would say to them to not put your art online. At least not currently because we live in crazy times where you will be put in these companies databases and basically be punished for wanting to put your art on Pinterest or whatever databases they currently taking the imagery from.
Resist and fight in your own way, ultimately I just hope they bring some regulations on these things because right now they sale copyrighted materials and ripping off actual living artists and the law is not there yet.
I believe it will get there one day, but until then it’s hard to say.
Just hoping someone ripping of Disney and then a big lawsuit will happen. Currently I don’t even know how these Ai companies are even allowed to sale licenses.
I’m gonna sound crazy but watch out with technology.
Companies selling our data everyday for their own profits.
I just think it's neat that I can type a promt and get a cool image. That being said, I think AI art should stay separate from hand drawn art in competitions.
it feels infuriating that they already have been allowed to win competitions with ai art. you already didnt do the prompt. its like if you won a sculpting contest by just grabbing a real apple and said yep here's this apple i sculpted what a cool statue amirite haha. you just didn't do the prompt! don't let them win just because its novel! we already proved computers can beat the best humans at chess, but we still have chess competitions and you're not allowed to enter a computer and win! gah!
@@allergiccookies6735 Maybe competitions should start asking artists for proof of their process, that is assuming they will still care about human created art.
even worse, the guy who won an award for submitting an AI generated image won in "photo manipulation" category. there was no photo in the first place! if anything, it would be better if they created a separate category for AI art and let the most creative prompters compete.
Vaush makes some interesting points. Currently AI produced art is considered to have no copyright, as it was assembled by machine not a human being, so if corporations use it, technically they can't copyright (there's no transfer of rights from the artist) it unless they have a human interact heavily with the result and altering it. So at least for a while human has to be in a loop (most of the artworks require some degree of fixing anyway). One way of preventing AI from cannibalizing artists' styles is simply not including them in the training set. These algos can be only trained with big budgets so as long as AI organizations are allowed to use anything, we will have "latest and greatest remix" of human creation represented by them (ie. LAION-Aesthetics).
The models themselves can only thrive on the massive collections of images acquired by crawlers and if an artist has too few works exposed online, the AI will fail to represent their style. Currently the limitation of Bayesian inference (which is what these AI generators are based on) is that it also fails at representing out of domain queries... This is clearly the case when you try to generate the prompt with a style of an artist who didn't represent it in their art (ie. a painting of car by an artist who makes mostly landscapes) and when prompting for particular theme AI will return only styles that covered given subject (ie. "painting of a dragon" is most likely to return a mixture of styles of artists who depicted them).
There's also the interesting term "AI Artist", however if someone is only providing a prompt and getting a ready made image in return that technically makes him a commissioner or consumer... otherwise we could call anyone who asks for commissions "an artist" (whether ai, digital or traditional). This makes the case of artwork that won the price mentioned in video similar to that of someone commissioning an artist with a prompt and then submitting the result to the contest while claiming the authorship... And if the contest rules allow it, I'm not sure what to think of the contest itself.
I sure am sure what to think of such a contest, it’s a complete and utter fraud. It’s the same difference as biological males being allowed to dominate women’s sports. Modern society is constantly pushing inequities. This is a part of the war on art and artists that started with the ugliness of modern art.
"Currently the limitation of Bayesian inference (which is what these AI generators are based on) is that it also fails at representing out of domain queries..."
Great point, but it's not just a current limitation. Any method is limited by the information is has to work with, human creativity included (garbage in, garbage out). Bayesian Inference is just the ideal case of using all the available information and no more. The best methods of inferring illustrations of a prompt are naturally going to be approximations of that ideal with the most computational resources, using the most efficient algorithms, with the most representative data we can get.
そう思います
AIに命令している人たちは単にAIの消費者であって「AIアーティスト」なんかじゃないですよね
I'm pretty sure ai art can be back-end copyright protected like songs are.
If you write a book it's copyrighted. You then work with an ai generator to make image headers at the start of each chapter in your book. The art itself isn't individually copyrighted but the book is. The images, only able to be obtained from a copyrighted source, would be protected from use commercially by others.
In that context the images would also prolly be able to be copyright protected under the Kashtanova precedent since the book is human generated with the assistance of an ai.
@@Incab The Kashtanova copyright registration has just been revoked. She's going to appeal but I think it's just the beginning of the wave of claims the artists will start making when it comes to violating their laws by AI companies who basically abuse the 'fair use' doctrine and in the process affect the art market substantially, which is violation of the doctrine itself. In the end I didn't realize that 'the smart people' in AI companies would simply ignore the legal implications, just to be first to hit the market. And if it turns true, it's just reckless behavior, which shows how much they are basically for the 'quick buck', consequences be damned rather than "democratization of art" and other lofty claims. I guess the time will tell.
Thank you for talking about this, and you are so right.
This is not like photoshop or a camera which can be a tool to involve in the creative process - this Ai technology suppose to entirely replace the thought process and produce you a finished piece and leaving you with what are you suppose to learn? How are you going to teach art education where Ai can easily do everything artists do now.
Photoshop doesn’t do the thinking for you, it enable you to do things in a different way but it doesn’t entirely replace the thought process.
Photoshop didn’t stopped me from the need to find a book for a reference, but now I can generate it with just a few words.
This is totally different. This is not a fishing rod that recognises that you caught a fish and applies exactly the right tension on it to hook it, this Ai is a chip that you put on your head that you think “fish” and it lands on your plate.
That’s the difference.
There is no physical exercise involved, there is camaraderie of going out with your fishing mates, there is no being in the fresh air, there is no knowing where the fish are and getting to know the nature of how or where the fish is.
There is a whole world out there, of fishermen that essentially their purpose for living, people build reasons to exist around being a fisherman or going playing football, or being an artist. And this is not that,
This is cutting all of that and just getting to the end result which is a fish on a plate.
There is nothing to adapt to because it steals everything and just making you automatically irrelevant and the reason they went with art is because they want to prove that Ai can produce something like art that we perceive as emotion.
And if you feel untouched because you don’t do art, don’t worry it’s coming after you too because they plan to venture towards many other areas.
Instead of using it for important things like curing cancer, they taking what humans already do masterfully and then crapping it out for some license price.
This is not “progress”, and companies had been stealing our data for a whole decade now and the government need to really step in because these companies just try to profit of it and nothing less.
This is a huge problem for mental health as and future generations.
As an artist who their art is in their database, it also doesn’t give you the option to tap in or tap out and it leaves you feeling like you in the Wild West.
I feel very powerless and deeply depressed by this and really don’t know what to do about it anymore besides stop uploading art online.
I agree with your sentiment. Thanks for your comment.
Honestly I think it’s exactly the same as a camera and photography. Photography can be art, even nature photography where you didn’t make anything you’re taking a picture of can still be art.
But think about it, basically all the work is being done by the camera. You just point it in a certain direction, maybe tweak a few settings, and press a button a few times. The camera is the one collecting all the light, adjusting how it collects that light to the settings you inputted, formatting that light into an image, and taking that digital file and displaying it for you to see. The entire process of MAKING something is being done by the camera, you’re effectively just guiding it to do that. And yet it’s both real art and YOUR art. Because of that guidance, because of the decision of settings, because you inputted that button to make the camera take a picture. It’s a tool doing all the real work but the end product is still art and still your art because of that deliberate action you took.
Well, so is AI art. Sure it’s a tool doing all the work in terms of making something. But you’re still guiding what it’s making by giving it prompts, you’re still tweaking the settings by adjusting what confines and characteristics the prompt is made with, you’re still pressing the button to decide that what you have lined up is what you want. All that is deliberate meaningful human action that goes into guiding the tool to make something. The prompts you give, the confines of the art, which variations to make further variations on, how many variations to make, whether to upscale an image before or after making a variation which will add details that get changed when making a new variation. All that is a human element. All of that is a process being deliberately made by a human in the furtherance of a goal to create something.
If AI art isn’t real art simply because it’s a tool doing effectively all the work with only your guidance determining what it does, well then photography also isn’t since that’s basically the same thing with a camera.
And it’s a losing battle to say “it’s not enough human element” or “it’s not enough of a process” because there’s many examples of art that involve little to no actual work or creation on the part of the artist. Some art LITERALLY is taking other people’s creations and simply putting it in a new context with no alterations.
@@gryph0n55 Have you ever worked with photography? Because your comment is very naive.
There is a lot of work that goes before and after a photo is taken: configure the camera settings, filters, set the lights - probably in a professional studio- , the model, makeup, the background and outfits, apply the composition and color theories you spent years studying, light composition, ambiance and depth composition, shape language, and then comes the post-production, editing, color balancing, etc.
Photography also doesn't run an automated code that steals those qualities algorithmically from other artists and copyrighted material without their consent.
I don't believe IA will replace artists completely for there are limitations intrinsic to these codes, but your comparison is not right.
Second, someone prompting a work for an AI shouldn't be considered more of an artist than someone who commissions an artist. The machine is the one who is actually combining references, arranging the composition, the color palette, making the texture and brushwork, creating the shape language, framing, etc.
I don't know in other areas, but a screenwriter can't be credited if they didn't write at least 33% of the work.
Following this logic, an AI "artist" shouldn't really be credited as such if their work stopped simply at the imput.
Thirdly, I do believe AI art is art. That's not the question and I believe Vaush is wrong, I don't think art should be determined by the amount of work put into it nor by a human element intrinsic to it.
There is no clear definition for art, but there is a clear definition for artist, which is the one actually producing the art, with or without effort. AI art is produced by a computer, the ones prompting it are commissioners, in the most practical meaning of the terrm. I also believe that the programers are waaaay closer to authotship of these works than the ones prompting it.
@@monnaranzoti732 for some people it’s really hard to grasps the idea that if I tried to actually steal the physical Mona Lisa and paint over it, I would get in trouble. They just think in “Ai” like whatever a robot does means progress lol.
This is just a sophisticated art theft.
If a machine uses a code to specifically get to your style and been trained on your actual intellectual properties then its the same like stealing.
You can see the actual signatures on the outcomes pretty often.
You can say “hey, I really like Mona Lisa let me take a picture of it and use it as inspiration or reference on how to draw hands” or whatever - that would be different and in that case, sure. Do it better if you think.
But this is a mess production of a none consent work, without the option to opt out as an artist - just because the machine can, and laws are grey, all these companies do is race between each other to power by using our data to create a database, and maybe one day will step on these commenters too.
If I sampled the Beatles in my song, it wouldn’t be the same as me getting inspired by it and I would had to pay royalties because it’s not allowed and I need to ask for permission.
The camera is not an argument, the camera was actually progress in technology but it didn’t eliminated the creative process nor had the plans to and I can’t believe I have to explain it.
Training an Ai to replicate something that without stealing the data from would had never gotten to this point, is not “amazing progress” - its just exploitation and abuse of power.
If it’s “such a great technology” then why did it had to go this route? Couldn’t it studied from artists who are at least no longer alive? Inform the actual artists that their style had been ripped off by a specific code that direct the machine to use their actual copyrighted materials and offer to buy their license.
There is an actual list of them.
And I don’t believe these artists should be punished for simply living in the digital era where you want to put your hard work online and get clients. You should feel protected and not exploited by companies who steals it.
Definitely distopian and even the big companies asked for regulations while ago to get an idea of what’s the boundaries are but the law is slow.
Also at some point I can see other Ai artists using other Ai artists name, super meta I know.
And before long Ai will be able to look at artwork and read books and we won’t need any costumers.
So your days are numbered, consumer human.
For my fellow real authentic artists who might read this, stay safe other there and mark your artworks. Also don’t forget to support your 100% organic friendly human artist!
I’m really glad that someone who isn’t a working artist or musician has this perspective. If people are going to use AI generated images or sounds by using a compilation of other works the creators of those works should be compensated in the form of publishing or royalties. The same way a musician would be compensated if someone sampled one of their songs.
Tons of songs get sampled and the original song never gets and credit, many famous songs nowadays are covers of already existing music and I’ve never heard the original artist getting credits or royalties for that either. Deep blue didn’t eradicate chess grandmasters, AI art won’t eradicate artists
@@williammckenzie6865 Totally agree AI will never replace artists, but I think it will make it easier to engage in plagiarism. There are obviously songs that use samples that don’t credit the original, but the opposite is more common since most labels would rather give up some publishing and royalties than go through a lawsuit. Just because an artist’s name doesn’t show up in the credits on a streaming platform doesn’t mean they’re not getting paid. This same issue persists when people do covers or remixes. What you’re talking about is more of an issue with streaming platforms and distribution. There are tons of songs you can’t see the full credits for unless you go on a site like AllMusic, Discogs, or Jaxsta.
Then should real artists pay up whenever they get inspired by anyone other than themselves? If AI art involves blending together images/styles/etc from multiple different sources to create something completely new, then real art doesn’t sound too different. But what do I know, I’m not an artist
@@sonofben3322 Well no… Inspiration doesn’t require using the original source. You just need to have an emotional response and an understanding of the art. AI can’t get inspired and requires the direct use of the source material.
If it inspire you than you are USING the original art
As a designer who already can't land a stable job in the industry (partially because visa status) I feel very sad about the whole situation, having spent years to practice both traditional art and digital art, and simply being told there are people who can just cheat the way, steal other people's works and make money out of it
Artist already have a bad rep for being a "useless" profession. Now we going to be triple fucked becuase no one will think we see the point of us existing due to ai art.
Well life moves on you know. Profession being made obsolete by advancement of science is nothing new
@@raingulfdrengot195 idk man, the job market is already pretty fucked as is, with people desperately searching for jobs. Erasing more proffesions will just worsen the problem and leave us all homeless and broke because we live in a society (hehe) where money and jobs are MANDITORY to cover your basic necessities such as food, shelter, medicine and even water.
@@TerraStory225MYA So what do we do then? Utilize law to ban AI art development?
@@TerraStory225MYA That sounds reasonable, so long as individuals are free to pursue AI art and its development.
Embrace AI. Use it to become a better artist, in the end it can be used as a tool like photoshop and digital brushes
I'm a traditional artist and I do have my concerns about it. But I'm in too deep at this rate so all I can do is to keep doing my thing and see how this all plays out.
Love the TOOL pfp!!!
@@floppavevo5920 thank you floppa 🙏
there will be (already is) a group of increasingly more soulless, terminally online people who will scoff at art, they will essentially be severely mentally damaged by thr inhumanity of their lives. i think traditional art will grow in value, as will digital art. ai art is a new category at the bottom of the pyramid, its basically worthless crap that is good for meaningless routine work like corporate art
I think all we can do is put money on the side, so that we can learn something else if we need to
When I just barely started making art (I've been doing digital paintings since about 2016) a teacher I really admire told this: "When you paint, you should never paint on a canvas. You should paint on a 3-dimensional object that is beyond the canvas." What it really means is that you need to have an understanding over what your subject matter is and where it is located in space, even when doing 2d art. The reason many AI artworks feel so off is that they literally do the opposite. The AI cuts apart pictures and follows a set of steps to rearrange and piece them togehter, then slaps about 1 billion layers of effect layers on them without understanding what it's actually doing.
This becomes interesting when you consider that it's only limited to the technical side of it. It's not going to think through any character design, it's just cutting apart characters and slaps them together. It's not thinking about the elements of a phisical space and how they relate to each other, it's just mimicing how people construct a scene and finds a way to make it convincing. It's not constructing objects based on logic, just cuts out and pastes in things that it sees. The only thing AI can do better is that it creates half-abstract images that are visually interesting and pleasing to look at at first glance. Don't get me wrong, eventually AI will be able to do all of it! AI will create a 3d environment, put characters in it, figure out who these characters are and how they relate to each other, etc.. and I can't wait so see it!
AI will change art forever, but artists will never be eleminated. Some will figure out how to use AI in their workflow and will manage to add meaningful things to it, effectively using the AI as one tool from their toolkit, others will embrace the older methods and make art traditionally. When I started, digital art was already a huge thing, but people didn't stop making traditional art just because digital is an objectively better medium for convinience, reliability, and multi-functionality. AI will be huge, but artists will be bigger, wether they have AI in their toolkit or not.
Well said. This is a great take
no actually. ai that you are talking about is free. i have dall e 2 and it is insanely accurate that there is no difference between a real photo or the image that ai put in front of you.
@@bunnyvillainy I feel that it will be really similar to like the Unity asset store from the video game industry. Tons of indie game developers have access to 3d models that they can use for their games and there are a huge amount of uninspired cashgrabs that are just slapped together for a minimal profit, but nobody will remember them. People only really care and think fondly about things that are well made my passionate creators.
For the art block part.. I don't know.. It definitely helps and has value but I mostly struggle with more tidious parts, not with the base that an AI can provide now, but creating visually pleasing textures and elements that you can put in backgrounds or other abstract parts of your works is something can be helpful for that. I can much easily see art commission clients creating moodboards and compositions that they can take to an artist as an extention of their explaination of what they are looking for.
@@pygmalion8952 Convincing and photorealistic? Yes, but it's a shallow fakeing of actually thought out works. It still can't construct an entire environment or a character from scratch or a piece of intentional visual storytelling. Everything an AI can do right now is way too shallow both on a technical point and from a storyteller's perspective. Art is more than recreating photos and slapping together ideas from other artists.
Basically photobashing but with even less intent
21:30 “it sounds like you’re saying we need to work just for works sake.” What a ridiculous interpretation. This is one of the issues with AI; if it were being used to improve shitty jobs that nobody enjoys and improve the lives of those workers, it would be one thing, but art, animation, graphic design, illustration, etc are jobs that people ACTUALLY WANT TO DO!
To those who don't understand where Vaush is coming from. Try to imagine an AI that can perfectly simulate humans (how they look, how they move, and even how they think and speak). And now imagine someone using the AI to create a new Vaush TH-cam channel with an artificial Vaush that is indistinguishable from the real Vaush, streaming similar things Vaush would talk about throughout the day. Would you be okay with that? Would it make a difference to you if you knew this was not Vaush?
Considering the video's entire premise that a style can be owned is a falsehood I wouldn't mind an AI vaush channel. Can't be any worse than this one.
I already watch Neuro Sama (Ai VTuber) so I am biased to say sure but as long as I know it's an ai I'll be fine.
AI art is neat but it absolutely should not be taken as far as it surely is going to be. The fact that it's essentially stealing art just to build the machine that can create lookalikes is incredibly problematic. If there was a way for artists to volunteer their work, refuse access to their work, and to get a negotiable commision for each time the machine uses their sources to make new art, maybe that would make this a more acceptable practice. But realistically that's not going to happen, it's just going to become "you made this? I made this" on the biggest imaginable scale.
How do I know this will be the case? Well, look at those "interpolated to 60 fps animations" that are so popular for some reason. They move in a way that the artist(s) never intended because the original art was intended for a lower framerate. New art was essentially created from what the original artists made without permission, and you could argue it's not even real art because a machine just screwed with it in a way it was preprogrammed to. These videos are a good example of how a large part of the general public simply doesn't care. To some it's a slow and unnoticeable decline in artistic intent, and to others it's glaringly obvious that something's off. And it's just going to get worse and worse as time goes on no doubt.
As an artist, this sucks. As an art enjoyer, this sucks.
The "it's just stealing art" argument is flawed because that's literally how humans learn. We copy and take inspiration from the work of others all the time and no one would reasonably call that "theft". Everything you know and do is the product of external information that you've received over time, so in a sense it's impossible for even a human to be truly original. "You made this? I made this" describes every artist who has ever existed and just because we perceive our thoughts and actions as somehow "separate" from external reality doesn't change that fact.
The animation situation is not really relevant because that's taking a singular artist's work and "defacing" it in a way. Whereas the machine learning model that receives millions of paintings as input can learn small feature representations, say edges, patterns, texture, etc and then later combine those features into something new that doesn't resemble any particular input.
I think a lot of the negative reaction towards this is because the average person is not really educated on how machine learning (or neurocognitive processes) even work.
@@annasofienordstrand3235 The issue is that corporations will use AI to make art that way, copyright and trademark it, and will then come down on every actual artist/content creator who would try making fair use of their AI art in turn.
@@user-df4kf6fg7h The legal and economic ramifications are an entirely different issue. No need to make disingenuous arguments about why AI art is inherently inferior to human made art when the primary concern is obviously jobs and the impact on media consumption.
@@annasofienordstrand3235 I never said AI art is inherently bad, just that any copyright and fair use arguments usually go only one way.
@@annasofienordstrand3235 it’s not a human tho what’s your point and idk man I have never crunched pixel data in my life.
These AIs steal already made images and basically they put your style, your Art identity in the hands of other people. All kinds of people. It's insulting for me to see this. I have nothing against you, them, and whoever wants to draw, let the whole world draw, but draw each person, and not use algorithms that make references to foreign Art styles and give them to third parties. It is very devastating to my eyes and my taste. I feel like my mouth is full of shit from these mixers. So yeah, I hate those AIs too. And maybe not the AIs themselves, but the promoters using them to commit crimes against the artists.
I feel like a big part of enjoying art for a lot of people is learning about the person behind it and trying to understand what they were thinking when they made it. It’s that distinction that’ll make the real difference between human created art and anything an AI could ever make.
That’s why, as an aspiring writer, AI made to emulate writing has never really bothered me. For a person to pass off a fully AI generated novel as their own would require so much elaborate lying that I’d honestly be impressed if anyone could. Particularly if they tried to publish multiple works.
At that point their lying would become it's own legitimate work of fiction. Probably harder than just writing a novel themselves.
I guess that depends how you define art. I mean if video games and films are art, I don't think more than a handful of people care to learn about the hundreds of people behind it.
For now.
But why would I care whether something is written by a person or an AI? Not only is the fundamental process by which the work is generated the same, it also doesn't matter what the authorial intent was. A text can create meaning in ways that the author never could have intended. Once it's out there, it speaks for itself and the writer becomes irrelevant. So it doesn't matter whether the text is created by an AI or an acutal human being, it can contain the same amount of meaning to the reader and thus be exactly as much "art".
@@tulkasastaldo4114 Well I think authorial intent isn't the be all and end all, but it adds a layer of discussion. I mean was the intent achieved or fucked? What about things like starship troopers, I think the film has more impact knowing that it's existentially a rebuttal of the book it's based on but I think that needs authorial intent to stand, otherwise it'd just be a questionable adaptation I guess.
It means a lot to hear you say this. I’m 34, and I have spent almost every day of my life since I was a teenager practicing both the craft of drawing to be more expressive and diverse in my artwork.
Hearing about A.I art fills me with an existential dread that goes beyond my own concerns relating to being able to earn some money-though that obviously upsets me… But a world without art is truly not one that I would want to live in.
I think it’s ghoulish that instead of developing more technology that would allow more people to pursue jobs that were more fulfilling, we’re potentially going to ‘cancel art’. Fucking bullshit.
I'm a musician, and ai has been creeping into my field as well. I'm not worried. It's all just new tools to me. I can make anything my own.
@@Jeremy-hx7zj If your music can be reproduced by ai... then your music is soulless crap in the first place. There’s more to music than just putting little notes that sounds good together. I know some of the ai music is kinda advanced, but meaningful? Hell no, and it will never be. Like many other area (like translation for example), “ai” will hit a ceiling, and you’ll always need human brain to do the rest of the job.
This is the real great replacement nobody is talking about
I think it depends on what we do with it.
I think trying to incorporate AI in the process can be neat. One thing I did involved writing several poems, plugging them into an AI generator (admitedly not a great one) multiple times, picking ones I liked, and made a sort of collage out of the results. I like the concept of letting stuff that's not under your control influence the end result.
Same, I love stuff like that
Interesting...
But you used your own writings and purposely used to AI in an artistic way to get those poems. Would you feel the same way if someone else took your poetry (and then sold it)? Honestly, if someone does those things just for fun, I don't see any issues, and if an artist uses their own art to create the AI, I have no issues, but stealing art to create new art is horrifying to anyone who loves (and especially those who make) art.
@@normalgamergal The thing is that people can already copy your art themselves. It's harder, but they can. Besides AI doesn't have to copy anyone to generate images necessarily. I just don't think we should demonize technology for what people/capitalism are responsible for. I can understand why an artist would feel threatened but the answer here isn't to just demonize the AI itself, it's to take care of the surrounding issues.
I wasn't completely dismissing the fact that artist might get hurt by it, my point was that it isn't the tech's fault and that I don't think people should dismiss the artistic nature of what it produces (which vaush kinda-ish did and many conments did also. Generative art has existed for decades and has been accepted as art, it doesn't make sense that AI art would be less valid.
You mean incorporate the hard-work of some other artist's textures, style and form in your work without you even knowing how to achieve it yourself artistically? That is still plagiarism. If you're going to steal from somewhere, let it be royalty-free public domain photography.
I was so excited before Dall.e was released because I thought this was moving in a direction that could help artist and non artist alike visualize their imagination as most technology should. Personally I was hoping it could merge with dream detection technology.
However, now that I've seen how invasive, entitled and seemingly intentionally destructive many AI art advocates are towards art - not even as an occupation but as a passion - it is clear to me that these people are not a friend to artist.
It's okay if you want to use a new tool to create something. Cool. But to take my art signature and style, is to take away my personhood and my identity. These people (NOT ALL BUT TOO MANY) want artists dead. I can't get behind that.
Well said!
"ai advocates are entitled" - person who thinks that a group of random people putting prompts to generate backgrounds to their DND campaign "literally want to murder me"
Nobody is stealing anything from you get over it.
@@shmig_ how so?
@@shmig_ you're literally the guy who wants artists to die out
The amount of AI "art" defenders here is just sad.
No AI "artist" does art.
A digital artist will always be able to draw with pencil, there is a skill there, that is transderrable.
If you make ai images, you can't transfer that, because it's not a skill. The moment you take that specific tool away, is the moment the "artist" stops.
Even people who trace, have more skill and put in more effort, than any AI "artist". I have more respect for those people, than i have for people who try to pass of their ai images as art.
I am slowly starting to understand why ppl destroyed all computers in dune.
No. That was backlash against Windows 133.
The "It's about supporting art" crowd will do anything other than pay artists to produce art. Using an AI generated artwork as a basis for making something I can see, but just generating a piece is no different than a videogame sample asset flip.
A veeeery good way to explain this to people who don't understand:
People who did not consider photography as art might seems weird, until you consider that there are people who don't consider "modern art" as art. You know, those flat abstract coloured canvases with basic shapes on them. There are a whole lot of people who will say "that's so stupid and simple, I could do that, anyone could do that, where is the art in that?"
funnily enough, this exact phrase could also refer to photography. it is "easy", meaning, the tool used to make photography is easier to use that pencil or brush. and there is virtually no barrier of entry.
another thing to consider, art is most often engaged with as decoration. refusing to call AI generated paintings does in no way take away from it's worth. As vaush said, there is beauty in the world, that is not to be considered art. Think about it.
People will line the walls in their house with beauty. wheter it's a picture with no artistic intent behind it, a photo which personal meaning, or infact a beautiful painting by an artist. once it hangs on the wall, it doesn't matter what you call it, it fullfills its purpose.
yet another thing, could you ever engage with AI generated art as if it were painted by a human? There is nothing to interpret. No intent behind it. Everything interesting about AI is on a purely technical level.
Think about someone writing about an AI painting. How could they ever write "the artist did this and that here" they would have to at least comment on the fact that it was made by a computer programm sampling other artists work. the only object of interpretation that there could possibly be is to think about what kind of pictures where pulled from.
because the AI can't add anything on its own. There is nothing to comment upon. So we would have to talk about, "ah yes, this is influenced by this and that, and the AI works in such a way as to combime this and that"
Except all the AI art is text prompted, so it does have intent to interpret. In fact, skill still plays into it as well. There will be people who can come up with text prompts that produce "brilliant" high level art. Then there's the capacity for editing the image further, of course.
No art can add anything on its own
edit: also people can be deceived by AI art in to thinking it was made by a human, and then interpret it as if it was made by a human.
I'm quite sure that time will tell you wrong once the algorithm starts to create new things, and it's not like many of the more abstract pictures created are just copies of other people's art. Yes, the algorithms are learning from all art on the planet, that does not mean it's automatically stolen.
I'm an amateur photographer. I've had photos in a couple juried shows. I also paint... pretty well if I do say so myself... so I think I'm qualified to compare processes.
Over the last year, I've taken a bit more than 25,000 photos, maybe a dozen of which I've printed and display in various places. The artistry, IMO, is in the initial selection of the subject matter, and then the selection of the dozen photos out of those 25,000 that are actually worthy of being displayed. The camera records the image without much effort on my part, and I edit very little - intentionally so, as I think that makes the resulting image more authentic, if you get me.
I think AI art is similar in that regard. The "artist" chooses the initial subject matter, and then chooses which outputs are worthy of display as art. The fact that the actual creation process was easy, or not especially creative in itself, is irrelevant.
If you can't even fathom how AI art might negatively impact creators, you've got the imagination of a crayfish.
Edit: y'all pro ai people need to learn how to steelman an argument, christ. This comment doesn't make any prescriptive statements about ai.
@Cool Cat Yes, but we as a species kinda have a track record of taking something good and derailing it for the benefit of the few.
@Cool Cat People will disregard the ways this AI can assist the process of illustration and instead just use it to directly create new illustrations. Art as a medium already doesn't get the respect it deserves especially in a capitalist setting, why wouldn't people use this new technology as a means of further disregarding it?
yeah todays creators will get screwed, but the world moves on and doesn't wait for anybody.
@@ThatWolfArrow people will do both. People LIKE to make art, that’s not going away. There’s no reason to think AI art is the end of the artistic process, there will still be people just using it to assist the process. But there will also be people using it to create new illustrations on their own. The same way the age of digital art was just a means for more people to create art in a new way, but didn’t spell the end of physically created art because plenty of people still draw and paint and sculpt.
@@gryph0n55 But why go through the time of illustrating something or paying someone to draw something for you when you can just have an AI generate it for you in a matter of seconds, especially if you're a corporation? If it looks good enough for you, who cares if a person drew it or not? Hell, newspapers are already doing this as an alternative for artistic interpretations in their publications.
*THIS* is what people are afraid of.
I love this topic and appreciate your nuanced approach, and I disagree with some parts of it.
I agree with your point that art is inherently about communication. It's social behavior. It's about intent of expression by someone and interpretation of that expression by someone else. This form of communication can be done in a myriad of ways, hence why artistic expression is so rich with creativity.
This leads to the point that there cannot be art if there is no intent, no communication. The pictures of universe illustrate this point perfectly. They may look mind blowingly beautiful, but it's not art. Unless you believe in a god, those images are just unintended features of nature, mindless, without social thought or expression. Same goes with images of fractal patterns for example.
But I don't think AI generated "art" falls in the same category. These images don't come from a vacuum. They're not a feature of nature. They're an amalgamation of human descriptions of things. They're inherently human concepts drawn together by an inhuman process. It's a form of expression with the individual artist removed and replaced with the detritus of the interconnected human consciousness. Yes, you cannot seek intent of expression by a human being, or a collection of human beings, but you can find echoes of human expression synthesized together by a mathematical process. It's like subversion of art into something else.
I understand if you want to call this not as art, but I think there is still great social value to this. I would consider it an alien observation and categorization of human behavior. If an alien landed on Earth and started compiling examples of human expression in its own methods and presented the final, now-changed product, I think it would be conceptually similar to what this AI "art" is. The essence is still that of human thought. The intent is to express that inhuman compilation of human thought. and we can try to interpret that, though it might be too alien for us to have a social understanding of it.
I don't want AI "art" to replace human art, I don't want it to even be categorized in the same way. I want it to develop into its own distinct thing, if there is a word for it, I don't know what it is. But I think it's extremely interesting to see what an inhuman lens displays when its fed human information. I would love to see it become more abstract and complex.
As for its possible uses and exploitation of artists under capitalism, yes, it's a nightmare scenario. But under capitalism, what isn't?
Bro thanks for typing this out I was thinking the same thing the whole time. As a musician I appreciate the fact that the art I make comes from dumping material (music I listen to) into my head, shaking it up together, and then playing something new. I think that all art that we produce as people comes from human pattern recognition interacting with whatever we observe from outside, just like feeding giving an ai a task and then feeding it infromation. If you think about humans as using algorithms we develop ourselves it adds a lot of validity to any A.I. art.
Fr tho thanks for posting this I'm glad I wasn't the only one thinking this!
You realize the images using copyrighted materials without the artist permissions, right? You don’t have the option to get out if you wanted and it’s a huge problem.
Basically everything you do online you should be punished for one day without your constant for real reason and someone’s else profit.
We need regulations on these things, right now it’s like gta.
You might say that Ai art is just a database of photos and it’s really just that.
There is no intent behind it, it’s just about creating “beautiful” final image, no history or a war or any story behind it.
So why not replacing everyone and everything? Why having doctors if a machine can do it perfectly? Why young kids who wants to do sports will go to college, build a life around it and use inspiration to practice everyday? Just create a machine that does it. Who cares, right?
No. Without meaning what’s the point in anything. What’s the point of going through any struggle or try to achieve anything.
This is a scary world and I wish they had better structures around it. We need some government protections and people to step in on this. We all know where the Ai direction is going, by maybe we can focus on actually finding a solution for cancer instead of taking something that people already do masterfully and slap 30$ monthly subscriptions on top of it?
@@natv6294 You're sort of missing my argument and attacking something different. The final tiny paragraph I included mostly addresses your criticism and I agree with how this technology being used for exploitation of artists is nightmare stuff. That's a problem with capitalism, not the technology itself.
I want to see the technology utilized for something completely different, something on the same level as language and art, but entirely separate (as in, not replacing them). Please try to engage with the argument I presented without the emotionally charged response.
@@BLooDCoMPleX unfortunately the “emotional charged” response comes from being a human and not an Ai, sorry about that.
Currently companies using our data and selling it to eachother to come up with new technology to become the next big thing and profit. It’s a race without our consent either, and I hope you understand that.
There are not many laws currently that protects you in any of this and artists right are taking a huge hit.
Next, it might be you.
I wish to finally see this technology utilised in a good way but currently all I see is that we live in a total capitalism that would try to make a few bucks before the ending itself instead of solving our environmental problems.
This technology is not a tool to improve and I struggle to see any “progress” in it.
This is a chip that you put on your head and think “fish” and fish fall on your plate.
It remove the entire creative process, the camera, printer or 3D did not stopped me from needing to look for a reference by opening a book and then find a way to collaborate it or get inspiration.
I still had to think about the composition and learn.
Let’s say you are a fisherman.
This is not a new tool to help you catch fish.
There is no physical practice, no meeting up with friends to do fishing, no studying on how and where to find a fish, no going out and breathing fresh air.
There are people that their entire live hood purpose is being a fisherman and this technology suppose to eliminate the entire journey process and just give you a fish on a plate.
It’s very concerning as a society to be honest I don’t see the “progress” of how making everything meaningless is helpful.
We as humans can put a meaning into things unlike an Ai that just spits out an image with a bunch of words that you program it to do.
My fear for the future generation is valid as we are in this current state of the cyber Wild West.
It’s the extensional crisis of meaningless and joblessness it leaves many people in, if done incorrectly.
Mental health is a huge factor that takes a hit here.
Elon Musk said himself that Ai needs to have regulations or else it can be used in a very bad way, and just cause disruption in our society and unfortunately that’s the only thing I currently see. Sorry if it sounds emotional but I really don’t understand how we choose to miss it and keep pushing forward even tho we know where it’s leading us to.
@@natv6294 My friend, I understand your concerns, and as I already said, I agree with them, and I think this is mainly a problem with capitalism.
I'm not one of these AI fetishist brainlets who think any technological improvement should be lauded as social progress, if you read my original post you will see that I am advocating for something completely different.
I literally called it "an alien observation and categorization of human behavior". I don't see it as art, I see it as something that is entirely new and unprecedented. I don't want it replacing any human activities. I want it to be an inhuman mirror to our collective human expression. It may not be that in it's current form and use (it definitely won't be used in the way I want it to be used), but it has the potential to evolve into that. That's all I've stated.
All the associated practical/social problems that you pointed out and Vaush pointed out, I already agreed with.
AI won an art competition?
What’s next? A forklift winning a dead lift competition?
I agree that having an intent behind a piece of creation necessarily creates art
No human artist can be devoid of intent no matter how much you trace to the line
It's still your hand, still intent if subconscious
36:00 It's really depressing that Disney is already paving the way for this with Star Wars. Deepfakes of young Leia and Tarkin... AI generated voices for young Luke and Darth Vader... we're already spiraling down into this depressing future.
I know a friend of mine that use Dalle and other stuff to creates what he calls "art", he can't even draw a single thing with a real tool but now with coding and programs he defined himself as artist, judging me for how I draw with my graphic tablet. I mean, what he creates is damn cool but I don't consider it as art, it's soulless and poor. You can call ai a tool but I feel like there's no human input at all. The ai creates and he decides what's cool to keep. But that's not really art, it's soulless, dead, no emotions at all. People can hate me but I would put the ai "art" in the coding stuff, not art. Art is expression/emotions, born from human mind and heart to communicate :/
Your friend is just a prompter. Not a artist. I would call these guys idea guys an idea is nothing without good execution since the same idea could be executed badly. And since they're not executing it, The AI is. The only reason their idea is worthwhile is because of the AI and has nothing to do with them and their ideas. Also, there's AI that can make prompts for you.
god its so good to hear someone else say thing cause god seeing people not get want it means to be human is so depressing. i hope to god we never lose art to this empty consumption.
It genuinely makes me feel so hurt and disheartened to see people who say that ai art can replace humans.
@@bluecoffee3868 im sure that grandmasters of chess felt the same in 1997 when deep blue beat the world chess champ
I do hate how people have a hard time seeing what art is and can be. It seems like most people view it as just spectacle. Someone said something in my college class on banned books that really rubbed me the wrong way, “the purpose of literature is to educate and entertain”. To boil all of literature down to these two principles really simplifies the wide range of reason to why someone would create. There’s an amazing video by Jacob geller called: “ who’s afraid of modern art: vandalism, video games and Facism”. I strongly suggest anybody who reads this comment watch it, it’ll give you something different to think about on the “Merits” of good art. To me art is more than just an amazing anime or a beautiful painting, it’s a fundamental part of the human experience, all art no matter what it’s saying is an expression of the artists soul and I’m not at all inherently religious, but I do think the human touch is incredibly important when it comes to art, and is something AI just can’t replace.
I can't speak to where things will be even a year from now, as a lot of this stuff moves quite quickly, but what are your thoughts on an artist using AI as a shortcut to get reference images or inspiration for a piece of art they are working on?
If it saves them time with no drop in quality, and maintains their influence on the style and meaning, would the AI assisted version of their art be worth less than the one completely made by hand in your opinion?
@@jonathan0berg I don’t have a problem with the AI being used to assist with art, after all that’s how we went from hand drawn animation, to cell sheets and computer drawn animation which is great. I do not believe it is the tool which will detract the value of art, but the loss of the human intention and touch that comes from putting it together. The ai can help, but it shouldn’t be the thing that produces art, at that point the expression is lost, because it’s a matter of production now, instead of creating for the sake of it. Using it as reference though I think is actually a good idea, as they can then use the ai as a tool to help them. I guess at the problem at the end of the day is capitalism dilutes the value of art into straight mass production.
@@Smolscream @Jolene the Souls Queen I used to make computer generated fractal artwork, which is pretty, but it's hard to impart artistic meaning into it.
I've been using midjourney a lot lately and it feels to me like a halfway point between fractal art and real art in terms of how much meaning comes from me compared to the meaning that is generated without my input. A lot of the discussion around AI art is giving me a weird sense of Deja Vu as it's very similar to the internal questions about fractal art being real art or not that I've struggled with for years.
The conclusion I've tentatively arrived at is that art is a spectrum rather than a binary, and AI art is most, but not all of the way towards the Art side of that sliding scale.
@@jonathan0berg wut you just gave it your own meaning and said that’s the definition 🤨
@@tinyrobot6813 So?
I'm an artist myself and I love to use art as one way for emotional expression, that said AI generated drawing that suits the taste of the one who pressed the button, is (looking from an unbiased view) no different from the one made by an artist on canvas philosophically speaking. Only when you compare these two through the bias lens towards human interaction and artist wellbeing can you see the difference between them. Unfortunately, capitalistic machine is sociopathic in nature, so regardless the uproar from the art community, AI generated pictures will become the norm for the sake of time and resource efficiency in the near future.
that can only lead to stagnation. these machines cannot think, they can't function without humans that create art in the first place, remove the artists and you'll evetually get a recursive loop with the same art over and over, A.I art feeding into A.I art, like chat bots
@@1OtherMr When/if things get to that point original artwork may become valuable again.
@@1OtherMr except these systems have an infinitely larger data set to work with than a human artist...so can distill and combine millions of stylistic choices in moments that no artist or group have artists can hope to match in there collective lifetimes... if anything A.I systems have the ability to broaden the palette not diminish it because they're not limited by real world practicalities or preconceived notions of what is and is not acceptable art ..
If anything I'd argue the human artist is the real source of stagnation.. trapped in fad's and trends that see the same styles and themes repeated ad infinitum throughout the community at large..
@@johntowers1213 jesus the fuck is that last paragraph, that sounds like the only art you've ever seen is on twitter
I agree a lot, but I think Vaush missed another aspect of art beyond communication, and I think that Art needs to be deliberate. Theres a difference between just a coffee stain on a napkin, and purposely staining a napkin with coffee
He said pretty much exactly this like 3 times, just using different examples.
@@themightymcb7310 fuck i might of missed those then since I was driving while listening
@@Facebooker413 the one I remember was a paintbrush being blown across a canvas by the wind versus an artist blindly doing the same thing. I think he repeated it with a scribble machine and an artist drawing scribbles as well.
There's a lot of art and music where being deliberate isn't a large part of the process, and even in works where it is, there are almost always components that are not deliberate.
@@aaronpolichar7936 Deliberate means there was intent behind a decision that was made. The decision to dash a brush across a canvas is still a decision made on purpose by the artist in that moment, and thus it was a deliberate act, even if the movement itself was seemingly senseless or random
They just feed the AI an artist brief and it spits out an image... It is disgusting.
As an artist, this just makes me super tired. Other people stealing your style is bad enough, now computers are doing it? gdi.
Other people cannot steal your style really, especially if it is good.
Vaush getting mad at chat and telling the mods to permaban them never gets old. I hope there's an AI Vaush one day that just randomly insults chat and permabans them.
The subs would love that
Comments too. My posts defending ai art are being removed.
I just can’t believe there are entire communities dedicated to this on fb, ig, twitter, Reddit, etc, acting as if what they do is completely normal, no one is being hurt, they’re just “artists” using another “tool”
In this types of places the more you do with the less effort the more people applaud, some even get excited about prompting entire videogames, movies…
I have no words honestly…
I agree with this completely and ai art is fucking dystopic.
Edit for clarification, I am an a writer, I've published poems in several publications, and the thought of this happening to poetry is so terrifying. I have a day job, and I don't hate it, but my dream in life has been to write things that allow me to interact with people I will never meet. That's three whole point of art, to speak. What would we be? Why are there lefties championing the further alienation of people from our labor? The fuck
Capitalism be like: (I absolutely understand where you’re coming from but actual effective AI art is not possible without human input. (Such as manual editing of commands and such) Thus, “AI stuff making humans obsolete” is incredibly speculative at best.” The real problem is billionaires and hacks not seeing past the most surface-level things regarding AI and just replacing artists with them for le FuNni manipulative profit. AI art has potential to be something as a great and cool advancement to art and science but golly gee, capitalism ain’t making that easy!)
AI wont replace artists and writers, it just replaces the for-profit business aspect of it. You can still write poetry or create art, you're just not going to make money from it. The point is to replace jobs so that people realize how unsustainable and predatory capitalism is. By definition, capitalism requires someone to LOSE. It's a game in which you profiting requires another person to lose money. In the real world, this looks like extreme poverty, Human rights abuses, starvation, and excess deaths. The more people in wealthy nations that feel the same predatory practices that other people and nations feel, the more they're going to acknowledge how idiotic and unsustainable the current system is.
You shouldn't work just to survive, you should work for the betterment of humanity and to advance ourselves and our presence in the universe. Living a life free from the stresses of attending to basic human needs is the goal here, and rich nations are completely blind to the fact that their success comes at the cost of another person's downfall.
lefties hate people. oops
Thank you Vaush.
You managed to express with words exactly how I feel towards AI “art” as an artist, specifically an aspiring Illustrator, concept artist and Animator. This means so much to me.
It warms my heart to see actual empathy from people that don’t illustrate as a life career, I saw a lot of smooth-brained comments by techno fethicists around the internet sadly.
I absolutely hate everything about AI “art” and the people who programmed it and trained it with stolen, uncredited art should be sued. Like I’m talking actual class action here.
This is the biggest insult to not just us artist but creativity and life in general.
As my mentor Hayao Miyazaki said, looking at an AI generated animation, “this is an insult to life itself”.
skull emoji
I'm a professional artist- both trad medium and digital skillset.
I think the main premise of this video is entirely correct; ai images are not art.
I also agree with the analysis on the effect this will have. Something that perhaps isn't clear is that technology and technological norms have a huge impact on the work of an artist. When photography was invented it changed painting fundamentally from representational to interpretive, or at least initiated that development.
This process still happens constantly, because technology warps the culture that produces it. For example, I will complete an illustration then have this subjected to instagram filters etc by the client. This is likely because their perception is influenced by how imagery looks on social media, and the desire to have an image gain 'engagement'.
Those are historical points that align closely with the content of this video, but there is another problem with ai imagery that I will attempt to describe.
If we recognise that capitalist desire isn't the same as human need, we can see that this technology serves only one of those things. The consumer desire to have images is obviously met, and soon those generated images will be any bit as good as anything I've ever done. But what about the human need buried in that capitalist desire?
At the core of it I think that the thing we *want* is to be entertained, but the thing we *need* from out entertainment is... well, ineffable. But would cover the human requirements for 'psychological nourishment'- meaning, feeling, inspiration. A simulation can cause you to project your own onto it, but doing so on a mass level will damage cultural meaning- how our culture communicates the non-literal and the non-real.
Historically that has always been the role of art- how something feels, what did this mean, how do I feel about that, given the intentions (although there) are closed off from me? It's important in the long run.
I would prefer we not hand our communal dreamspace directly over to capitalist desire like this.
"AI images are not art" is not entirely correct. What constitutes art is entirely debatable. John Cage literally has a composition that is just silence for several minutes and the whole point is that the music was whatever sounds could be heard (people moving, coughing, rain hitting the windows, stuff moving in the next room, etc..), the point being that music never stops, only the listening does (i.e. whatever you decide you´re listening to is music, is music). I agree with what the rest of the comment is saying but saying that "AI images aren't art" is based on really reductive and honestly outdated notions of what art is.
@@shadez123
No, it's not based on reductive or outdated views. It's based on my own categorical understanding that cannot be dismissed this way.
By choosing to take silence and present it in the context of a music performance, Cage is making art out of silence.
That is an act of artistic transformation, Cage is using silence and incidental sounds as a medium to make art.
Do you think every silent concert hall is music?
Luddites destroying production machines were taking issue with the technology, when it was the capitalist exploitation using those tools to increase efficiency but not distributing the benefits that was fundamental to their plight.
I think that AI art isn't bad, but it has the potential to be used to decrease the value of artists if the economic benefits of that efficiency are not distributed.
If all artists were given a generous UBI and the need to sell their work to survive was removed, AI art would become an ally to an artist in that it could allow them to produce more art and of a higher quality by working with AI rather than doing all of that work by hand.
@@jonathan0berg
I understand your argument, but need to point out that this UBI for artists is currently science fiction, so we ought to analyse this technology within the context of its historical moment.
Furthermore, as I outlined above, it is my view that the *audience* needs something from art that requires there be an artist/s behind it. The simulation will not satisfy that need, only the capitalist desire for images.
@@grief_hammer Fair point. As much as I like interesting science fiction theoreticals like UBI, I can see how it sidesteps the real world impact of the technology in the here and now.
I'm not quite sure I understand what quality you are talking about the audience requiring from the artists. Can you define it, or maybe give me some examples?
As a DM who can't draw (and doesn't have time to learn to draw). I've used AI art tool to get across the general idea of the look and feel of my setting.
Clearly it has draw backs but it can be an incredibly useful tool.
I feel like AI tools being used for worldbuilding in rpg's is one of the few acceptable uses of them. Sure, you aren't creating the images yourself, but you personalize them by crafting stories and a settings of your own making.
AI paintings does no such thing on their own.
@@Maxpaximus Now if only we can make an AI that does good worldbuilding, the burdensome tasks of art and creativity will be entirely taken up by our kind AI overlords, leaving us with only the most fulfilling jobs humans crave and desire... I was going to finish the joke with "retail customer service" or something, but really Any job no matter how demeaning or fulfilling could eventually be done by AI.
@@jonathan0berg what?
Sorry are you implying using ai art takes away from the creativity of a setting?!
@@TheSquareheadgamer No! Not at all. I'm saying that there are some legitimate concerns if we 100% automate every element of the creative process, but I don't think we're there yet. Maybe the joke was a bit rambling or incoherent.
@@jonathan0berg ah my apoglsies.
I actually think TTPRPGS are one of the few areas AI might never master. Too much is built on momentum of group dynamics and memes weaving into the story for a AI to ever really get.
Short of us making AI has the same social understanding as humans atleast. But at that point they're just people anyway.
I’ve tried AI generated art but as beautiful as it is it feels hollow
Yeah, and how do you know that the only reason you think it's "hollow" because you KNOW it was made by an AI? If you had samples of mixed art made by humans and AI of similar quality, would you be able to tell which one feels "hollow" and which don't? You probably wouldn't. You want it to feel hollow.
@@Horny_Fruit_Flies the mere fact I know it was created by an AI makes it feel hollow
@@benji9107 So there's not objective quality to AI art that actually makes it hollow.
Imagine an artist that for years created beautiful art that you enjoyed, but at some point confessed that all his art was actually created by an AI that he passed as his own.
@@Horny_Fruit_Flies that would be disingenuous and it would make people feel hollow why is that wrong humans are biased creatures
Maybe the quality is it’s not made by human with out intent ??
@@Horny_Fruit_Flies The knowledge that the art was actually AI generated makes for major changes in how it's perceived. Art will become a lot less interesting once humans arent the ones producing it.
There's a lot of cosmic horror inherent to this whole thing. I think it was sort of brushed over at the end that while Vaush says sentience removes the problem, not only can he not define or determine it, no one really can. In fact, until very recently the ability to independently create novel images was considered evidence of sentience. I think defining and testing for sentience is going to become an increasingly important problem, lest we end up committing severe crimes against sentient beings.
Agree. I’ve seen my name literally fed into that discord art generator. Feels kind of bad. Wish there was a way to protect my images from getting used like this :/
Something to consider, for all you despairing artists:
This is a remarkable tool to cheat with but it will not replace actual talent and skill. Corporations looking to cut corners will utilize this for derivative works (there is already so much soullessness in advertising and graphic design) but there will always be the need for originality, which AI can't do. Humanity is Art. An AI can't look at a urinal on it's own and think to sign it and present it as art in order to open a dialogue about artistic elitism and create an entire movement of Found Art, without Marcel DuChamp doing it first. Some asshole applying to art school with a portfolio of AI art will be unable to advance past the audition because you need to demonstrate your skill, creativity, and originality.
Why did the guy win a State Fair art contest with AI? Because it's a fucking state fair lmao they aren't going to have high standards and they were not informed as to what tool the con artist was using and the only reason the internet knows is because this guy bragged about it. Any art competition with higher regulations are going to look for an artist statement, for proof that you created the art that you are submitting; this has been the standard because, since the creation of the internet, countless works have been stolen and entered into contests and became a copyright and moral disaster. Plagiarism isn't anything new, it's just taking on a new and interesting form.
I expect, going forward, a lot of legal development happening in response to AI Art. Because this is going to happen more often. But it's not talent or skill. Why can you use this technology to create without skill but you can't use performance enhancing drugs to compete in the Olympics? Exclusively because it is new and has yet to be regulated. Not that techbros give a shit about artistic integrity or value lmao
At this point in the US, AI art cannot be copyrighted. So, AI art can be produced but it can also be taken by someone else and sold for profit with no real option for recourse. That's not great for "AI artists" or corporations who use it for marketing. That's not the case for human art which is organically copyrighted by the artist when it is created into existence(in the US).
There is a similar thing here in the European Union. Art needs to be made by a human to be copyrighted.
But in Britain it is unnecessary to be a human to make something copyrighted. So that is going to be a headache in the future.
You might be able to get copyright protection depending on medium.
If you post your ai art online then someone can take it.
If you had ai art made for your Indy Film then the art might not be copyrighted but the only source for it is, your film. Thus the ai art might have copyright protection that way.
There is another danger with AI art. Imagine a fascistic government with its hands on the dials of what is aand is not allowed. What such authority would deny the impressive capacity of automated art for thought control? I actually think this is one technology that should probably be outlawed. It is fr too dangerou, in some ways, more than nucleaar weapons, because of the disastrous implications it could have for other society.
Other ways it could be abused:
- Corporations push flr legislation with regard to artistic styles, start flooding the market with AI generated art, and sue anyone trying to do it manually. Immediaate control of the market, and implied thought control to boot. This is the lesson of 2001: a spae odyssey. automation, if not strictly controlled, and regulated, can become the saboteur of the society that created it.I don’t normally side with the luddites on things, but on this one, I think there’s good reason to be fearful.
None of this makes any sense. That's like saying that tables should be outlawed because a fascistic government could beat people with them.
That’s about the dumbest shit I’ve ever heard
@@shadez123 they wouldn’t need the tables to beat people though. AI Art on the other hand is an instrumental tool in the process OP described. I feel you are just choosing not to understand the message for convenience right now.
Hold on, how is art supposed to control people's thoughts though? Even the most famous art pieces such as Starry Night are interpreted somewhat differently by everyone who looks at them.
@@ezachleewright2309 ya this argument makes no sense. I feel like he’s just trying to sound smart honestly
The analogy with the suicide hotline was genius. I’m going to use it in my future discussions with people about AI. Thank you Vaush so much for your empathy, for your sharp mind and astounding argumentative skills. Your videos help me so much to broaden my own perspective and critical thinking skills.
This sounds like the fear of automation, but with art: Not really a problem inherently, but RIPE for exploitation.
I think this whole AI art thing made me appreciate the Synths in Fallout 4 as a concept. The fundamental horror of not knowing weather you are communicating with real people, or if its just an algorithm. The meaning and value of intimacy utterly annihilated as you can no longer be certain that the people you are connecting with really feel things.
Imagine if companies used AI that replicates human personality. Deploying them across social media like discord or twitter. Befriending you for the simple purpose of extracting data from you. Or they make synthetic humans that wonder around the world living fake lives to harvest data. You could be married to a fucking wiretap machine.
The concept of the inherent value to human communication being destroyed by AI is fucking horrifying.
Re. synths isnt that already the case? You can't prove anything beyond your own thoughts. I think therefore I am, and such. The idea that everyone else might be a robot with no feelings is already true.
@@_Atzin there is a big difference between the theoretical possibility of a Truman show situation and you knowing for a fact that there are actual fake people among us who simulate human life for malicious purposes, but you don't and can't know who is and is not actually human.
Wee they not sentient?
@@hellionshark3197 the game kinda leaves that up in the air but it doesn't really matter if they are or aren't. The real problem is that the synth infiltrators integrate themselves in society under false pretenses. They can act identically to a genuine real friend but they don't actually feel the same way about you, it's an act. The only thing they are after is information or social positioning to further the goals of their masters.
@@ExternalDialogue that's not true Danes from the brotherhood of steel was a synth and didn't know it he genuinely thought he was human he had his own thoughts and feelings and cared for his brothers he even became depressed when he learned the truth.
Art is very subjective, but I see a lessening of my own appreciation as art becomes more automated. There is something to be said for style, soul, and the tactility of someone reaching out and expressing themselves in the physical world.
There is also a major distinction between someone who really appreciates art and someone who simply consumes art.
just noticed dall-e generated images using my signature... there is literally my name generated on those images.... this depressed me so much i destroyed my canvas i was working on. f*ck that i am out (painted for 15 years) everything is just not worth doing anymore :c
I understand you are angry. But giving up on everything is not the answer. It would be better to keep your art off the internet, and find a way to sue OpenAi.
@@laurentiuvladutmanea3622 i am not angry, my soul is crushed with no survivor
@@phloxie That is not a healthy way of thinking. Again. I recommend you taking your art off the internet, continuing to draw physically and finding if you can sue OpenAI for this.
Okay but what about dozens of human artists who look at your work and draw something very similar?
@@MyDomesticChiffchaff Dude. It is clear he is not in a good mood. Talking like that helps nobody. And for him it was not about drawing in a similar way, but using his signature. Aka, stealing part of his drawings.
I just hate the fact that there are some programs or other programs being developed which try copy x artist on social media.
The attempt alone is very rude.
Name for me 1 single artistic medium where you are not taught to, "Take it and make it your own."
This is very interesting, art as a concept is very difficult to draw boundaries around but it is still fun to listen to definitive takes on stuff like this rather than listening to a religious commitment that "art is art no matter the implications"
In history lessons the only guy who called "art can mean anything" was Mussolini when he wrote that fascism was inspired by the anti-art sentiments of futurism. Art isn't anything, art just refers to any "human practice/skill", as in accord to Latin, that doesn't mean art is anything. Ironically, AI is futurism.
people will say "AI generated faces" creeps them out because there is no actual human to the face, but soybraim over AI art. Looking at AI images, beautiful as they may be, it makes me feel the same way as AI generated faces. It quite literally creeps me out. You can like it, you can find it interesting, call it art even, but don't tell me that it is not somethow a hollow thing. Looking at AI art is like staring into the abyss.
Is that actually the case or are you projecting that hollowness because you know it's AI generated art? Have you tried doing a blind test to see if you can even tell the difference?
@@_Atzin I think it doesn't matter. the fact that after he knows its ai generated art. makes him feel hollow no matter how good the painting is cause well its imatating a person.
I think I'd rather have a person reject me, rather then an ai accept me.
@@_Atzin I think it doesn't matter. the fact that after he knows its ai generated art. makes him feel hollow no matter how good the painting is cause well its imatating a person.
I think I'd rather have a person reject me, rather then an ai accept me.
As much as I disagree with many takes of Vaush's takes on things (take a shot every time he says 'arbitrary'), I fully agree with this.
There's people I've talked to that legitimately think art does not require imagination, that it's desireable to have a machine do dig deep and come up with compositions for you instead of you needing to doing that yourself.
Never before was that fully able to be automated before apart from clever randomizing algorithms. Now we have a visceral example of a machine that can think for us.
Expected a shitty media take, got an existential crisis about the value of human consciousness.
Eh? Ai art should definitely be in an entirely separate category. Just like the photographer uses different techniques, like physically manipulating the lighting or whatever and makes the choice that THAT is what the picture will be of, the person making ai art is using different techniques and is the Arbiter of what pic the ai spits out is finally the “art”.
That said, ai art is totally a race to the bottom. It’s gonna be all soulless regurgitated crap.
I 100% agree with Vaush on this. Not only is AI generated art something that threatens the livelihood of many people, it's also effectively stealing. An algorithm cannot generate art without first taking a look at someone else's work, and then modeling after it. It's art theft with extra steps. And no doubt it will be used by people who just don't want to pay artists for their hard work.
Do people ask for permission to use the artist's work before letting the AI generate an image? I doubt it. (Most, me included) artists would NOT agree to having their art be stolen and then used in something like this. It's something that will hurt artists all around, to see something they've practiced for years and years done in the blink of an eye.
Why would you want to create, when whatever you make will no longer be unique to you?
What's the point of sports competitions? Would people still be interested in it if the competitors were robots?
It's not a human achievement anymore. It's not art because it's not a statement or an engagement. It's just an image, and all the material that was used to create it was stolen.
A human artist also has to look at other people's art in order to learn. Not a single artist alive creates purely from imagination, it is literally possible only in an unrealistic controlled setting. Every human artist takes inspiration, looks at the work of others, not to mention that if you are formally trained by an art school, you are literally taught to copy the masters first and then "find your own style".
@@MyDomesticChiffchaff My brother in christ, this is in no way comparable, as you are supposed to find your own style and evolve as an artist throughout your education. Humans have something called Imagination. A machine does not. This algorithm does not.
Trying out techniques and styles to better your own vs copying someone's work to a T is in no way comparable either.
An artist outs effort into their work. A fucker who steals that art and then mixes it up with other stolen pieces doesn't.
Please use your brain.
@@tenebra4183 I’m really surprised by people lack of awareness with this, and I’m almost certain that they must be Gpt3 bots that supports this lol
@@natv6294 Or ... they are just people who disagree with you?
You know, people who aren't bots do this all the time.