I rarely have to pin a clarifying comment but I believe it's worth doing so here based on a lot of the comments. In the video title, I say it should be taken seriously. In the video itself, I talk about how I'm for regulation of AI art, whether legal or industry wide. But I also don't believe it's theft. If you disagree with me on any specific points, I'm happy to engage, but if you watched this video and your takeaway is thinking that I'm pro AI art, even as I talk about how the growth of it I am personally bothered by....than you are probably responding upset at specific points you didn't like rather than actual understanding what I said.
The confusion is that there are plenty of reasons to not use AI art, and “this is the technical definition of theft” is pretty low on that list. Its good that youre committed to forming your own opinion, but when everyone around you is overwhelming taking one side over the other, you really should try listening to them.
Aka: "I got absolutely freaking ratioed in the comments after using a click-bait title and being pedantic over the use of the word 'theft' to justify some bull"
I think the problem with this topic is figuring out what terms to use. We use words like theft, and then get caught into breaking down the definition of "theft" and asking "is AI art theft?". If we can determine that AI doesn't seem to fit the definition of "stealing a pie off my neighbors windowsill", then we can put our conscious at ease and say AI art isn't theft. Similarly, we are forced to use the limits of our language to describe what machines are doing during when we give it a prompt to "create an image of a dragon". We say the machine is doing what a human does when a human creates a picture of a dragon, but I don't think the term "creation" here is being used accurately at all (even though a strict breakdown of the definition might fit). If I feed a picture of a dragon into a photocopier, the photocopier spits out a picture of a dragon. Did the photocopier "create" that picture? By a particular definition of "create", yes it did. But by the definition by which we care about it from a human creative process, I don't think it even remotely "created" it. I don't think that difference in that interpretation of creation is merely a hypothesis. If Bob takes the comic that Sally wrote and drew, and runs it through a photocopier and declares "hey look at what the machine created", or worse... "look at what I, Bob created by using this nifty machine" I don't think it's merely a hypothesis that what Bob and the machine did, and what Sally did, are wildly, worlds apart, different processes. What a machine is doing when it scrapes a bunch of art and spits out an image from a word prompt is not, (in my opinion) anywhere at all in the vicinity of what a human is doing when they study art, develop a skill and then "create" a piece of art. AI art (to me) is simply a more sophisticated photocopier. It is not doing what a human artist does. To me, they are worlds apart (in all the ways that matter), while also having some elements that we could say are similar. I should probably say, I offer these thoughts, just as that: an offering. I'm not looking to debate the topic, and won't be making follow-up posts here (I simply don't have the time or energy - I find myself rather demoralized by the whole topic, generally). But I wanted to offer a couple of thoughts for anyone who might find themselves in the comments, in case it could be of use to shaping their own perspective on the topic.
As a photographer, I had someone come up to me during a convention talking poorly about the high costs of another photographer who has a very unique gorgeous art for his photos. They then in the next beat asked if I could just replicate and take the photos for them. It felt so gross. I happen to be dear friends with the other photographer so it was even more so just offensive to see how that played out. I think about this often when AI is being discussed. It doesn’t feel as gross to folks when people are just typing in a prompt to a computer, but in my mind they are just like that would be client asking me to recreate a notable art for less or in the case of AI, for free.
@@BoardGameCo Saying this while titling your video something that most people will just look at and feel absolved in their own use of AI is disingenuous at best and dangerous at worst. If you agreed with Rodney, you wouldn't be doing what you're doing.
@@bethsobel2790I don't know if I agree with everything Rodney believes, but I don't believe he said anything in his comment that anything I said is in disagreement with. And my title doesn't just say ai isn't theft, I think if someone can only read four words instead of a whole sentence that's not on me.
Curious as to how many artists you talked to before arriving at and declaring this conclusion. Semantics over the word theft are irrelevant, and entirely miss the point. Copyright control, and an creator's ability to define the terms under which their work may be copied, owned or used is really the only tool that an artist has at their disposal to reliably maintain income, and hence a commercial career. AI undercuts that enormously, it utilises artists work directly without their permission, this is a matter of fact. Not only does it jeopardise professional artist's careers today, it also threatens to entirely remove any pathway to becoming a professional artist by replacing all low-level illustration work. The knock-on effect of this means that artists who have had the time, through long careers, to form a deep understanding of the concepts and principals of art will be severely reduced. Replaced instead by hollow mimicry made by those that lack the conviction to create themselves. This is literally one of the main tools that we as a species use to make sense of the world around us and our place within it, and we're jeopardising our understanding of it so people can make stupid thumbnails and knock-off Magic art. Your entire argument about how a machine draws "inspiration" from multiple sources as opposed to how a human does it is just plain ridiculous, and betrays how little you know about the process of becoming an artist. If you tell a machine to copy something, it will literally do that. If you tell it to average a million images and create an image, it will literally do that too. If you tell a human to copy the Sistine Chapel, they will try, and fail. They will then try again and again and again. Even if they are literally attempting to do nothing more than copy the Sistine Chapel, they will fail for YEARS. They will very likely never succeed. But during those years they will learn a lot. They will try to copy other things, also failing. This is the process of becoming an artist, and the process of failing is the process of creating art. It's a human process that, through failure and fallibility, becomes infused with that artist's life and experiences to eventually create a unique voice. A machine will just copy the Sistine Chapel. Correlating the two processes is simply incorrect. The one thing you said that I agree with is that there is always a cost. There is a cost to the declarative statements like “AI art is not theft”. Even if you can justify the semantic argument, the cost is another slip towards the normalising of the notion that “AI art is OK”.
At least two. Happy to talk directly if you ever want to. As I say in the video, I don't like what AI art has already done, and I am for regulation of it. I understand being against it and I understand it being personal, but you haven't actually said anything I disagree with...it feels like your main complaint is just that you want a blanket "ai is bad" which I didn't and won't do. I think it's far more complicated than that even if I happen to not like the way things currently are with it.
@@BoardGameCo I don't see how you can agree with everything I've said when what I'm saying is that you are not correct, and are using many bad-faith arguments constantly rolled out by the pro-AI crowd. I'm seeing a lot of "as I said in the video" replies from you, but you seem to be blind to the fact that the title and thumbnail you've used are clickbaity and VERY provocative about a VERY sensitive subject. Both come across as a middle finger up to every professional tabletop artist I know, honestly, and it hasn't gone unnoticed. If you want to be clear about your message, then be clear, but open your eyes to the optics of what you're putting out there.
@@bethsobel2790 While I understand thinking that, I actually have no problem having my own opinions. When Awaken Realms initially rolled out AI art, I was publically vocal about the fact that I thought that was a mistake on their part. The reason I won't say a blanket "ai is bad" isn't because of them..it's because I think most things in life are more nuanced then that.
@@ianotoolevideo I am aware that the title is provactive...but I was also intentional to make it clear that you don't even have to watch the video to know that this is not "For AI" take. If your complaint is that you disagree with my choice to do that, I respect that. But when you spend a full paragraph saying how the way a human learns from copying is different than the way a machine learns from copying, when I acknowledge that already in my video, it still means that you are arguing with the opinion you think I have, and not the words I actually said.
I find that any discussion of if AI art is 'theft' invariably ends up missing the point entirely. Whether or not it is 'theft' is immaterial to the end result which is large companies using the tech to displace a lot of artists and effectively devalue art as a product and a profession. If any person can spool up an image generator and make art that is 80% as good as a real person, there is no business reason for any company to employ artists at all if they can make a "good enough" product. Most consumers can't tell the difference or don't care, so why should the people making the product. This will almost certainty cause the degradation of a lot of art based industries, board games included, due to the inherent profit motive of making things "good enough" for much cheaper. I'm not one of those people who is going to just call this a bad take and get mad, I respect that you have your opinion, but I very much feel like you missed the forest through the trees here.
no it matters because the artists aren't getting paid their royalties as they should be, or being able to refuse having their work used in an illegal manner
@@CD-zd6zr If artists were getting paid the companies wouldn't be getting a free/extremely cheap service, and they more then likely wouldn't bother with the tech at all. My point is that it doesn't matter if it is stealing because the people who make the decisions regarding it whether governmental or business have already made their choice to not protect the artists. Arguing over the semantics of if it is technically theft is a pointless exercise. The tech is here and not going away, its going to do a lot of damage to a lot of creative industries, and arguing over pointless semantics doesn't help anything.
Companies have used computers, automation, offshoring, immigration and every other conceivable means to slash labor costs always. Why are artists supposed to be some sacred cow? Why should I have to pay more for a game so a human can draw it but not more for it so my countrymen can make it?
Debating if its theft or copyright infringement or plagiarism is beating a lingual dead horse. Its just a more high brow version of is chili a soup. Its ethnically, morally, and likely legally wrong. The courts will probably get around to ruling on it when someone makes an AI that hurts companies by producing cartoons or video games or computer programs.
Correct. AI Art isn't theft. The theft occurs when a company illegally scrapes art from a website and uses it to train the AI tool without the artist's permission. Offering up a sample of work for viewing so a buyer can make a decision on whether they want to buy something is not the same as offering up a sample for commercial use in training AI tools. Europe recognizes this and has just passed laws allowing publishers to determine whether or not their works, and samples, may be used to train AI. It's a shame that the US has not caught up and the only recourse US artists and authors have is a copyright claim they can't afford (given the cost of US lawyers). And FYI, if you're not familiar with US copyright law, look it up. Using an author's work without their permission IS a violation of US copyright law if the total art stolen from an author had an (expected) total value in sale that would exceed $1,000.
Using semantics of the definition of theft to undermine AI being theft is ridiculous. Copyright infringement is theft, it's theft of income. Your version of how AI art is made is also inaccurate and does not account for weighted reference. Also, people who copy as directly as AI does do face legal consequences. This is ridiculous.
I'm in full agreement with Beth Sobel, Ian O'Toole, and many others I've heard from in the visual arts and tech fields. Saying in big letters in the thumbnail that it isn't theft is harmful to people. Whether your video goes on to talk about how it should be regulated and the correct use of this technology should not be legal, fine, but that doesn't absolve anything about the thesis statement made in the thumbnail. If you think it's not theft because it doesn't exactly match your definition of theft, and there isn't currently a better agreed-upon word to describe it, the responsible thing to do is to use the word that best reflects the moral and ethical implications of its commercial use: theft. It's a machine that specifically uses copyrighted art without permission, pay, or attribution of the owner, to create something close enough to that art to be commercially functional while being legally distinct enough to avoid legal consequences. Maybe you'll be in a tight spot with your employer if you come out and say what they do is theft but hey, no one forced you to make this. There is a reason why companies like Awaken Realms use AI generated images - it's cheaper than paying for all the art they need. Sure they pay artists to airbrush together disjointed elements and remove extra fingers, but that's just enough to have legal ownership of the end result. And that money saved that they would otherwise have needed to pay? That's the financial damage. Spreading violation of ownership rights and financial damage across an industry instead of with individual instances doesn't change the moral and ethical implications.
I'm totally ok with the idea that someone might think that I presented this the wrong way. I tried to make sure the title had clarification in it, but I understand if it still didn't come across the way I wanted. The only thing I've been challenging is when people are "arguing with me" by saying things I already said in the video. As far as the employer side, as you said... I could simply have not made the video. The premise that I'm trying to protect anyone doesn't make sense.
@@BoardGameCo I appreciate you replying to comments critical of the thumbnail and of any specific parts of the video. I don't think I'd have a thick enough skin to put out something that is going to catch a lot of heat and then reply to them in a reasonable way. Even if we disagree on terms and their impact on the broader community-wide discussion, good on you for that.
I think that's such a complicated discussion. Don't get me wrong, I think it is a big deal and should be taken seriously but theft itself is such a hard point to prove here
@@BoardGameCo Taking jobs from the work of artists is wage theft, and ironically if it ever got to a point where every artist was gone and only AI art was left being created(extreme I know but not impossible) the AIs would have no new material to scrape from and creativity would stifle as a result.
@@SILENCE_uk A new company doing something better than a previous company and taking market shares from it is not theft. You don't need to reinvent the wheel everytime. That would be an analogy.
Assuming the AI was not trained solely on royalty free open source art and it is being sold / used commercially, it is theft. Theft of the original artist's work that the AI could not function without. I actually like that AI art exists, I think its an incredible tool. I don't want it in my games, I don't want it in advertising. I will only monetarily support human artists. We need regulation for transparency, because this tool isn't going anywhere and its only going to get better.
I recall a board game artist saying they use AI art for inspiration and then actually create the art piece themselves. That's the kind of use I support
I feel like there's not quite a 1 to 1 when it comes to human creativity/inspiration and AI. In fact, saying "the AI is taking inspiration from these sources" feels kind of like we're anthropomorphizing AI. As I'm sure you know, AI isn't looking at all of these pictures and thinking "I really like how this guy does his shading, and maybe I'll take inspiration from this work's composition". It's essentially just a bunch of math/statistics that creates an amalgamation of all of its inputs, kind of like its taking the "average" of a certain set of data (I'm sure that's a gross simplification of the process, but the point is that the nature of AI's "Inspiration" is very much so computational). And when it comes to humans creating art, they draw from so much more than just a collection of other people's works. They can take inspiration from nature, their lived experiences, their dreams, etc... and I don't think the process of human creativity can be directly compared to a machine following an algorithm to achieve an output from a set of inputs. Furthermore, a human artist typically has reasons for why they want to draw/paint something in a particular way. Maybe they want to highlight a particular part of the picture by using different lighting, or maybe they want to use a specific perspective to convey a specific emotion/feeling to the viewer. AI doesn't make these types of artistic choices; it's just going to recreate what it gets from the input data without question (because it's not "thinking"). So I don't really agree with your point that "we can't say that it's wrong when a machine does it, but not when a human does it" (paraphrasing a bit here, but I believe this is the gist of what you are saying in the "How AI Art Works" section). Second, I feel like the whole "it's not theft" argument you are making here is a bit pedantic. When people say that AI art is theft, they don't just mean that someone is infringing on their copyright by using their artwork without permission; it goes beyond that. While that is bad in it's own right, what's also being "stolen" is their livelihood. For example, if a person pirates a video game, then the company has lost out on a potential sale for that game. Technically, no physical item was taken from the game developers, but they lost out on the revenue that they could have gained (i.e. category 2 of your classifications of theft). While this is bad for the company that made the game, what's worse is if that person then went on to sell digital copies of that game for less than MSRP. In this case, the company that made the game is not just losing the potential revenue of one sale, but maybe hundreds or thousands of sales. From watching this video, it appears that even you agree that is not good, and so we have laws that protect against this. Now imagine if the person who pirated the game was able to run it through and algorithm that churned out multiple sequels based on the first game. The market could then be flooded with cheap iterations of the original game, and even if they are of lesser quality than what the original developers can create, a lot of people may think it's good enough, and the developers may go out of business as a result. While nothing has been "technically stolen", I think that you'd agree that that the developers have "lost" something here. Whether or not it fits the narrow definition of what theft constitutes is irrelevant. You said yourself that copyright is important, and I do not see how AI art does not fall under your second classification of theft. Also, AI art can be seen as theft from a labor perspective. These AI products are earning companies money, and they were built on the backs of hundreds, if not thousands, or hundreds of thousands of artists. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that these artists should be compensated for their contribution. If I worked for a company for 8 hours and generated value for them, and then they refuse to pay me, I'm going to call that theft. I don't care if they come to me and say "well technically we didn't TAKE anything from you... so we didn't steal anything". No, colloquially, I am going to say that that company stole my wages. I don't care about semantics, they stole. And in any case, legally and morally, they would be in the wrong for doing that. So does it REALLY matter if we say "it's not technically theft"? Finally, I feel like you've shot yourself in the foot with the framing on this video. What's frustrating for me is seeing you respond to people saying "but didn't you watch the video? I said I have an issue with AI and how it can be used to harm creators". But with the way the video is titled and structured, it really feels like you are highlighting the importance of your point that "AI is not theft", first and foremost. It just feels like a weird hill to die on, I guess? Like you clearly agree that AI art needs regulation and that it can be harmful for creators, but it feels like you are putting more weight on the "It's not theft" part, when at the end of the day it doesn't really matter what we call it. It doesn't matter if copyright infringement isn't technically theft, we still as a society think that it is problematic, and we have created laws to prevent it.
@@BoardGameCo humans interpret based on their upbringing, perception, priorities, mental and physical state etc. thats why humans creating an artificial interpretation of reality is called art. machines though dont interpret themselves, the only thing they can do (what clip+ etc does) is also stealing human interpretations and applying that.
So many people did not fully watch and/or listen to everything you said before jumping to the comment section saying you're wrong. Although you are making an effort to have a discussion, everyone you engage with wants an argument. In the world of comments and text, it is nearly impossible to properly convey exactly what you are saying because your text will always be misconstrued and misinterpreted by the reader. After all, they are going into the conversation with preconceived opinions that don't match yours and would rather tell you that you're wrong than ever possibly entertain the thought that the opinion that challenged their thoughts could hold any merit. I love hearing your opinions and appreciate you saying them. I find AI to be something I tend to avoid, and I never like hearing about how much it is being embraced in today's society. But I do understand that regardless of my feelings towards it, it will inevitably be part of my life.
"Not All AI Art Is Created Equal". Interestingly... not all human art is equal. I've known some artists - both amateur and professional - who would readily admit that while they're talented, they're not creative, and that most everything they produce is emulating others' styles. I'm sure there are parts (large?) of the artistic community who would look down on such individuals who profit from their non-creative illustrations/art/graphics/etc. But unless they're actually copying/duplicating someone's else work, they're not doing anything illegal - are they? At worst they're looked down upon as not being "true" artists. So, how is the software engineer who codes an A.I. art tool that does the same... not similarly applying their talent-without-creativity to produce "artistic" work product? I also think that regulation is needed. I think we/society need some guidelines on what would constitute *substantially similar* which we could then claim is copyright/theft and attach penalties to - does these already exists for humans? Probably? But, below that threshold, and it seems to me the A.I. (and the engineers who created it) is just doing what many non-creative human artists are doing. Not a hard opinion - just food for thought.
If its not theft then you wouldn't need to take people's art to make it work. I already saw it spew out almost exact copies of people's work. Don't tell me its not stealing.
if someone exploited your content on another channel, they steal your sacrifice towards making it. It IS theft. Imagine you have an orchard that grows an appletree if there isn't one. I steal the tree before midnight, but it's back in the morning. That is theft, though you are not missing anything. You could argue how would it be bad, but maintaining the soil of the orchard is a painstaking and demanding work.
Unless i misunderstood, it seems to me you're making a distinction between Tier 1 and tier 2 based on law. But there is no distinction. Practically, Tier 1 is entirely a matter of laws just like tier 2. For most of human history, society have revolved around the "what belongs to you belongs to me", where the "me" have been owners/masters/lords/rulers/kings, so there is a problem with your premice. And when you do not have these kind of structures, then we're talking about "law of the strongest" (so, no law) and someone taking something from you is not theft. The "what's mine is mine" require a law defining the bases of ownership (finding ? making ? collecting ? Occupying ? buying ?) and an authority to report to, to enforce it. Without that, there is no actual "thievery". Both tier 1 and tier 2 rely on laws, but those laws do not come first to actually create the notion of thievery. They are here because in both case, they reflect an actual notion of in/justice, of un/fairness. Laws are moral values enforced as rules. The only difference between tier 1 and tier 2 is that one is about material property and the other about intellectual property. And I'd say IA art actuallly enter the second category, not a third one. To me, what make the difference between inspiration and copy for humans is the part of what you bring to the piece of art versus the part you take from some else. If the second one is too high, it is considered stealing, and you can be comdamned (happens all the time with music, drawing, writing...). If you apply that same notion to AI productions, then you face a problem, because everything the current AI (Narrow AI) bring come from human artists, and it adds nothing from itself because... well, it cant.. AI are just making variations of a recipe, toying with "human" ingredients. And it has been proven that with the right prompts, AI can absoluty deliver an output that is a 1:1 version of a piece of art fed to it. Wether it's 1:1, 50/50 of two pieces, or whatever mishmash of 153 pieces, it doesn't make any difference for the AI. It's 100% copy and 0% creativity or purpose. Now, will this notion be translated into laws ? That's yet to be seen, but if i'm correct, in the US, a judge as now allowed the trial on this subject (artists vs Midjourney & co) to move on.
AI art leaves a digital paper trail each time it "creates" a piece of art. Therefore those who use AI art to get out of paying actual artists should in fact have to list the source codes for each individual piece of art. Based on the artworks used to create said AI artwork everyone will know the real artists who's works was in fact stolen. At which point each of those artists or artist's foundation should be given a percentage of the cost for that art. BUT we all know up and coming or well established companies are not going to actually do any such thing as give money and credit to the real artist.
As the lines blur more and more when it comes to differentiating between AI and no-AI, I would feel a lot better with some way of being able to tell if something I am paying any amount of money for, has AI art or not. AI art can exist and even be sold imo, but not under the guise of it being human made. I realize there are blurred lines here, but I just want more transparency. I think there will always be a demand for human made art on things, but until things are regulated so that any random joe can tell what they are buying has AI art being used on it or to what level, this is absolutely devastating for artists, especially as AI gets better and better.
While I agree with you personally, it's still complicated. Does your clothing legally have to tell you if it was made in a factory that uses child labor internationally? Meaning I want that transperancy personally but I'm unclear on what we've done in similar situations.
@@BoardGameCo They should! Just because the laws and regulations were created before the problem became evident doesn't mean that we should let new industries also cheat and lie, just because the other ones do.
@@BoardGameCo I do not believe there's a clear majority either. I don't completely disagree with them, but personally I think there's just a VERY vocal minority.
given the funding levels awaken realms latest projects reached since they very obviously abuse AI image generation (even worse, they mostly use midjourney, the arguably worst offender) and the disappointing lack of substantial backlash means that unfortunately the majority is pro 'company reselling stolen artworks'.
What if: One scanned all of "The Mico's" artwork from all the boardgames they worked on. Then used that scanned data to create AI art for their new upcoming board game. Should The Mico get credit? get paid? From The Mico's perspective would that be theft?
@@thegreatdane908 The latter for sure, the former is complicated and frankly will likely stay a matter of opinion until laws are developed otherwise. I am against the way AI art is currently being used, but not in any way because of theft.
@@BoardGameCo I guess the question would be what would you call it? Also do things cease to be opinions once they become laws? It seems like you are saying AI art shouldn't be called theft because it doesn't exactly match the current definition of theft. But just because we don't have a better more specific word doesn't make it unhelpful to call it theft.
I don’t think AI is as much a problem as the economic system that forces us to work to maintain our livelihoods. If labor and income were to be decoupled, we would all be free to make whatever art we want and would be unbound by the soul-sucking constrictions dictated to us by the market.
AI generated images in a post-capitalist economy would be entirely different from an ethical standpoint. Without pay being tied to work, it wouldn't be commercial use and so wouldn't cause financial damage. Just one of the many benefits of getting past capitalism.
AI art has its place, for those of us who will not be hiring an artist otherwise. Average people making average things like flyers or homemade games can show off their stuff without being embarassed for lack of art. I don't get mad when other people do what I could have done, to fix their car, or renovate their house. This seems like an issue among elites and lawyers, who are just now understanding how disposable average workers are, in a tech dominated business world.
Huge respect for you for make this video. It takes courage to speak up, especially in the context of the board game community - which overwhelmingly anti-AI art.
Another artist here who partly agrees with the video: While I agree that AI art prompting itself isn't really theft in the legal sense, I personally dislike the argument that machine learning as a process is comparable to how artists learn to create art. An artist's works embody not only all the knowledge they've accumulated up to that point, but also all the experience they've gained, their personality and maybe even their mood at the time of making the work (unless we're talking about commission work which allow for less personal expression, but even those usually show some individuality). This is why you could ask a hundred artists for the same image, and get a hundred more or less unique works, because every artist's journey is different. From what I know from studying and trying out text-to-image models, they just have a vague concept of "this word is connected to images where pixels are arranged like this", and due to the very nature of AI, the tools can only produce guesses about what the prompt wants based on the data the model has been fed. There is no understanding of principles like perspective or anatomy, no personal touch to the output, only similarities to works the machine has learned are connected to the prompt's words (one reason why using artist's names as a prompt is so popular, it narrows down the data the machine uses for output). I know art styles are not copyright protectable by law, but even so a style is often seen as something personal by artists. In the artist community it is actually frowned upon to try and mimic a specific artists style for anything but studying (or parody) purposes. So when someone prompts art from an AI, or even goes as far as to create a model based on a specific artist's works, it is seen as a shallow act from someone who doesn't value the process an artist has gone to form their style and goes through for each piece. And this experience does feel like someone's "stealing" from you, not any tangible thing, but more like the "soul" of your art. I can sympathize with small creators without a budget wanting art for free, but I am slightly worried of a world where everything creative from images to whole movies and games can be generated with a single prompt (we are slowly but surely getting there). We artists love to share our work, but if everyone can just generate art for themselves, why would anyone be interested in even seeing anything you create?
Alex, the AI has no creativity or higher thought. It copies and imitates innovation. Saying that then the human does it, it's fine isn't true either. Plagiarism happens with human artists too. Direct copying of poses or art styles happens and is wrong, too. The issue is that human plagerism is unethical but isn't happening on the scale that coporate AI steals art. The human art thief gets a bad rep, and isn't going to take work away on any meaningful level. On the other hand, unregulated AI is a threat. There is a place for AI in art, but not the way it is now. The mistake you're making is saying that the AI is basically doing the same thing as the human. I also thinking saying that there were complaints about photoshop too as not real is a bit of a false equivalence.
This was a great video and the comments are great. The sad truth is that if the US banes AI, then the work will just shift to other countries. AI is going to reek havoc in ALL industries and I don't know what the answer is to this problem. Really appreciate your deep thought dive on this issue. I'm still on the fence on all things AI.
Let's say we take a real person and ask them to draw a dragon. If they have never seen or heard of dragons then they will be totally at a loss. Let's say they then go to the internet and browse through thousands of pictures of dragons. During this process they build up an abstract concept of a "dragon". Now when asked to draw a dragon they can use all that knowledge and draw something which can be considered a composite of all those images they had seen. Did they steal from all those prior artists? Funny, AI is doing almost the same thing as humans have been doing forever. Historically one of the ways artists have trained is by practicing copying other art exactly or by copying techniques. As the artists mature they learn to manipulate things and put their own spin on their work. At the end of the day all artists' work can be viewed as a composite of things they have "seen" whether physically or via their imagination, where their imaginations have been heavily influenced by what they have seen. That means the big difference between AI art and human art is the imagination factor. The "imagination" part of art is hard to pin down. You can't just say it is an expression of something that has never existed because we always describe "new" things as combinations of a finite set of known things. Well, computers are very good at producing novel composites of things. If you add a feedback loop judging composition and ascetics then computers can be judged as producing art. The fact that computers are now competing with humans causes lots of emotional arguments which cloud people's judgement.
All moral issues aside... AI art for me is unpleasant to watch... there is something soulless in it. Maybe years (or decades) in the future AI art will become better. For now there is something literally disgusting watching AI art. And again, it's not the moral side of things.
No matter what I think or all the various arguments, valid or not, the biggest problem with thinking a machine mimicking portions of others people art being a bad thing is that a person doing the same thing is widely accepted. Most styles of art are based on an initial artist art. People mimicking Monet (and a small group of other artists) is what Impressionism is based off of. People mimicking Breton and Dali is what Surrealism is based off of. The progression of those styles isn't far off from what AI is doing. People can create a copy of your art with slight variations and sell it so long as they don't claim that it actually is yours in exactness created by you and sell it. Both these things tell me people seem fine with what AI is going so long as it's an actual person doing it rather than asking a computer to do it for them. Alex basically says this in the first third or so of this video. Lastly, I don't like AI art. I don't really like the vast majority of digital art created by humans. Digital art is a somewhat dumbed down version of artistic physical skill. AI art is further dumbed down. But most the outrage I see directed at it seems more hypocritical than critical.
Outside of arguing about your analogies (which, frankly, one can almost always argue about analogies, no matter how good), I think most people here actually agree with your positions but get hung up on semantics (i.e. - the exact definition of the word 'theft'). Not that semantics isn't important; in this case I think it's key. But, I think it's also important for people to be nuanced enough to understand that their difference in opinion on semantics does not mean a difference in opinion on values and morality.
Hey Alex. I love and own everything O-Neb but I’m currently struggling with their new title. Can you please create a video of some sorts where you talk about Vindication and Vestige. If you own Vindication and love it should you get Vestige or not. Asking you only because I know how much you love Vindication. Thank you!
AI art isn't theft. Having your AI learn off the content of others without permission is the theft. THAT is where the issue lies. These AI companies are absorbing content without permission. Unless we are stating that anything that appears on the internet is free for anyone to use, then I guess there is no more copyright, it's a free-for-all.
Everything on the internet has been free to "view". Companies have been learning off of content for decades, this isn't new...the only thing that's new is the output of that learning.
@@BoardGameCo That's the issue though, they shouldn't be allowed to learn off what is on the internet without proper permission and rights. It's what Google in trouble when they were scanning all books without the permission to digitize the content. This was many years ago. The software company I work for is having the same issue, we are integrating AI into our software on various levels, and have to limit what we can use to curate it's learning due to laws and following the laws. Most of these companies are violating the law. We happen to work in an industry that strictly follows the law.
I feel like AI being theft vs copyright vs something else isn't important, but the fact that everyone, even companies, understand that they're taking people's hard work without permission and directly using it to train a machine to pump out slop is the main problem, regardless of the naming. That's why big companies like Adobe and Meta always have to sneak into their terms of service "oh yeah, btw all the images you've ever uploaded are now our property to train our AI to impress investors". The other problem is AI image generation is and isn't a tool, the big problem is it takes it a step further from just being a tool. AI image generation produces a finished product with virtually no training or skill (i guess if you want to be pedantic "prompt engineer" is now a nausea-inducing job position). All the great software and tools we had before AI blew up were just to speed up artists' workflow and are just there to help them be creative more efficiently, it doesn't ever suck the creativity out of the actual process. The creator still needs vision and years of experience to be able to execute, meanwhile AI image generation is simply just writing a sentence and spamming a bunch of keywords to coerce a machine to produce the exact finished product you want. Also, none of the existing tools or digital mediums like CG are built off of non-consensual existing art/images, they are again simply just hollow tools or mediums that need an artist to pilot them properly. There is a world where AI image generation could be used completely ethically; it could be trained entirely off of the company's existing art and be used as just the framework for the real art or only for concept art/"alpha" art or to handle quick edits/effects, but AI as it stands needs an absurd amount of data to train on so that's not really feasible unless you have a massive art catalogue and we all know that, in the end, when this big of a "shortcut" tool exists and can be abused, 99.99% of its usage will be from abuse.
I think part of my problem is that even "ethical" generation of AI can still be a problem, and treating it like theft doesn't actually address that. I think AI can be a real problem and a threat...but it's far more complicated and nuanced than people want it to be.
90% of folks hating AI art would and did have no problem "sharing" music or Netflix accounts or other forms of piracy. All industries have had automation, computers and software kill thousands of jobs from factories to accounting offices. Even coding is starting to be AI doable. Art has to be the least concerning of all these developments.
Pablo Picaso once said, "Good artists borrow. Great artists steal." Pablo Picaso was historically known for creating near, spot-copies of art in his medium. AI art usually takes insperation from multiple art styles and artists, not direct copies. I think AI does need regulation in copy-write law. I do agree with that. Let's say a human makes a piece of art that's inspired by multiple mediums and artwork and makes that human's own artwork. It's revolutionary. (This is happening right now with next-gen graphics for consoles and gaming PCs). The person gets sued because the artist is accused of using AI, loses their home, etc. As long as A.I. is a tool, its okay in the video gaming art industry. Why not everything else?
Counter point to your dragon example; AI has no inherent need to draw a dragon, a human is using AI to create a dragon. Which then does not just copy/paste the art concepts it finds online (as you or I would based on our life of seeing depictions of dragons) but also the artistic ability of those artists, some thing you or I could not do on our own unless we develop that skill, which the artist has. If I ask AI to create a board game review, it would pull from your videos and pros/cons you've regularly found in games to see what it can apply to the game. That is a skill you've developed through your craft, I have not, but an AI can duplicate with just the rule book and your content. It is not just theft of the design/style but also the ability/craftsmanship. Most likely scenario of you or I trying to copy a professional dragon would end up so far away from the original it wouldn't be a copy any but a far inferior version.
Calling it theft is an opinion that is not really based in fact. AI creates something unique from a collection of images previously created by other sources. It is not stealing from any sense of the word. Now, my issue with AI art is the same issue i have with automation. People could be left without work because of the advancement in these technologies.
I hear this however I do think that as all progress has existed in all of humanity's existence we have always found new jobs when progress occurred. AI could allow new jobs to come into existence. People that never had access to certain things because of talent can now create due to using AI. I do think it should be regulated but how is another issue. How do you even regulate something that is already in everyone's pockets.
Unfortunately that is part of reality. As time moves forward many jobs are lost due to advancements. Heck, I need to learn new things because I see my job being taken too.
There is something pernicious about it. Actually, art is value created by sacrifice towards the ideal of grace by the artist. We admire the toil and the discipline and the way towards truth embedded in that. There is a cult of artifice rising, with Botox and photo filters and now this. People want value without the sacrifice. It demeans your users, and yourself. The psychology is too complicated to get into here, but it is a bad development.
Good discussion, thanks for having the bravery to discuss it. Glad to see someone who doesn’t talk and work in the extremes and wants to have a constructive discussion. This is just another pivotal time in human history where we have the tough realization that we’re not as special or unique or useful as we think we are. You make a great point about…”what if AI material is good?” That’s a tough pill for humans to swallow I think due to feelings of inadequacy, but you’re right in that AI is only going to get better so we’ll have to accept it at some point.
I try to have balanced conversations, but it's definitely tricky.... There are a lot of people who seem to think that I'm for AI art based on this video.... Which I can't see how you think that if you watch the video.
Horrible take. I've enjoyed a lot of your videos and appreciate your opinions on a lot of games but this is a deal breaker for me. AI is theft and horrible for the environment to boot
Did you watch the full video? I make it clear that I'm against it, but I don't believe it can be called theft. I'd be curious if you have a substantive reason you disagree as opposed to just disagreeing without a clear reason?
I’ve yet to watch it - on a train so should really wait - but just on this comment: because of how it works calling it theft is problematic because it does what a human that just learns or is influenced by does but in a more intensive and comprehensive way. Morally there’s some of this (especially if you explicitly instruct the AI to steal or imitate another within the prompt itself). But legally it needs its own legal framework. The hard bit is that the horse has already bolted for creative works to date :-(
Big credit for even jumping into this topic, my dude. As a professional writer and musician, you can likely discern my take on AI. But, as I said recently at a panel discussion at SDCC, “AI is here and it will only grow, it will never go away. So, I’m a glass half-full guy and I’m seriously stoked that I get a front-row seat for the literal destruction of humanity. So rad. To be fair, I don’t have kids, but if you do, they are totally f’d”
I think AI is a great tool for prototyping but I don't think it should be used commercially because there is no way to compensate the artists behind the training data. Prototyping and memes, that's the only place I want to see AI
The idea of "proving" or failing to prove that AI art is theft doesn't make any sense. "Theft" is a purely abstract human concept that we have to define. AI learning is a new thing that hasn't had its parameters set yet by society. Many are saying that training process is theft-many disagree or don't even think about it. Of course we can't prove one way or another; it hasn't been decided as a culture [yet]. You may argue it isn't, but the argument "because you haven't proven it IS theft" doesn't make sense. You have to decide based on WHAT YOU THINK and HOW YOU FEEL about it. Or you can sit back and say that you think it's theft only if and when the law says it is… But that seems like a lazy stance for someone who's put so much work into learning about the topic. Imagine someone trained a model to generate BoardGameCo videos that were nigh indistinguishable from yours, and a new channel popped up: BoardGameCo2. Would you feel violated? What about if this new channel was amalgamated from the top twenty board game channels (and BoardGameCo was a noticeable "DNA strand")? If you wouldn't care (no matter how successful the channel was and/or how many of your supporters it took from you), then I'd say you're justified in arguing, "AI is not theft."
The part that's confusing, is you're presenting me with a question that seems to be designed to get me to treat AI as a threat. The thing that's confusing about that, is in this video I already say that I am for laws that would regulate it because I do believe it's dangerous. Are you reacting to my actual opinion? Or only a small segment of the video?
@@BoardGameCo I watched the whole thing, but I'm only reacting to the "theft" aspect because I think it's the pivotal point, ethically speaking. I have no issue with the rest of the video. And yes, you have to view AI as a threat for the "theft" issue to make sense. If everyone always had guaranteed access to all the food they needed, humans would have never invented the concept of stealing food in the first place.
@@BoardGameCo My take was that in order to define theft, you have to consider the threat against you personally, specifically as it applies to your creative works. I believe we generally agree about the threat AI presents to the economy and artists' jobs at large, so I didn't feel the need to address that portion of the video. My "theft" argument doesn't pertain to the economic or societal aspect of "threat"-only the personal, creative aspect.
@@andrewwilson895 slight tangent, because I'm not arguing against any of your takes, but I do have to disagree with statement that "if everyone had guaranteed access...humans would never have invented the concept of stealing..." This is most certainly not true. You can even see in animals and human toddlers, who have no concept of the idea of "stealing" that oftentimes one will want the thing another has, simply because someone else has it, and not because they don't have their own or access to their own. Example, we were caring for my in-laws' dog, and had 6 identical tennis balls scattered around the living room. One dog would begin to play with one, the other would grab another one, and then the first would give up on the one they had in favor of trying to "steal" the tennis ball the other dog now had, simply wanting to take it because the other dog had it, and not because he didn't have one exactly like it already. So, the entire concept of "stealing," as in taking something from someone else, I would argue, would still happen, no matter the access level. Now, the concept of stealing being "bad" is entirely a societal construct that could possibly be argued may not have occurred with unlimited access, but I doubt even that, as you will note that even dogs will sometimes fight over things in a "stop trying to take the thing I have" kind of way, leading me to the thought that the concept of stealing was always going to become a societal no-no. I suppose you could argue that if humans and animals had always had unlimited access to anything they ever wanted throughout all time, perhaps the concept of wanting something that someone else has may have never evolved in the first place, because there would have never been competition for any resources, but that's a much bigger, much more theoretic discussion that is REALLY far outside the scope of the original discussion. 😂
My biggest issue would be with honesty/transparency in using AI generated art. Yes, it's not perfect now, but it's already deceiving a lot of people when fake videos or photos are being used to manipulate people or ideas (or to make a quick profit). If AI is used, it should come with a disclaimer. If I still enjoy it enough, I'll pay for it, but I will always still appreciate the effort individuals put into their art. I want to see the "brush strokes" and am willing to put down more money for something that is traditional if I value the content.
Great conversation starter Alex! I think AI art is neat, and would back a GREAT game with nice AI art. Many years ago AutoTune was for trash singers, now its everywhere. CGI pushed FX experts to extinction. Factory automation put people out of jobs too, but did anyone stop buying music, movies, or cars? This becomes a supply/demand issue. Other commentors have certainly addressed the personal impacts to artists so i wont. I will point out that of ALL the issues of AI, this is fairly benign. Id be more concerned about deep faking people on media, ai hacking to secure finances and disrupting economies. AI used to influence political outcomes. Hell, just sentience itself. I'll take an AI pokemon image in a game. Just dont go Skynet on my @ss.
Ai will never provide quality art content, since the concept of quality in art is based on human qualities. Any perceived quality derives from a previous individual sacrifice.
I kind of agree, and also disagree with some of what you said. Like I don't think its Theft. However Specifically at around 11 mins you stated that when a human draws things based of multiple sources its ok, but when a machine does it its not. However humans get punished for doing this all the time via copyright, but Machines don't. So my sister is an artist and she likes painting landscape scenery, she goes to a location and literally paints what she see's, and then she posts the paintings online and then sells them. She still gets copyrighted all the time, and can't sell certain paintings. She's not even copying others paintings, its just the paintings are alike because their using the same subject to paint. So here we have a case were she didn't even actually copy anything and the copyright system is punishing her because someone else drew the same landscape. At the same time someone can tell an AI to draw the same scenery based on others paintings and a person can sell that AI Art without repercussions because the copyright system doesn't have any rules about AI. Shouldn't it be equal for both. Ether punish both people and AI both for copying or not punish both. Right now their are no rule put in place for AI art, and I feel like their should be.
@@BoardGameCo As a clarification, my sister could fight these copyright claims in court, and probably would win the case, however she doesn't because the cost of a lawyer would cost more then the money she would get from selling the paintings. She's still being blocked by the websites that she uses to sell the art, just because her art got claimed by someone else. So it might not be the copyright law itself that's the problem just how the art websites use it. However on those same sites you will have AI generated art, that will get copyrighted but It will still be able to be sold.
Not agreeing or disagreeing with any of your thoughts on AI, and no pitchforks here, but I find it interesting that you stated that copyright theft is only theft because we made it a law, but technically ANY theft is only theft because, as a society, we made it "a law." (by the way, I preface the next part by saying I'm also not trying to get into any sort of religious discussion regarding creationism vs evolution here, or anything like that, just making a point) When the first caveman who ever picked up a piece of fruit, and then had another caveman come and take that fruit from him happened, was that theft? Not really, because there was nothing saying that doing that was bad or not allowed, it was just instinct, and just a thing that happened. When that first caveman then got angry and smacked the thief across the head and told him, "hey, cut that out, it's bad to take things from other people," the concept of "theft" was created, and it became "law" (law of society, anyway). Eventually, humans create government, and officially make it actual law.
Reading the comments just shows many people didn't really listen to you. I appreciate your logical arguments. And at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter what people think of it cause its too late to reverse course. We are past the point of no return. Onward toward the "Singularity" I guess
This is an ignorant opinion born from too much time working with publishers/designers who are desperate to find a morally justifiable excuse to profit from a tool that programmatically stole the labor of thousands of artists without their consent or compensation. And to conflate AI generated images with technological progress by comparing it to things like recreating a book by hand is either ignorant, deliberately misleading, or a false equivalency at best. It's not removing tedium or human suffering its straight up destroying the entire concept of traditional art as a practice. But if this is the belief you've come to after "long conversations with lots of people" it seems more like a conclusion you want to have because it serves your interests, not necessarily born from the reality of the situation, which makes me incredibly sad. Unsubbed
@@Julio0o I followed him as a reviewer meaning I was trusting his opinions, specifically on boardgames. If he has this bad a take on something so obvious, clearly his opinions and values do not align with my own. Why would I want his review on something then?
What are the interests I'm trying to protect exactly? Did you watch the part of the video where I talk about how I'm absolutely for regulation and protection of the industry? I just don't believe it's theft, but I do take it seriously. And most of the publishers I work with are incredibly against it. This isn't a self serving take, I don't benefit in any way.
@@rhade194 A single bad take on like 4 years worth of reviews doesn't compute to me. I do agree it's a bad take, but I don't believe his values are immoral. I guess my question is, respectfully of course, why feel so strongly about this?
@@BoardGameCo Your personal relationships with the publishers/designers who are integral to the success of your channel, aka your financial interest? Please don't treat us like we're dumb. Yes, we all watched your video in its entirety. And I'm sorry, I have worked in enough companies long enough to know how big industry treats any opportunity to save a dollar. When you say "publishers are against it"...I don't believe you. We've already seen multiple publishers trying to sneak it in (Awaken Realms), and then trying to hide and back-peddle from the blowback.
If I use ai to generate a 3d model, is that bad as well? What if it lets me as a single indie developer make a large 3d world that lets me apply my creativity to the gameplay/world building and the only reason I could do it is with the help of AI? It reminds me a bit of when I started coding at 15 and people made fun of coders who used game engines because it was seen as "cheating". "Just write your own engine" is what people frequently said.
Most of them. There's a lot of people upset at this video, and most of them are not offering actual considered viewpoints, and they also seem to think that I am for AI despite my video clearly saying that I am for regulation of AI.
Trained is a complicated term. You can equally make the argue that search engines are trained by the input of others...should users get a cut when google directs traffic?
As someone who is extremely anti AI art for a multitude of reasons, to bolster my arguments against AI art, how does this differ from humans that train by copying, say, painting masters, and eventually become artists with their own style that is heavily indebted to those they studied?
Where did you get the 3 levels of theft? Is that from something or did you just make it up? It seems that your opinion is based on that laws are the be all end all of morals and should never be questioned or interpreted and will never change. At least to me, theft still exists in a world without laws. I believe most people would agree with me, that even if there were no laws that said it was illegal to steal from someone, someone taking something you created without permission or any acknowledgment would still be seen as bad. Also a big argument is about the actual humans involved. The companies using AI art to steal from struggling artists and not pay them anything for their work, are able to do it on such a large scale that it is humanly impossible to do. It is possible for AI to credit/pay the artists that they train their software on, because there is a record of what data has been put in and how much was used. While for an individual it is basically impossible to try and figure out where each little piece of inspiration comes from. So yes it would be great if humans could do that, but AI CAN do that and is choosing not. They know what data they are using, they know what artists the software is taking "inspiration" from, but are purposefully not giving credit because it's cheaper, easier, and they can get away with it. In capitalism individuals are already struggling and letting companies take even more advantage of individuals just puts all of us in a worse place. Nobody is complaining about losing jobs to technology because we want to work! Art is a passion, most people aren't artists because they thought it was the most reliable way to make a living. People do art because they love it, because to create art is to be human. Nobody complained about the printing press because it just made the job better and wasn't putting a large group of passionate type setters out of their passion. It probably gave many of the employees time to pursue their passions which AI does not. If a company ran an AI software to watch all of your videos and then started a youtube channel that made videos very similar to yours except it always spoke clearly, never forget anything, always went out on time maybe half an hour before your videos did every single time. Same thumbnail styles, same talking style, same vibes, and then you started losing views to that channel with people saying it was just better than your channel. Would you still qualify that as only "Maybe theft" and still good for society? Because you shouldn't, you are a human with value and what you create has value, so if someone else ends up being the one who gains the value from what you created, that sucks! That is not good for society, in any way. It is also just crazy that at this point we are still having an "informed" AI discussion without mentioning the power usage of AI systems. Even if it is good, even if it is helpful, is it worth it? Hastening the death of our planet in the name of making a game a little bit easier/cheaper/faster to make.
This whole thing has been..interesting timing having just been at a Science Center on Monday, and they had a presentation about approaching science and scientific advancements using Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. They did it to bring to focus the idea of “can we do this? What are the benefits, and what are possible consequences?” Or to play off the Jurassic Park line: “just because we can do something like this, does that mean we should?”
"Theft is the preferred term as it specifically refers to the unlawful taking of property with the intent to permanently deprive the owner." Unlawful is the key word here, you argued that because the law was created that's why it's illegal with the copyright. The same can be said about traditional stealing, it's unlawful because we as a society agreed there should be a negative impact for this action i.e a law that criminalizes stealing. The simple issue is they mimicked countless artists unique works without compensation or consent to create a product that will be monetized, impacting and depriving the original artists ability to create art since they can go to a machine to mimic it for pennies on the dollar. they "took" something without permission not borrowed, in this case it was the uniqueness of line works from some, color pallads from others, and so much more. If I draw a dragon and then you tried to replicate it it won't be the same true artists spill more than just lines into their work, it's the sole reason why forgeries are caught even if they look indistinguishable at first. But to simplify they took something without consent with the end result being depriving the owners from future income.
The question shouldn't be is it theft, it should be is it ethical? Everyone who is happy with the growth of AI art will change their tune when AI comes for your job.
I think there's a huge difference between valuing art and being willing to call this theft. I've made it pretty clear in the video that I absolutely value art, and that knowing a machine did something kills the magic of it....I just don't believe it's theft.
For me, probably it feels more like copyright infringment or piracy what companies did to create the image ai, but is just watching art in internet was always available to watch while other forms arent. maybe when they create an AI that plays videogames or create movies, and they pirate all the movies and videogames of the world to teach it, it could be more clear. (well, I think they already did with netflix). While you can say the machine is learning in the same way as humans, I think you can say too he is copying the data in it's database in a way like piracy does too. but I think too that the technology is awesome in some ways, and it sucks just capitalism is really the problem, that some few are gaining a lot of money from a lot of people that probably will lose their work and probably the profession is going to dissappear too . Because maybe someone could steal all the investigations of cancer one day and create with the results the cancer's cure and that would be awesome in a way, but it would be made ilegally too. Thanks for the brave take on a hot topic
I'm a Freelance Artist/Graphic Designer and here's, my take. I don't believe you can compare Stealing a Physical Object, like a Cookie, to this conversation. We are dealing with Digital Objects, that, yes, are essentially being copied... but none the less, it is "Taken" or "Stolen" without Permission. I feel the Permission is what you should be focused on. All of the Generative AI startups Scraped the internet for billions of images... Without Permission... and use those images to make something that they could sell. I know you make the argument that People copy too... but when Humans copy, they cannot do it perfectly (like a program) and when making art a human cannot copy from billions of references. So the "Humans Copy too" point is moot. In the end, I understand that AI art is not going anywhere, and that sucks. Yes, Regulation is needed, but I also feel that those companies that Scraped the Internet for references without permission should delete all of those reference images and start from scratch, using images that the Artist has Given Permission (possibly with a small compensation) and go from there. I seriously doubt this will ever happen but hey, that would be ethically correct. After all, when someone steals your physical things and are caught... they typically have to give that thing back. To me, AI art can be used as a tool for reference ideas for Artist to Create their own art in their own style. I personally do not, but I wouldn't look down on any artist that does. Also, I feel that any AI art being sold should indicate that it is in fact AI art so the consumer is aware of what they are buying. End of my tangent. :)
@@BoardGameCo Machines have the ability to copy Perfectly, and in mere seconds. Humans can TRY to copy something perfectly but it will take countless hours and never be a Perfect copy. There will always be a little bit of the Artist's style, imperfection, or creativity incorporated into the final piece. It is not the same. Plus, when a Machine does it, it can perfectly copy millions of artists into 1 piece. Besides, any Artist that is trying to make a living with their artwork will NOT try to Copy a reference Perfectly. If caught, they would forever be known as "That Artist that Copies", forever hurting their reputation and livelihood. When a Machine Copies, there is no repercussions. You have to admit, there is a difference.
@@chadstilson8804 In the video I acknowledge there's a difference, there's no question there...but a difference doesn't mean it's theft, it just means that we both agree that it's different but it's still based on a similar concept...so it's "maybe theft", at least until laws clarify otherwise. Also reminder, as I cover in the video, I am against AI art in many cases. I just disagree that it's theft.
@@BoardGameCo If you look up "Steal" in the dictionary and you get: "to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right". To me, this shows that stealing or theft is taking something without "Permission". Whether it's a Cookie, or a Digital Piece of Art. So I would agree that an image made using AI is Not Theft... However... all AI Art is the byproduct of the "Original Theft" of Billions of Pieces of artwork that was Taken Without Permission from the internet. Also, not sure why the law has anything to do with whether something is theft or not... the law only dictactes if there is ramifications for this type of theft.
I really dislike half the video (and the discussion) revolved around whether a specific term applies or not. Yes if you steal a modern painting, it is now missing from someone's house. Yes, if you google "4K modern painting" your browser is downloading a dozen copies of paintings to be able to display them on your screen in your browser. Obviously, downloading and derivatives aren't "theft" in the real-world sense, since the original still exists. But there's already a term for unlawfully appropriating digital content for yourself/others, it's called copyright infringement, illegal distribution of materials, etc. I would've preferred to see the discussion revolve around whether it should be legal or not, and if not, what label might apply then. Rather than starting with the discussion of whether a specific label applies from the get go. Images can and do have copyright, and can and do have licenses attached to them. AI models are often used in commercial ways and the training data has often been obtained in 'illegitimate ways'. Meaning that a lot of models are created with 'paid art' without acquiring the required licenses. Now the only question is whether the method in which ai image companies have obtained such images and the method in which they used them to train their models constitutes some form of copyright infringement, and whether the output constitutes a 'derivative work'. There are currently ongoing court cases to establish if this is indeed the case. One thing is for sure: If AI image generators were purely trained on public domain data or simply used 'home made' algorithms to mimic styles without ripping the features out of proprietary images for training, attorneys would have way less ammunition to litigate with against these companies. Now with regards to the "a human can copy too" argument. That's true, but we are not considered equal to computers just yet. We are still usually judged as if we had the capacity of free will, and with regards to art we are also judged under the guise of us having an independent learning process that does not directly 'rip' features out of an image for instant "statistically significant" replication. Whether the net result between an algorithm and a human is the same after a few years of training is not the point. The point is how the technique to replicate the image style works. The AI training happens by directly processing images and extracting features until you can create a model that has a million parameters weighted in such a way to make it easy to create statistically significant similar images, it's considered a more direct 'processing of data', which is argued to not be okay. But judges will come up with a verdict in a year or 2 I guess. Ultimately, I feel a bit mixed on the issue. In an ideal society I think it shouldn't matter, and we should all strive towards progress. This means that every idea should be able to be "stolen", but also that we shouldn't be so reliant on capitalism and the idea of proprietary works. Everything should be for the sake of improving humanity's condition. That goes for a lot of industries either way, I would love for people to 'join arms' and work on developing the best solution for any given problem, instead of reinventing the wheel a dozen times to try and be competitive and earn some money. But unfortunately we live in a capitalist society, and as such people need to earn their daily bread. Allowing the processing of copyrighted work without a license, to create 'transformative' works, seems extremely unethical and should not be desired. Asset creators already have shown pushback by adding explicit licensing terms that forbid the use of their works for any kind of AI related purposes. I would consider any verdict that rules in favor of being allowed to do this very detrimental to society. As without change it could result in a world where ai companies rule, as they can crank out 'transformative works' much faster than anyone could ever create them, and will likely have detrimental 'transformative' effects on society itself. I don't think we are ready to live in a world 'ruled' by ai companies. And I think the ai companies are not ready to rule in a world governed by purely ai generated works either. That said I don't think AI art in itself is bad per se, but in terms of copyright, art generators should just be made with public works and / or non-derived / copied algorithms
AI is a tool, and one that like many tools can be used for good or for bad. I think if their is anything criminal with AI it would be on the dataset user for training the model. If I print out a piece of art on paper, I have created a forgery (probably a bad one). Is it the printers fault I input something into it that I didn't own? Is it the tools fault no. Do I think people should have better control over if their work is used in training, yes. Do I think it is to late? Probably.
Nerds being mad about losing jobs, while truth is the best world to live is where you dont need to waste 1/3 of your life to work and have work free society. Thank god its inevitable, will take hundred of years but those who want to work till death are not in charge and the change will come regardless of their complains.
Also i wonder if they are so pure to make sure products that are not from bangladesh or africa where the work is more a slavery than real gratification of their work and pay 3x the price im guessing most of them dont but its not so mainstream view like a AI art to jump on ship everybody is in.
@boardgameco You know its only going to be a couple of years and the AI can scrape all your boardgame reviews and playthroughs and create a new review/playthrough of a new game. At first they will be bad (Its a campaign game similar to Chess) and eventually they will be able to recreate all your normal review approaches. How do you think you will feel about that? I mean if they are going to be able to create a movie-on-demand based on some minimal input, its not going to stop at just movies. I already see some crappy TH-cam videos that are clearly AI generated. But this is the 'oops I gave it 6 fingers' time for this kind of content. Basically, they are coming for the Artists today...are you ready for them to come for you tomorrow?
You make a good point...I should probably say something like how I'm against what AI art has done and how I'm for regulation of AI art....which is good because I already said that in the video.
"At best, it is an hypothesis" -- no, what? What does this even mean? Hypotheses are testable by definition??? An AI model cannot produce outside of its training data. AI is just a family of related methods, of applied algorithms. It cannot *by definition* be inspired to make something new. It is literally just regurgitating training data, and there's no way for it to ever move beyond that because that's how models work. Oh, a predictor outside of its training data? Shove into class "Other" with a million other "Other" values until the model is refreshed using updated training data. Any output using that class is just a hodgepodge of noise elements all classified as "Other." The application of AI and the contentification of creativity is fundamentally parasitic, and the regurgitation just builds on itself. See the hilariously silly attempt to push the "AI Scientist" a few months ago. There are the complicated discussions about the use of non-creative AI as theft -- just the use of data by for-profit corporations is arguably theft, as well. (It's certainly obnoxious.) And the energy cost to train the same dumb model to predict your next grocery purchase -- it's just increasing at an exponential rate with no public return while climate change exceeds the absolute worst predictions. (I know this is scatterbrained, but goodness is it difficult to cover complex topics succinctly in a TH-cam comment. I only claim minor expertise as someone who occasionally uses AI methods (but really prefers plain statistics in 99% of cases).)
It needs to be noted that AI is way over hyped. ChatGPT simply predicts what word comes next. There isn’t any real intelligence behind it. And it is very lacking in creativity when compared to humans. It, however, is a great tool for brainstorming ideas, it’s a super thesaurus, and it’s excellent for doing research on a topic (if it doesn’t just make something up). On AI art, before AI art was released there was already so much art published that a person could search the internet all their lives and never see the same art twice. You just published some awesome looking anime...ok, so did a million other artists. In many respects, AI art is akin to glorified stock art. It can produce beautiful art, but that art will be lifeless. For projects that use such images the end product runs the risk of also coming across as lifeless. In the board game industry, the industry puts such a high value on the artist that any designer who doesn’t use human art runs the risk of their products not being taken very seriously. They may make some sales, but a driving force behind those sales will be missing. What it does do is sort of even the playing field for none-artist with low to no budgets to be able to add that extra layer to their creativeness. That’s what I’m seeing. Thanks for your thoughts on this, Alex.
The knee jerk angry reactions in this comment section is the exact reason for his disclaimer throughout the video and the exact reason why productive conversations rarely happen. This is not a one dimensional topic and we should be able to discuss the nuances. Take a breath and be openminded before suiting up to be a keyboard warrior because you are emotionally charged.
Thank you! Literally made sure to say 14 times "put down the pitchforks" only to have people say things to me as if they're disagreeing...when I say the same thing.
My god people. Stop with the knee jerk reactions and listen to the whole video. I don’t think AI is going anywhere anytime soon. If anything I can see it becoming the norm, and ten years from now we are going to be wondering why anyone would commission an artist to make board game art when there is a much cheaper way. I do think that the only way to stop it from happening is if there are some regulations put into place by. Plus it will take some of the big companies coming out against it. But as everybody reading this knows the big companies only care about there bottom line. Whatever happens it is interesting to see happen. Great video and a wonderful talking point.
Absolutely terrible take. Artists and other creatives already struggle to make money. They deserve compensation for their works being used to train these models - or to be able to opt out completely (though sadly it is probably too late for that). It is not fair use, it is theft. These models are not doing what a human would do, because a human cannot consume everything at once and splutter out something as a result. Humans need to pay for access to things like books, films, art etc if they want to learn from them.
Which part is the terrible take? The part where I'm for the regulation of AI art in order to protect the industry? The fact that I believe it's not theft is a point I'm happy to have you counter, but your point as writen I already address and agree with.
Art students train on the work of the masters. Is that theft? If i train my model using public domain art, is it theft? I don't think this is a conversation that can be framed in absolutes.
@@silvercydecollectibles3646 No, because using public domain stuff is not theft. The main point is; creators whose work is not public domain have not consented or been compensated for their works' use. That is the issue. I don't think it's a complex argument like these AI companies would have people believe.
@@Venezian78 But if i create my own model using public domain input, it will not be discernable by others and i will be lumped in with those crying "theft!" regardless. I've also found it fascinating that many of the active artists I've discussed this with have a neutral, or even positive, view of these tools. Though i have had others say, in essence, "I studied art in school for years, so it's not fair that others can create images in seconds." I realize this isn't quantifieable, but a fascinating dichotomy to me.
@@silvercydecollectibles3646 Sorry but that's wrong. If someone creates a model that uses only public domain stuff, and makes it clear, you won't get cries of theft regarding that model. You may still get criticism that it isn't art, depending on people's definition. To me (and I realise some would disagree) art is an inherently human thing that happens in the creation, not the result of typing some words into a machine and getting a picture (or book or movie) blasted out in a few seconds.
When it comes to crowdfunded games, I'm willing to pay the higher price for a premium product. In its current form, AI art isnt high enough quality to belong in a premium product.
This was put to the test recently (I can't remember the game, but Alex commented on it on one of his videos) The developer offered 2 pledge levels the base level with AI art at say $39 and said to afford to pay an artist the cost of the game would be $69 with a promise that if he hit (I think 300 pledges) at the higher value he'd hire an artist as it would then cover the cost. From memory less than 10 people pledged at the higher level. Not saying it's right or wrong but certainly in this case the majority didn't vote with their wallet that they'd happily pay more to cover the cost of an actual artist. I'm sure someone will be able to comment on what the game was. (My prices are also probably not quite accurate)
I find it intriguing that as a religious Jew you don't consider the human generating art instantly superior and more important than the machine. The fact that believing the machine's "worth" is lesser is an unprovable hypothesis to you is something I didn't expect. I will say that you are correct that by the definition of theft AI art is not theft. I do think it should be considered "wrong" to train a machine to completely destroy a person's ability to provide for themselves and their families. If we don't see people as more important than machines (and the money they make us, because that's really what its all about) then we're in bigger trouble as a species than i thought
@BoardGameCo yes. I watched the video lol. And we agree definitely agree on that. We just disagree whether or not a machine using previous art to make art is equal to a person doing it
Technology has evolved so many jobs and will continue to do so. Farm equipment, manufacturing equipment, safety equipment, phones, computers, the internet. People evolve. Or at least, hopefully 😊
100% agreed. It's why I'm only for ai regulation if needed to protect industries, whereas individual jobs being sustained sucks but sometimes is the way progress works.
@BoardGameCo yeah. There is a huge difference between creating AI art like "put together 100 water color animals for my game" and "Make my boardgame look like The Mico illustrated it". I am totally fine with the first but the second would be disgusting and unacceptable.
A tractor replacing ten guys pulling a plow isn't remotely equivalent, unless the tractor was powered by those ten guys pulling it and they weren't being paid and were strapped to the machine against their will.
I expected pushback....but I am sad that most of the pushback really feels like people are reacting only to the first 4 words of the title, ignoring the rest and ignoring what I actually say.
Let's say someone is using your art to train a machine so they can mimic your art. This represents a social danger in the art world - because it destroys the system of supply and demand. "Theft" is just a convenient, easy to understand verb to contextualize that danger. The word doesn't matter.
So... by attacking the word choice, you're implying that you're wiling to overlook the problem. I think it's a poor move to criticize the language used to describe a problem, even if inaccurate. I'll give you an example. The National Socialist German Worker's party, or Nazis for short, did not actually represent the interests and beliefs of the average workers of the german nation. Their actions had less to do with an economic division of people and more to do with geno-religious fanatacism. We still used their abbreviation - despite it being technically inaccurate. Do you see what I'm getting at? It's not theft; the economic damage is not similar to theft; it's more like art cloning. We all know this, but nitpicking muddies the topic.
Completey agree. If you watch the video I'm absolutely for regulation and I'm againt AI art....I just think that calling it theft isn't validated or verified in any way.
I don't think you did yourself any favors by getting bogged down with the semantics of "theft" to start. While a small subsection of the AI backlash is that it's illegal/copyright infringement, I believe the majority take issue with the moral/ethical consequences felt by real, human artists. Invoking Mr. Disney to make your point is also an interesting choice. Fact: I cannot draw a good dragon, regardless of how much "inspiration" i take from other artists. I either pay an artist to do this for me, or i take the AI shortcut. Whether the output is "good" or not doesn't make it *right*. I also take issue with you handwaiving the very real economic impact being felt, and will continue to be felt, by artists, with "well that's progress!" Can i see the analytical argument behind it? Sure, but it also makes you come off as cold and aloof to the plight of artists. I'm rambling, and while everyrhing you said is in line with statements you've made in the past, it's still disappointing to hear. Nevertheless, i appreciate you putting this out there and creating space for debate to continue.
Thanks for sharing your thinking on this Alex; thoughtful as ever. It sparked a couple of thoughts: Linguistic subtleties can be powerful, so the nuance is important. Copyright holders might refer to ‘theft’, but you’re talking about ‘copyright infringement’ which is slightly different. People should not steal. People should not infringe copyright. They aren’t the same. The use of the art by the AI compared to the art inspiring a human is interesting. At the risk of complicating an already complicated topic, the point this misses is in the initial build of the AI - some individuals took the original art, not to draw inspiration but to build their AI models (and profit). Those artists have been denied profit (in other words, their copyright has been infringed) and are entitled to an accounting for those profits. Unfortunately, for the individual creatives to exercise their rights they are challenging large, well funded and organised corporations. That imbalance can be addressed by regulation.
Because the Bible says a bunch of nonsense it’s real now…instead of a historical spell book. So because it says telling someone something not true is a lie and that’s bad…hence don’t lie. Just like copyright law
@@BoardGameCoyou said copyright is theft only because we made a “law” that says so…I’m comparing it to anything “we” have declared indecent or unacceptable in the spell book many follow (bible). I don’t need laws or bible to know copyright is theft.
Interested video, most of the comments seem to focus on the theft / using other peoples work without permission. Would have been interesting to touch on ethically trained AI image generators such as Adobe Firefly which is only trained in images that adobe own the rights to (and implicitly does not include customer images). Surely the whole theft discussion is entirely a moot point in this scenario?
Alex, I was the first person to give your video a “like.” I agree with all of your arguments, and I believe they are all well-stated. I feel that this is the bottom line: (1) People are entitled to not like AI art, and to want to avoid it. This is a personal decision. (2) Art created with AI needs to indicate that AI was involved. (Similarly, we label GMO food so that people who do not want it can avoid it. This is another kind of personal decision.) (3) Like CGI, AI art will improve over time, so there’s no point basing a major argument on how good or bad it is. (I will give you an example, below.) Every way of life risks being overwhelmed by AI, and we are going to have to learn how to deal with it. For an extreme example, imagine Kickstarter offering 100 AI created fantasy/adventure/campaign games on the same day, all from one “company”. (I’m a writer, and the website I use to post writing, and get critiques, has been overwhelmed by AI-generated critiques.) Now one more interesting point: Copyright in art is a historical aberration. For most of the last 1,000 years, art that builds on, and copies, other art has been the norm. In music, there are so many wonderful “theme and variations” works, none of which would exist if copyright made it difficult to “borrow” a theme. Today, copyright mostly benefits superstars and large corporations with vast portfolios. If someone steals my novels, I cannot afford to sue them. My novels are protected by people’s honesty. (When Ballantine books printed an unauthorized version of Lord of the Rings, Tolkien asked his fans not to buy it, and to complain. Ballantine withdrew the publication. I believe there was no lawsuit.) The D’Oyly Carte Opera company is a great example of what could happen before copyright. As soon as they could produce a new Gilbert & Sullivan operetta, other opera companies rushed to produce unauthorized productions. To keep making money, Gilbert and Sullivan were pressed to create a new opera as soon as possible. Without this thieving pressure, we would have far fewer (wonderful) G&S operettas than we have today. We, the public, benefitted from D’Oyly being unable to sue for copyright. Yes, AI art will damage the income of many artists. As you discuss here, every technological advance brings both economic damage and new opportunities. (I'm a software developer. A friend of mine was not prepared to have rocks thrown at him when he worked on automating the printing of newspapers, but of course, it happened.) This kind of damage is a good reason for each person to decide how they feel about the advance, but usually, technological advances are unstoppable. Again, AI art will improve, so there’s no point basing arguments on how good it is. Imagine the following, which I’ll bet someone is working on already: A company uses two AI programs to produce a painting. The first does what you expect. The second program looks at the result, tries to find anything unnatural (such as an extra finger or an impossible posture), and fixes it. Thanks for reading all this! -toby
Thanks :) I for sure believe that anyone basing the argument on how good it is, is setting themselves up to fail down the road...it has to be tackled in different ways.
I think it's complicated...there are areas I'm for it and areas I'm against it, and I'm sure those opions will evolve over time...but I don't think it's a black and white issue.
Great video Alex! I agree with you, humans also do the same thing as in look at other work to get inspiration from it, how is that any different? A lot of gray areas in the topic but I agree with you.
Slightly off topic, but AI is going to be such an incredible tool for playtesting at some point. Uploading the rule book and then asking AI to simulate 10,000 plays with every player count and deliver a report of imbalances, errors, rule conflicts, asymmetric win ratios, etc.
Was willing to give this a shot. But got to the part where you’re saying that just because it’s not illegal yet, it’s not theft. At least that’s how you seemed to phrase it. Just because something isn’t illegal doesn’t mean it’s not morally wrong. And I understand that you’re not explicitly saying that, but arguing this semantic is damaging to the issue. Edit: Ah I got to part where you are saying that the way AI creates art is the same as the way a human creates art. 😭
@@minohki A saving throw? If you watched this video and think "I disagree that it's not theft" I totally get that. But if you watched it and think "wow, he's for AI art" then I think you got stuck on how much you disagree with the theft part. I literally talk about how AI art is ruining my appreciation for art. Do you think that's just to "protect myself" If I wanted to protect myself I could just not have filmed this video at all :)
@ Not what I said and not what I think. Maybe it’s the way the information is presented or the way I’m interpreting it. But the negativity of the first half of the video overshadows any positivity in the second half. Makes it hard to appreciate or support your take. Kirk you said this isn’t a black and white issue. And while I agree with your regulation stance, I still really disagree with other stances in the video.
@@BoardGameCo I keep thinking about this and want to add that what I think I find so disagreeable is that the thaw takes you explain first are takes that others use to justify their support of AI art. And I hate to see validation of that in any form. I believe it hurts the cause to actually achieve regulation.
![ILLSLICK - KILLSHOT REMIX [FULL VERSION]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RIK8RrqIAzE/mqdefault.jpg)
I rarely have to pin a clarifying comment but I believe it's worth doing so here based on a lot of the comments.
In the video title, I say it should be taken seriously. In the video itself, I talk about how I'm for regulation of AI art, whether legal or industry wide. But I also don't believe it's theft.
If you disagree with me on any specific points, I'm happy to engage, but if you watched this video and your takeaway is thinking that I'm pro AI art, even as I talk about how the growth of it I am personally bothered by....than you are probably responding upset at specific points you didn't like rather than actual understanding what I said.
The confusion is that there are plenty of reasons to not use AI art, and “this is the technical definition of theft” is pretty low on that list. Its good that youre committed to forming your own opinion, but when everyone around you is overwhelming taking one side over the other, you really should try listening to them.
@@spaceman_256 Listen does not mean change your opinion. He is engaging in thoughtful conversation and not people screaming.
@@spaceman_256 tell that to Copernicus.
Aka: "I got absolutely freaking ratioed in the comments after using a click-bait title and being pedantic over the use of the word 'theft' to justify some bull"
I think you need to take a long hard look at the thumbnail of this video and ask yourself "why do people think I'm pro-AI?"
I think the problem with this topic is figuring out what terms to use. We use words like theft, and then get caught into breaking down the definition of "theft" and asking "is AI art theft?". If we can determine that AI doesn't seem to fit the definition of "stealing a pie off my neighbors windowsill", then we can put our conscious at ease and say AI art isn't theft. Similarly, we are forced to use the limits of our language to describe what machines are doing during when we give it a prompt to "create an image of a dragon". We say the machine is doing what a human does when a human creates a picture of a dragon, but I don't think the term "creation" here is being used accurately at all (even though a strict breakdown of the definition might fit).
If I feed a picture of a dragon into a photocopier, the photocopier spits out a picture of a dragon. Did the photocopier "create" that picture? By a particular definition of "create", yes it did. But by the definition by which we care about it from a human creative process, I don't think it even remotely "created" it. I don't think that difference in that interpretation of creation is merely a hypothesis. If Bob takes the comic that Sally wrote and drew, and runs it through a photocopier and declares "hey look at what the machine created", or worse... "look at what I, Bob created by using this nifty machine" I don't think it's merely a hypothesis that what Bob and the machine did, and what Sally did, are wildly, worlds apart, different processes.
What a machine is doing when it scrapes a bunch of art and spits out an image from a word prompt is not, (in my opinion) anywhere at all in the vicinity of what a human is doing when they study art, develop a skill and then "create" a piece of art. AI art (to me) is simply a more sophisticated photocopier. It is not doing what a human artist does. To me, they are worlds apart (in all the ways that matter), while also having some elements that we could say are similar.
I should probably say, I offer these thoughts, just as that: an offering. I'm not looking to debate the topic, and won't be making follow-up posts here (I simply don't have the time or energy - I find myself rather demoralized by the whole topic, generally). But I wanted to offer a couple of thoughts for anyone who might find themselves in the comments, in case it could be of use to shaping their own perspective on the topic.
As a photographer, I had someone come up to me during a convention talking poorly about the high costs of another photographer who has a very unique gorgeous art for his photos. They then in the next beat asked if I could just replicate and take the photos for them. It felt so gross. I happen to be dear friends with the other photographer so it was even more so just offensive to see how that played out. I think about this often when AI is being discussed. It doesn’t feel as gross to folks when people are just typing in a prompt to a computer, but in my mind they are just like that would be client asking me to recreate a notable art for less or in the case of AI, for free.
Your thoughts are always appreciated, thank you for chipping in.
I'll also note that I don't disagree with anything you said.
@@BoardGameCo Saying this while titling your video something that most people will just look at and feel absolved in their own use of AI is disingenuous at best and dangerous at worst. If you agreed with Rodney, you wouldn't be doing what you're doing.
@@bethsobel2790I don't know if I agree with everything Rodney believes, but I don't believe he said anything in his comment that anything I said is in disagreement with.
And my title doesn't just say ai isn't theft, I think if someone can only read four words instead of a whole sentence that's not on me.
@@BoardGameCo Ok, it's probably being auto deleted. Please google ieee spectrum generative ai has a visual plagiarism problem
Curious as to how many artists you talked to before arriving at and declaring this conclusion.
Semantics over the word theft are irrelevant, and entirely miss the point. Copyright control, and an creator's ability to define the terms under which their work may be copied, owned or used is really the only tool that an artist has at their disposal to reliably maintain income, and hence a commercial career. AI undercuts that enormously, it utilises artists work directly without their permission, this is a matter of fact. Not only does it jeopardise professional artist's careers today, it also threatens to entirely remove any pathway to becoming a professional artist by replacing all low-level illustration work. The knock-on effect of this means that artists who have had the time, through long careers, to form a deep understanding of the concepts and principals of art will be severely reduced. Replaced instead by hollow mimicry made by those that lack the conviction to create themselves. This is literally one of the main tools that we as a species use to make sense of the world around us and our place within it, and we're jeopardising our understanding of it so people can make stupid thumbnails and knock-off Magic art.
Your entire argument about how a machine draws "inspiration" from multiple sources as opposed to how a human does it is just plain ridiculous, and betrays how little you know about the process of becoming an artist. If you tell a machine to copy something, it will literally do that. If you tell it to average a million images and create an image, it will literally do that too. If you tell a human to copy the Sistine Chapel, they will try, and fail. They will then try again and again and again. Even if they are literally attempting to do nothing more than copy the Sistine Chapel, they will fail for YEARS. They will very likely never succeed. But during those years they will learn a lot. They will try to copy other things, also failing. This is the process of becoming an artist, and the process of failing is the process of creating art. It's a human process that, through failure and fallibility, becomes infused with that artist's life and experiences to eventually create a unique voice. A machine will just copy the Sistine Chapel. Correlating the two processes is simply incorrect.
The one thing you said that I agree with is that there is always a cost. There is a cost to the declarative statements like “AI art is not theft”. Even if you can justify the semantic argument, the cost is another slip towards the normalising of the notion that “AI art is OK”.
At least two. Happy to talk directly if you ever want to.
As I say in the video, I don't like what AI art has already done, and I am for regulation of it.
I understand being against it and I understand it being personal, but you haven't actually said anything I disagree with...it feels like your main complaint is just that you want a blanket "ai is bad" which I didn't and won't do. I think it's far more complicated than that even if I happen to not like the way things currently are with it.
@@BoardGameCo Given who you work for, you can't really do a blanket 'ai is bad' statement
@@BoardGameCo I don't see how you can agree with everything I've said when what I'm saying is that you are not correct, and are using many bad-faith arguments constantly rolled out by the pro-AI crowd. I'm seeing a lot of "as I said in the video" replies from you, but you seem to be blind to the fact that the title and thumbnail you've used are clickbaity and VERY provocative about a VERY sensitive subject. Both come across as a middle finger up to every professional tabletop artist I know, honestly, and it hasn't gone unnoticed. If you want to be clear about your message, then be clear, but open your eyes to the optics of what you're putting out there.
@@bethsobel2790 While I understand thinking that, I actually have no problem having my own opinions. When Awaken Realms initially rolled out AI art, I was publically vocal about the fact that I thought that was a mistake on their part.
The reason I won't say a blanket "ai is bad" isn't because of them..it's because I think most things in life are more nuanced then that.
@@ianotoolevideo I am aware that the title is provactive...but I was also intentional to make it clear that you don't even have to watch the video to know that this is not "For AI" take.
If your complaint is that you disagree with my choice to do that, I respect that. But when you spend a full paragraph saying how the way a human learns from copying is different than the way a machine learns from copying, when I acknowledge that already in my video, it still means that you are arguing with the opinion you think I have, and not the words I actually said.
I find that any discussion of if AI art is 'theft' invariably ends up missing the point entirely. Whether or not it is 'theft' is immaterial to the end result which is large companies using the tech to displace a lot of artists and effectively devalue art as a product and a profession. If any person can spool up an image generator and make art that is 80% as good as a real person, there is no business reason for any company to employ artists at all if they can make a "good enough" product. Most consumers can't tell the difference or don't care, so why should the people making the product. This will almost certainty cause the degradation of a lot of art based industries, board games included, due to the inherent profit motive of making things "good enough" for much cheaper. I'm not one of those people who is going to just call this a bad take and get mad, I respect that you have your opinion, but I very much feel like you missed the forest through the trees here.
Pin this comment please 🙏.
no it matters because the artists aren't getting paid their royalties as they should be, or being able to refuse having their work used in an illegal manner
@@CD-zd6zr If artists were getting paid the companies wouldn't be getting a free/extremely cheap service, and they more then likely wouldn't bother with the tech at all. My point is that it doesn't matter if it is stealing because the people who make the decisions regarding it whether governmental or business have already made their choice to not protect the artists. Arguing over the semantics of if it is technically theft is a pointless exercise. The tech is here and not going away, its going to do a lot of damage to a lot of creative industries, and arguing over pointless semantics doesn't help anything.
@DouglasHarveMarose legal matters aren't just semantics
Companies have used computers, automation, offshoring, immigration and every other conceivable means to slash labor costs always. Why are artists supposed to be some sacred cow? Why should I have to pay more for a game so a human can draw it but not more for it so my countrymen can make it?
Debating if its theft or copyright infringement or plagiarism is beating a lingual dead horse.
Its just a more high brow version of is chili a soup.
Its ethnically, morally, and likely legally wrong. The courts will probably get around to ruling on it when someone makes an AI that hurts companies by producing cartoons or video games or computer programs.
While I don't necessarily agree as quickly with your three labels, I do agree it should be regulated.
Correct. AI Art isn't theft. The theft occurs when a company illegally scrapes art from a website and uses it to train the AI tool without the artist's permission. Offering up a sample of work for viewing so a buyer can make a decision on whether they want to buy something is not the same as offering up a sample for commercial use in training AI tools. Europe recognizes this and has just passed laws allowing publishers to determine whether or not their works, and samples, may be used to train AI. It's a shame that the US has not caught up and the only recourse US artists and authors have is a copyright claim they can't afford (given the cost of US lawyers).
And FYI, if you're not familiar with US copyright law, look it up. Using an author's work without their permission IS a violation of US copyright law if the total art stolen from an author had an (expected) total value in sale that would exceed $1,000.
"The true purpose of AI is to allow wealth to access skill without allowing skill to access wealth"
Using semantics of the definition of theft to undermine AI being theft is ridiculous. Copyright infringement is theft, it's theft of income. Your version of how AI art is made is also inaccurate and does not account for weighted reference. Also, people who copy as directly as AI does do face legal consequences.
This is ridiculous.
I'm in full agreement with Beth Sobel, Ian O'Toole, and many others I've heard from in the visual arts and tech fields. Saying in big letters in the thumbnail that it isn't theft is harmful to people. Whether your video goes on to talk about how it should be regulated and the correct use of this technology should not be legal, fine, but that doesn't absolve anything about the thesis statement made in the thumbnail. If you think it's not theft because it doesn't exactly match your definition of theft, and there isn't currently a better agreed-upon word to describe it, the responsible thing to do is to use the word that best reflects the moral and ethical implications of its commercial use: theft. It's a machine that specifically uses copyrighted art without permission, pay, or attribution of the owner, to create something close enough to that art to be commercially functional while being legally distinct enough to avoid legal consequences. Maybe you'll be in a tight spot with your employer if you come out and say what they do is theft but hey, no one forced you to make this. There is a reason why companies like Awaken Realms use AI generated images - it's cheaper than paying for all the art they need. Sure they pay artists to airbrush together disjointed elements and remove extra fingers, but that's just enough to have legal ownership of the end result. And that money saved that they would otherwise have needed to pay? That's the financial damage. Spreading violation of ownership rights and financial damage across an industry instead of with individual instances doesn't change the moral and ethical implications.
I'm totally ok with the idea that someone might think that I presented this the wrong way. I tried to make sure the title had clarification in it, but I understand if it still didn't come across the way I wanted.
The only thing I've been challenging is when people are "arguing with me" by saying things I already said in the video.
As far as the employer side, as you said... I could simply have not made the video. The premise that I'm trying to protect anyone doesn't make sense.
@@BoardGameCo I appreciate you replying to comments critical of the thumbnail and of any specific parts of the video. I don't think I'd have a thick enough skin to put out something that is going to catch a lot of heat and then reply to them in a reasonable way. Even if we disagree on terms and their impact on the broader community-wide discussion, good on you for that.
you can argue if its actual theft or not yes, but it is 100% definitely modern wage theft. That's a much bigger issue
I think that's such a complicated discussion. Don't get me wrong, I think it is a big deal and should be taken seriously but theft itself is such a hard point to prove here
@@BoardGameCo Taking jobs from the work of artists is wage theft, and ironically if it ever got to a point where every artist was gone and only AI art was left being created(extreme I know but not impossible) the AIs would have no new material to scrape from and creativity would stifle as a result.
@@SILENCE_uk A new company doing something better than a previous company and taking market shares from it is not theft. You don't need to reinvent the wheel everytime. That would be an analogy.
@@Uthe007It's not reinventing the wheel. It's taking the guy who invented the wheel and making him turn the wheel for you without paying him.
Assuming the AI was not trained solely on royalty free open source art and it is being sold / used commercially, it is theft. Theft of the original artist's work that the AI could not function without. I actually like that AI art exists, I think its an incredible tool. I don't want it in my games, I don't want it in advertising. I will only monetarily support human artists. We need regulation for transparency, because this tool isn't going anywhere and its only going to get better.
I recall a board game artist saying they use AI art for inspiration and then actually create the art piece themselves. That's the kind of use I support
I feel like there's not quite a 1 to 1 when it comes to human creativity/inspiration and AI. In fact, saying "the AI is taking inspiration from these sources" feels kind of like we're anthropomorphizing AI. As I'm sure you know, AI isn't looking at all of these pictures and thinking "I really like how this guy does his shading, and maybe I'll take inspiration from this work's composition". It's essentially just a bunch of math/statistics that creates an amalgamation of all of its inputs, kind of like its taking the "average" of a certain set of data (I'm sure that's a gross simplification of the process, but the point is that the nature of AI's "Inspiration" is very much so computational). And when it comes to humans creating art, they draw from so much more than just a collection of other people's works. They can take inspiration from nature, their lived experiences, their dreams, etc... and I don't think the process of human creativity can be directly compared to a machine following an algorithm to achieve an output from a set of inputs. Furthermore, a human artist typically has reasons for why they want to draw/paint something in a particular way. Maybe they want to highlight a particular part of the picture by using different lighting, or maybe they want to use a specific perspective to convey a specific emotion/feeling to the viewer. AI doesn't make these types of artistic choices; it's just going to recreate what it gets from the input data without question (because it's not "thinking"). So I don't really agree with your point that "we can't say that it's wrong when a machine does it, but not when a human does it" (paraphrasing a bit here, but I believe this is the gist of what you are saying in the "How AI Art Works" section).
Second, I feel like the whole "it's not theft" argument you are making here is a bit pedantic. When people say that AI art is theft, they don't just mean that someone is infringing on their copyright by using their artwork without permission; it goes beyond that. While that is bad in it's own right, what's also being "stolen" is their livelihood. For example, if a person pirates a video game, then the company has lost out on a potential sale for that game. Technically, no physical item was taken from the game developers, but they lost out on the revenue that they could have gained (i.e. category 2 of your classifications of theft). While this is bad for the company that made the game, what's worse is if that person then went on to sell digital copies of that game for less than MSRP. In this case, the company that made the game is not just losing the potential revenue of one sale, but maybe hundreds or thousands of sales. From watching this video, it appears that even you agree that is not good, and so we have laws that protect against this. Now imagine if the person who pirated the game was able to run it through and algorithm that churned out multiple sequels based on the first game. The market could then be flooded with cheap iterations of the original game, and even if they are of lesser quality than what the original developers can create, a lot of people may think it's good enough, and the developers may go out of business as a result. While nothing has been "technically stolen", I think that you'd agree that that the developers have "lost" something here. Whether or not it fits the narrow definition of what theft constitutes is irrelevant. You said yourself that copyright is important, and I do not see how AI art does not fall under your second classification of theft.
Also, AI art can be seen as theft from a labor perspective. These AI products are earning companies money, and they were built on the backs of hundreds, if not thousands, or hundreds of thousands of artists. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that these artists should be compensated for their contribution. If I worked for a company for 8 hours and generated value for them, and then they refuse to pay me, I'm going to call that theft. I don't care if they come to me and say "well technically we didn't TAKE anything from you... so we didn't steal anything". No, colloquially, I am going to say that that company stole my wages. I don't care about semantics, they stole. And in any case, legally and morally, they would be in the wrong for doing that. So does it REALLY matter if we say "it's not technically theft"?
Finally, I feel like you've shot yourself in the foot with the framing on this video. What's frustrating for me is seeing you respond to people saying "but didn't you watch the video? I said I have an issue with AI and how it can be used to harm creators". But with the way the video is titled and structured, it really feels like you are highlighting the importance of your point that "AI is not theft", first and foremost. It just feels like a weird hill to die on, I guess? Like you clearly agree that AI art needs regulation and that it can be harmful for creators, but it feels like you are putting more weight on the "It's not theft" part, when at the end of the day it doesn't really matter what we call it. It doesn't matter if copyright infringement isn't technically theft, we still as a society think that it is problematic, and we have created laws to prevent it.
The AI "version" of Alex on the thumbnail is incredibly funny
Intentionally designed to be a bad caricature :)
@BoardGameCo You hit the nail on the head! 😁👍
Ps. Great video speak your mind
How is using someone’s work without permission, payment or even credit and acknowledgment, not thievery?
Well, it would be copyright infringement. Which isn't theft because no item is stolen. But is morally similar to theft.
Taking in multiple sources and outputting something unique and different is something that humans and machines both do.
@@BoardGameCo humans interpret based on their upbringing, perception, priorities, mental and physical state etc. thats why humans creating an artificial interpretation of reality is called art. machines though dont interpret themselves, the only thing they can do (what clip+ etc does) is also stealing human interpretations and applying that.
Using their direct work IS theft. Using their work as INSPIRATION for new work is NOT theft, and that’s what AI is doing.
@ you have no clue how it works. Copy/paste from someone’s work is not “inspiration”.
So many people did not fully watch and/or listen to everything you said before jumping to the comment section saying you're wrong. Although you are making an effort to have a discussion, everyone you engage with wants an argument. In the world of comments and text, it is nearly impossible to properly convey exactly what you are saying because your text will always be misconstrued and misinterpreted by the reader. After all, they are going into the conversation with preconceived opinions that don't match yours and would rather tell you that you're wrong than ever possibly entertain the thought that the opinion that challenged their thoughts could hold any merit.
I love hearing your opinions and appreciate you saying them. I find AI to be something I tend to avoid, and I never like hearing about how much it is being embraced in today's society. But I do understand that regardless of my feelings towards it, it will inevitably be part of my life.
Thank you for this. I very much feel it.
"Not All AI Art Is Created Equal". Interestingly... not all human art is equal. I've known some artists - both amateur and professional - who would readily admit that while they're talented, they're not creative, and that most everything they produce is emulating others' styles. I'm sure there are parts (large?) of the artistic community who would look down on such individuals who profit from their non-creative illustrations/art/graphics/etc. But unless they're actually copying/duplicating someone's else work, they're not doing anything illegal - are they? At worst they're looked down upon as not being "true" artists. So, how is the software engineer who codes an A.I. art tool that does the same... not similarly applying their talent-without-creativity to produce "artistic" work product? I also think that regulation is needed. I think we/society need some guidelines on what would constitute *substantially similar* which we could then claim is copyright/theft and attach penalties to - does these already exists for humans? Probably? But, below that threshold, and it seems to me the A.I. (and the engineers who created it) is just doing what many non-creative human artists are doing. Not a hard opinion - just food for thought.
If its not theft then you wouldn't need to take people's art to make it work. I already saw it spew out almost exact copies of people's work. Don't tell me its not stealing.
if someone exploited your content on another channel, they steal your sacrifice towards making it. It IS theft. Imagine you have an orchard that grows an appletree if there isn't one. I steal the tree before midnight, but it's back in the morning. That is theft, though you are not missing anything. You could argue how would it be bad, but maintaining the soil of the orchard is a painstaking and demanding work.
Unless i misunderstood, it seems to me you're making a distinction between Tier 1 and tier 2 based on law. But there is no distinction.
Practically, Tier 1 is entirely a matter of laws just like tier 2.
For most of human history, society have revolved around the "what belongs to you belongs to me", where the "me" have been owners/masters/lords/rulers/kings, so there is a problem with your premice.
And when you do not have these kind of structures, then we're talking about "law of the strongest" (so, no law) and someone taking something from you is not theft.
The "what's mine is mine" require a law defining the bases of ownership (finding ? making ? collecting ? Occupying ? buying ?) and an authority to report to, to enforce it. Without that, there is no actual "thievery".
Both tier 1 and tier 2 rely on laws, but those laws do not come first to actually create the notion of thievery. They are here because in both case, they reflect an actual notion of in/justice, of un/fairness. Laws are moral values enforced as rules.
The only difference between tier 1 and tier 2 is that one is about material property and the other about intellectual property.
And I'd say IA art actuallly enter the second category, not a third one.
To me, what make the difference between inspiration and copy for humans is the part of what you bring to the piece of art versus the part you take from some else. If the second one is too high, it is considered stealing, and you can be comdamned (happens all the time with music, drawing, writing...).
If you apply that same notion to AI productions, then you face a problem, because everything the current AI (Narrow AI) bring come from human artists, and it adds nothing from itself because... well, it cant..
AI are just making variations of a recipe, toying with "human" ingredients. And it has been proven that with the right prompts, AI can absoluty deliver an output that is a 1:1 version of a piece of art fed to it. Wether it's 1:1, 50/50 of two pieces, or whatever mishmash of 153 pieces, it doesn't make any difference for the AI. It's 100% copy and 0% creativity or purpose.
Now, will this notion be translated into laws ? That's yet to be seen, but if i'm correct, in the US, a judge as now allowed the trial on this subject (artists vs Midjourney & co) to move on.
AI art leaves a digital paper trail each time it "creates" a piece of art. Therefore those who use AI art to get out of paying actual artists should in fact have to list the source codes for each individual piece of art. Based on the artworks used to create said AI artwork everyone will know the real artists who's works was in fact stolen. At which point each of those artists or artist's foundation should be given a percentage of the cost for that art.
BUT we all know up and coming or well established companies are not going to actually do any such thing as give money and credit to the real artist.
As the lines blur more and more when it comes to differentiating between AI and no-AI, I would feel a lot better with some way of being able to tell if something I am paying any amount of money for, has AI art or not. AI art can exist and even be sold imo, but not under the guise of it being human made. I realize there are blurred lines here, but I just want more transparency. I think there will always be a demand for human made art on things, but until things are regulated so that any random joe can tell what they are buying has AI art being used on it or to what level, this is absolutely devastating for artists, especially as AI gets better and better.
While I agree with you personally, it's still complicated. Does your clothing legally have to tell you if it was made in a factory that uses child labor internationally?
Meaning I want that transperancy personally but I'm unclear on what we've done in similar situations.
@@BoardGameCo They should! Just because the laws and regulations were created before the problem became evident doesn't mean that we should let new industries also cheat and lie, just because the other ones do.
Thanks for touching the subject!
Its especially important (and brave) if your POV doesnt align with majority. 💙
I think it's a hot topic, I don't think there's a clear majority but there's certainly a lot of passion on all sides.
@@BoardGameCo I do not believe there's a clear majority either. I don't completely disagree with them, but personally I think there's just a VERY vocal minority.
given the funding levels awaken realms latest projects reached since they very obviously abuse AI image generation (even worse, they mostly use midjourney, the arguably worst offender) and the disappointing lack of substantial backlash means that unfortunately the majority is pro 'company reselling stolen artworks'.
What if: One scanned all of "The Mico's" artwork from all the boardgames they worked on. Then used that scanned data to create AI art for their new upcoming board game. Should The Mico get credit? get paid? From The Mico's perspective would that be theft?
As the video covers, I am against it and I am for regulation, whether legal or industry, but I do not believe it is theft.
@@BoardGameCoif someone takes a proprietary process and replicates it to produce the same good is that theft?
@@BoardGameCo it is not theft? Or it is not theft as specifically defined by the laws that are in place at this current point in history?
@@thegreatdane908 The latter for sure, the former is complicated and frankly will likely stay a matter of opinion until laws are developed otherwise.
I am against the way AI art is currently being used, but not in any way because of theft.
@@BoardGameCo I guess the question would be what would you call it? Also do things cease to be opinions once they become laws? It seems like you are saying AI art shouldn't be called theft because it doesn't exactly match the current definition of theft. But just because we don't have a better more specific word doesn't make it unhelpful to call it theft.
As with all technological developments, there is a sector that may suffer. The world will adapt and change.
That's for sure no matter what.
I don’t think AI is as much a problem as the economic system that forces us to work to maintain our livelihoods. If labor and income were to be decoupled, we would all be free to make whatever art we want and would be unbound by the soul-sucking constrictions dictated to us by the market.
Interesting point...that could be a video entirely itself.
AI generated images in a post-capitalist economy would be entirely different from an ethical standpoint. Without pay being tied to work, it wouldn't be commercial use and so wouldn't cause financial damage. Just one of the many benefits of getting past capitalism.
AI art has its place, for those of us who will not be hiring an artist otherwise. Average people making average things like flyers or homemade games can show off their stuff without being embarassed for lack of art. I don't get mad when other people do what I could have done, to fix their car, or renovate their house. This seems like an issue among elites and lawyers, who are just now understanding how disposable average workers are, in a tech dominated business world.
Huge respect for you for make this video. It takes courage to speak up, especially in the context of the board game community - which overwhelmingly anti-AI art.
Another artist here who partly agrees with the video: While I agree that AI art prompting itself isn't really theft in the legal sense, I personally dislike the argument that machine learning as a process is comparable to how artists learn to create art. An artist's works embody not only all the knowledge they've accumulated up to that point, but also all the experience they've gained, their personality and maybe even their mood at the time of making the work (unless we're talking about commission work which allow for less personal expression, but even those usually show some individuality). This is why you could ask a hundred artists for the same image, and get a hundred more or less unique works, because every artist's journey is different.
From what I know from studying and trying out text-to-image models, they just have a vague concept of "this word is connected to images where pixels are arranged like this", and due to the very nature of AI, the tools can only produce guesses about what the prompt wants based on the data the model has been fed. There is no understanding of principles like perspective or anatomy, no personal touch to the output, only similarities to works the machine has learned are connected to the prompt's words (one reason why using artist's names as a prompt is so popular, it narrows down the data the machine uses for output).
I know art styles are not copyright protectable by law, but even so a style is often seen as something personal by artists. In the artist community it is actually frowned upon to try and mimic a specific artists style for anything but studying (or parody) purposes. So when someone prompts art from an AI, or even goes as far as to create a model based on a specific artist's works, it is seen as a shallow act from someone who doesn't value the process an artist has gone to form their style and goes through for each piece. And this experience does feel like someone's "stealing" from you, not any tangible thing, but more like the "soul" of your art.
I can sympathize with small creators without a budget wanting art for free, but I am slightly worried of a world where everything creative from images to whole movies and games can be generated with a single prompt (we are slowly but surely getting there). We artists love to share our work, but if everyone can just generate art for themselves, why would anyone be interested in even seeing anything you create?
Alex, the AI has no creativity or higher thought. It copies and imitates innovation. Saying that then the human does it, it's fine isn't true either. Plagiarism happens with human artists too. Direct copying of poses or art styles happens and is wrong, too. The issue is that human plagerism is unethical but isn't happening on the scale that coporate AI steals art. The human art thief gets a bad rep, and isn't going to take work away on any meaningful level. On the other hand, unregulated AI is a threat. There is a place for AI in art, but not the way it is now. The mistake you're making is saying that the AI is basically doing the same thing as the human. I also thinking saying that there were complaints about photoshop too as not real is a bit of a false equivalence.
I don’t understand your point: if AI art is imitation but not a direct copy, then it IS something new and thus not theft on the original work.
This was a great video and the comments are great. The sad truth is that if the US banes AI, then the work will just shift to other countries. AI is going to reek havoc in ALL industries and I don't know what the answer is to this problem. Really appreciate your deep thought dive on this issue. I'm still on the fence on all things AI.
You and me both
Let's say we take a real person and ask them to draw a dragon. If they have never seen or heard of dragons then they will be totally at a loss. Let's say they then go to the internet and browse through thousands of pictures of dragons. During this process they build up an abstract concept of a "dragon". Now when asked to draw a dragon they can use all that knowledge and draw something which can be considered a composite of all those images they had seen. Did they steal from all those prior artists? Funny, AI is doing almost the same thing as humans have been doing forever. Historically one of the ways artists have trained is by practicing copying other art exactly or by copying techniques. As the artists mature they learn to manipulate things and put their own spin on their work. At the end of the day all artists' work can be viewed as a composite of things they have "seen" whether physically or via their imagination, where their imaginations have been heavily influenced by what they have seen. That means the big difference between AI art and human art is the imagination factor. The "imagination" part of art is hard to pin down. You can't just say it is an expression of something that has never existed because we always describe "new" things as combinations of a finite set of known things. Well, computers are very good at producing novel composites of things. If you add a feedback loop judging composition and ascetics then computers can be judged as producing art. The fact that computers are now competing with humans causes lots of emotional arguments which cloud people's judgement.
All moral issues aside... AI art for me is unpleasant to watch... there is something soulless in it. Maybe years (or decades) in the future AI art will become better. For now there is something literally disgusting watching AI art. And again, it's not the moral side of things.
I touch on the that in the video.
No matter what I think or all the various arguments, valid or not, the biggest problem with thinking a machine mimicking portions of others people art being a bad thing is that a person doing the same thing is widely accepted.
Most styles of art are based on an initial artist art. People mimicking Monet (and a small group of other artists) is what Impressionism is based off of. People mimicking Breton and Dali is what Surrealism is based off of. The progression of those styles isn't far off from what AI is doing.
People can create a copy of your art with slight variations and sell it so long as they don't claim that it actually is yours in exactness created by you and sell it.
Both these things tell me people seem fine with what AI is going so long as it's an actual person doing it rather than asking a computer to do it for them.
Alex basically says this in the first third or so of this video.
Lastly, I don't like AI art. I don't really like the vast majority of digital art created by humans. Digital art is a somewhat dumbed down version of artistic physical skill. AI art is further dumbed down. But most the outrage I see directed at it seems more hypocritical than critical.
Outside of arguing about your analogies (which, frankly, one can almost always argue about analogies, no matter how good), I think most people here actually agree with your positions but get hung up on semantics (i.e. - the exact definition of the word 'theft'). Not that semantics isn't important; in this case I think it's key. But, I think it's also important for people to be nuanced enough to understand that their difference in opinion on semantics does not mean a difference in opinion on values and morality.
Completely agree with this.
I think most people here who watched the whole vide disagree with his take, including some high profile artists.
Hey Alex. I love and own everything O-Neb but I’m currently struggling with their new title. Can you please create a video of some sorts where you talk about Vindication and Vestige. If you own Vindication and love it should you get Vestige or not.
Asking you only because I know how much you love Vindication. Thank you!
I will absolutely be talking about it :)
@@BoardGameCothank you!
I don't know where to draw the line, but can I ask AI to draw it?
AI art isn't theft.
Having your AI learn off the content of others without permission is the theft. THAT is where the issue lies. These AI companies are absorbing content without permission.
Unless we are stating that anything that appears on the internet is free for anyone to use, then I guess there is no more copyright, it's a free-for-all.
Everything on the internet has been free to "view". Companies have been learning off of content for decades, this isn't new...the only thing that's new is the output of that learning.
@@BoardGameCo That's the issue though, they shouldn't be allowed to learn off what is on the internet without proper permission and rights.
It's what Google in trouble when they were scanning all books without the permission to digitize the content. This was many years ago.
The software company I work for is having the same issue, we are integrating AI into our software on various levels, and have to limit what we can use to curate it's learning due to laws and following the laws. Most of these companies are violating the law. We happen to work in an industry that strictly follows the law.
I feel like AI being theft vs copyright vs something else isn't important, but the fact that everyone, even companies, understand that they're taking people's hard work without permission and directly using it to train a machine to pump out slop is the main problem, regardless of the naming. That's why big companies like Adobe and Meta always have to sneak into their terms of service "oh yeah, btw all the images you've ever uploaded are now our property to train our AI to impress investors".
The other problem is AI image generation is and isn't a tool, the big problem is it takes it a step further from just being a tool. AI image generation produces a finished product with virtually no training or skill (i guess if you want to be pedantic "prompt engineer" is now a nausea-inducing job position). All the great software and tools we had before AI blew up were just to speed up artists' workflow and are just there to help them be creative more efficiently, it doesn't ever suck the creativity out of the actual process. The creator still needs vision and years of experience to be able to execute, meanwhile AI image generation is simply just writing a sentence and spamming a bunch of keywords to coerce a machine to produce the exact finished product you want. Also, none of the existing tools or digital mediums like CG are built off of non-consensual existing art/images, they are again simply just hollow tools or mediums that need an artist to pilot them properly.
There is a world where AI image generation could be used completely ethically; it could be trained entirely off of the company's existing art and be used as just the framework for the real art or only for concept art/"alpha" art or to handle quick edits/effects, but AI as it stands needs an absurd amount of data to train on so that's not really feasible unless you have a massive art catalogue and we all know that, in the end, when this big of a "shortcut" tool exists and can be abused, 99.99% of its usage will be from abuse.
I think part of my problem is that even "ethical" generation of AI can still be a problem, and treating it like theft doesn't actually address that.
I think AI can be a real problem and a threat...but it's far more complicated and nuanced than people want it to be.
90% of folks hating AI art would and did have no problem "sharing" music or Netflix accounts or other forms of piracy. All industries have had automation, computers and software kill thousands of jobs from factories to accounting offices. Even coding is starting to be AI doable. Art has to be the least concerning of all these developments.
Pablo Picaso once said, "Good artists borrow. Great artists steal." Pablo Picaso was historically known for creating near, spot-copies of art in his medium. AI art usually takes insperation from multiple art styles and artists, not direct copies.
I think AI does need regulation in copy-write law. I do agree with that.
Let's say a human makes a piece of art that's inspired by multiple mediums and artwork and makes that human's own artwork. It's revolutionary. (This is happening right now with next-gen graphics for consoles and gaming PCs). The person gets sued because the artist is accused of using AI, loses their home, etc.
As long as A.I. is a tool, its okay in the video gaming art industry. Why not everything else?
Yep, I'm very for regulation of it.
Counter point to your dragon example; AI has no inherent need to draw a dragon, a human is using AI to create a dragon. Which then does not just copy/paste the art concepts it finds online (as you or I would based on our life of seeing depictions of dragons) but also the artistic ability of those artists, some thing you or I could not do on our own unless we develop that skill, which the artist has.
If I ask AI to create a board game review, it would pull from your videos and pros/cons you've regularly found in games to see what it can apply to the game. That is a skill you've developed through your craft, I have not, but an AI can duplicate with just the rule book and your content.
It is not just theft of the design/style but also the ability/craftsmanship. Most likely scenario of you or I trying to copy a professional dragon would end up so far away from the original it wouldn't be a copy any but a far inferior version.
Calling it theft is an opinion that is not really based in fact. AI creates something unique from a collection of images previously created by other sources. It is not stealing from any sense of the word. Now, my issue with AI art is the same issue i have with automation. People could be left without work because of the advancement in these technologies.
Agreed completely, which is why my video clearly covers some of the other downsides and why I am against it.
@BoardGameCo Great video. I really enjoyed it.
I hear this however I do think that as all progress has existed in all of humanity's existence we have always found new jobs when progress occurred. AI could allow new jobs to come into existence. People that never had access to certain things because of talent can now create due to using AI. I do think it should be regulated but how is another issue. How do you even regulate something that is already in everyone's pockets.
Unfortunately that is part of reality. As time moves forward many jobs are lost due to advancements. Heck, I need to learn new things because I see my job being taken too.
@@Sgrand80 yeah same I'm in IT and things are constantly shifting and becoming automated. But it makes my job easier and I'm thankful for it.
There is something pernicious about it. Actually, art is value created by sacrifice towards the ideal of grace by the artist. We admire the toil and the discipline and the way towards truth embedded in that. There is a cult of artifice rising, with Botox and photo filters and now this. People want value without the sacrifice. It demeans your users, and yourself. The psychology is too complicated to get into here, but it is a bad development.
Good discussion, thanks for having the bravery to discuss it. Glad to see someone who doesn’t talk and work in the extremes and wants to have a constructive discussion.
This is just another pivotal time in human history where we have the tough realization that we’re not as special or unique or useful as we think we are.
You make a great point about…”what if AI material is good?” That’s a tough pill for humans to swallow I think due to feelings of inadequacy, but you’re right in that AI is only going to get better so we’ll have to accept it at some point.
I try to have balanced conversations, but it's definitely tricky.... There are a lot of people who seem to think that I'm for AI art based on this video.... Which I can't see how you think that if you watch the video.
Horrible take. I've enjoyed a lot of your videos and appreciate your opinions on a lot of games but this is a deal breaker for me. AI is theft and horrible for the environment to boot
Did you watch the full video? I make it clear that I'm against it, but I don't believe it can be called theft. I'd be curious if you have a substantive reason you disagree as opposed to just disagreeing without a clear reason?
I’ve yet to watch it - on a train so should really wait - but just on this comment: because of how it works calling it theft is problematic because it does what a human that just learns or is influenced by does but in a more intensive and comprehensive way. Morally there’s some of this (especially if you explicitly instruct the AI to steal or imitate another within the prompt itself). But legally it needs its own legal framework. The hard bit is that the horse has already bolted for creative works to date :-(
Big credit for even jumping into this topic, my dude. As a professional writer and musician, you can likely discern my take on AI.
But, as I said recently at a panel discussion at SDCC, “AI is here and it will only grow, it will never go away. So, I’m a glass half-full guy and I’m seriously stoked that I get a front-row seat for the literal destruction of humanity. So rad. To be fair, I don’t have kids, but if you do, they are totally f’d”
I think AI is a great tool for prototyping but I don't think it should be used commercially because there is no way to compensate the artists behind the training data.
Prototyping and memes, that's the only place I want to see AI
If the images help the prototype process for something that is then sold, how is that not commercial use?
The idea of "proving" or failing to prove that AI art is theft doesn't make any sense. "Theft" is a purely abstract human concept that we have to define. AI learning is a new thing that hasn't had its parameters set yet by society. Many are saying that training process is theft-many disagree or don't even think about it. Of course we can't prove one way or another; it hasn't been decided as a culture [yet]. You may argue it isn't, but the argument "because you haven't proven it IS theft" doesn't make sense. You have to decide based on WHAT YOU THINK and HOW YOU FEEL about it. Or you can sit back and say that you think it's theft only if and when the law says it is… But that seems like a lazy stance for someone who's put so much work into learning about the topic.
Imagine someone trained a model to generate BoardGameCo videos that were nigh indistinguishable from yours, and a new channel popped up: BoardGameCo2. Would you feel violated? What about if this new channel was amalgamated from the top twenty board game channels (and BoardGameCo was a noticeable "DNA strand")? If you wouldn't care (no matter how successful the channel was and/or how many of your supporters it took from you), then I'd say you're justified in arguing, "AI is not theft."
The part that's confusing, is you're presenting me with a question that seems to be designed to get me to treat AI as a threat.
The thing that's confusing about that, is in this video I already say that I am for laws that would regulate it because I do believe it's dangerous.
Are you reacting to my actual opinion? Or only a small segment of the video?
@@BoardGameCo I watched the whole thing, but I'm only reacting to the "theft" aspect because I think it's the pivotal point, ethically speaking. I have no issue with the rest of the video.
And yes, you have to view AI as a threat for the "theft" issue to make sense. If everyone always had guaranteed access to all the food they needed, humans would have never invented the concept of stealing food in the first place.
You said it better than I could! This is not a legal/practical issue about definitions or output, this is a moral and ethical issue.
@@BoardGameCo My take was that in order to define theft, you have to consider the threat against you personally, specifically as it applies to your creative works.
I believe we generally agree about the threat AI presents to the economy and artists' jobs at large, so I didn't feel the need to address that portion of the video. My "theft" argument doesn't pertain to the economic or societal aspect of "threat"-only the personal, creative aspect.
@@andrewwilson895 slight tangent, because I'm not arguing against any of your takes, but I do have to disagree with statement that "if everyone had guaranteed access...humans would never have invented the concept of stealing..." This is most certainly not true. You can even see in animals and human toddlers, who have no concept of the idea of "stealing" that oftentimes one will want the thing another has, simply because someone else has it, and not because they don't have their own or access to their own. Example, we were caring for my in-laws' dog, and had 6 identical tennis balls scattered around the living room. One dog would begin to play with one, the other would grab another one, and then the first would give up on the one they had in favor of trying to "steal" the tennis ball the other dog now had, simply wanting to take it because the other dog had it, and not because he didn't have one exactly like it already. So, the entire concept of "stealing," as in taking something from someone else, I would argue, would still happen, no matter the access level. Now, the concept of stealing being "bad" is entirely a societal construct that could possibly be argued may not have occurred with unlimited access, but I doubt even that, as you will note that even dogs will sometimes fight over things in a "stop trying to take the thing I have" kind of way, leading me to the thought that the concept of stealing was always going to become a societal no-no.
I suppose you could argue that if humans and animals had always had unlimited access to anything they ever wanted throughout all time, perhaps the concept of wanting something that someone else has may have never evolved in the first place, because there would have never been competition for any resources, but that's a much bigger, much more theoretic discussion that is REALLY far outside the scope of the original discussion. 😂
My biggest issue would be with honesty/transparency in using AI generated art. Yes, it's not perfect now, but it's already deceiving a lot of people when fake videos or photos are being used to manipulate people or ideas (or to make a quick profit). If AI is used, it should come with a disclaimer. If I still enjoy it enough, I'll pay for it, but I will always still appreciate the effort individuals put into their art. I want to see the "brush strokes" and am willing to put down more money for something that is traditional if I value the content.
Great conversation starter Alex! I think AI art is neat, and would back a GREAT game with nice AI art. Many years ago AutoTune was for trash singers, now its everywhere. CGI pushed FX experts to extinction. Factory automation put people out of jobs too, but did anyone stop buying music, movies, or cars? This becomes a supply/demand issue. Other commentors have certainly addressed the personal impacts to artists so i wont. I will point out that of ALL the issues of AI, this is fairly benign. Id be more concerned about deep faking people on media, ai hacking to secure finances and disrupting economies. AI used to influence political outcomes. Hell, just sentience itself. I'll take an AI pokemon image in a game. Just dont go Skynet on my @ss.
Ai will never provide quality art content, since the concept of quality in art is based on human qualities. Any perceived quality derives from a previous individual sacrifice.
I kind of agree, and also disagree with some of what you said. Like I don't think its Theft. However Specifically at around 11 mins you stated that when a human draws things based of multiple sources its ok, but when a machine does it its not. However humans get punished for doing this all the time via copyright, but Machines don't. So my sister is an artist and she likes painting landscape scenery, she goes to a location and literally paints what she see's, and then she posts the paintings online and then sells them. She still gets copyrighted all the time, and can't sell certain paintings. She's not even copying others paintings, its just the paintings are alike because their using the same subject to paint. So here we have a case were she didn't even actually copy anything and the copyright system is punishing her because someone else drew the same landscape. At the same time someone can tell an AI to draw the same scenery based on others paintings and a person can sell that AI Art without repercussions because the copyright system doesn't have any rules about AI. Shouldn't it be equal for both. Ether punish both people and AI both for copying or not punish both. Right now their are no rule put in place for AI art, and I feel like their should be.
Interesting...I'd have to look into that, copywright for what you're describing shouldn't be a thing.
@@BoardGameCo As a clarification, my sister could fight these copyright claims in court, and probably would win the case, however she doesn't because the cost of a lawyer would cost more then the money she would get from selling the paintings. She's still being blocked by the websites that she uses to sell the art, just because her art got claimed by someone else. So it might not be the copyright law itself that's the problem just how the art websites use it. However on those same sites you will have AI generated art, that will get copyrighted but It will still be able to be sold.
Not agreeing or disagreeing with any of your thoughts on AI, and no pitchforks here, but I find it interesting that you stated that copyright theft is only theft because we made it a law, but technically ANY theft is only theft because, as a society, we made it "a law." (by the way, I preface the next part by saying I'm also not trying to get into any sort of religious discussion regarding creationism vs evolution here, or anything like that, just making a point) When the first caveman who ever picked up a piece of fruit, and then had another caveman come and take that fruit from him happened, was that theft? Not really, because there was nothing saying that doing that was bad or not allowed, it was just instinct, and just a thing that happened. When that first caveman then got angry and smacked the thief across the head and told him, "hey, cut that out, it's bad to take things from other people," the concept of "theft" was created, and it became "law" (law of society, anyway). Eventually, humans create government, and officially make it actual law.
Reading the comments just shows many people didn't really listen to you. I appreciate your logical arguments. And at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter what people think of it cause its too late to reverse course. We are past the point of no return. Onward toward the "Singularity" I guess
Completely agreed...it's for sure changed forever, but there may still be more or less sustainable ways to deal with it
This is an ignorant opinion born from too much time working with publishers/designers who are desperate to find a morally justifiable excuse to profit from a tool that programmatically stole the labor of thousands of artists without their consent or compensation.
And to conflate AI generated images with technological progress by comparing it to things like recreating a book by hand is either ignorant, deliberately misleading, or a false equivalency at best. It's not removing tedium or human suffering its straight up destroying the entire concept of traditional art as a practice.
But if this is the belief you've come to after "long conversations with lots of people" it seems more like a conclusion you want to have because it serves your interests, not necessarily born from the reality of the situation, which makes me incredibly sad.
Unsubbed
Unsubbing is a bit extreme, no? You don't have to/shouldn't agree on everything with someone. Discourse is good
@@Julio0o I followed him as a reviewer meaning I was trusting his opinions, specifically on boardgames. If he has this bad a take on something so obvious, clearly his opinions and values do not align with my own. Why would I want his review on something then?
What are the interests I'm trying to protect exactly? Did you watch the part of the video where I talk about how I'm absolutely for regulation and protection of the industry? I just don't believe it's theft, but I do take it seriously.
And most of the publishers I work with are incredibly against it. This isn't a self serving take, I don't benefit in any way.
@@rhade194 A single bad take on like 4 years worth of reviews doesn't compute to me. I do agree it's a bad take, but I don't believe his values are immoral.
I guess my question is, respectfully of course, why feel so strongly about this?
@@BoardGameCo Your personal relationships with the publishers/designers who are integral to the success of your channel, aka your financial interest? Please don't treat us like we're dumb. Yes, we all watched your video in its entirety.
And I'm sorry, I have worked in enough companies long enough to know how big industry treats any opportunity to save a dollar. When you say "publishers are against it"...I don't believe you. We've already seen multiple publishers trying to sneak it in (Awaken Realms), and then trying to hide and back-peddle from the blowback.
It's all fun and games until AI uses your likeness and creates a board game review channel. Wait... you never said you WEREN'T AI....
Oh I would hate that. We should put regulation in place....oh, I said this in the video already ;)
If I use ai to generate a 3d model, is that bad as well? What if it lets me as a single indie developer make a large 3d world that lets me apply my creativity to the gameplay/world building and the only reason I could do it is with the help of AI? It reminds me a bit of when I started coding at 15 and people made fun of coders who used game engines because it was seen as "cheating". "Just write your own engine" is what people frequently said.
I think it's complicated for sure, but these are all good questions.
What percentage of the "horrible take" comments offer no specifics or counterpoints? Curious to know the metrics.
Most of them. There's a lot of people upset at this video, and most of them are not offering actual considered viewpoints, and they also seem to think that I am for AI despite my video clearly saying that I am for regulation of AI.
AI was trained using stolen art of millions of artists. Those are the people who should be getting paid not these vile folks who stole it.
Trained is a complicated term. You can equally make the argue that search engines are trained by the input of others...should users get a cut when google directs traffic?
@@BoardGameCoGoogle isn't claiming to create something new and then charging for it. Wrong example to use.
@@scottarmstrong8178 Well said! On BOTH of your responses!👍👍
@@BoardGameCodumb example lol
As someone who is extremely anti AI art for a multitude of reasons, to bolster my arguments against AI art, how does this differ from humans that train by copying, say, painting masters, and eventually become artists with their own style that is heavily indebted to those they studied?
AI art tools are invaluable for prototyping as a new game designer.
Where did you get the 3 levels of theft? Is that from something or did you just make it up?
It seems that your opinion is based on that laws are the be all end all of morals and should never be questioned or interpreted and will never change. At least to me, theft still exists in a world without laws. I believe most people would agree with me, that even if there were no laws that said it was illegal to steal from someone, someone taking something you created without permission or any acknowledgment would still be seen as bad.
Also a big argument is about the actual humans involved. The companies using AI art to steal from struggling artists and not pay them anything for their work, are able to do it on such a large scale that it is humanly impossible to do. It is possible for AI to credit/pay the artists that they train their software on, because there is a record of what data has been put in and how much was used. While for an individual it is basically impossible to try and figure out where each little piece of inspiration comes from. So yes it would be great if humans could do that, but AI CAN do that and is choosing not. They know what data they are using, they know what artists the software is taking "inspiration" from, but are purposefully not giving credit because it's cheaper, easier, and they can get away with it. In capitalism individuals are already struggling and letting companies take even more advantage of individuals just puts all of us in a worse place.
Nobody is complaining about losing jobs to technology because we want to work! Art is a passion, most people aren't artists because they thought it was the most reliable way to make a living. People do art because they love it, because to create art is to be human. Nobody complained about the printing press because it just made the job better and wasn't putting a large group of passionate type setters out of their passion. It probably gave many of the employees time to pursue their passions which AI does not.
If a company ran an AI software to watch all of your videos and then started a youtube channel that made videos very similar to yours except it always spoke clearly, never forget anything, always went out on time maybe half an hour before your videos did every single time. Same thumbnail styles, same talking style, same vibes, and then you started losing views to that channel with people saying it was just better than your channel. Would you still qualify that as only "Maybe theft" and still good for society? Because you shouldn't, you are a human with value and what you create has value, so if someone else ends up being the one who gains the value from what you created, that sucks! That is not good for society, in any way.
It is also just crazy that at this point we are still having an "informed" AI discussion without mentioning the power usage of AI systems. Even if it is good, even if it is helpful, is it worth it? Hastening the death of our planet in the name of making a game a little bit easier/cheaper/faster to make.
This whole thing has been..interesting timing having just been at a Science Center on Monday, and they had a presentation about approaching science and scientific advancements using Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. They did it to bring to focus the idea of “can we do this? What are the benefits, and what are possible consequences?”
Or to play off the Jurassic Park line: “just because we can do something like this, does that mean we should?”
"Theft is the preferred term as it specifically refers to the unlawful taking of property with the intent to permanently deprive the owner." Unlawful is the key word here, you argued that because the law was created that's why it's illegal with the copyright. The same can be said about traditional stealing, it's unlawful because we as a society agreed there should be a negative impact for this action i.e a law that criminalizes stealing. The simple issue is they mimicked countless artists unique works without compensation or consent to create a product that will be monetized, impacting and depriving the original artists ability to create art since they can go to a machine to mimic it for pennies on the dollar. they "took" something without permission not borrowed, in this case it was the uniqueness of line works from some, color pallads from others, and so much more. If I draw a dragon and then you tried to replicate it it won't be the same true artists spill more than just lines into their work, it's the sole reason why forgeries are caught even if they look indistinguishable at first. But to simplify they took something without consent with the end result being depriving the owners from future income.
The question shouldn't be is it theft, it should be is it ethical? Everyone who is happy with the growth of AI art will change their tune when AI comes for your job.
Agreed. And also why in this video I clearly say regulation would be a good thing.
It feels like you don't value art as human expression. There's a lot more I want to talk to you about this. I'll try to send an email.
I think there's a huge difference between valuing art and being willing to call this theft. I've made it pretty clear in the video that I absolutely value art, and that knowing a machine did something kills the magic of it....I just don't believe it's theft.
For me, probably it feels more like copyright infringment or piracy what companies did to create the image ai, but is just watching art in internet was always available to watch while other forms arent. maybe when they create an AI that plays videogames or create movies, and they pirate all the movies and videogames of the world to teach it, it could be more clear. (well, I think they already did with netflix). While you can say the machine is learning in the same way as humans, I think you can say too he is copying the data in it's database in a way like piracy does too.
but I think too that the technology is awesome in some ways, and it sucks just capitalism is really the problem, that some few are gaining a lot of money from a lot of people that probably will lose their work and probably the profession is going to dissappear too . Because maybe someone could steal all the investigations of cancer one day and create with the results the cancer's cure and that would be awesome in a way, but it would be made ilegally too.
Thanks for the brave take on a hot topic
I'm a Freelance Artist/Graphic Designer and here's, my take. I don't believe you can compare Stealing a Physical Object, like a Cookie, to this conversation. We are dealing with Digital Objects, that, yes, are essentially being copied... but none the less, it is "Taken" or "Stolen" without Permission. I feel the Permission is what you should be focused on. All of the Generative AI startups Scraped the internet for billions of images... Without Permission... and use those images to make something that they could sell. I know you make the argument that People copy too... but when Humans copy, they cannot do it perfectly (like a program) and when making art a human cannot copy from billions of references. So the "Humans Copy too" point is moot. In the end, I understand that AI art is not going anywhere, and that sucks. Yes, Regulation is needed, but I also feel that those companies that Scraped the Internet for references without permission should delete all of those reference images and start from scratch, using images that the Artist has Given Permission (possibly with a small compensation) and go from there. I seriously doubt this will ever happen but hey, that would be ethically correct. After all, when someone steals your physical things and are caught... they typically have to give that thing back. To me, AI art can be used as a tool for reference ideas for Artist to Create their own art in their own style. I personally do not, but I wouldn't look down on any artist that does. Also, I feel that any AI art being sold should indicate that it is in fact AI art so the consumer is aware of what they are buying. End of my tangent. :)
I think we mostly agree...the point we get stuck on is "machines do it and humans do it but when machines do it it's different".
@@BoardGameCo Machines have the ability to copy Perfectly, and in mere seconds. Humans can TRY to copy something perfectly but it will take countless hours and never be a Perfect copy. There will always be a little bit of the Artist's style, imperfection, or creativity incorporated into the final piece. It is not the same. Plus, when a Machine does it, it can perfectly copy millions of artists into 1 piece. Besides, any Artist that is trying to make a living with their artwork will NOT try to Copy a reference Perfectly. If caught, they would forever be known as "That Artist that Copies", forever hurting their reputation and livelihood. When a Machine Copies, there is no repercussions. You have to admit, there is a difference.
@@chadstilson8804 In the video I acknowledge there's a difference, there's no question there...but a difference doesn't mean it's theft, it just means that we both agree that it's different but it's still based on a similar concept...so it's "maybe theft", at least until laws clarify otherwise.
Also reminder, as I cover in the video, I am against AI art in many cases. I just disagree that it's theft.
@@BoardGameCo If you look up "Steal" in the dictionary and you get: "to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right". To me, this shows that stealing or theft is taking something without "Permission". Whether it's a Cookie, or a Digital Piece of Art.
So I would agree that an image made using AI is Not Theft... However... all AI Art is the byproduct of the "Original Theft" of Billions of Pieces of artwork that was Taken Without Permission from the internet.
Also, not sure why the law has anything to do with whether something is theft or not... the law only dictactes if there is ramifications for this type of theft.
I really dislike half the video (and the discussion) revolved around whether a specific term applies or not. Yes if you steal a modern painting, it is now missing from someone's house. Yes, if you google "4K modern painting" your browser is downloading a dozen copies of paintings to be able to display them on your screen in your browser. Obviously, downloading and derivatives aren't "theft" in the real-world sense, since the original still exists. But there's already a term for unlawfully appropriating digital content for yourself/others, it's called copyright infringement, illegal distribution of materials, etc. I would've preferred to see the discussion revolve around whether it should be legal or not, and if not, what label might apply then. Rather than starting with the discussion of whether a specific label applies from the get go.
Images can and do have copyright, and can and do have licenses attached to them. AI models are often used in commercial ways and the training data has often been obtained in 'illegitimate ways'. Meaning that a lot of models are created with 'paid art' without acquiring the required licenses. Now the only question is whether the method in which ai image companies have obtained such images and the method in which they used them to train their models constitutes some form of copyright infringement, and whether the output constitutes a 'derivative work'. There are currently ongoing court cases to establish if this is indeed the case.
One thing is for sure: If AI image generators were purely trained on public domain data or simply used 'home made' algorithms to mimic styles without ripping the features out of proprietary images for training, attorneys would have way less ammunition to litigate with against these companies.
Now with regards to the "a human can copy too" argument. That's true, but we are not considered equal to computers just yet. We are still usually judged as if we had the capacity of free will, and with regards to art we are also judged under the guise of us having an independent learning process that does not directly 'rip' features out of an image for instant "statistically significant" replication. Whether the net result between an algorithm and a human is the same after a few years of training is not the point. The point is how the technique to replicate the image style works. The AI training happens by directly processing images and extracting features until you can create a model that has a million parameters weighted in such a way to make it easy to create statistically significant similar images, it's considered a more direct 'processing of data', which is argued to not be okay. But judges will come up with a verdict in a year or 2 I guess.
Ultimately, I feel a bit mixed on the issue. In an ideal society I think it shouldn't matter, and we should all strive towards progress. This means that every idea should be able to be "stolen", but also that we shouldn't be so reliant on capitalism and the idea of proprietary works. Everything should be for the sake of improving humanity's condition. That goes for a lot of industries either way, I would love for people to 'join arms' and work on developing the best solution for any given problem, instead of reinventing the wheel a dozen times to try and be competitive and earn some money.
But unfortunately we live in a capitalist society, and as such people need to earn their daily bread. Allowing the processing of copyrighted work without a license, to create 'transformative' works, seems extremely unethical and should not be desired. Asset creators already have shown pushback by adding explicit licensing terms that forbid the use of their works for any kind of AI related purposes. I would consider any verdict that rules in favor of being allowed to do this very detrimental to society. As without change it could result in a world where ai companies rule, as they can crank out 'transformative works' much faster than anyone could ever create them, and will likely have detrimental 'transformative' effects on society itself. I don't think we are ready to live in a world 'ruled' by ai companies. And I think the ai companies are not ready to rule in a world governed by purely ai generated works either.
That said I don't think AI art in itself is bad per se, but in terms of copyright, art generators should just be made with public works and / or non-derived / copied algorithms
AI is a tool, and one that like many tools can be used for good or for bad. I think if their is anything criminal with AI it would be on the dataset user for training the model. If I print out a piece of art on paper, I have created a forgery (probably a bad one). Is it the printers fault I input something into it that I didn't own? Is it the tools fault no. Do I think people should have better control over if their work is used in training, yes. Do I think it is to late? Probably.
The too late part is sadly true.
The defining characteristic of AI "art" for me is not even theft, it is just... lame....
In many cases sure but in many cases it isn't....like cgi, bad cgi you see, good CGI you never know about
Nerds being mad about losing jobs, while truth is the best world to live is where you dont need to waste 1/3 of your life to work and have work free society. Thank god its inevitable, will take hundred of years but those who want to work till death are not in charge and the change will come regardless of their complains.
Also i wonder if they are so pure to make sure products that are not from bangladesh or africa where the work is more a slavery than real gratification of their work and pay 3x the price im guessing most of them dont but its not so mainstream view like a AI art to jump on ship everybody is in.
I'm genuinely interested in knowing if this video increases or decreases your subscribers?
Down 10 so far.
@boardgameco You know its only going to be a couple of years and the AI can scrape all your boardgame reviews and playthroughs and create a new review/playthrough of a new game. At first they will be bad (Its a campaign game similar to Chess) and eventually they will be able to recreate all your normal review approaches. How do you think you will feel about that? I mean if they are going to be able to create a movie-on-demand based on some minimal input, its not going to stop at just movies. I already see some crappy TH-cam videos that are clearly AI generated. But this is the 'oops I gave it 6 fingers' time for this kind of content. Basically, they are coming for the Artists today...are you ready for them to come for you tomorrow?
You make a good point...I should probably say something like how I'm against what AI art has done and how I'm for regulation of AI art....which is good because I already said that in the video.
"At best, it is an hypothesis" -- no, what? What does this even mean? Hypotheses are testable by definition???
An AI model cannot produce outside of its training data. AI is just a family of related methods, of applied algorithms. It cannot *by definition* be inspired to make something new. It is literally just regurgitating training data, and there's no way for it to ever move beyond that because that's how models work.
Oh, a predictor outside of its training data? Shove into class "Other" with a million other "Other" values until the model is refreshed using updated training data. Any output using that class is just a hodgepodge of noise elements all classified as "Other."
The application of AI and the contentification of creativity is fundamentally parasitic, and the regurgitation just builds on itself. See the hilariously silly attempt to push the "AI Scientist" a few months ago. There are the complicated discussions about the use of non-creative AI as theft -- just the use of data by for-profit corporations is arguably theft, as well. (It's certainly obnoxious.) And the energy cost to train the same dumb model to predict your next grocery purchase -- it's just increasing at an exponential rate with no public return while climate change exceeds the absolute worst predictions.
(I know this is scatterbrained, but goodness is it difficult to cover complex topics succinctly in a TH-cam comment. I only claim minor expertise as someone who occasionally uses AI methods (but really prefers plain statistics in 99% of cases).)
It needs to be noted that AI is way over hyped. ChatGPT simply predicts what word comes next. There isn’t any real intelligence behind it. And it is very lacking in creativity when compared to humans. It, however, is a great tool for brainstorming ideas, it’s a super thesaurus, and it’s excellent for doing research on a topic (if it doesn’t just make something up).
On AI art, before AI art was released there was already so much art published that a person could search the internet all their lives and never see the same art twice. You just published some awesome looking anime...ok, so did a million other artists.
In many respects, AI art is akin to glorified stock art. It can produce beautiful art, but that art will be lifeless. For projects that use such images the end product runs the risk of also coming across as lifeless.
In the board game industry, the industry puts such a high value on the artist that any designer who doesn’t use human art runs the risk of their products not being taken very seriously. They may make some sales, but a driving force behind those sales will be missing.
What it does do is sort of even the playing field for none-artist with low to no budgets to be able to add that extra layer to their creativeness.
That’s what I’m seeing. Thanks for your thoughts on this, Alex.
The knee jerk angry reactions in this comment section is the exact reason for his disclaimer throughout the video and the exact reason why productive conversations rarely happen. This is not a one dimensional topic and we should be able to discuss the nuances. Take a breath and be openminded before suiting up to be a keyboard warrior because you are emotionally charged.
Thank you! Literally made sure to say 14 times "put down the pitchforks" only to have people say things to me as if they're disagreeing...when I say the same thing.
This is a rare thoughtful and non-one dimensional take on this topic. Thanks for the video
Thanks, I'm glad you appreciated it.
My god people. Stop with the knee jerk reactions and listen to the whole video.
I don’t think AI is going anywhere anytime soon. If anything I can see it becoming the norm, and ten years from now we are going to be wondering why anyone would commission an artist to make board game art when there is a much cheaper way. I do think that the only way to stop it from happening is if there are some regulations put into place by. Plus it will take some of the big companies coming out against it. But as everybody reading this knows the big companies only care about there bottom line. Whatever happens it is interesting to see happen.
Great video and a wonderful talking point.
Thanks so much for fully watching :)
I STRONGLY DISAGREE- as others pointed out, it's derived from EXISTING art.
I completely agree with that. But so is a lot of human art. Derived from does not make a clear argument for theft.
Absolutely terrible take. Artists and other creatives already struggle to make money. They deserve compensation for their works being used to train these models - or to be able to opt out completely (though sadly it is probably too late for that). It is not fair use, it is theft. These models are not doing what a human would do, because a human cannot consume everything at once and splutter out something as a result. Humans need to pay for access to things like books, films, art etc if they want to learn from them.
Which part is the terrible take? The part where I'm for the regulation of AI art in order to protect the industry? The fact that I believe it's not theft is a point I'm happy to have you counter, but your point as writen I already address and agree with.
Art students train on the work of the masters. Is that theft? If i train my model using public domain art, is it theft? I don't think this is a conversation that can be framed in absolutes.
@@silvercydecollectibles3646 No, because using public domain stuff is not theft. The main point is; creators whose work is not public domain have not consented or been compensated for their works' use. That is the issue. I don't think it's a complex argument like these AI companies would have people believe.
@@Venezian78 But if i create my own model using public domain input, it will not be discernable by others and i will be lumped in with those crying "theft!" regardless. I've also found it fascinating that many of the active artists I've discussed this with have a neutral, or even positive, view of these tools. Though i have had others say, in essence, "I studied art in school for years, so it's not fair that others can create images in seconds." I realize this isn't quantifieable, but a fascinating dichotomy to me.
@@silvercydecollectibles3646 Sorry but that's wrong. If someone creates a model that uses only public domain stuff, and makes it clear, you won't get cries of theft regarding that model. You may still get criticism that it isn't art, depending on people's definition. To me (and I realise some would disagree) art is an inherently human thing that happens in the creation, not the result of typing some words into a machine and getting a picture (or book or movie) blasted out in a few seconds.
Well done on a hot topic. There is so much ignorance on this topic. It is full of emotion and not much logic.
When it comes to crowdfunded games, I'm willing to pay the higher price for a premium product. In its current form, AI art isnt high enough quality to belong in a premium product.
This was put to the test recently (I can't remember the game, but Alex commented on it on one of his videos) The developer offered 2 pledge levels the base level with AI art at say $39 and said to afford to pay an artist the cost of the game would be $69 with a promise that if he hit (I think 300 pledges) at the higher value he'd hire an artist as it would then cover the cost. From memory less than 10 people pledged at the higher level. Not saying it's right or wrong but certainly in this case the majority didn't vote with their wallet that they'd happily pay more to cover the cost of an actual artist. I'm sure someone will be able to comment on what the game was. (My prices are also probably not quite accurate)
I find it intriguing that as a religious Jew you don't consider the human generating art instantly superior and more important than the machine. The fact that believing the machine's "worth" is lesser is an unprovable hypothesis to you is something I didn't expect.
I will say that you are correct that by the definition of theft AI art is not theft. I do think it should be considered "wrong" to train a machine to completely destroy a person's ability to provide for themselves and their families. If we don't see people as more important than machines (and the money they make us, because that's really what its all about) then we're in bigger trouble as a species than i thought
Did you watch the video? I literally say in it that I find what machines make so much less inspiring than a human doing the same thing.
@BoardGameCo yes. I watched the video lol. And we agree definitely agree on that. We just disagree whether or not a machine using previous art to make art is equal to a person doing it
Technology has evolved so many jobs and will continue to do so. Farm equipment, manufacturing equipment, safety equipment, phones, computers, the internet. People evolve. Or at least, hopefully 😊
100% agreed. It's why I'm only for ai regulation if needed to protect industries, whereas individual jobs being sustained sucks but sometimes is the way progress works.
@BoardGameCo yeah. There is a huge difference between creating AI art like "put together 100 water color animals for my game" and "Make my boardgame look like The Mico illustrated it". I am totally fine with the first but the second would be disgusting and unacceptable.
@@OaklestatExcept the latter is happening. Heck, it's even happening at Awaken Realms, who Alex effectively works for.
A tractor replacing ten guys pulling a plow isn't remotely equivalent, unless the tractor was powered by those ten guys pulling it and they weren't being paid and were strapped to the machine against their will.
@@twentysides lol, you think all farmers across the country fit that narrative. Wrong
Oh boy the clicks and engagement you will get on this one
Great take, even though the pushback was to be expected.
I expected pushback....but I am sad that most of the pushback really feels like people are reacting only to the first 4 words of the title, ignoring the rest and ignoring what I actually say.
Let's say someone is using your art to train a machine so they can mimic your art.
This represents a social danger in the art world - because it destroys the system of supply and demand.
"Theft" is just a convenient, easy to understand verb to contextualize that danger.
The word doesn't matter.
So... by attacking the word choice, you're implying that you're wiling to overlook the problem. I think it's a poor move to criticize the language used to describe a problem, even if inaccurate. I'll give you an example.
The National Socialist German Worker's party, or Nazis for short, did not actually represent the interests and beliefs of the average workers of the german nation. Their actions had less to do with an economic division of people and more to do with geno-religious fanatacism.
We still used their abbreviation - despite it being technically inaccurate.
Do you see what I'm getting at?
It's not theft; the economic damage is not similar to theft; it's more like art cloning.
We all know this, but nitpicking muddies the topic.
As one of the artists who was stolen from, you're wrong. It's theft.
Can you elaborate?
As sorry as I am for any impact you're going through, I don't think you're actually addressing the point outside of just saying I'm wrong.
@@NatalayaTube Same ask. I really want to see real examples to help form a better opinion, not just what people 'think' is happening.
I love using art to create. You’re not going to like the future, it’s only getting better. All art is derivative.
It's complicated, that's for sure.
Alex,academia has standards for using other people's work for a reason.
Completey agree. If you watch the video I'm absolutely for regulation and I'm againt AI art....I just think that calling it theft isn't validated or verified in any way.
I don't think you did yourself any favors by getting bogged down with the semantics of "theft" to start. While a small subsection of the AI backlash is that it's illegal/copyright infringement, I believe the majority take issue with the moral/ethical consequences felt by real, human artists. Invoking Mr. Disney to make your point is also an interesting choice.
Fact: I cannot draw a good dragon, regardless of how much "inspiration" i take from other artists. I either pay an artist to do this for me, or i take the AI shortcut.
Whether the output is "good" or not doesn't make it *right*.
I also take issue with you handwaiving the very real economic impact being felt, and will continue to be felt, by artists, with "well that's progress!" Can i see the analytical argument behind it? Sure, but it also makes you come off as cold and aloof to the plight of artists.
I'm rambling, and while everyrhing you said is in line with statements you've made in the past, it's still disappointing to hear. Nevertheless, i appreciate you putting this out there and creating space for debate to continue.
Bad take honestly, later.
Did you watch the entire video? Do you have an actual area you disagree with or just "bad take"?
Eloquent rebuttal by Sir Jacob Nordquist III, here for all to see, if only we were worthy enough to comprehend it!
Thanks for sharing your thinking on this Alex; thoughtful as ever. It sparked a couple of thoughts:
Linguistic subtleties can be powerful, so the nuance is important. Copyright holders might refer to ‘theft’, but you’re talking about ‘copyright infringement’ which is slightly different. People should not steal. People should not infringe copyright. They aren’t the same.
The use of the art by the AI compared to the art inspiring a human is interesting. At the risk of complicating an already complicated topic, the point this misses is in the initial build of the AI - some individuals took the original art, not to draw inspiration but to build their AI models (and profit). Those artists have been denied profit (in other words, their copyright has been infringed) and are entitled to an accounting for those profits.
Unfortunately, for the individual creatives to exercise their rights they are challenging large, well funded and organised corporations. That imbalance can be addressed by regulation.
Because the Bible says a bunch of nonsense it’s real now…instead of a historical spell book. So because it says telling someone something not true is a lie and that’s bad…hence don’t lie. Just like copyright law
I'm confused...genuinly uncertain what you mean?
@@BoardGameCoyou said copyright is theft only because we made a “law” that says so…I’m comparing it to anything “we” have declared indecent or unacceptable in the spell book many follow (bible). I don’t need laws or bible to know copyright is theft.
Good take
Interested video, most of the comments seem to focus on the theft / using other peoples work without permission. Would have been interesting to touch on ethically trained AI image generators such as Adobe Firefly which is only trained in images that adobe own the rights to (and implicitly does not include customer images). Surely the whole theft discussion is entirely a moot point in this scenario?
Alex, I was the first person to give your video a “like.” I agree with all of your arguments, and I believe they are all well-stated. I feel that this is the bottom line:
(1) People are entitled to not like AI art, and to want to avoid it. This is a personal decision.
(2) Art created with AI needs to indicate that AI was involved. (Similarly, we label GMO food so that people who do not want it can avoid it. This is another kind of personal decision.)
(3) Like CGI, AI art will improve over time, so there’s no point basing a major argument on how good or bad it is. (I will give you an example, below.)
Every way of life risks being overwhelmed by AI, and we are going to have to learn how to deal with it. For an extreme example, imagine Kickstarter offering 100 AI created fantasy/adventure/campaign games on the same day, all from one “company”. (I’m a writer, and the website I use to post writing, and get critiques, has been overwhelmed by AI-generated critiques.)
Now one more interesting point: Copyright in art is a historical aberration. For most of the last 1,000 years, art that builds on, and copies, other art has been the norm. In music, there are so many wonderful “theme and variations” works, none of which would exist if copyright made it difficult to “borrow” a theme.
Today, copyright mostly benefits superstars and large corporations with vast portfolios. If someone steals my novels, I cannot afford to sue them. My novels are protected by people’s honesty. (When Ballantine books printed an unauthorized version of Lord of the Rings, Tolkien asked his fans not to buy it, and to complain. Ballantine withdrew the publication. I believe there was no lawsuit.)
The D’Oyly Carte Opera company is a great example of what could happen before copyright. As soon as they could produce a new Gilbert & Sullivan operetta, other opera companies rushed to produce unauthorized productions. To keep making money, Gilbert and Sullivan were pressed to create a new opera as soon as possible. Without this thieving pressure, we would have far fewer (wonderful) G&S operettas than we have today. We, the public, benefitted from D’Oyly being unable to sue for copyright.
Yes, AI art will damage the income of many artists. As you discuss here, every technological advance brings both economic damage and new opportunities. (I'm a software developer. A friend of mine was not prepared to have rocks thrown at him when he worked on automating the printing of newspapers, but of course, it happened.) This kind of damage is a good reason for each person to decide how they feel about the advance, but usually, technological advances are unstoppable.
Again, AI art will improve, so there’s no point basing arguments on how good it is. Imagine the following, which I’ll bet someone is working on already: A company uses two AI programs to produce a painting. The first does what you expect. The second program looks at the result, tries to find anything unnatural (such as an extra finger or an impossible posture), and fixes it.
Thanks for reading all this! -toby
Thanks :) I for sure believe that anyone basing the argument on how good it is, is setting themselves up to fail down the road...it has to be tackled in different ways.
I mostly agree with you Alex. I think good AI art is a new skill set that requires human touch but can help them work faster.
I think it's complicated...there are areas I'm for it and areas I'm against it, and I'm sure those opions will evolve over time...but I don't think it's a black and white issue.
Great video Alex! I agree with you, humans also do the same thing as in look at other work to get inspiration from it, how is that any different? A lot of gray areas in the topic but I agree with you.
Yep, and I am against it, at least in some capacity...I just don't think it's the black and white issue that many make it out to be.
Exactly, I call it influence. The difference is people have a handful of influences, whereas AI uses 100s. So has less plagiarism than a human.
Slightly off topic, but AI is going to be such an incredible tool for playtesting at some point. Uploading the rule book and then asking AI to simulate 10,000 plays with every player count and deliver a report of imbalances, errors, rule conflicts, asymmetric win ratios, etc.
Was willing to give this a shot. But got to the part where you’re saying that just because it’s not illegal yet, it’s not theft. At least that’s how you seemed to phrase it. Just because something isn’t illegal doesn’t mean it’s not morally wrong. And I understand that you’re not explicitly saying that, but arguing this semantic is damaging to the issue.
Edit: Ah I got to part where you are saying that the way AI creates art is the same as the way a human creates art. 😭
Did you also get to the part where I talk about how I'm against it and I'm for regulation of it?
@ I did. But it felt like a saving throw and doesn’t excuse the shortsightedness of your other takes.
@@minohki A saving throw? If you watched this video and think "I disagree that it's not theft" I totally get that. But if you watched it and think "wow, he's for AI art" then I think you got stuck on how much you disagree with the theft part. I literally talk about how AI art is ruining my appreciation for art. Do you think that's just to "protect myself" If I wanted to protect myself I could just not have filmed this video at all :)
@ Not what I said and not what I think. Maybe it’s the way the information is presented or the way I’m interpreting it. But the negativity of the first half of the video overshadows any positivity in the second half. Makes it hard to appreciate or support your take. Kirk you said this isn’t a black and white issue. And while I agree with your regulation stance, I still really disagree with other stances in the video.
@@BoardGameCo I keep thinking about this and want to add that what I think I find so disagreeable is that the thaw takes you explain first are takes that others use to justify their support of AI art. And I hate to see validation of that in any form. I believe it hurts the cause to actually achieve regulation.