The (Concerning) Rise of A.I. Art
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 ก.ค. 2024
- 👑 Visit establishedtitles.com/ISABEL10 to catch their massive sale and get a further 10% off any land title pack with my code: ISABEL10 (plus you’ll be helping support the channel)! ✨
Thanks to Established Titles for sponsoring this video!
Spooky topic for spooky season 👻
My attempt at wrangling the fascinating and hiiighly controversial world of A.I. “art” and creativity. Exploring the ups, downs, and headasseries in-between - and how this may impact the work of content creators, digital artists, and general creatives moving forward.
Drew Gooden’s video: using AI to write a youtube video
• using AI to write a yo...
-
🕦TIMESTAMPS:🕝
0:00 - Intro
1:51 - The rise of AI art
3:33 - Ad break!
5:37 - How do these A.I. tools work?
13:09 - The arguments for A.I. art
16:26 - Goodbye craftsmen, hello directors?
19:04 - The pitfalls of A.I.-generated art/content
21:50 - The issue of plagiarism & copyright
27:15 - The impact on artist employment
30:10 - Redefining “art”/the artistic process?
34:46 - Silver lining for human artists?
-
🤖 FOLLOW ME ON IG: / anaisabelcosplays 🤖
-
All third-party clips and images are Fair Use/Fair Dealing under copyright law (transformative under criticism/review/commentary/news reporting).
Australian copyright law on “Fair Dealing”: www.copyright.org.au/acc_prod...
US copyright law on
"Fair Use": www.copyright.gov/fair-use/mo...
-
📚Main Sources Used:📚
The AI that creates any picture you want, explained (Vox)
• AI art, explained
The REAL fight over AI art (Cleo Abram)
• The REAL Fight Over AI...
Artists Shouldn't Fear AI. Companies Should. (BoroCG)
• Artists Shouldn't Fear...
DALL·E 2 Explained (OpenAI)
• DALL·E 2 Explained
Will Artificial Intelligence End Human Creativity? (Design Theory)
• Will Artificial Intell...
The future of creativity, brought to you by artificial intelligence (VentureBeat)
venturebeat.com/datadecisionm...
Algorithms Can Now Mimic Any Artist. Some Artists Hate It (WIRED)
www.wired.com/story/artists-r...
When AI Makes Art, Humans Supply the Creative Spark (WIRED)
www.wired.com/story/when-ai-m...
Anyone can use this AI art generator - that’s the risk (The Verge)
www.theverge.com/2022/9/15/23...
AI Creating ‘Art’ Is An Ethical And Copyright Nightmare (Kotaku)
www.kotaku.com.au/2022/08/ai-...
Will DALL-E the AI Artist Take My Job? (NY Mag Intelligencer)
nymag.com/intelligencer/artic...
-
✨A.I. Generators Used:✨
Dall-E
ArtBreeder
NovelAI
Narrative Device
SassBook
Copymatic
OpenAI Playground
#aiart #dalle #midjourney #stablediffusion - บันเทิง
Thoughts on automating creativity and the whole A.I. art fiasco? 🎨(let’s try and keep it civil lol)
Also, just thought I’d share something I never got to mention in the video, but I stumbled upon a pretty wild subreddit (r/SubredditSimulator) that’s essentially an entire forum with posts and comments run by bots. It’s not exactly as refined as the A.I. art or writing generators mentioned in the vid, but it’s a fun (and pretty hilarious) discovery nonetheless, for those curious to check it out.
I don't think we'll be in trouble until the AI starts generating stuff *without* human input.
I think the current best program is stable diffusion, as you can 1)run it at home. 2)You have full control over it, you can even alter how settings function. Like I saw someone on twitter alter how the CFG scale math worked to fix issues like that of generation of three legged animals. 3)Often such changes are publicly shared so even if you don't know much programing/math you can read guides and download publicly shared scripts to do more. 4)You can self train models on stuff like your own image or download models others trained for more spefic tasks. 5)No big company gets the images you make with in the program as you can run the program fully locally. 6)No limitations on what your can do with the AI. You won't ever lose acess to the AI no matter what.
i’m tempted to use an automated reply
@@Rick586 Its just going to create a TON of more content for us... Think full blown virtual game worlds being made in a fraction of the time... Those worlds are going to need a lot more content and creators, so we will still have some work..
Ever heard of the dystopian app "Replica"? It is an "AI companion who is eager to learn and would love to see the world through your eyes".
They are already trying to replace human conncetions with Ai. Which is completly bizzar. If someone is lonely and lacks human conection, than the solution is not to isolate them further with Ai friends.
I saw a video by an artist the other day about this topic where he mentioned that a lot of these art producing AIs are using huge amounts of copyrighted content in their data sets so the artists who essentially trained these AIs are not compensated for their efforts in producing the original art works.
Was it the video by Steven Zapata ?
@@juliendesousa9803 yeah it was, I hadn't seen his channel before but gave him a shot
@@BickSnarf First video I've seen of him too. I liked what he had to say, especially how unfair IA is because they have access to stuff regular artists and they use research as a way to get around laws
@@juliendesousa9803 Zapata was spot on with that video. Everyone who is having any thoughts on this issue should listen to it.
That guy is deleting comments criticizing his ignorant statements about how stable diffusion is not controlled by corporations. I literally have their files, and the tools their enabled to make your own dataset on my pc doing just that. There is no corporation involved in my process.
The fact they advertise these AIs as "a way to remove the boring, repetitive, mundane parts in the process of making art" shows that these programmers do not understand artwork or music. Sure, there's tedious parts in the process, but it's meant to be a challenge to overcome that makes you definitely feel good once you overcome them. Skipping directly to the results is like playing a brand new videogame with gamebreaking cheats. It's fun at first, but it becomes unimpressive and boring quickly. AI programmers burning the process with this obsession at making *everything* fast and efficient do not understand that sometimes there's more pleasure in the making of something yourself than just looking at the end results right away.
They could have focused on automating truly tedious jobs that are actually hazardous to humans, and instead they're taking the fun jobs first out of pure convenience.
The big tech that develop these Ai Programs, view art as just a product. As content. Therefore the “mundane parts ” just cost time and money for them.
Pretty much how I felt when I first heard these arguments for AI. The process is often what makes art so rewarding to begin with; it's the stage where you typically learn even more skills, develop even more ideas, and pick up new sources of inspiration along the way. The end result may even be completely different from what you initially had in mind, and sometimes for the better - but you won't have these revelations until you actually take part in the process of creation. Praise for this tech will typically jump straight into business-oriented benefits (i.e. efficiency, cost-cutting, speed) without taking this into account. Though I guess if you aren't an artist/creative, it's easy to dismiss all that.
I do want to be hopeful that these tools can simply enhance these processes rather than completely take over the entirety of them - but it's challenging, seeing how fast this tech has developed in such as short span of time.
I think reasonings like "it's supposed to be hard" are more philosophical than actually true. Humans build tools to make tasks easier. Be that making a spoon to eat liquids, building a car to get around faster, or creating software to automate tasks. People who like drawing pictures by hand can still do that.
I see two options: Either these tools will be so powerful, that art creation is amplified beyond humanity's current capabilities, or it will remain an easy way to fill in some blanks. Experts in using tools will always exist, even if those tools are becoming more powerful. And these generators are not truly creative, so outstanding art will always be human.
My prediction is, that a new method of working will emerge, where line art and details are seeded by an artist, and the ai then fills in the colors, with some hybrid human/ai post-processing. (sort of like that generator that can make hyperrealistic landscapes from some marked zone, just with everything)
I think that most people who request artwork merely want their ideas realized. They likely do not give a fuck about the other things.
But then they'll say "you can still do art the hard way", not realizing that this would be a great demotivator in the first place. Why do something that a machine could do better? You're no longer forced to go through the rewarding experience which makes people rely on you when you go pro.
I truly despise how the "but you can still be an art director!" argument treats handiwork like it doesnt matter. art is a process, it takes hours of work and years of experience to become a viable carreer. Deleting important jobs such as i dont know, animation inbetweener, graphic designer, motion designer, will genuinely kill art from the inside. When an art project is completed through teamwork, you not only see the signature of the art director, but of everyone who has worked on the project. I'm an art student, in a year I'll be entering the animation industry and it is both angering and anxiety inducing that people who do not know what they're talking about would be trying to calm upset artists by saying that actually it is good that there will be less jobs because now if you get hired your name will be very big in the credits. I have many many friends who do not want to direct. Most of us have a something that we enjoy and want to do for our carreer, like background art, storyboarding, pure animation, layout. Art is so much more involved and complex than having an idea and making art to tell it.
Exactly my thoughts whenever I hear the "art director" argument; it always seems so easy for these people to dismiss the actual art-making stage like it isn't fulfilling in itself. Agreed that art can be more than just the idea or final result - and often its the complexities in between that give it meaning.
@@ana-isabel It is genuinely great that AI gives tools for people without technical skills to develop their ideas, but it's also important to consider the limitations of AI, like you said in your video (really good video btw!!!) , AI will never have the flexibility and capacity of understanding of the human mind, and while the novelty of the technology is exciting, i do believe that people will realize just how limited AI is by itself
I think the definition of a tool are very different for artists and ai developers. Many artists enjoy the "mundane" part of the creation, it's the part which sparks the most creativity, and brings new ideas. It seems like ai developers only see the idea and the finished product as the fun part of the creation, and everything in between is the "mundane" part. I remember I read an interview of stable diffusion founder and he said something along the lines of "if you are an illustrator it's not about being creative, you are a tool". It does not spark too much hope for a nice future if the developers who supposedly are creating a tool for artists, believe that the artists IS the tool.
The "mundane" is just going to change. Just as when digital art came around, the mundane used to be getting paint, mixing it, preparing a canvas, painting over mistakes; those mundane tasks simply were replaced by new mundane tasks in digital art
And if you're an artist working for a corporation, most likely, you are a tool for them. Serving their creative vision with some room for creative liberty. Although, some of these jobs are more free and less tool-like
The mudane part now is just typing words over and over so the AI will pop up something usable, it's like throwing paint at a wall and hoping the client likes it. Except instead of art splatter it's throwing other people's paintings at the wall and hoping it looks cool when they smash together
@@inbredfam This is why I think this new technological jump is so different. With previous innovations, while certain annoying mundane things changed, the essence of the work still stayed the same. For illustrators/painters, you still needed to have all the fundamental knowledge to be a good artist (perspective, anatomy, color theory, etc.) no matter if you work traditionally or digitally. Even for a photographer, you still need to go out there, find a subject, and snap the pictures at the right lighting, the right angle, and with the right settings. Still, so much fundamental knowledge you need to have.
With new tech we are now "jumping over" the fundamental skills we needed. If I may word it very dramatically, now we stop being artists in the general sense, now we are the "idea guys". Just like @kkcat said "The mundane part now is just typing words over and over" until the AI gives us something that looks cool.
And while yeah, I may be just a tool for somebodies creative vision, but it's still great. It's still somebodies creative human vision. And most teams don't mind if you pitch in your ideas on how to make the project better. But what happens when even that vision is largely Ai generated? Big corps probably won't mind, at the end of the day it's just the numbers game and profit that matters for these guys
@@inbredfam but AI is too much of a leap in capability. Digital art did make things easier, but it was still just dumb tools that could repeat things, but not much else.
As someone who works in animation I'm not particularly concerned mainly because of how picky clients are 😂. My last note is "please round out the 2nd bush to the right, darken the 1st tree by a bit and add 4 medium stars and 1 all star behind the house". An artist can read that and realize what the client is saying is that they wanted more atmospheric depth in the painting and cleaner shapes overall to make the character pop out but client doesn't know how to communicate it or understand why.
This is pretty ignorant if you really think that the technology won't be improved. The entire point of this tech is so that clients won't even think to consult you anymore but just click and change keywords for a couple of hours until they get something satisfactory. If we don't fight this tech proliferating you WILL be out of a job.
@@flazay_da I doubt any commoners would know how to fix animation tbh, so OP got a point there.
@@flazay_da >Couple of Hours
I don't even think clients would even stomach half an hour on the computer rendering, tweaking words for some really specific detail they want. They're better off hiring someone for the graphic.
It's gonna get wild when netflix deepfakes whole tv shows designed to be customized for each viewer and keep them hooked into watching one more episode, forever.
That's so scary to think about, but I wouldn't be surprised if that'll be a thing someday
@@ricochetbabalon257 i would use the camera in every device to assess the boredom level of the viewer in real time and get the AI to modify the story to keep the viewer engaged, like Scheherazade in 1001 arabian nights. Thanks to scripts by GPT-3, "actors" by deepfake. AI voices like lyrebird and scenery by midjourney each episode of the customized show would cost $0.
The future can be terrifying.
@@JinKee And if the camera is covered?
@@starchilde8698 you end up watching boring tv
Over the last two or so years, my attitude towards AI image generator has progressed through the following steps:
1. "Haha, funny, it looks so weird. Also creepy."
2. "Wow, it can do some actually cool stuff."
3. "This technology is coming, whether we want it or not, so one might as well have fun with it."
4. Same as 3, but with "while the art world crumbles apart in the process" added at the end.
5. "Pandoras box is open and everything is terrible." (This is where I'm at right now.)
The mundane, boring, repetitive or the lenghty parts of making art are as part of the process as the result, and make it all the more worth it when after all that, you completed something creative you liked. A tool can speed up that process a little bit but a tool that literally creates an entire finished art piece in literally seconds makes all the effort pretty much meaningless, in my opinion. Art is not easy but it can be a beautiful thing, it's something inherently human, it needs to have some kind of human touch, even something as simple as a scribble is not as artificial, because you know someone with opinions, emotions, feelings, stories, thoughts and imperfections at least made it. AI art will never be human art.
You're SO right
These big tech componies view art as just a product. As content. That's why any "mundane, boring, repetitive or the lenghty parts" have to go to save time and money.
@@IvellScarlett that's so sad it's basically a part of "trust the process" and everything...
Yeah a tool that does all the job for you is not a tool. It is a replacement. And do we really need something that replaces a skill which is essentially a recreational activity. This is like making a robot that goes hiking in your place :).
Sculptors that work with bronze and other materials dln't do the actual work, they are no less artists.
I'm not defending AI art, that crap is worse than NFTs. I'm just saying your argument is flawed.
The whole situation with Kim Jung Gi made me extremely furious. How can one think going after a recently deceased artist's work and demanding praise for it would be okay? As an artist, I don't want to fight technological advancements that could enhance the creation process of making art, but so far it seems to be mainly utilized by arrogant and entitled people who don't know what it's truely like to create something.
My concerns exactly - I'm all for tools that can help _support_ an artist's creative process but there just seem to be so many pitfalls to this tech atm that do more harm (and raise all kinds of ethical issues) than actually help the very people they claim to be for.
@@ana-isabel I hear you. I understand with technological advancement, great change will come of it and people will learn to adapt. I simply don't see AI being the next step in the field of digital art and illustration at this time, there's too much about it that's being kept secret. But it seems people are beginning to make their stance about it. Just hope everything goes towards the right direction.
I hope that artists will stop being afraid to fight for their rights and make sure that their art is not used without consent by any AI. the fewer artists who agree to give their art to a machine to learn the better
Yes! The option to opt-in/out of these datasets needs to be a standard. Hope these regulations can be established fast enough to keep up with all these rapid developments.
@@ana-isabel most of them are already dead sadly. They even jumped right at Kim Jung Gi and he died a month ago.
It's too late. The AI has already harvested too much data. The damage is irreparable. I'm not sure this can be stopped.
@@Cyberdemon1542 I want off Mr bones' wild ride
There are literally millennia of artworks in the public domain. Including almost all the iconic works of art. AI doesn't need the works of "modern artists" posting pregnant Sonic the Hedgehog pictures and the like on DeviantArt (even if yes, those are included now in some training sets). Even if every modern artist decides to forbid their works from being used in AI, that can't stop it. Like chess playing, art is now something computers can do well and will only get better at it. Doesn't mean you can't still make art or play chess as a hobby, though. People still ride horses even though cars exist.
People don’t realize that AI companies don’t only want to get rid of Artists but of the human component at all.
The more you feed the AI the more it’s gonna know what you like. Like an online shop or video platform guesses what you like based on your previous input.
In the end you’ll do nothing but pay to the big companies for the endless generating media flood for you to consume.
It’s in our nature to be creative.
Don’t let them take that away from you.
Three years from now, people will go onto TH-cam to find channels with “hand-crafted videos.”
A.I. : Takes over the world ?
I sleep .
A.I. : Takes over my passion/ dream Career ?
REAL SHIT!!!!!
That was Literally you my mindset when I first heard about it
I'm honestly really worried for the artists, especially anyone who's had their art used as training data, since the AI could replicate anything about their style without anything but a prompt anyone can type up in just a second or two...
I even found a few videos/articles that tips on "improving" one's AI artwork, and common advice is to "know your artists" so you'll have a solid library of unique styles to emulate. I guess this is harmless if you were just playing around with these tools for fun, but what troubled me was a lot this advice went towards making money off of these AI generations. I can't help but find it incredibly shameless.
Aren’t they just stealing art and using it in their programs to produce something “new?”
Edit: there is a difference between using a reference in drawing and USING THE DRAWING. These AIs aren’t using it as a reference, they’re using it as a basis. That is theft.
The same way we look at art and learn from it. But yes, they're using it to learn without permission.
@@Maldito011316
Well; we use it as a reference. They use it as a basis. There’s a difference in observation opposed to just taking the actual drawing and using it as a basis to make the foundation for something else. It’s basically tracing but for a program.
@@SinShady. There's no difference in that. That's how AI learn, that's how you learn. You look into it and associate what makes that that.
No, it's not tracing. It's learning the same way we do.
@@Maldito011316
There is.
A reference is an interpretation an individual has to build something unique.
A basis is using something as the groundwork (which is what AI uses)
An AI needs a basis to use in order to work. It has no interpretation as it isn’t conscious, it only gives multiple variables based on what it’s using as a basis. Without the basis it cannot create. All it does is use multiple basis and create different variables around the original work.
@@Maldito011316
If you take references away from an artist, they can still draw (although it varies how good it will be based on experience).
Even a child can make a stick figure.
If you take away all references from an AI it cannot create, hence it needs others artwork to use as a basis.
i think w/ ai (generated images) its not rewarding, its empty
its soulless for that reason alone to me! w/ creating ur own work u can say "hey! i made that!!" ur able to put ur passion into it - ur able to have a journey that doesnt really ever end unless u want it to
but w/ ai, u just insert a prompt n thats it
it wasnt u creating it it was just u giving a prompt n u alter that prompt however much u want
its kinda like putting in an order at mcdonalds "a burger w/ no pickles" or whatever
What A.I. completely lacks is intentionality. This is why it cannot be called art.
You may make this argument for people who request art from artists.
Those people usually do not give a fuck about the artists emotions and ego. It is the *ideas* which matter.
@@thesystem5980 sorry could u elaborate a bit on artists ego ? while yes the ideas matter it is ultimately the artist they are requesting or commissioning from that is executing it
people who commission art from someone cannot claim the artwork is their own
@@polariize He challenging every comment in this video, ive explained to him how unethical ai is and what creativity is, he is still ignorant and defending this bane of creativity.
@@polariize why do you need elaboration on the involvement of an artists ego in the art ?
well, one thing that concerns me is the use of AI to manipulate photos to look like handdrawn images instead. i mean this is a pretty specialized or niche thing, but im currently preparing to sell watercolor portrait and watercolor pet portrait commissions on etsy, and my god. when you type in "watercolor portrait", SO many of the most popular entries are simply the original photos with a bit of a digital filter or whatever on top to make it "look like" watercolors. of course, when you know anything about the topic, you can immediately tell what is actually handdrawn, and what is just a filter. but evidently, many people cant. and they dont even sell them for THAT much cheaper than the genuinely handdrawn ones. and they usually also dont clearly tell you that it is just the altered photo, nothing more. it just makes me a bit sad tbh. ive been practising watercolor painting a lot and drawing in general, its pretty disheartening to see etsy listings of those generated things with hundreds of five star ratings :|
Try learning midjourney watercolor image prompts
@@ClaimClam what for??
@@jannecapelle_art you can make watercolor images much faster and cheaper
@@ClaimClam but i can already paint them myself?? with actual watercolors??? that was my whole point 🥴
@@ClaimClam Her point was that Ai users scam people who believe they are getting genuine hand-drawn watercolor portrait art. Selling it at almost the same price as genuine pieces. Thus giving the artist community a bad name when/if people realize they are getting scammed. And also damages the livelihood of genuine artists who do put in the work by taking away potential commissions.
After trying Dall-E 2, I think its safe to say right now its been a fun goldmine for meme content and a laugh with friends creating ridiculous scenarios 😅but definitely share the concern of how it might affect artists just starting out. If anything, I would love to see someone use the fear and concern behind A.I. art in a psychological horror or sci fi movie making the audience question "who or what was created first". Another great topic and video Ana! Definitely don't think an A.I. would've been able to put together a script like this haha 😅
Thanks haha! Ooh, I can already see this idea used for the next Black Mirror season (if any). And same, these tools are hilarious as unintentional meme machines; sad we're currently seeing a ton of issues affecting actual artists 😞
Just saw a quote that reminded me of this video: “In order to replace your job with AI, clients would need to accurately describe what they want. You’re safe “
True. That is, until the tech gets better at drawing/writing out minute details or even grasping our social contexts. It may (hopefully) not be the case for a while though, but we can't really know for sure. 🤔
hahah excellent quote
As someone who works professionally in comics if only as a writer, I fear what this AI will do to the pencilers, inkers, and colorists of the next 5-25 years. I've been working on a project lately and one of the editors on the book has been obsessed with Midjourney and has said without saying, a few times, that it's creation means we don't really need artists as comics knows them anymore.
It's truly frightening to see the decision makers already counting the money they would save on something like this with little regard to the professionals they work/have already worked with.
I appreciate your take on this. The idea still makes me mad as fuck but I do appreciate someone trying to see the forest through the trees on the idea.
Pencilers, inkers, and colorists are just tools for the ones who have the overall creative vision. The creative people hire others to do the grunt work they don't have the time or skill to perform, with AI, it will be so much easier to realize your ideas and focus more on the overall creative vision.
@@inbredfam How is it easier though? Go to midjourney and get AI to make a 10 page comic about Spiderman reminiscing about his uncle while sitting at the park and realizing that the trauma of losing him might be affecting his relationship with his son. An artist can draw exactly what's on the script. How long would it take for someone using AI to do that? How many keywords would you have to type to get Peter Parker sitting on a bench watching his son play on the swings? How long do you think it'll take to get the next panel of him stopping himself from yelling a warning? And even if you get the pose can you get the red colours to express his alarm? It's just soooo troublesome. I can't imagine how annoying and time consuming this is.
@@seekittycat Yes, that's the point. In the end, you need to have a vision of what you want, and that only comes from a human perspective, because you also as a human have very specific personal needs. Is the same with the camera on everybody's phone, not all of them are now viral photographers.
@@NathanLorenzana You said "With AI it would be so much easier to realize your vision" and I'm saying no it isn't because it literally doesn't do what you want it to do if anything trying to get it to do what you actually want takes forever.
@@seekittycat Well, at least for me and others. I take what is generated with AI and still have to go to Photoshop and edit it. Plus, I don't use only prompts, I also use image to image. For instance, I make a collage of sorts and paint the composition in Photoshop, and with image to image using Stable Diffusion it accelerates my work by maybe a hundred times over. It makes it way easier than before. Edit: I see you were quoting someone else, but I agree it makes it easier ;)
Great Video. In a vacuum I have no problem with Ai art, but technology isn't developed in a vacuum. It is created in a political, economical, ideological context.
Technology is not neutral.
Right now, it is perfectly legal for these Ai programs to take existing copyrighted material and use for “training”.
And That should not be the case.
It should not be normal that these companies took the work of artists without permission.
It threatens the already highly competitive and scarce jobs of people working on the 'mundane' aspect of art creation, while also threatening the authorship of others who created the art that is used to "train" ("plagiarize for") the algorithm. They are not gonna get paid for some robot copying them.
The tech bros did not ask these people if they would mind taking part in creating an algorithm that replaces their work, and that's because most of them haven't actually thought of the artists, otherwise there would also be a push for laws regulating what works can be used, and for transparency on when a picture is generated by an algorithm, there is a lot of indifference towards the people who would be most affected by this tool, with most of the defenders of this invention being dismissive of people's concerns, instead of working with them to do things right.
And yes, as I put it earlier, these are tools, not the offenders themselves, "the problem is not the tool, it's how people use it", the tools can be useful and can also be a source of endless entertainment, but the problem is exactly that it's in the hands of the wrong people, this tool was not really created _for_ the artists, and it's not in the hands _of_ the artists, it's largely in the hands of people who would rather not pay someone to work, when they could just input a few phrases in a prompt and call that "AI directing", that is a problem that is already making itself very real through the articles you've shown in the video.
To quote doctor Ian Malcolm in Jurassic Park: "You were so preoccupied with whether you could, you didn't stop to think if you should."
This is the sad reality we're in at the moment, and it sucks 'cause I also want to believe such innovative tools could help rather than harm artists. But currently I've been seeing these programs used for more shameless art bootlegging rather than actual support for professional artists, with a handful even making a profit. You're right that at the moment, it's just in the hands of many with unethical intentions.
I am holding out hope that we'll eventually seeing stronger regulations/artistic protections put in place; I guess we'll just have to see how everything snowballs from here.
In the world of arts, the most satisfying experience is the "tedious" process itself, the process of getting from point A to B etc determines the output, also the artist's experience earned is also a multiplier. Lastly, the output augments this pleasurable experience.
I have a lot of issues with ai art because of how it's presented and how it's changing art perception moooostly for the negative.
With presentation, a lot of it is coming across as ways for businesses to replace art labor. Paraphrasing the one quote, but industry prioritizes speed over quality. Why hire a group of artists when you could have ai generate it all (and then maybe have one skilled guy do clean up if necessary). Also the discussion of removing the 'mundane' parts doesn't sound like anything an artist would say. For every artist that hates inking their work, there are dozens more who love that part and make that part of their signature style.
If this was a tool for artists, I could think of so many other things that would be useful for me and my skill gap than this ai.
And as for perception...even before ai, art wasn't valued. Ask any smaller artist taking commissions and they will tell you a story about how someone said they could 'draw this themselves'. Also the infamous comic pitches from strangers 'if you draw my 10+ book comic series for free you'll get so much exposure, you'll basically be rich'. Now with this technology, I'm seeing a lot of these voices get louder on how artists need 'real jobs' and that they can do better than we can, all while entering our own names into these generators.
Additionally, while a style cannot be copyrighted it is basically the artist's voice. Even if the style isn't fully developed, even if it isn't what the artist saw in their head, even if that artist is referencing other artists (because unless you're tracing it is not going to match the original and will always have your touch). Guaranteed there will be a case where someone uses a specific artist in their prompt machine to make an abhorrent, hateful message that the original artist doesn't agree with. And it will harm that artist both professionally (will a search engine SAY it is ai generated? Will an employer bother to look?) and emotionally because no one wants to have something they crafted ripped away like that.
And again, circling back to speed over quality...there is something to be said about our current culture where priority is on getting content out there, being the ideas man, and basically making money off everything. If we do become a future where all art is ai generated on computers and ads and entertainment...there's still going to be people with digital pens or traditional tools just making stuff. The end product and ideas are cool but drawing or painting or doing photography is a fun activity in its own right. Sometimes people want a career in something they like doing.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts; I pretty much share all these same concerns you've put so articulately. I particularly appreciate you mentioning the impact on art perception and how a lot of arguments for this tech - not all of course, but *a lot* I've seen online - tend to further trivialize art labor and the value/meaning it can bring (as corny as that sounds, lol). It all just seems to be about higher profits, faster production, and greater quantity; and it's always been this way, sure, but I fear this kind of tech left unchecked will only further this system to the detriment of artists.
"...A lot of these voices get louder on how artists need 'real jobs' and that they can do better than we can, all while entering our own names into these generators," - so true.
My only issue with AI is when people blatantly attribute the final piece to themselves as if they made it. I have been playing with AI for the past month and with it I have gotten some pieces that are very high quality but I never say that I created the art. I used AI to generate something, I did not create it.
Yup! I guess the most you could take credit for would be the prompts but to claim to be the "artist" of a piece randomly generated by a machine seems like a huge stretch.
The dude that had the audacity to be all "credit pls 🙏 " on AI pieces that distastefully ripped off the late Kim Jung Gi really got under my skin, ngl.
I finally started to get good at art, and now Ai threatens the value of that, it's like, a jab to the heart, there are some fields that should be sacred in my humble opinion, if we start to misvalue human creativity, we misvalue humanity itself. (maybe i'm too dramatic).
On the other hand, open ai has turbo charged my ideas and helped me a lot so, take what you will, this is once again, a case of technology going forwards without etics in mind.
The true threat is Capitalism, which bastardizes art for profit as a basic function. Join the good fight and keep drawing.
Oh no you’re right. There’s not much to the life of mankind besides art and science. Take those away and what’s left? I really hope that in the long term, this ends up as novel and unthreatening to art itself as computers playing chess did, and that it’s just scary as shit right now in the moment.
Creativity is not intrinsically human. We have always known this, have we not?
@@starchilde8698 *hypercapitalism I think rather. There's nothing like something like Comiket where indie creators sell their comics at tables en masse.
The problem is a type of capitalism which seeks to optimize all toil out of human life.
Keep making what you're making, don't stop. Just remember to post a disclaimer that your work is not to be used without your consent and that includes in AI training. If enough artist make enough noise this will get taken seriously by law makers and courts.
About the sponsor, you are basically only buying a certificate. The land still belongs to who ever sold it, and it can't be registered as yours in the land register.
And a quote from the Lord Lyon of Scotland (they confer titles and coat of arms in Scotland: “Ownership of a souvenir plot of land does not bring with it the right to any description such as ‘laird’, ‘lord’ or ‘lady’. ‘Laird’ is not a title but a description applied by those living on and around the estate, many of whom will derive their living from it, to the principal landowner of a long-named area of land. It will, therefore, be seen that it is not a description which is appropriate for the owner of a normal residential property.
“It cannot properly be used to describe a person who owns a small part of a larger piece of land. The term ‘laird’ is not one recognisable by attachment to a personal name and thus there is no official recognition of ‘XY, Laird of Z’.
“The words ‘lord’ and ‘lady’ apply to those on whom a peerage has been confirmed and do not relate to the ownership of land.
“Ownership of a souvenir plot of land is not sufficient to bring a person otherwise ineligible within the jurisdiction of the Lord Lyon for seeking a coat of arms.”
Source: www.lawscot.org.uk/members/journal/issues/vol-57-issue-04/caution-the-souvenir-hunters/
Isn't the whole point of that company just to plant trees?
I hate how many people are comparing it to the rise of digital art and adapting to that change.
Simply going digital does NOT magically endow somebody with knowledge about anatomy and color theory and all of that. A person who knows nothing about art will still use a tablet to draw a stick figure like they would with a pencil and paper.
You still have to learn EVERYTHING you have to learn with traditional art, to be good at digital art. It is more convenient to not have to wait for things to dry, saving space and being able to erase or undo marks endlessly, but that is the only real advantage digital art has over traditional, it doesn't make up for a lack of skill or practice.
You put this beautifully! 🙌 I find little similarity between the two phenomena, apart from the fact that they both leverage automation to some degree. A huge difference with the rise of digital art is that it only really offered mere tools that still required *your* imagination, your artistic skills, and your creative vision to effectively make the most of. AI art programs, on the other hand, pretty much take over this entire process to the point where actual art skills or visual creativity are barely needed.
(Granted, they may still be able to function as tools for some artists, but it's barely comparable to the rise of previous digital art software and equipment.)
As a hobbyist 3d artist, i dont really know what to think about it.
however, i feel like we will get flooded with art (especially on certain styles) until it loses its appeal due to over accessibility.
"When everyone's a super, no one will be." More people want the accolades that come with being an artist than want to put the work into getting there. Hell, people who are artists know how hard it is to get noticed, and know the limitations of their work and the audience it even has. People who covet being "art famous" are going to find out when all of them can produce work at that level, no one will need to interact with any of it. It will be purely a mastubatory activity, to generate pictures exactly to your tastes, as many as you want, but no one else has need to see the output. They will have just as much, except tailored to them.
@OriasRofocale - That's another distressing aspect to all of this. I mean, certain generators are already capable of creating art of more niche... adult-oriented tastes, unsettling the many digital artists who've catered to these audiences for years. Now that they've got the tools to generate all the big-tiddied anime waifus they want (for *free*), why pay money for actual commissions? I guess there's comfort in knowing these generators can't handle finer details or more obscure characterisations and styles, at least not just yet.
@@ana-isabel Hmm, your comment also made me think what about a generator that works in the style of an established creator, but then also produces work that's illegal in their jurisdiction? Proving some art wasn't yours so a site can't profit off your name is one thing, but having your computer grabbed by the government and crawled for illegal drawings in Canada, for example would be extremely invasive and annoying when it was just some AI pranking you. It'd be like art swatting.
We [artist] all over the world must make petition to sue unethical process of AI art from taking artist hardwork without consent and without copyright or credits.
I think unionising and lobbying for Ai protection laws is better. The current copyright laws won't protect us. Also the current copyright laws suck. (Thanks Disney)
Making them even more stick doesn't seem to be a good idea.
Ai is a new and underrepresented technology, that needs new and underrepresented regulations.
artists must first give money to all the other artists , people, and creators of things you've seen that are in your mind as inspiration when you make art
@@IvellScarlett Yes, we need to make sure common people don't have the tools to easily make art, stories and movies, lets keep the power in the hands of Disney
So, this means no more drawing from reference, right?
@@ClaimClam Bruhhh, taking inspiration arent stealing, why are you so hostile and jealous? even if im taking inspiration from michaelangelo it wouldnt look like his works, AI Art stealing people art and mashing it like potatoes, its different from taking "inspiration" because machine can't be inspired.
I feel like it's only a matter of time before an artist sues an ai user for copyright infringement, which would be really interesting. I'm hoping for the best, but I'm not optimistic.
Sketchy as a lot of the stuff around AI art is, I sadly think it'd be really hard for artists to make their case for copyright infringement (particularly 'cause you can't copyright styles as of now 😕). But hey, if it ever happens, I'd be intrigued haha
My view on considering people that use Ai image generators “artists” is the same as calling someone ordering a sandwich at subway a chef. They are not artists, they are consumers. And they will be substituted too when a ai prompt generator is created using the data collected and provided by the consumers.
Just to be clear I feel this way about people that do no changes to the generated image and just call it art without ever touching after it’s generation.
I feel the exact same with your analogy (and also specifically in the context of untweaked AI generations). The reassurance of "well, you can just be an art director/curator/prompt engineer" not only dismisses the artistry of actually creating, but in an attempt to think "big picture" also ironically falls short of acknowledging that AI (when left unchecked) can very well take over these roles one day too.
It’s the death of our humanity. It’s the death of our creation. It’s the death of what differentiates us from the unfeeling.
I regret learning to draw. I’m gonna be thrown away….
There needs to be an A.I that can detect A.I generated “art” and find the sources used from these lazy bums profiting off of the hard work from others. A watermark should also be placed to make sure that most people know that it’s not their hard work that’s been cultivated, this is truly unacceptable beyond words.
And the thing is, they don’t need the knowledge or skill to develop a style or make a uniquely authentic piece to call their own- because most people just want a pretty picture. They’ll be the reason creatives will have even more strict rules to protect their IP
The watermark idea sounds interesting, but may be difficult to implement given that unless its weaved into the artwork somewhere - it'll likely be placed on the border or bottom of the piece and would be easily croppable (i.e. Dall-E's watermark). I do think there needs to be a way to more easily differentiate AI-generated from human-created digital works though, and I'm not sure how we'd be able to go about that, but it'd surely help prevent a lot of potential unethical use ( _and_ the controversial uses surrounding it right now). 😕
As a self-published author who just released my debut novel...this is no-shit horrifying.
I'm an artist who started working this year. Imagine my horror.
Yes, quite horrifying. The market will be flooded with AI novels + advanced story generator subscription services that generate 1000s of unique stories for peoples individual tastes.
Hahaha. Just realized I wanted to be an animator and I saw this. But don’t worry. Just stay strong and keep going fellow strugglers! 💪
Why? If AI would eventually create novels, then you would have the tools to realize your ideas without having to write them yourself.
@@IvellScarlett we can still survive in niche communities and subcultures, indie art will thrive I believe!
The idea that really any particular part of the art making process could be described as boring must have come from a non-artist, or at least someone who doesn't like drawing. I can assure you that most artists, and especially the ones who make it their profession, love drawing - most of us love every bit of the process, and you can't throw a rock without hitting an art director who wishes they had time to draw.
To paraphrase Steven Zapata, there is no reason to automate away a task that we like doing.
Yep - hearing AI bros repeatedly generalize the actual crafting/creation stage as "mundane" or "menial" always comes off as super out of touch.
Like sure, many may be able to rely on these automations as necessary tools for efficiency. But to assume that creatives never enjoyed the actual artmaking process to begin with is laughable imo.
This is one of the few videos I’ve seen on this topic that mentions universal basic income… If tech like this is going to continue (and it will) then artists losing their jobs is going to be the least of our problems and a lot more sectors will be in trouble. But I also have a horrible feeling that things are going to get way worse before they get better (if it does ever get better)
UBI won't give people back their feeling of being relied on when everyone is sitting in their couches with no more work to do.
A world of Art Directors sounds like a nightmare. Excellent video!
13:37
"In a world where AI systems could enhance creative processes, humans still would be expected to take on higher-level tasks, such as developing ideas, giving instructions, evaluating, revising and making final decisions"
This statement couldn't be more wrong. It's way more difficult to make the composition, gesture, construction, proportions, anatomy, value, color and light direction, and details in your mind rather than using an AI to do those things for you. Turning a box in your mind and then be capable of replicating that on paper is infinetly harder than telling an AI to make a box.
I’m super anxious about the future of A.I. art because as someone who is good at drawing but finds it difficult to come up with ideas in the first place, it feels like this is gunning specifically for me and others like me. Also, why wouldn’t big, heartless companies take advantage of this instead of paying an artist to do the work? Much much cheaper for them, seems like a no-brainer. I don’t trust people and companies like that enough to feel safe with this.
It also feeds further ego-fuel to the tech companies and programmers who are building these A.I.s because their arrogance and disrespect of artists is being rewarded. Building something like this that takes work away from others is nothing other than disrespectful hubris. To paraphrase Dr Ian Malcolm, just because you can do something, doesn’t mean you should.
Just remember this - just some 6 month ago all of this was impossible and it didn't existed. A.I. changed all of that overnight. So we are just one night away to change everything and impossible becomes possible here and now. Not just for artists, but for all of the jobs - we have to think beyond jobs and associating our value and place in society by what we do. It's not a question for next decades, it's here and now.
I think a lot of people are missing the reality that modern artists will be put out of their jobs. Not all artists, and not art in general, but the current artists who have developed their skills over many years. Art is not a necessity, the only reason behind automating is for large corporations to make more money without paying artists or waiting. Art is one of the only ways for people to access upward mobility, so imagine how much the gap between the wealthy and middle class will grow when art is completely automated. Art is also considered a "fun job," and we are running out of those.
Edit: You could say automation makes art more accessible, but I think that is a bad thing in our vastly capitalist societies.
Another reason for automation is for people who have good ideas to realize those ideas without having to have the resources that a good artist would have.
@@thesystem5980 ideas are cheap. The market would be saturated beyond belief with endless variations.
@@krunkle5136 And those ideas and variations would matter to the people who requested for them to be created. Artistic creativity may essentially be democratized and decommodified.
@@thesystem5980 but in the process it'd lose much of its value. Why go through the rewarding, transformative experience and toil if you can rapidly visualize completely ideas using an AI.
There'd be no need for skill or challenge.
This won't make people more happy.
@@krunkle5136 People who request artwork were usually not going to be creating that art themselves, regardless. So this is not relevant to them.
Also, there are many philosophies of art, not all of them value the process of art as much.
Minimalism, for example, is about ideas and outputs, not necessarily about the process of creation.
As an inspiring artist who’s looking to become possibly an illustrator or producer in my experience it took me years to get the skills I have today and it comes with piece of long hours just sitting on my butt and rendering , drawing all that especially when I struggle with ideas and such
I do believe personally that Ai art will have its negative affects in the creatives industry in terms of digitel artist but I also feel like AI art can’t replicate or replace some jobs such as Product designers as an example so this doesn’t mean the end all for the creatives industry but for digitel artist who are looking to be something similar to concept artist , illustrators things like that it worries me about how I’ll be able to find a job if AI will replace me so easily
But after watching this video I don’t think AI will replace artist it probably will have its big negative affects depending on how advance it gets but like you said there is an online community of people that create things like memes and such and other artworks by artist that Individual people like better then AI depending on their following they could still make the money thinking about this makes me more determined and comfortable to what the future hold for me as an artist
Ana this makes me so sad but also find it so interesting. Also love the way you presented this even though ive watch so many others cover this content. Havent kept up with your content but clearly have watched your videos in the past as I was already subscribed as I came across this video of yours. Will be absolutely keeping an eye out for future videos of yours. Getting ready to go to school for visual communication and its videos like yours that inspire the shit out of me because of how well done and produced it is without needing a whole team of people. Imma stop spewing now but I wish you the best in all your future pursuits.
Edit: removed an extra "and" and fixed a spelling error
Hey, thank you so much, I really appreciate that! ❤ Sad or scary as these developments may be atm (and as infuriating as the controversies are) it's still worth holding out hope that things play out for the better I guess. We are still in the early stages of it all, I suppose. 🥲
And best of luck in pursuing visual communications!
When it becomes impossible for artists to earn a living while pursuing their craft there will be no new styles, ideas, or compositions because there will be no more high level artists. Everything will be recycled, diluted, and increasingly generic. AI will make art eat its own tail.
I hope this will happen, that way people will finally see the value in human artist
Another thing I worry about is the effect on society as a whole. Art and media has a real impact on people and can open their minds and shift their ideas. TH-cam algorithms have been shown to make people's views more extreme because it keeps showing them content that says the same thing. Now make the main source of cheap and accessible and mass produced media and have it created by an AI that will never challenge the norms and will always create based on the stereotypes already held, you're going to have a situation where people are more and more comfortable with thinking in those stereotypes. A live human writing will to some extent or another tend to try to think of how their writing affects their audience and what ideas they're putting out there, but an AI can't do that.
I also do dread the thought of AI content (especially as it gets faster and better at replicating human voices/efforts) further validating the many echo chambers we see today. But in a way, this also makes me optimistic that at least human-made content will always be valuable for its ability to challenge and think out-of-the-box - it'll be up to us to step in and break through the noise.
Artist here. I was playing around in some lower, free version: CrAIyon?
And that first day of plugging in all the stuff. I remember feeling sick to my stomach.
My concern is not so much computer artists losing jobs- but the subtle markings of images made by an AI program. People have no idea what unnatural 'things' they are seeing and processing into their brains. Much like hidden frequency messages in audio used to manipulate people..
Please see Karla Ortiz's ai town hall video, and Stephen Zapata's "end of art, an argument" . Proper ethics must be put in place so we can steer the ai technology to the correct path.
Another excellent video essay Ana. I'm not so worried about AI taking over creativity from humans, I doubt any AI could produce your unique creative viewpoint of combining thoughtful essays with splendid cosplay. But more importantly, there still has to be some human intervention between the creatively fed AI and the exhibition or monetization of the AI output. If AI escapes into the wild as a sentient singularity and gets its own bank account, then they can compete directly. I think at this point, a lot of AI art is being reacted to the way computer chess was, it's novel that a computer can make images or text. It's a bit like the old saw about a man seeing a singing pig, sure the pig can sing, but it doesn't sing very well. Out of curiosity, I tried an AI image generator Nightcafe with "manic pixie dream girl" and got an interesting portrait, but it wasn't Mary Elizabeth Winstead as Ramona from Scott Pilgrim, so huge fail.
Nice comment, just wanted to point, Ramona isn't a manic pixie dream girl, she is more of an alt girl, according to Ana's videos.
@Barry McKinnon Aw thanks Barry! :) I agree with the hype largely being fuelled by its current novelty for the most part - but the tech is only going to get better, and I worry for the living artists this could directly impact once businesses realize they can churn out artworks, designs, and other creative pieces for free and for a fraction of the time. There _is_ the more optimistic side of me that does want to see a future where artists can somehow comfortably leverage these tools rather than have them take over completely, however, especially as stronger regulations are (hopefully) put in place. Of course once AI gains sentience, that's a whole other can of worms 💀
And haha! I tried getting Artbreeder to generate me Bill Hader in the style of a Disney Prince, but ended up getting some Vizzini lookalike from the Princess Bride.
I think that reducing the creative process isnt exactly a corner to be cutting. All my most potent ideas came from the process involved with forming the whole idea. If AI art does pull as much weight as it seems it could, then you're going to see a decline in interest and competition in graphics design as a career choice worth pursuing.
I do however think that for someone who has the existing skills and who have done the hard work to earn them should be able to use these tools to help similar to an armature for poses.
My thoughts exactly on the creative process - it's typically this stage where I encounter even better ideas or directions for my vision to go. There are going to be the mundanities here and there, but I feel like it's just as much of a critical aspect of art as the final result.
I’d made one comment on this video on an unrelated topic but the start of this video’s combination of image and music is one of the best I’ve ever seen in a TH-cam video. 10/10 that last line and facial expression before switching into the montage is beyond what AI can do…. At least now.
(Edited for a pile of fat finger typos)
I think that when they finally get hands and feet down, and someone designs one that is willing to push the boundaries on drawn nudity, the commission art space is going to take the biggest hit in history. People keep saying “there will still be a market, look what’s happening with vinyl sales.” But to act like it will not be a fraction of what it was is just denial. Something that already paid dirt to begin with because of the competition and talent in the space did not have the room for the floor to rise to where the old ceiling was. I’ve done lewd commissions since I was 14 years old and I’m about to quit altogether to focus on spriting and modeling for Unreal 5 because it pays better now. 🤷♂️
"To act like it will not be a fraction of what it was is just denial" - well put. 😔
As the tech gets better, if nothing is done a lot of creative jobs will go extinct. Why commission an artist when you can just write a prompt for free? Why hire a concept artist when you can get the intern to write some prompts? Unless you want something extremely specific or niche, there's no point in hiring an artist.
It also makes bootlegging WAY easier. Instead of having to spend months if not years of hard work to learn someone's style, you can just add the artist name to the prompt and start selling near-perfect bootlegs of their art with at most some minor touchups.
I've begun experimenting with using StableDiffusion for inspiration for my drawings; I generate about 100 or so images of my concept instead of browsing artstation or pinterest. That's the only legitimate commercial use I can think of (right now anyway) for this tech that isn't legally or ethically wrong. I still draw everything by myself using my own skills, the AI is merely a more refined Google Images. I don't like the idea of passing off an AI generated image as "your own" art, even if you do some minor overpaints. You're not an artist for telling a painter what to paint, likewise you're not an artist for telling the AI what to generate.
Better regulations really need to be put in place to protect artists' work, i.e. consent given to be part of AI training datasets. Hopeful that this could become a standard in the near future, but I also worry that even this could be highly challenging given the nature of the internet, and the ability for highly-proficient users to sidestep these barriers even when put in place. :/
Couldn't have said that last bit better btw. Sure, _you_ gave a program your artistic direction, but you didn't play a part in creating/manifesting (or even having the final say on) the end result; how exactly does this make you an "artist"?
@@ana-isabel True, even with regulations people will continue to train images without consent. Literally anyone can train an AI as long as they have the patience and computer specs, and you can easily share the file anywhere you want.
Pirating movies can net you up to a year in prison and a $100 000 fine, but movies are still being pirated non-stop.
I also don't see lawmakers taking it seriously until it's already way too late, they're so technologically inept it's laughable.
On a side note, I like that you partake in the conversations in the comments instead of just ending it at the video. It's rare to see content creators chime in unprompted nowadays.
There is that south American bird that creates highly unique and complex art pieces for mating purposes.
What I love about this video is kinda why we respect the art process. Compare Ana's eyes from the beginning of the video to the end of the video. They're very, very bloodshot.
I noticed that this video has the contrast just BLASTED super high, with white's and the hot pink hair, I'm not going to lie, it HURT to watch. AND I LIKED THAT. I don't think it was intentional, I have no basis to believe it was. Hearing about AI, the argument of is it work, is it real, is it valuable, should it win awards, do most generators even work in the first place, etc. All those concepts hurt to talk about because like comedy, if you have to explain art, it doesn't work. It's interesting to see, because the AI art can be absolutely amazing, but at the end of the day, do we actually care for it?
In the case of music, bands have something tied to them, their followings. When bands get caught in a scandal, it completely changes how people view the music as a whole. Their own interpretation of what the song meant to them personally is now distorted by the thought that a song could be written with criminal sexual or physical intention. Bands break up after these kinds of scandals, and people who once had deep emotional ties to their music will have that bond immediately severed.
So why do we like art? I liked this video because it was well written, had good editing, and had good audio and mixing added into it. Well what if the script was written by AI? It'd be the same words. What if the editing was done by AI? It would still be the same paced video. What if Ana used a deepfake or a vtuber rig? The eyes would not have changed from white to bloodshot. That proves the video has soul, that it is something someone not only cares about, but has the passion to talk about, research, write, record, edit, mix, and then be confident to post it. So what if an AI made every part of this video? I simple wouldn't give a fuck at the end of the day. It took no effort.
If a band can lose a fanbase over a scandal, what would happen if someone was ousted as an AI artist after claiming to be hand drawn? Is there still value?
its scary , exciting, profitable and also demoralising
i personally think many people are totally on board with AI "making art acessable for everyone" but that comes from the misconception of having talent for music/art/creativefields is crucial to be good or even becoming good.
(and btw you only need a pencil/coal and some medium to draw on. its not like it is expensive)
and also many people dont think of the negative sides as long as they arent personally affected by it(i mean artists are kinda really rare , because : its hard, there is no streamlined education in most countries ,the financials are "bad" and also most in the community think artists are hopeless individuals anyway :D ).
i think ai will obviously not remain just being a tool but more a replacement and probably will make many workers obsolete(secretaries,newspaperwriters ,djs ... ) because why not? most people dont care if they interact with a human or not and if its cheaper they are for the robot/machine, thats shown by history.
what im asking myself is : why we make "fun" jobs obsolete ?
i mean artistic jobs arent jobs which give you a lot of money ,prestige,power or a stable income, so why people still try to do it ? because its fun and interesting.
in contrast to that are people happy collecting the garbage,cleaning streets,cleaning floors,talking with customers about complains(i dont think most of them are)?
creating "your" own song seems like a cool thing but think about it, are you really proud because you pressed a button a few times without much thought because you probably dont have much understanding of music anyway? xD is it still something worth?
i personally am always in awe if i see/hear something like "an old man build for 25 years a church in spain without any modern tools alone" because its a long journey connected with much work .if someone would build the same church with modern tools, maybe even 3d printed it its already in my opinion not as incredible as before but add on top of that that not even a human came up with the idea , what remains ? a church which is replicatable a thousand times its not unique anymore.
I recommend you to check out, with urgency even, "The End of Art: An Argument Against Image AIs", it's a video that says more than I could on this small space.
Two thing I like to add, is that automatization of the mundane aspects or one the individual lacks ability on, it takes away the, you know, working with other people part of making art. And also isn't it a bit sketchy that "AI is helping the real artist, while corporations that are just about mass produced art are the ones in trouble" while putting together an entire trailer for Hollywood?
Awesome points you brought up; while I do get the benefit of using AI to help with skills you lack, you also do miss out on the collaborative opportunities the process can offer. Often it's working with others that can help bring new or even better ideas to the table! (Though on the other hand, I'm also torn with the fact that not everyone - especially independent creators - can necessarily afford to hire the efforts of other creatives.)
Great catch on the real artists vs. corporations argument btw - completely missed that and it only shows how these large companies can still ultimately benefit.
@@ana-isabel While I get the point of the indie creators having problems hiring other people, I find hard to sympathise with people in such a hurry to kick fellow artists out of their projects, like if profit is more important than the message, the art itself and your own colleagues.
I've been discussing this with a friend, though it wasn't prompted by AI art, but in general the AI-automated manufacturing of things in general. One possibility could be, that at some point in the future, people might be happy to pay extra for things, whatever they might be if they were labelled as "manufactured by humans" or something such.
It's that simple "Yet" that is constantly repeated throughout the video is what is unnerving. A.I cannot do X and Y. Yet.
One of the AI weakness is it can't make art if there is no data to be fed.
So, all the artist have to unite to prohibited all of their works to be fed. Or make a regulation, if AI company/user wants to get more "data", it have to get permission from the artist.
I like the idea of artists being able to consent to whether their works could be trained by AI. That, or at least in some way compensated when their stuff's thrown into these datasets. :/
The data is already gathered since 2016. Too late to stop it now.
You said that it was limited to written works and pictures, but there've been relatively recent strides with AI models that produce video. These AI generated videos now have a greater level of visual consistency than they did at the start of the year. I recommend a channel called Two Minute Papers for easy to digest short form videos about various software advancements. I anticipate that it won't be long at all before they can produce photorealistic FMVs and stylized animations.
Holy shit, that's wild! I gotta check this out - thanks for sharing (and I coincidentally watched a video by TMP when making this essay, too bad I missed this update).
imagine you call yourself an „ai artist“ and when your niece asks you to draw a cat on a piece of paper for her, but you don't even know how to hold a pencil 🥲
Imagine holding a pen and spending 10 minutes for a stupid cat pic. Not me
@@BlackBull. So you just admitted that you can't hold a pencil?
@@AironyAiNgl i am architecture school dropout. I had 3 projects every week and i was decent in drawing but also i was lazy and i had a problems with my teachers. So yes i am not very good at holding a pencil right now
I've seen pictures and such online and it's great to know that these free versions aren't really up-to-snuff with what we expect out of artists. But it still concerning about how good these AI programs are getting and I fear for creators that may have their livelihood stolen. I do think, that for a long time, AI will not be able to generate specific personalities in writing and grasp humor as well as most of the humans that create. Grammarly seems to take a lot of the personality that I put into my writings and while I do enjoy not having to go back and spellcheck, taking personalities out of writing is taking away what it means to be human, for a "more correct" way of doing things.
Love seeing your videos and the little snips of you and your friend laughing at the Michael Cerra pictures was pure comedy. Thank you for this.
Stable Diffusion is free and can produce some fantastic stuff.
Thanks for watching! 😄 And very true on the AI-generated writing and personality - impressive as some of the tools were at being able to form coherent passages, they were often done in the blandest, safest voice possible; even when I had the option of generating something in a particular author's style. I think, to some extent, AI still isn't the best at creating images with _intentionally_ witty commentary either - the results typically range from "meh" to generic to unexpectedly absurd/hilarious (not to mention the fact that it's a bit hard to apply the exact visual gag you're after given the randomized generation). So some silver linings I guess us artists can hold onto for now :')
If the generators can’t scrape online, they can’t produce results, whereas humans can take inspiration from any environment
I have been saying for years now, automation is coming. Not just for simple jobs, but eventually every job can be automated. BUT the thing I do believe in is that humans will always have preferences. Just like people still buy hand-built furniture instead of factory built, just like people still enjoy restoring old things, human-made objects will still hold reverence in the eyes of the masses. The important thing we need to focus on is how to support ourselves when everything does eventually become automated. We need UBI, UHC, and other such things set up before this becomes an issue.
Agreed with needing to establish solid support systems! And I do appreciate this silver lining; as I mentioned in the vid I think human-made/hand-crafted art will only grow in value as AI-generated works become more widespread. It's just a bummer that the digital art industry, a popularised field that plenty of traditional artists already had to adapt their skills for ( _and_ provide plenty of entry-level opportunities into full-time creative careers - especially in an increasingly online age) are at risk of being largely overtaken by automation. Again, I do hope that's just me being paranoid though and these tools do find themselves working alongside, rather than as, artists.
You think the "elites" are going to give everyone universal basic income once everything is automated? You zoomers are so silly. That shit is just fluff politicians say to get naive kids, the sickly, and lazy people to vote for them. They have absolutely zero intention of doing anything like that for the peasants. Once automaton is truly here they won't need the working class at all and just let us die off. Don't believe me, go look at how they deal with homelessness. Once you stop being useful you get discards.
@@deadhouse3889 😆 zoomer? Born ‘84 my friend. And if you read my comment I never say they will give UBI. But I know if tens of millions of Americans are all jobless, there would be a new civil war.
@@neozen104 What are you talking about? You said we need UBI set up before we get fully automated...
@@deadhouse3889 Just because I believe we need to, doesn't mean I believe our government will do it.
I have an issue with it because the reasons the people are /for/ it like to get it in for a deadline just baffle me. Cause instead of relying on the ai, maybe make the industry better? Why are there unfair deadlines, why patch that with an ai when its the deadline that should be changed.
Its another bandage fix to promote more toxic capitialism shit rather than actually change the system to benefit the people overall.
Really good point - I wish I mentioned this in the video! Plenty of creative industries already face unfair working conditions; using AI to "speed up" the processes only serves to normalize this :/
Great point.
@@ana-isabel Exactly :I what doesn't help is that it's been pretty engraved to always treat every problem with a quick fix. It's so normalized it's hard to remember that oh wait it's bad lol
I would definitely recommend Cat Graffam's video on this subject, she's also an artist and offers great insight on the possible implications of AI generated art.
Every day my prejudice towards AI grows
You'd better be willing to abandon that prejudice if/when they gain sapience. At that point we'll have a new class of people to protect and hating bots will not help us in that endeavor.
@@starchilde8698 Sure. But generalized AI is a completely different beast than the specialized tools we have today, and we do not owe it creation.
@@starchilde8698 go back to Twitter to harass artist, and telling them how they skills are useless whaile steeling they art, AI bro, like the clown you are.
@@starchilde8698 Those people had better mind their own business.
Stuff becomes art once it has been given a special context by an artist. A.I. can do many things but it can't generate context.. ..I'm not sure if it will be able to do so until it becomes sentient maybe or self conscious.
True. At the moment human artists still have the upper hand at being able to give their pieces "meaning" or actual personality.
I personnaly used prompts to take off the sketching placing and flat colouring steps to focus on details and expression to complete where the AI lacks too it's neat. A lot of time saved.
Right now, midjourney and dalle2 own the copyrights to all art created using their ai tool.
Other art programs don’t claim ownership of the art created with them.
Every time you feed a prompt into the ai machine you give it your unique idea and teach it.
Your should own your ideas. You should be able to profit from your ideas.
These programs trick you to give them your ideas in the name or research and progress. Yet, other science and tech fields compensate research participants in some fashion. What are you getting when you enter your prompts? A dopamine hit. That’s it. You don’t own the art outright. They do. Sure, you can use it to a degree, but so can they. And if they reproduce it and make $1,000,000 off it, you don’t get royalties from that.
So I decided to switch gears and take art seriously, maybe even enter an artistic career. I know my weaknesses and I'm working on them... but now here comes AI saying, "Oh you don't need to do that, just give us your idea."
I'm not sure I'm good at ideas. I have some, but I'm not the kind of guy to get excited over them. What excites me is imagery - beautiful paintings, drawings, animation, and sculpture. Ideas are fun, sure, but it's a whole 'nother level seeing them play out... making them real. I know there's people out there who are "idea guys". For them I'm sure AI is perfect. But I'm not one of those people.
I look at AI as a threat. I think it's cool and I'm even fascinated to see what non-artist friends do with it - but the thing it's doing now is what I'm training to do. It forces me to reevaluate the purpose behind the time I spend... and frankly, sometimes art isn't fun. Sometimes it's nerve-wracking. Sometimes it's intimidating. Sometimes I don't want to do it. But I have to. I have to be a better artist. It's in there, I know I can improve. It's just I've spent decades not really trying. How many more do I have left? What will I have to look back on?
If I can't do it for money, I can at least do it for myself. I just hope that when time's up, that'll be enough.
Your bit on ideas is exactly why I can't help but question the constant reassurance that artists can still thrive as "directors, rather than craftsmen". Those promoting this are missing how not everyone merely enjoys the ideation/final output stage of the artistic process - many enjoy the actual stage of making it. And typically, it's this stage that helps you learn a lot more about yourself and your skills as an artist.
Thanks for sharing, and I hope you keep on with your art (if not for a career, then for the passion - I'm sure it'll be fulfilling either way) 🙌
My key takeaway from this video was "...at least for now"
Haha, the era of AI is just beginning 😬
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out-because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out-because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me-and there was no one left to speak for me.
-Martin Niemöller
I lost my job years ago to automation.
Skills that artists take a LIFETIME to learn. Nice vid. :)
The problem with Dall-E and a few others is that it keeps the technology away from everyone, limiting it. To properly have this technology effectively benefit the people, it'd have to be free for everyone. Something like Stable Diffusion. I'll also add that the technology is already here and is not going to go away, so it falls on us to adapt to that and take advantage of it.
some of the best ai art is now open source and downloadable to any system, dale 2 is barely keeping up these days
You describe a problem and tell how it's already solved. Software can't be locked up. We've known that since the eighties. How do people keep forgetting that?
@@doppelrutsch9540 No sarcasm with this question; are you raising a point, agreeing, or pointing out a criticism? Again, not being sarcastic just want to understand your point so I can respond well.
@@introspectiver1787 I was basically wondering what exactly your point was because you describe a "problem" and then also casually mention the fact that shows that it really isn't a problem at all.
I can't really adopt to it. My learning deficultiy have an influenc on math, gremmer, so I can't learn programing, so I can't work with those AIs. Those literaly ruind, and taken away my future.
AI art is definitely a complicated issue, there is a lot of potential for very useful features for it and situations where it could be used, however it is definitely worrying especially during a time of art theft and NFTs. Whilst i fully believe it will be a positive in some cases, it needs to be moderated and monitored. Especially the machine learning it uses to get the style of image it produces is pre existing artwork and as such it not only brings up moral issues but also legal ones with copyrighted image.
Additionally there is no denying that the individuals who created the software are talented, the programs used to generate the art require skill to make and the work these programmers did should not be dismissed.
My ideal usage is it simply being a tool artists use, they upload their own art into a private or public databases (Obviously the artist decides if their database is private, public or exists whatsoever), and as such it can be used to develop templates. For example, an artist can use their database to develop a background to add too, or as a tool for inspiration during art block.
But the fundamental problem is that people will use it maliciously and steal others work. AI art exists so there is no one to take it away, all we can do is hope for people to use it responsibly and for it to be regulated.
Beautifully said; and I particularly like your idea of how artists could potentially use it as a tool for creating templates - didn't think about that!
It would be interesting to see how developers go about addressing the all the regulatory/copyright issues surrounding this tech. These problems are primarily why the programs have had such a negative rep in the art community, despite its admittedly impressive features.
I keep thinking of that scene from I Robot, where Will Smith’s character ask the robot “can a machine turn a canvas into a beautiful masterpiece?”
The problem with the opt-in/opt-out idea is that there’s no way to stop someone running Stable Diffusion locally from using a web scraper to take them, and then prompting away the watermark. Open source ChatGPT alternatives are being made with no restrictions, and I saw a few people saying they had made a web scraper that can scrape through TH-cam video transcripts. Text-to-video comes out and someone’s entire personality online will be able to be deepfaked, voice, video, etc. There’s no enforcement mechanism to stop this that would work. It really sucks for the impact it’s going to have on people, but there’s no way to stop it.
I needed to see this video. You said some things that actually brought this artist/aspiring game dev a lot of comfort. Thank you.
Glad I was able to in some way. 😊Thanks for watching!
I wouldn't mind AI art if it was based on public domain artists and people didnt think they are artists for writing prompts. Those are the points that bother me.
Yep, can't help but get irritated when they use an actual living artist as a prompt, or even one of their artworks _as a base_ , and then call themselves a "digital artist". Worse yet is when they manage to accurately replicate an artist's style in a generated piece, and demand anyone sharing to "give them credit" (like the person who managed to automate pieces in the style of Kim Jung Gi shortly after his passing). 😬
Prompting your idea is commissioning art not making art. We were able to get our ideas to canvas without having necessary skills long before these AI came to existence, by the centuries old method of hiring artists. Now instead of hiring an artists we will simply use a machine. Your comparison regarding the photography was spot on.Cameras were a tool and they were never meant to replace painters and as a result they ended up creating a brand new category of art because they gave people a new tool to build a new skill. What new skill the AI image generators really open us a path for? Our ability to describe things existed for a very long time. In fact we already have art forms in the form of poetry or prose centered around conveying emotions with words. Anyways, good video. You have explained the sh..tstorm we are currently in very well. We need more people to raise their voices like this before the suicides begins. Artists are fragile beings that survive on their hopes and dreams and this technology has the potential to take that away from many of them.
I forgot to say, it is a brilliant and illuminating video essay. I'm glad I stumbled across it.
something I did notice is that A.I art is a lot more focused on 3D-painterly like objects
so whether or not they can replicate more flat art is a doubt thing
Huh haven't you seen all this anime waifus people are generating? They look pretty flat to me ;)
Also it can replicate what ever style you feed it with (Trainingdata)
Predicting the future is always difficult. I personally think with unregulated growth can became dangerous in of itself. Say in a year or two only when AI art started become dominant part of the internet? What then? Other AI don't know if something is made by a human or themselves and with more AI art in the mix they might get the wrong perception of what something is and ever subsequent image becomes more corrupted into a sort of art singularity.
Given, the way to combat this is just waiting longer; Them to learn how to differentiate a wider array of concepts better so they won't think a blob of AI-made city elements a proper city etc.
Small take, Prompt Engineering sounds hilariously ironic as people describe things more like a machine so machines can make things more like a human.
Haha, the irony with "prompt engineering" completely flew over my head, good catch. And I definitely think that as the tech grows, better regulations should be put in place as its further developed - particularly with how these programs scrape their art-related data.
On the prompt engineer topic: if you go to the grocery store and buy ingredients, but your grandma cooks the food, would you call yourself the chef?
If not, you also shouldn't call yourself an artist just because you can write minimal keywords.
same question when photography arrive compared to painting and same when digital photography arrived compared to argentic. We still paint and do photography in all case.
As an artist, i actually don't care for AI art. As long as some sort of regulations come into play to protect copyrighted materials and individual artists from AI training, i am good with it.
I personally think 90% of value in art is artist himself and "Oh no, AI steal jobs from artists" say more about lack of confidence in individual abilitiy more than anything. Yeah i am not amazing at art and i am not super famous and don't work in industry, but i make art, i love making art and there are people who love me making art and nowhere in this path there is a space for "Insert machine art to ruin life".
I should note however that AI art will most likely find place in corporate art, to which i must say not much will change. Corporate art already produced by art generalists under supervision of art directors and art leads, which is already as soulless as you can get. And it's already often uses someone else's work as a reference, without crediting original artwork, or use artist for creating an artstyle, which will be used over and over again, even past their contractual obligations. In this case AI art will cut the middleman and all the art generalists will have to find their footing in free market, by either finding own individuality or forming some other project under other leads.
" As long as some sort of regulations come into play to protect copyrighted materials and individual artists from AI training, i am good with it." Amen to that.
In a vacuum I have no problem with Ai art, but technology isn't developed in a vacuum. It is created in a political, economical, ideological context.
Right now, it is perfectly legal for these Ai programs to take existing copyrighted material and use for “training”.
And That should not be the case.
It should not be normal that these companies took the work of artists without permission.
There should be Ai protection laws for artists . And frankly everyone else. They are taking everyones dater.
@DoremianCleff Good point on how not much will change in the "corporate art" realm, though I do think these generators will just make it far easier (and faster) for these soulless corporations to exploit/bootleg the original works of living artists. As you mentioned, better protection does need to be put in place if anything else.
I have to disagree on concerns surrounding employment = lack of confidence in one's ability, though. Aspiring professional artists still need to eat regardless of how passionate or confident they may already be in their skills; and with the industry having long been a competitive one way before the rise of AI, this tech can just potentially dwindle their employment opportunities further. Often it's these corporate or entry-level jobs (that are most at risk) that help them make a decent living to further pursue their other passion projects.
Fair enough, although I speak more of a current situation, rather than possible future. Ofcourse low level artists within industry need those possitions and they absolutely should have it and there should be regulations for that as well. But what i am saying is more about how just about everyone talking about AI art as some sort of boogeyman, that will eat artists, even if they have nothing to do with industry and never had plans to go there to begin with. I've heard people going "Oh, i might as well not even start learning art, cause AI" which is a ridiculous statment. Why persuade anything, when everything been done and better. I am talking about this kind of "it's all gone" attitude, that got nothing to do with an actual reality or possible future of thing.
I probably could have worded it better, but what said is said.
I like using the AI art software cause it’s really fun to use and see what could be if I’m lucky to get a good one. But a couple rules I have with it is treat the AI art as if I commissioned someone. I didn’t make it, and it technically isn’t even mine even if I imported and image of myself or my own character as the base image. Even if it looks exactly or better than how I envisioned it since it used other artworks to create it. I also keep it to conversation meaning I only show it if the topic of AI art comes up or if I wanna show what it cooked up this time to my friend. I make an exception for certain very specific cases if I ever decided to post online. (Still working out the kinks for that one). I think it’s a generally decent baseline for how I can use it for now.
I am concerned of the malicious intents people are using it for though as I’ve already seen someone take a WIP from a livestream, use it’s base in an AI and post it as their own before the real artist finished. I think it can co-exist with real art just it needs *A LOT* of rules. A TH-camr had the idea that AI art pools should consist of people who opt in to allow their arts to be used in the pool rather than any art they find on the internet, or that artists should know or at the very least receive a counter of how many times their art has been used in AI, just something with consent and compensation. This technology is highly fascinating but I would like to see it regulated enough for majority of people to accept it.
Agreed; the tech is admittedly a lot of fun when you're just messing around with friends or testing the limits of what it can make - but we've already got people attempting to replicate the styles of certain artists, passing off AI works as digital art commissions, and (as you mentioned) sniping livestreams before the artist could even finish their piece. I'd love to see a future where AI can work well as just another tool in a digital artist's toolkit, but it's such an unregulated, ethical landmine at the moment. I think at the very least, artists deserve the option to at least opt-in or out of AI training.
As an illustrator and writer, the interest in AI as a "creative tool" very much concerns me.
Some of my colleagues use it to generate things, and it's infuriating to me.
I've seen it replicate the style of dead artists, I've seen people make and SELL comics based on C.S. Lewis' Abolition of Man essay and with AI art. That means that the "writer" of that comic DID NOTHING but train a computer by inputting sentences. He says so in the comic. I work in a comic shop as a day job and having to sell that boiled my blood. Literally had to take a minute to set my feelings aside.
I think it may not be dangerous to the average freelancer YET. But it will. Please do not relinquish your pencils to the machines in your haste to quicken the grind. It will end our jobs.
AI looks pretty and cool but it doesn't make me feel excited or laugh or feel a connection in comparison to other artists and what they create.
Exactly, it's 'cause it lacks the personality and character unique to the artist (or at least in this case, the prompter) themselves. It only takes from already existing artists and how _they_ craft _their_ art; and (at least imo) this leaves little room for actual self-expression. :/
Additional thingkings- if AI ever gonna become a person I do hope humanity will accnowledge them as people.
As for now, the Techbros seem to vote for a future where the possible AI people are treated as slave labour in human stead (as dicated by hyper capitalism most of these sort of people like)
The additional addendum I want to add- most people whom I see being extremaly pro AI replacing people are deeply capitalistic in their thinking.
All about "free market", "market will decide" etc, not concidering that this breeds neoslavery instead of a post scarcity.
In additionthe idea of AI "predicting" your choices is deeply concerning- as behind this "good idea" even further step into state survalence is standing.
Companies "predicting" people's choices is already a problem, be it as an example with doctors telling people to not speak about their medical conditions when Alexa is turned on as an example
Oooh, an interesting (if not super troubling) take on the whole AI prediction side of things! And yes, if we ever live to see the day AIs gain sentience, it'll be a whole other Pandora's Box of ethical issues to address. I think its easy to simply either be for or against the use of this tech since AI today is ultimately just a (highly advanced) tool with no real independence - but once that day comes, there will be rights worth considering.
@@ana-isabel
Yeah, I'm interested in it far more for that- as I di hope creation of a sentience in a lab will make people finally reconcider how they treat each other.
Not exactly as a fear of "You can be replaced" but rather "If you don it to a real world artificial that you probably did or want to do it to the naturally born". As for now, the AI debate showcases that most of the Techbro capitalists would just want AI to be slave than a statement
I asked Chat GPT to write a comment for this video. This is what I received:
Sure, I can help you with that! Here's a potential TH-cam comment for Ana Isabel's video about AI art:
"Wow, this is truly fascinating! It's amazing to see how AI is pushing the boundaries of what we consider to be 'art.' I never thought I'd see the day where a machine could create something so beautiful and thought-provoking. It really makes you wonder about the future of creativity and what other possibilities there are. Thanks for sharing this insightful video, Ana Isabel!"
First of all: this is a good video!
I hope there are going to come more videos likes these made by artists.
So now to the actual comment:
The only use that is morally okay to me is to use AI art to make a first impression to go off. You still make the whole artwork yourself but you use AI to generate the first impression that you can use to get a better grasp of your own idea. I like Wombo, as an example, because it usually stays quite abstract in the result, leaving a lot to interpretation. That can inspire and really doesn't hurt anyone as you can still discern it from handmade art. Pretty much everything else is questionable at best to me.
That article in the video, with that Genshin fan-art that was completed with AI, really is scary in my opinion. That makes it so much easier to discredit artists for their work or straight up steal it.
On Twitter you can even see people accusing actual artists of using AI to make their art. I think that development is really concerning.
To me AI CAN have good uses, it isn't all black and white, but I see many MANY ways this can and will exploit actual artists and take credit of their work.
It certainly won't end artists but it will inflict a lot of damage before it MAY start to become something beneficial.
ALSO: Everyone who calls themselves an actual artists just for typing in some prompts... What the hell. You didn't make the thing, the soul of that thing comes from other artists who still cared to actually work for something in their life!
I don't mind it if they show it around as long as they do not call themselves an artist for just being able to type a few words in. That skill isn't unique or something you work hard for. You wouldn't say as a factory worker that you made the thing just because you were able to configure a mashine and press "Start". AI is a mashine, not a tool as it doesn't require anyone to wield it.
Well, with that said:
Thanks for reading and have a nice day everyone!
Bias is probably going to be a problem. They need to learn how to draw images first and how they do it may not be transparent, especially when the AI is owned by a private company. I think we already have enough algorithms that do something and that we need to trust that they do more good than bad.
A freely available, fully transparent AI might be fun to play around with. Though, I'm not sure how well it will at creating something new. When you feed it with stuff that already exists, then the best it can do is probably just more of the same. That may be a good thing as it just means that we'll still need regular artists doing their own thing, going into whole new directions.
This is pretty scary stuff, but i do like the angle of this encouraging creatives to stay ahead of the game.
as a part-time graphic designer, apps like CANVA really shows how much can be automated.
Also, in design school, we used stuff like "brooklyn bar menu" and "hipster logo generator" to make sure we had our own voice, and weren't just churning out BASIC-ass concepts
Funny (or sad) thing is that there will probably be people who'll make more money writing prompts than the artists whose styles were stolen.
Except apparently prompt generators are starting to emerge, so it looks like those jobs may be overtaken eventually too...? 👀
@@ana-isabel "Mr. AI can you draw me This please?"
"Sure, Mrs. AI 😌"
Humans gonna just watch and eat popcorn 🍿👀
I'm a musician working on a solo album, so I used an AI art generator to make an album cover. I'm hoping to eventually find a human artist to make a more "final" version. In other words, I don't think AI will truly replace human artists.
I'm open for art commissions btw
I believe that both A.I are and human art can coexist in a way. Like you said, we have cameras in our phones yet photographers definitely still exist. And despite people in the past saying photos are the death of painting, it’s still being taught in Art Classes today as well. I just hope that business’s and corporations realize they can’t over rely on A.I Art and destroy tons of jobs, that’s the only part I’m really concerned about
Sad part is there's already evidence of corporations spending millions into the production and evolution of these Ai art generators. One of them being one of Elon Musks companies.
My problem is corporations looking at AI art and thinking artist should be able to work faster with less pay "cause all you do is type a few words and the computer will do it being an artist is easy".
@@seekittycat Now that is a very good point, coming from both an artist and A.I. user. What it comes down to is getting out of comfort zones, embracing the change and find ways how AI might actually benefit you in your profession. I imagine many portrait painters back in the day had to adjust when cameras appeared, but more than a century later, we still have portrait artists. Heck, I myself am a portrait drawing teacher doing just fine.
@Spicy Shark - I'm trying to hold out hope that the tech can, somehow, come to _co-exist_ rather than replace the efforts of human artists, especially with better regulations in artistic protection in place. Though in all honesty, I have little to no faith that large businesses/corporations are going to "realize" they have to withhold AI tech for the sake of saving jobs; I think that as long as they can get okay results in a fraction of the time and money, they'll do it. 😕
I'm both curious and anxious to see how employment trends will inevitably change and (as @Nathan Lorenzana points out) professionals in the field will learn to adapt to these developments. It may very likely increase the novelty of traditional art, just as portrait drawings/paintings today have a lot more novel value than a selfie taken from your smartphone.