I'm a trained conceptual artist. That job has gone destroyed by AI. Will that stop me from making art? No it won't. I love making art. I love drawing and creating stuff. No AI will replace that itch, what's in my heart.
That is true, but it will stop people from being able to profit from their passion. Which is sad, because it makes sense to want to market what you are very passionate and, presumably, skilled/will be skilled at.
The lack of empathy is what is most disturbing. Non-artists have no problem with AI being in a position to overtake the art industry. What if someone made a program that rendered their livelihood and craft redundant, though?
This has been happening for decades at this point, now it's suddenly a massive problem because people that work in the comfort of an office are having their ''''''jobs'''''' threatened. This whole backlash just goes to show that blue collar workers are seen as worthless, where was the outrage when machinery replaced the physical labourers?
@@snail736 1. Dude, people have been talking about the danger automation represents for blue color jobs since this has been a thing. The Cyberpunk genre has critiqued this thing since it existed. 2. The reason people were ok with menial jobs being replaced is because most people did not like those, and instead hoped that automation would free them from bad working conditions. 3. Your authoritarian leanings can clearly be seen here with your hatred of artists. 4. Artistic jobs have not been forced on artist. They have been chosen, to allow people to express their creativity and passion.
@@snail736 The humanist ideal of automation was to replace dull labour so people can do something more fulfilling with their lives, but can't you see we're now devaluing the tasks that give meaning to human lives? And automation has been discussed for a centuries: the Luddites were in the early 1800s and they just wanted to retain their jobs; they didn't even mind using the new power looms, just about realizing some of the cost savings themselves.
@@snail736 I mean there have always been backlashes against automation, in case you haven't noticed. If you didn't notice the backlashes, that's your problem. I work in accounting, and psychopathic programmers salivate at the prospect of automating my job for over a decade. I do see the practicality of that, at least. But the thing is, with art it's entirely pointless and it serves to do nothing but devalue it and ruin it for artists. And it ruined online art galleries for me. Those that didn't ban it that is, but who knows how much it will advance and become indistinguishable from human art one day.
Looking at A.I art is really a throwback. I rememebered when my industry became automated an artist friend told me at least her job will never be automated. But here we are right now. That being said, having survived the automation of my industry. Perhaps i could share something we did to save ourselves. In the late 2000s, as 3d printing became more prevalent there was a fear that one day these things could simply print out all the things we could make. People scoffed on it, no way could they ever get that precise. But they did, and they absolutely devalued and destroyed pottery. Any idea, any sculpture, any technique you knew could now be imitated functionally by a 3d printer, even worse there were random generators primitive as they may be that could create any kind of geometry for the machine. But we survived and we did for a few reasons. It turns out these companies mass producing pottery in china were trying their best to get their materials as cheap as possible. Perfect as they looked, they had bad smells, they were brittle and they were also not safe for health. Many of the chemicals they used to create their synthetic clays were highly hazardous for health and the chinese public took notice of it. They were everywhere and they still are. They flood 100s of pages of taobao in all aspects. But in a weird way this corporate greed, the greed of selling so much and using terrible materials made people desire real human handmade items. In China, artists created tags 手作 shouzuo became a tag used by artists to to signal to be public handmade goods, people banded together into studios and began to build public trust in human made products. Potters reached out on social media, with their own influence or made use of current cultural narratives to spread awareness of the importance and value of human made work. Fast forward to 2022 and even though a lot of us got wiped out, those that survived today are rebuilding from this apocalypse. Prices of pottery allow for a livable living, the public in china recognise the dangers of mass machine made pottery and always seek out human made goods if possible. But the battle is not over... Companies in china don't stay stagnant they too picked up that people like handmade goods, so they started to add 手作 into their tags too, they took amateur photos to pretend to be artists. And this is where we are now. Trying to figure out what to do, but for what is worth, these companies are also lazy, they will refresh every sale and it becomes clear a mass produced piece was sold. Once this happens word starts to spread to avoid the shop and people having been educated to do so, do just that in most cases. Its clear the public does not take kindly as these companies 'skinwalkers' as i call them actively delete comments from people confronting them. Long story short i don't think artists can expect governments to care and i don't think artists can stop A.I art. But what artists can do is to create and spread awareness on the importance of human made art and why they should buy from people instead of souless companies and machines. Companies will also do their best to produce at the cheapest possible ways they can if they were to get into fine art its highly likely they will use inferior canvases and frames etc. Hence in china, presentation is very important, artists don't just sell you a product, you are given it in a box with a letter of thanks and its good material and beautiful to look at. Something these companies can never be bothered to do.
But isn't the later half of gen z and gen alpha dumb as hell? , They already pouring boiling water on themselves for a tiktok trend and they are the people of future, the old people and the relatively young who would understand us are not going to stay for long , i remember my little sister cussing at me because i tried to help her with a math homework, she said she would get a failing grade than be tutored by me
"importance of human made art and why they should buy from people instead of souless companies a" Your wall of text fell apart here. No one will cares, and no one will care, ever.
@@Nyfiken-8 It is just a tool. AI art will become one of the various art mediums among the others. It would not replace "Art" because it can't emulate the physical experience of standing in front of a piece of art made of canvas, wood, paint, oil, marble. The materiality is important. By the way, photography did not kill painting, cinema didn't kill theater, electronic music didn't kill acoustic music, 3D printers didn't kill hand made sculpture... Everything will be fine.
@@Nyfiken-8 I hope so... Can't be sure though. I just think people are always scared of technology. I also noticed that they tend to compare art with menial work. These jobs can be automated for various obvious reasons plus they are given a low social value. It is not the case for artistic jobs. And sadly, almost no one in this comment section seem to understand that applied art and visual art are not the same thing. perhaps some illustrator jobs in big video games companies or advertising compagnies can be partially automated for economical reasons. These "artworks" are juste technical documents with some artistic value that can be done by a human a being or an AI... There is some kind of confusion though... for instance "concept art" is not Art, it is a technical artistic skill.
@@alexandrekorobov4087 seems like many are excited to teach AI their art skills, and not just technical skills, in this respect becoming tools themselves. Will this make human artists abundant like many menial workers? Probably not. My initial comment concerns the basic purpose of AI. Financial incentive and curiosity would be drivers, but where does our obsession with replacing even what makes our lives worth living take us, ultimately?
I spent decades of my life learning foreign languages, only to see the translation industry destroyed by AI. The inferiority of the machine translations a few years back did not stop the destruction of the industry. The machine translation cost nothing, and so the price for all translation came crashing down, because the bottom feeders used machine translation. I found myself paid half price to 'just edit' (as if it was less work) a translation done by machine which was basically unintelligible so that I had to go back to the original and translate it myself. Most clients, the bottom of the pyramid that kept the industry going, did not care about the quality of the translation. If we expect that clients prizing human made products will save industries we are being very delusional. ... the vast majority of clients will go for the process that costs less.
„the vast majority of clients will go for the process that costs less.” While that is a claim that makes sense... There are several factors that make be doubtful of this. First and foremost, Vinyl sales are at an all time high, with no sign of stopping now, and they are even doing better in gen-Z then in millennials. Second, physical books still sale better then digital ones, and are actually doing even better in millennials and in gen-Z then most will expect. Third, translation is an utilitarian need most of the time. So that is a factor that needs to be taken into consideration.
@@laurentiuvladutmanea3622 Excellent point. Now is art more like a vinyl? or is it more like a translation service. Debatably.. I'm leaning towards art being a service akin to translation. I think it has been this way long before ai came to fruition btw. Client wants art... often for a purpose, a reason. Maybe its a company logo or a character design for a cartoon. The things that bring the client value is whether this suits their needs and less so how many drops of sweat went into the creation of the product. Art is oddly utilitarian in a sense.
@@cachauable I think that is to people who don't understand art. for artists who do art it's different. The work that goes into art is to make sure a particular message is communicated. It is communication a form of conversation through non verbal means. So I would not say it's completely utility based. Marxist argue that art acts as a superstructure so it tells a lot about our society that we see it as utility rather then communication. I guess fault is in art education, and AI art is taking off cause people are used to seeing art as just pretty pictures. It's said that architecture tells a lot about a civilization and it seems it's true. Everything is now minimal, low effort, maximizing utility and function over aesthetics it's logical and productive but it's also cold, lazy and uninspiring existing to serve a purpose of it's creation and nothing more.
As a working artist and someone that cares immensely about human art, you just put put all my fears surrounding this on the plate and I hate you for it, but I also really appreciate you for it, if that makes any sense. Very important video and perspective more people needs to hear.
all these fears should be realised by everyone before theyre even created or come to fruition, We need to somehow create a large social wave that enforces lawmakers or politicians to fight against this... but how can we make them motivated to stop it?
@@gabudaichamuda2545 I see your point, but people have tried to "create a large social wave that enforces politicians to fight against this" for countless problems. Global warming, oil, democracy, guns, schools, it just never worked. And all of these issues are easy compared to AI, because at least we have some control over them. AI is digital, and owned by companies who have no interest in losing profit for the sake of art, supported by a government that will be more than happy to have less "artists" and more "workers" in their economy. I hate this. I want it to end, but it's been going on since before we were born. I'm not saying it's a lost cause, I just really want someone to come up with some concrete way of dealing with these things that isn't protesting and proposing new laws that are never gonna get pass anyways.
Same here! The way a knife craftsman cares about hand-made knives, we care about human-made art. The big question is: should we force other people to only enjoy human-mad art? We all buy cheaper manufactured knives that replaced a craftsperson-made product. I'm sure they're not thrilled about it, but it doesn't mean it's objectively wrong to manufacture objects? We can hope that, as for hand-made knifes, a part of the market still sufficiently appreciates human-made art to keep it going.
Some fantastic food for thought, I very much appreciate your insight on this touchy subject I’m actually recording a podcast with Hardy Fowler tomorrow on AI and I’m going to surely be tapping into your perspective
23:12 is the most important section of this video. I've seen so many people making that exact argument in the comments of my own analysis. The people who are cheering the hardest for this, idea guys who think this is the magic key to finally unlocking the story they have bottled up inside them; artists and especially writers who think they can cut everyone else out of the process and tell the story they've always dreamed of, will doom every artist alive to algorithmic irrelevance through their lack of solidarity and short-sighted solipsism.
I dont think this is the whole story. There will certainly be chaos in a variety of artistic industries for a period, but i think ultimately 1.People will still want to draw/paint/etc. 2. We will still need artists to create works that either these AI utilize, or that utilize these AI. You can certainly do a lot with a prompt, but theres still something to be said for understanding composition and being able to rough out your ideas to get a proper start. 3. People didnt want the camera to become so ubiquitous because it would put the painters out of business, people didn't want the radio to become big because it would put the local musicians out of business. You are not going to get anywhere if you keep shaking your tiny fist at the tides of history, noone cares about you. if your art or ambition gets swept away by this, chances are it was never gonna change much beyond your life, which means nothing much has changed, just draw your drawings and die in obscurity like everyone else. Our whole world is dead, all these reasons to protest AI are not reasons to protest AI, they are reasons to protest rampant capitalism, corporatism, inequity, etc. I wanna be very clear, I'm an artist and most people close to me are artists, i have plenty of sympathy for those who will be displaced or suffer as things change, but 1: The toothpaste doesn't go back in the tube, and 2: its not the AI its the money. Art should not be the kind of commodity it is, it should not be made for money, it should be made for the love of art. When you take those 2 points together its real issue, because the capitalism toothpaste doesn't go back in the tube either. We need to build a post-capitalist society IMO that allows all of these paradigms to flourish outside concerns of money. Most of our dayjobs are pointless nonsense and should end, the stock market should be burnt to the ground, artists shouldnt be grinding day to day just to finish commissions and survive, they should only draw when they want to. Social media as it exists today should be crushed into lifelessness and replaced with free open source solutions that prioritize the choices of the individual and abandon algorithmic feeds almost entirely accept as an opt-in. We will have plenty of algorithms we can apply wherever we want, theres no good reason to sell us their bullshit built in algorithms when we could be accessing free open source ones that prioritize what we desire them to. We could all have access to everything, forever, already, if we just chopped up a few rich people, used their abundant resources to build and train robots and AI to replace the jobs we hate, and then lived our lives doing what we want. I'm not saying noone will work, but realistically, if we actually banded together as an entire race, it would take a very small amount of hours per person to oversee crews of AI robots, or in a few cases, do the jobs themselves. People don't do jobs because they love them, they do things because they love them, and if they are lucky, those things earn them money. We don't need it to be that way and its not better. Art under AI COULD be deeper, not less deep, but yes, under capitalism, it could get pretty fucked. Eat the rich.
Great video. One thing that is worth pointing out, is that music isn't being treated differently because of musicians, but because so many of these musicians are signed to huge record labels that have the resources to enforce their copyright. The AI companies foresaw the legal trouble this could cause and said "let's not". As I say this, I do wonder if these "capped profit" companies are being short-sighted about images, because their datasets include intellectual property from companies like Disney, and that seems like a lawsuit waiting to happen.
I think there’s also an inherent difference in the amount of effort it takes to consume visual art versus music. It takes a second or 2 to look at an image and have a strong impression about it. It takes at least 30 seconds if not more to get an impression from audio, and 2-5 minutes to experience the entire thing. The effort to get feedback from the ai-generated pieces is much smaller and way faster for images. But make no mistake, ai is coming for every industry. The underlying problem is the way capitalism embraces automation as a means to reduce labor costs. Long-term, I imagine a world where human-created art (or any good), will be prized simply for its novelty and our inherent connection to it. But the short-term outlook is pretty grim for all workers and the way we trade our labor in exchange for the necessities to live our lives. They are just coming for visual artists first for the reasons outlined in this video.
This is just plain not true. Plenty of corporations have their codebases uploaded to GitHub but were captured by co-pilot largely without incident. There is one lawsuit that will probably be a precedent setter for the entire industry. Frankly, I don't think anything is going to come of the lawsuit
I like how fitting the drawn art piece is to the topic at hand. The conjoined mass of a creature with faint traces of humanity, merely displayed in recognizable shapes here and there. Faces, grimacing and laughing in hysteria, ignorant to the loss they incurred on themselves and others.
@@thealliedpowers I meant that this comment is very descriptive of something shown on screen... Does text bots know how to interpret what they "see" and comment about it?
@@AbraHaze84 interpretation and art commentary bots also take in data from the net so its about the same thing there. Just another artform being abused to make easy money.
It's really crazy to think in the not so distant future many artists may have to verify themselves as legit, by sending in some kind of private video or speedpaint to the website they upload on of their art process, to prove they're legit, and then once this is done, they can then get some kind of checkmark or something to prove they've been verified. But this looks like the future we're headed for. At least verification will give us a way to prove we're legit, so we don't get accused of using Ai.
@@diagorasofmelos4345 bruh the next step of human evolution is being dead while lines of code take over. sounds cool and here i thought i will get superpowers but i guess am dead and a program is pretending to be my grandson.
@@smail6865 Is it an actual speedpaint? I'm sure that if AI speedpaints start to surface, there will be other means of verification, even if it's going as far as sending physical artwork. Every digital artist is able to draw traditionally as well, even if we haven't picked up a pencil in ages in favor of tablet pen
Thanks for taking the time to make this video. I agree with more or less everything you said, but to be honest.. if I had any say in it I would want these 'tools' to be gone entirely. It's just another slippery slope into oblivion, whether they get your permission to participate or not, or whether they compensate you or not. To me the most disturbing thing about all this is the ongoing aggressive trend towards acceleration and devaluation of effort and time. Who actually wants this? Who has anything to gain from this on a long enough time line? Grifters, narcissists and corporations. It blows my mind how artists (the same ones who are upset by the capriciousness of social media algorithms) think this is somehow a good thing. We're already drowning in content oversaturation and the algorithms on twitter and IG reward constant activity. Now that these platforms are also being flooded by bright glittery and bizarre meaningless art ("created in collaboration with AI"), it's only going to get worse. If i had to force my thoughts in an optimistic direction, i'd say that maybe the complete oversaturation with this hollow visual drivel will make people hunger for art that actually has a voice behind it that you can feel. Maybe it will make people hungry to see something more human. I do feel like this is wishful thinking though, because if an image is distracting and bright enough, the eyes will go to it. It's easy to forget the value of humanity if you stop coming into contact with it. Especially when there's a million other things that could potentially be causing the depression and anxiety that it inevitably creates.
@Terrorists Win I am definitely planning too, I just have to properly organize my thoughts about it first (don't have the gift of Steven's eloquence lmao)
I will say that, while I may not represent the average person, AI art has made me fall in love with human made art all over again. I look at it with a level of wonder that I never have before. I am not a visual artist. I hope others feel this way too.
I feel like the biggest thing we have going against ai art is just the fact that people have an inclination and bias towards "real" art. This can be seen in sculpting, where hand sculpted artworks are valued more moulded factory line models. People follow their favourite artists similarly to how they follow their favourite bands. People use art as a means for interpersonal connection just as much as advertising or marketing in a corporate sphere. The community aspect of art and the respect to each other in the industry I hope will avoid the redundancy of artists.
Sadly, with our interactions with our favorite artists being limited to press releases and other digital social media, and the increased intelligence of automated chat bots, we may well experience in our lifetimes, not knowing if our favorite artists are real human beings doing original work, AI bots, or humans using AI bots as a way to exploit others, by offering the persona of being a human creation. Ironically enough, Philip K Dick, the famous sci-fi author, wrote about this sort of phenomena several decades ago. He was definitely tapped into something.
""The tactic of poisoning Linda Fox with small doses of mercury was an artful one. Long before she died (if she did die) she would be as mad as a hatter -- literally, since it had been mercury poisoning, mercury used to process felt hats, that had driven the English hatters of the nineteenth century into famous organic psychosis. I wish I had thought of that, Bulkowsky said to himself. Intelligence reports stated that the chanteuse had become hysterical when informed by a C.I.C. agent of what the cardinal intended if she did not decide for Jesus -- hysteria and then temporary hypothermia, followed by a refusal to sing "Rock of Ages" in her next concert, as had been scheduled. On the other hand, he reflected, cadmium would be better used than mercury because it would be more difficult to detect. The S.L. secret police had used trace amounts of cadmium on unpersons for some time, and to good effect. ...Galina said, "But if she's destroyed, the colonists will grumble. They're dependent on her." "Linda Fox is not a person. She is a class of persons, a type. She is a sound that electronic equipment, very sophisticated electronic equipment, makes. There are more of her. There will always be. She can be stamped out like tires." "I feel sorry for her," Bulkowsky said. How must it feel, he asked himself, not to exist? That's a contradiction. To feel is to exist. Then, he thought, probably she does not feel. Because it is a fact that she does not exist, not really. We ought to know. We were the first to imagine her. Or rather -- Big Noodle had first imagined the Fox. The A.I. system had invented her, told her what to sing and how to sing it; Big Noodle set up her arrangements...even down to the mixing. And the package was a complete success. Big Noodle had correctly analyzed the emotional needs of the colonists and had come up with a formula to meet those needs. The A.I. system maintained an ongoing survey, deriving feedback; when the needs changed, Linda Fox changed." - Philip K. Dick, The Divine Invasion (1981)
That bias is solely cultural though. You can see this by people changing their mind once a piece they previously enjoyed was revealed to them to be generated. Or if that information is simply not known, there are well liked musicians who are essentially produced with assembly line precision, with dozens of people working on the tracks.
@@reck0n3r Dude the covers on his books are SO MUCH BETTER than a lot of the current digital made book covers. They are on a style like the covers of old videogames and it is just phenomenal the level of draftsmanship that they present.
As a game developer myself, I hate to say it but I will use AI created background art for free, and hire less graphic artists because I am a one man studio. I know article authors who feel the same way about pictures for their articles etc... And we are just the tip of the iceburg. There will be less work for graphic artists overall as AI quality improves and surpasses those of humans.
Ok. What if they trained Ai based on stock and consented art? U know what, You would still be hating it. Ai won't replace real artists using canvas. It will only replace boring unoriginal clones of digital artists that just changed eyes and hair color of characters. Ai doesn't generate just by prompts. U can draw better stuff using img2img by improving your sketches and anatomy. Ai is here to stay. People who draw for fun don't earn money. People who draw for money don't enjoy it. It's like any other job. I'm a professional artist and used to draw for fun since childhood. I started posting some very good art online, but I hated it when I did it for money. But Ai is good. Yes. Cope with it. Stop hating ai. Read the free IMF book *Gen-Ai: Future of Work* and choose the jobs that won't be replaced by Ai.
Techno-utopians: in the future, soul-crushing menial labour will be automated so humans can focus instead on art and self-enrichment Techbros: we've automated all art and creativity so our wage drones won't be distracted from their soul-crushing menial labour
Honestly, this was one of my biggest shocks when seeing this thing originally. I used to be an actual tech utopian, so it was a massive shock how easily people accepted the exact opposite of what is meant to happen.
This point is under explored, even if posted as a half-meme. If I may spur on the conversation a step further: there are debates on whether or not some things that have been automated/industrialized are wholly good. For instance, agricultural development. Some disagree that GMOs are good and they have arguments against their long term health benefits. Others have described a nearly apocalyptic scenario regarding the abuse of farmland, and how it has been ransacked beyond sustainable repair (for instance, the Standard Process Inc.'s take regarding supplements and why we need whole food supplements versus manufactured supplements). Even more are pronouncing doomsday regarding the decline of the effectiveness of antibiotics, not due to modern medicine's prior whimsical measures against the common cold, but due to the overwhelming use in industrialized livestock. Do I personally subscribe to all of these alarm bells? I'm not sure, but what I can say is that sticking to primarily a whole-foods diet (not perfectly, but consistently) has granted my family good health, even if it has cost me a lot of convenience, budget constraints, eating out, or even less choice for food. Therefore, I am convinced that there is some truth to the naysayers of the modernity of agrarian practice. What I see for the future of art is going to be discouraging if it affects humanity even half as negatively as the psychological damage social media has already wrought.
After following this technology unfold for months, this has by far been the most informative video I've seen in explaining it's true intentions. That double standard of the usage of visual art vs. music really said a lot about the companies behind this tech. They know big record labels would come after them if they used copyrighted music. Yet, individual artists are having their work used for training this tech unkowingly and without compensation. I now fully realise, we the artists, are the losers in all of this. All artists much watch this asap.
100%, they know what they're doing. Just as a thought experiment, imagine if the government skimmed this much data to train any software. I'd imagine the reaction would be way different.
Sadly artists are always the losers, hence the term "starving artist". But artist are also the best at adapting, and you're really not giving them enough credit. Examples - Camera ( didn't replace realism in art) - 3d printers(didn't replace sculptures) - Digital Art on Screens ( hasn't replaced real paintings in houses) - AI art will be it's own thing, but artists will always be around, and mostly starving as always.
there’s next to no work for sculpture and the painting market isn’t that big. There’s only just a small handful of people who do sculpture and it’s not consistent for most (sculptor/concept artist myself) Camera is a different medium. AIs a different threshold. supersedes basically all of it not on a canvas commercially. (Potentially photography in some respects too) and later on; animation, movie effects and so on. there will be a couple traditional painters around, but the vast majority are going to be displaced. We’ll never see a Kim jung gi again because there wouldn’t be enough work to support them drawing that much. Everyone was wondering what the vast amount of indiscriminate data collection was for; now we’re here. Should have been illegal, because it sure doesn’t feel ethical. Especially now that literally all someone has to do, (especially in mjv4) is upload a photo of themselves in a pose, then just type “painting by [insert artists name here]” and get a result almost immediately more than good enough for most standard clients.
@@stinkypete9070 As another thought experiment, imagine a single individual just asks you for a bunch of personal data. Are you likely to just hand it over to them? *We keep giving them permission!*
The way that government reclassified, extended, and perverted IP laws in the last 80 years is one of the largest thefts against culture to exist in history.
Perhaps you should switch jobs and go for anything that is actually needed and paid. And perhaps other members of your family can start looking for those jobs too.
Indeed, ai is the perfect in between black box to launder your crimes. You could just point and blame the ai. "It's the ai, not me. I'm just researching the ai!". There's no better time to exploit this than now. Exploiting others directly is illegal. But through the black box of ai, it's legal! I could create a virus that steals data and says its the ai that creates it, not me. Got my hand completely squeaky clean. Use ai to exploit, now!
maybe if you don't understand the first thing about machine learning and contemporary models, and even then it's just a hollow phrase not explaining anything. this is just uninformed fear-mongering.
as a 77-year-old artist with limited time on this earth as a living organism, I can appreciate this talk in so many ways. First of all, my one and only desire was to be an artist (visual) since maybe 6 or 7. And, it has been a wonderful journey. My parents tried music-making and singing, but that didn't titillate my tingle-ees in the right chords. it always came back to visual two-dimensional art. I worked hard and made it. then watched, typesetting replaced, then board art, then inception to complication taken away from my creative work. i took and still take pride in my work. I can only imagine the next 80 years. After the war, the people that are left will be required to relearn the basics. The Neo-dark ages. Or, we the populace will be parasites sucking the tit of whatever machine we are attached to. The machine will be called "Mamatrix." And, when it figures out we are useless baggage we will be sucked dry of any information and discarded like Pampers. But in the long run, it won't matter because people will not be around to complain.
you are by far ,literally the single and only artists that i 100% agree with on this topic , i kept looking up this topic and all i sawwas wishfull thinking artists repeating "it's just a too lto help artists" and i was like , no , it's not , it's not made for artists , no one said that exept artists and deep down everyone knew they kept sayign "it's just a way to look up refferences and ideas" , no , that's just one use you came up with the cope with the idea while altho it's possible this is not what the ai was made for , they didn't spend years and fortune just for you to get refferences from it , it's called ai "art" generators not ai refference generators or texture generators , it saddned me that most of the damage was done by artists themselves and not even by the ai users who can usually barely formulate two words together. i really hope artists come and bond together against this and not allow outsiders who are compleatly out of touch and care nothing about the craft to tramble it using artists work itself and let these corporations earn billions with artists own hard work.
For real, artists saying they use it for reference are admitting they didn't come up with their own compositions or ideas in their work. Its like having no faith in yourself. Giving up on thinking out of pure laziness. Its why I don't respect anyone using midjourney or painting over novelai, its like double plagiarism. It easy to see 'artists' becoming dependent on these companies. I as a viewer of the work have no idea where the AI stops and your contributions begin, off the bat the work isn't really theirs no matter how much they rationalize.
@@chinogambino9375 Isn't your argument just a rant on looking up references of any kind? Nothing you complained about is really related to AI models, so I can hardly agree. As much as I loathe the unethical and anti-humanist aspects of these models, they're effectively glorified Google Images (people just pretend they've created what they find). Whether references are real or generated, laziness comes when you settle for whatever you find and copy it, rather than looking for something specific that fills your own idea and using it to inform your own composition.
@@rikamayhem Having seen how midjourney is used, no its not the same. If you type in a scene you want to see into these image generators they tend to follow very effective artistic rules of composition since they are trained on human work. The results people want to see are ones they can lift and use. Its very hard to not be influenced by a finished composition made by a generator especially after a few iterations, I take issue with that mental heavy lifting being outsourced. I know for certain artists cannot be honest using these things. When a human absorbs photographs and paintings to use as reference its very unlikely its particular enough to their subject matter to be lifted. The skill is adapting your own visual library, problem solving and life experience to fill in the gaps. If we side step that by copying the composition of another work we usually call it a study and credit the original image, we'd feel dishonest otherwise since we owe too much of our work in that instance to the original. To me if you use an AI for reference it is your collaborator, you just are not the sole author. Think about it this way. Is a human author who has read a 100 books and then decides to write his own novel the same as a human author who lets an AI trained on 100 books write his draft? One chapter? Part of a chapter? Uses the AI draft as his 'inspiration' for a rewrite? The latter can still write his name on the novel but personally I can't take the attribution seriously.
@@chinogambino9375 Fair enough, your argument is much clearer now and I largely agree. I realise that AI-art platforms, specially Midjourney and "img2img" tools, encourage iterating on generated images repeatedly until you get a precise result, and I agree each iteration does hamper the user's share of the original thought put into their work. However, and while I don't even plan on using these models, I think that, as a user, you do have agency in how particular to your subject you choose to generate references, so this is just revealing how many artists would rather take the easy way when given the chance.
Thank you so much for taking a strong stance. I see so many artists and people faking positivity, turning blind eye at catastrophe that is happening before our very eyes. Artists need to speak out. They need to show the world whats happening right now. Before its too late.
There's no way we'll see a perfect AI. It will look like it does now even in 10 years. They can't "steal" my silly cheap chibi animations I uploaded here, for example. I still think it's an amazing opportunity, not even faking positivity here - people like me struggle hard with backgrounds and inspiration, novelAI and Midjourney helped me to get back into trying harder to improve myself and using some of these pictures as reference. Big artists are pretty much safe. It can help a lot of people, but yeah, in the end all the "mid" commission artists out there who aren't insanely popular and big will be screwed. Even though I think it still is an opportunity. Of course it's pretty pointless nowadays to commission someone to draw a picture of a random autumn forest or a random anime character for a newspaper article. Concept artists might not be needed in the same way as before, a typical deviantArt artist with 10$ commissions will have problems finding clients because the 9$ novelAI sub is cheaper and you get better results. But overall? It's pretty hard to be a 100% doomer imo, completely ignoring the positive aspects. The world changes and so does art, sadly. It's almost impossible to stop it and there's no point in crying.
@@bighatastrea oh on ... don't look up meta Ai generated videos. they are in the first stage of making a ai that can create videos (including animation) Ai .
This is sad to know about. And I JUST KNOW that the argument is just going to boil down to "Suck it up artists! You should've gotten a real job!" While watching all my animated scenes on Hulu and Netflix.
More like: "Suck it up artists! You should try to find a way for your skills to remain relevant in a fast evolving sector, like all other manual professions had to since decades ago with the rise of automation!"
@@Danuxsy „While watching all the AI generated animations on Hulu and Netflix” That is not going to happen. Works generated by „AI” cannot be given copyright, so no company will use them for a significant part of their work flow.
@@laurentiuvladutmanea3622 companies won't exist because customers can generate their own content with a neural network just like they are with images using Stable Diffusion.
This is the first anti AI video I’ve come across. Every single other I’ve come across just blindly calls this trend progress. Thanks for offering I different perspective.
the thing that steven gets that i think other videos don’t highlight enough is that it’s not about the ai. the ai is just the product. it’s about the developers, companies, businessmen, and capitalists behind it who will take a mile if you give them an inch. we’re being bogged down by technicalities and arguments but they’re just distractions. it’s never about the tool, it’s about the people behind the tool and what their agendas are.
It should be protected by copyright. I.e. you shouldn't be able to use someone's copyrighted works as tooling for your machine. It's literally using someone's hard work to replace them. Using these tools in this way is absolutely evil.
@@kenoctcercos4832 Absolute fucking propaganda. People like you make me start to think that Satan is literally real and at work in the world. That is my opinion of your choices and actions.
@@kenoctcercos4832 Do you know what conservatives and communists have in common? They're fucking selfish. When conservatives say that communists are just selfish, they're right AND they're also projecting their own selfishness onto communists. Hell is made up of conservatives and communists fighting each other. Become a liberal, and actually give a damn about someone other than yourself.
I had a guy on my Facebook actually have the balls to defend using AI data sets bc “ it still takes a lot of work to type prompts into a computer and I’m doing most of the work still” To which I replied “ yeah I here you. I’m a master chef bc I am REALLY good at ordering a pizza. I don’t cook The pizza but damn can I place an order, painstakingly describing the pepperoni, extolling the virtues of thin crust! People don’t understand how much work goes into ordering a pizza!”
but some people want $5 pizza made by stoners. Cheap and easy is what makes the world go round. We all are guilty of machine made things that a person could have done. But no one wants to pay the prices of artisan items for every single thing you own.
Honestly, the best discussion I´ve heard about AI art It´s so baffling, interesting and unsettling at the same time how the post-capitalism model perpetuate itself as the central nervous system o fall this chaos, "research" driven AI companies using art avoiding copyright law by using "academic research" excuses while "influencer" artists (Not talking about Steven, he´s actually making a beautiful essay about the bigger picture) and overall people promote or accept these "novelty" services on their social media platforms, of course it´s collectivley-incouncious but it´s so freaking macabre to the point where it´s almost like conspiracy lol
Problem is there is no real investment of time or emotion... A painting that would take days, weeks, months or even years is now done in minutes. The cost of failure removed. Instant gratification... No bleeding or sweating... It's so sterile...
I wouldn’t care too much. I prefer real, physical painting made by an artist than a compiled image. Actually the emptiness of AI generated images is that it would put more value on the real deal. If you master your craft strongly you will succeed for sure no matter how many AIs throw at you.
My biggest surprise is just how little other people care about it and sometimes are even excited to replace artists even in fields that should understand the importance of artists. The programmers in the indie game dev space seem so eager to replace their fellow colleagues. It’s so disheartening.
There's definitely almost a feeling of glee and Schadenfreude at seeing artists replaced, as if, by virtue of having cultivated a skill, we deserve to get knocked down a peg. It's disgusting, especially considering how much artists struggle to be taken seriously as workers and receive fair wages.
Oh yeah? And where were you when digital art became industry standard? Were you campaigning for the people who would lose their jobs, or were you rejoicing in the opportunity for effectively resourceless art? Ethics are a farce. People only care about stuff that benefits them.
@@tahunuva4254 I don't feel as though you've watched the video. Digital art becoming industry standard being compared to what ai art is currently doing is a false equivalency. Some guy rolling up photoshop into the company office one day is a far cry from a robotic arm being rolled into a fords car factory. The similarities begin and end with the two being new tech. That's it. Especially when you consider industry veterans, who were there to witness the transition, have some history of traditional painting who now digitally paint. We're looking down a position where the artists simply ceases to exist as a job.
@@tahunuva4254 Digital art is a tool and requires mastery in it's own right. Photography had a similar backlash of artists worried but is of course now seen as it's own art form. This is fundamentally different; ai art is specifically made to undercut the labor of artists and is trained without proper compensation or credit to thousands of artists.
I'm happy to have come across this video, really happy. I'm just a normal artist who wants to make books for children, graphic novels, and become an art teacher. I'm always complaining about back pain, art programs being slow on my computer, having to buy materials, staying up until late, etc, but i really am in love with my craft. People saying that AI was "just a new tool" felt like a half assed answer to me. Much of your concerns you mentioned here were also things I've thought myself. Why, would i want the world's most beautiful picture if i knew that it was an amalgamation of unconsented sets of information processed by a program with no soul. Yes, it may be better than anything i might amount to do in my life, but it not only feels empty, it feels disgusting. Not everyone will be sensible, or will care enough to notice this of course, some people are so numb that they will only care to see "new and cool content" and that's it. I could ramble on an on because this is a topic i think about a lot, but i'll stop here.
because it costs less :) ? because they are pretty pictures ? because it is quicker, more available art for everybody? If I'm a refugee from Afghanistan and I wanna picture the horror I felt while fleeing I simply use a program to create a beautiful and moving picture quickly and easily, instead of paying someone to do it. Adapt to the new environment, how many more children can be taught art with these new tools? This is fantastic for art, stop complaining
Just started taking art seriously this month and had a lot of enthusiasm. Now with all the news about AI art, I'm questioning whether this was/is worth anything or whether I should quit before being utterly disappointed. I wish I had more time to think about these things, but it's my senior year of high school, and time waits for no one Edit: Big thanks to everyone who's commented; your thoughts have provided fantastic insight! You all have reminded me of why I began my art journey in the first place: my burning desire to create. So, whether or not I pursue art as a career, I'll always be an artist. Thanks again everyone, much love!!
Of course it's worth pursuing,you will enrich your life in so many ways,you can achieve things you never thought possible and therein lies the reward,to hell what these programs can do, they're not you
If you want to be realistic going into the future, ask yourself why you want to learn art first. If it's because you want to make art exactly how you want it, or if you want to express yourself, or for a similar reason, go for it. It's absolutely worth it in that case. But if you plan on making a living on drawing and painting, I would contemplate reconsidering. Unless it's niche or taboo art, or you become a master artist, or you know you can secure a position in a company (which are usually slow to adopt new tech), drawing and painting is going to become increasingly compromised for artists to make a living on as these AI become better and their images increasingly flood the internet. I oust drawing and painting because there's so much easily available data to train AI on it's almost unfathomable (Stable Diffusion was trained on a couple billion images, with a b). Other fields like 3D art will be safe for the _near future,_ as there's significantly less training data available _for the time being._ These companies taking on the AI market are dealing in millions of dollars, at least. We're talking tens of thousands of dollars in electricity _just to train the models_ when it comes to processing that many images. So despite the uploader's wishes, I have the feeling not much is going to alter the path we're on.
Thank you. I find the arguments pro-AI people make for writing, for example, to be absolutely impossible to take seriously. These guys are telling me that just because half or more of their creative process was done and AI doesn't mean its any less creative. . . yeah right.
@@goldpeen2661 They wish they could have what we have worked for. I bet a lot of those people are trying to convince themselves more than anyone else that what they are doing is an equally valid form of creative expression. And besides making it yourself is the magical part, I wouldn't automate a single second of the process if I could.
Trust me, japanese artists are more intolerant of ai before it even became this famous. It's super disappointing that from what I see from the west are mostly artists who are coping. Trying to be positive etc. It's not just visual arts , ai is also getting into writing and music composition. Sure, experts are the only ones who can see which is good or not but the common people wouldn't care. It's really frustrating to see the amount of people who are wayyyyy too agreeable for their own good. So darn short-sighted. I'm afraid of a time where artists can no longer prove it's their original work without being asked for the video process. Or unique artists whose works might lose value when people keep using their styles. There are even assholes who use a professional artist's name with an ai work with their style in it....and sell it. Even going as far as telling the specific artist "we will make sure you lose your job" is so darn hostile. But yeah, thank you very much for this video at least I know somebody is actually thinking this thoroughly. I hope it's never too late to do something with these pirates.
as someone who really wants to get into art as a career, this whole AI art craze has gotten me actually kind of worried. I am in the same boat as you. It blows my mind how people dont see big problems with this. the only people who seem to care are the artists themselves. we must fight back
As a writer, my artwork has always been easy to copy, but my particular verbosity and individual style will soon be obsolete, when AI is capable of manufacturing every imaginable configuration of words
Writing is the safest form of art that AI won't be able to make due to the fact that AI can't understand semantics(for now). And if they did, they would be sentient.
@@AddyLovestar AI can already spill words. The thing is that it wouldn't have meaning. AI is very good at making text that seems that was written by people. But fails when we go to specific semantics about comstructing a story like a human.
You have my deep appreciation for making this video. When this issue was first beginning to materialize, I saw a few videos from other artists commenting on it that I found largely unsatisfying, it wasn't until I started hearing you're on stream discussions that I began to feel as if I had my feet under me on the matter.
The Kim Jung Gi AI was the nail on the coffin for me, this is not a tool this is a replacement for one of the greatest things humans have ever done in exchange for money of course. I hope artists get together against AI before it's too late.
@@DeadGuye1995 Just watch the video dude, he never mentioned Kim Jung Gi in it, my comment was based on my feelings it was not based in content of the video, and this feeling was a general consence in the art comunity. But also its not "worse" its very sad as well, be respectful pls.
@@leonardodomingues9010 At least one of the AI training sets also includes images scraped from art posted on ArtStation as portfolio pieces for artists. (which of course, Google Images brings up on a search as well, so it doesn't change your point...) :(
So on point. Thanks for this work. I'm an AI researcher and an artist (at the level of a hobbyist). I made a video last week about this exact thing... This feeling of, "What's the point anymore?" paired with the economic consequences of automating creative expression. Got a huge amount of backlash, spurred an 130-comment flame war on Reddit, and got doxxed. Spent a long week thinking about this and put out a new video basically saying that I believe in the resilience of artists. Artists are so resourceful and so creative that they can fold any technology into their process. But that adversity *can* be made a tool doesn't mean it was *made* to be a tool, and AI can far more easily just be used as automation.
It feels like the perfect storm with this coming now, people are so addicted to constant distraction on their phones and AI art is perfect for this , a quick hit of entertainment and then on to the next thing. If you're an artist you already know how hard it is to get anyone to look at your work, even if you're lucky enough to get featured or tagged somewhere big most people won't ever bother to seek out your work. Now you also have to compete with AI. the world was already getting completely squeezed in the fight for attention 'look how big my ass is' ' look how ammaaazzing my art is' 'look how delicious my food is' etc. This feels like it could hasten breaking point whatever that is.
it is inevitable, and maybe that's the way it has to be. Let's strip the ego away from it and make art for the sake of making and creating and nothing else.
@@primtones and then put their expression on the internet, get stolen by ai while the developers or patent owner don't need to pay a dime of royalty? lol
@@Djoarhet001 It is not inevitable. Rights and permission are not synonymous with "innovation." This is a legal issue and it's finding its way to the courts now.
Thank you for this comprehensive video. The whole AI art issue fills me with existential dread as I know in theory it could be a fantastic tool, but under our current consumptive and exploitative systems it's just going to be used to not pay people while using their work to train their replacement. Especially since there seems to be so little fear of recourse. Sidenote: I was so mad when I learned that one of the key learning tools for AI is descriptive text -- something that is primarily an accessibility tool. Because of this, I have seen artists advocating for inaccurate descriptions of media to mess with the system, which in turn will also hurt those who rely on descriptive text and accurate tagging to engage with media online. Guess it's time to flood these AI with Disney IPs and see what happens? :')
If they take away the ability and the incentive to create, we will only have the desire to consume. And deep down, it's just that, consumption and more consumption. This is a strong step towards a less "human" humanity. Not to mention that there will be fewer and fewer jobs in which one can learn and enjoy what they do. This is horrendous, almost straight out of a sci fi horror movie. Excellent video and beautiful illustration!
Except nobody is taking away your ability to create. And unless your incentive is to make money with it (which isn't the case for everyone), that too is untouched. So if anything, AI art will flush the people who are only doing it for the money down the toilet.
@@OzixiThrill noone does art "only for the money" If you think that you dont understand a key aspect of art. The people selling art are doing that to be able to both do something they love and make money with it. And you said it yourself; noone will make money anymore.
@@Parrotcat That's rather naive of you, thinking that nobody gets into art solely for the money. If you actually believe that, then you haven't witnessed humans being themselves. Also, AI art also won't make it completely impossible to earn money through art; Sure, it will make it more difficult for artists to support themselves off of art only; Maybe even make it impossible for some artists. But if that will be enough to get a supposedly passionate artist to stop doing art, well... That's all the evidence one would need to see the liars. PS - Ultimately, I don't think that any artists worth their salt will really see that much of a dip in their money due to AI artwork.
37:10 Oh yeah, I remember reading an article about that and feeling so mad. The double standard is unreal, the only reason they give a shit about copyright in that context, is because big music artists actually have the money to file some pretty nasty lawsuits against them, while meanwhile, most artists can barely manage to make minum wage with commissions. Absolutely sickening double standard.
An object can be seen from infinite angles and mixed with an infinite amount of objects from infinite angles. A song has one angle and little deviance from that, because music aesthetics are incredibly shallow compared to physical aesthetics. It's not a double standard at all, it's out of respect for musicians that they aren't training on copyrighted material(and because there would be court cases lol). And they aren't disrespecting artists teaching a computer to draw, artists are just taking disrespect for various reasons. Mainly because the computer can learn and draw REALLY fast. It's like the guy said, if you learn to trace a master painter, You've Earned It! But when a computer does it you should be MAD lol. THAT is a double standard and it's driven by some inane logic about egotistical humanism. There are still people alive today that won't use circular tires because they think going too fast cheapens their lives. It's a silly opinion just like these stances against AI's drawing.
@@DemWaifus The issue is that the ai is taking very specific angles and very specific objects from art that already exists, without people's permission. Art that some random person posts online is not automatically public domain either. No matter how advanced the ai get's, it's not a person, it's a product, and it has already used countless copyrighted material in order to form its network. There's no reason why musicians should have respect while artist shouldn't. Also, there are infinite configurations of potential sounds and melodies.
@@chompompcharly That is not a real issue though because all those billions of images are being bounced off of one another to produce an image in seconds. It is IMPOSSIBLE to take this issue of yours into a court, it's like suing a painter because he visited a museum in his youth and got inspired. Except even sillier than that lol. I understand why artists are upset but they have to deal with it, they can't stop what's already released, they won't stop the likes of Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and the UN from developing this either. Just be glad that StabilityAI is friendly to open source. And please take note that videos like this weren't being made when the closed source bodies were doing the same thing. This is a reaction to this technology being open. People against this are fundamentally coming at it from the angle of greed.
@@chompompcharly Like think about it, a 512x512 image has 262144 pixels in it right? How many pixels belong to you if you type "anime woman with big breasts in the style of picasso and greg rutowski :)" Are you trying to be funny? No one owns the artwork that comes out except you because it didn't exist before you prompted. Why do you think someone should get paid because computers can draw funny pictures now? Greedy as fuck.
@@digitasoul1389 Dunno, maybe they're friends? Maybe this is educational research? And don't get me wrong, closed source AI is terrifying, I'm just calling artists greedy when they're trying to burn down Stable Diffusion, because they're evidently afraid of free art from and for everyone.
Its hard to reason with most ai art bros bc the argument for human made art will always be an emotional one and some of these people have the emotional intelligence and human empathy of a potato.
U are so Damn on Point with that simple comment. They are so obliviously ignorant to the World that we are all in, social skills they don't seem to have!?!?!
I find rhetoric like this disingenuous. Nobody is arguing "against" human made art. It's you "anti-AI bros" who are arguing against other kinds of art.
@@WeAreCameron I’m fine with ppl making AI art for recreational use and uploading it to it’s contained communities, most people aren’t opposed to that. What human artists take issue with is the AI bros who mock and insult their process then brag about how AI (that trains and scans human art work) is going to replace their jobs.
This video is an excellent articulation of the counter arguments to proponents of image AIs and i found it very insightful (bc for as cathartic it can be to just say 'i hate AI art bc it sucks' it is unfortunately not a very sound argument, though unfortunately I dont know if we can really debate our way out of this) So much of the current AI art discussion is giving me shades of the NFT craze from the past year(s) or so. They both have fundamental elements whose outcome devalues art and artists (even replete with examples of the mockery made of recently deceased artist's works).
Very interesting video. As someone who has mostly been disappointed with the arguments made against image AIs thus far, you make several solid, persuasive points about what's wrong with their current development and implementation. I intend to share this one around a fair bit. Hopefully it will improve the discourse.
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.
I love the "looking into the mouth of the lion" analogy. I feel like a lot of artists are stuck in denial right now, trying to scrape together any reasons why AI art is good for the art community at large.
Actually, it seems the artistic community is united in being opposed to AI art. The ones who claim this is good are other industries(music most specifically). Animation is still opposed to AI art, and the writing and voice acting communities have started to also oppose AI generation.
@@laurentiuvladutmanea3622 And now writers and voice actors have joined the fight against AI, this is no longer a one-sided war. I was terrified we were going to get trampled and conquered one sector at a time but in a twist of irony, the speed at which AI can grow may be its own downfall in managing to unite almost every major creative sector at once.
Beautifully said. I have learned how heartless my own friends are, viewing my own artwork as meaningless. Hundreds of hours of work put into some pieces and just because I normally use digital tools my art has no value. He views himself typing for 30 seconds as making him as much of an artist as I am. People are so incredibly lazy that they just want the fruits without the labor, but how can that fruit carry any meaning? It would just be another product that you consume. We had this argument when I was actually going to say "if I had an ai that was able to generate my comic for me, it would ultimately be hollow. I would have the product I always dreamed of, but know I had no part of in its creation." Art is just not a valued skilled by most people, and that's tragic. There is so much value in actually putting effort and heart into something instead of just google searching your whims into existance. Google already makes collages and clips out of my pet photos for me, I don't want my whole life to just be generated content based on my habits. I think this is how the human spirit ultimately dies. Also, I doubt me friend would be okay with students handing in Ai essays and projects so they never have the need to actually learn. We'll have whole doctorates written in AI and have to accept we're a whole world of people who never took the trouble to learn anything since computers could do it all for them.
Honestly, if you still consider that person a friend, god bless your patience I could never. If you ever receive comments like that again, I recommend you may as well spoil the fruit and give them the whole artist experience. "What?! What do you mean this costs 10$ to buy?? It took you five minutes to make!" "I could do that in my spare time, there's no way this is worth ____$" "Is it okay if I pay you in exposure?"
"Do you build your own paintbrushes? If you don't, then you have no hand in the art's creation. " - some perfectly valid opinion. You see the problem is, you're drawing a completely arbitrary line - which you're well within your right to, don't get me wrong. But you can't then expect others to change their equally arbitrary standards to match yours. To them, it *is* just another product they consume, similar to how you don't give a shit that your paints are mass-produced machine products instead of hand-made woad - that is, if you even use paint at all.
@@tahunuva4254 Writing a sentence of what you want a picture of is how you request a commission, yet no one before would have claimed they were the artist of the finished piece. The computer is the artist, not the person who writes a prompt.
There are very good points in this video (elaborated on at the bottom of this comment), and its sentiment is correct, but as a computer scientist I think it's important to note a few things that are definitely not correct: - AI art is provably, and objectively not 'art'. It does not know how to create art without directly plagiarising from existing artworks - if there is a single way to define what art is, it is that an artwork can't be made purely by plagiarising existing artworks. Pastiche is art, parody is art, many forms of 'copying a style or referencing something' are art - but AI 'art' is none of those, as it adds absolutely nothing new of its own. It does not know how to, and it is not designed to - it is designed to copy and only copy. In terms of how it could be called art in future: it can only do this if the 'AI' learns the actual ability to 'draw' rather than merely 'copy'. This isn't anywhere near achievable, not in the next hundred years and likely much longer, because the data you would need to give to the AI to learn this is neither available nor plausibly recordable (imagine trying to teach an AI the entirety of the laws of physics, commonly known animals and all of their characteristics, anatomy, videos of their walking gait, just to name a few things - it's not plausible). Humans know these things, and learn fundamentals to inform their drawing decisions, drawing upon decades of experiences and learning. Training an AI with that much data is not going to be possible for a very long time, both in data and computing power terms. - Outside of the computer science field, it's probably true to suggest that people 'never imagined the advances in AI art in the last 10 years' - but inside computer science, it is well known that there are no such advances. The 'AI' powering Stable Diffusion, DALL-E, Midjourney etc are neither new or improved. There are two reasons they are possible now, when they were not before: firstly, that the data needed to train them is far more readily available due to the larger proliferation of professional art online on large websites such as ArtStation. Secondly, the necessary computing power to train these models was previously something that was only easy for researchers and large companies to get hold of, but in more recent times, online cloud computing services are much easier to access, even for smaller developers. There have been no breakthroughs in the models themselves, or the way they are generated, or anything else within the 'AI' algorithms themselves. Those points aside, you are absolutely correct about the dodgy legal nature of these 'AI' organisations, their effective theft of copyrighted artworks, and their lack of transparency. I also entirely agree that resisting these 'AI' tools is nothing to do with being a 'luddite' - innovations can be awful as well as great, and 'AI art' in its current form is one of the worst 'innovations' the art world could ever have. This is a well laid out video, expressed well, and here's to hoping that 'AI art' falls flat as it deserves to. Thank you for speaking out against it.
I was thinking about how to put this properly into words. I think we could say definitively that AIs in their current state are not drawing, painting, sculpting, or doing photography - charitably you could call it digital collaging which creates the illusion of something having been drawn or painted. That said, the process you describe could still be considered a form of art making - but it would be a mistake to say the AI made the art on its own. Rather, it would be the collective artistic input of the human race (and not just the artists in the data set, but their teachers and influences) that is responsible for whatever is generated and the AI is merely the process by which that generation occurs. Plagiarism as a concept is dependent on ownership. Ownership can be exchanged and bartered over. So plagiarism to me is not necessarily a strong pillar for a definition of what is and is not art. The ethical AI system Steven describes would do away with the issue of ownership. I think the images produced are indeed art. But I think we could say that AI is not yet an "Artist". Rather it is a collective project of all contributing artists and the flaw in the system is that it has been conducted without their consent or even knowledge. So in sum, I disagree for the most part with your first point on whether AI images are art but your computer science knowledge has added some nuance to this discussion that I hadn't considered.
@@nateg3962 It's not that 'plagiarism' is the pillar of deciding what is or is not art - but rather that to be considered art, there must have been some contribution by the artist to the artwork. The 'AI', in this case, makes zero contribution - it does not add any meaning or drawing technique, it gives no new take on the art it uses, nor does it have any purpose behind its actions. It has no agency, no reason for why it combines artworks in a particular manner or extracts specific features. This matters because when humans create art, it is done with a meaning (including artworks with a deliberate lack of meaning) - with an intent to express some view, or give some specific feeling or atmosphere. For example, an artist who e.g. paints a headless horse puts that headless horse in a background intended to give the viewer a reason for why the horse is headless, or to make a statement, or for some other purpose - even a vague or crappy purpose. The AI has no such concept because it does not understand - or attempt to understand - why the horse is there, or why it is headless. It has no idea what a horse is, or how a horse behaves, or why a horse is in the painting; all it knows is that it found image features that indicate the presence of a shape it knows to be a horse. Even with the most mundane objects - a simple painting of a tree - the AI does not know anything about trees, or how they work, or why. It is unable to "draw" a tree, because it does not know what a tree is - it is only able to copy features from things its model identified as similar objects in other artworks. A human who plagiarises a bunch of artworks and blends them together could still claim to be making art - unethical art, poor art, but art of a sort. Humans using 'AI art generators' would fall into that category. The same cannot be said for AI on its own. As a further example, a human who throws a bunch of ink up in the air, landing on paper below them, could be said to be making art - because the "artwork" in that case is less about the resulting mess of ink, and more about making a statement about the nature of randomness or some other concept. The AI, in such an example, has no understanding of concepts or statements, and cannot do the same thing.
@@Ant-le7hl I don’t think we actually disagree here. My contention was also that AI is not an “artist”, though I would argue this from a different perspective from you. However, in the process of compositing images from other artists, their legitimate works of art still contribute their voice to the image. Therefore the image generated by the AI is a work of art, but it is not the AI’s art. Does that make sense?
@@nateg3962 Yeah, that makes sense. It's just a question of definitions, as many 'AI artists' (I do not recognise them as artists, I don't think they deserve to be recognised as such) claim the AI on its own is capable of making art when it is not.
Exactly, it's like a sandwich machine, but where everything that the sandwich is made of is stolen from different stores, you can say that it doesn't look anything like the bread, meat and lettuce that they stole, because they are " sufficiently modified" to not be the same as the original, but that does not mean that they are made of stolen things
I hope this will bring back more interest to traditionnal art. Having artists more willing to draw on paper and canvas and having more people willing to buy them originals.
I think there will eventually be another return to Humanism (a new Renaissance). Specifically because humanity will end up thirsting for verifiable humanity again. Also, I believe that humanity will start to resent the increasing lordship of ai over our lives--- and will develop a natural distaste for ai-anything. The game may have to be raised, though. :Human artists who paint complex and meaningful compositions are poised to do well. Human artists who just want to make pictures of flowers or Spiderman, not so much.
You touch important topic here. I think those who are now overexcited with digital art are those who lack the fantasy and inspiration to create something by themselves.
Thank you for finding the strength and dedication to make this video! I have been furious for exactly the same reasons as you and felt so frustrated that so many artists are willing to look the other way. I will share this in the hopes that more people wake up to the exploitative nature of these companies and the erroneous desire to see themselves benefitting as artists from it. I am truly relieved to see someone tackle these common arguments so fiercely and intelligently
Very passionate and well-argued , I couldn't agree more. I think it must be said that the reason these AI companies will extend their deference to and respect the rights of copyrighted music and not to visual arts in the first place is because commercial music is already owned and fenced off by large companies in the music industry that already own large swathes of human creative output (ie the famously awful music industry). They aggressively defend "their" intellectual property and have a reputation for doing so, so they're "off limits". The visual arts (especially commercial) has no such monolith that dominates it, as most visual artists either make art in the employ of larger companies on a long term basis (jobs) or are contracted externally as freelancers to go on their own. Thus we are an obvious first target for such systems, we're ill-equipped to defend ourselves against hedgefunded capital ventures like StabilityAI. Also I like the symbolism of your drawing, feels especially poignant lol.
This is a serious matter for Artist and Content Creators alike. It's not difficult to imagine that AI will eventually be capable to produce short form and long form entertaining TikTok and TH-cam content in such an abundance that human made content won't catch up to matter. With algorithm being increasingly better at understanding you intimately and the in the video mentioned potential of having content created specifically for your current mental state, ideas, or circumstances It's difficult to imagine a human content creator able to keep up with this for long or even at all.
I think a lot of people are still naive. A.I. is now here and it will not go away. It can only go up from here. No 7 fingers on one hand in the near future. It is just matter of time. What most peope dont understand is that A.I. will do more than enough for a lot of basic stuff. A 10 men company that need new a new text for his website can do it all with chatgtp. It will be all fine with some minor tweaks. No need for a writer. That is an 500$ job less for the human writer, and maaaaany of them will go to A.I. I dont see any reason why a business wont use an AI art tool for a cool background for an event. It will be used once and throw away after that. Goodbey 1200$ job for an artist. Etc. Etc. Etc. AI will take a huge part in this world. Text, image, graphic design, logo's, audio, video clips.. many jobs will be taken out. And you allready see a forrest of AI program's and website u can use in a minute. If you build the best AI machine, you can make tons of money in the near future. Still.. people are naive. I am not going to wait before this hous of cards wil crash. I am working on my plan B allready wich makes me sad. But i dont believe i can feed mouths as an illustrator in new years from now
@yoRRnl That is ultimately your call to make. However, despite menial jobs being offloaded to artificial intelligence it seems like a stretch that the skill of an illustrator will be completely useless in your lifetime. Artificial intelligence is still very much inspired by human input. It's ideas were referenced and it's motivations are prompts. AI will reduce work force, because it cuts cost. AI, however, isn't sentient. While that must not mean that it couldn't do plenty human quality work there are still these two aforementioned hindrances to it taking over the world on its own accord. As an illustrator you could use your skill to prompt better. Or you could feed an AI with your design tweaks. Chatgpt doesn't always give a great first response there is some iterating that happens to get to that perfect output. Your skills as an illustrator would afford you that judgment.
@@RIPxBlackHawk The video already addressed that point, particularly in the “AI is just a new tool” segment (15:26) and even more specifically at 18:29.
@@RIPxBlackHawk I mean everything you said in your second comment may be true now but won't be for long. The reasoning was detailed in the video so I just linked that part instead of retyping everything.
Holy shit dude you thought about this on a level i didnt even approach... i knew it was gonna replace us, i knew it datasets are a copyright hellscape and how its going to stifle originality but the whole part about promps being another dataset to train on was waaaaay beyond my thinking... im midway through the vid just needed to say this
@@hyleriangaming22143 Hopefully we'll one day realize, we cannot automate our way to prosperity forever. At some point, a critical mass of unemployment will cut corporate revenue, and we'll regret trying to make the human brain obsolete.
Something that's really bothering me is when I explain my worries of horrible realities "AI generater" pose, and people just tell me that won't happen. I'm telling its already happening and they say people will always want human made work. Unwitting downplaying the issues, talking to people who are not artists has only made me more convinced that the worst possible outcome is the most likely.
@@reinasayama8077 When I see people commenting that “huge amounts” of the population continue to prefer content made by individuals I see people committing the act of assuming that their ideas are representative of the majority when I see no evidence that this is correct. People see what they want, but in the end it’s companies like Google Facebook Twitter etc etc etc, that are driven by algorithms and increasingly autonomous code like AI, that have long ago in the history of modern Big tech swallowed the world and all the hopeful humanists with it. They’ve been laughing themselves to the bank for decades already by profiting off the vast majority of the world’s docile behavior in regards to their profiteering, predation, and control. This new turn tech is taking with AI is just beginning, and it’s already not looking so hopeful. I have the same issue as the original commenter. People I talk to tend to try to minimize the entire situation and end up appearing tragically ignorant. And everyone having this discussion now has already been alive long enough to even know what it was like before AI became a thing. Relatively soon there will be walking talking voting choosing humans who will have never known a world without ubiquitous and likely insidiously pervasive AI. I’m not a fortune teller, but I think it’s pretty likely that, just like every generation has done before them, they will grow up and grow into the tech of their time and be the fuel for its continued endless sprawling grasp on social structures, economies, governments, ART…
Remember vintage lace? That used to be handmade, too. They also believed that people would prefer handmade lace over those made by machines. Today, the majority of lace is machine-made.
@@danielawesome36 Good example. Indeed, how many previously hand-made things are no longer made by hand, but by machine or simply printed or coded? It would take too long to count.
@@reinasayama8077 i dont wanna be a boomer but i have already seen people (non artist normal people) not caring by both (human or ai) which it would lead to them to not care for whoever wins, at the end they dissmiss art in general, so if Ai at some point can do what is on their mind, they will be ok with the disappearance of artist and therefore allowing the path for Ai replacing other jobs
@@bitterbunn1831 If AI manages to draw what people have on their minds that would be a blessing, it would destroy the skill barrier to entry for making art. And AI should automate more jobs, all of them. The problem is the requirement of having a job to survive.
Great video essay, great piece of Art, as someone working his way towards Art coming from tech, I always felt incredibly split on this matter, and kept shifting opinion, never really knowing where to stand. Your video has convinced me that AI art in its current form with the companies and the data laundering is very harmful for artists. Thx for sharing!
@@discordantduck1808 I hope you do understand how long it takes to make and light one candle, and how long it tales to become a good artist and produce a salable piece of art, yeah? Quite a silly comparison
@@discordantduck1808 1) you can literally start a candle making business in a month, with materials, forms, casts, and others easily available materials. Hell, one huge shop for soap and candles makers is literally across from my apartment. Fun fact, my mom does exactly that. After getting retired, she started making soap and candles to pass the time. Yes, It was a mistake to "lump em all together" but on average I think artists spent a wee bit more time to get to a professional level 2) Yes, the art AI will get its data and training as many other models for different industries, nothing to be surprised about here. And its' soulless on the most basic of levels. On later levels, it's a legal nightmare waiting to happen. I'm not going to grand stand here. It's a reality, we made it. It's how we humans roll...still, kind of hope that at least people will stop protecting multimillion-dollar companies with millions more in investments. Will society benefit from AIs? Without a doubt, but at what cost? Also "of course it's harmful to artists, that doesn't mean it's bad" my dude, harm is usually bad.
@@therealOXOC I'm fully prepared haha. AI Art is inevitable at this point. Luckily I'm not too bad at maths so I've got something to fall back on. I just think people should know that we're being fucked over by shady business practices and stop naively viewing it as a "tool" for artists.
@@telepathicfish1489 what can i say. stable diffusion is already here like he mentions. there is no running back the model. it's a tool for artist as i can see many artist that are not that ego centered using it. even if they stop training on living artist it's a tool that is here to stay and seeing only the negatives makes yourself depressed. it is so much fun sitting around with my little niece a producing awesome images that she thinks of. She likes drawing aswell and i think that will never stop but i can't predict the future. looking at the positives makes much more sense to me than to put up a video where some guy is drawing a guy fisting an asshole and allover psycho shit he deals with in his art. it's pretty dark art he draws and i only want to see this one drawing of him and don't hear more negative stuff form him. i kinda understand him but i know many artist that would never put their stuff on the internet and make a good living out of it because they don't trust the web. if you use it as marketing tool be prepared to be used as a marketing tool. i'm always drunk on satrurdays so excuse the rambling...
Art is perhaps the oldest surviving form of human expression. Evidence of literature, politics, philosophy, religion, and language itself go back merely thousands of years. We have art that survives from tens of thousands of years ago. Art is a fundamental part of who we are as humans. I find it profoundly tragic to see art threatened by AI.
I see the "threatened by ai" as a very narrow minded and wrong aproach and thought. It actually makes me chuckle a bit because every time a new medium in art was invented people cried about the death of art and the work of artists being devalued. Photoraphy being a prime example. "No that everybody can make Portraits so quick and without skill, what are the portrait artists going to do!" What happened was, that yes, portraitry as an industry got thrown over, that is the progress. But out of that came whole new branches of art, so many new possibilitys. You people will be the horse breeders crying about the car, while other artists are already out there develing into the topic and discovering what actually can be done with AI. Its a new form of art, it will change the status quo, but its not going to end art. Its just going to be different.
@@theexchipmunk 1. This is not a new medium. It is a dehumanization of digital art. 2. The limits of what it can do are known. There is no self expression.
@@digitalcurrents I sense a tone of naivety in your random internet mutterings there, stranger. Ever heard the saying "Road to hell is paved with good intentions"? Like life on earth with its diverse creatures and thoughts and minds as we do in this discourse, progress too isn't a one way road. Not all progress is good, nor without its consequences. I for one, want the AI to thrive or even fall into the wrong hands so when bankrupts, the scream, the doom and gloom comes I can only laugh at these so called "progress", for the clueless to know that the knife may hurt them, they first need to cut themselves firsthand.
@@jimimased1894 I mean yeah it's not really threatened, but dumbest as it may be do we really have to deny artists from their thoughts and concerns? Like.. This video, topic & thread?
Strong video. Art creation sped up to instant gratification is a destructive force; it will degrade, not uplift, the human spirit. We all instinctively know this, but temptation all too often outweighs the instinct. The aesthetic appeal of a piece of art is important, but only a small part of the total equation of human appreciation. The investment of time is actually weighted more, the time taken to produce any given piece of art, but also the time it takes to master a given medium. Once the component of time invested is removed from the equation, the appreciation of art will continuously degrade until it is meaningless.
Instant gratification, instant gratification, instant gratification, oh how shallow us humans have become. Sadly yeah, corporations and big tech companies have moulded a lot of us into mindless machines trying to survive the next day to simply achieve instant pleasure. I don't wish to be part of that and I wish many ppl think the same, but sadly most ppl love the status quo if it means they don't have to lift a finger. Hence why AI art exists
@Ty Gorton Yo, dude, it's not always about that. I'm not very creative and I always struggled with designing or producing anything. I have a full-time job in IT and don't have the time, talent, or ability to go back in time and spend half my life learning how to do something I'm not good at, anyway. I just want to make profile pics and Desktop wallpapers for myself, man. People like us are just going to use a picture of something we like or that speaks to us, anyway. (Like how my avatar is a clip from an old VGCats comic.)
@@macgeek2004 Sure, I get that. The argument isn't that there won't be completely reasonable ways for AI image tools to be used. We're talking macro here, big picture stuff. A world drowning in stunning visuals produced in seconds by AI programs will have a universal psychological impact on humanity, there's no way of escaping that. It doesn't really matter how you as an individual make use of it, the implications of its existence and proliferation on the macro/worldwide scale is the conversation.
@@otapic Agreed. There may be more of us than we might individually think, but certainly we are in the minority. That is OK. The world is likely moving toward a dramatic split, one side embracing the new urban digital, and the other turning back toward the old ways in rural areas. The two will become less and less compatible with each other. Mainstream will likely vilify the rural group across their urban media empire to keep people from leaving cities... further separating these factions. I've drawn some lines in the sand... once mainstream forces certain tech adoptions in order to participate in their tragic little digital experiment, I'll be opting out. Kind of sounds like a science fiction plot... many would say I'm a bit crazy; time will tell. The Amish have been living outside of clown world for a very long time.
thanks for pointing out this part 19:20 , that all the people are training the AI to know what prompts are good, and interested in seeing. Not using AI programs, is the right move.
I'm a Software Engineer and I agree with your points, the sad reality is that I'm not sure there is anything you can do about these changes, even if you somehow get all these companies to stop their progression, in around 5-10 years time you won't need a team of people to create an AI like this, a solo university student could do the same for just a simple free time project, thats how fast things are progressing in this field, part of this progression is fueled by Nvidia's advancements in hardware, around every 4-5 years we can build computers that are twice as fast as before, but also the tools for Data Scientists are developing very rapidly. My belief is that we aren't too far from a general-purpose AI (around 15-20years) which would be an AI that is conscious and can learn the same way a human can (but much much faster since its made of hardware rather than biological material), this would mean that practically all jobs could be replaced by AI. What can we do about this? I don't know, but what I do know is that we can't stop it because we have a very limited influence on organisations like Google which would be at the front of this development. Another worrying thought is that Law is always playing catchup to technological advancements therfore we don't have any laws in place to help and protect the general public through these changes, we also won't have them when these changes hit. Keep speaking up people, Art is just the first sector to feel these changes.
People don't really care about artists and chess/go players because they are minorities, and they got cracked one by one at each time. But if the public start to feel the common threat about AI to take over most of the office desk jobs and start to panic in the future, don't you think goverment will have to step in somehow ? At least in the democratic countries, because they will need to pacify the huge amount of angry voters. I kinda foresee a much greater confrontation between conservatism and progressivism at that point.
I agree about speaking up - art is a form of expression and they can’t take it away. Its on us to lead it with ethics tho, and if we want it to be like us - I think we should give it a human law and decency as well. Not that it’s related to us at all, in fact it takes a 8 layer ANN to simulate 1 biological neuron. It’s a huge mistake to call it “intelligence” as it’s more of a computer power, human intellect coding data structure and algorithms, a lot of hype, wishful thinking and uncountable limitations. If the Ai suppose to mimic us and help us to tackle problems to help our society, I don’t see a problem with it, but currently this is just a massive exploitation in the name of technology. If it’s here just for the exploitation and usage of military the way China tries… the future is very dark. It’s really on us to change that. If you in the field please remember that ethics are so important, stable diffusion dev called me a “moralist” when I expressed my concerns, almost like it’s a joke to care for humanity and I can’t stress enough how important it is to lead the future in equatable way to shape it for the better and not leave bad presence for opportunistic devs. We can’t let everyone be like that, that ain’t it.
I disagree, the only ones that suffer here is the artists which is a tiny minority, hundreds of millions of people are going to benefit from using these AI systems.
It's already happening in your field too, not sure if you use Visual Studio as an IDE, but the latest version already writes much more code for you now as a form of auto-complete. I agree with how fast the field is advancing, you don't have to be a data scientist to setup a model to be trained, format training data, and run an inference. I do think we are still a long way off though from a AGI. There is this giant jump in going from the models we have to day, to a fully conscious AI.
"It's a replacement, not a tool." After making a good-faith effort to learn about it (my initial opinion wasn't negative), I've come to the same conclusion. I also like that you pointed out how it takes all the fun away. I got some good results but felt a little sad that I didn't just come up with them myself.
I'll admit, there's a small dopamine rush when you type a prompt and make AI art, but ultimately it's desensitizing because I can just make more art of that caliber in seconds. It's like a kid who can eat anything in the candy story for free. There's no toil, no effort, no journey. Just the final result, which is boring and soulless.
You’re right I felt the same I managed to creat a professional looking art way much better then I could ever draw or paint my self , but it didn’t felt mine it’s just felt I’m googling. nothing compared to the act and journey of creating art by your self
Try applying this logic to written communication: are you sad you are not writing this comment using pen and ink? Handwriting used to be a form of art thousands of years ago. WE EVOLVED. EMBRACE IT.
@@gukes-3dx „Try applying this logic to written communication: are you sad you are not writing this comment using pen and ink?” Written communication is an utilitarian tool of communication, not a passion.
Keep seeing same comments over and over again. "You can't stop progress, Steven!" None says anything about stopping AI technology. All he talks about is a thing that many adult people should kind of easily understand and practice - *CONSENT*
This comment is SO underrated. That's exactly what the problem is here. Millions of artists work and billions of hours work of blood sweat and tears have been taken in an instant to train AI. But "oh well, progress" ☠️ Um, no, literal theft and zero consent. And of course zero fcks given by the creators of AI. Recently saw "the father of AI" (whatever his name is) is having an existential crisis or something... Yeah. Um. No sympathy. 🙄
"STARVING ARTIST" VS MUSIC INDUSTRY The double standard with AI data sets between art and music most likely can be contributed that artists are individuals and music has always been dominated by studios and is even referred to as an industry. We need to start a AMERICAN (or International) UNION OF VISUAL ARTISTS that can lobby and litigate on the behalf of visual artist community!
Yes that sounds like a great idea! And agree with you 100% But the question is how many artist do you know that is good with politics? Or even know how to start something like that? I would love to create something that can protect all artist. But the only thing I know I'm good at is just art. Even the business side of my art I'm still trying to figure it out. But hey if you know how to do all of that count me in. And I'll help any way I can.
Thank you for taking a stand and speaking for all of the artists who would like to have a future where we can actually profit from our hard work. People have become docile "it-would-never-happen" robots in many areas as of late. 👏🔥
This was a sobering take on it. Thank you for that. I didnt really see ai that way at first. It just seemed like another tool to me like photoshop. But seeing it lifting off work of countless artists, and having that be sold, really woke me up about what its actually doing.
I think of it differently. Artists who have massive bodies of work containing repetitive themes, motifs, or imagery are likely in pursuit of capitalistic conquest. There's nothing wrong with that in the context of capitalism, but if you take a step back and look at the overall progress of humanity, you will see that allowing AI to develop in this manner accelerates humanity toward a future where capitalism is no longer relevant. That is a future worth sacrificing for in my humble opinion.
@@Tubeytime it only works in a society that is willing to see people as worthy of living just because they were born. Our current society is way too ingrained that working full time is the only way to say you deserve to even exist. I would like to see a more humane system than capitalism as well, but for the foreseeable future this "transition" is going to be anything but smooth., and I'm not going to sit back in glee at this, the most suffering-fueled part of the process..
"lifting off work of countless artists". What? These companies are not stealing art. They are not selling copyrighted art. these ai's are merely learning how to make art from images online. If you didn't want someone to use your art to learn how to make art then maybe... don't post your art online? I'm sure you would be fine with a person using your art to learn, and then selling their skills. However when a company trains an Ai to make art using your art, that bad? The exact same thing is happening in both scenarios! Please explain.
I just want to say that the art piece you made in this video is beautiful, poignant, and expressive, and that's something that AI art will never be able to replicate. As for the 'tool' argument, it should be said that there's nothing new under the sun. AI is just taking what people already made and rearranging so that it looks original. It's basically virtual plagarism, which we've been told since grade school is something we should never do. I feel that copyright law, more often than not, is used to control creators rather than protect them, especially nowadays. The only people copyright protects are those are already in charge of the industry. So of course, AI is going to steal from the unknown, everyman artist to cater to its wealthy and talentless users. They're essentially profitting off of people's insecurities and laziness, people who aren't willing to try to build their skills or hire professionals/amateurs to help them. Really, when you think about it, a lot of modern technological "innovations" are doing this. They know that they've already made things too convenient for people, so now there they're trying to generate inconvenience artificially. Honestly, with everything I've heard about how art and artists are treated, copyright infringement, theft, cancel culture, forced cancelation of passion projects, censorship, poor compensation, AI replacement, and so much more, considering that art and expression are unique to us as humans, we've really shown that we don't deserve it, especially if our choice is to not use it or let it be shown.
I thinks that's starting to chage. I feel like, many Artist were in denial for some time. Fighting for your rights is scary and exhausting. But I have already seen people starting to change their tune.
The thing is there are not many true artists out there. Those very few who are will see their work raise in value. The ton of "artists" who aren't so will finally be where they belong - oblivion.
The weird thing is - these Ai prompters are saying it is "faster" to make Ai art, but then say it took them a week to create the prompt to make exactly what they wanted? If it took you the length of this stream to produce this beauty and then took them a week to prompt a computer enough times to get the result they wanted, I wouldn't call that efficient? Sorting through thousands of images sounds like a pain in the ass when you can already see your own work unfold before you exactly the way you wanted ONE time sounds a lot less like a pain to me lol
They're avoiding the tens of thousands of hours of training and practice that it would take for them to match his skill, and to create a piece of similar quality in a comparible amount of time. So from their perspective, it is certainly faster.
I've done a video (in french) saying somewhat the same as you, but in a softer way, because I didn't want to be "too dramatic". But now I'm just sad to not be able to saw your video sooner, because my video would have be totally different. I feel currently overwhelmed by all you said, it's a lot to process, especially knowing that my main dream is to make my comics books come true, just because I have a story to tell. I'll need time to process all you said, but I think i'll do an "add on" video about this subject. I've already add the link to your video on mine. So thank you for video. Really.
Well that was thoroughly depressing. I think you are right on all counts... Except for the idealistic notion that there is still time for artists to do anything about this. And I think the long-term ramifications are much, much worse for our culture, for humanity as a whole. We now get great meaning from art, music, stories, movies. Not just the creators. Not just the wannabe creators. But the audience as well, of course. Art is not the *sole* "Meaning of Life: of course - but it's a strong one for many of us, and in some way the primary one for a lot of people. How much meaning will there be when it's all made by a machine instead of a person? It's only been a few months and the common reaction to AI art has gone from Wow! to Yawn... What happens when everything is output by an AI? When human artists have given up as it was impossible to be noticed in the tsunami of AI-generated 'art'? I now fear that all meaning that all people now get from Art, from Stories, from Imagination... It will be gone. The excitement, the solace, the comfort, the fun... Gone. Yeah, that all sounds melodramatic as hell. But I'm old enough to remember how cool it was to get one movie to watch in our home. Then even the selection at a Blockbuster was too much for some people. And nowadays, we open Netflix, get overwhelmed at all the choices, and close it without enjoying anything. How much worse will that be when there aren't a thousand to choose from, but millions? Even is they are created and tailored to your own interests... After the first dozen, you'll just sigh "Yeah, but a computer made this in a few seconds... how meaningful can it be?"
@@PaulRWorthington it must be comfortable to hide behind pessimistic cinisism, and let us young artist do the fighting. don't buy into it. if you don't know how to fight, learn how to. the answers and people ding it exist and are out there, resisting, you need to have the courage to get over your comformism and perfected bubble of understanding of the world and go out there.
The "opt out" model has about the same ethical grounds as people uploading porn of strangers and defending their actions with "DM me if you want it taken down"
I personally thought that art AI should be used as a tool, you just need to be more skilled than AI to survive, etc, but after watching this video I agree that AI has been unfair to artists! Thank you for making me and others more aware about the other side of AI. Recently I’ve been wondering “Why do I make art?” At first I only did art because my parents said I was good as a kid. I did art because I was good at it, but now I’m at the point where I no longer consider myself “good”. After watching I realized I make art because I LOVE making art. I love looking at years of hard work being put into use. I love improving. I love struggling. I love seeing other’s voices being heard through this medium. I hope AI doesn’t take that away from us and future generations.
The reflex to regulate anything just creates another layer of technocracy, interwoven into bureaucracy. It’s a trap of its own making. AI art generation needs existing art from talented artists to present something convincing and plausible. At the moment anything established in perspective is its bane. Perhaps with the integration of 3d programs and how tackling perspective works in those softwares, that can change. Visual development jobs will probably have a lighter workload with AI as a tool. But paying an artist who produces consistent and high quality work, or who can direct a project with a honed sense of aesthetics, will still be demanded.
@@Hibernial I agree that artists are still in demand and it's being used as a tool to enhance workflow. However, it will replace us in the near future (few years?) if there's no regulation, no doubt in my mind. I disagree with your first statement.
It has nothing to do with skill. Us artist people we create from our imagination and our experiences. AI bypass all of that and do a very quick search that takes mili second and put it together. It's equivalent to taking other artist art and making a collage and calling it your art. It doesn't even do art it need our art to actually make art. Art takes creativity, imagination and emotion. Something a computer can't do or have. Just don't mistake AI art for real art.
As a foreigner, I would especially like to note your beautiful way of speaking. I listen to you and understand every last word, as if you were speaking my language.
At first I wasn't that bothered by Ai Art since I felt like it was still lacking as its own. And quite a number of popular artists I follow even support it and advertises it. But after watching this and doing research... you are right. It is unchecked and anything unchecked is dangerous. It disheartens me that it won't just affect jobs today but also future possible artists who wouldn't bother to be one anymore. On the other hand, when you mentioned the whole law protection in music and how it should be, I was baffled to realizd how things should be this way from the very beginning. Thank you for this video.
Honestly if you get discouraged from becoming an artist because of AI image generators, you should not have become an artist in the first place. I do agree that the current laws and regulations around these images are lackluster and unchecked, but the possibilities of artists developing and finding more work than ever, is so grand, no more will you be forced to draw 10 different variations of the same drawing in half the time that you would be comfortable with, just to find out that pocket should be blue, that work was done by the algorithm and the one with the original idea, all you have to do is draw from those concept images what you were told. and for personal artists, now you don't have to spend a week looking for reference and bashing your head against the wall trying to come up with an idea / concept and the perfect composition and just end up settling for a generic one, like always.
@@tooncatara3439 so should writers of all things stop writing because the library of Babel exists online, it literally contains every book ever written and ever will be read. Art is about personal expression, and the only thing we have to do as humans is make sure that it doesn't become a tool for commercialisation, I see no problem in concepting with the visual Library of Bable with a better indexing system, it makes creation more accessible for people who can't draw and never would pay for an artist till they are sure of what they want or need.
@@James_XXIY_crafts Yes, art is about personal expression, but many also have careers around art. You mentioned we humans have to make sure AI generation doesn't become a tool for commercialisation, but if the general public can get hands on the tool and generate art for themselves, doesn't that mean commercialisation. Drawing can be learned and it's not hard to start, toddlers with a pencil can easily draw, it might not be appealing nor comprehensible, but that is how you start something.
@@cnash5647 The majority of people buying art nowadays are fans of the artist, it is usually not for a bigger reason, they are buying it as merch, those who buy it for some other reason are in the middle of a project. My prediction of what these generators are going to do to the art industry, artists will see more work since now people working on projects can visualize their vision so much quicker. See it like this, did game engines ruin the gaming industry? Did voice to text make secretaries obsolete? Did the mechanical lathe ruin the machinist industry? The answers to all of them is no, it only made their jobs easier and give them the opportunity to work more efficiently and produce higher quality. Now an artist don't have to draw a million low quality concept sketches, because the client doesn't know what their main character looks like. And no matter how you look at it, people want something made by people, having AI generated images on your wall, will be a gimmick, just like low effort paint splatter paintings and uninspired river tables, of course that will still be fanatics, there always are, but in the end people are drawn to purpose not random noise.
no wonder my drive to draw has been completely quashed. on top of the growing unfriendliness of social media to artists, AI really is putting an end to anyone even remotely paying attention to the few things i bother making. uploading it online only adds to my fear that my idea will be absorbed into the AI hivemind and continue to destroy art as we know it. as if i have the time and money to take these people to court. are individual artists supposed to unionize? how are we supposed to fix this issue?
“Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.” Frank Herbert, Dune
Collective lawsuits is the answer. Artists should finally start to protect themselves legally. Creative AI's should get their databases open for public scrutiny and sued to hell for each and any copyright and plagiarism infringement that is found.
@@TheNeomaster15 The A.I copies 1:1, and the companies stole millions of copyrighted works from artists that they had no right to. Shut your mouth, and keep it that way.
@@gabudaichamuda2545 You don't know how the AIs work. They learn by scanning the noise of art and analyzing it pixel by pixel. Eventually learning an apple is red and an apple is round. No where is the works stored or re-used.
Aaah, I have been bombarded with videos titled such as "artists are about to be obsolete" and "graphic designers will need to find another profession" for a while now. I never bought into it, but I'm glad it's YOU who's rolling up his sleeves, Steve, I can think of no one better. Lemme grab some popcorn.
It wasn't the takedown I was expecting, but I'll take a call to arms over some flippant criticism to start my day any day. I had a conversation about AI art a few years back, where a buddy consoled me saying that AI could never replace a human artist, as we have our inherent human flaws that a machine couldn't replicate. Seeing how faulty these recent images are, I can't help but think he missed the mark, but I'm still convinced that a few years from now, when and IF the AIs take over the industries, a real drawing made by a real human will have increased in value, especially if most of the would be competition has been discouraged to pursue this line of work from the get-go. This is not an argument FOR AI programs, but my attempt at finding the silver lining. I'm still a dreamer.
@@durere i personally see it this way, the biggest demise of AI-Art will be ironically what will make it accessible for everyone: free-source programs. because if anyone can make this at home, for free, why buying a piece of AI-art, then?
@@Legomicroman The same reason so many people order food instead of firing up the stove. Not to mention that if everyone would use it, wouldn't that mean the AI's already won?
@@durere what i mean is: when everyone can eventually make AI Art themselves FOR FREE (it will not be a question of IF, but WHEN), then people who make AI-Art for profit, will draw the short end of the stick. because if i can generate it for free, why buying it from somebody else? this means that Handcrafted Art could become more valuable. not only because of labor-costs, but because it´s SPECIAL, compared to easily-generated computer-trash. it´s unique and PERSONAL. maybe i´m too optimistic, but i don´t want lose the remaining shred of hope, i have left.
@@Legomicroman Not trying to burst your bubble either, but you need to take some things into account. First of all, not all people are creative. Sure, you would need less creativity to instruct the AI than you need to draw something (maybe, not so sure about that) but you would still need that extra eyelid creative people have to judge whether or not what you generate can actually fly. Understanding color dynamics, composition, flow - most people don't have access to that part of the brain, and if they do, it's more like a window than a door. What I'm trying to say is that an artist with a keen eye will generate better AI art than your everyday person. Said artist can then sell his generated stuff, or simply lend his AI instruction skills for a buck or two. But I do believe you make a valid point about it bringing less money. Again, on your point about not buying it from someone else when you can make it yourself - if that were the case in the real world, Starbucks would go bankrupt overnight. Coffee is one of the easiest and cheapest things to make at home, yet so many people go spend ridiculous amounts of money getting their coffee there. Not just that, but a lot of people are so comfortable in their ignorance, they're actually proud - ''Hurr Durr, I don't know how to use that sht, I'll just have someone else do it for me and throw some bucks at them''
This is exactly what I've been saying. As a piece of technology this is pretty impressive and interesting, but we got to question who's interests is this fulfilling and stop guilt tripping concerned artists for not ridding the hype wave of Ai.
This is the conflict that technology has with the structure of our economies. You are feeling the effects of technological efficiency that has already decimated entire industries over time. we can not have a sustained system of human labor for survival when technology makes the labor of millions something trivial. In a world where artists arent required to sell themselves they would make art as an expression of themselves with creations containing only the specific intent a human artist could have. We can not and should not fight the progress technology provides. We should be fighting the economic systems that force us to sell our creativity in order to survive, so that we can create for ourselves and others purely for the joy and challenge of it.
@@laurentiuvladutmanea3622 Bullshit. Abuse the tech while it's in it's infancy. Slap out work at unprecedented efficiency. Make money and invest in your future. If you have art skills, then ai in your hands is significantly greater than a non-artist. If you played Elden Ring, please revisit it's themes on rot and stagnation vs flowing water.
@@ajp2206 people are inspired by the idea more than by the method and techniques. If you arent the student of an artist, you aren't "copying" the art because you don't know the "technique". And the main problem is, AI samples other arts to make a picture, but humans sample experiences. They can even sample music, they can sample memories into images. AI can't do it. Having said that, a lot of people have pathetic imaginations, the 99 percentile won't make it, but there's a world of difference between 99 and 99.9
I highly recommend reading about the Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. AI endangers so many parts of it. The whole self-actualization part is currently being destroyed by AI (creativity, experience purpose, meaning and inner potential). The self-esteem part too (achievement, respect of others, the need to be an unique individual). Safety and security, which is extremely important is also in danger (employment, property). Other parts could also be threatened.
Remember to SHARE this around & watch the video multiple times for increased watch time, boosting it in the algorithm. And remember that your personal expression is irreplacable.
Nice video. It's not just artists, they are doing this to everyone. They are doing this with everything that gives them data. Data is the new oil, and they are extracting it for free. This is just another way to do so. It's really surreal but almost nobody's complaining or setting fires. Everyone Voluntarily uses IG, Facebook, gmail, Amazon and they love it too! Now about artists, yes I would be very worried, especially if your art is digital. This is bad bad bad. incredibly bad. Most people have no idea, but when you're into cyber security and know a little bit of code you begin to really see what's going on here.
I believe this gross feeling all revolves around the exploitation of our identities. I believe our identities should have the same treatment as our physical property.
I hope you don't mind that I referenced this video to further give a heads-up on this growing situation for visual artists. I'm in the fight. Or, I should say, we are all in a fight against this stuff.
i derive so much meaning working on my comic every day- to have it be trivialized to some algorithm recommendation gives me the strongest form of existential dread I've ever felt. I honestly don't want to live in that world. But i'm going to keep making it for myself, it will matter for no other reason than because I say so.
Same here. When I was a kid I was dreaming of becoming a comic artist. I don't post my stuff online, because I don't enjoy social media, but I wish I was born a few years earlier to release my projects and maybe even find a few people that like what I do. From now on the art/comic-market will be oversaturated with AI-stuff. I make my comics for me, my friends and family and I love what I do, but it's still depressing to see what the future holds.
ur creative vision should be more important to a person than a machine that can create their vision. You are telling a story through your comic. AI can do only as much as the person using it.
I'm learning to draw for quite a while now, and I will be so, so, SO mad if in the near future AI has reached the point of being good enough to really replace artist. I usually just don't think much about the topic and continue to study and do my art but when I actually think about it... it kinda scares me not gonna lie.
Technology doesn't have to do your job as good as you. It just has to do it good enough if it's some combination of faster and cheaper. The cheap part is important, because as more workers lose income to technological disruption, whether they like it or not they'll only be able to afford cheap things that aren't as good as when the same things were made by hand. Over time, the cheap machine-made stuff becomes the norm, and the majority of people forget what real quality used to be.
keep it together man, in the face of peril, we should strive and band against it rather than wither and die. It is when you do that will grant yourself the possibility you have not if you did not try.
I think you will find a lot of support for human made art. These feelings is something that often plagues the creative, but lets try to empower eachother and have solidarity. You can do it 🙏🏼
I didn't want to "like" your post, so I am just saying: I'm in the same boat and this whole thing has given me such a sense of dread for the future it's hard to even get through a single day without being bombarded with it. Find joy where you can get it.
@@n8horsfall Honestly we just have to adapt. I have already dealt with being replaced by a cheaper faster option for years because I have worked in traditional crafts since childhood and watched the industrialization and outsourcing to China slowly make it harder to sell to stores who can get things cheaper from China. There are a lot of customers who want what I or my employers offer, but unfortunately it is becoming only acessible to wealthier people, which could also happen with human made art. I think a lot of people who are laughing at our concerns haven't actually experienced it because they aren't in the same industry or weren't taught to be aware from a young age.
Yes, and far beyond just artists. Hardly anyone crying over truckers, manufacturing and other sectors out of a job due to AI or just the progress of technology.
@@oddinvestigator It's a fascinating debate, and it's coming to every industry and field of human endeavour. I suspect there will always be "workers", or at least, there will always be "work", but a lot of future work be unrecognisable to us. If you took a random high tech worker from today and transported them back to 1922 and asked them to describe their work to most people from 1922, they'd have a tough time making themselves understood. Send them back to 1722 and their difficulty world be even more profound. The process of change is definitely accelerating, no doubt about that, and the speed of change coming from AI presents its own challenges. But in some ways we've been here before, across many forms of work/human activity. I just don't see any way of stopping it. The AI training processes that are so expensive today (requiring large corporations and server farms etc) will be cheap in a decade or two. What then?
Somewhat paradoxically the most inspiring thing I've heard on the subject, so far. Gives hope for some sort of legal and more limited version of a "Butlerian jihad," of sorts. I had no idea the music industry was so far above and taking such stronger measures. I hope there can be some court decision that would sort of force it apply for art in general by analogy. Also somewhat paradoxically, I'd think musicians would be less worried by analogs, since their career is somewhat more attached to their own personality or existence as individuals, being "celebrities." To some degree that's also true for visual arts, but it seems that it's somewhat rarer, with less of an analog to albums and tours of shows with illustrators, definitely not at the same level of stardom, and even he low-profile/non-star stuff like live music in bars seems to be somewhat weaker for artists, more of a niche thing like live caricatures.
Cancelled my Midjourney subscription. I make music. So I don't really have the money to support artists. I was using pics for random songs. I decided to commission my first piece of digital art last week. Working with the artist on what I wanted was a really cool experience. He nailed it. That's the biggest difference for me. There is zero humanity in AI art. As where the artist was a real person living in Pittsburgh with a broken furnace. I'm 100% on board with most these arguments. Artists of all mediums should support each other in this. My only critique would be that they seem to be very supportive of the future capabilities of AI in support of their arguments. The ability to use prompts and data sets will improve vastly. But AI will certainly lack imagination for a very very long time. The human mind is just too complicated. That won't necessarily save your job though.
By that logic I could get AI images and say I made them myself (Assuming they look normal) and Id be praised, but if I say they are AI then people wouldnt care
@@michaelschemmel1984 BRO thats one of the easiest arguments I make for people who share the same line of thinking as OP here. They say its not art solely for the external negative stigma that generative art has. They aren't even judging the art for its compostion, tone, mood, perspective, shading, contrast, general creativity, etc. etc; Ya know, the things that make the art actually art. I find it so crazy that I could generate something that looks nice and that a human could draw or create and show it to people and they say it looks nice but then if I said that SAME piece of art was generative art they would immediately say it's sucks and isn't art... The cognitive dissonance fr...
he probably used ai art for inspiration for his own creation. you over estimate the human mind and under estimate ai. you had mj so you have seen the amazong things ai has created with 3 or 4 word prompts.
@@GoharioFTW The people you are arguing against are correct. If it was AI generated, it really does automatically suck and isn't art. You can step out into nature and see a sight that is breathtakingly beautiful, but it's not art because it's an accident. Intention and effort is what makes things art. A pile of rocks can look pretty, but only when a human shapes those rocks is it art. AI art is just an accident by a random algorithm. It's not art. That it's hard to tell the difference between AI and human art does nothing to change this fact.
@Magicwillnz ok can't wait to see how you're doing in a year when ai generated art can't be discerned from physicl and digital art and you're biting your fingernails at every single image you see online and end up accusing people of using ai generated art and shaming them when in reality they didn't do it and then praising someone for their art when in reality they did use ai generated models good luck Also your example with stepping out into nature made 0 sense. Are you saying people who do landscape photography or any still life photography of nature aren't artists?
I'm a trained conceptual artist. That job has gone destroyed by AI. Will that stop me from making art? No it won't. I love making art. I love drawing and creating stuff. No AI will replace that itch, what's in my heart.
That is true, but it will stop people from being able to profit from their passion. Which is sad, because it makes sense to want to market what you are very passionate and, presumably, skilled/will be skilled at.
@@cameronschyuder9034 This is true, very true. The more art is overtaken bu automation the more I want to make art by hand.
IMO the worst thing anyone can do is give up, especially on something they really enjoy doing.
If your whole industry can be replaced by a technology barely a year old your industry clearly wasn't very important.
@@DanieleGiorginoyou're foolish if you believe this battle started merely a year ago.
The lack of empathy is what is most disturbing. Non-artists have no problem with AI being in a position to overtake the art industry. What if someone made a program that rendered their livelihood and craft redundant, though?
I mean, they will go through the same thing sooner or later.
This has been happening for decades at this point, now it's suddenly a massive problem because people that work in the comfort of an office are having their ''''''jobs'''''' threatened. This whole backlash just goes to show that blue collar workers are seen as worthless, where was the outrage when machinery replaced the physical labourers?
@@snail736 1. Dude, people have been talking about the danger automation represents for blue color jobs since this has been a thing. The Cyberpunk genre has critiqued this thing since it existed.
2. The reason people were ok with menial jobs being replaced is because most people did not like those, and instead hoped that automation would free them from bad working conditions.
3. Your authoritarian leanings can clearly be seen here with your hatred of artists.
4. Artistic jobs have not been forced on artist. They have been chosen, to allow people to express their creativity and passion.
@@snail736 The humanist ideal of automation was to replace dull labour so people can do something more fulfilling with their lives, but can't you see we're now devaluing the tasks that give meaning to human lives? And automation has been discussed for a centuries: the Luddites were in the early 1800s and they just wanted to retain their jobs; they didn't even mind using the new power looms, just about realizing some of the cost savings themselves.
@@snail736 I mean there have always been backlashes against automation, in case you haven't noticed. If you didn't notice the backlashes, that's your problem. I work in accounting, and psychopathic programmers salivate at the prospect of automating my job for over a decade. I do see the practicality of that, at least. But the thing is, with art it's entirely pointless and it serves to do nothing but devalue it and ruin it for artists. And it ruined online art galleries for me. Those that didn't ban it that is, but who knows how much it will advance and become indistinguishable from human art one day.
Looking at A.I art is really a throwback. I rememebered when my industry became automated an artist friend told me at least her job will never be automated. But here we are right now. That being said, having survived the automation of my industry. Perhaps i could share something we did to save ourselves. In the late 2000s, as 3d printing became more prevalent there was a fear that one day these things could simply print out all the things we could make. People scoffed on it, no way could they ever get that precise. But they did, and they absolutely devalued and destroyed pottery. Any idea, any sculpture, any technique you knew could now be imitated functionally by a 3d printer, even worse there were random generators primitive as they may be that could create any kind of geometry for the machine. But we survived and we did for a few reasons. It turns out these companies mass producing pottery in china were trying their best to get their materials as cheap as possible.
Perfect as they looked, they had bad smells, they were brittle and they were also not safe for health. Many of the chemicals they used to create their synthetic clays were highly hazardous for health and the chinese public took notice of it. They were everywhere and they still are. They flood 100s of pages of taobao in all aspects. But in a weird way this corporate greed, the greed of selling so much and using terrible materials made people desire real human handmade items. In China, artists created tags 手作 shouzuo became a tag used by artists to to signal to be public handmade goods, people banded together into studios and began to build public trust in human made products. Potters reached out on social media, with their own influence or made use of current cultural narratives to spread awareness of the importance and value of human made work. Fast forward to 2022 and even though a lot of us got wiped out, those that survived today are rebuilding from this apocalypse. Prices of pottery allow for a livable living, the public in china recognise the dangers of mass machine made pottery and always seek out human made goods if possible. But the battle is not over...
Companies in china don't stay stagnant they too picked up that people like handmade goods, so they started to add 手作 into their tags too, they took amateur photos to pretend to be artists. And this is where we are now. Trying to figure out what to do, but for what is worth, these companies are also lazy, they will refresh every sale and it becomes clear a mass produced piece was sold. Once this happens word starts to spread to avoid the shop and people having been educated to do so, do just that in most cases. Its clear the public does not take kindly as these companies 'skinwalkers' as i call them actively delete comments from people confronting them.
Long story short i don't think artists can expect governments to care and i don't think artists can stop A.I art. But what artists can do is to create and spread awareness on the importance of human made art and why they should buy from people instead of souless companies and machines. Companies will also do their best to produce at the cheapest possible ways they can if they were to get into fine art its highly likely they will use inferior canvases and frames etc. Hence in china, presentation is very important, artists don't just sell you a product, you are given it in a box with a letter of thanks and its good material and beautiful to look at. Something these companies can never be bothered to do.
China's new politburo will definitely solve this problem and save the people
This comment gives me hope.
But isn't the later half of gen z and gen alpha dumb as hell? , They already pouring boiling water on themselves for a tiktok trend and they are the people of future, the old people and the relatively young who would understand us are not going to stay for long , i remember my little sister cussing at me because i tried to help her with a math homework, she said she would get a failing grade than be tutored by me
Goodness. Thank you so much for such a weigh in!
"importance of human made art and why they should buy from people instead of souless companies a"
Your wall of text fell apart here.
No one will cares, and no one will care, ever.
Before ai art, making a living as an artist felt hopeless, now it feels pointless
When in fact perhaps, fundamentally what’s pointless is AI.
@@Nyfiken-8 It is just a tool. AI art will become one of the various art mediums among the others. It would not replace "Art" because it can't emulate the physical experience of standing in front of a piece of art made of canvas, wood, paint, oil, marble. The materiality is important.
By the way, photography did not kill painting, cinema didn't kill theater, electronic music didn't kill acoustic music, 3D printers didn't kill hand made sculpture... Everything will be fine.
@@alexandrekorobov4087 True. I hope you are right.
@@Nyfiken-8 I hope so... Can't be sure though. I just think people are always scared of technology.
I also noticed that they tend to compare art with menial work. These jobs can be automated for various obvious reasons plus they are given a low social value. It is not the case for artistic jobs.
And sadly, almost no one in this comment section seem to understand that applied art and visual art are not the same thing. perhaps some illustrator jobs in big video games companies or advertising compagnies can be partially automated for economical reasons. These "artworks" are juste technical documents with some artistic value that can be done by a human a being or an AI... There is some kind of confusion though... for instance "concept art" is not Art, it is a technical artistic skill.
@@alexandrekorobov4087 seems like many are excited to teach AI their art skills, and not just technical skills, in this respect becoming tools themselves. Will this make human artists abundant like many menial workers? Probably not. My initial comment concerns the basic purpose of AI. Financial incentive and curiosity would be drivers, but where does our obsession with replacing even what makes our lives worth living take us, ultimately?
I spent decades of my life learning foreign languages, only to see the translation industry destroyed by AI. The inferiority of the machine translations a few years back did not stop the destruction of the industry. The machine translation cost nothing, and so the price for all translation came crashing down, because the bottom feeders used machine translation. I found myself paid half price to 'just edit' (as if it was less work) a translation done by machine which was basically unintelligible so that I had to go back to the original and translate it myself. Most clients, the bottom of the pyramid that kept the industry going, did not care about the quality of the translation. If we expect that clients prizing human made products will save industries we are being very delusional. ... the vast majority of clients will go for the process that costs less.
L
a very good example of what's coming for every field.
„the vast majority of clients will go for the process that costs less.”
While that is a claim that makes sense... There are several factors that make be doubtful of this. First and foremost, Vinyl sales are at an all time high, with no sign of stopping now, and they are even doing better in gen-Z then in millennials. Second, physical books still sale better then digital ones, and are actually doing even better in millennials and in gen-Z then most will expect. Third, translation is an utilitarian need most of the time. So that is a factor that needs to be taken into consideration.
@@laurentiuvladutmanea3622 Excellent point. Now is art more like a vinyl? or is it more like a translation service.
Debatably.. I'm leaning towards art being a service akin to translation. I think it has been this way long before ai came to fruition btw.
Client wants art... often for a purpose, a reason. Maybe its a company logo or a character design for a cartoon. The things that bring the client value is whether this suits their needs and less so how many drops of sweat went into the creation of the product. Art is oddly utilitarian in a sense.
@@cachauable I think that is to people who don't understand art. for artists who do art it's different. The work that goes into art is to make sure a particular message is communicated. It is communication a form of conversation through non verbal means. So I would not say it's completely utility based. Marxist argue that art acts as a superstructure so it tells a lot about our society that we see it as utility rather then communication. I guess fault is in art education, and AI art is taking off cause people are used to seeing art as just pretty pictures. It's said that architecture tells a lot about a civilization and it seems it's true. Everything is now minimal, low effort, maximizing utility and function over aesthetics it's logical and productive but it's also cold, lazy and uninspiring existing to serve a purpose of it's creation and nothing more.
As a working artist and someone that cares immensely about human art, you just put put all my fears surrounding this on the plate and I hate you for it, but I also really appreciate you for it, if that makes any sense. Very important video and perspective more people needs to hear.
all these fears should be realised by everyone before theyre even created or come to fruition, We need to somehow create a large social wave that enforces lawmakers or politicians to fight against this... but how can we make them motivated to stop it?
@@Davidgopaint we can't. They gain nothing by fighting it. Just wait till this happens with literature, cinema, music and politics.
@@basswitch525 If you're going to just roll over, then shut up and get out of the way. You can either be useful, or stay out of this.
@@gabudaichamuda2545 I see your point, but people have tried to "create a large social wave that enforces politicians to fight against this" for countless problems. Global warming, oil, democracy, guns, schools, it just never worked. And all of these issues are easy compared to AI, because at least we have some control over them. AI is digital, and owned by companies who have no interest in losing profit for the sake of art, supported by a government that will be more than happy to have less "artists" and more "workers" in their economy.
I hate this. I want it to end, but it's been going on since before we were born. I'm not saying it's a lost cause, I just really want someone to come up with some concrete way of dealing with these things that isn't protesting and proposing new laws that are never gonna get pass anyways.
Same here! The way a knife craftsman cares about hand-made knives, we care about human-made art. The big question is: should we force other people to only enjoy human-mad art? We all buy cheaper manufactured knives that replaced a craftsperson-made product. I'm sure they're not thrilled about it, but it doesn't mean it's objectively wrong to manufacture objects? We can hope that, as for hand-made knifes, a part of the market still sufficiently appreciates human-made art to keep it going.
Some fantastic food for thought, I very much appreciate your insight on this touchy subject
I’m actually recording a podcast with Hardy Fowler tomorrow on AI and I’m going to surely be tapping into your perspective
I will keep my eye out for it Adam! Will be very interested to hear your discussion, good luck with it.
23:12 is the most important section of this video. I've seen so many people making that exact argument in the comments of my own analysis. The people who are cheering the hardest for this, idea guys who think this is the magic key to finally unlocking the story they have bottled up inside them; artists and especially writers who think they can cut everyone else out of the process and tell the story they've always dreamed of, will doom every artist alive to algorithmic irrelevance through their lack of solidarity and short-sighted solipsism.
Creativity will find a way even under AI.
Many people dont realise that attention is a limited resource. 😓
@@spectercd4357 And the world will be worse for it
Oh hey, the TH-camr who sent me here commented
I dont think this is the whole story. There will certainly be chaos in a variety of artistic industries for a period, but i think ultimately 1.People will still want to draw/paint/etc. 2. We will still need artists to create works that either these AI utilize, or that utilize these AI. You can certainly do a lot with a prompt, but theres still something to be said for understanding composition and being able to rough out your ideas to get a proper start. 3. People didnt want the camera to become so ubiquitous because it would put the painters out of business, people didn't want the radio to become big because it would put the local musicians out of business. You are not going to get anywhere if you keep shaking your tiny fist at the tides of history, noone cares about you. if your art or ambition gets swept away by this, chances are it was never gonna change much beyond your life, which means nothing much has changed, just draw your drawings and die in obscurity like everyone else. Our whole world is dead, all these reasons to protest AI are not reasons to protest AI, they are reasons to protest rampant capitalism, corporatism, inequity, etc. I wanna be very clear, I'm an artist and most people close to me are artists, i have plenty of sympathy for those who will be displaced or suffer as things change, but 1: The toothpaste doesn't go back in the tube, and 2: its not the AI its the money. Art should not be the kind of commodity it is, it should not be made for money, it should be made for the love of art. When you take those 2 points together its real issue, because the capitalism toothpaste doesn't go back in the tube either. We need to build a post-capitalist society IMO that allows all of these paradigms to flourish outside concerns of money. Most of our dayjobs are pointless nonsense and should end, the stock market should be burnt to the ground, artists shouldnt be grinding day to day just to finish commissions and survive, they should only draw when they want to. Social media as it exists today should be crushed into lifelessness and replaced with free open source solutions that prioritize the choices of the individual and abandon algorithmic feeds almost entirely accept as an opt-in. We will have plenty of algorithms we can apply wherever we want, theres no good reason to sell us their bullshit built in algorithms when we could be accessing free open source ones that prioritize what we desire them to. We could all have access to everything, forever, already, if we just chopped up a few rich people, used their abundant resources to build and train robots and AI to replace the jobs we hate, and then lived our lives doing what we want. I'm not saying noone will work, but realistically, if we actually banded together as an entire race, it would take a very small amount of hours per person to oversee crews of AI robots, or in a few cases, do the jobs themselves. People don't do jobs because they love them, they do things because they love them, and if they are lucky, those things earn them money. We don't need it to be that way and its not better. Art under AI COULD be deeper, not less deep, but yes, under capitalism, it could get pretty fucked. Eat the rich.
Great video.
One thing that is worth pointing out, is that music isn't being treated differently because of musicians, but because so many of these musicians are signed to huge record labels that have the resources to enforce their copyright. The AI companies foresaw the legal trouble this could cause and said "let's not".
As I say this, I do wonder if these "capped profit" companies are being short-sighted about images, because their datasets include intellectual property from companies like Disney, and that seems like a lawsuit waiting to happen.
I think there’s also an inherent difference in the amount of effort it takes to consume visual art versus music. It takes a second or 2 to look at an image and have a strong impression about it. It takes at least 30 seconds if not more to get an impression from audio, and 2-5 minutes to experience the entire thing.
The effort to get feedback from the ai-generated pieces is much smaller and way faster for images.
But make no mistake, ai is coming for every industry. The underlying problem is the way capitalism embraces automation as a means to reduce labor costs.
Long-term, I imagine a world where human-created art (or any good), will be prized simply for its novelty and our inherent connection to it. But the short-term outlook is pretty grim for all workers and the way we trade our labor in exchange for the necessities to live our lives. They are just coming for visual artists first for the reasons outlined in this video.
record companies cant do much since style cannot be copyrighted.
@@CapApollo The music industry has established precedent with sampling.
AI models essentially take sampling to a new extreme.
I hope they get sued into the fucking stone age.
This is just plain not true. Plenty of corporations have their codebases uploaded to GitHub but were captured by co-pilot largely without incident.
There is one lawsuit that will probably be a precedent setter for the entire industry. Frankly, I don't think anything is going to come of the lawsuit
I like how fitting the drawn art piece is to the topic at hand. The conjoined mass of a creature with faint traces of humanity, merely displayed in recognizable shapes here and there. Faces, grimacing and laughing in hysteria, ignorant to the loss they incurred on themselves and others.
20 years from now this kind of comment could be AI generated...
Yeah looks like stable diffusion multiplayer on huggingface
@@AbraHaze84 text bots have already existed and far longer than image AI, 1997, Cleverbot, is probably the earliest example.
@@thealliedpowers I meant that this comment is very descriptive of something shown on screen... Does text bots know how to interpret what they "see" and comment about it?
@@AbraHaze84 interpretation and art commentary bots also take in data from the net so its about the same thing there. Just another artform being abused to make easy money.
It's really crazy to think in the not so distant future many artists may have to verify themselves as legit, by sending in some kind of private video or speedpaint to the website they upload on of their art process, to prove they're legit, and then once this is done, they can then get some kind of checkmark or something to prove they've been verified.
But this looks like the future we're headed for. At least verification will give us a way to prove we're legit, so we don't get accused of using Ai.
There is a video AI too, made by Meta, so i don't think that way of verification is going to help at all sadly.
The probable future is humanity being replaced by AI, which is not a bad thing, per se. One could consider it as the next evolutionary step.
@@diagorasofmelos4345
bruh the next step of human evolution is being dead while lines of code take over.
sounds cool and here i thought i will get superpowers but i guess am dead and a program is pretending to be my grandson.
@@diagorasofmelos4345 Evolution is one thing evolving, not being replaced. So no, one could not consider it an evolution.
@@smail6865 Is it an actual speedpaint? I'm sure that if AI speedpaints start to surface, there will be other means of verification, even if it's going as far as sending physical artwork. Every digital artist is able to draw traditionally as well, even if we haven't picked up a pencil in ages in favor of tablet pen
No matter what happens, I want you to know that your art is beautiful. I hope you never stop making it, even if you no longer upload it
Thanks for taking the time to make this video. I agree with more or less everything you said, but to be honest.. if I had any say in it I would want these 'tools' to be gone entirely. It's just another slippery slope into oblivion, whether they get your permission to participate or not, or whether they compensate you or not. To me the most disturbing thing about all this is the ongoing aggressive trend towards acceleration and devaluation of effort and time. Who actually wants this? Who has anything to gain from this on a long enough time line? Grifters, narcissists and corporations.
It blows my mind how artists (the same ones who are upset by the capriciousness of social media algorithms) think this is somehow a good thing. We're already drowning in content oversaturation and the algorithms on twitter and IG reward constant activity. Now that these platforms are also being flooded by bright glittery and bizarre meaningless art ("created in collaboration with AI"), it's only going to get worse. If i had to force my thoughts in an optimistic direction, i'd say that maybe the complete oversaturation with this hollow visual drivel will make people hunger for art that actually has a voice behind it that you can feel. Maybe it will make people hungry to see something more human. I do feel like this is wishful thinking though, because if an image is distracting and bright enough, the eyes will go to it. It's easy to forget the value of humanity if you stop coming into contact with it. Especially when there's a million other things that could potentially be causing the depression and anxiety that it inevitably creates.
@Terrorists Win I am definitely planning too, I just have to properly organize my thoughts about it first (don't have the gift of Steven's eloquence lmao)
I will say that, while I may not represent the average person, AI art has made me fall in love with human made art all over again. I look at it with a level of wonder that I never have before. I am not a visual artist. I hope others feel this way too.
The pure eye candy nature of it will create a mini renaissance.
@@geraldtoaster8541 That's really excellent to know! 😂reassuring
@@CosmicSpectrumArt You could start with Steven's transcript and strip the valuable info from it.
I feel like the biggest thing we have going against ai art is just the fact that people have an inclination and bias towards "real" art. This can be seen in sculpting, where hand sculpted artworks are valued more moulded factory line models. People follow their favourite artists similarly to how they follow their favourite bands. People use art as a means for interpersonal connection just as much as advertising or marketing in a corporate sphere. The community aspect of art and the respect to each other in the industry I hope will avoid the redundancy of artists.
Sadly, with our interactions with our favorite artists being limited to press releases and other digital social media, and the increased intelligence of automated chat bots, we may well experience in our lifetimes, not knowing if our favorite artists are real human beings doing original work, AI bots, or humans using AI bots as a way to exploit others, by offering the persona of being a human creation.
Ironically enough, Philip K Dick, the famous sci-fi author, wrote about this sort of phenomena several decades ago. He was definitely tapped into something.
""The tactic of poisoning Linda Fox with small doses of mercury was an artful one. Long before she died (if she did die) she would be as mad as a hatter -- literally, since it had been mercury poisoning, mercury used to process felt hats, that had driven the English hatters of the nineteenth century into famous organic psychosis.
I wish I had thought of that, Bulkowsky said to himself. Intelligence reports stated that the chanteuse had become hysterical when informed by a C.I.C. agent of what the cardinal intended if she did not decide for Jesus -- hysteria and then temporary hypothermia, followed by a refusal to sing "Rock of Ages" in her next concert, as had been scheduled.
On the other hand, he reflected, cadmium would be better used than mercury because it would be more difficult to detect. The S.L. secret police had used trace amounts of cadmium on unpersons for some time, and to good effect.
...Galina said, "But if she's destroyed, the colonists will grumble. They're dependent on her."
"Linda Fox is not a person. She is a class of persons, a type. She is a sound that electronic equipment, very sophisticated electronic equipment, makes. There are more of her. There will always be. She can be stamped out like tires."
"I feel sorry for her," Bulkowsky said. How must it feel, he asked himself, not to exist? That's a contradiction. To feel is to exist. Then, he thought, probably she does not feel. Because it is a fact that she does not exist, not really. We ought to know. We were the first to imagine her.
Or rather -- Big Noodle had first imagined the Fox. The A.I. system had invented her, told her what to sing and how to sing it; Big Noodle set up her arrangements...even down to the mixing. And the package was a complete success.
Big Noodle had correctly analyzed the emotional needs of the colonists and had come up with a formula to meet those needs. The A.I. system maintained an ongoing survey, deriving feedback; when the needs changed, Linda Fox changed."
- Philip K. Dick, The Divine Invasion (1981)
That bias is solely cultural though. You can see this by people changing their mind once a piece they previously enjoyed was revealed to them to be generated. Or if that information is simply not known, there are well liked musicians who are essentially produced with assembly line precision, with dozens of people working on the tracks.
@@reck0n3r Dude the covers on his books are SO MUCH BETTER than a lot of the current digital made book covers. They are on a style like the covers of old videogames and it is just phenomenal the level of draftsmanship that they present.
As a game developer myself, I hate to say it but I will use AI created background art for free, and hire less graphic artists because I am a one man studio. I know article authors who feel the same way about pictures for their articles etc... And we are just the tip of the iceburg. There will be less work for graphic artists overall as AI quality improves and surpasses those of humans.
Ah yes, opt out, "I stole your stuff tell me if you don't like it", the best type of copyright protection. Should do that in the supermarket.
Ok. What if they trained Ai based on stock and consented art? U know what, You would still be hating it.
Ai won't replace real artists using canvas. It will only replace boring unoriginal clones of digital artists that just changed eyes and hair color of characters. Ai doesn't generate just by prompts. U can draw better stuff using img2img by improving your sketches and anatomy.
Ai is here to stay. People who draw for fun don't earn money. People who draw for money don't enjoy it. It's like any other job.
I'm a professional artist and used to draw for fun since childhood. I started posting some very good art online, but I hated it when I did it for money. But Ai is good. Yes. Cope with it. Stop hating ai. Read the free IMF book *Gen-Ai: Future of Work* and choose the jobs that won't be replaced by Ai.
Techno-utopians: in the future, soul-crushing menial labour will be automated so humans can focus instead on art and self-enrichment
Techbros: we've automated all art and creativity so our wage drones won't be distracted from their soul-crushing menial labour
Honestly, this was one of my biggest shocks when seeing this thing originally.
I used to be an actual tech utopian, so it was a massive shock how easily people accepted the exact opposite of what is meant to happen.
This point is under explored, even if posted as a half-meme. If I may spur on the conversation a step further: there are debates on whether or not some things that have been automated/industrialized are wholly good. For instance, agricultural development. Some disagree that GMOs are good and they have arguments against their long term health benefits. Others have described a nearly apocalyptic scenario regarding the abuse of farmland, and how it has been ransacked beyond sustainable repair (for instance, the Standard Process Inc.'s take regarding supplements and why we need whole food supplements versus manufactured supplements). Even more are pronouncing doomsday regarding the decline of the effectiveness of antibiotics, not due to modern medicine's prior whimsical measures against the common cold, but due to the overwhelming use in industrialized livestock. Do I personally subscribe to all of these alarm bells? I'm not sure, but what I can say is that sticking to primarily a whole-foods diet (not perfectly, but consistently) has granted my family good health, even if it has cost me a lot of convenience, budget constraints, eating out, or even less choice for food. Therefore, I am convinced that there is some truth to the naysayers of the modernity of agrarian practice.
What I see for the future of art is going to be discouraging if it affects humanity even half as negatively as the psychological damage social media has already wrought.
Misconception once again. AI doesn't replace all art, just the 99% commercial filler "art".
@@s4ussjust all entertainment will be replaced
@@s4uss What a pathetic and elitist claim.
After following this technology unfold for months, this has by far been the most informative video I've seen in explaining it's true intentions. That double standard of the usage of visual art vs. music really said a lot about the companies behind this tech. They know big record labels would come after them if they used copyrighted music. Yet, individual artists are having their work used for training this tech unkowingly and without compensation.
I now fully realise, we the artists, are the losers in all of this. All artists much watch this asap.
100%, they know what they're doing.
Just as a thought experiment, imagine if the government skimmed this much data to train any software. I'd imagine the reaction would be way different.
Sadly artists are always the losers, hence the term "starving artist". But artist are also the best at adapting, and you're really not giving them enough credit. Examples - Camera ( didn't replace realism in art) - 3d printers(didn't replace sculptures) - Digital Art on Screens ( hasn't replaced real paintings in houses) - AI art will be it's own thing, but artists will always be around, and mostly starving as always.
there’s next to no work for sculpture and the painting market isn’t that big. There’s only just a small handful of people who do sculpture and it’s not consistent for most (sculptor/concept artist myself)
Camera is a different medium. AIs a different threshold. supersedes basically all of it not on a canvas commercially. (Potentially photography in some respects too) and later on; animation, movie effects and so on. there will be a couple traditional painters around, but the vast majority are going to be displaced. We’ll never see a Kim jung gi again because there wouldn’t be enough work to support them drawing that much.
Everyone was wondering what the vast amount of indiscriminate data collection was for; now we’re here. Should have been illegal, because it sure doesn’t feel ethical. Especially now that literally all someone has to do, (especially in mjv4) is upload a photo of themselves in a pose, then just type “painting by [insert artists name here]” and get a result almost immediately more than good enough for most standard clients.
@@stinkypete9070 As another thought experiment, imagine a single individual just asks you for a bunch of personal data. Are you likely to just hand it over to them? *We keep giving them permission!*
The way that government reclassified, extended, and perverted IP laws in the last 80 years is one of the largest thefts against culture to exist in history.
As a full time working artist and the sole earner for my family, thank you for putting into words everything I've been feeling recently.
Perhaps you should switch jobs and go for anything that is actually needed and paid. And perhaps other members of your family can start looking for those jobs too.
@@haitaelpastor976 perhaps you shouldn't give unasked career advises to people you know nothing about.
@@nobody-nk8pd Perhaps you should already know that being on the internet risks getting exactly that.
@@haitaelpastor976 Perhaps I just hate assholes.
@@nobody-nk8pd Perhaps you put the asshole label on anyone who's speaking the truth.
Data-laundering has got to be the most accurate keyword for this discussion. Very well spoken
Indeed, ai is the perfect in between black box to launder your crimes. You could just point and blame the ai. "It's the ai, not me. I'm just researching the ai!".
There's no better time to exploit this than now. Exploiting others directly is illegal. But through the black box of ai, it's legal!
I could create a virus that steals data and says its the ai that creates it, not me. Got my hand completely squeaky clean.
Use ai to exploit, now!
maybe if you don't understand the first thing about machine learning and contemporary models, and even then it's just a hollow phrase not explaining anything. this is just uninformed fear-mongering.
@@minhuang8848 ah yes, fear mongering, its more scary than people losing their jobs.
oh no, all the people whinging and whining about how machines will take away their jobs they never had in the first place
yeah right, as if.
@@minhuang8848 Don't whine when you lose your job to AI.
as a 77-year-old artist with limited time on this earth as a living organism, I can appreciate this talk in so many ways. First of all, my one and only desire was to be an artist (visual) since maybe 6 or 7. And, it has been a wonderful journey. My parents tried music-making and singing, but that didn't titillate my tingle-ees in the right chords. it always came back to visual two-dimensional art. I worked hard and made it. then watched, typesetting replaced, then board art, then inception to complication taken away from my creative work. i took and still take pride in my work. I can only imagine the next 80 years. After the war, the people that are left will be required to relearn the basics. The Neo-dark ages. Or, we the populace will be parasites sucking the tit of whatever machine we are attached to. The machine will be called "Mamatrix." And, when it figures out we are useless baggage we will be sucked dry of any information and discarded like Pampers. But in the long run, it won't matter because people will not be around to complain.
you are by far ,literally the single and only artists that i 100% agree with on this topic , i kept looking up this topic and all i sawwas wishfull thinking artists repeating "it's just a too lto help artists" and i was like , no , it's not , it's not made for artists , no one said that exept artists and deep down everyone knew
they kept sayign "it's just a way to look up refferences and ideas" , no , that's just one use you came up with the cope with the idea while altho it's possible this is not what the ai was made for , they didn't spend years and fortune just for you to get refferences from it , it's called ai "art" generators not ai refference generators or texture generators , it saddned me that most of the damage was done by artists themselves and not even by the ai users who can usually barely formulate two words together.
i really hope artists come and bond together against this and not allow outsiders who are compleatly out of touch and care nothing about the craft to tramble it using artists work itself and let these corporations earn billions with artists own hard work.
For real, artists saying they use it for reference are admitting they didn't come up with their own compositions or ideas in their work. Its like having no faith in yourself. Giving up on thinking out of pure laziness. Its why I don't respect anyone using midjourney or painting over novelai, its like double plagiarism. It easy to see 'artists' becoming dependent on these companies. I as a viewer of the work have no idea where the AI stops and your contributions begin, off the bat the work isn't really theirs no matter how much they rationalize.
@@chinogambino9375 Isn't your argument just a rant on looking up references of any kind? Nothing you complained about is really related to AI models, so I can hardly agree.
As much as I loathe the unethical and anti-humanist aspects of these models, they're effectively glorified Google Images (people just pretend they've created what they find). Whether references are real or generated, laziness comes when you settle for whatever you find and copy it, rather than looking for something specific that fills your own idea and using it to inform your own composition.
@@rikamayhem Having seen how midjourney is used, no its not the same. If you type in a scene you want to see into these image generators they tend to follow very effective artistic rules of composition since they are trained on human work. The results people want to see are ones they can lift and use. Its very hard to not be influenced by a finished composition made by a generator especially after a few iterations, I take issue with that mental heavy lifting being outsourced. I know for certain artists cannot be honest using these things.
When a human absorbs photographs and paintings to use as reference its very unlikely its particular enough to their subject matter to be lifted. The skill is adapting your own visual library, problem solving and life experience to fill in the gaps. If we side step that by copying the composition of another work we usually call it a study and credit the original image, we'd feel dishonest otherwise since we owe too much of our work in that instance to the original. To me if you use an AI for reference it is your collaborator, you just are not the sole author.
Think about it this way. Is a human author who has read a 100 books and then decides to write his own novel the same as a human author who lets an AI trained on 100 books write his draft? One chapter? Part of a chapter? Uses the AI draft as his 'inspiration' for a rewrite? The latter can still write his name on the novel but personally I can't take the attribution seriously.
@@chinogambino9375 Fair enough, your argument is much clearer now and I largely agree.
I realise that AI-art platforms, specially Midjourney and "img2img" tools, encourage iterating on generated images repeatedly until you get a precise result, and I agree each iteration does hamper the user's share of the original thought put into their work.
However, and while I don't even plan on using these models, I think that, as a user, you do have agency in how particular to your subject you choose to generate references, so this is just revealing how many artists would rather take the easy way when given the chance.
@SHAHNMONO Then please elucidate me, because otherwise I'm getting the impression you just have awful reading comprehension.
Thank you so much for taking a strong stance. I see so many artists and people faking positivity, turning blind eye at catastrophe that is happening before our very eyes.
Artists need to speak out. They need to show the world whats happening right now. Before its too late.
@@NiloNova
for a Ai you don't really know how to create good text .
@@NiloNova
will you are not an artist 💀or skilled in any way you cant replace something useless because it is doing nothing to begin with .
@@NiloNova You are psychotic. Plain and simple.
There's no way we'll see a perfect AI. It will look like it does now even in 10 years. They can't "steal" my silly cheap chibi animations I uploaded here, for example. I still think it's an amazing opportunity, not even faking positivity here - people like me struggle hard with backgrounds and inspiration, novelAI and Midjourney helped me to get back into trying harder to improve myself and using some of these pictures as reference. Big artists are pretty much safe. It can help a lot of people, but yeah, in the end all the "mid" commission artists out there who aren't insanely popular and big will be screwed. Even though I think it still is an opportunity.
Of course it's pretty pointless nowadays to commission someone to draw a picture of a random autumn forest or a random anime character for a newspaper article. Concept artists might not be needed in the same way as before, a typical deviantArt artist with 10$ commissions will have problems finding clients because the 9$ novelAI sub is cheaper and you get better results.
But overall? It's pretty hard to be a 100% doomer imo, completely ignoring the positive aspects. The world changes and so does art, sadly. It's almost impossible to stop it and there's no point in crying.
@@bighatastrea
oh on ... don't look up meta Ai generated videos.
they are in the first stage of making a ai that can create videos (including animation) Ai .
This is sad to know about. And I JUST KNOW that the argument is just going to boil down to "Suck it up artists! You should've gotten a real job!" While watching all my animated scenes on Hulu and Netflix.
This is just the logical conclusion of all sentiments such as 'art is not important', 'art isn't as necessary as engineering' and 'art is subjective'
More like: "Suck it up artists! You should try to find a way for your skills to remain relevant in a fast evolving sector, like all other manual professions had to since decades ago with the rise of automation!"
"While watching all the AI generated animations on Hulu and Netflix" there fixed it for you!
@@Danuxsy „While watching all the AI generated animations on Hulu and Netflix”
That is not going to happen. Works generated by „AI” cannot be given copyright, so no company will use them for a significant part of their work flow.
@@laurentiuvladutmanea3622 companies won't exist because customers can generate their own content with a neural network just like they are with images using Stable Diffusion.
This is the first anti AI video I’ve come across. Every single other I’ve come across just blindly calls this trend progress. Thanks for offering I different perspective.
the thing that steven gets that i think other videos don’t highlight enough is that it’s not about the ai. the ai is just the product. it’s about the developers, companies, businessmen, and capitalists behind it who will take a mile if you give them an inch. we’re being bogged down by technicalities and arguments but they’re just distractions. it’s never about the tool, it’s about the people behind the tool and what their agendas are.
It should be protected by copyright. I.e. you shouldn't be able to use someone's copyrighted works as tooling for your machine.
It's literally using someone's hard work to replace them. Using these tools in this way is absolutely evil.
@@hellomate639 th-cam.com/video/4xKjHHzLUQQ/w-d-xo.html
@@kenoctcercos4832 Absolute fucking propaganda.
People like you make me start to think that Satan is literally real and at work in the world.
That is my opinion of your choices and actions.
@@kenoctcercos4832 Do you know what conservatives and communists have in common?
They're fucking selfish. When conservatives say that communists are just selfish, they're right AND they're also projecting their own selfishness onto communists.
Hell is made up of conservatives and communists fighting each other.
Become a liberal, and actually give a damn about someone other than yourself.
@@hellomate639 This seems to be a set of arguments and not propaganda. If those arguments are valid and sound that would be another discussion.
I had a guy on my Facebook actually have the balls to defend using AI data sets bc “ it still takes a lot of work to type prompts into a computer and I’m doing most of the work still”
To which I replied
“ yeah I here you. I’m a master chef bc I am REALLY good at ordering a pizza. I don’t cook
The pizza but damn can I place an order, painstakingly describing the pepperoni, extolling the virtues of thin crust! People don’t understand how much work goes into ordering a pizza!”
That is a very good analogy.
Yeah, and as Ai Art improves Ai "Artists" will become obsolet quicky themselves.
@@IvellScarlett wont that be funny. XD
How is that an analogy?
but some people want $5 pizza made by stoners. Cheap and easy is what makes the world go round. We all are guilty of machine made things that a person could have done. But no one wants to pay the prices of artisan items for every single thing you own.
Honestly, the best discussion I´ve heard about AI art
It´s so baffling, interesting and unsettling at the same time how the post-capitalism model perpetuate itself as the central nervous system o fall this chaos, "research" driven AI companies using art avoiding copyright law by using "academic research" excuses while "influencer" artists (Not talking about Steven, he´s actually making a beautiful essay about the bigger picture) and overall people promote or accept these "novelty" services on their social media platforms, of course it´s collectivley-incouncious but it´s so freaking macabre to the point where it´s almost like conspiracy lol
So amazing plot twist when he said "it turns out that it's you are the tool to train the A.I"
Problem is there is no real investment of time or emotion... A painting that would take days, weeks, months or even years is now done in minutes. The cost of failure removed. Instant gratification... No bleeding or sweating... It's so sterile...
@@DMDvideo10 modern society’s culture of instant gratification and rapid consumerism will be the death of humanity’s dignity
@@crowfoot8059 Pretty much!
I wouldn’t care too much. I prefer real, physical painting made by an artist than a compiled image. Actually the emptiness of AI generated images is that it would put more value on the real deal.
If you master your craft strongly you will succeed for sure no matter how many AIs throw at you.
@@crowfoot8059… it already is
My biggest surprise is just how little other people care about it and sometimes are even excited to replace artists even in fields that should understand the importance of artists.
The programmers in the indie game dev space seem so eager to replace their fellow colleagues. It’s so disheartening.
There's definitely almost a feeling of glee and Schadenfreude at seeing artists replaced, as if, by virtue of having cultivated a skill, we deserve to get knocked down a peg.
It's disgusting, especially considering how much artists struggle to be taken seriously as workers and receive fair wages.
Oh yeah? And where were you when digital art became industry standard? Were you campaigning for the people who would lose their jobs, or were you rejoicing in the opportunity for effectively resourceless art?
Ethics are a farce. People only care about stuff that benefits them.
@@tahunuva4254 I don't feel as though you've watched the video. Digital art becoming industry standard being compared to what ai art is currently doing is a false equivalency. Some guy rolling up photoshop into the company office one day is a far cry from a robotic arm being rolled into a fords car factory. The similarities begin and end with the two being new tech. That's it. Especially when you consider industry veterans, who were there to witness the transition, have some history of traditional painting who now digitally paint. We're looking down a position where the artists simply ceases to exist as a job.
@@tahunuva4254 Digital art is a tool and requires mastery in it's own right. Photography had a similar backlash of artists worried but is of course now seen as it's own art form. This is fundamentally different; ai art is specifically made to undercut the labor of artists and is trained without proper compensation or credit to thousands of artists.
@@tahunuva4254 do you have mental retãrdation
I'm happy to have come across this video, really happy. I'm just a normal artist who wants to make books for children, graphic novels, and become an art teacher. I'm always complaining about back pain, art programs being slow on my computer, having to buy materials, staying up until late, etc, but i really am in love with my craft. People saying that AI was "just a new tool" felt like a half assed answer to me. Much of your concerns you mentioned here were also things I've thought myself. Why, would i want the world's most beautiful picture if i knew that it was an amalgamation of unconsented sets of information processed by a program with no soul. Yes, it may be better than anything i might amount to do in my life, but it not only feels empty, it feels disgusting. Not everyone will be sensible, or will care enough to notice this of course, some people are so numb that they will only care to see "new and cool content" and that's it.
I could ramble on an on because this is a topic i think about a lot, but i'll stop here.
because it costs less :) ? because they are pretty pictures ? because it is quicker, more available art for everybody? If I'm a refugee from Afghanistan and I wanna picture the horror I felt while fleeing I simply use a program to create a beautiful and moving picture quickly and easily, instead of paying someone to do it. Adapt to the new environment, how many more children can be taught art with these new tools? This is fantastic for art, stop complaining
artist elitist versus the gigachad people's ai
I'm curious, what does "soul" mean to you?
get replaced or get with the times
Just started taking art seriously this month and had a lot of enthusiasm. Now with all the news about AI art, I'm questioning whether this was/is worth anything or whether I should quit before being utterly disappointed. I wish I had more time to think about these things, but it's my senior year of high school, and time waits for no one
Edit: Big thanks to everyone who's commented; your thoughts have provided fantastic insight! You all have reminded me of why I began my art journey in the first place: my burning desire to create. So, whether or not I pursue art as a career, I'll always be an artist. Thanks again everyone, much love!!
Keep your chin up, and summon your inner steel. Now is a time for vigor, not despair.
Of course it's worth pursuing,you will enrich your life in so many ways,you can achieve things you never thought possible and therein lies the reward,to hell what these programs can do, they're not you
Keep it up, you can do this!
Godspeed Snerg! Whatever your passion came out to be.
If you want to be realistic going into the future, ask yourself why you want to learn art first. If it's because you want to make art exactly how you want it, or if you want to express yourself, or for a similar reason, go for it. It's absolutely worth it in that case. But if you plan on making a living on drawing and painting, I would contemplate reconsidering.
Unless it's niche or taboo art, or you become a master artist, or you know you can secure a position in a company (which are usually slow to adopt new tech), drawing and painting is going to become increasingly compromised for artists to make a living on as these AI become better and their images increasingly flood the internet.
I oust drawing and painting because there's so much easily available data to train AI on it's almost unfathomable (Stable Diffusion was trained on a couple billion images, with a b). Other fields like 3D art will be safe for the _near future,_ as there's significantly less training data available _for the time being._
These companies taking on the AI market are dealing in millions of dollars, at least. We're talking tens of thousands of dollars in electricity _just to train the models_ when it comes to processing that many images. So despite the uploader's wishes, I have the feeling not much is going to alter the path we're on.
The best thing about art is, always has been, and always will be getting to make it. The process does things to our brains that are profound.
Excellent Comment. This is absolutely true!
Yes. Creating Art is essential to the human experience and it will not die as long as we don't.
Thank you. I find the arguments pro-AI people make for writing, for example, to be absolutely impossible to take seriously.
These guys are telling me that just because half or more of their creative process was done and AI doesn't mean its any less creative. . . yeah right.
@@goldpeen2661 They wish they could have what we have worked for. I bet a lot of those people are trying to convince themselves more than anyone else that what they are doing is an equally valid form of creative expression. And besides making it yourself is the magical part, I wouldn't automate a single second of the process if I could.
Exactly! It is the process of creating that is the best part 🙌
Trust me, japanese artists are more intolerant of ai before it even became this famous. It's super disappointing that from what I see from the west are mostly artists who are coping. Trying to be positive etc.
It's not just visual arts , ai is also getting into writing and music composition. Sure, experts are the only ones who can see which is good or not but the common people wouldn't care.
It's really frustrating to see the amount of people who are wayyyyy too agreeable for their own good. So darn short-sighted.
I'm afraid of a time where artists can no longer prove it's their original work without being asked for the video process. Or unique artists whose works might lose value when people keep using their styles.
There are even assholes who use a professional artist's name with an ai work with their style in it....and sell it. Even going as far as telling the specific artist "we will make sure you lose your job" is so darn hostile.
But yeah, thank you very much for this video at least I know somebody is actually thinking this thoroughly.
I hope it's never too late to do something with these pirates.
True, a lot of japanese artist sre pissed this as well.
as someone who really wants to get into art as a career, this whole AI art craze has gotten me actually kind of worried. I am in the same boat as you. It blows my mind how people dont see big problems with this. the only people who seem to care are the artists themselves. we must fight back
As a writer, my artwork has always been easy to copy, but my particular verbosity and individual style will soon be obsolete, when AI is capable of manufacturing every imaginable configuration of words
Writing is the safest form of art that AI won't be able to make due to the fact that AI can't understand semantics(for now). And if they did, they would be sentient.
@@AddyLovestar AI can already spill words. The thing is that it wouldn't have meaning.
AI is very good at making text that seems that was written by people. But fails when we go to specific semantics about comstructing a story like a human.
You have my deep appreciation for making this video. When this issue was first beginning to materialize, I saw a few videos from other artists commenting on it that I found largely unsatisfying, it wasn't until I started hearing you're on stream discussions that I began to feel as if I had my feet under me on the matter.
The Kim Jung Gi AI was the nail on the coffin for me, this is not a tool this is a replacement for one of the greatest things humans have ever done in exchange for money of course.
I hope artists get together against AI before it's too late.
@@DeadGuye1995 Just watch the video dude, he never mentioned Kim Jung Gi in it, my comment was based on my feelings it was not based in content of the video, and this feeling was a general consence in the art comunity. But also its not "worse" its very sad as well, be respectful pls.
Yah those google imgs are made by people, that get no compensation for their work being "scraped" and used in commercial ways.
@@leonardodomingues9010 At least one of the AI training sets also includes images scraped from art posted on ArtStation as portfolio pieces for artists. (which of course, Google Images brings up on a search as well, so it doesn't change your point...)
:(
@@DeadGuye1995 His first point is addressing this very argument. You should give it a listen, 07:35
@@101Linkisawesome No, that’s not the argument addressed in that section of the video.
So on point. Thanks for this work. I'm an AI researcher and an artist (at the level of a hobbyist). I made a video last week about this exact thing... This feeling of, "What's the point anymore?" paired with the economic consequences of automating creative expression. Got a huge amount of backlash, spurred an 130-comment flame war on Reddit, and got doxxed. Spent a long week thinking about this and put out a new video basically saying that I believe in the resilience of artists. Artists are so resourceful and so creative that they can fold any technology into their process. But that adversity *can* be made a tool doesn't mean it was *made* to be a tool, and AI can far more easily just be used as automation.
It feels like the perfect storm with this coming now, people are so addicted to constant distraction on their phones and AI art is perfect for this , a quick hit of entertainment and then on to the next thing.
If you're an artist you already know how hard it is to get anyone to look at your work, even if you're lucky enough to get featured or tagged somewhere big most people won't ever bother to seek out your work. Now you also have to compete with AI.
the world was already getting completely squeezed in the fight for attention 'look how big my ass is' ' look how ammaaazzing my art is' 'look how delicious my food is' etc. This feels like it could hasten breaking point whatever that is.
well said
It's like when figurative painting died with photography. Artists and their art will just evolve to a new expression once again.
it is inevitable, and maybe that's the way it has to be. Let's strip the ego away from it and make art for the sake of making and creating and nothing else.
@@primtones and then put their expression on the internet, get stolen by ai while the developers or patent owner don't need to pay a dime of royalty? lol
@@Djoarhet001 It is not inevitable. Rights and permission are not synonymous with "innovation." This is a legal issue and it's finding its way to the courts now.
Thank you for this comprehensive video. The whole AI art issue fills me with existential dread as I know in theory it could be a fantastic tool, but under our current consumptive and exploitative systems it's just going to be used to not pay people while using their work to train their replacement. Especially since there seems to be so little fear of recourse. Sidenote: I was so mad when I learned that one of the key learning tools for AI is descriptive text -- something that is primarily an accessibility tool. Because of this, I have seen artists advocating for inaccurate descriptions of media to mess with the system, which in turn will also hurt those who rely on descriptive text and accurate tagging to engage with media online.
Guess it's time to flood these AI with Disney IPs and see what happens? :')
If they take away the ability and the incentive to create, we will only have the desire to consume. And deep down, it's just that, consumption and more consumption. This is a strong step towards a less "human" humanity. Not to mention that there will be fewer and fewer jobs in which one can learn and enjoy what they do. This is horrendous, almost straight out of a sci fi horror movie. Excellent video and beautiful illustration!
The ultimate capitalistic dystopia
The incentive part is so important in creativity. I am going to remember this comment it is perfectly worded.
Except nobody is taking away your ability to create.
And unless your incentive is to make money with it (which isn't the case for everyone), that too is untouched.
So if anything, AI art will flush the people who are only doing it for the money down the toilet.
@@OzixiThrill noone does art "only for the money"
If you think that you dont understand a key aspect of art. The people selling art are doing that to be able to both do something they love and make money with it. And you said it yourself; noone will make money anymore.
@@Parrotcat That's rather naive of you, thinking that nobody gets into art solely for the money. If you actually believe that, then you haven't witnessed humans being themselves.
Also, AI art also won't make it completely impossible to earn money through art; Sure, it will make it more difficult for artists to support themselves off of art only; Maybe even make it impossible for some artists. But if that will be enough to get a supposedly passionate artist to stop doing art, well... That's all the evidence one would need to see the liars.
PS - Ultimately, I don't think that any artists worth their salt will really see that much of a dip in their money due to AI artwork.
As a (non ai) dev, I appreciated this video. Well said, and I support you.
Maybe it's time for all artists to come together and talk about this until some big changes are made
Finally! A high level artist that is well articulate, talking about this important subject. 100% with you my friend!
37:10 Oh yeah, I remember reading an article about that and feeling so mad. The double standard is unreal, the only reason they give a shit about copyright in that context, is because big music artists actually have the money to file some pretty nasty lawsuits against them, while meanwhile, most artists can barely manage to make minum wage with commissions.
Absolutely sickening double standard.
An object can be seen from infinite angles and mixed with an infinite amount of objects from infinite angles. A song has one angle and little deviance from that, because music aesthetics are incredibly shallow compared to physical aesthetics. It's not a double standard at all, it's out of respect for musicians that they aren't training on copyrighted material(and because there would be court cases lol). And they aren't disrespecting artists teaching a computer to draw, artists are just taking disrespect for various reasons. Mainly because the computer can learn and draw REALLY fast. It's like the guy said, if you learn to trace a master painter, You've Earned It! But when a computer does it you should be MAD lol. THAT is a double standard and it's driven by some inane logic about egotistical humanism. There are still people alive today that won't use circular tires because they think going too fast cheapens their lives. It's a silly opinion just like these stances against AI's drawing.
@@DemWaifus The issue is that the ai is taking very specific angles and very specific objects from art that already exists, without people's permission. Art that some random person posts online is not automatically public domain either. No matter how advanced the ai get's, it's not a person, it's a product, and it has already used countless copyrighted material in order to form its network. There's no reason why musicians should have respect while artist shouldn't. Also, there are infinite configurations of potential sounds and melodies.
@@chompompcharly That is not a real issue though because all those billions of images are being bounced off of one another to produce an image in seconds. It is IMPOSSIBLE to take this issue of yours into a court, it's like suing a painter because he visited a museum in his youth and got inspired. Except even sillier than that lol. I understand why artists are upset but they have to deal with it, they can't stop what's already released, they won't stop the likes of Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and the UN from developing this either. Just be glad that StabilityAI is friendly to open source.
And please take note that videos like this weren't being made when the closed source bodies were doing the same thing. This is a reaction to this technology being open. People against this are fundamentally coming at it from the angle of greed.
@@chompompcharly Like think about it, a 512x512 image has 262144 pixels in it right? How many pixels belong to you if you type "anime woman with big breasts in the style of picasso and greg rutowski :)" Are you trying to be funny? No one owns the artwork that comes out except you because it didn't exist before you prompted. Why do you think someone should get paid because computers can draw funny pictures now? Greedy as fuck.
@@digitasoul1389 Dunno, maybe they're friends? Maybe this is educational research? And don't get me wrong, closed source AI is terrifying, I'm just calling artists greedy when they're trying to burn down Stable Diffusion, because they're evidently afraid of free art from and for everyone.
Its hard to reason with most ai art bros bc the argument for human made art will always be an emotional one and some of these people have the emotional intelligence and human empathy of a potato.
U are so Damn on Point with that simple comment. They are so obliviously ignorant to the World that we are all in, social skills they don't seem to have!?!?!
@@50YrOldSK8R that is true I am a pro A.I. art but this is but a needed step to get true A.I.
I find rhetoric like this disingenuous. Nobody is arguing "against" human made art. It's you "anti-AI bros" who are arguing against other kinds of art.
@@WeAreCameron I’m fine with ppl making AI art for recreational use and uploading it to it’s contained communities, most people aren’t opposed to that. What human artists take issue with is the AI bros who mock and insult their process then brag about how AI (that trains and scans human art work) is going to replace their jobs.
@@rainqu "AI bros" is a non-issue
This video is an excellent articulation of the counter arguments to proponents of image AIs and i found it very insightful (bc for as cathartic it can be to just say 'i hate AI art bc it sucks' it is unfortunately not a very sound argument, though unfortunately I dont know if we can really debate our way out of this)
So much of the current AI art discussion is giving me shades of the NFT craze from the past year(s) or so. They both have fundamental elements whose outcome devalues art and artists (even replete with examples of the mockery made of recently deceased artist's works).
I love your way with words. Great essay.
Glad you liked it! Thanks Sinix
it's the og himself !
@@StevenZapataArt Your art is quite the Bondage fantasy (no slam, just saying)
Very interesting video. As someone who has mostly been disappointed with the arguments made against image AIs thus far, you make several solid, persuasive points about what's wrong with their current development and implementation. I intend to share this one around a fair bit. Hopefully it will improve the discourse.
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.
I love the "looking into the mouth of the lion" analogy. I feel like a lot of artists are stuck in denial right now, trying to scrape together any reasons why AI art is good for the art community at large.
Actually, it seems the artistic community is united in being opposed to AI art. The ones who claim this is good are other industries(music most specifically). Animation is still opposed to AI art, and the writing and voice acting communities have started to also oppose AI generation.
@@laurentiuvladutmanea3622 And now writers and voice actors have joined the fight against AI, this is no longer a one-sided war. I was terrified we were going to get trampled and conquered one sector at a time but in a twist of irony, the speed at which AI can grow may be its own downfall in managing to unite almost every major creative sector at once.
It's contrarianism. It's why they're is so many TH-cam videos defending the worst of every media series
Beautifully said. I have learned how heartless my own friends are, viewing my own artwork as meaningless. Hundreds of hours of work put into some pieces and just because I normally use digital tools my art has no value. He views himself typing for 30 seconds as making him as much of an artist as I am. People are so incredibly lazy that they just want the fruits without the labor, but how can that fruit carry any meaning? It would just be another product that you consume. We had this argument when I was actually going to say "if I had an ai that was able to generate my comic for me, it would ultimately be hollow. I would have the product I always dreamed of, but know I had no part of in its creation."
Art is just not a valued skilled by most people, and that's tragic. There is so much value in actually putting effort and heart into something instead of just google searching your whims into existance. Google already makes collages and clips out of my pet photos for me, I don't want my whole life to just be generated content based on my habits. I think this is how the human spirit ultimately dies.
Also, I doubt me friend would be okay with students handing in Ai essays and projects so they never have the need to actually learn. We'll have whole doctorates written in AI and have to accept we're a whole world of people who never took the trouble to learn anything since computers could do it all for them.
That sounds awful. But I can see that happening so often, and spiteful even, that is not even funny.
Honestly, if you still consider that person a friend, god bless your patience I could never. If you ever receive comments like that again, I recommend you may as well spoil the fruit and give them the whole artist experience.
"What?! What do you mean this costs 10$ to buy?? It took you five minutes to make!"
"I could do that in my spare time, there's no way this is worth ____$"
"Is it okay if I pay you in exposure?"
Well, not doctorates. You still need to actually defend that stuff and show that you know what you're doing.
"Do you build your own paintbrushes? If you don't, then you have no hand in the art's creation. " - some perfectly valid opinion.
You see the problem is, you're drawing a completely arbitrary line - which you're well within your right to, don't get me wrong. But you can't then expect others to change their equally arbitrary standards to match yours. To them, it *is* just another product they consume, similar to how you don't give a shit that your paints are mass-produced machine products instead of hand-made woad - that is, if you even use paint at all.
@@tahunuva4254 Writing a sentence of what you want a picture of is how you request a commission, yet no one before would have claimed they were the artist of the finished piece. The computer is the artist, not the person who writes a prompt.
There are very good points in this video (elaborated on at the bottom of this comment), and its sentiment is correct, but as a computer scientist I think it's important to note a few things that are definitely not correct:
- AI art is provably, and objectively not 'art'. It does not know how to create art without directly plagiarising from existing artworks - if there is a single way to define what art is, it is that an artwork can't be made purely by plagiarising existing artworks. Pastiche is art, parody is art, many forms of 'copying a style or referencing something' are art - but AI 'art' is none of those, as it adds absolutely nothing new of its own. It does not know how to, and it is not designed to - it is designed to copy and only copy. In terms of how it could be called art in future: it can only do this if the 'AI' learns the actual ability to 'draw' rather than merely 'copy'. This isn't anywhere near achievable, not in the next hundred years and likely much longer, because the data you would need to give to the AI to learn this is neither available nor plausibly recordable (imagine trying to teach an AI the entirety of the laws of physics, commonly known animals and all of their characteristics, anatomy, videos of their walking gait, just to name a few things - it's not plausible). Humans know these things, and learn fundamentals to inform their drawing decisions, drawing upon decades of experiences and learning. Training an AI with that much data is not going to be possible for a very long time, both in data and computing power terms.
- Outside of the computer science field, it's probably true to suggest that people 'never imagined the advances in AI art in the last 10 years' - but inside computer science, it is well known that there are no such advances. The 'AI' powering Stable Diffusion, DALL-E, Midjourney etc are neither new or improved. There are two reasons they are possible now, when they were not before: firstly, that the data needed to train them is far more readily available due to the larger proliferation of professional art online on large websites such as ArtStation. Secondly, the necessary computing power to train these models was previously something that was only easy for researchers and large companies to get hold of, but in more recent times, online cloud computing services are much easier to access, even for smaller developers. There have been no breakthroughs in the models themselves, or the way they are generated, or anything else within the 'AI' algorithms themselves.
Those points aside, you are absolutely correct about the dodgy legal nature of these 'AI' organisations, their effective theft of copyrighted artworks, and their lack of transparency. I also entirely agree that resisting these 'AI' tools is nothing to do with being a 'luddite' - innovations can be awful as well as great, and 'AI art' in its current form is one of the worst 'innovations' the art world could ever have.
This is a well laid out video, expressed well, and here's to hoping that 'AI art' falls flat as it deserves to. Thank you for speaking out against it.
I was thinking about how to put this properly into words. I think we could say definitively that AIs in their current state are not drawing, painting, sculpting, or doing photography - charitably you could call it digital collaging which creates the illusion of something having been drawn or painted. That said, the process you describe could still be considered a form of art making - but it would be a mistake to say the AI made the art on its own. Rather, it would be the collective artistic input of the human race (and not just the artists in the data set, but their teachers and influences) that is responsible for whatever is generated and the AI is merely the process by which that generation occurs.
Plagiarism as a concept is dependent on ownership. Ownership can be exchanged and bartered over. So plagiarism to me is not necessarily a strong pillar for a definition of what is and is not art. The ethical AI system Steven describes would do away with the issue of ownership. I think the images produced are indeed art. But I think we could say that AI is not yet an "Artist". Rather it is a collective project of all contributing artists and the flaw in the system is that it has been conducted without their consent or even knowledge.
So in sum, I disagree for the most part with your first point on whether AI images are art but your computer science knowledge has added some nuance to this discussion that I hadn't considered.
@@nateg3962 It's not that 'plagiarism' is the pillar of deciding what is or is not art - but rather that to be considered art, there must have been some contribution by the artist to the artwork. The 'AI', in this case, makes zero contribution - it does not add any meaning or drawing technique, it gives no new take on the art it uses, nor does it have any purpose behind its actions. It has no agency, no reason for why it combines artworks in a particular manner or extracts specific features. This matters because when humans create art, it is done with a meaning (including artworks with a deliberate lack of meaning) - with an intent to express some view, or give some specific feeling or atmosphere.
For example, an artist who e.g. paints a headless horse puts that headless horse in a background intended to give the viewer a reason for why the horse is headless, or to make a statement, or for some other purpose - even a vague or crappy purpose. The AI has no such concept because it does not understand - or attempt to understand - why the horse is there, or why it is headless. It has no idea what a horse is, or how a horse behaves, or why a horse is in the painting; all it knows is that it found image features that indicate the presence of a shape it knows to be a horse.
Even with the most mundane objects - a simple painting of a tree - the AI does not know anything about trees, or how they work, or why. It is unable to "draw" a tree, because it does not know what a tree is - it is only able to copy features from things its model identified as similar objects in other artworks.
A human who plagiarises a bunch of artworks and blends them together could still claim to be making art - unethical art, poor art, but art of a sort. Humans using 'AI art generators' would fall into that category.
The same cannot be said for AI on its own. As a further example, a human who throws a bunch of ink up in the air, landing on paper below them, could be said to be making art - because the "artwork" in that case is less about the resulting mess of ink, and more about making a statement about the nature of randomness or some other concept. The AI, in such an example, has no understanding of concepts or statements, and cannot do the same thing.
@@Ant-le7hl I don’t think we actually disagree here. My contention was also that AI is not an “artist”, though I would argue this from a different perspective from you. However, in the process of compositing images from other artists, their legitimate works of art still contribute their voice to the image. Therefore the image generated by the AI is a work of art, but it is not the AI’s art. Does that make sense?
@@nateg3962 Yeah, that makes sense. It's just a question of definitions, as many 'AI artists' (I do not recognise them as artists, I don't think they deserve to be recognised as such) claim the AI on its own is capable of making art when it is not.
Exactly, it's like a sandwich machine, but where everything that the sandwich is made of is stolen from different stores, you can say that it doesn't look anything like the bread, meat and lettuce that they stole, because they are " sufficiently modified" to not be the same as the original, but that does not mean that they are made of stolen things
I hope this will bring back more interest to traditionnal art. Having artists more willing to draw on paper and canvas and having more people willing to buy them originals.
Sad part is that robots can draw and paint too😓
I think there will eventually be another return to Humanism (a new Renaissance). Specifically because humanity will end up thirsting for verifiable humanity again. Also, I believe that humanity will start to resent the increasing lordship of ai over our lives--- and will develop a natural distaste for ai-anything.
The game may have to be raised, though. :Human artists who paint complex and meaningful compositions are poised to do well. Human artists who just want to make pictures of flowers or Spiderman, not so much.
@@heavenseek Oh well, at that time the standard are also much higher.
@@rockintennis nah, they can "print". If robots and AI ever reach enough maturity to draw watercolour, I'd say we'd have a far bigger trouble
@@rockintennis Well until they start mass producing androids and robot wives/husbands, we still have some time.
You touch important topic here. I think those who are now overexcited with digital art are those who lack the fantasy and inspiration to create something by themselves.
This was intellectually humbling and I am changed on the subject. Thank you.
Thank you for finding the strength and dedication to make this video! I have been furious for exactly the same reasons as you and felt so frustrated that so many artists are willing to look the other way. I will share this in the hopes that more people wake up to the exploitative nature of these companies and the erroneous desire to see themselves benefitting as artists from it. I am truly relieved to see someone tackle these common arguments so fiercely and intelligently
Very passionate and well-argued , I couldn't agree more.
I think it must be said that the reason these AI companies will extend their deference to and respect the rights of copyrighted music and not to visual arts in the first place is because commercial music is already owned and fenced off by large companies in the music industry that already own large swathes of human creative output (ie the famously awful music industry).
They aggressively defend "their" intellectual property and have a reputation for doing so, so they're "off limits". The visual arts (especially commercial) has no such monolith that dominates it, as most visual artists either make art in the employ of larger companies on a long term basis (jobs) or are contracted externally as freelancers to go on their own. Thus we are an obvious first target for such systems, we're ill-equipped to defend ourselves against hedgefunded capital ventures like StabilityAI.
Also I like the symbolism of your drawing, feels especially poignant lol.
This is a serious matter for Artist and Content Creators alike. It's not difficult to imagine that AI will eventually be capable to produce short form and long form entertaining TikTok and TH-cam content in such an abundance that human made content won't catch up to matter.
With algorithm being increasingly better at understanding you intimately and the in the video mentioned potential of having content created specifically for your current mental state, ideas, or circumstances It's difficult to imagine a human content creator able to keep up with this for long or even at all.
I think a lot of people are still naive. A.I. is now here and it will not go away. It can only go up from here. No 7 fingers on one hand in the near future. It is just matter of time. What most peope dont understand is that A.I. will do more than enough for a lot of basic stuff. A 10 men company that need new a new text for his website can do it all with chatgtp. It will be all fine with some minor tweaks. No need for a writer. That is an 500$ job less for the human writer, and maaaaany of them will go to A.I.
I dont see any reason why a business wont use an AI art tool for a cool background for an event. It will be used once and throw away after that. Goodbey 1200$ job for an artist. Etc. Etc. Etc. AI will take a huge part in this world. Text, image, graphic design, logo's, audio, video clips.. many jobs will be taken out. And you allready see a forrest of AI program's and website u can use in a minute. If you build the best AI machine, you can make tons of money in the near future.
Still.. people are naive. I am not going to wait before this hous of cards wil crash. I am working on my plan B allready wich makes me sad. But i dont believe i can feed mouths as an illustrator in new years from now
@yoRRnl That is ultimately your call to make. However, despite menial jobs being offloaded to artificial intelligence it seems like a stretch that the skill of an illustrator will be completely useless in your lifetime. Artificial intelligence is still very much inspired by human input. It's ideas were referenced and it's motivations are prompts. AI will reduce work force, because it cuts cost. AI, however, isn't sentient. While that must not mean that it couldn't do plenty human quality work there are still these two aforementioned hindrances to it taking over the world on its own accord. As an illustrator you could use your skill to prompt better. Or you could feed an AI with your design tweaks. Chatgpt doesn't always give a great first response there is some iterating that happens to get to that perfect output. Your skills as an illustrator would afford you that judgment.
@@RIPxBlackHawk The video already addressed that point, particularly in the “AI is just a new tool” segment (15:26) and even more specifically at 18:29.
@Khanh Duong Phan What is the reason for this comment ?
@@RIPxBlackHawk I mean everything you said in your second comment may be true now but won't be for long. The reasoning was detailed in the video so I just linked that part instead of retyping everything.
Holy shit dude you thought about this on a level i didnt even approach... i knew it was gonna replace us, i knew it datasets are a copyright hellscape and how its going to stifle originality but the whole part about promps being another dataset to train on was waaaaay beyond my thinking... im midway through the vid just needed to say this
Others just keep saying "Lol AI won't replace you, stop complaining, it's just another trend likes Nfts."
"Better technology does not mean more, better jobs for horses" ~CGP Grey
The terrifying thing is, humans are the new horses.
@@carultch ive been saying this for years
@@hyleriangaming22143 Hopefully we'll one day realize, we cannot automate our way to prosperity forever. At some point, a critical mass of unemployment will cut corporate revenue, and we'll regret trying to make the human brain obsolete.
Something that's really bothering me is when I explain my worries of horrible realities "AI generater" pose, and people just tell me that won't happen. I'm telling its already happening and they say people will always want human made work. Unwitting downplaying the issues, talking to people who are not artists has only made me more convinced that the worst possible outcome is the most likely.
@@reinasayama8077 When I see people commenting that “huge amounts” of the population continue to prefer content made by individuals I see people committing the act of assuming that their ideas are representative of the majority when I see no evidence that this is correct. People see what they want, but in the end it’s companies like Google Facebook Twitter etc etc etc, that are driven by algorithms and increasingly autonomous code like AI, that have long ago in the history of modern Big tech swallowed the world and all the hopeful humanists with it. They’ve been laughing themselves to the bank for decades already by profiting off the vast majority of the world’s docile behavior in regards to their profiteering, predation, and control. This new turn tech is taking with AI is just beginning, and it’s already not looking so hopeful. I have the same issue as the original commenter. People I talk to tend to try to minimize the entire situation and end up appearing tragically ignorant. And everyone having this discussion now has already been alive long enough to even know what it was like before AI became a thing. Relatively soon there will be walking talking voting choosing humans who will have never known a world without ubiquitous and likely insidiously pervasive AI. I’m not a fortune teller, but I think it’s pretty likely that, just like every generation has done before them, they will grow up and grow into the tech of their time and be the fuel for its continued endless sprawling grasp on social structures, economies, governments, ART…
Remember vintage lace? That used to be handmade, too.
They also believed that people would prefer handmade lace over those made by machines.
Today, the majority of lace is machine-made.
@@danielawesome36 Good example. Indeed, how many previously hand-made things are no longer made by hand, but by machine or simply printed or coded? It would take too long to count.
@@reinasayama8077 i dont wanna be a boomer but i have already seen people (non artist normal people) not caring by both (human or ai) which it would lead to them to not care for whoever wins, at the end they dissmiss art in general, so if Ai at some point can do what is on their mind, they will be ok with the disappearance of artist and therefore allowing the path for Ai replacing other jobs
@@bitterbunn1831 If AI manages to draw what people have on their minds that would be a blessing, it would destroy the skill barrier to entry for making art. And AI should automate more jobs, all of them. The problem is the requirement of having a job to survive.
Great video essay, great piece of Art, as someone working his way towards Art coming from tech, I always felt incredibly split on this matter, and kept shifting opinion, never really knowing where to stand. Your video has convinced me that AI art in its current form with the companies and the data laundering is very harmful for artists. Thx for sharing!
@@discordantduck1808 I hope you do understand how long it takes to make and light one candle, and how long it tales to become a good artist and produce a salable piece of art, yeah? Quite a silly comparison
@@discordantduck1808 1) you can literally start a candle making business in a month, with materials, forms, casts, and others easily available materials. Hell, one huge shop for soap and candles makers is literally across from my apartment. Fun fact, my mom does exactly that. After getting retired, she started making soap and candles to pass the time. Yes, It was a mistake to "lump em all together" but on average I think artists spent a wee bit more time to get to a professional level
2) Yes, the art AI will get its data and training as many other models for different industries, nothing to be surprised about here. And its' soulless on the most basic of levels. On later levels, it's a legal nightmare waiting to happen. I'm not going to grand stand here. It's a reality, we made it. It's how we humans roll...still, kind of hope that at least people will stop protecting multimillion-dollar companies with millions more in investments. Will society benefit from AIs? Without a doubt, but at what cost?
Also "of course it's harmful to artists, that doesn't mean it's bad" my dude, harm is usually bad.
I hope people in the community share this around. Everyone needs to see it.
true.
yes
old man yells at cloud. yeah everyone needs to see this lol. prepare for egodeath...
@@therealOXOC I'm fully prepared haha. AI Art is inevitable at this point. Luckily I'm not too bad at maths so I've got something to fall back on. I just think people should know that we're being fucked over by shady business practices and stop naively viewing it as a "tool" for artists.
@@telepathicfish1489 what can i say. stable diffusion is already here like he mentions. there is no running back the model. it's a tool for artist as i can see many artist that are not that ego centered using it. even if they stop training on living artist it's a tool that is here to stay and seeing only the negatives makes yourself depressed. it is so much fun sitting around with my little niece a producing awesome images that she thinks of. She likes drawing aswell and i think that will never stop but i can't predict the future. looking at the positives makes much more sense to me than to put up a video where some guy is drawing a guy fisting an asshole and allover psycho shit he deals with in his art. it's pretty dark art he draws and i only want to see this one drawing of him and don't hear more negative stuff form him. i kinda understand him but i know many artist that would never put their stuff on the internet and make a good living out of it because they don't trust the web. if you use it as marketing tool be prepared to be used as a marketing tool. i'm always drunk on satrurdays so excuse the rambling...
Art is perhaps the oldest surviving form of human expression. Evidence of literature, politics, philosophy, religion, and language itself go back merely thousands of years. We have art that survives from tens of thousands of years ago. Art is a fundamental part of who we are as humans. I find it profoundly tragic to see art threatened by AI.
I see the "threatened by ai" as a very narrow minded and wrong aproach and thought. It actually makes me chuckle a bit because every time a new medium in art was invented people cried about the death of art and the work of artists being devalued. Photoraphy being a prime example. "No that everybody can make Portraits so quick and without skill, what are the portrait artists going to do!" What happened was, that yes, portraitry as an industry got thrown over, that is the progress. But out of that came whole new branches of art, so many new possibilitys. You people will be the horse breeders crying about the car, while other artists are already out there develing into the topic and discovering what actually can be done with AI. Its a new form of art, it will change the status quo, but its not going to end art. Its just going to be different.
@@theexchipmunk 1. This is not a new medium. It is a dehumanization of digital art.
2. The limits of what it can do are known. There is no self expression.
@@digitalcurrents I sense a tone of naivety in your random internet mutterings there, stranger. Ever heard the saying "Road to hell is paved with good intentions"? Like life on earth with its diverse creatures and thoughts and minds as we do in this discourse, progress too isn't a one way road. Not all progress is good, nor without its consequences.
I for one, want the AI to thrive or even fall into the wrong hands so when bankrupts, the scream, the doom and gloom comes I can only laugh at these so called "progress", for the clueless to know that the knife may hurt them, they first need to cut themselves firsthand.
its not threatened art has always been technological with humans involved still is always will be. the is is the dumbest thread on the topic online.
@@jimimased1894 I mean yeah it's not really threatened, but dumbest as it may be do we really have to deny artists from their thoughts and concerns? Like.. This video, topic & thread?
Strong video.
Art creation sped up to instant gratification is a destructive force; it will degrade, not uplift, the human spirit.
We all instinctively know this, but temptation all too often outweighs the instinct.
The aesthetic appeal of a piece of art is important, but only a small part of the total equation of human appreciation. The investment of time is actually weighted more, the time taken to produce any given piece of art, but also the time it takes to master a given medium. Once the component of time invested is removed from the equation, the appreciation of art will continuously degrade until it is meaningless.
Yep.
Instant gratification, instant gratification, instant gratification, oh how shallow us humans have become. Sadly yeah, corporations and big tech companies have moulded a lot of us into mindless machines trying to survive the next day to simply achieve instant pleasure. I don't wish to be part of that and I wish many ppl think the same, but sadly most ppl love the status quo if it means they don't have to lift a finger. Hence why AI art exists
@Ty Gorton Yo, dude, it's not always about that. I'm not very creative and I always struggled with designing or producing anything. I have a full-time job in IT and don't have the time, talent, or ability to go back in time and spend half my life learning how to do something I'm not good at, anyway.
I just want to make profile pics and Desktop wallpapers for myself, man. People like us are just going to use a picture of something we like or that speaks to us, anyway. (Like how my avatar is a clip from an old VGCats comic.)
@@macgeek2004 Sure, I get that. The argument isn't that there won't be completely reasonable ways for AI image tools to be used. We're talking macro here, big picture stuff. A world drowning in stunning visuals produced in seconds by AI programs will have a universal psychological impact on humanity, there's no way of escaping that. It doesn't really matter how you as an individual make use of it, the implications of its existence and proliferation on the macro/worldwide scale is the conversation.
@@otapic Agreed. There may be more of us than we might individually think, but certainly we are in the minority. That is OK. The world is likely moving toward a dramatic split, one side embracing the new urban digital, and the other turning back toward the old ways in rural areas. The two will become less and less compatible with each other. Mainstream will likely vilify the rural group across their urban media empire to keep people from leaving cities... further separating these factions. I've drawn some lines in the sand... once mainstream forces certain tech adoptions in order to participate in their tragic little digital experiment, I'll be opting out. Kind of sounds like a science fiction plot... many would say I'm a bit crazy; time will tell. The Amish have been living outside of clown world for a very long time.
thanks for pointing out this part 19:20 , that all the people are training the AI to know what prompts are good, and interested in seeing.
Not using AI programs, is the right move.
I'm a Software Engineer and I agree with your points, the sad reality is that I'm not sure there is anything you can do about these changes, even if you somehow get all these companies to stop their progression, in around 5-10 years time you won't need a team of people to create an AI like this, a solo university student could do the same for just a simple free time project, thats how fast things are progressing in this field, part of this progression is fueled by Nvidia's advancements in hardware, around every 4-5 years we can build computers that are twice as fast as before, but also the tools for Data Scientists are developing very rapidly.
My belief is that we aren't too far from a general-purpose AI (around 15-20years) which would be an AI that is conscious and can learn the same way a human can (but much much faster since its made of hardware rather than biological material), this would mean that practically all jobs could be replaced by AI. What can we do about this? I don't know, but what I do know is that we can't stop it because we have a very limited influence on organisations like Google which would be at the front of this development. Another worrying thought is that Law is always playing catchup to technological advancements therfore we don't have any laws in place to help and protect the general public through these changes, we also won't have them when these changes hit.
Keep speaking up people, Art is just the first sector to feel these changes.
People don't really care about artists and chess/go players because they are minorities, and they got cracked one by one at each time. But if the public start to feel the common threat about AI to take over most of the office desk jobs and start to panic in the future, don't you think goverment will have to step in somehow ? At least in the democratic countries, because they will need to pacify the huge amount of angry voters. I kinda foresee a much greater confrontation between conservatism and progressivism at that point.
I agree about speaking up - art is a form of expression and they can’t take it away.
Its on us to lead it with ethics tho, and if we want it to be like us - I think we should give it a human law and decency as well.
Not that it’s related to us at all, in fact it takes a 8 layer ANN to simulate 1 biological neuron.
It’s a huge mistake to call it “intelligence” as it’s more of a computer power, human intellect coding data structure and algorithms, a lot of hype, wishful thinking and uncountable limitations.
If the Ai suppose to mimic us and help us to tackle problems to help our society, I don’t see a problem with it, but currently this is just a massive exploitation in the name of technology.
If it’s here just for the exploitation and usage of military the way China tries… the future is very dark.
It’s really on us to change that.
If you in the field please remember that ethics are so important, stable diffusion dev called me a “moralist” when I expressed my concerns, almost like it’s a joke to care for humanity and I can’t stress enough how important it is to lead the future in equatable way to shape it for the better and not leave bad presence for opportunistic devs.
We can’t let everyone be like that, that ain’t it.
I disagree, the only ones that suffer here is the artists which is a tiny minority, hundreds of millions of people are going to benefit from using these AI systems.
It's already happening in your field too, not sure if you use Visual Studio as an IDE, but the latest version already writes much more code for you now as a form of auto-complete. I agree with how fast the field is advancing, you don't have to be a data scientist to setup a model to be trained, format training data, and run an inference. I do think we are still a long way off though from a AGI. There is this giant jump in going from the models we have to day, to a fully conscious AI.
@@Danuxsy .....and then they'll suffer just like the artists.
Word,word,word. There is nobody who could make a better video about this then you ! And I love the act of traditional drawing while taking about it :D
"It's a replacement, not a tool." After making a good-faith effort to learn about it (my initial opinion wasn't negative), I've come to the same conclusion. I also like that you pointed out how it takes all the fun away. I got some good results but felt a little sad that I didn't just come up with them myself.
I'll admit, there's a small dopamine rush when you type a prompt and make AI art, but ultimately it's desensitizing because I can just make more art of that caliber in seconds. It's like a kid who can eat anything in the candy story for free. There's no toil, no effort, no journey. Just the final result, which is boring and soulless.
You’re right I felt the same I managed to creat a professional looking art way much better then I could ever draw or paint my self , but it didn’t felt mine it’s just felt I’m googling. nothing compared to the act and journey of creating art by your self
@@Gogglesofkrome Well said.
Try applying this logic to written communication: are you sad you are not writing this comment using pen and ink?
Handwriting used to be a form of art thousands of years ago. WE EVOLVED. EMBRACE IT.
@@gukes-3dx „Try applying this logic to written communication: are you sad you are not writing this comment using pen and ink?”
Written communication is an utilitarian tool of communication, not a passion.
Keep seeing same comments over and over again.
"You can't stop progress, Steven!"
None says anything about stopping AI technology. All he talks about is a thing that many adult people should kind of easily understand and practice - *CONSENT*
No means yes 🤣
This comment is SO underrated. That's exactly what the problem is here. Millions of artists work and billions of hours work of blood sweat and tears have been taken in an instant to train AI. But "oh well, progress" ☠️ Um, no, literal theft and zero consent. And of course zero fcks given by the creators of AI. Recently saw "the father of AI" (whatever his name is) is having an existential crisis or something... Yeah. Um. No sympathy. 🙄
You seem to be confusing progress with 'devolution' Agiranto. Catch up!
You consented to your art being looked at and downloaded the moment you posted it on the internet, so cry about it.
"STARVING ARTIST" VS MUSIC INDUSTRY The double standard with AI data sets between art and music most likely can be contributed that artists are individuals and music has always been dominated by studios and is even referred to as an industry. We need to start a AMERICAN (or International) UNION OF VISUAL ARTISTS that can lobby and litigate on the behalf of visual artist community!
Yes that sounds like a great idea! And agree with you 100%
But the question is how many artist do you know that is good with politics?
Or even know how to start something like that?
I would love to create something that can protect all artist.
But the only thing I know I'm good at is just art. Even the business side of my art I'm still trying to figure it out.
But hey if you know how to do all of that count me in. And I'll help any way I can.
starving artist who wants 80 dollars vs cheap 2 dollar ai.
i choose Ai
@@FemboyGaming420 You are a greedy prick.
@@laurentiuvladutmanea3622 Thank You M8
@@laurentiuvladutmanea3622 tho I don't understand how that makes me greedy and seeing how you artist act I'm glad it's going down
Thank you for taking a stand and speaking for all of the artists who would like to have a future where we can actually profit from our hard work. People have become docile "it-would-never-happen" robots in many areas as of late. 👏🔥
This was a sobering take on it. Thank you for that. I didnt really see ai that way at first. It just seemed like another tool to me like photoshop. But seeing it lifting off work of countless artists, and having that be sold, really woke me up about what its actually doing.
I think of it differently. Artists who have massive bodies of work containing repetitive themes, motifs, or imagery are likely in pursuit of capitalistic conquest. There's nothing wrong with that in the context of capitalism, but if you take a step back and look at the overall progress of humanity, you will see that allowing AI to develop in this manner accelerates humanity toward a future where capitalism is no longer relevant. That is a future worth sacrificing for in my humble opinion.
@@Tubeytime it only works in a society that is willing to see people as worthy of living just because they were born. Our current society is way too ingrained that working full time is the only way to say you deserve to even exist.
I would like to see a more humane system than capitalism as well, but for the foreseeable future this "transition" is going to be anything but smooth., and I'm not going to sit back in glee at this, the most suffering-fueled part of the process..
@@cosmicllama6910 You make a good point
@@Tubeytime today art is redundant. Tomorrow you and I will be redundant.
When capitalism is no longer necessary we wont be either.
"lifting off work of countless artists". What? These companies are not stealing art. They are not selling copyrighted art. these ai's are merely learning how to make art from images online. If you didn't want someone to use your art to learn how to make art then maybe... don't post your art online? I'm sure you would be fine with a person using your art to learn, and then selling their skills. However when a company trains an Ai to make art using your art, that bad? The exact same thing is happening in both scenarios! Please explain.
I just want to say that the art piece you made in this video is beautiful, poignant, and expressive, and that's something that AI art will never be able to replicate.
As for the 'tool' argument, it should be said that there's nothing new under the sun. AI is just taking what people already made and rearranging so that it looks original. It's basically virtual plagarism, which we've been told since grade school is something we should never do. I feel that copyright law, more often than not, is used to control creators rather than protect them, especially nowadays. The only people copyright protects are those are already in charge of the industry. So of course, AI is going to steal from the unknown, everyman artist to cater to its wealthy and talentless users. They're essentially profitting off of people's insecurities and laziness, people who aren't willing to try to build their skills or hire professionals/amateurs to help them. Really, when you think about it, a lot of modern technological "innovations" are doing this. They know that they've already made things too convenient for people, so now there they're trying to generate inconvenience artificially.
Honestly, with everything I've heard about how art and artists are treated, copyright infringement, theft, cancel culture, forced cancelation of passion projects, censorship, poor compensation, AI replacement, and so much more, considering that art and expression are unique to us as humans, we've really shown that we don't deserve it, especially if our choice is to not use it or let it be shown.
It's sad because it's seems like there aren't as many artist these days that are willing to come together to discuss these topics.
I thinks that's starting to chage.
I feel like, many Artist were in denial for some time. Fighting for your rights is scary and exhausting.
But I have already seen people starting to change their tune.
The thing is there are not many true artists out there.
Those very few who are will see their work raise in value. The ton of "artists" who aren't so will finally be where they belong - oblivion.
Definitely the most thought provoking point of view on the subject I have heard yet.
The weird thing is - these Ai prompters are saying it is "faster" to make Ai art, but then say it took them a week to create the prompt to make exactly what they wanted? If it took you the length of this stream to produce this beauty and then took them a week to prompt a computer enough times to get the result they wanted, I wouldn't call that efficient? Sorting through thousands of images sounds like a pain in the ass when you can already see your own work unfold before you exactly the way you wanted ONE time sounds a lot less like a pain to me lol
They're avoiding the tens of thousands of hours of training and practice that it would take for them to match his skill, and to create a piece of similar quality in a comparible amount of time. So from their perspective, it is certainly faster.
imo the satisfaction of finally making that one drawing you couldnt quite get a few months ago will always be greater than uh… whatever ai gives
@@ARCHIVED9610 I mean duh, but most people like me only want pictures, if I want meaning Ill make it myself or hire a good artist
@@michaelschemmel1984 oh shoot i gotta stop commenting late at night-
true
Last time I commissioned an artist it took a month to get a result I wasn't perfectly happy with.
I've done a video (in french) saying somewhat the same as you, but in a softer way, because I didn't want to be "too dramatic". But now I'm just sad to not be able to saw your video sooner, because my video would have be totally different. I feel currently overwhelmed by all you said, it's a lot to process, especially knowing that my main dream is to make my comics books come true, just because I have a story to tell. I'll need time to process all you said, but I think i'll do an "add on" video about this subject.
I've already add the link to your video on mine. So thank you for video. Really.
Well that was thoroughly depressing.
I think you are right on all counts...
Except for the idealistic notion that there is still time for artists to do anything about this.
And I think the long-term ramifications are much, much worse for our culture, for humanity as a whole.
We now get great meaning from art, music, stories, movies.
Not just the creators. Not just the wannabe creators. But the audience as well, of course.
Art is not the *sole* "Meaning of Life: of course - but it's a strong one for many of us, and in some way the primary one for a lot of people.
How much meaning will there be when it's all made by a machine instead of a person?
It's only been a few months and the common reaction to AI art has gone from Wow! to Yawn...
What happens when everything is output by an AI?
When human artists have given up as it was impossible to be noticed in the tsunami of AI-generated 'art'?
I now fear that all meaning that all people now get from Art, from Stories, from Imagination...
It will be gone.
The excitement, the solace, the comfort, the fun... Gone.
Yeah, that all sounds melodramatic as hell.
But I'm old enough to remember how cool it was to get one movie to watch in our home. Then even the selection at a Blockbuster was too much for some people. And nowadays, we open Netflix, get overwhelmed at all the choices, and close it without enjoying anything.
How much worse will that be when there aren't a thousand to choose from, but millions?
Even is they are created and tailored to your own interests... After the first dozen, you'll just sigh "Yeah, but a computer made this in a few seconds... how meaningful can it be?"
You are way to defeatist.
@@laurentiuvladutmanea3622 - Maybe. I hope you are right. I hope these fears are unfounded, and instead it all works out great.
@@PaulRWorthington it must be comfortable to hide behind pessimistic cinisism, and let us young artist do the fighting. don't buy into it. if you don't know how to fight, learn how to. the answers and people ding it exist and are out there, resisting, you need to have the courage to get over your comformism and perfected bubble of understanding of the world and go out there.
I'm selling an AI generated Mickey on a mug. Fingers crossed
The "opt out" model has about the same ethical grounds as people uploading porn of strangers and defending their actions with "DM me if you want it taken down"
and we all know how often this is taken down...almost like never + the blackmails continues
I personally thought that art AI should be used as a tool, you just need to be more skilled than AI to survive, etc, but after watching this video I agree that AI has been unfair to artists! Thank you for making me and others more aware about the other side of AI.
Recently I’ve been wondering “Why do I make art?” At first I only did art because my parents said I was good as a kid. I did art because I was good at it, but now I’m at the point where I no longer consider myself “good”. After watching I realized I make art because I LOVE making art. I love looking at years of hard work being put into use. I love improving. I love struggling. I love seeing other’s voices being heard through this medium. I hope AI doesn’t take that away from us and future generations.
If there is not regulation, it will indeed take that away from you.
The reflex to regulate anything just creates another layer of technocracy, interwoven into bureaucracy. It’s a trap of its own making.
AI art generation needs existing art from talented artists to present something convincing and plausible. At the moment anything established in perspective is its bane. Perhaps with the integration of 3d programs and how tackling perspective works in those softwares, that can change.
Visual development jobs will probably have a lighter workload with AI as a tool. But paying an artist who produces consistent and high quality work, or who can direct a project with a honed sense of aesthetics, will still be demanded.
@@Hibernial I agree that artists are still in demand and it's being used as a tool to enhance workflow. However, it will replace us in the near future (few years?) if there's no regulation, no doubt in my mind. I disagree with your first statement.
It has nothing to do with skill.
Us artist people we create from our imagination and our experiences.
AI bypass all of that and do a very quick search that takes mili second and put it together.
It's equivalent to taking other artist art and making a collage and calling it your art.
It doesn't even do art it need our art to actually make art.
Art takes creativity, imagination and emotion.
Something a computer can't do or have.
Just don't mistake AI art for real art.
For me as a consumer id rather pay 2 dollars rather than up to 50 dollars for a picture so ya Ai wins for me
As a foreigner, I would especially like to note your beautiful way of speaking. I listen to you and understand every last word, as if you were speaking my language.
At first I wasn't that bothered by Ai Art since I felt like it was still lacking as its own. And quite a number of popular artists I follow even support it and advertises it. But after watching this and doing research... you are right. It is unchecked and anything unchecked is dangerous. It disheartens me that it won't just affect jobs today but also future possible artists who wouldn't bother to be one anymore. On the other hand, when you mentioned the whole law protection in music and how it should be, I was baffled to realizd how things should be this way from the very beginning. Thank you for this video.
Honestly if you get discouraged from becoming an artist because of AI image generators, you should not have become an artist in the first place.
I do agree that the current laws and regulations around these images are lackluster and unchecked, but the possibilities of artists developing and finding more work than ever, is so grand, no more will you be forced to draw 10 different variations of the same drawing in half the time that you would be comfortable with, just to find out that pocket should be blue, that work was done by the algorithm and the one with the original idea, all you have to do is draw from those concept images what you were told.
and for personal artists, now you don't have to spend a week looking for reference and bashing your head against the wall trying to come up with an idea / concept and the perfect composition and just end up settling for a generic one, like always.
@@James_XXIY_crafts i mean he did say in the video that no, ai will replace artists, not help them because in the future, it won't need outside input
@@tooncatara3439 so should writers of all things stop writing because the library of Babel exists online, it literally contains every book ever written and ever will be read.
Art is about personal expression, and the only thing we have to do as humans is make sure that it doesn't become a tool for commercialisation, I see no problem in concepting with the visual Library of Bable with a better indexing system, it makes creation more accessible for people who can't draw and never would pay for an artist till they are sure of what they want or need.
@@James_XXIY_crafts Yes, art is about personal expression, but many also have careers around art. You mentioned we humans have to make sure AI generation doesn't become a tool for commercialisation, but if the general public can get hands on the tool and generate art for themselves, doesn't that mean commercialisation. Drawing can be learned and it's not hard to start, toddlers with a pencil can easily draw, it might not be appealing nor comprehensible, but that is how you start something.
@@cnash5647 The majority of people buying art nowadays are fans of the artist, it is usually not for a bigger reason, they are buying it as merch, those who buy it for some other reason are in the middle of a project.
My prediction of what these generators are going to do to the art industry, artists will see more work since now people working on projects can visualize their vision so much quicker.
See it like this, did game engines ruin the gaming industry?
Did voice to text make secretaries obsolete?
Did the mechanical lathe ruin the machinist industry?
The answers to all of them is no, it only made their jobs easier and give them the opportunity to work more efficiently and produce higher quality.
Now an artist don't have to draw a million low quality concept sketches, because the client doesn't know what their main character looks like.
And no matter how you look at it, people want something made by people, having AI generated images on your wall, will be a gimmick, just like low effort paint splatter paintings and uninspired river tables, of course that will still be fanatics, there always are, but in the end people are drawn to purpose not random noise.
no wonder my drive to draw has been completely quashed. on top of the growing unfriendliness of social media to artists, AI really is putting an end to anyone even remotely paying attention to the few things i bother making. uploading it online only adds to my fear that my idea will be absorbed into the AI hivemind and continue to destroy art as we know it. as if i have the time and money to take these people to court. are individual artists supposed to unionize? how are we supposed to fix this issue?
“Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.”
Frank Herbert, Dune
Collective lawsuits is the answer. Artists should finally start to protect themselves legally. Creative AI's should get their databases open for public scrutiny and sued to hell for each and any copyright and plagiarism infringement that is found.
Learning from others is not plagiarism.
@@TheNeomaster15 The A.I copies 1:1, and the companies stole millions of copyrighted works from artists that they had no right to. Shut your mouth, and keep it that way.
@@gabudaichamuda2545 You don't know how the AIs work. They learn by scanning the noise of art and analyzing it pixel by pixel. Eventually learning an apple is red and an apple is round. No where is the works stored or re-used.
@@TheNeomaster15 you're lying.
@@cynxmanga Search up "noise map" and ai art. I would post a link but youtube doesn't like that.
Aaah, I have been bombarded with videos titled such as "artists are about to be obsolete" and "graphic designers will need to find another profession" for a while now. I never bought into it, but I'm glad it's YOU who's rolling up his sleeves, Steve, I can think of no one better. Lemme grab some popcorn.
It wasn't the takedown I was expecting, but I'll take a call to arms over some flippant criticism to start my day any day.
I had a conversation about AI art a few years back, where a buddy consoled me saying that AI could never replace a human artist, as we have our inherent human flaws that a machine couldn't replicate. Seeing how faulty these recent images are, I can't help but think he missed the mark, but I'm still convinced that a few years from now, when and IF the AIs take over the industries, a real drawing made by a real human will have increased in value, especially if most of the would be competition has been discouraged to pursue this line of work from the get-go. This is not an argument FOR AI programs, but my attempt at finding the silver lining. I'm still a dreamer.
@@durere i personally see it this way, the biggest demise of AI-Art will be ironically what will make it accessible for everyone: free-source programs.
because if anyone can make this at home, for free, why buying a piece of AI-art, then?
@@Legomicroman The same reason so many people order food instead of firing up the stove.
Not to mention that if everyone would use it, wouldn't that mean the AI's already won?
@@durere what i mean is: when everyone can eventually make AI Art themselves FOR FREE (it will not be a question of IF, but WHEN), then people who make AI-Art for profit, will draw the short end of the stick.
because if i can generate it for free, why buying it from somebody else?
this means that Handcrafted Art could become more valuable. not only because of labor-costs, but because it´s SPECIAL, compared to easily-generated computer-trash. it´s unique and PERSONAL.
maybe i´m too optimistic, but i don´t want lose the remaining shred of hope, i have left.
@@Legomicroman Not trying to burst your bubble either, but you need to take some things into account.
First of all, not all people are creative. Sure, you would need less creativity to instruct the AI than you need to draw something (maybe, not so sure about that) but you would still need that extra eyelid creative people have to judge whether or not what you generate can actually fly. Understanding color dynamics, composition, flow - most people don't have access to that part of the brain, and if they do, it's more like a window than a door.
What I'm trying to say is that an artist with a keen eye will generate better AI art than your everyday person. Said artist can then sell his generated stuff, or simply lend his AI instruction skills for a buck or two. But I do believe you make a valid point about it bringing less money.
Again, on your point about not buying it from someone else when you can make it yourself - if that were the case in the real world, Starbucks would go bankrupt overnight. Coffee is one of the easiest and cheapest things to make at home, yet so many people go spend ridiculous amounts of money getting their coffee there.
Not just that, but a lot of people are so comfortable in their ignorance, they're actually proud - ''Hurr Durr, I don't know how to use that sht, I'll just have someone else do it for me and throw some bucks at them''
This is exactly what I've been saying. As a piece of technology this is pretty impressive and interesting, but we got to question who's interests is this fulfilling and stop guilt tripping concerned artists for not ridding the hype wave of Ai.
Artists can be concerned, that's fine. However, the tides coming and theres no stopping it now. All you can do is adapt.
This is the conflict that technology has with the structure of our economies. You are feeling the effects of technological efficiency that has already decimated entire industries over time. we can not have a sustained system of human labor for survival when technology makes the labor of millions something trivial. In a world where artists arent required to sell themselves they would make art as an expression of themselves with creations containing only the specific intent a human artist could have. We can not and should not fight the progress technology provides. We should be fighting the economic systems that force us to sell our creativity in order to survive, so that we can create for ourselves and others purely for the joy and challenge of it.
@@pinip_f_werty1382 There is no adapting to this. If you try, you will be replaced anyway.
@@laurentiuvladutmanea3622 Bullshit. Abuse the tech while it's in it's infancy. Slap out work at unprecedented efficiency. Make money and invest in your future. If you have art skills, then ai in your hands is significantly greater than a non-artist. If you played Elden Ring, please revisit it's themes on rot and stagnation vs flowing water.
@@pinip_f_werty1382 Tell me you have never touched a pencil without telling me you have never touched a pencil
This is why I can't call these "AI" - it is not creating art it is sampling art made by human artists and assembling them via complex algorithms.
You, as a human, do the same in the form of “inspiration”. Nothing different.
@@ajp2206 people are inspired by the idea more than by the method and techniques. If you arent the student of an artist, you aren't "copying" the art because you don't know the "technique". And the main problem is, AI samples other arts to make a picture, but humans sample experiences. They can even sample music, they can sample memories into images. AI can't do it. Having said that, a lot of people have pathetic imaginations, the 99 percentile won't make it, but there's a world of difference between 99 and 99.9
@@Vajrapani108so you're just a misanthrope, got it
I highly recommend reading about the Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. AI endangers so many parts of it. The whole self-actualization part is currently being destroyed by AI (creativity, experience purpose, meaning and inner potential). The self-esteem part too (achievement, respect of others, the need to be an unique individual). Safety and security, which is extremely important is also in danger (employment, property). Other parts could also be threatened.
Who cares about self actualization when people dont have the first two needs.
@@realMarkholla People clearly do.
@@kress404 yeah the privileged ones. They are like 1-2% they dont matter.
This needs to be shared EXTENSIVELY.
Remember to SHARE this around & watch the video multiple times for increased watch time, boosting it in the algorithm. And remember that your personal expression is irreplacable.
Thank you Steven. Hope as much as possible people would hear, see and understand this.
Nice video. It's not just artists, they are doing this to everyone. They are doing this with everything that gives them data. Data is the new oil, and they are extracting it for free. This is just another way to do so. It's really surreal but almost nobody's complaining or setting fires. Everyone Voluntarily uses IG, Facebook, gmail, Amazon and they love it too! Now about artists, yes I would be very worried, especially if your art is digital. This is bad bad bad. incredibly bad. Most people have no idea, but when you're into cyber security and know a little bit of code you begin to really see what's going on here.
I believe this gross feeling all revolves around the exploitation of our identities. I believe our identities should have the same treatment as our physical property.
I hope you don't mind that I referenced this video to further give a heads-up on this growing situation for visual artists. I'm in the fight. Or, I should say, we are all in a fight against this stuff.
i derive so much meaning working on my comic every day- to have it be trivialized to some algorithm recommendation gives me the strongest form of existential dread I've ever felt. I honestly don't want to live in that world. But i'm going to keep making it for myself, it will matter for no other reason than because I say so.
Cute!
Same here. When I was a kid I was dreaming of becoming a comic artist. I don't post my stuff online, because I don't enjoy social media, but I wish I was born a few years earlier to release my projects and maybe even find a few people that like what I do. From now on the art/comic-market will be oversaturated with AI-stuff. I make my comics for me, my friends and family and I love what I do, but it's still depressing to see what the future holds.
Good choice.
I agree completely, Devin. I feel the same.
ur creative vision should be more important to a person than a machine that can create their vision. You are telling a story through your comic. AI can do only as much as the person using it.
I'm learning to draw for quite a while now, and I will be so, so, SO mad if in the near future AI has reached the point of being good enough to really replace artist. I usually just don't think much about the topic and continue to study and do my art but when I actually think about it... it kinda scares me not gonna lie.
🤣
Mood
Technology doesn't have to do your job as good as you. It just has to do it good enough if it's some combination of faster and cheaper. The cheap part is important, because as more workers lose income to technological disruption, whether they like it or not they'll only be able to afford cheap things that aren't as good as when the same things were made by hand. Over time, the cheap machine-made stuff becomes the norm, and the majority of people forget what real quality used to be.
The recent prevalence of AI art has made me feel more hopeless and suicidal than I have in years
keep it together man, in the face of peril, we should strive and band against it rather than wither and die. It is when you do that will grant yourself the possibility you have not if you did not try.
I think you will find a lot of support for human made art. These feelings is something that often plagues the creative, but lets try to empower eachother and have solidarity. You can do it 🙏🏼
Me too. Been days without leaving my bed.
I didn't want to "like" your post, so I am just saying: I'm in the same boat and this whole thing has given me such a sense of dread for the future it's hard to even get through a single day without being bombarded with it.
Find joy where you can get it.
@@n8horsfall Honestly we just have to adapt. I have already dealt with being replaced by a cheaper faster option for years because I have worked in traditional crafts since childhood and watched the industrialization and outsourcing to China slowly make it harder to sell to stores who can get things cheaper from China. There are a lot of customers who want what I or my employers offer, but unfortunately it is becoming only acessible to wealthier people, which could also happen with human made art.
I think a lot of people who are laughing at our concerns haven't actually experienced it because they aren't in the same industry or weren't taught to be aware from a young age.
This whole situation is truly heartbreaking. AI has the potencial of completely dismantling the work structure of society.
Yes, and far beyond just artists. Hardly anyone crying over truckers, manufacturing and other sectors out of a job due to AI or just the progress of technology.
This time around I think the question is what jobs will survive, instead of which ones will be replaced.
@@oddinvestigator Politician, salesman, therapist, priest? Might be a tad a safer from AI than most.
@@misterogers9423 Yeah, these ones seem reasonable. But I wonder how would the economy of a world with few workers work.
@@oddinvestigator It's a fascinating debate, and it's coming to every industry and field of human endeavour. I suspect there will always be "workers", or at least, there will always be "work", but a lot of future work be unrecognisable to us. If you took a random high tech worker from today and transported them back to 1922 and asked them to describe their work to most people from 1922, they'd have a tough time making themselves understood. Send them back to 1722 and their difficulty world be even more profound.
The process of change is definitely accelerating, no doubt about that, and the speed of change coming from AI presents its own challenges. But in some ways we've been here before, across many forms of work/human activity. I just don't see any way of stopping it. The AI training processes that are so expensive today (requiring large corporations and server farms etc) will be cheap in a decade or two. What then?
Somewhat paradoxically the most inspiring thing I've heard on the subject, so far. Gives hope for some sort of legal and more limited version of a "Butlerian jihad," of sorts. I had no idea the music industry was so far above and taking such stronger measures. I hope there can be some court decision that would sort of force it apply for art in general by analogy. Also somewhat paradoxically, I'd think musicians would be less worried by analogs, since their career is somewhat more attached to their own personality or existence as individuals, being "celebrities." To some degree that's also true for visual arts, but it seems that it's somewhat rarer, with less of an analog to albums and tours of shows with illustrators, definitely not at the same level of stardom, and even he low-profile/non-star stuff like live music in bars seems to be somewhat weaker for artists, more of a niche thing like live caricatures.
Cancelled my Midjourney subscription. I make music. So I don't really have the money to support artists. I was using pics for random songs. I decided to commission my first piece of digital art last week. Working with the artist on what I wanted was a really cool experience. He nailed it. That's the biggest difference for me. There is zero humanity in AI art. As where the artist was a real person living in Pittsburgh with a broken furnace. I'm 100% on board with most these arguments. Artists of all mediums should support each other in this.
My only critique would be that they seem to be very supportive of the future capabilities of AI in support of their arguments. The ability to use prompts and data sets will improve vastly. But AI will certainly lack imagination for a very very long time. The human mind is just too complicated. That won't necessarily save your job though.
By that logic I could get AI images and say I made them myself (Assuming they look normal) and Id be praised, but if I say they are AI then people wouldnt care
@@michaelschemmel1984 BRO thats one of the easiest arguments I make for people who share the same line of thinking as OP here.
They say its not art solely for the external negative stigma that generative art has. They aren't even judging the art for its compostion, tone, mood, perspective, shading, contrast, general creativity, etc. etc; Ya know, the things that make the art actually art.
I find it so crazy that I could generate something that looks nice and that a human could draw or create and show it to people and they say it looks nice but then if I said that SAME piece of art was generative art they would immediately say it's sucks and isn't art...
The cognitive dissonance fr...
he probably used ai art for inspiration for his own creation. you over estimate the human mind and under estimate ai. you had mj so you have seen the amazong things ai has created with 3 or 4 word prompts.
@@GoharioFTW The people you are arguing against are correct. If it was AI generated, it really does automatically suck and isn't art. You can step out into nature and see a sight that is breathtakingly beautiful, but it's not art because it's an accident. Intention and effort is what makes things art. A pile of rocks can look pretty, but only when a human shapes those rocks is it art.
AI art is just an accident by a random algorithm. It's not art. That it's hard to tell the difference between AI and human art does nothing to change this fact.
@Magicwillnz ok can't wait to see how you're doing in a year when ai generated art can't be discerned from physicl and digital art and you're biting your fingernails at every single image you see online and end up accusing people of using ai generated art and shaming them when in reality they didn't do it and then praising someone for their art when in reality they did use ai generated models good luck
Also your example with stepping out into nature made 0 sense. Are you saying people who do landscape photography or any still life photography of nature aren't artists?