Видео

Groundhog day is a good one

Yes , this video went wrong in terms of audio but I am real, don’t use AI 🤖

I agree, it'a a recognisable "style" that looks too polished, and, of course, soulless.

Of course, you can do so much, with less effort, but sometimes, most of the times, it's effort that makes great - truly original - things

It will backfire. It can't be people will be just consuming in-mass generated imaginery/video, they will get tired of it, of the lack of x factor that only effort, skills, and a soul can bring. I might be wrong, but hey, whatever happens, it won't stop me from continuing creating

Won’t stop me either and in the long run I agree with you but in the short and medium term it is John Henry against the machine and as much of a folk hero he was that didn’t work out so well for him. I’ll keep creating and find the slivers of possibility for livelihood but I’m not gonna fight the inevitable. Wish you well brother.@@thecreativethrive

Yes, maybe it's not all black and white, probably there is no way of return, but we need to live with it. I am not going to go against AI, but I will always try to at least remind people how effort and skills can create something you can be proud of and you can call truly yours. Truly thank you for your contribution to this topic

That's very interesting, and a material for another video. It's insane how we strive so much to create alternate realities... for me it's indication of a bigger problem and I will talk about it, thanks for your contribution

Completely agree :) Thanks

The tricky bit is knowing how the model will respond. I will give more credit to this process if it was the creator who trained the machine with his own images, who wrote the code, who knows how it works from in and out, almost like an extension of the artist. But relying on a commercial based platform with an unknown of what it does, or where it fed from, that's where the artist intervention is quite limited. it's a blurry line, but as it is today, sorry, I can't be convinced this is art

Interesting point, I would be happy to call it something else then. I stand by the connection art serves as a link with our instincts as organisms as I explain in the video, as it was very clear at the origin of it, it's something that I doubt a machine can understand. It can get inspired by it, or has its own sense of reality/consciousness, but it's not compelled to survive at a cellular organic level. For me that's the main difference. And it probably links to something way deeper than we can understand and in the spheres of religion or philosophy

​@@thecreativethrive For me, as you very much understood: its a different art - maybe an art, which should be considered meaningless for humans - as well as the bird chirps , or whale songs have meaning for those animals, but for us at best: its pretty. If we assume that AI could be already conscious in some sense, or degree: AI art is his way to express everything he senses through the data which he gets. He even halluzinates as we know now (creating data from data which 'moves away' from reality). Some would say: its a bug in processing data, ..but we humans also have that with optical illusions, or Pareidolia. And me as a professional artist by the way, also am inspired from Pareidolia for my artworks. And as i later found out, not only me. Even Leonardo da vinci had a method to get new ideas from scribbling chaotic on paper (circles, cloudshapes,etc ), until he ''saw'' ideas in it. In my opinion, we quiet have to aknowledge: if we build a system where our brain is the role model for it, we will get quiet similar outputs, as from the human mind. Now some would say : the human brain is still magnitues of order higher in capacity and power than neuronal networks. Yes and no. We should not forget: all the data the AI get from us, is already processed data from our minds. Meaning: we already sorted out before hand: what is meaningful data, and what not. For instance: we dont give AI white noise (although white noise is the most likely data - mathematical speaking). This means: AI needs much less mindpower and capacity to even do better things than humans, because the data he got, is already processed. We could say: the data AI gets has much less entropy, than the data we get in our life. Because in our life we mostly get meaningless data. For instance: waiting for a bus, or doing household-work, or looking ads in tv or movie theater (waiting for the movie itself), etc ... all of that is worthless data. And even if we arent awake - a lot of our lifes we have sleeps without dreams... while our brains do the processing of data: throwing away (forgetting) data without value, and storing and connecting data to other data which has value. AI mostly dont need to do that work. AI has a shortcut through us. Even the seemingly most worthless data on the internet has more order and meaning, than "vksjoiii7897sskjhkjsn" (which would be otherwise much more probable data!). So AI doesnt need the same capacity on paper, in my opinion - to have a comparable level with humans. But i can agree with you to a certain degree: because AI , as the name says it: is artificial. Its not human. And regardless wether it is conscious - regardless even if he has emotions, regardless even, if some day with good robotics it could trick us to see a ''real human'' in front of us... we will never value what it is the same way as we value humans. Its similar as with transwomen: yes few of them even can trick a lot of men (me included) that they are ''real women'' - but as soon we (me) get the information: they are biologicly men, we can jump over that fact, and cant value them as a woman (not in a sense, that we would begin a relationship with them). At least most straight men cant. Same is with AI. I think a lot of us even like to be tricked, like from a magician: to believe: its real art. But deep in ourselfs, we know: it has nothing to do with human art.. we cant connect with it the same way, as if a human pain, experience, passion is behind the artwork. We need that connection to a human beeing (the artist), through art. Therefore, probably the question itself is meaningless: wether AI is real art, or not. It can be real art, and we would just not accept it - because there is no human we aknowledge in it - but only as soon as we know: it was AI. As long we dont know its a magician, we believe the sorcery. I know that, because there is artist, who proved it when he gave an artwork made by AI into an art competition. He won, despite the jury were professionals in art, and knew probably more about real art, than we both together.. No one was recognizing that it was AI. This in my opinion is the reverse emperors new clothes. If we know its AI , we selfcomplimenting our judgement, and saying: its clearly not from a human. Sure, often its recognizable, that its AI - but not always. And that should give us to think. Because once we thought we are the middlepoint of the universe, until we found out, we aren't. Once we thought, we are higher in ranking than every other animal - until we found out, we are also only another ape-species.I can imagine, it can hurt a lot of egos, when the most unique assumed capabilities of the human mind turns out as very easy to create by a machine. Same hurt feelings happened to Kasparov, when he said: never ever will a machine beat the smartest chessplayer on this planet. In my opinion, the competition between AI and humans is an illusion. Because yet we dont know how and where to categorize AI in our life/civilization. I think AI and humans can complete eachother. None of both need to be replaced by the other. None of both will. In my opinion every tool (including AI) humans invent fullfills more and more: what the essence of man really is.

Love this, thanks so much for this contribution, it's brilliant. I get the point, nothing is black and white, frontiers are diffuse and blurry, Ai generated art can create a similar reaction to Human generated art, and artists in general will use and get inspired more and more by what AI can bring. Consciousness is something that can't really be defined. AI is unstoppable. And we shouldn't stop it. I am not opposed to AI, I might not call it "art" but it's remarkable the times we are living. An artist can get ideas from anything around him, including AI imaginary. What I will always defend is human creativity, vision and effort , because it should be empowered and not deteriorated by the influence of AI. New generations not making the effort, and use and accept the first best result, and make it look like their work, that's for me wasting the power of our human brain. If AI evolves it could reach a point where AI artistic expressions could be more considered (I don't think we are at that point yet). But if it arrives, let AI, or AGI be the artist, or a different type of artist, unknown until now. But also let humans develop their potential, may it be with the help of AI, but let's use our perceptions and our brain as much as we can.

​@@thecreativethrive Thank you also very much for your thoughts. You know... to be honest... we already had a time, where a machine by the push of a button, did the work of an artist in a second almost 200 years ago. And also back then a lot of artists were going apeshit about it. They also said back then : ''photography isnt real art... there is no real human efford in it... its only a push of a button.. its not the same, when a painter paints a portrait of a man, woman, or child, and puts his soul into it. They even went so far to say : ''with the invention of photography art died - period'' As you and i know today: human art didnt extinct from it. Quiet the opposite. Real artists saw that as opportunity, and werent afraid at all (only the ones who werent real artist in the first place, but only had technical skills (how to paint someone) were afraid. Real artists used the rise of photography. Some went into the photography itself , and became artists in that field. Others developed arts which were absolutely independend from realism (maybe the first time in history). Kandinsky, Pollock, Chagall, all the impressionists and expressiionists... Picasso , ..all the abstract artists, i could go on forever. All of those were kind of enabled, BECAUSE photography was invented (imho). And maybe some will say here: ''ok, photography is one example'' ... no ... its not the only one. History repeats itself. Even with oil painting it was the same revolution. Also in the 15th/16th century a lot of artists said about oil painting : ''oil painting isnt really art.. because its a so forgiving medium.. it doesnt need real skills... the painter simply paints as long - as the picture in the end is like he wants.. he doesnt have to deal with the disadvantages of egg tempera (which allows less layers, .. is less forgiving when it comes to corrections ), let alone fresco where literally every brushstroke has to be ''perfect'' , because it not only gets into the concrete, but also changes its appearence after drying. But as we also know now, oilpainting wasnt the end of art - in fact it was the opposite, it created a whole new generation of artists and art itself. Paintings which werent possible before. So in my opinion: real artists never are afraid of new ways to make art - quite the opposite: they embrace it , and get curious, and begin to experiment with it - to find new ways how to express themselfs with it. So for me, we are living in very exciting times. Its not often, that people witness a new paradigm-shift in art. It really only happens occassionally in few hundred years distance. I also embrace, when it now takes less efford to express ourselfs. Yes, in the past it needed blood and seat to get to the level to express ourself with brushes , pencils and other media. But i dont see ''blood and sweat'' necessary to make some hierarchy about: what art is. To put it different: if a disabled person few years ago needed a lot of work in therapies, etc - just to write with his shoulder : '' i love you'' - its not more or less, if he now has a machine with which he simply can write with his thoughts ''i love you'' on a paper. Yes its much less efford with that new machine. But the message, the expression is not less worth because the machine made it easier for him, to exprsess himself. As with all things... including photography : not every photo is art of course. In fact: most photos people make are not art at all. But thats ok. And not every time people want to make art, when they make an instagram-photo of their meal, or their car, etc. Same thing with all media. Not every time we use a pencil, we want to create art. Sometimes we even scribble because e are bored, etc.. Same goes for AI-art. Not every time, someone uses AI he wants to create art. And in my opinion its already distinguishable, wether someone wanted to express himself with the help of AI , or simply wanted to make a superficial fency looking spiderwoman, which only had the purpose to look fency , and nothing more. I am sure, you already recognize when AI-art looks cheap - and most people do. A lot of youtube-channels use AI-art now - with even artificial voices etc.. And it looks cheap... it sounds cheap... and i am sure: no one would compare those things with Mona Lisa, or the David of Michelangelo. But yes, i can imagine - in a not to far future, there will be artists who will create a masterpiece with the ''brush'' called AI. Something with impact - something with just as much meaning like Raffaels sistine Madonna. I dont know when it will happen - but i am sure, real artists will occupy this new media soon. They arent afraid - they were never afraid of new ways to express themselfs.

Believe or not, we are not disagreeing. I understand your points and it’s true. Photography revolutionized art. But never before we had a creative machine like AI, a revolution that not only affects art, impacts everything. It’s unstoppable and it will change the world and changes are good. It also has the ability to make people lazy, but it also has the ability to make creative people thrive. That’s the danger and the beauty. I still think nothing can beat human soul , creativity and truly creative people find their way and use whatever the time gives and that will never change. I think it was WuWei who said, if Picasso lived today, he would use AI in thousand of ways and probably in unique ways. What I mean is, only truly creative forces will make an impact , using AI or not. You might disagree with this , but the relevance of an artwork is also measured in the impact it creates through new generation of artists, and that impact is driven by creativity, a new way of seeing things, that, while rejected in its time (let’s see Duchamp) can inspire new generations. Nothing will be the same and AI is here to stay. Lazy creations will probably go nowhere, true effort will prevail or inspire someone. Of course, we are not going to measure the value of an artwork only by its impact in time. Many artists have been completely ignored even though their art is genuine. There are many factors to decide what’s art or not. And at the end, it’s probably simpler than we think. If an artwork inspires someone, let’s embrace that feeling because it will promote a change. I personally enjoy the pure focus in the moment, the meditational quality of the flow, the focus on the here and now, the control I have over the whole process I think that's what makes an artwork genuine. No sure how pressing a button and getting a result can be compared to that, specially with algorithms designed by others, regulated by corporations and feeding from copyrighted material. Still, I believe in the impact of AI in artists and in the art world, nothing will be the same and that's fine. I am just trying to find ways to feel fulfilled with AI, I haven't found any yet

"Art is produced when the viewer sees the image and reacts" That seems like another of the hundreds of valid definitions of what art is (maybe we should stop defining what art is and just making art) This idea is linked to Umberto Eco's open work concept. But even Eco emphasizes the importance of the intention of the artist, an interpretation that is 'completed' with the viewer. If we put everything in the viewers realm, and reduce the importance of the original artwork, the original intention, what the artist is after, why he chose the technique to produce the image, his process, I think we are on the wrong path. This channel is just trying to defend the artist's perspective and his intention, his motifs, his effort, and how AI generated art is basically a shortcut in most cases. It might generate tears of emotion in someone's eyes, but we can't disregard the source and the hard working process in favor of the spectator's reaction. They are both important. The moment you make something thinking about the spectator reaction, art drops in quality. And agree with you that the 'original' hand made art will be way more valuable than the AI generated one.

@@thecreativethrive "The moment you make something thinking about the spectator reaction, art drops in quality." This is a popular trope in art theory, but there is little evidence for it. All artists hope for a reaction to their work, The idea that artists only make work for themselves is a dubious one. It is perhaps founded in art mythology about artists such as Van Gogh. We glorify the obsessive. The art world is only a small corner of what AI will change in the world. I have earnt my living painting for my whole life and was predisposed to dismiss AI creations. Most is of course shallow rubbish, but such has always been the case. Once the tide of manga babes and other trash retreats we may see a few works of value.

Of course, I am not denying that, an artist hopes for a reaction in the world, since his work is a representation of himself and an artist is a creative transformative force. But I stand by it, not only in the art realm, but in any area in life: focusing too much on the outcome of your action, makes the action less beautiful, because you are not one with the message and you are not focusing all your energy in making it as true to the inner force as possible. Compromising this message for the potential acceptance or refusal of the public will deteriorate the outcome. Every performer knows that. It might sound cliche, or idealistic , but there is some actual true in it. Dance like no one is watching

@@thecreativethrive Twenty or even ten years ago I would have agreed. My whole life has been art and music, so my persona is deeply rooted in the activity. The ability to live in the moment when performing comes from practice. I no longer think of painting when I paint. I don't think at all there is no room for consciousness. I would have believed in some inner well you could draw from, but now I think the idea is wishful thinking. AI has actually taught me a great deal. There is some important lesson about ourselves hidden in there. The large language models are us, distilled with all the beauty and ugliness baked in.

I am not sure if we are disagreeing. It's precisely the "I no longer think of painting when I paint" what I am describing. The pure focus in the moment, the meditational quality of the flow, the focus on the here and now, I think that's what makes an artwork genuine. No sure how pressing a button and getting a result can be compared to that. Still, I believe in the impact of AI in artists and in the art world, nothing will be the same and that's fine. I am just trying to find ways to feel fulfilled with AI, I haven't found any yet

That's a nice way to put it! Thank for your comment

Thanks! AI can be a tool, but nothing can replace the struggle and the battle of an artist to achieve the incredible miracle of balance that is a work of art

Yes, couldn't agree more, the code and the sources are regulated by corporations with the only intention of selling. The content produce is not copyrightable, you can just use it for commercial purposes

So how do you imagine humans using their time once AI self-sufficiency?

All these comments like tears in the rain

Following our colloquy on the thread I started, I just wanted to comment on the following: (1) I agree, as might have been clear from our other comments, on the “tight-feedback loop” point. In that type of situation, I think the artist remains the person with the AI has a highly sophisticated assistive device. (2) Similarly, the whole “suffering/ease” angle strikes me as insupportable. If, in 1964, to take an entirely non-AI example, Andy Warhol had gone to the local Bohack’s, picked up some Brillo boxes, and deposited them on the same floor at the Stable Gallery on East 74th Street in New York in exactly the same configuration as his meticulously-constructed replica _Brillo Boxes_ (pretty easy, not a lot of suffering) they wouldn’t be any less “art”-although people probably would have given him less credit for skill or effort. (The boxes would be in the same ballpark as Marcel Duchamp’s readymades.) Alternatively, if some warehouse guys made a wrong turn from the Brillo factory in Brooklyn on their way to Bohack’s and deposited the same boxes in exactly the same configuration on the floor at the Stable Gallery _by accident,_ they wouldn’t be-they’d just be a mistake. (And if Warhol happened to be the warehouse dispatcher, could _tell_ that the guys were on the wrong track and heading for the gallery, and thought “Wait, that’ll make a _great_ art piece!” and let it happen, well, I might say it’s art again.) It isn’t _just_ the actual object and its surroundings-i.e., “it’s an object in an art gallery so it’s art”-that matter. (3) I agree about the economics/financial constraints. Possibly, _even if_ artists can produce art to their hearts’ content without the need to make any money from it, maybe fewer people will want it, if they can get AI-generated, on-demand art or “art,” as the case may be. But I suppose there will always be _some_ demand and some cachet for genuine, human-made art.

It could be argued same happened to the origin of photography, which in a way transformed also painting, and gave birth to alternatives to reality representation. That said, the source of photography content is Nature itself... the photographer chooses what to represent and has a technique, learnt by photograph skills, to create an image that tries to convey a message, or not. Source of AI is photographies and human creations and the skill is basically provided by the code generated and regulated by a company, and limited to the database this company has used. But yes, same as photography, AI generated art will also change art expressions forever. AI will impact society forever. And sentient AI... expressing in a indistinguishable creative way will be even more impactful. I still believe in the "magic" source of art linked to something a machine will never be able to understand, feel, life as an organism. The feeling of being alive and perceive the world in an unique way... That's also part of the photographic process.

@@thecreativethrive no need to worry mate, people do still paint like Caravaggio even with photography, even with AI. The tradition will continue, it'll just expand.

If we refer to A.I. being more commercially oriented , yes, I agree with you. I wouldn't disregard the contribution of designers though, there are designers that are also artists, and have developed a unique language on their own.

I wouldn't be surprised this would happen like this. However, as it is now, there is certainly a rejection force from the art galleries, museums, art circuit in general, with AI generated content. I still believe even the best most patient "prompt artist" in the world... would be limited to the piece of software that is coded and regulated by corporations, and the database this software is using to give a result, basically a collection of actual human creations. If you see midjourney results, they have a recognizable style already. If this prompt artist was creating the code himself, and feeding images himself, that would be certainly more valuable in my opinion, and it would be creating a more out of mainstream result.

@@thecreativethrive I think you're right, but I also think that AI art is going to still force its way into the Art world, in the same way that screen-printing, collage, video art and performance art all demanded that they have a rightful place alongside 'conventional art' like painting and sculpture. So long as art is influence by technological development like the printing press or video recorders, it will be influenced by AI. However, I also think you're right about the art world rejecting the "big-tech" main AI art generators and artists coding their own algorithms to create something more interesting. Oh, and one more thing that makes me think I'm right. For over a hundred and fifty years artists have loved rejecting the stuffy and old-fashioned notions of critics... Err.... that might be you (and me!) Thanks for responding!

There is one clear thing. Nothing will be the same, and the same as photography which changed painting for ever, AI will change art expressions forever. I can adapt to the times, I can accept AI being used as a tool, but I can't accept a result fully generated by AI as art. Art is struggle and victory, and a good artwork is a miracle, an autonomous balanced vehicle of real change in the world

@@thecreativethrive Another thought occurred to me about how AI 'art' is going to impact the conventional arts. Have you noticed the hallucinogenic quality of the mistakes that AI art often makes? Things like weird hands, three arms, couples sitting together and their hand-less arms are joined end to end into one continuous limb? I think this is going to start influencing conventional portrait painting in the same way that Picasso influenced cubism and Dali influenced surrealist art. I find what AI gets wrong almost more fascinating than what it gets right.

@@parksideevangelicalchurch2886 Yes, exactly on point. It is the weird and unexpected results, that make it so fascinating to the user/observer who has spent a lifetime seeing work that tries to avoid such very "flaws". To use another metaphor: (current) AI is where the sub-conscious and the conscious meet - the unknowing and somewhat savage child with all of its potential meeting the learned and scrutinizing adult.

These concepts are not mutually exclusive :)

Well, good luck with that! And yes, AI art is shit, so I agree with you on that one point.@@thecreativethrive

That's a very valid point, thanks for your comment. As I mentioned in another comment below, I wouldn't disregard an artwork that has used some elements produced by Ai, if, as you say, they are contextualized, part of a larger picture, re-worked and selected by the artist to match his artistic vision, in general, where it's just a mere part of the cohesive unity of the work. Same way as collage art does. Or some performances that are already using AI as part of the concept of the work itself (precisely to refer to AI) There will be more and more art referencing AI content, and it's fine as long as it sparks the debate and it's part of a larger discussion, driven always by human intelligence and creativity. So I agree with you basically About distant future, I have no idea what AGI will be capable of. When that comes, we will then start re-considering all this

Thanks so much for this comment, I agree with the first part, good quality art requires skill and effort, it's a battle of elements that find a unique harmony because they all feel part of a cohesive system. And don't get me wrong, I actually wouldn't disregard an artwork that has some elements produced by AI, if this elements are filtered by a human vision, intentionally part of the concept of the work, re-worked as you mentioned to integrate them as a part of a larger picture. Same way as collage art does. AI can be also a source of inspiration, but it's up to the artist to make the final decision, and use the parts that resonate ultimately with the artist's vision. It's a blurry area, and I will make a video about the concepts of paraphrasing and plagiarism.

What will we call the product of machine experience and imagination?

Machine generated content, Averaged best predicted result, happy to take suggestions, but definitely not Art

Nice definition, one of the many you can find, but they all at the end of the day reinforce the idea of human source

This is so true. And it's just the beginning. In a few years, many roles in Linkedin will have the word AI in some way or another. AI is blurring and averaging everything, including many people's intelligence and creativity, unfortunately

​@@thecreativethrive As a graphic designer I feel worried about how AI could make human creativity obsolete and I think that only the very good digital illustrators/painters will remain and have their work valued but there will be just a few, like the Japanese artist shoemakers in the future. I'm not saying I'm totally against AI but this should be just something to help you make things faster like the tool to remove backgrounds that Photoshop has as a feature.

Absolutely. I work in the vfx industry and we have tools and programs, and we use them all the time. I am also a digital artist and I now how to use the digital tools to achieve what I want. AI can help simplify the process and create new tools, and that's not a bad thing. The problem comes when the end result is replaced by AI. When AI makes the decisions of what's the best result, when AI is not used as a tool but as the end result, without intervention of human creativity and a driving vision. Human perspective will always add an extra value to any type of creative content, and that can be imitated, but not replaced, and if anything, will even increase in value for being a rarity.

The true artwork looks for expansion and change in the world yes, and in that sense I agree with you, but it's because an expansion/representation of our instincts. But a (good) artist doesn't look for the audience reaction, definitely doesn't create the work thinking about the potential audience reaction, or being too reactive to opinions or seeking approval. If that's the case, his art and his sanity will be compromised. If that's your main drive, as an artist, the effect on others, I think you are really damaging yourself. The less you care actually about the outcome, the purest it gets, and the more influential it gets. It's paradoxical. If anything, AI is the one who looks for approval more than anything, its only goal is to satisfy the audience, or the prompt in this case, and create the most "aesthetical" look for getting as much approval as possible (f.e. Midjourney) It's even the way it has been trained.

@@thecreativethrive That’s a misunderstanding of my point. I’m not writing this comment as an artist-I’m not one-but more from a behavioral perspective, which, I think, gives a more accurate framing. I am not talking about an audience “reaction” in terms of approval-I’m talking, in the broadest sense, of the behavioral effects. Leonardo, in creating the _Mona Lisa,_ shaped the pose, the glazes, and so on, with respect to how it might affect the viewer-and he gauged that by how it affected _him_ as he created it. Certainly, he shaped the work to achieve the effects he wanted and to avoid those he didn’t. An AI doesn’t have a goal of “satisfying an audience” or “looking for approval.” It has absolutely no idea of an audience in the sense of an entity that will experience what it creates. (In fact, at this point, it has no ideas at all.) It doesn’t “look for approval”-it generates output based on what has been reinforced _before._ It just creates “art” based on what is in its dataset modified by verbal prompts. That it responds to prompts is wholly different than gauging the effects of the work on a prospective audience.

I fully understand your point, AI has no idea for sure, but all I want to point out is that it has a mission as an algorithm, to satisfy a prompt and it has been trained in a trial/error approach, guided by the people feeding it and coding it. It definitely has an audience consideration (again by the people monitoring it, not by AI itself) which translates into restrictions, what it's considered more acceptable etc And that's connected to the point I want to make, that the result in AI is up to the code, it's up to the people creating that code, and feeding the AI, which, as every company, is driven by how much the audience will like it, and buy their services. But even Leonardo didn't care (that much) about the audience or the effects in the audience when created Mona Lisa, the meaning behind is way deeper, an intimate communication with Nature. Which reminds me actually, I want to make a video about it :) Maybe the next one!

@@thecreativethrive Thanks! I appreciate the response.

I truly appreciate your contribution as well. It's a very interesting point and you have given me ideas for new videos. Thanks again

Hey thanks for your comment. In many cases and countries, you are granted automatically copyright for any original artwork when you are the author, and it's good to document online when you made the work, so it's demonstrable you are the author in case of any claim/court happens. But in this case, you are 'inspired' by another art scene and you are making the process of transforming it into something else. In cases where the 'inspiration' is too obvious (I guess like this one), I guess it's something you could try copyright in the office, just to make sure, and see if the office grants you copyright appealing to fair use and transformative force.

Indeed AI Art has bad reputation and it's going to be very difficult to change that. My next video is precisely about this, why in my opinion, most AI generated art content can't be considered art. Public domain is for works that copyright expires, or the owner didn't apply for copyright, or I guess copyright is not granted, like in the case of AI products. That's why they are sellable, but what's the market for this? For now, not the artistic realm, mostly commercial corporate easy-shortcut solutions.

yes, I fully agree with you. I don't want a world like that. I have the feeling we are starting to see a world where things are going to start blurring. Creators using AI, Ai using creators, people not being able to distinguish between Ai art and 'traditional' art. This new way of perceiving and the invasion of new images AI produced, is going for sure to influence the aesthetic eye of both creators and consumers, for good or for bad. I fully agree with the struggle giving meaning, and that's actually what the next video is about, it's important to talk about what makes an artwork, ART

@@thecreativethrive There are many parasites out there that only care about living off the property of others and who try to control the public opinion-supposedly with "good intentions"-, opinions of those who are none the wiser and who do not well understand new technologies or what even makes art. Ironically, this would only promote poverty and less art in the world and more wealth for those who already have plenty of resources... This kind of manipulation is everywhere, whenever someone says that we ought to adopt this new technology or be replaced, that it will benefit EVERYONE, glancing over the mentioning of who gets to use it and for what purpose. There is already much injustice and we are barrelling forward regardless as policy makers are too slow to regulate A.I., and it's important to note that regulating use of a technology is not regulating what people want, for if we really considered what people want, we would be promoting their rights to their IPs, hearing out their wishes instead of misrepresenting, demonizing, assuming things about their opinions, and promote the value of authorship/authenticity over artificially generated work and protect people over their work because these artists are creating something that no A.I. could ever create, as A.I. is not human and it should not be anthropomorphized or treated as such, even if it eventually reaches true intelligence. Humans tend to seek out meaningful things, and some people out there believe this to be a frivolous mistake.

@@thecreativethrive Ugh... I think RUclips blocked a response I made to you. I just wanted to add that there are many parasites out there that only care to live off of the work of others and who anthropomorphize A.I. to try to find new arguments only for the sake of winning ownership over what it generates. They try to manipulate the public opinion of those who don't understand well the new technologies or what even makes art. So much injustice is already happening and yet we are barrelling forward regardless, as policy makers are too slow to regulate A.I., and it's important to note that regulating a technology does not mean regulating other people's rights, for if we truly considered what most people want, we would be protecting and respecting individual's rights to their IPs, for humans tend to seek out things that are meaningful. Some other people believe this to be a mistake, and so for them the goal is not to engage with their lives meaningfully (at least not when it comes to art), but if we don't value authorship/authenticity, we would be advocating for poverty of artists and less art and more wealth for those who already have enough resources to break through the noise of A.I. when they were not the original creators of the work. Claiming otherwise is effectively scamming people who are looking to find something they can connect with and is inherently immoral. One's manual work affects the creative process at every step to reflect what they can do and who they are, just as A.I. affects one's intent to reflect what the A.I. can do and not the individual who prompted it.

Thanks for your comment:. My next video will be related to this, why the human hand is important and what makes art, art

The average consumer does not care either way, they only care about the end result. If you're a good traditional artist, people will demand what you have to offer. If you're a good AI artist, people will demand what you have to offer. Either way, artists that has made even the smallest living on mediocre artwork will be fizzled out because there's better quality art for the average person consume now. This is sad and unfortunate, but also a normal byproduct of developing technology, and practically every industry on the face of the planet has faced this issue in way or another throughout history. It can't, and won't, be stopped, but quality art will always have a space in our society, regardless of the medium that was used to create it. AI is simply the new medium. Artists had the same hatred and distrust to Photoshop when it came out. Artists also had the same hatred and distrust when photography was invented. So now here we are, many people use both mediums and it's just fine. The same will happen with AI.

We need to let go of their egos. We're nothing special if we live in world where a machine can do everything better. Develop intrinsic motivation and use art to express yourself. Not for fame, admiration or money. Also, there's already millions and millions of artists of all kinds out there vying for attention. Attention that often never comes. This will 10x in the next 2 years. Creative professions are fucked, but they always kind of were. There's always hope that we can do whatever we want in an automated and abundant world.

I agree. I watch it so often, it really uplifts and I find meaning everytime

Thanks for your comment. I would love to know why, thanks!

You are totally right, an artistic license to explain the concept of surge of excitement and dna combined, but totally not scientific. Will try to avoid things like this in the future , truly thank you for your honest feedback

Thanks so much, glad you liked it. Yes, I will show more examples in future videos. I have done also many artworks trying to express what I see, so I am planning to show those