I saw somebody say this somewhere and it pinpointed the biggest problem I have with AI art so accurately: there's something deeply wrong with a society where humans work their lives away and machines create all the art.
What I hate most about this situation is that people act like artists are some oppressive class of people who are the reason that they can’t make their dream tv show or whatever and artists make tons of money off a “talent” they were born with without any real work. In reality artists are just the ones who actually took the time to create the idea from their head dedicating their time to perfect their skill and the most artist in the industry get very little pay compared to the tons of work they have to do.
if anything artists are the people that need to fight for every inch of social acceptance they can get. most dont view it as real work, exploit them or see it as a useless contribution to society. AI art will be the last nail in the coffin lmao
I'm not an artist but I hate AI art and condemn AI "artists". However, I gotta disagree with your opinion regarding talent. Hard work without talent = mediocrity. A person with no artistic talent can practice for ages and still be terrible at it. And I can tell these tech bozos got no artistic talent or creativity for shit. But, instead of staying in their lanes, working on their own stuff and never touch art like the rest of us who don't have any artistic aptitude, they decided to disrespect and violate art by taking unethical shortcuts. THAT is what I have problem with. F*ck these bozos.
I believe people like those are so passionless and self conscious the best pleasure out of any activity they do can only be trying to get others down to their level. If someone found their passion or even is sure in their self worth they won't clutter their time with bringing others down, they're busy climbing up where they want to go.
@beatricezanoni5582 lmao... that's pretty stupid comment from I'm guessing another salty artist. 1: it already is. 2: the rate at which AI is advancing is faster than anything else in history. When you watch AI go from a lot of gibberish and nonsense to where is is today in the amount of time it has taken its easy to project that it's going to get so much better that it will be indistinguishable feom human content... Cope...
@@mastershan87 If you actually think AI will be able to recreate the very media which people have been living with for the past decades, then there must be something very wrong with you. AI will never be able to spew out original ideas, to create a Marvel trilogy, a Game of Thrones television series. To write fleshed out, intricate books that the very same movies and shows are based on, and to gather teams of creative people who dedicate their work into creating something which millions of people will watch, commentate, enjoy and learn from. AI will never be able to create Riot Games, Minecraft, DOOM, or any sort of video game, board or card game. It cannot recreate Modern Talking, Scorpions, The Smiths, Lady Gaga, Crystal Castles or whoever your favorite musical artist is. It cannot think because YOU are thinking for it, and it gets its information from the very same media that you consume. It lacks authenticity due to the inexperience of the individual behind the screen typing in prompts. It lacks authenticity because it is not a tool, but a gimmick. I pity that you see any semblance of genuineness in spewed-out pixels by some sore tech bros who clog the internet library with HD anime cleavage and pornography. You lack many things which you can easily recover, but your ignorance is the very same rot that plagues the already-degrading contemporary literacy of the human race, and I feel sorry for you and the people who suffer because of individuals such as yourself. Anyway, have a good one bro.
@@hipiticlivi7400 Wat? Sure it's easier to teach an AI digital stuff.. since you can essentially run it through the training non-stop, even when your workers are sleeping. But we are using "AI" to learn practical taskes all the time, the only difference is, it's not only more expensive, it's also requires enginnering, changing the up the robot to make it more effective, or even make it able to do the taskes you want it to.
AI will do whatever it's able to do. It just so happens image generation is easier than plumbing. This should be no surprise considering AI is 99% non corporeal.
I like how everyone used to say creative stuff would be the last thing AI would touch so everyone would be able to do fun jobs while AI does other jobs yet AI went immediately for creative jobs first
I finally decided to build my skills, alter my style to meet demand and break i to the art field.....then this happened. I got really discouraged Until i realized that there is nothing "wrong" with my style. Its unique.it's mine and nobody elses. Im still breaking into it anyway, my way and i'll find a market. Im just not making a site until we can find a way to stop scraping.
You could always prevent web crawlers from getting to it. Also your art ain't likely to get added to any databases, since those tend to go for professional, publix art.
@@rockedsocks4613 thanks. How do you prevent web crawlers? I noticed at times you can't save at from a page but you can screenshot it. Is there coding the AI can't get around? It's there a way to scramble what am AI sees? I have noticed that there is a very homogenous style that AI apps make. So I bet I am in the clear as my stuff isn't that... But still would rather protect myself
also not to mention, if you look at most of these ai photos they all have the same "style" and on the other end of the stick if it isnt the "ai style" its a ai engineered to steal popular artists style. therefore your style is still valuable.
@@g3n0sc1d3 yeah, that's what I meant by AI having a homogeneous style. I believe my style will likely be fine... I'd still like to find a way to pop in the coating on my website to be able to stop anything like print screen, screen shot, save as etc. I'm sure it'll be fine. AI isn't the only thing that sort of bugs me though, it's also people who rip s*** off of sites and sell them on other sites. My wife purchased some DND stickers on Amazon and it's all stolen art. I tried to report it but Amazon doesn't have any way to do that... Which it sleezy if you ask me.
Keep going. So do i. I still draw. My stuff isn't the best, but it's mine. I also have some speed paints here. Like drawings of ai. 😂 i took it to the next level. Be like "why create ai art when you can draw art of ai".
People REALLY forgot about the last time an artist went full villain. But honestly. The hypocrisy of saying all art is pointless while using something that uses that said art to fufill their own selfish desires they themselves claimed to hold no value
Don't forget, his work was just as dull as these Prompters. But the power of AI has gone to their head. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. - Lord Acton
tech workers alre losing jobs on a alarming rate... as a IT Student i gave up on learning to program soon any person can code and program based on a random short prompt
Man can't wait for ppl to not actually write good stories but just type a title and boom you got it! No learning involved because why do I have to? Instant gratification, consume, buy subscription now! Repeat. So fucking sad.
About that "democatization": Theres a reason why Bob Ross show was called "the joy of painting" and not "the joy of looking at paint". With a fellow artist I can actually talk about the process. "Democatized" AI artist have nothing to tell me exept their finished content in a sea of content. They are gatekeeping themselves out of a discussion with anyone, who actually constructs a painting.
And just because _you_ don't understand the discussion of models, Loras, keywords, weights and biases, that does not mean _they_ don't understand their own processes. There _is_ a technique to it. It's surely simpler than painting or whatever, I'll admit that any day of the week. But why do you feel like they need to be present in a circle of painters? Not even digital artists and painters have too much in common. And if those hypothetical painters have just as much of a closed mind as you, they'd also find it hard to talk about technique with digital artists And what do you mean by "gatekeeping themselves out"? Real artists are gatekeeping them. There is literally _nothing_ someone who enjoys creating AI can do to be accepted in conventional art circles. But if they aren't doing anything wrong, then it is not their fault that they are "gatekept". It's just two completely different interests...
The worst thing is that the AI *can be used properly* - helping the artists to do better at their job instead of taking it and doing the same thing many times worse. For example, some of the upscaling programs are really good at sharpening the images. That was crucial for me when I've tried to transfer my old laptop wallpapers to the 4k PC monitor, and the AI handled the task perfectly. That's cool, huh? A digital artist can do his job, and the AI will care for it looking properly no matter what. That's good! That's really helping! That's how things should be done! But... That's not as widespread as the sh*t that happens when some dumbass tries to *replace* real artists with AI. As always, people rush to extremes and make good things into bad ones...
@@timmuller5249 waifu4x or w/e it's called is helpful for scanning stuff and getting more out of an image, but that's an actual tool with actual helpful properties, AI as it currently stands doesn't enhance anything, what this person here is saying with their comment is that they don't understand the concept of RNG or random numbers, which is a tool for artists to use to create their own brushes and color inputs and diffusion and other art words inserted here. This person is taken in seemingly by the buzzwords and people glorifying AI as the holy grail that will solve everything.
I’m a small time game dev. I needed 3 characters drawn from 3 sides. The artists wanted serious money and months to do this. And not a single one of them on the website really matched the standard of quality for the price they were asking. AI does it in a few commands. And you don’t need to be an artist to touch it up, just familiar with photoshop. It’s a much better solution and breaks an unfair monopoly in several industries. Music next!
i am not an artist (at least not in the drawing sense) i find AI art amusing and kinda fun (for private and personal use) but i can't imagine it replacing artists. that would be horrible and wrong
Then I'd advice against using it, I get that it is a shiny and attractive toy but when said toy is yet another nail in the coffin for human art I'd rather not play with it.
the ai machines are also getting trained by users like you who just dabble with it, if you click an image it will remember it being probably useful, and thus further enhance it's parameters etc.
@@NoraNoita This. People innocently screwing around is what led to these programs amassing hundreds of thousands of hours of experience with humans and how to "perfect themselves" for human input to begin with. Yes, generating stuff you want without needing to find an artist, and (GOD FORBID) strike up a conversation to commission your work, is comfy. However, people are also simultaneously serving as free "trainers" (trainers that pay instead of getting paid to train something) for these machines... and they're fine with it. Considering all the damage this technology has done to artists and the art community, I'd rather not use it at all unless I could somehow verify the generations don't plagiarise any currently working artists, which AFAIK is impossible.
I do not hate AI art itself, but I hate those people that probably used to mock the "loser" classmate back in school for daring to put own passion and efforts in developing artwork instead of being good at kicking a goddamn ball and now is able to do it as a professional job, and all of the sudden these bullies are back into mocking for supposedly having wasted years into such passion as "now it can be done in second by anyone and it's better than your work". A friend of mine recently got to criticise publicly this behaviour and got his own artwork generated by a bunch of trolls for days. All he was doing was trying to tell people to stop using AI to harm others and do something good with it instead, and faced the exact same treatment he was complaining about. This tech is now expanding to all things, and I just cannot help but thinking that the benefits it provides (like helping people with disabilities, skipping supposedly obnoxious processes etc.) are **dwarfed** by the amount of grief and harm it is causing to all sorts of people instead, by a minority of individuals who couldn't wait for the day they got yet another "effortless free stuff served on a silver plate" that justifies their lack of seeking any purpose other than treating everyone's efforts like garbage. It is absolutely depressing to see that the world in the end is constantly striving on equalising individuals efforts into a flat line where everyone's miserable and purpose-less the same, because people that never wanted to get any better at something themselves demand everyone else to go back down to their level, so that they can continue to do nothing with their lifes. If you use AI art to enjoy yourself, please do. But as you don't go to a professional chef to a restaurant to tell him the custom burger you purchased at fast food was way faster and efficient than whatever gourmet he's taking hours to make, don't go to artists to disrespect their efforts and knowledge by claiming they're wasting their time "because AI exists". Art is not all about the finished product and its finite value. It's exactly what makes it different from mass production. A picture, that took dozens of hours to make, you commissioned to your favourite artist has memory and personal value that will never be matched by even a thousand AI generated images that successfully replicates the style of the real person. Every "cool looking colors" you tell AI to make, you will forget it next day because it took no effort to make. The picture you or someone you care about made *specifically for you* will probably remain as a memory for life. The very cool picture on your shirt, the videogames you play, the movies you watched, the very things that kept you visually entertained all these years were made by armies of talented people. And now that the latest hot thing is out that seemingly makes them less valuable, you're immediately out to tell them how stupid they've been for "wasting all these years making pointless stuff"?
You sound biased as all hell and exactly the mirror image of the people you bash. After all, if 'kicking a goddamn ball' is so easy, then everyone should be able to be a star athlete. Just as how painting is just 'dripping some dye on a piece of paper'. You REALLY shouldn't go down the route of 'your job is worse than my job' if your job is anything in the entertainment field - teachers, doctors, nurses, mechanics, construction workers, hell even garbage collectors can quite easily your job is 'just throwing ink at something' or 'drawing lines' and it simply a luxury as you provide no real fundamental benefit to the running of civilization. Before technology and the rise of movies and games, back before the light bulb was even commercialized, people existed in societies and art was not a part of their lives (the average man)...hell, most people couldn't read in the first place. However, even then, you still had doctors, carpenters, soldiers, teachers etc. If your view of athletes is 'just kicking a goddamned ball', then perhaps you should hold your corner son, and keep quiet and be thankful that you live in a world that you just 'splashing some goddamned ink' is appealing to enough people you can make a living. It is amazing that you can go on and on about how sad and depressing it is when people downplay someone's 'passion' yet you do the EXACT same thing to people who 'just kick a goddamned ball'. Or is it that only your passion is valid? Cowering away and saying 'You're mean!" will not help your issue. It is 100% a fact that if AI art becomes so good it can replace a human artists, then many of them will be in a world of hurt. Your energy would be better spent figuring out how to navigate that potential landmine instead of complaining that people who point that out too bluntly are 'mean'.
Interesting that you mention fast food and gourmet cook as an analogy. Neither can copyright their recipes. You can't copyright a style, and I doubt you ever will be able to. However, cooks CAN copyright a book, video, movie, or teaching transcript of their recipes though. I expect the same will happen with individual photos, artworks, drawings, etc. A book, movie, complete animation will be available for copyright. Everything else will need to apply for trademark protection (like company logos, individual Disney characters, etc.) I doubt that artists will be able to trademark their styles. Just imagine if Marvel, Pixar, Disney, etc. tries to trademark their unique style, however another studio like DC Comics trademarks the "similar" style first. Going through the 114 artists commonly used with Midjourney, roughly 30 might be able to trademark their style based on originality. The rest of the artists (including Greg Rutkowski I might add) wouldn't stand a chance based on style originality. Note: GR sells classes to paint like "The masters" i.e. like him.
Artists have been sidelined in many industries. There is not just a small group of people that disrespect art. In animation, it is run not by animators but by writers and producers. The animation was outsourced to india, mexico and korea a long time ago. This is yet another tool to turn it into a commodity of the cheapest sort. Also - no, don't use it to enjoy it yourself. This isn't just fast food. It's just fast. And it just looks like food. This is the nanotech in our food. This is leeching to heal someone. This is giving an infant heroin, over the counter, while they're teething. This is a lobotomy. This is the fat people in Wall-E that put on goggles to see themselves doing cool things. This is not art. "People will come to love their oppression, to adore technologies that undo their capacities to think" - Aldous Huxley
The only use i found for ai art is kinda like creating artistic chaos that you can use as like a inspiration board, but as an artist if i asked 100 artists to all draw me a apple pie we would probably get something close. even a couple of copies
AI generating sample paragraphs with specific word choices helps a writer see how the words affect the tone without being swayed by staring at a page for an hour rewriting the same thing, I guess the same works for images as well. We could have fun customization tools for digital ttrpg toolkits (with residuals for the artists). Or remove the mustache of an actor who can't shave for a reshoot of a scene - without some poor intern having to do it manually. Plus all the accessibility options, pic to prompt image descriptions, color tweaking for the color blind, dewaffling text for foreign speakers and dyslexic people... AI could be a great tool, too bad it's not used as such.
There's many use case for AI art. With current technology it works best when you need to illustrate something in a specific context. If you write a blog post you could add an AI image to illustrate it. Can be useful to make RUclips thumbnails. I find the biggest limitation is when you need a set of images that are coherent with each other. Even when the art style is the same, the end result vary wildly. You can generate two comic style images but they wont match together. One is going to have very thick outlines, the other thin ones, one uses dithering, the other not etc...
I recall being highly upset when deviantART announced they were getting into AI, and that by default everyone was opted in. There was a huge ruckus, especially concerning users that couldn't - for any reason, but especially regarding artists whose accounts were alive even when the original user was not - opt out. dA backpedaled pretty quickly and fixed things to be opt-out by default.
unfortunately they did not fix anything. They already made the model, it already stole all the art, they already sell it. The "opt out" tags are for new works. This is true for every single company who says they "listened" and added opt out. It's a lie. The ONLY way it would work is for them to wipe their models and be forced to opt in only. But no one will ever do this unless forced by the courts. In the meantime, don't buy into any of it.
@@AlexReynard Using art as reference is one thing. Scanning someone else's art, then photoshopping around it, add a new background to it, then calling it your artwork, that's a problem.
The real problem isn't the artists, it is that for the average person, a pretty picture creature by AI or entirely by hand is still just a pretty picture to them. I mean, look at all the portrait artists that lost their jobs when the camera was invented, and now it seems like overtop to hire a painter to paint your portrait nowadays. Also, the camera has allowed the development of new art techniques and forms that did not exist until its invention. Technology has always forced art and artists to change as the average consumer never thinks about the time and work it takes to make said piece, they just look at the end result.
@@haitaelpastor976 Idk, all the comment section is passionately against technology making difficult things easy. Like it hasn't been doing that since the invention of the wheel. They all use the cameras on their phones, they don't think about those poor portrait and landscape artists who lost their jobs because of it. They use electric lights both at home and outside, they don't think about the poor lantern lighters/lantern industry workers who lost their jobs because of it. They use cars and consume goods brought with trucks, they don't care about the poor horse-and-buggy workers who lost their jobs because of it. They read printed books, they don't care about... you get the point. Technology bad when it hurts me, technology good when it makes the world a much more livable place without affecting me.
@@MimOzanTamamogullar Exactly. In fact, artists mostly thought they were in a superior caste which could not be overcome by a machine. They were wrong. To me, the most positive aspect of this is that mediocrity in art will be rooted out. Someone who is a true artist, who got both talent and hard work, will thrive and prosper. The huge mediocre mass will fade out.
I would advocate the following rules. 1) watermarks, back end metta data, and hidden dot data need to be baked into the image, or the generated image is automatically considered a forgery under the law, and the company should be held liable as such. 2) Any commercially, or freely available AI model is REQUIRED to have available on request, a list of ALL the images it was trained on, and any records of permission aquired to allow their legal use. Failure to do so will require the removal of that model alone with legal penalties. 3) copyright for AI generated images are legally codified as not possible to obtain.
GLAZE is a good program as well. Its free too and the creators are constantly working to improve it and fight against data scrapers. It can also ruin data bases! Which is a very good way to hold your ground against an uncaring company. Dont respect my copyright? My time? Then get wrecked.
As far as i remember some AI images programs do the third rule , where you can make a AI image but the AI image doesn't has any kind of copyright, also , as the person above me said , you can use Nightshade to prevent AI to use your artstyle
As for the kids part, it's horrible and I hope it stops soon, but I thought of a much worse use of AI against kids. I won't say it, but omg, it's very dangerous.
My main concern about AI art is: How many future artists is this going to crush? How many creative individuals with aspirations and ambitions will never realize their potential? How many young people will give up the dream to take up a paintbrush - or even a pencil - when the incentive for AI to do all that dreaming for you makes the commitment seem like nothing but a _'waste of time'?_ Every single body of work ever produced has been the result of someone investing time, effort, and passion. AI-generated art does not replicate this distinctly human element. It can't. As an aspiring artist, I don't feel threatened by AI art, personally; I just think the only one being cheated by AI is you - the user. Why? Because you skipped the opportunity to grow. You took a convenient shortcut to the finish line, but learned nothing from the missing journey. You didn't take the time to hone your skills. Instead of having something to show for your passion and patience, all you have is just another image on a screen - one in a seemingly endless line - for you to attach yourself to. I am very sorry if this makes no difference to you.
I hear 'ya. Used to do the layout on a light-table before making plates. Now so many choose the easy path, assisted by a mechanical brain. They have no idea. And these amateurs toying on desktop computers crushed the printing trade.
My main concern about the printing press: How many future scribes is this going to crush? How many dedicated individuals with aspirations and ambitions will never realise their potential? How many young people will give up the dream to take up a quill - or even their finger - when the incentive for the printing press to do all that dreaming for you makes the commitment seem like nothing but a 'waste of time'?..
My main concern about the tractor: How many future field workers is this going to crush? How many dedicated individuals with aspirations and ambitions will never realise their potential? How many young people will give up the dream to take up the hoe - or even just walk the fields - with the incentive for the tractor to do all that work for you makes the commitment seem nothing but a 'waste of time'?..
@@Cecilia-ky3uw Your comments are truly, incredibly myopic... I love how you compare AI image generators to tools like the printing press, or tractors which still require a knowledgable human operator, when the extremely obvious end goal of AI corporations is to have the AI learn from the people who are using it in order to become self-propmting; the end goal is to have zero need for humans. I definitely don't see how corporations who already stole from artists could be storing all the data on the prompts you make, and eventually have the ai algorithmically prompting itself depending on what is popular in social media; overflowing it with images that ZERO human intervention, and preventing anyone from actually finding anything human made; and that you, the AI user, would have become the tool that trained it to do that. So pat yourself on the back!
@@Cecilia-ky3uw I have to admit: I never thought I'd get a madlib response, but... here we are, I guess! Regarding the printing press/tractor analogy, if I'm interpretting this correctly: The counter point you're offering is that, like the printing press makes mass-publication easier and a tractor makes farming easier, AI is just another tool to make creating art easier. While I can understand the rationale behind it - and you can have that opinion (don't let me stop you!), I still have to disagree with that assessment because I don't think those two analogies are a one-to-one comparison. Yes, the printing press made mass-production and distribution of literature easier, but a printing press still requires a human element (the author still needs to write the damn book). Yes, the tractor made ploughing, tilling, sowing, watering, fertilizing, harvesting (and God knows what else) fields easier, but a tractor also requires that human element (manned-machinery is worthless without a trained operator). The only thing these two tools have in common is that they require manual input, labour, effort, and time. In other words: You're going to have to work, but you can bet your ass you're going to take pride in a job well done! Now, I've already put more time and passion into this reply than it probably deserves, so... back to AI art generators. The reason it doesn't compare here is that writing a book and learning how to operate a tractor requires time and effort. It takes work. Feeding a prompt into an AI so it can output a result? Let's be frank here: There's no expression involved, no creativity, no learning. No matter how much output you receive, you're not going to find lasting satisfaction or pride in it because, whatever it is, one thing is clear: It's not work.
@@cinocefalo284 well, isn't that a bit relative? I have seen tradicional "art" pieces that made me question if they should be called Art. Yet they seem to be, by "authorities" on the matter. I have also seen great digital art pieces made by people. It's easier to paint digitally than traditionally, but, still, for the artwork to look really good, one must apply their skills and knowledge. If they are good, the artwork stands out in quality. The problem today is that the digital world is saturated with much of the same, and it is getting exponencially worse with AI "art", stealing from what was already created by people. Its a good time for artistic people to break away from the digital world, detox, and create new ideas.
@@MikoWhackingEi Digital is only a tool to translate the composition from your mind to the reality. And is a emulation, not real. Digital is not a performing art,when you shut down the monitor is gone. Art have theory. The most of drawing that is called "art" in the net ar just fueled with ego without all those thing that make art, art. And, maybe, the word "Art" is lost in the translation for me. El arte digital no es arte plastica por concepto. ¿Entonces donde se hallaría?
There is a sort of poetic justice to the whole situation, that some "Ai-Artist", prompters really, are starting to get quite toxic about others using their prompts and where they try to "protect" them - not realising that you can't copyright single words and/or describtions. They get pretty aggravated when you mention that to them. The same people, which often claim that "artists" are gatekeeping them and others from making "art" trough the image creators (such as Dall-E, Midjourney etc) and that anything that's on the internet is "free game" for those algorithms. It would be hilarious. Like a Monty Python sketch. If it wasn't so damn serious.
Are people actually getting mad over others using the same prompts? I knew there were plenty of grown adults using technology for malicious purposes but damn that's quite a plot twist.
@@skyleruballe2265 it is pretty funny how they lack any self awareness. On one hand they preach shit about their "democratization of art with ai" and then try to monopolize their own creation process lmfao
People are excited because now they can type their own personalized art without having to pay for it. And the entire non artist world is laughing and pointing at us. Why this reaction? Is like there's no more empathy anymore.
At least there are a few things it can never take away. The feelings we have when working on a piece of art, the blood, sweat, tears, and time we put into it can never be taken.
I honestly don't like AI art and will never use it because when I make art, I want to be in control, just like any other artists I'm sure. With AI, you type keywords to prompt an art from the AI. And ofc I've also seen where the person can even upload other artist's work to the AI program to edit it using the AI. In either case, you don't have control over it. I want to have my art exactly how I want it to look. Using AI is similar to asking other artist to do a commission (in the case of AI, it's free). You may tell them how you want the art to be, but at the end of the day, it's the artist who makes it.
You don't have to use it, but imagine a game developer, or something creating a book, they don't need to go to an expert artist to get the visuals they want, it's a lot cheaper, it's a lot faster, and they can get the art they want, especially if they use the tools where you can really fine tune the image to exactly how you want, basically the image creators you run offline that gives you far more control over the end result. You saying you won't use it will only put you at a disadvantaged compared to an artist that does use it, after all, who do you think is going to be far more productive in getting their vision to paper? My advice, incorporate A.I. into your workflow, you're still going to have your creative imagination to create what you want, just now you can do it a lot faster with the right A.I. tools that give you full control over the end result. As for control over art, well the reality is that, when something becomes a lot easier, cheaper and more productive to produce, it downgrades the value of all art, after all, it's likely going to become a lot harder to justify paying an artist to do some art for you when almost anyone can create art, especially if they have a creative imagination. The entire nature of the world economy is run on making things more productive, A.I. is going to do that in a lot of areas, anything that can be done cheaper and faster, by more people, is usually always going to win out and if the creative industry is not careful with being so stubborn to this new tech, they could find themselves being replaces by people that are creative that embrace A.I. to speed up their workflow. Also, you say you don't have full control over the image you create with A.I. that isn't true, you don't have much control over a lot of the online A.I. image creators, with them, it's kinda like pot luck in what you get going on the prompt you give it, and even then, it's different every time, offline ones that you can run on your own computer, gives you far more control to get the image more or less exactly how you want it, especially with tools like Stable Diffusion. The online ones are good for what they are, ease of use, but if you really want full control over it, you need more advanced tools like Stable Diffusion and there are many videos online that shows you how you can get an image more or less how you want it.
In contrast, I've made real art. Plenty of it. I like AI art because I like to be surprised. I like the feeling of generating a few hundred images and finding one that goes beyond what my imagination was seeing. I like editing and inpainting it to clean up all the imperfections, probably because it feels similar to when I find a broken toy in a resale shop and repair it. I've done art and I've done AI art. I enjoy AI art more (at least right now, at this point in my life), because I enjoy the feeling of sorting, editing, and fixing more than I do having to drag a pencil across a page line by line until it looks halfway close to what was in my head.
the weirdest part is when AI creates someone you know. ive seen a post on reddit where someone prompted a physics professor. it was literally Harald lesh, a very famous guy who does many physics related videos in germany, but with funny hair. it was his face, almost identically, it was very uncanny
People like the one at 33:00 are likely going to realize shortly that getting praise for the AI work they generate is going to start feeling a bit hollow, as it is not really them being praised. But then again, some people like that might just be sociopaths, and won't care, as long as they get positive attention and money. Such people are missing out on the best part of making artwork: The struggle and the journey and the feeling of accomplishment knowing they worked hard to learn how to actually do it. Sure, there is some work involved in using some AI apps in certain ways, but it is really not even close to the same, in my opinion.
Yeah I don't know how people could have a sense of ownership when the AI drew the pose, the proportion, the lighting, etc and all they did was trim the edges a bit.
I am a new artist here learning art faithfully! Thanks god hearing the people fighting against immoral usage of AI. I have great distaste for degeneracy of these f-cking tragedies. I hope a bright future for arts and creativity.
What's immoral about making a commodity that's desirable more available? I thought real artists wouldn't whine about people trying to express themselves and would just adapt and overcome the issue? Isn't that what y'all said when photography and cinematography were first discovered/invented?
@cassowaryegg955 this is the same shit y'all said about photography aswell as cinematography, "boohoo; a thing that lets people have easy access to something we thought we were skilled in came out, so we want it gone because we don't actually want people increasing our bottom line! This is unfair now we actually have to put effort in to make it pay off!"
@@Ramelousy [ Please read this with clarity ] 1. What is immoral about what more desirable and more available? First of all, while I appreciate your efforts to highlight the advantages of AI-generated images, focusing on this technology without first addressing and fixing the root of the issue will only have more negative effects, such as increased data collection without users' consent and production that focuses more on quantity than quality and countless more. 2.I don't complain or harbor anger toward people who express themselves, but they need to understand that the tools they are employing are unethically wrong given that the majority of them, from what I have observed and studied, are utilized to pass themselves off as human-made art (not every single one of them). Even your profile picture, by the way, was created using AI, right? Hopefully not. I referred to these as a fucking tragedy because I saw some people trying to improve society through technology, but the results of their efforts were revolting. Have you seen that some AI user “use” Kim Jung Gee’s art and put it through “training” after the artist DIED without any consent let alone asking his relatives? I know people make mistakes but some should not exist and we should strive toward a better future by reducing the fundamentals of the problem of course nobody is perfect but that is not an excuse to keep create more problem. 3. Like you, I have adjusted to and solved a great deal of challenges in my life. I used to be a traditional artist who painted and drew on paper and canvas. Now that I study digital art, I try to make my artwork more effective and flexible even though I am still learning and have limited resources. To earn money and develop my talents by competing in a contest in a third world country. The software that produces AI-generated images doesn't address the issue at hand; instead, it has wreaked havoc on our society by creating brand-new issues and proposing solutions that devalue the arts. What's even more terrifying than "AI art"? Do you want to read something unsettling? When AI-generated images are genuinely flawlessly undetected as being either artificial or real, in the future. I truly believe that some will utilize it in horrible ways. Some cruel and filthy bastards can create your own personal face by fabricating bad things, such as "fake proof" in court cases or "blackmailing" with a picture that is so convincing it cannot be distinguished. 4. Please refrain from classifying myself with those who are against photography in general and try to avoid overgeneralizing the entire creative community. I know people who studied photography, and getting the perfect shot takes a ton of expertise. Some photographers risk their lives simply to get one image, and some took 6 years and 720,00 attempts to capture the perfect image of a kingfisher diving for water so that we might learn about the natural world and its beauty. Yet in order to provide the best results, photography and filmmaking both require exceptional expertise. 5. I don't want to belittle anyone, including you. But if you keep insulting people, I might lose interest in this discussion because I think that by exchanging ideas, we can come to a mutual understanding rather than fighting someone online. I detest some conflict because it only serves to fuel the fire rather than clear up any misunderstandings. Do you realize how much I value your efforts to make art more accessible? But the problem is with that goal is that everyone already has access to art; even those who are disabled can paint by learning and working hard with those elements is proves to the other that surrounds them that the minority with compassion , will and patience can produce greatness. All you need to do is pick up some paper and a pencil to start drawing, and you can support your neighborhood by watching instructional videos and having nice conversations. With a sheer commitment and creativity with some personal refinement it will show the other that you possess the reliable ability that can truly improve yourself and help other in a way without stealing others data without consent. Most AI "artists" don't even bother to address some of the most fundamental problems, like the number of fingers that alone make me felt that the artist don’t poses any commitment or understanding of the most basic human anatomy. 6. Companies that create "AI-generated images" won't care about your community or be your friend. Let's be honest, if "Ai art" were to magically take over the entire world and everyone started using "Ai models," they would immediately start taking advantage of the economic advantages. If they maintain their position at the top without any restrictions, I can envision a day when they will all require payment for any usage of their business model, such as a monthly subscription, because you are overly dependent on the "tools" you employ and have not developed your skills. And because of the attractiveness of a single press bottom for art, they will keep raising the price until they are ultimately even more expensive than a regular commission. Economic world is just a place of people that want to take all control. Ever heard of “Mr.Zuckerberg” people relying too much on his platform that he can “zuck” any information out without any consent. And now look at that apathetic bastard bleeding money like a swine. I can even give more reasons in stance against immoral usage of AI not against technology. It’s about the roots of the problem not the shining product that acts as a distraction away from the issues.
Now artists of the world, listen. It’s not over till you put the pencil down. You were chosen by it, you were chosen by the spark within long before you knew it did. I cannot give up art because it’s the same as saying ‘I cannot give up my soul’. The more uninspired the internet gets, the more inspired I get to become an artist like in the days of old, whose’s work you could see with and only with your own eyes in a gallery, or a boutique. I don’t care if thousands of people will miss out, I don’t care if I don’t make enough money, I don’t care if I die a Van Gogh. I want to be an artist no one can tread on and so should you. Be the one who inspires few, *you don’t need to shine brighter than the sun to be a lighthouse*
@@tuthures5824 on average I sit down to sketch for a couple of hours, not every single day, but often enough so I don’t loose muscle memory (if you do it long enough you can stop drawing something for a month and it wouldn’t change anything) to me it’s not about grinding but rather going with the flow, I also spend a substantial amount of time researching what I want to draw because I care about accuracy.
After 20 years 16 to 37, I'm finally done drawing. I obsessed over drawing, even though I hated my stuff I felt if I kept going I'd learn to like it. It ripped up my self esteem, I never could be proud or happy, there was never any click , I've done alot,digital animation 3d sculpting painting I feel stupid doing it. AI for me was like a kill switch. , all I wanted was to make something I was happy over
The world is changing. Banning or criminalizing AI art won't make it disappear it will only create a black market and increase the value of the AI generation market. I think differentiation is fine but the value many people find is in the final artwork not the process. Just like no one cares how one comes up with the right answer to a math problem, they care about the answer. You can do it in your head, on an abacus, or on a calculator but the value is in the answer, not the process of getting it.
Value comes from scarcity. When someone hangs a picture in their living room, they want to wow guests with it. They aren't going to wow anyone with generic dime a dozen AI slop.
"Capitalism is when people want money... AND when the Government does stuff." The Economic definition of Capitalism is: An Economic system in which individuals (people) trade voluntarily goods and/or services. An attempt to define Capitalism by using a popular definition is literally the same as "but evolution is just a theory".
I saw ai as nothing more than a toy. But, with the mentioning of the... illegal NSFW context in mind, I'm worried it will devalue it as a fun game. If these ai programmers want to be taken seriously, they need to go to court, work with the artists, and stop thinking they're breaking walls with ai. It's just laziness. It can be good for brainstorming. But, that's it! The artist still has to make the art. The human artist.
@@TheEllord33 No part of it is the tool. AI's function enables depraved users to be able to crank out that kind of content on an unprecedented scale that's not comparable to photoshop.
@@TheEllord33 I'm not debating if it's a tool or not??? I'm saying the nature of the tool that AI is makes the ability to produce that kind of content is unprecedented and incomparable to the speed you'd be able to do the same thing in photoshop.
@@dustrose8101 I strongly doubt people will turn into a criminal because of AI. You ability to drive allow you to run into people, your physical ability allow you to punch people, your access to kitchen knife allow you to kill people. All that is within the reach of literally everybody in the world. Take responsibility like a grow up adult.
35:40 - No offense, but this feel a lot like calculators (as in, the guys that would do calculations, not the digital devices we have today) screaming about the invention of computers (that replaced said calculators, due to not only being able to do the job billion times faster, but also with 0 errors). This shit has been going on since at least the mid 18th century (industrial revolution). I also find the "people don't care about the process of art, or the effort that goes into it, just the end product", as that's literally one of the things programmers have been struggeling with for 3 decades at this point. No one gives a shit if it took you 5 years to make something, if it's not enjoyable\cool, it doesn't matter, and will never matter. If AI can produce the same artwork in 5 seconds, that an artist use 5 months to make, why'd anyone pay the artist to do it? They wouldn't. Same with programmers (that's also up for the chopping block, for the same reasons).
Also wanna add, as it might not be clear. I agree with the legislation, copyright and general legality sentiment of the video, just those points are very weak. Equally, it's not the world's responsibility to ensure everyone can maintain a job in their choose field, and it's ludicrous to expect otherwise. Where is\was the outrage when cashiers were starting to be replaced by 24/7 convinience stores, and MC Donalds scaled down it's clercs due to having apps and tablets you can order from?
My problem is that teckbros are lying about how these algorithms work in terms of combining images from datasets, it's like they think that people who work with visuals don't have eyes
I remember when I was messing about with Dall-E Mini (now Crayon AI or whatever it's called now) back when it first exploded. As an artist I saw the good it could do even when I was using it like every meme-vomiting shitposter at the time! I was one of those people who would make stupid prompts like "sirenhead in a heavy metal band" or "pikachu in ratatouille". One of the prompts I put in was "salamence in how to train your dragon" and the AI popped out all these images that looked like "Took enough Benadryl to pay the Hatman a visit" levels of fever dream but one of these stood out to me: An amalgamated abomination of the red-winged blue dragon Pokemon and Toothless, missing an eye, super stumpy tail, a red mark under the chin that I interpreted as a giant lolling tongue and a single, sickle-shaped wing folded over the creature's back in a very unusual way. And that's not everything wrong with this disaster! But I took that digital abortion abandoned by god and started drawing over and adjusting it with the intent to make it my own character unrelated to the IPs used in the original image's prompt. I was so fond of the silly fella I even used the original Dall-E Mini generated image as a Discord PFP for a while, just a silly little guy I thought would make people laugh the way it did for me! And then it all quickly went to shit. With how much of an ethical nightmare AI has been the same derpy face that once brought smiles was now nothing more than yet another weapon against human expression. Because I stand by my principals that dragon I was so eager to complete was abandoned, never to see the light of day.
Different kind of art with different set of tools and technique. Like between poetry and photography. Both of these arts could be overlap and collaboratored, but as a result while the creative process are completely different from each other. One capture a moment in a set of words and cojure an image in the mind, while the other is capture a moment in a picture with thousand words. Is there a poetry in camerawork?
Depends on the Photographer but generally, I would say yes. There is proably more peotry in a shot that was just the right place and time than something constructed in a studio. @@narraliveproject2576
00:00 🎨 AI art has sparked debate among tech enthusiasts and artists, with concerns ranging from copyright infringement to ethical and philosophical dilemmas. 02:46 🖼 AI art generators often use copyrighted material without permission, raising ethical concerns among artists and creators. 05:30 🚀 AI image generation evolved from the early 2010s, transitioning from captioning images to creating them based on textual input. 08:28 🆓 Recent AI art models like Mid Journey and Stable Diffusion democratize art creation but raise copyright issues by training on vast internet data, potentially including copyrighted work. 11:56 🎨 AI lacks true creativity; it replicates patterns without the unique human experiences that fuel genuine artistic creation. 13:16 🖼 Overfitting in AI-generated images creates similarities or exact replicas of existing works, raising questions of artistic expression versus copying. 16:33 ⚖ AI-generated art's copyright ownership is complex; neither the AI, its programmers, nor the prompter inherently hold copyright, blurring legal boundaries. 19:51 📚 Copyright law aims to balance creator rights and public interest, allowing exceptions like fair use for purposes like research, education, criticism, and news reporting. 21:00 🤖 AI-generated art's eligibility for copyright is unclear; without human authorship, copyright protection might be challenged, impacting its professional use. 23:18 🛡 Litigation complexities arise with AI-generated art; legal actions against the AI itself are implausible, prompting questions on who can be heldaccountable for potential copyright infringements. 24:13 🖼 AI-generated works and models might constitute copyright infringement due to their reliance on existing copyrighted material, posing a legal gray area. 25:23 🎶 Companies like Stably AI differentiate their AI products; Dance Diffusion uses copyright-free music datasets, recognizing legal sensitivities. 26:59 🏆 The incident where an AI-generated artwork won a contest brought mainstream attention to AI's impact, sparking concerns about job displacement and unfair competition. 28:25 🖌 AI models trained on artists' works disrespect the original creators, leading to mass-produced rip-offs and disrespectful use of their style. 29:35 📸 Image-to-image AI features like inpainting enable quick replication of illustrations, allowing easy plagiarism of artwork with limited enforceability against unauthorized usage. 30:41 💰 AI-generated art has led to scams, from selling prints at conventions to publishing hastily generated, inconsistent children's books on platforms like Amazon. 32:33 🎨 Deceptive marketing of AI-generated art as authentic raises ethical concerns, misleading buyers about the origin of the artwork. 33:41 🛡 The rise of AI art has resulted in a culture of fear, where artists are accused of faking their work, leading to bans and demands for proof of creation. 34:35 📷 AI's ability to generate convincing photographs adds to concerns about the erosion of trust in visual content's authenticity. 35:05 🎮 While AI influences smaller projects, larger productions still value human creativity and skills, recognizing the limitations of AI in professional contexts. 36:15 💸 Despite ethical concerns, the AI art industry has seen massive financial evaluations, highlighting significant money-making potential. 37:12 🎨 Artists protested against AI art's influx on platforms like ArtStation, leading to heated debates and the exodus of users from certain sites. 38:24 🤔 Arguments defending AI art as technological progress face challenges, with comparisons to past technological advancements and debates over the democratization of art. 40:16 🌐 Companies like Clip Studio Paint and DeviantArt faced backlash for introducing AI art features, triggering protests and user dissatisfaction. 41:56 🚫 Platforms' efforts totag or filter AI-generated content were often insufficient, leading to ongoing issues with the unchecked proliferation of AI art. 45:27 🖼 AI training data sourced from unauthorized platforms, like Danbooru, raises ethical concerns and leads to the devaluation of artists' work without their consent. 48:55 🤖 AI's commodification of art treats artists merely as inputs, disregarding their dedication, creativity, and human contribution to the creative process.
As a Designer myself AI Art angers me, because of the issues it takes stealing lots of works to build something new. However I think the biggest concern is how in the future it will teach generations to be lazy about creative art. Instead of developing the skills and talent and flare to create. They will simply put in a few words and essentially let AI do it for you. No different than me asking somebody to paint a picture for me, because I can't do it myself. AI art needs regulating and STOPPED in lots of areas. It's cool for blowing up small photos videos to high resolution, but when used to create pieces of work... NO NO. Yet people claim AI artwork as their own.
Regulation yes and it will help regarding areas where profit is involved but... you can't stop it and if you even could that would basically be gatekeeping (that many people accuse artists) a tool for people to put their imagination into reality(even if not great and not ideal but still something that can make imagination come true). Many people's imaginations are "disabled", it may be revelation to you but imagination is a spectrum, some people see moving, colorful images that feel alive in their heads, some like me see blurry concepts of shapes with no colors only existing due to thinking hard about how I can logically describe an object for my imagination to pick it up. Profit and theft aside, for personal use of people for making imagination to reality it is a great tool and you should understand why many would be mad at anybody even suggesting taking it away. Especially as many people are not able to even with practice and work produce any good visualisations of their imagination. To re-iterate, im not defending any art theft or for profit use of copyrighted content. Im defending personal use of a tool meant to take what you imagined into reality. Some would say that it is a very poor way to do it and YOU SHOULD PAY for an artist to do it for you. I say for most people it is enough, it will bring me enough joy to see generated image of a hedgehog with a hat fitting even partially what I imagined. I dont need quality. Am I entitled to see them? Not really but life is not fair the same way I was not born with right imagination and skills for drawing. So why should I be barred from using the tool that can make me many images of lower quality if I dont plan on having any profit from them.
" Instead of developing the skills and talent and flare to create. They will simply put in a few words and essentially let AI do it for you" I'm reminded of an old text that was about Church leaders decrying the printing press. Saying that if children can just pick up a book and read things, they'll lose their ability to memorize anything.
"Instead of developing the skills and talent and flare to create. They will simply put in a few words and essentially let AI do it for you. " This is such an old-man-yelling-at-clouds take. Scribes hated the printing press for the same reason, portrait painter hated cameras, voice actors hated the end of the silent movie era, textile workers hated machine tooling mass-producing clothes, and so on and on. And yet, the end result of every one of those things is a net positive for society, as it provides easily accessible goods that previously were luxuries. This has the same energy as my math teacher telling me 20 years ago that I must learn to do calculus in my head, because "you won't always have a calculator in your pocket"... and I can't remember when was the last time I did anything more than basic additions in my head, because why would I, when the calculator on my phone will get it done faster AND better? Not all skills are worth mastering for everyone, automate what we can, so we can focus on mastering skills that cannot be automated.
Are we not stealing works to build something new when we write anything with inspiration from other texts(which we inevitably do) or make art inspired by other art(which we inevitably do)?
One thing we can do is get the people who advocate for free and unregulated use of AI to our side of the discussion and agree that AI needs copyright regulation is: Start using their AI-Generated images without asking them in our works. You won't even need to wait 24 hours until they all come on stampede wanting regulation.
Just wanted to say that I feel that slot machine comparison. I was using the Bing image generator to create images based on dreams I had. Every single time, I ended up calling one of the images "the best" out of groups that didn't match what was actually in my head. I mean, yeah, it was the scene, but not as how I imagined it. I almost want to learn how to art just so I can put my bizarre landscapes and scenarios onto paper properly. 😆
Have you tried image to image? It still might not be close to what you want, especially if you can't really remember the composition anymore, but it might be worth a try.
@@based_demo you know how to remedy being "terrible" at art? PRACTICE. You, me, and anyone esle can learn to be good at art. Literally everyone sucks at art when they first start out, the difference between the ones who are "good" and the ones who are "bad" is commitment to improving.
@@v4n1ty92i believe theory and achieving intuition matters more. it's pretty good to draw some item or a scene every day until you start feeling patterns in pencil/brush strokes, but it's an understanding of what you're trying to do that makes the difference. i didn't learn programming by writing a 1000 hello worlds, i did it by reading StackOverflow posts, documentation, collections of QNAs on Usenet etc. and only then writing something, seeing everything fall into place myself. whenever i come up with an idea for a drawing or when the memories of my art teacher laughing at my drawings come up and i get the urge to start learning to draw, i usually find advice as simplistic as "just draw lol" which really tells me nothing, when on the side of programming people suggest great free online resources like _Learn You a Haskell for Great Good!_ and the ballsy ones drop author names like Donald Knuth
I get the joke, but... you do realize that he utterly failed, yeah? Digitalization of music is well and truly irreversible, and with digitalization, piracy is also here to stay.
Remember, AI bro: no matter how many models you train, no matter how many people you rip off, no matter how much derivative shovelware garbage you pump out: You'll never be a real artist. Because you never had the patience, the love for the craft and frankly the guts to ever be one. You'll always be a phony. Cry about it.
My english is not the best but here is how i compare AI Art: When i go to a real artist and describe him what i imagine in that artwork, and when its done he hands it to me and i tell him that i am the artist 🤦🏻♂️ how can these people even dare to think they are artists
As a builder I'll say it's normal for customers to tell people, "When we renovated the upstairs.." , "The tiles I used for the bathroom.." and so forth.
If i imagine something i am not an artist yet! how can you not get this? It takes real involvement and creating to bring it to the world, otherwise i would be an artist when i pay somebody to draw my imagination .....@@robosergTV
AI art is good actually. It's so effortless and lacking in human creativity it inspired me to become an actual artist instead of typing in "best quality, masterpiece..." for 2 hours straight.
If there’s one thing I will say AI art is good for, is for being a Dungeon or Game Master with friends. Not all of us who have an idea for a fun game to run with friends is also an artist who can and has the time to make like 50-60 different images for all the characters and enemies. But we appreciate having SOMETHING to look at. Key word here is for FRIENDS.
So you PAY for it. Just because it is “for friends”, doesn’t make the exploitation any less. If you appreciate having something to look at, that means the art has value to you and that value should be reflected on the artist that created the work.
@@cinnibarbrenneka For sure, it would cost you if you wanted bespoke images, but you could always purchase close enough images through a stock imagery website where the licensing is consented to or you could learn to draw. You don’t have to be a trillionaire at all. Just because you want it, doesn’t make it ethical. You want to exploit people just because you don’t want to (and believe you shouldn’t even have to) pay for the value they provide. I can’t stop you, but call it what it is. Every time you make and use those images you are exploiting someone else’s skills. Those images don’t exist without them, they don’t come from nowhere.
@@cinnibarbrenneka Exactly. I'm working on a couple projects, NON-PROFIT, that need lots of illustration, in the hundreds. And this guy wants me to pay for all of that. And they have the guts to cry about how poor they are so they can't even afford a bus ticket.
Maybe someone can change my view, but as I see it: 1. Yes, while AI is trained on copyrighted works, it's not like photobashing, because the AI is not taking exact parts from any specific work, it's more like learning from every other work and making something new from the learned model, similar to what a human might do, for example. 2. What is the difference between a human and an AI, if not just one being made out of flesh and the other out of metal? Both AI and humans just look for patterns, currently, the AI is just like a human brain, but on a smaller scale, like a chunk from a brain. 3. The thing is most people don't care if art is made by "flesh artists" or AI, because at the end of the day, it's still art, so, for end users, there is no significant difference. 4. "AI can only leech off of existing creativity" - to me, this seems like a bad argument, because, of course, you have to see some references to make anything, you have to see how apples look if you want to draw an apple, the same also applies to everything else you might want to draw. 5. The problem of bias is not just in AI, humans also have biases, heck, some people are even racist, AI learns it's patterns from humans. 6. I can't comment on the other fields, but as a programmer, AI is actually very useful and without it, I would have a much harder time. 7. You (and anybody, even the government) can't stop AI CP or any other NSFL content, since anyone can just run an AI model on a decent computer. This is not an argument against AI. Please, do change my mind, though.
Honestly it's not the AI itself I'm hating on. It's not the technology's fault that it was designed that way. However, beside it posing a threat to artist's career and livelihood, shitty politicians and journalists has been using generated images to redtag people in our country.
The irony in all this ai hype is that so many people believe "AI" will help the average joe to get a more compex and better paying jobs, when in actual reality the effect is the opposite, most ai stuff is as decent or better than what an average person can achieve, and makes it even harder for people that arent exceptional, to get any of those types of jobs like artists,programmers,writers etc.
No, because it's placeholding relationships. That's interpolative, as such is the algorithm. Art isn't about interpretation unless desired. AI lacks artistic foundations, gestalt psychology and anything that makes art art and not a auto photobash.
Taking an art history class and my teacher E-Mailed us about Ai being allowed 😀 we’re literally doing ART HISTORY, Ai is not a part of art history (until now, but it’s not even art)
i just want a pretty picture, im also the kind of person who doesnt give two shits about art galleries. for me art is just the visualization of any given concept. i dont care how you got there. even some flaws in ai art are of little concequenz to me since im quite adapt at suspending disbelive. if i have to look realy close at a picture for minutes to find "grave offputting mistakes" i wont get my knickers in a twist over it.
I finally found someone just like me, sometimes I just want to look at nice pictures! To me 'art'/images is just like pasta, the experts will insist that you have to hand make your pasta from scratch otherwise you're 'lazy', but most people will just buy ready-made pasta from a store because its convenient and normal. I bet most of these artists don't even hand make their pasta...
It’s kind of funny how some programmers have wrote their own code to the destruction of their entire field and others, it’s almost a Greek tragedy in how corny it is.
As someone looking to be a programmer in the gaming industry, it makes me absolutely miserable seeing people screwing over other creatives. And yeah, if this keeps up we’re gonna kill our own damn jobs if AI learns to code.
One of the most infuriating things to me is ai „artists“ tagging their posts with completely unrelated stuff, especially on pixiv and Deviantart. Not only are they not marking it as ai, but they also refuse to just tag it correctly. I can’t count the amount of times I’ve typed in something completely unrelated, only to be blasted with art of a half naked anime girl with six and a half fingers. I still don’t like it either way, but I wouldn’t actively hate ai art if they could just keep it a separate thing.
34:50 so, fun fact, a MARVEL show on disney+ actually used AI for its opening animation... so unfortunately, it does seem to have taken jobs from actual artists edit: time stamp issue
Like any law, copy right law does not protect artists, it protects lawyers. Same as patent law. Thats why the real money in the music biz is in publishing (aka labels) rather than performing.
Hey, I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to clearly explain all the issues with AI art. Because it's a pretty loaded subject for a lot of people, discussions can tend to get heated, so I never really understood the issues but found it hard to ask people about them. I didn't really get what was wrong about AI art (and it wasn't anyone's responsibility to educate me, it's perfectly reasonable of them). So this video was really helpful. I understand the situation and the issues a lot better now. Thank you!
The only thing I ever consider using AI art for is making silly pictures like Goku fighting Johnny Test, theres something fun about putting in a prompt and waiting to see what it puts out
I don't think you realize how creativity works in people mind's, the process is very similar how AI creates art. However, the AI only does one 'cycle' of creation, while we, during the creation process, usually do many cycles of this creativy process. Your brain never makes anything truly new, it only combines existing things in new ways.
One argument for the AI is infringing on copyrights, even without it "collageing" it, is that it is still the base of how this program was trained and therefore made. It's a part of the machine. And therefore if you want to use it for anything other than your personal enjoyment, oh let's say selling licences to use the AI or selling the AI images... you used art and photographs you had no rights to to produce a commercial product and benefit financially from it. From what I heard the programmers of those, of course, know what they're doing does not come within fair use so the companies often cloak themselves as "research of new technology"... even if they're also monetized
The problem with this though is that if you want to enforce this for AI without discriminating, you need to also enforce the same for humans: No learning from copyrighted images. Either allowing both to learn from them or neither would be fair, though trying to ban something as fundamental as learning from something is rather impossible to enforce.
@@snowthemegaabsol6819an artist can explain where their creative input and their inspirational muses begin and end. An ai has no intent. It cant conceive of new ideas based on old stuff only replicate its patterns.
Ive been getting more annoyed with seeing ai images on social media thay claim to be photos of real people. I especially see ai images of children making a peice of art with the words, 'my name is _ and this is my first painting.' These posts are suggested to me and i block each account but they are infinite. The comments are full of people congratulating and celebrating.
I get that people can't always tell but it annoys me how defensive people get when you do point out it's AI too. They can't take criticism at all because "it will get better in the future" which is such a dumb argument. Even now that they've mostly fixed the hand problem there's still so many other tells that it's made by an AI image generator, like the fact it can't even correctly paint reflections into scenery.
What I currently hate the most is how samey AI art is. Doesn't matter what the artist name is, it's the SAME core traits of the 'art'. Front page of dA is flooded with it and there's no distinct style between these garbage accounts anymore. And that's despite trying to filter it out. Some people just use 3d art as tag instead of AI to cheat filters. Gross.
I agree with you. If you use real kids pictures to make porn then the arguments of its not real fails and then creator of such art can go to jail. As for programming, I used chatgpt for code and it still makes alot of mistakes. Its possible to build code in it, but just like with art, it cant design Software like a true engineer. I think chatgpt is good for learning the basics of programming algorithms. Alot of companies want to make their in hous AIs which I think is a mistake for developers to use. In the end, its always best to find a way to work for yourself because no job is actually secure.
54:39 Yeah, exactly... My experience with AI image generators is that they are so far off from what I actually wanted, that it's just so much easier to just draw it myself...
@@haitaelpastor976 I once told Dall-E 2 to make a full picture of the side a boat, it keeps giving me the partial picture of a boat, bot the full picture... And once in a while it does give me a full picture but not from the side... I keep rephrasing my prompt, but it just keep making the same mistakes... And I just give up... Maybe now it has been improved, and it can do it now, idk... But not at the time I tried it, it can't even do that... Another example is when I tried some anime art generator, the oblivious problem is they can't do new characters, which make sense, the characters don't even exist at the time of the training... Also the other problem is when I told them to draw multiple characters, sometimes they just draw 1 character... And the interaction between the characters is so far off what I told them... Another problem is most of them have queue (unless you pay), and it can be so long to wait everytime I fix my prompt... When I don't have clear picture of what I want, the result is actually pretty good, sometimes even better than my original idea... But when I have clear picture in mind, the result is not even close to what I want...
@@haitaelpastor976 "practice included" I don't practice, lol... "how much time would you need to draw it the way you like" With my style (TV Anime Style), with only 1 character, no variant set, no background, no procrastination and stuff... Usually about a few hours... "and with quality on par with the AI" If I told the AI to draw something in TV Anime Style, then the quality is more or less on par with the TV Anime stuff... So a better question is, me vs the AI, which drawing is more on par with the quality of TV Anime stuff, probably the AI, although my drawing isn't that far off... But it doesn't matter how good the quality is if the AI doesn't draw the right thing... It's not even the minor details that they get wrong... they get the interaction wrong, or the pose, or even the character... Btw... I'm not against AI, I use AI myself... I use ChatGPT to make lyrics, and the experience is great... (although ChatGPT still can't count syllables, lol... Maybe in English it can, Idk, I never tried it)... Also, I get that maybe if I spend time to make better prompts maybe I can get better results... Or a custom training, maybe will give better results, Idk... But for me, I rather spend more effort drawing it myself than spend effort to make the AI result better... And I'm not saying that everyone should stop using AI, just because it doesn't really work for me... I'm just telling my experience, that's all... If you want to use AI, that's fine... I'm neutral, I'm not pro AI, I'm not against AI... That's all, have a nice day...
Hint: audio setup is soo more important than image quality and lighting because horrible audio with short hard reflections and a potato mike literally hurts in the brain after like 15 seconds. Get some cushions / bookshelfs (with books, otherwise useless), whatever works, and watch a few videos about microphones and try some out. I know now you're probably angry but I just can't watch a video with this kind of headache-inducing sound and I am not alone.
This video is so depressing. The vile companies who created this blight on humanity must be sued into oblivion. Ai generators destroy art, art carreers, creativity and philosophically speaking all that is beautiful about being human. The nerve of tech bros to steal all your work right in front of you and the audacity to lie in your face about it.
Only those who never created anything and never struggled transforming their thoughts and emotions into the drawing could defend AI tripe which is referred to as "AI art". These cretins do all mental gymnastics to justify own laziness, willingness to steal other's work and opportunism. Those who use AI to shit out tons of AI images and try to justify it, only show everybody else that they are incapable of appreciating and valuing other people's creative work and skills. They don't see it as a way to express oneself or project thoughts and feelings. They only see it as a bunch of pixels that can be repurposed and copied.
i think what (some) people mean with democratize art is: now they have an personal artist that work for free and can draw anything they want. the ones who just want to consume some art piece that currently dont exist will be satisfied with just that.
The whole video I was thinking "does he know about the cheese pizza" and felt validated but disgusted when it came up. I'm glad people know about it but it's appalling that we have it exists
I don't think it's a coincidence that the modern scientific explosion followed the renaissance. Ai art has no meaning to edify society like real art does. The more we minimise the role of real art the more science, culture etc slow down.
Yes, and society may soon stop creating and only consume. I've tried creating "AI art" and it sure is a dopamine rush and addictive. It's also scary how good it has gotten. It's better than most artists and fulfills your wish and many iterations thereof in seconds. So I would honestly be lying if I said it's no fun to use, and I can understand why people love it. There are only a few mistakes, and the "uncanny valley effect" has become almost unnoticeable. Perhaps at least it should get regulated, since AI art is becoming indistinguishable from real art.
There will always be better artists. Only one person is at the top, that's a fact. So, the only thing that matters is that you're okay. This was true before, and it's true now with AI, too. Just make art as you wish. It's your medium of expression, competition in mediums of expression shouldn't be a thing.
Stop using it. Don't hate your own artwork. Just work on improving and practicing - you can do it! We all believe in you! If you hate your work, then the enemy wins. Don't give them that. You can get there, you just need to keep pushing a little more!
Watching this video is unreal. Just about every ad i've recieved has advertised AI in some way. Even when you brought up Adobe selling stock images at 36:37, I got an ad from adobe advertising just that. It seems like every other ad nowadays stress AI and how its "revolutionary" and "groundbreaking" to their products that they sell.
I don't like AI art because it usually has that style you can recognize immediately and it has no uniqueness whatsoever. Some people configure their models differently and that sometimes results in interesting outcomes but %99 of the AI art on the internet is very boring. AI generated pictures are a whole different topic- those can look realistic asf and I have nothing to say about them.
Maybe photographs and digital art must be verified by their cryptified file data such as what programs being used. For photographs could be verify the type of camera used and location. I think that hackers can fabricate the information of their AI "photos" to look real by editing their cryptic data so we need to figure out methods to combat these. In digital art could be mandatory to show layers and record a whole timelapse which is available for clipart studio paint. Layers could be fabricated by photoshop which you could disassemble each part into separate layers.
We already can combat it. Unless something changes in the future, changes in metadata can already be detected. True photography is able to be verified by the integrity of the metadata. :)
The main reason why I hate ai art is when people fucking scam unknowing people over "art" and selling it. Jazza made a video on him getting scammed over a stupid ass AI art book. Like sure some people can't draw and wanna make money but just fucking learn like the rest of us artists. I got good because of 48+ sketch books and over 12+ a year some years art is a damn skill we shouldn't make Pcs make a hobby for us we should use the Pc to replace tasks that hurt. Ur not a chef if U take frozen pizza and add extra cheese same with "Ai art"
As a new aspiring artist I always was flabbergasted at how disrespectful can people be towards artist even before this ai bs took over, people harassing artist because they were taking way too long with their commissions even though those artist have things to do outside art. now the situation got even worse with people in the internet calling them names and telling them than an ai can make their work quicker and better, that made me wonder if I really wanted to be an artist what is the point if by the time my skills are good enough to catch up the art market will be flooding with meaningless autogenerated content no matter what. I always wanted to make my own manga and hell no I'm not doing it with ai it would look awful now sadly my dream seem way too far fetched for me to make it a reality
Bro, keep at it anyway. I still make art even if all this stupid shit is happening. It's done so much for me. Monetarily? Not so much. Feeding my soul? Definitely.
If your vision, resulting concepts & storytelling are unique enough you will outshine the cloned AI garbage any day. Try to focus on content and multilayered meaning over form.
@@DerSnoeziewoezie that is actually a very interesting way of making art making a history and world with interesting character to overrun the AI I never thought of learning story telling but it sounds interesting
Art is about self expression! There's beauty in drawing, ever had a lil kid draw you something? Or seen somebody learn to draw? There's beauty in that, beauty in sharing, learning new skills, learning from other people who express themselves while expressing your own loves, critiques, emotions What doesn't do that is AI
The reason I love art is that it shows how how much heart and soul aritist give into the art. AI is polar opposite. Not to be cringy but this reminds me of Sonic CD's Metal Sonic compared to normal Sonic. Sonic is expressive and full of life, when Metal is heartless cold unfeeling. sonic is the artist metal is the AI.
@haitaelpastor976 I don't know what you mean. It's not snobbism, not all art has to be good. AI creates cookie cutter images that all look similar as hell. Even without any artistic experience anyone can try to make something and it will be unique because they made it. Art is such a human thing, its not like artists are gatekeeping it. I'm depressed thinking about a world where robots do the fun and creative jobs while humans slave away.
@@Void-fo5um At least you acknowledge the existence of natural talent. Most other artists insist on their toxic positivity about "talent is only hard work". I praise you for that.
@@tetsupannn "not all art has to be good" WTF only a mediocre or a huge-ego would say that. Keep grabbing a pencil if you want, we don't care, so you shouldn't care if we want to use the Machine.
I love writing, but I'm not so naive as to believe that AI won't be able to replace my writing. I welcome the ability for a layman to create something I would have labored to make. I believe that my creativity will be able to find a niche. And if it doesn't, too bad, I write for myself, not for other people.
I used to repair plumbing and appliances, but the availability of high quality model-specific DIY videos ended most of that. Before then, heh, I apprenticed running presses and laying out pages for plates - just as desktop publishing and copycenters took over. You're not jealous that the machines process your RUclips comments, learn from them, and neither compensate nor thank you?
@@pong9000 I t doesn't matter if people are jealous or not. The simple, cheaper, mass-producable option will win. It's just a matter of when. Just as nobody has their portrait painted these days to leave behind as a memory, when you have the option to just tap the screen of your smartphone to have your image preserved. It's just the nature of technological advancement, and really the only option is to get out of the way or get swept away, because you can't stop it.
@@Warfoki It matters if people are jealous for the same reason it matters if people are in pain. Jealousy has always played hard in the art world. Surely some artists will be jealous of AI creators. I mean, the underlying emotion in this video is apparent. So while you may correctly advise giving way to technological advancement, we should also address the human condition.
@@pong9000 I mean, sure, some people will be jealous, some people will be angry, of course. My point is that in terms of technological advancement, that doesn't matter, because it WILL go on, no matter what. The more practical and cheaper solution tends to win out in the long run, are trying to get in the way of that is and always has been a futile endeavor.
@@Warfoki Only the most entitled idealists would disagree on your point. Being displaced by technological progress is after all these centuries, so common an experience, it now defines humanity. I just saw JackJohnson come to terms with the problem, not as a utilitarian agent of capitalism, but as a human being with feelings, and I admire that.
25:42 they only made a music generator without copyrighted music is because they know the record labels would run them deep into the ground as soon as word went around about them using copyrighted music for their training sets.
AI art not only looks like it has no soul or taste, but it also devalues the work made by people. Recently I looked at the work of a great master and instead of being inspired by it, I tried to understand whether it was AI art or not.
i recently seen where ai art cant be legally copywrite so my question is, could i legally steal an ai peice redraw it in my style and claim its mine. since they like to steal peoples art already i dont really see an issue with doing this.
The pro-AI crowd doesn't want you to realize this but YES you can indeed steal AI art and call it your own. There are no copyright laws that protect AI art. You can literally go around, take all of the stuff you want, and not give a single ounce of credit to the button pushing monkey that typed the prompts in.
I absolutely love the ability to help generate art concepts. However I do not beleive there is a morally correct way to use any of these images in commercial products.
Never would I have imagine to be born in era where the very things that made us human be stolen by a bunch of numbers, something that is so significant in our history, something that preserved our culture, idea, and dreams. Reality is often disappointing and saddening, unfair to no end If you think art isn't a job and should be replaced by soulless AI made by greedy companies, take a look at yourself, see the reality your living on is the most basic of all, your not significant nor talented. Dismissing art as just a doodling and worthless is the most pathetic thing to do.
You were always born in that era. Throughout entirety of human history new innovations have changed how humans live. There was a time when living in the cave made us human, it goes all the way to back then.
People should and will always be free to practice art, for creative expression. But it's myopic to think that it must make money. You say AI is soulless. Perhaps you are right. But that brings exciting opportunities. How can we guide AI to create novel art and styles, without feeding it such styles? Can we guide it with our soul? Or can we actually make it smarter to the point that it generates it's own creative styles which are satisfying as art? These will be the jobs in the future (which is really now), that will make money, and it is exciting.
@@jonathandawson3091 I didn't mean it must however money is needed when living in our society afterall most artists live through their works, though I apologize for not being clear as I lack vocabularies and English knowledge to properly articulate my own thoughts.
@@jonathandawson3091 "Your were always born in that era" I know that much but it isn't supposed to be that way. Im not against the improvements of humans through innovative technologies as It will be stupid to be that way, however creativity, in my opinion shouldn't be automated by AI as there's no need for it, our creativity is more than enough.
@@jonathandawson3091 @jonathandawson3091 Never been excited for such things, I suppose it is exciting for many others, however for me it isn't. I may be sound prejudices against AI whom possibly developed enough to achieve creativity beyond human or parallel to human creativity, such possibilities is plausible or even eventuality though I value humans creativity above others. In my opinion the hard works of pure humans creativity isn't replaceable by AI even if it has soul.
Unfortunately it seems the one barrier for ai art is it’s uncanniness. I won’t lie; the possibility of some of my favorite light novels having instant manga however long they are is very appealing.
Subbed. Great video man. AI is not a small issue. And not just for artists. It's a human issue. We've been warned about this for ages. It's happening. "People will come to love their oppression, to adore technologies that undo their capacities to think" - Aldous Huxley
man when will these guys realize that if they succeed, they will get an oversaturated, lower income version of the already famously underpaid artist’s market
Like all areas where new automated tools are invented, in the end the quality suffers *until a an actual skilled* person uses it. Like all mass produced things, quality suffers. Especially when done on its own. Artists have never had to deal with the concept of becoming obsolete due to technology progressing to this extent. Ask anyone who lost their jobs due to automating making things on a production line. Now they do. However, just as with how that adjusted as time moved on, this will as well. It simply needs new skills. Because creativity is still (and always be) the center of art. Anyone having used PhotoShop knows this. The *real* point is simple: AI isn't going away. It will only get better, and will only be used in more areas as the people using it *as a tool* become more trained its usage. As long as Art *wholly* AI generated is not copyrightable, the artist does have some advantages. *This* is the thing most artists need education in. An artist's art, while working in game design can be copywritten by the game dev studio. The game studio however will likely lose when trying to copyright it's art if it is all AI generated. So they'd be able to copyright the GAME but not it's art. Saved money? Maybe. Saved the entire IP's look? No. Ditto in other situations using an artist's work normally. It isn't going away. Progress *never* goes away. However adapting to it legally, artistically, and economically is the only way to move forward.
i was just going to start this because it was 2am but i ended up watching the whole thing, your video was very well thought out and i applaud you on your professional attitude. I am working towards being that polite in regards to this topic. i agree with you in your conclusion, i would be totally fine with AI art existing if they didn't use copyrighted works, heck if they were just "opt in/copyright free images only" i would actually participate, why not! I'm a little scared for the future, but we're artists, we invent new things all the time, and i think that is what will and is keeping us alive.
If everyone were deincentivized from becoming artists there would eventually be no new inputs into the system. We'd be left recycling the same content over and over. As with modern movies we'll just keep having nothing but sequels, remakes, spinoffs, etc. for the rest of time.....
it's a bit of a simplification. While it's true that if people were discouraged from pursuing artistry, there might be fewer fresh perspectives and original creations, it doesn't mean that creativity would cease altogether. Human creativity is resilient and often finds ways to express itself even in challenging circumstances. Additionally, art can be inspired by a myriad of factors beyond personal incentives, such as societal issues, emotions, or a desire for self-expression. So, while discouraging artists might limit the flow of new content, it's unlikely to completely stifle creativity. Furthermore, there's always the potential for new voices to emerge and shake things up, even in a landscape dominated by sequels and remakes.
I saw somebody say this somewhere and it pinpointed the biggest problem I have with AI art so accurately: there's something deeply wrong with a society where humans work their lives away and machines create all the art.
People are in control of those machines. People are still making the art.
@@fillerbunnyninjashark271 no human is "making art" when an ai does cgi....
@@iamLI3 so CGI isn't art, got it 🫡🤝
@@fillerbunnyninjashark271that's not what i said....
@@iamLI3 yes it is. CGI is CGI. It doesn't matter how it's made, because it's all made with computers with input from a person...
What I hate most about this situation is that people act like artists are some oppressive class of people who are the reason that they can’t make their dream tv show or whatever and artists make tons of money off a “talent” they were born with without any real work. In reality artists are just the ones who actually took the time to create the idea from their head dedicating their time to perfect their skill and the most artist in the industry get very little pay compared to the tons of work they have to do.
if anything artists are the people that need to fight for every inch of social acceptance they can get. most dont view it as real work, exploit them or see it as a useless contribution to society. AI art will be the last nail in the coffin lmao
That's why they keep yelling about democratizing art when there was never any barrier to begin with
I'm not an artist but I hate AI art and condemn AI "artists". However, I gotta disagree with your opinion regarding talent. Hard work without talent = mediocrity. A person with no artistic talent can practice for ages and still be terrible at it. And I can tell these tech bozos got no artistic talent or creativity for shit. But, instead of staying in their lanes, working on their own stuff and never touch art like the rest of us who don't have any artistic aptitude, they decided to disrespect and violate art by taking unethical shortcuts. THAT is what I have problem with. F*ck these bozos.
I believe people like those are so passionless and self conscious the best pleasure out of any activity they do can only be trying to get others down to their level. If someone found their passion or even is sure in their self worth they won't clutter their time with bringing others down, they're busy climbing up where they want to go.
@@bluefox5331 They're lazy. They want to do art but refuse to put in the work so they attack those who do by making themselves the victims
When art, music, film etc become all AI, these techbros will realize how empty the world has become.
Not if the content is awesome lol.
@@mastershan87 it will never be
@beatricezanoni5582 lmao... that's pretty stupid comment from I'm guessing another salty artist. 1: it already is. 2: the rate at which AI is advancing is faster than anything else in history. When you watch AI go from a lot of gibberish and nonsense to where is is today in the amount of time it has taken its easy to project that it's going to get so much better that it will be indistinguishable feom human content...
Cope...
@@mastershan87 If you actually think AI will be able to recreate the very media which people have been living with for the past decades, then there must be something very wrong with you. AI will never be able to spew out original ideas, to create a Marvel trilogy, a Game of Thrones television series. To write fleshed out, intricate books that the very same movies and shows are based on, and to gather teams of creative people who dedicate their work into creating something which millions of people will watch, commentate, enjoy and learn from. AI will never be able to create Riot Games, Minecraft, DOOM, or any sort of video game, board or card game. It cannot recreate Modern Talking, Scorpions, The Smiths, Lady Gaga, Crystal Castles or whoever your favorite musical artist is. It cannot think because YOU are thinking for it, and it gets its information from the very same media that you consume. It lacks authenticity due to the inexperience of the individual behind the screen typing in prompts. It lacks authenticity because it is not a tool, but a gimmick.
I pity that you see any semblance of genuineness in spewed-out pixels by some sore tech bros who clog the internet library with HD anime cleavage and pornography. You lack many things which you can easily recover, but your ignorance is the very same rot that plagues the already-degrading contemporary literacy of the human race, and I feel sorry for you and the people who suffer because of individuals such as yourself. Anyway, have a good one bro.
@@mastershan87how can a human be so anti human
can we just appreciate how we're using AI to snuff out fulfilling careers instead of menial jobs nobody wants to do
now that its happening to you, you suddenly care. I'm sure I will care in five years when even programmers are replaced.
I mean it's not on purpose, AI is a digital entity, the things its "learning" to do are the digital ones and not the analog ones you call menial.
@@hipiticlivi7400 Wat? Sure it's easier to teach an AI digital stuff.. since you can essentially run it through the training non-stop, even when your workers are sleeping. But we are using "AI" to learn practical taskes all the time, the only difference is, it's not only more expensive, it's also requires enginnering, changing the up the robot to make it more effective, or even make it able to do the taskes you want it to.
AI will do whatever it's able to do. It just so happens image generation is easier than plumbing. This should be no surprise considering AI is 99% non corporeal.
I like how everyone used to say creative stuff would be the last thing AI would touch so everyone would be able to do fun jobs while AI does other jobs yet AI went immediately for creative jobs first
I finally decided to build my skills, alter my style to meet demand and break i to the art field.....then this happened.
I got really discouraged
Until i realized that there is nothing "wrong" with my style. Its unique.it's mine and nobody elses. Im still breaking into it anyway, my way and i'll find a market. Im just not making a site until we can find a way to stop scraping.
You could always prevent web crawlers from getting to it. Also your art ain't likely to get added to any databases, since those tend to go for professional, publix art.
@@rockedsocks4613 thanks. How do you prevent web crawlers? I noticed at times you can't save at from a page but you can screenshot it. Is there coding the AI can't get around? It's there a way to scramble what am AI sees?
I have noticed that there is a very homogenous style that AI apps make. So I bet I am in the clear as my stuff isn't that... But still would rather protect myself
also not to mention, if you look at most of these ai photos they all have the same "style" and on the other end of the stick if it isnt the "ai style" its a ai engineered to steal popular artists style. therefore your style is still valuable.
@@g3n0sc1d3 yeah, that's what I meant by AI having a homogeneous style. I believe my style will likely be fine... I'd still like to find a way to pop in the coating on my website to be able to stop anything like print screen, screen shot, save as etc.
I'm sure it'll be fine. AI isn't the only thing that sort of bugs me though, it's also people who rip s*** off of sites and sell them on other sites. My wife purchased some DND stickers on Amazon and it's all stolen art. I tried to report it but Amazon doesn't have any way to do that... Which it sleezy if you ask me.
Keep going. So do i. I still draw. My stuff isn't the best, but it's mine. I also have some speed paints here. Like drawings of ai. 😂 i took it to the next level. Be like "why create ai art when you can draw art of ai".
People REALLY forgot about the last time an artist went full villain.
But honestly. The hypocrisy of saying all art is pointless while using something that uses that said art to fufill their own selfish desires they themselves claimed to hold no value
Don't forget, his work was just as dull as these Prompters. But the power of AI has gone to their head. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. - Lord Acton
Failing art school didn't make him an artist :)
@@AdroSlicehe was an artist but a horrible person
shiver me timbers
Not ALL art. I mean there's pointillism for one thing. FULL of points. Literally!
Art is a craft. AI art is like going to a restaurant and they serve you a can of bland soup.
Can't wait for ChatGTP to replace developers for the biggest UNOreverse card in history.
tech workers alre losing jobs on a alarming rate... as a IT Student i gave up on learning to program soon any person can code and program based on a random short prompt
The algorithms weren't even theirs to begin with.
@@thestarchas3r yikes, were now going after developers aswell? fk off.
Man can't wait for ppl to not actually write good stories but just type a title and boom you got it! No learning involved because why do I have to? Instant gratification, consume, buy subscription now! Repeat.
So fucking sad.
Oh man, and these are the coal miners who learned to program, too. 🤡
About that "democatization": Theres a reason why Bob Ross show was called "the joy of painting" and not "the joy of looking at paint".
With a fellow artist I can actually talk about the process. "Democatized" AI artist have nothing to tell me exept their finished content in a sea of content. They are gatekeeping themselves out of a discussion with anyone, who actually constructs a painting.
Democratization
And just because _you_ don't understand the discussion of models, Loras, keywords, weights and biases, that does not mean _they_ don't understand their own processes.
There _is_ a technique to it. It's surely simpler than painting or whatever, I'll admit that any day of the week.
But why do you feel like they need to be present in a circle of painters? Not even digital artists and painters have too much in common.
And if those hypothetical painters have just as much of a closed mind as you, they'd also find it hard to talk about technique with digital artists
And what do you mean by "gatekeeping themselves out"? Real artists are gatekeeping them.
There is literally _nothing_ someone who enjoys creating AI can do to be accepted in conventional art circles.
But if they aren't doing anything wrong, then it is not their fault that they are "gatekept".
It's just two completely different interests...
@@hundvd_7no artists are gate keeping you, you’re just lazy
@@hundvd_7you steal work
@@hundvd_7you’re a thief
The worst thing is that the AI *can be used properly* - helping the artists to do better at their job instead of taking it and doing the same thing many times worse. For example, some of the upscaling programs are really good at sharpening the images. That was crucial for me when I've tried to transfer my old laptop wallpapers to the 4k PC monitor, and the AI handled the task perfectly. That's cool, huh? A digital artist can do his job, and the AI will care for it looking properly no matter what. That's good! That's really helping! That's how things should be done! But... That's not as widespread as the sh*t that happens when some dumbass tries to *replace* real artists with AI. As always, people rush to extremes and make good things into bad ones...
uhh an designer can't actually upscale a picture like this. Adding details etc.
@@timmuller5249 waifu4x or w/e it's called is helpful for scanning stuff and getting more out of an image, but that's an actual tool with actual helpful properties, AI as it currently stands doesn't enhance anything, what this person here is saying with their comment is that they don't understand the concept of RNG or random numbers, which is a tool for artists to use to create their own brushes and color inputs and diffusion and other art words inserted here.
This person is taken in seemingly by the buzzwords and people glorifying AI as the holy grail that will solve everything.
Then use it properly oh wise one! Go on get to it!
If AI can replace mediocre artists, how's that a bad thing.
I’m a small time game dev. I needed 3 characters drawn from 3 sides. The artists wanted serious money and months to do this. And not a single one of them on the website really matched the standard of quality for the price they were asking. AI does it in a few commands. And you don’t need to be an artist to touch it up, just familiar with photoshop. It’s a much better solution and breaks an unfair monopoly in several industries. Music next!
i am not an artist (at least not in the drawing sense)
i find AI art amusing and kinda fun (for private and personal use) but i can't imagine it replacing artists. that would be horrible and wrong
I feel that
Then I'd advice against using it, I get that it is a shiny and attractive toy but when said toy is yet another nail in the coffin for human art I'd rather not play with it.
the ai machines are also getting trained by users like you who just dabble with it, if you click an image it will remember it being probably useful, and thus further enhance it's parameters etc.
@@BombaJeadsorry ai porn hot and I don't care
@@NoraNoita This. People innocently screwing around is what led to these programs amassing hundreds of thousands of hours of experience with humans and how to "perfect themselves" for human input to begin with.
Yes, generating stuff you want without needing to find an artist, and (GOD FORBID) strike up a conversation to commission your work, is comfy. However, people are also simultaneously serving as free "trainers" (trainers that pay instead of getting paid to train something) for these machines... and they're fine with it.
Considering all the damage this technology has done to artists and the art community, I'd rather not use it at all unless I could somehow verify the generations don't plagiarise any currently working artists, which AFAIK is impossible.
I do not hate AI art itself, but I hate those people that probably used to mock the "loser" classmate back in school for daring to put own passion and efforts in developing artwork instead of being good at kicking a goddamn ball and now is able to do it as a professional job, and all of the sudden these bullies are back into mocking for supposedly having wasted years into such passion as "now it can be done in second by anyone and it's better than your work".
A friend of mine recently got to criticise publicly this behaviour and got his own artwork generated by a bunch of trolls for days. All he was doing was trying to tell people to stop using AI to harm others and do something good with it instead, and faced the exact same treatment he was complaining about. This tech is now expanding to all things, and I just cannot help but thinking that the benefits it provides (like helping people with disabilities, skipping supposedly obnoxious processes etc.) are **dwarfed** by the amount of grief and harm it is causing to all sorts of people instead, by a minority of individuals who couldn't wait for the day they got yet another "effortless free stuff served on a silver plate" that justifies their lack of seeking any purpose other than treating everyone's efforts like garbage.
It is absolutely depressing to see that the world in the end is constantly striving on equalising individuals efforts into a flat line where everyone's miserable and purpose-less the same, because people that never wanted to get any better at something themselves demand everyone else to go back down to their level, so that they can continue to do nothing with their lifes.
If you use AI art to enjoy yourself, please do. But as you don't go to a professional chef to a restaurant to tell him the custom burger you purchased at fast food was way faster and efficient than whatever gourmet he's taking hours to make, don't go to artists to disrespect their efforts and knowledge by claiming they're wasting their time "because AI exists". Art is not all about the finished product and its finite value. It's exactly what makes it different from mass production.
A picture, that took dozens of hours to make, you commissioned to your favourite artist has memory and personal value that will never be matched by even a thousand AI generated images that successfully replicates the style of the real person. Every "cool looking colors" you tell AI to make, you will forget it next day because it took no effort to make. The picture you or someone you care about made *specifically for you* will probably remain as a memory for life.
The very cool picture on your shirt, the videogames you play, the movies you watched, the very things that kept you visually entertained all these years were made by armies of talented people. And now that the latest hot thing is out that seemingly makes them less valuable, you're immediately out to tell them how stupid they've been for "wasting all these years making pointless stuff"?
Lmao
@@LexyLexer dude just shut up
You sound biased as all hell and exactly the mirror image of the people you bash. After all, if 'kicking a goddamn ball' is so easy, then everyone should be able to be a star athlete. Just as how painting is just 'dripping some dye on a piece of paper'.
You REALLY shouldn't go down the route of 'your job is worse than my job' if your job is anything in the entertainment field - teachers, doctors, nurses, mechanics, construction workers, hell even garbage collectors can quite easily your job is 'just throwing ink at something' or 'drawing lines' and it simply a luxury as you provide no real fundamental benefit to the running of civilization.
Before technology and the rise of movies and games, back before the light bulb was even commercialized, people existed in societies and art was not a part of their lives (the average man)...hell, most people couldn't read in the first place. However, even then, you still had doctors, carpenters, soldiers, teachers etc.
If your view of athletes is 'just kicking a goddamned ball', then perhaps you should hold your corner son, and keep quiet and be thankful that you live in a world that you just 'splashing some goddamned ink' is appealing to enough people you can make a living.
It is amazing that you can go on and on about how sad and depressing it is when people downplay someone's 'passion' yet you do the EXACT same thing to people who 'just kick a goddamned ball'.
Or is it that only your passion is valid?
Cowering away and saying 'You're mean!" will not help your issue. It is 100% a fact that if AI art becomes so good it can replace a human artists, then many of them will be in a world of hurt. Your energy would be better spent figuring out how to navigate that potential landmine instead of complaining that people who point that out too bluntly are 'mean'.
Interesting that you mention fast food and gourmet cook as an analogy. Neither can copyright their recipes. You can't copyright a style, and I doubt you ever will be able to. However, cooks CAN copyright a book, video, movie, or teaching transcript of their recipes though.
I expect the same will happen with individual photos, artworks, drawings, etc. A book, movie, complete animation will be available for copyright. Everything else will need to apply for trademark protection (like company logos, individual Disney characters, etc.)
I doubt that artists will be able to trademark their styles. Just imagine if Marvel, Pixar, Disney, etc. tries to trademark their unique style, however another studio like DC Comics trademarks the "similar" style first. Going through the 114 artists commonly used with Midjourney, roughly 30 might be able to trademark their style based on originality. The rest of the artists (including Greg Rutkowski I might add) wouldn't stand a chance based on style originality. Note: GR sells classes to paint like "The masters" i.e. like him.
Artists have been sidelined in many industries. There is not just a small group of people that disrespect art. In animation, it is run not by animators but by writers and producers. The animation was outsourced to india, mexico and korea a long time ago. This is yet another tool to turn it into a commodity of the cheapest sort.
Also - no, don't use it to enjoy it yourself.
This isn't just fast food.
It's just fast. And it just looks like food.
This is the nanotech in our food.
This is leeching to heal someone.
This is giving an infant heroin, over the counter, while they're teething.
This is a lobotomy.
This is the fat people in Wall-E that put on goggles to see themselves doing cool things.
This is not art.
"People will come to love their oppression, to adore technologies that undo their capacities to think" - Aldous Huxley
The only use i found for ai art is kinda like creating artistic chaos that you can use as like a inspiration board, but as an artist if i asked 100 artists to all draw me a apple pie we would probably get something close. even a couple of copies
AI generating sample paragraphs with specific word choices helps a writer see how the words affect the tone without being swayed by staring at a page for an hour rewriting the same thing, I guess the same works for images as well. We could have fun customization tools for digital ttrpg toolkits (with residuals for the artists). Or remove the mustache of an actor who can't shave for a reshoot of a scene - without some poor intern having to do it manually. Plus all the accessibility options, pic to prompt image descriptions, color tweaking for the color blind, dewaffling text for foreign speakers and dyslexic people... AI could be a great tool, too bad it's not used as such.
There's many use case for AI art. With current technology it works best when you need to illustrate something in a specific context. If you write a blog post you could add an AI image to illustrate it. Can be useful to make RUclips thumbnails. I find the biggest limitation is when you need a set of images that are coherent with each other. Even when the art style is the same, the end result vary wildly. You can generate two comic style images but they wont match together. One is going to have very thick outlines, the other thin ones, one uses dithering, the other not etc...
I recall being highly upset when deviantART announced they were getting into AI, and that by default everyone was opted in. There was a huge ruckus, especially concerning users that couldn't - for any reason, but especially regarding artists whose accounts were alive even when the original user was not - opt out. dA backpedaled pretty quickly and fixed things to be opt-out by default.
unfortunately they did not fix anything. They already made the model, it already stole all the art, they already sell it. The "opt out" tags are for new works. This is true for every single company who says they "listened" and added opt out. It's a lie. The ONLY way it would work is for them to wipe their models and be forced to opt in only. But no one will ever do this unless forced by the courts.
In the meantime, don't buy into any of it.
And also, in order for the work of artificial intelligence to get better, you need to put DeviantArt as a negative prompt, lol.
When in history has it ever been a thing that artists have to be asked permission before you can look at their art for reference?
The only reason to get upset at DeviantArt is when they banned everything deviant about it. That was a dark day.
@@AlexReynard
Using art as reference is one thing. Scanning someone else's art, then photoshopping around it, add a new background to it, then calling it your artwork, that's a problem.
The real problem isn't the artists, it is that for the average person, a pretty picture creature by AI or entirely by hand is still just a pretty picture to them. I mean, look at all the portrait artists that lost their jobs when the camera was invented, and now it seems like overtop to hire a painter to paint your portrait nowadays. Also, the camera has allowed the development of new art techniques and forms that did not exist until its invention. Technology has always forced art and artists to change as the average consumer never thinks about the time and work it takes to make said piece, they just look at the end result.
Well, if I'm a consumer and you expect me to pay, I only care about the result, obviously.
@@haitaelpastor976 How does that make AI art bad?
@@MimOzanTamamogullar It doesn't. Why?
@@haitaelpastor976 Idk, all the comment section is passionately against technology making difficult things easy. Like it hasn't been doing that since the invention of the wheel.
They all use the cameras on their phones, they don't think about those poor portrait and landscape artists who lost their jobs because of it. They use electric lights both at home and outside, they don't think about the poor lantern lighters/lantern industry workers who lost their jobs because of it. They use cars and consume goods brought with trucks, they don't care about the poor horse-and-buggy workers who lost their jobs because of it. They read printed books, they don't care about...
you get the point. Technology bad when it hurts me, technology good when it makes the world a much more livable place without affecting me.
@@MimOzanTamamogullar Exactly. In fact, artists mostly thought they were in a superior caste which could not be overcome by a machine. They were wrong.
To me, the most positive aspect of this is that mediocrity in art will be rooted out. Someone who is a true artist, who got both talent and hard work, will thrive and prosper. The huge mediocre mass will fade out.
I would advocate the following rules.
1) watermarks, back end metta data, and hidden dot data need to be baked into the image, or the generated image is automatically considered a forgery under the law, and the company should be held liable as such.
2) Any commercially, or freely available AI model is REQUIRED to have available on request, a list of ALL the images it was trained on, and any records of permission aquired to allow their legal use. Failure to do so will require the removal of that model alone with legal penalties.
3) copyright for AI generated images are legally codified as not possible to obtain.
GLAZE is a good program as well. Its free too and the creators are constantly working to improve it and fight against data scrapers. It can also ruin data bases! Which is a very good way to hold your ground against an uncaring company.
Dont respect my copyright? My time? Then get wrecked.
As far as i remember some AI images programs do the third rule , where you can make a AI image but the AI image doesn't has any kind of copyright, also , as the person above me said , you can use Nightshade to prevent AI to use your artstyle
This seems more than fair!
As for the kids part, it's horrible and I hope it stops soon, but I thought of a much worse use of AI against kids. I won't say it, but omg, it's very dangerous.
I think that was the sole purpose.
I'm pretty sure there's a Japanese website that had a lot of generated CP
@@moonbunnygw8342 I bet the website is Chinese not Japanese.
@@AmstradExin why does that even matter
@@lostdraft Oh yeah, absolutely no differences between the two countries no no. Why? Because noone gives a damn about kids in China.
My main concern about AI art is: How many future artists is this going to crush?
How many creative individuals with aspirations and ambitions will never realize their potential?
How many young people will give up the dream to take up a paintbrush - or even a pencil - when the incentive for AI to do all that dreaming for you makes the commitment seem like nothing but a _'waste of time'?_
Every single body of work ever produced has been the result of someone investing time, effort, and passion.
AI-generated art does not replicate this distinctly human element. It can't. As an aspiring artist, I don't feel threatened by AI art, personally; I just think the only one being cheated by AI is you - the user. Why? Because you skipped the opportunity to grow. You took a convenient shortcut to the finish line, but learned nothing from the missing journey. You didn't take the time to hone your skills. Instead of having something to show for your passion and patience, all you have is just another image on a screen - one in a seemingly endless line - for you to attach yourself to. I am very sorry if this makes no difference to you.
I hear 'ya. Used to do the layout on a light-table before making plates. Now so many choose the easy path, assisted by a mechanical brain. They have no idea. And these amateurs toying on desktop computers crushed the printing trade.
My main concern about the printing press: How many future scribes is this going to crush?
How many dedicated individuals with aspirations and ambitions will never realise their potential?
How many young people will give up the dream to take up a quill - or even their finger - when the incentive for the printing press to do all that dreaming for you makes the commitment seem like nothing but a 'waste of time'?..
My main concern about the tractor: How many future field workers is this going to crush?
How many dedicated individuals with aspirations and ambitions will never realise their potential?
How many young people will give up the dream to take up the hoe - or even just walk the fields - with the incentive for the tractor to do all that work for you makes the commitment seem nothing but a 'waste of time'?..
@@Cecilia-ky3uw Your comments are truly, incredibly myopic... I love how you compare AI image generators to tools like the printing press, or tractors which still require a knowledgable human operator, when the extremely obvious end goal of AI corporations is to have the AI learn from the people who are using it in order to become self-propmting; the end goal is to have zero need for humans.
I definitely don't see how corporations who already stole from artists could be storing all the data on the prompts you make, and eventually have the ai algorithmically prompting itself depending on what is popular in social media; overflowing it with images that ZERO human intervention, and preventing anyone from actually finding anything human made; and that you, the AI user, would have become the tool that trained it to do that. So pat yourself on the back!
@@Cecilia-ky3uw I have to admit: I never thought I'd get a madlib response, but... here we are, I guess!
Regarding the printing press/tractor analogy, if I'm interpretting this correctly: The counter point you're offering is that, like the printing press makes mass-publication easier and a tractor makes farming easier, AI is just another tool to make creating art easier.
While I can understand the rationale behind it - and you can have that opinion (don't let me stop you!), I still have to disagree with that assessment because I don't think those two analogies are a one-to-one comparison.
Yes, the printing press made mass-production and distribution of literature easier, but a printing press still requires a human element (the author still needs to write the damn book).
Yes, the tractor made ploughing, tilling, sowing, watering, fertilizing, harvesting (and God knows what else) fields easier, but a tractor also requires that human element (manned-machinery is worthless without a trained operator).
The only thing these two tools have in common is that they require manual input, labour, effort, and time. In other words: You're going to have to work, but you can bet your ass you're going to take pride in a job well done!
Now, I've already put more time and passion into this reply than it probably deserves, so... back to AI art generators.
The reason it doesn't compare here is that writing a book and learning how to operate a tractor requires time and effort. It takes work.
Feeding a prompt into an AI so it can output a result? Let's be frank here: There's no expression involved, no creativity, no learning. No matter how much output you receive, you're not going to find lasting satisfaction or pride in it because, whatever it is, one thing is clear:
It's not work.
This is one of the reasons I’m returning to good old traditional art.
you mean the real one and not the pseudo art made in computers?
@@cinocefalo284 well, isn't that a bit relative? I have seen tradicional "art" pieces that made me question if they should be called Art. Yet they seem to be, by "authorities" on the matter.
I have also seen great digital art pieces made by people. It's easier to paint digitally than traditionally, but, still, for the artwork to look really good, one must apply their skills and knowledge. If they are good, the artwork stands out in quality.
The problem today is that the digital world is saturated with much of the same, and it is getting exponencially worse with AI "art", stealing from what was already created by people.
Its a good time for artistic people to break away from the digital world, detox, and create new ideas.
@@loveemotion4080
No, isnt
@@cinocefalo284 It isn't "pseudo" art. Digital art also requires skill to draw as much as traditional.
@@MikoWhackingEi
Digital is only a tool to translate the composition from your mind to the reality. And is a emulation, not real.
Digital is not a performing art,when you shut down the monitor is gone.
Art have theory. The most of drawing that is called "art" in the net ar just fueled with ego without all those thing that make art, art.
And, maybe, the word "Art" is lost in the translation for me.
El arte digital no es arte plastica por concepto. ¿Entonces donde se hallaría?
There is a sort of poetic justice to the whole situation, that some "Ai-Artist", prompters really, are starting to get quite toxic about others using their prompts and where they try to "protect" them - not realising that you can't copyright single words and/or describtions. They get pretty aggravated when you mention that to them. The same people, which often claim that "artists" are gatekeeping them and others from making "art" trough the image creators (such as Dall-E, Midjourney etc) and that anything that's on the internet is "free game" for those algorithms.
It would be hilarious. Like a Monty Python sketch. If it wasn't so damn serious.
Are people actually getting mad over others using the same prompts? I knew there were plenty of grown adults using technology for malicious purposes but damn that's quite a plot twist.
@@snowthemegaabsol6819 „Are people actually getting mad over others using the same prompts? ”
Yes.
@@snowthemegaabsol6819 yes. because they actually think that the prompts they input count as creation. Part of my irritation with the whole issue.
@@skyleruballe2265 it is pretty funny how they lack any self awareness. On one hand they preach shit about their "democratization of art with ai" and then try to monopolize their own creation process lmfao
People are excited because now they can type their own personalized art without having to pay for it. And the entire non artist world is laughing and pointing at us. Why this reaction? Is like there's no more empathy anymore.
I'm actually a multi-certified computer tech dude. But I was born an artist, writer and musician (all hobbies). Nothing beats the human element.
At least there are a few things it can never take away. The feelings we have when working on a piece of art, the blood, sweat, tears, and time we put into it can never be taken.
Just don't expect to be paid for that.
@@haitaelpastor976 blud's mad he can't draw 💀
@@OttrPopAnimations who?
@@haitaelpastor976 i wonder who
@@OttrPopAnimations I don't know who "blud" is.
I honestly don't like AI art and will never use it because when I make art, I want to be in control, just like any other artists I'm sure. With AI, you type keywords to prompt an art from the AI. And ofc I've also seen where the person can even upload other artist's work to the AI program to edit it using the AI. In either case, you don't have control over it. I want to have my art exactly how I want it to look. Using AI is similar to asking other artist to do a commission (in the case of AI, it's free). You may tell them how you want the art to be, but at the end of the day, it's the artist who makes it.
You don't have to use it, but imagine a game developer, or something creating a book, they don't need to go to an expert artist to get the visuals they want, it's a lot cheaper, it's a lot faster, and they can get the art they want, especially if they use the tools where you can really fine tune the image to exactly how you want, basically the image creators you run offline that gives you far more control over the end result.
You saying you won't use it will only put you at a disadvantaged compared to an artist that does use it, after all, who do you think is going to be far more productive in getting their vision to paper?
My advice, incorporate A.I. into your workflow, you're still going to have your creative imagination to create what you want, just now you can do it a lot faster with the right A.I. tools that give you full control over the end result.
As for control over art, well the reality is that, when something becomes a lot easier, cheaper and more productive to produce, it downgrades the value of all art, after all, it's likely going to become a lot harder to justify paying an artist to do some art for you when almost anyone can create art, especially if they have a creative imagination.
The entire nature of the world economy is run on making things more productive, A.I. is going to do that in a lot of areas, anything that can be done cheaper and faster, by more people, is usually always going to win out and if the creative industry is not careful with being so stubborn to this new tech, they could find themselves being replaces by people that are creative that embrace A.I. to speed up their workflow.
Also, you say you don't have full control over the image you create with A.I. that isn't true, you don't have much control over a lot of the online A.I. image creators, with them, it's kinda like pot luck in what you get going on the prompt you give it, and even then, it's different every time, offline ones that you can run on your own computer, gives you far more control to get the image more or less exactly how you want it, especially with tools like Stable Diffusion.
The online ones are good for what they are, ease of use, but if you really want full control over it, you need more advanced tools like Stable Diffusion and there are many videos online that shows you how you can get an image more or less how you want it.
In contrast, I've made real art. Plenty of it. I like AI art because I like to be surprised. I like the feeling of generating a few hundred images and finding one that goes beyond what my imagination was seeing. I like editing and inpainting it to clean up all the imperfections, probably because it feels similar to when I find a broken toy in a resale shop and repair it. I've done art and I've done AI art. I enjoy AI art more (at least right now, at this point in my life), because I enjoy the feeling of sorting, editing, and fixing more than I do having to drag a pencil across a page line by line until it looks halfway close to what was in my head.
You make a good point, I'm going to stop commissioning artists.
Same way it's useful for coding imo. Useful if it's convenient, can screw off otherwise.
You're an editor. The artists whose work were stolen by your AI are the true owners of *your* art.
the weirdest part is when AI creates someone you know. ive seen a post on reddit where someone prompted a physics professor. it was literally Harald lesh, a very famous guy who does many physics related videos in germany, but with funny hair. it was his face, almost identically, it was very uncanny
People like the one at 33:00 are likely going to realize shortly that getting praise for the AI work they generate is going to start feeling a bit hollow, as it is not really them being praised. But then again, some people like that might just be sociopaths, and won't care, as long as they get positive attention and money. Such people are missing out on the best part of making artwork: The struggle and the journey and the feeling of accomplishment knowing they worked hard to learn how to actually do it. Sure, there is some work involved in using some AI apps in certain ways, but it is really not even close to the same, in my opinion.
Yeah I don't know how people could have a sense of ownership when the AI drew the pose, the proportion, the lighting, etc and all they did was trim the edges a bit.
I am a new artist here learning art faithfully! Thanks god hearing the people fighting against immoral usage of AI. I have great distaste for degeneracy of these f-cking tragedies. I hope a bright future for arts and creativity.
What's immoral about making a commodity that's desirable more available?
I thought real artists wouldn't whine about people trying to express themselves and would just adapt and overcome the issue? Isn't that what y'all said when photography and cinematography were first discovered/invented?
@cassowaryegg955 this is the same shit y'all said about photography aswell as cinematography, "boohoo; a thing that lets people have easy access to something we thought we were skilled in came out, so we want it gone because we don't actually want people increasing our bottom line! This is unfair now we actually have to put effort in to make it pay off!"
@@Ramelousy
[ Please read this with clarity ]
1. What is immoral about what more desirable and more available? First of all, while I appreciate your efforts to highlight the advantages of AI-generated images, focusing on this technology without first addressing and fixing the root of the issue will only have more negative effects, such as increased data collection without users' consent and production that focuses more on quantity than quality and countless more.
2.I don't complain or harbor anger toward people who express themselves, but they need to understand that the tools they are employing are unethically wrong given that the majority of them, from what I have observed and studied, are utilized to pass themselves off as human-made art (not every single one of them). Even your profile picture, by the way, was created using AI, right? Hopefully not. I referred to these as a fucking tragedy because I saw some people trying to improve society through technology, but the results of their efforts were revolting. Have you seen that some AI user “use” Kim Jung Gee’s art and put it through “training” after the artist DIED without any consent let alone asking his relatives? I know people make mistakes but some should not exist and we should strive toward a better future by reducing the fundamentals of the problem of course nobody is perfect but that is not an excuse to keep create more problem.
3. Like you, I have adjusted to and solved a great deal of challenges in my life. I used to be a traditional artist who painted and drew on paper and canvas. Now that I study digital art, I try to make my artwork more effective and flexible even though I am still learning and have limited resources. To earn money and develop my talents by competing in a contest in a third world country. The software that produces AI-generated images doesn't address the issue at hand; instead, it has wreaked havoc on our society by creating brand-new issues and proposing solutions that devalue the arts. What's even more terrifying than "AI art"? Do you want to read something unsettling? When AI-generated images are genuinely flawlessly undetected as being either artificial or real, in the future. I truly believe that some will utilize it in horrible ways. Some cruel and filthy bastards can create your own personal face by fabricating bad things, such as "fake proof" in court cases or "blackmailing" with a picture that is so convincing it cannot be distinguished.
4. Please refrain from classifying myself with those who are against photography in general and try to avoid overgeneralizing the entire creative community. I know people who studied photography, and getting the perfect shot takes a ton of expertise. Some photographers risk their lives simply to get one image, and some took 6 years and 720,00 attempts to capture the perfect image of a kingfisher diving for water so that we might learn about the natural world and its beauty. Yet in order to provide the best results, photography and filmmaking both require exceptional expertise.
5. I don't want to belittle anyone, including you. But if you keep insulting people, I might lose interest in this discussion because I think that by exchanging ideas, we can come to a mutual understanding rather than fighting someone online. I detest some conflict because it only serves to fuel the fire rather than clear up any misunderstandings.
Do you realize how much I value your efforts to make art more accessible? But the problem is with that goal is that everyone already has access to art; even those who are disabled can paint by learning and working hard with those elements is proves to the other that surrounds them that the minority with compassion , will and patience can produce greatness. All you need to do is pick up some paper and a pencil to start drawing, and you can support your neighborhood by watching instructional videos and having nice conversations. With a sheer commitment and creativity with some personal refinement it will show the other that you possess the reliable ability that can truly improve yourself and help other in a way without stealing others data without consent. Most AI "artists" don't even bother to address some of the most fundamental problems, like the number of fingers that alone make me felt that the artist don’t poses any commitment or understanding of the most basic human anatomy.
6. Companies that create "AI-generated images" won't care about your community or be your friend. Let's be honest, if "Ai art" were to magically take over the entire world and everyone started using "Ai models," they would immediately start taking advantage of the economic advantages. If they maintain their position at the top without any restrictions, I can envision a day when they will all require payment for any usage of their business model, such as a monthly subscription, because you are overly dependent on the "tools" you employ and have not developed your skills. And because of the attractiveness of a single press bottom for art, they will keep raising the price until they are ultimately even more expensive than a regular commission. Economic world is just a place of people that want to take all control. Ever heard of “Mr.Zuckerberg” people relying too much on his platform that he can “zuck” any information out without any consent. And now look at that apathetic bastard bleeding money like a swine.
I can even give more reasons in stance against immoral usage of AI not against technology. It’s about the roots of the problem not the shining product that acts as a distraction away from the issues.
Yeah. I kinda disappointed about these immoral usage of AI. There are no reward if there are no efforts.
It's weird how y'all classify AI Art usage as immoral, but you same people draw children in skimpy swimsuits and in inapropriate situations.
Now artists of the world, listen. It’s not over till you put the pencil down. You were chosen by it, you were chosen by the spark within long before you knew it did. I cannot give up art because it’s the same as saying ‘I cannot give up my soul’. The more uninspired the internet gets, the more inspired I get to become an artist like in the days of old, whose’s work you could see with and only with your own eyes in a gallery, or a boutique. I don’t care if thousands of people will miss out, I don’t care if I don’t make enough money, I don’t care if I die a Van Gogh. I want to be an artist no one can tread on and so should you. Be the one who inspires few, *you don’t need to shine brighter than the sun to be a lighthouse*
❤❤❤❤❤❤
This is so inspiring! Thank you
How many hours per day do you practice your art?
@@tuthures5824 on average I sit down to sketch for a couple of hours, not every single day, but often enough so I don’t loose muscle memory (if you do it long enough you can stop drawing something for a month and it wouldn’t change anything) to me it’s not about grinding but rather going with the flow, I also spend a substantial amount of time researching what I want to draw because I care about accuracy.
After 20 years 16 to 37, I'm finally done drawing. I obsessed over drawing, even though I hated my stuff I felt if I kept going I'd learn to like it. It ripped up my self esteem, I never could be proud or happy, there was never any click , I've done alot,digital animation 3d sculpting painting I feel stupid doing it. AI for me was like a kill switch. , all I wanted was to make something I was happy over
The world is changing. Banning or criminalizing AI art won't make it disappear it will only create a black market and increase the value of the AI generation market. I think differentiation is fine but the value many people find is in the final artwork not the process. Just like no one cares how one comes up with the right answer to a math problem, they care about the answer. You can do it in your head, on an abacus, or on a calculator but the value is in the answer, not the process of getting it.
Value comes from scarcity. When someone hangs a picture in their living room, they want to wow guests with it. They aren't going to wow anyone with generic dime a dozen AI slop.
"Capitalism is when people want money... AND when the Government does stuff."
The Economic definition of Capitalism is:
An Economic system in which individuals (people) trade voluntarily goods and/or services.
An attempt to define Capitalism by using a popular definition is literally the same as "but evolution is just a theory".
"R18 positivity" Id like to recieve some R18 positivity from ur mom
I saw ai as nothing more than a toy. But, with the mentioning of the... illegal NSFW context in mind, I'm worried it will devalue it as a fun game. If these ai programmers want to be taken seriously, they need to go to court, work with the artists, and stop thinking they're breaking walls with ai. It's just laziness. It can be good for brainstorming. But, that's it! The artist still has to make the art. The human artist.
Any illegal NSFW content can be made on photoshop. The problem is the user, not the tool
@@TheEllord33 No part of it is the tool. AI's function enables depraved users to be able to crank out that kind of content on an unprecedented scale that's not comparable to photoshop.
@@dustrose8101 If not a tool what is it, a being conscious of itself? It's a tool
@@TheEllord33 I'm not debating if it's a tool or not??? I'm saying the nature of the tool that AI is makes the ability to produce that kind of content is unprecedented and incomparable to the speed you'd be able to do the same thing in photoshop.
@@dustrose8101 I strongly doubt people will turn into a criminal because of AI.
You ability to drive allow you to run into people, your physical ability allow you to punch people, your access to kitchen knife allow you to kill people. All that is within the reach of literally everybody in the world. Take responsibility like a grow up adult.
35:40 - No offense, but this feel a lot like calculators (as in, the guys that would do calculations, not the digital devices we have today) screaming about the invention of computers (that replaced said calculators, due to not only being able to do the job billion times faster, but also with 0 errors).
This shit has been going on since at least the mid 18th century (industrial revolution).
I also find the "people don't care about the process of art, or the effort that goes into it, just the end product", as that's literally one of the things programmers have been struggeling with for 3 decades at this point. No one gives a shit if it took you 5 years to make something, if it's not enjoyable\cool, it doesn't matter, and will never matter.
If AI can produce the same artwork in 5 seconds, that an artist use 5 months to make, why'd anyone pay the artist to do it? They wouldn't. Same with programmers (that's also up for the chopping block, for the same reasons).
Also wanna add, as it might not be clear. I agree with the legislation, copyright and general legality sentiment of the video, just those points are very weak.
Equally, it's not the world's responsibility to ensure everyone can maintain a job in their choose field, and it's ludicrous to expect otherwise. Where is\was the outrage when cashiers were starting to be replaced by 24/7 convinience stores, and MC Donalds scaled down it's clercs due to having apps and tablets you can order from?
My problem is that teckbros are lying about how these algorithms work in terms of combining images from datasets, it's like they think that people who work with visuals don't have eyes
I remember when I was messing about with Dall-E Mini (now Crayon AI or whatever it's called now) back when it first exploded. As an artist I saw the good it could do even when I was using it like every meme-vomiting shitposter at the time! I was one of those people who would make stupid prompts like "sirenhead in a heavy metal band" or "pikachu in ratatouille". One of the prompts I put in was "salamence in how to train your dragon" and the AI popped out all these images that looked like "Took enough Benadryl to pay the Hatman a visit" levels of fever dream but one of these stood out to me: An amalgamated abomination of the red-winged blue dragon Pokemon and Toothless, missing an eye, super stumpy tail, a red mark under the chin that I interpreted as a giant lolling tongue and a single, sickle-shaped wing folded over the creature's back in a very unusual way. And that's not everything wrong with this disaster!
But I took that digital abortion abandoned by god and started drawing over and adjusting it with the intent to make it my own character unrelated to the IPs used in the original image's prompt. I was so fond of the silly fella I even used the original Dall-E Mini generated image as a Discord PFP for a while, just a silly little guy I thought would make people laugh the way it did for me! And then it all quickly went to shit. With how much of an ethical nightmare AI has been the same derpy face that once brought smiles was now nothing more than yet another weapon against human expression.
Because I stand by my principals that dragon I was so eager to complete was abandoned, never to see the light of day.
"art and programming doesn´t have that much of an overlap" Dude. Coding IS art!
Different kind of art with different set of tools and technique. Like between poetry and photography. Both of these arts could be overlap and collaboratored, but as a result while the creative process are completely different from each other. One capture a moment in a set of words and cojure an image in the mind, while the other is capture a moment in a picture with thousand words. Is there a poetry in camerawork?
Depends on the Photographer but generally, I would say yes. There is proably more peotry in a shot that was just the right place and time than something constructed in a studio. @@narraliveproject2576
That’s like comparing Music and Art
00:00 🎨 AI art has sparked debate among tech enthusiasts and artists, with concerns ranging from copyright infringement to ethical and philosophical dilemmas.
02:46 🖼 AI art generators often use copyrighted material without permission, raising ethical concerns among artists and creators.
05:30 🚀 AI image generation evolved from the early 2010s, transitioning from captioning images to creating them based on textual input.
08:28 🆓 Recent AI art models like Mid Journey and Stable Diffusion democratize art creation but raise copyright issues by training on vast internet data, potentially including copyrighted work.
11:56 🎨 AI lacks true creativity; it replicates patterns without the unique human experiences that fuel genuine artistic creation.
13:16 🖼 Overfitting in AI-generated images creates similarities or exact replicas of existing works, raising questions of artistic expression versus copying.
16:33 ⚖ AI-generated art's copyright ownership is complex; neither the AI, its programmers, nor the prompter inherently hold copyright, blurring legal boundaries.
19:51 📚 Copyright law aims to balance creator rights and public interest, allowing exceptions like fair use for purposes like research, education, criticism, and news reporting.
21:00 🤖 AI-generated art's eligibility for copyright is unclear; without human authorship, copyright protection might be challenged, impacting its professional use.
23:18 🛡 Litigation complexities arise with AI-generated art; legal actions against the AI itself are implausible, prompting questions on who can be heldaccountable for potential copyright infringements.
24:13 🖼 AI-generated works and models might constitute copyright infringement due to their reliance on existing copyrighted material, posing a legal gray area.
25:23 🎶 Companies like Stably AI differentiate their AI products; Dance Diffusion uses copyright-free music datasets, recognizing legal sensitivities.
26:59 🏆 The incident where an AI-generated artwork won a contest brought mainstream attention to AI's impact, sparking concerns about job displacement and unfair competition.
28:25 🖌 AI models trained on artists' works disrespect the original creators, leading to mass-produced rip-offs and disrespectful use of their style.
29:35 📸 Image-to-image AI features like inpainting enable quick replication of illustrations, allowing easy plagiarism of artwork with limited enforceability against unauthorized usage.
30:41 💰 AI-generated art has led to scams, from selling prints at conventions to publishing hastily generated, inconsistent children's books on platforms like Amazon.
32:33 🎨 Deceptive marketing of AI-generated art as authentic raises ethical concerns, misleading buyers about the origin of the artwork.
33:41 🛡 The rise of AI art has resulted in a culture of fear, where artists are accused of faking their work, leading to bans and demands for proof of creation.
34:35 📷 AI's ability to generate convincing photographs adds to concerns about the erosion of trust in visual content's authenticity.
35:05 🎮 While AI influences smaller projects, larger productions still value human creativity and skills, recognizing the limitations of AI in professional contexts.
36:15 💸 Despite ethical concerns, the AI art industry has seen massive financial evaluations, highlighting significant money-making potential.
37:12 🎨 Artists protested against AI art's influx on platforms like ArtStation, leading to heated debates and the exodus of users from certain sites.
38:24 🤔 Arguments defending AI art as technological progress face challenges, with comparisons to past technological advancements and debates over the democratization of art.
40:16 🌐 Companies like Clip Studio Paint and DeviantArt faced backlash for introducing AI art features, triggering protests and user dissatisfaction.
41:56 🚫 Platforms' efforts totag or filter AI-generated content were often insufficient, leading to ongoing issues with the unchecked proliferation of AI art.
45:27 🖼 AI training data sourced from unauthorized platforms, like Danbooru, raises ethical concerns and leads to the devaluation of artists' work without their consent.
48:55 🤖 AI's commodification of art treats artists merely as inputs, disregarding their dedication, creativity, and human contribution to the creative process.
Thx
As a Designer myself AI Art angers me, because of the issues it takes stealing lots of works to build something new. However I think the biggest concern is how in the future it will teach generations to be lazy about creative art. Instead of developing the skills and talent and flare to create. They will simply put in a few words and essentially let AI do it for you. No different than me asking somebody to paint a picture for me, because I can't do it myself.
AI art needs regulating and STOPPED in lots of areas. It's cool for blowing up small photos videos to high resolution, but when used to create pieces of work... NO NO. Yet people claim AI artwork as their own.
Regulation yes and it will help regarding areas where profit is involved but... you can't stop it and if you even could that would basically be gatekeeping (that many people accuse artists) a tool for people to put their imagination into reality(even if not great and not ideal but still something that can make imagination come true). Many people's imaginations are "disabled", it may be revelation to you but imagination is a spectrum, some people see moving, colorful images that feel alive in their heads, some like me see blurry concepts of shapes with no colors only existing due to thinking hard about how I can logically describe an object for my imagination to pick it up.
Profit and theft aside, for personal use of people for making imagination to reality it is a great tool and you should understand why many would be mad at anybody even suggesting taking it away. Especially as many people are not able to even with practice and work produce any good visualisations of their imagination.
To re-iterate, im not defending any art theft or for profit use of copyrighted content. Im defending personal use of a tool meant to take what you imagined into reality. Some would say that it is a very poor way to do it and YOU SHOULD PAY for an artist to do it for you. I say for most people it is enough, it will bring me enough joy to see generated image of a hedgehog with a hat fitting even partially what I imagined. I dont need quality. Am I entitled to see them? Not really but life is not fair the same way I was not born with right imagination and skills for drawing. So why should I be barred from using the tool that can make me many images of lower quality if I dont plan on having any profit from them.
" Instead of developing the skills and talent and flare to create. They will simply put in a few words and essentially let AI do it for you"
I'm reminded of an old text that was about Church leaders decrying the printing press. Saying that if children can just pick up a book and read things, they'll lose their ability to memorize anything.
"Instead of developing the skills and talent and flare to create. They will simply put in a few words and essentially let AI do it for you. "
This is such an old-man-yelling-at-clouds take. Scribes hated the printing press for the same reason, portrait painter hated cameras, voice actors hated the end of the silent movie era, textile workers hated machine tooling mass-producing clothes, and so on and on. And yet, the end result of every one of those things is a net positive for society, as it provides easily accessible goods that previously were luxuries. This has the same energy as my math teacher telling me 20 years ago that I must learn to do calculus in my head, because "you won't always have a calculator in your pocket"... and I can't remember when was the last time I did anything more than basic additions in my head, because why would I, when the calculator on my phone will get it done faster AND better? Not all skills are worth mastering for everyone, automate what we can, so we can focus on mastering skills that cannot be automated.
Are we not stealing works to build something new when we write anything with inspiration from other texts(which we inevitably do) or make art inspired by other art(which we inevitably do)?
keep crying
One thing we can do is get the people who advocate for free and unregulated use of AI to our side of the discussion and agree that AI needs copyright regulation is: Start using their AI-Generated images without asking them in our works. You won't even need to wait 24 hours until they all come on stampede wanting regulation.
You already can
Reject modernity, return to Analog art
that just sounds wrong
return to monke
Just wanted to say that I feel that slot machine comparison. I was using the Bing image generator to create images based on dreams I had. Every single time, I ended up calling one of the images "the best" out of groups that didn't match what was actually in my head. I mean, yeah, it was the scene, but not as how I imagined it. I almost want to learn how to art just so I can put my bizarre landscapes and scenarios onto paper properly. 😆
indeed! but I much recommend not uploading it online. 😂😂
Have you tried image to image? It still might not be close to what you want, especially if you can't really remember the composition anymore, but it might be worth a try.
And some people are just terrible at art, so it is enough to generate something we can imagine :D
@@based_demo you know how to remedy being "terrible" at art? PRACTICE. You, me, and anyone esle can learn to be good at art. Literally everyone sucks at art when they first start out, the difference between the ones who are "good" and the ones who are "bad" is commitment to improving.
@@v4n1ty92i believe theory and achieving intuition matters more. it's pretty good to draw some item or a scene every day until you start feeling patterns in pencil/brush strokes, but it's an understanding of what you're trying to do that makes the difference. i didn't learn programming by writing a 1000 hello worlds, i did it by reading StackOverflow posts, documentation, collections of QNAs on Usenet etc. and only then writing something, seeing everything fall into place myself. whenever i come up with an idea for a drawing or when the memories of my art teacher laughing at my drawings come up and i get the urge to start learning to draw, i usually find advice as simplistic as "just draw lol" which really tells me nothing, when on the side of programming people suggest great free online resources like _Learn You a Haskell for Great Good!_ and the ballsy ones drop author names like Donald Knuth
Someone needs to get AI to copy Metallicas artwork and music. Lars Ulrich will get AI shut down faster than you can say napster 😂
I get the joke, but... you do realize that he utterly failed, yeah? Digitalization of music is well and truly irreversible, and with digitalization, piracy is also here to stay.
@@Warfoki the fact that you got my joke was all I needed to hear 👍
@@Jasonshaggardfaces Fair enough, have a good one! :)
Remember, AI bro: no matter how many models you train, no matter how many people you rip off, no matter how much derivative shovelware garbage you pump out:
You'll never be a real artist. Because you never had the patience, the love for the craft and frankly the guts to ever be one. You'll always be a phony. Cry about it.
My english is not the best but here is how i compare AI Art: When i go to a real artist and describe him what i imagine in that artwork, and when its done he hands it to me and i tell him that i am the artist 🤦🏻♂️ how can these people even dare to think they are artists
It's like a porn stars think about themselves as stars.
As a builder I'll say it's normal for customers to tell people, "When we renovated the upstairs.." , "The tiles I used for the bathroom.." and so forth.
are you saying writing a prompt does not take creativity? This is by definition "art".
If i imagine something i am not an artist yet! how can you not get this? It takes real involvement and creating to bring it to the world, otherwise i would be an artist when i pay somebody to draw my imagination .....@@robosergTV
@@robosergTV Writing a prompt isn't creative lololol
AI art is good actually. It's so effortless and lacking in human creativity it inspired me to become an actual artist instead of typing in "best quality, masterpiece..." for 2 hours straight.
If there’s one thing I will say AI art is good for, is for being a Dungeon or Game Master with friends. Not all of us who have an idea for a fun game to run with friends is also an artist who can and has the time to make like 50-60 different images for all the characters and enemies. But we appreciate having SOMETHING to look at. Key word here is for FRIENDS.
So you PAY for it. Just because it is “for friends”, doesn’t make the exploitation any less. If you appreciate having something to look at, that means the art has value to you and that value should be reflected on the artist that created the work.
@@Jellibox pay for 60 images damn, not all of us are trillionaires with years to wait for the work to be done
@@cinnibarbrenneka For sure, it would cost you if you wanted bespoke images, but you could always purchase close enough images through a stock imagery website where the licensing is consented to or you could learn to draw. You don’t have to be a trillionaire at all. Just because you want it, doesn’t make it ethical. You want to exploit people just because you don’t want to (and believe you shouldn’t even have to) pay for the value they provide. I can’t stop you, but call it what it is. Every time you make and use those images you are exploiting someone else’s skills. Those images don’t exist without them, they don’t come from nowhere.
@@Jellibox Keep crying. The Machine already overcame your snobbish egos.
@@cinnibarbrenneka Exactly. I'm working on a couple projects, NON-PROFIT, that need lots of illustration, in the hundreds. And this guy wants me to pay for all of that. And they have the guts to cry about how poor they are so they can't even afford a bus ticket.
“I don’t like AI Art.” You and me both.
Maybe someone can change my view, but as I see it:
1. Yes, while AI is trained on copyrighted works, it's not like photobashing, because the AI is not taking exact parts from any specific work, it's more like learning from every other work and making something new from the learned model, similar to what a human might do, for example.
2. What is the difference between a human and an AI, if not just one being made out of flesh and the other out of metal? Both AI and humans just look for patterns, currently, the AI is just like a human brain, but on a smaller scale, like a chunk from a brain.
3. The thing is most people don't care if art is made by "flesh artists" or AI, because at the end of the day, it's still art, so, for end users, there is no significant difference.
4. "AI can only leech off of existing creativity" - to me, this seems like a bad argument, because, of course, you have to see some references to make anything, you have to see how apples look if you want to draw an apple, the same also applies to everything else you might want to draw.
5. The problem of bias is not just in AI, humans also have biases, heck, some people are even racist, AI learns it's patterns from humans.
6. I can't comment on the other fields, but as a programmer, AI is actually very useful and without it, I would have a much harder time.
7. You (and anybody, even the government) can't stop AI CP or any other NSFL content, since anyone can just run an AI model on a decent computer. This is not an argument against AI.
Please, do change my mind, though.
Honestly it's not the AI itself I'm hating on. It's not the technology's fault that it was designed that way.
However, beside it posing a threat to artist's career and livelihood, shitty politicians and journalists has been using generated images to redtag people in our country.
As a tech bro who went into the field cause I wanted to go into game dev, I fully support nightshade and poisoning artworks
The irony in all this ai hype is that so many people believe "AI" will help the average joe to get a more compex and better paying jobs, when in actual reality the effect is the opposite, most ai stuff is as decent or better than what an average person can achieve, and makes it even harder for people that arent exceptional, to get any of those types of jobs like artists,programmers,writers etc.
12:42 thats not creative? most humans would draw an actual fish
No, because it's placeholding relationships. That's interpolative, as such is the algorithm. Art isn't about interpretation unless desired. AI lacks artistic foundations, gestalt psychology and anything that makes art art and not a auto photobash.
55:10 i hope people are able to realize the deliberate evil , they came for arts, literature and music first for one specific reason!
Great content, don't get discouraged by the views.
Thank you so much for the kind words!!
Taking an art history class and my teacher E-Mailed us about Ai being allowed 😀 we’re literally doing ART HISTORY, Ai is not a part of art history (until now, but it’s not even art)
i just want a pretty picture, im also the kind of person who doesnt give two shits about art galleries.
for me art is just the visualization of any given concept. i dont care how you got there.
even some flaws in ai art are of little concequenz to me since im quite adapt at suspending disbelive.
if i have to look realy close at a picture for minutes to find "grave offputting mistakes" i wont get my knickers in a twist over it.
I finally found someone just like me, sometimes I just want to look at nice pictures! To me 'art'/images is just like pasta, the experts will insist that you have to hand make your pasta from scratch otherwise you're 'lazy', but most people will just buy ready-made pasta from a store because its convenient and normal. I bet most of these artists don't even hand make their pasta...
In fact, most artists are mediocre and make even more mistakes than the machine.
It’s kind of funny how some programmers have wrote their own code to the destruction of their entire field and others, it’s almost a Greek tragedy in how corny it is.
As someone looking to be a programmer in the gaming industry, it makes me absolutely miserable seeing people screwing over other creatives. And yeah, if this keeps up we’re gonna kill our own damn jobs if AI learns to code.
Great job! An insane amount of work went into this idk how you balanced it with our schoolwork this semester 😭
I've been going to sleep at 4am 🥲
i admit i use AI to finish my homework
very unethical but i gotta
One of the most infuriating things to me is ai „artists“ tagging their posts with completely unrelated stuff, especially on pixiv and Deviantart. Not only are they not marking it as ai, but they also refuse to just tag it correctly. I can’t count the amount of times I’ve typed in something completely unrelated, only to be blasted with art of a half naked anime girl with six and a half fingers. I still don’t like it either way, but I wouldn’t actively hate ai art if they could just keep it a separate thing.
34:50 so, fun fact, a MARVEL show on disney+ actually used AI for its opening animation... so unfortunately, it does seem to have taken jobs from actual artists
edit: time stamp issue
Like any law, copy right law does not protect artists, it protects lawyers. Same as patent law.
Thats why the real money in the music biz is in publishing (aka labels) rather than performing.
Hey, I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to clearly explain all the issues with AI art. Because it's a pretty loaded subject for a lot of people, discussions can tend to get heated, so I never really understood the issues but found it hard to ask people about them. I didn't really get what was wrong about AI art (and it wasn't anyone's responsibility to educate me, it's perfectly reasonable of them). So this video was really helpful. I understand the situation and the issues a lot better now. Thank you!
The only thing I ever consider using AI art for is making silly pictures like Goku fighting Johnny Test, theres something fun about putting in a prompt and waiting to see what it puts out
I don't think you realize how creativity works in people mind's, the process is very similar how AI creates art. However, the AI only does one 'cycle' of creation, while we, during the creation process, usually do many cycles of this creativy process. Your brain never makes anything truly new, it only combines existing things in new ways.
One argument for the AI is infringing on copyrights, even without it "collageing" it, is that it is still the base of how this program was trained and therefore made. It's a part of the machine. And therefore if you want to use it for anything other than your personal enjoyment, oh let's say selling licences to use the AI or selling the AI images... you used art and photographs you had no rights to to produce a commercial product and benefit financially from it.
From what I heard the programmers of those, of course, know what they're doing does not come within fair use so the companies often cloak themselves as "research of new technology"... even if they're also monetized
Data laundering is just as bad as using unlicensed pirated software yes.
The problem with this though is that if you want to enforce this for AI without discriminating, you need to also enforce the same for humans: No learning from copyrighted images. Either allowing both to learn from them or neither would be fair, though trying to ban something as fundamental as learning from something is rather impossible to enforce.
@@snowthemegaabsol6819an artist can explain where their creative input and their inspirational muses begin and end. An ai has no intent. It cant conceive of new ideas based on old stuff only replicate its patterns.
Ive been getting more annoyed with seeing ai images on social media thay claim to be photos of real people. I especially see ai images of children making a peice of art with the words, 'my name is _ and this is my first painting.' These posts are suggested to me and i block each account but they are infinite. The comments are full of people congratulating and celebrating.
I get that people can't always tell but it annoys me how defensive people get when you do point out it's AI too. They can't take criticism at all because "it will get better in the future" which is such a dumb argument. Even now that they've mostly fixed the hand problem there's still so many other tells that it's made by an AI image generator, like the fact it can't even correctly paint reflections into scenery.
What I currently hate the most is how samey AI art is. Doesn't matter what the artist name is, it's the SAME core traits of the 'art'. Front page of dA is flooded with it and there's no distinct style between these garbage accounts anymore. And that's despite trying to filter it out.
Some people just use 3d art as tag instead of AI to cheat filters. Gross.
Copyright is bs. In the perfect world everything 5-10 yo should be public domain...
I agree with you. If you use real kids pictures to make porn then the arguments of its not real fails and then creator of such art can go to jail.
As for programming, I used chatgpt for code and it still makes alot of mistakes. Its possible to build code in it, but just like with art, it cant design Software like a true engineer. I think chatgpt is good for learning the basics of programming algorithms. Alot of companies want to make their in hous AIs which I think is a mistake for developers to use. In the end, its always best to find a way to work for yourself because no job is actually secure.
54:39 Yeah, exactly... My experience with AI image generators is that they are so far off from what I actually wanted, that it's just so much easier to just draw it myself...
I very highly doubt that.
@@haitaelpastor976 I once told Dall-E 2 to make a full picture of the side a boat, it keeps giving me the partial picture of a boat, bot the full picture... And once in a while it does give me a full picture but not from the side... I keep rephrasing my prompt, but it just keep making the same mistakes... And I just give up... Maybe now it has been improved, and it can do it now, idk... But not at the time I tried it, it can't even do that...
Another example is when I tried some anime art generator, the oblivious problem is they can't do new characters, which make sense, the characters don't even exist at the time of the training... Also the other problem is when I told them to draw multiple characters, sometimes they just draw 1 character... And the interaction between the characters is so far off what I told them...
Another problem is most of them have queue (unless you pay), and it can be so long to wait everytime I fix my prompt...
When I don't have clear picture of what I want, the result is actually pretty good, sometimes even better than my original idea... But when I have clear picture in mind, the result is not even close to what I want...
@@YuriLifeLove and how much time would you need to draw it the way you like, practice included, and with quality on par with the AI.
@@haitaelpastor976 "practice included"
I don't practice, lol...
"how much time would you need to draw it the way you like"
With my style (TV Anime Style), with only 1 character, no variant set, no background, no procrastination and stuff... Usually about a few hours...
"and with quality on par with the AI"
If I told the AI to draw something in TV Anime Style, then the quality is more or less on par with the TV Anime stuff... So a better question is, me vs the AI, which drawing is more on par with the quality of TV Anime stuff, probably the AI, although my drawing isn't that far off... But it doesn't matter how good the quality is if the AI doesn't draw the right thing... It's not even the minor details that they get wrong... they get the interaction wrong, or the pose, or even the character...
Btw... I'm not against AI, I use AI myself... I use ChatGPT to make lyrics, and the experience is great... (although ChatGPT still can't count syllables, lol... Maybe in English it can, Idk, I never tried it)...
Also, I get that maybe if I spend time to make better prompts maybe I can get better results... Or a custom training, maybe will give better results, Idk... But for me, I rather spend more effort drawing it myself than spend effort to make the AI result better... And I'm not saying that everyone should stop using AI, just because it doesn't really work for me... I'm just telling my experience, that's all... If you want to use AI, that's fine... I'm neutral, I'm not pro AI, I'm not against AI...
That's all, have a nice day...
Hint: audio setup is soo more important than image quality and lighting because horrible audio with short hard reflections and a potato mike literally hurts in the brain after like 15 seconds. Get some cushions / bookshelfs (with books, otherwise useless), whatever works, and watch a few videos about microphones and try some out. I know now you're probably angry but I just can't watch a video with this kind of headache-inducing sound and I am not alone.
This video is so depressing. The vile companies who created this blight on humanity must be sued into oblivion. Ai generators destroy art, art carreers, creativity and philosophically speaking all that is beautiful about being human. The nerve of tech bros to steal all your work right in front of you and the audacity to lie in your face about it.
Only those who never created anything and never struggled transforming their thoughts and emotions into the drawing could defend AI tripe which is referred to as "AI art". These cretins do all mental gymnastics to justify own laziness, willingness to steal other's work and opportunism.
Those who use AI to shit out tons of AI images and try to justify it, only show everybody else that they are incapable of appreciating and valuing other people's creative work and skills. They don't see it as a way to express oneself or project thoughts and feelings. They only see it as a bunch of pixels that can be repurposed and copied.
i think what (some) people mean with democratize art is:
now they have an personal artist that work for free and can draw anything they want.
the ones who just want to consume some art piece that currently dont exist will be satisfied with just that.
The whole video I was thinking "does he know about the cheese pizza" and felt validated but disgusted when it came up. I'm glad people know about it but it's appalling that we have it exists
i like the use of uncanny mr incredible songs as transitions, it's a nice touch lol
I don't think it's a coincidence that the modern scientific explosion followed the renaissance. Ai art has no meaning to edify society like real art does. The more we minimise the role of real art the more science, culture etc slow down.
Yes, and society may soon stop creating and only consume. I've tried creating "AI art" and it sure is a dopamine rush and addictive. It's also scary how good it has gotten. It's better than most artists and fulfills your wish and many iterations thereof in seconds. So I would honestly be lying if I said it's no fun to use, and I can understand why people love it. There are only a few mistakes, and the "uncanny valley effect" has become almost unnoticeable. Perhaps at least it should get regulated, since AI art is becoming indistinguishable from real art.
@@virtuosyc tbh, sounds like capitalism’s doing it’s job. No humans left. Just consumers making someone else more money.
At first I was in the middle with ai now I just concern the more I use I feel hatred towards my artwork and myself.
There will always be better artists. Only one person is at the top, that's a fact. So, the only thing that matters is that you're okay. This was true before, and it's true now with AI, too. Just make art as you wish. It's your medium of expression, competition in mediums of expression shouldn't be a thing.
@@goncalocarneiro3043that is the Point of Comfortable Mediocrity.
Stop using it. Don't hate your own artwork. Just work on improving and practicing - you can do it! We all believe in you! If you hate your work, then the enemy wins. Don't give them that. You can get there, you just need to keep pushing a little more!
@@shonenbag6478 "you can get there"
Where, exactly?
@@haitaelpastor976 Any level of artistic ability you want! The sky is the limit as long as you don't give up!
Watching this video is unreal. Just about every ad i've recieved has advertised AI in some way. Even when you brought up Adobe selling stock images at 36:37, I got an ad from adobe advertising just that. It seems like every other ad nowadays stress AI and how its "revolutionary" and "groundbreaking" to their products that they sell.
I don't like AI art because it usually has that style you can recognize immediately and it has no uniqueness whatsoever.
Some people configure their models differently and that sometimes results in interesting outcomes but %99 of the AI art on the internet is very boring. AI generated pictures are a whole different topic- those can look realistic asf and I have nothing to say about them.
Maybe photographs and digital art must be verified by their cryptified file data such as what programs being used. For photographs could be verify the type of camera used and location. I think that hackers can fabricate the information of their AI "photos" to look real by editing their cryptic data so we need to figure out methods to combat these. In digital art could be mandatory to show layers and record a whole timelapse which is available for clipart studio paint. Layers could be fabricated by photoshop which you could disassemble each part into separate layers.
We already can combat it. Unless something changes in the future, changes in metadata can already be detected. True photography is able to be verified by the integrity of the metadata. :)
The main reason why I hate ai art is when people fucking scam unknowing people over "art" and selling it. Jazza made a video on him getting scammed over a stupid ass AI art book. Like sure some people can't draw and wanna make money but just fucking learn like the rest of us artists. I got good because of 48+ sketch books and over 12+ a year some years art is a damn skill we shouldn't make Pcs make a hobby for us we should use the Pc to replace tasks that hurt. Ur not a chef if U take frozen pizza and add extra cheese same with "Ai art"
As a new aspiring artist I always was flabbergasted at how disrespectful can people be towards artist even before this ai bs took over, people harassing artist because they were taking way too long with their commissions even though those artist have things to do outside art. now the situation got even worse with people in the internet calling them names and telling them than an ai can make their work quicker and better, that made me wonder if I really wanted to be an artist what is the point if by the time my skills are good enough to catch up the art market will be flooding with meaningless autogenerated content no matter what. I always wanted to make my own manga and hell no I'm not doing it with ai it would look awful now sadly my dream seem way too far fetched for me to make it a reality
Bro, keep at it anyway. I still make art even if all this stupid shit is happening. It's done so much for me. Monetarily? Not so much. Feeding my soul? Definitely.
If your vision, resulting concepts & storytelling are unique enough you will outshine the cloned AI garbage any day. Try to focus on content and multilayered meaning over form.
@@TehDanceMaster yeah you're right I will not let this AI BS to affect me anymore
@@DerSnoeziewoezie that is actually a very interesting way of making art making a history and world with interesting character to overrun the AI I never thought of learning story telling but it sounds interesting
Art is about self expression! There's beauty in drawing, ever had a lil kid draw you something? Or seen somebody learn to draw? There's beauty in that, beauty in sharing, learning new skills, learning from other people who express themselves while expressing your own loves, critiques, emotions
What doesn't do that is AI
The reason I love art is that it shows how how much heart and soul aritist give into the art. AI is polar opposite. Not to be cringy but this reminds me of Sonic CD's Metal Sonic compared to normal Sonic. Sonic is expressive and full of life, when Metal is heartless cold unfeeling. sonic is the artist metal is the AI.
There is a website that makes it so they cant use your art, it like adds something ontop of the image
I hate when people say "anyone can make art now" because like.. that was always the case. You can make art. Go grab a pencil and make some art!!
This typical artist snobbism won't make people support your lost cause.
@haitaelpastor976 I don't know what you mean. It's not snobbism, not all art has to be good. AI creates cookie cutter images that all look similar as hell. Even without any artistic experience anyone can try to make something and it will be unique because they made it. Art is such a human thing, its not like artists are gatekeeping it. I'm depressed thinking about a world where robots do the fun and creative jobs while humans slave away.
@@tetsupannnThey're just angry they were born with sub zero talent.
@@Void-fo5um At least you acknowledge the existence of natural talent. Most other artists insist on their toxic positivity about "talent is only hard work". I praise you for that.
@@tetsupannn "not all art has to be good"
WTF only a mediocre or a huge-ego would say that.
Keep grabbing a pencil if you want, we don't care, so you shouldn't care if we want to use the Machine.
I love writing, but I'm not so naive as to believe that AI won't be able to replace my writing. I welcome the ability for a layman to create something I would have labored to make. I believe that my creativity will be able to find a niche. And if it doesn't, too bad, I write for myself, not for other people.
I used to repair plumbing and appliances, but the availability of high quality model-specific DIY videos ended most of that. Before then, heh, I apprenticed running presses and laying out pages for plates - just as desktop publishing and copycenters took over.
You're not jealous that the machines process your RUclips comments, learn from them, and neither compensate nor thank you?
@@pong9000 I t doesn't matter if people are jealous or not. The simple, cheaper, mass-producable option will win. It's just a matter of when. Just as nobody has their portrait painted these days to leave behind as a memory, when you have the option to just tap the screen of your smartphone to have your image preserved. It's just the nature of technological advancement, and really the only option is to get out of the way or get swept away, because you can't stop it.
@@Warfoki It matters if people are jealous for the same reason it matters if people are in pain.
Jealousy has always played hard in the art world. Surely some artists will be jealous of AI creators. I mean, the underlying emotion in this video is apparent. So while you may correctly advise giving way to technological advancement, we should also address the human condition.
@@pong9000 I mean, sure, some people will be jealous, some people will be angry, of course. My point is that in terms of technological advancement, that doesn't matter, because it WILL go on, no matter what. The more practical and cheaper solution tends to win out in the long run, are trying to get in the way of that is and always has been a futile endeavor.
@@Warfoki Only the most entitled idealists would disagree on your point. Being displaced by technological progress is after all these centuries, so common an experience, it now defines humanity.
I just saw JackJohnson come to terms with the problem, not as a utilitarian agent of capitalism, but as a human being with feelings, and I admire that.
“There really is no such thing as Art. There are only artists.” - E.H Gombrich
25:42 they only made a music generator without copyrighted music is because they know the record labels would run them deep into the ground as soon as word went around about them using copyrighted music for their training sets.
AI art not only looks like it has no soul or taste, but it also devalues the work made by people. Recently I looked at the work of a great master and instead of being inspired by it, I tried to understand whether it was AI art or not.
So soul apparently was not useful to help sort it out ?
i recently seen where ai art cant be legally copywrite so my question is, could i legally steal an ai peice redraw it in my style and claim its mine. since they like to steal peoples art already i dont really see an issue with doing this.
The pro-AI crowd doesn't want you to realize this but YES you can indeed steal AI art and call it your own. There are no copyright laws that protect AI art. You can literally go around, take all of the stuff you want, and not give a single ounce of credit to the button pushing monkey that typed the prompts in.
I absolutely love the ability to help generate art concepts. However I do not beleive there is a morally correct way to use any of these images in commercial products.
Never would I have imagine to be born in era where the very things that made us human be stolen by a bunch of numbers, something that is so significant in our history, something that preserved our culture, idea, and dreams.
Reality is often disappointing and saddening, unfair to no end
If you think art isn't a job and should be replaced by soulless AI made by greedy companies, take a look at yourself, see the reality your living on is the most basic of all, your not significant nor talented. Dismissing art as just a doodling and worthless is the most pathetic thing to do.
You were always born in that era.
Throughout entirety of human history new innovations have changed how humans live. There was a time when living in the cave made us human, it goes all the way to back then.
People should and will always be free to practice art, for creative expression. But it's myopic to think that it must make money.
You say AI is soulless. Perhaps you are right. But that brings exciting opportunities. How can we guide AI to create novel art and styles, without feeding it such styles? Can we guide it with our soul? Or can we actually make it smarter to the point that it generates it's own creative styles which are satisfying as art?
These will be the jobs in the future (which is really now), that will make money, and it is exciting.
@@jonathandawson3091 I didn't mean it must however money is needed when living in our society afterall most artists live through their works, though I apologize for not being clear as I lack vocabularies and English knowledge to properly articulate my own thoughts.
@@jonathandawson3091 "Your were always born in that era" I know that much but it isn't supposed to be that way. Im not against the improvements of humans through innovative technologies as It will be stupid to be that way, however creativity, in my opinion shouldn't be automated by AI as there's no need for it, our creativity is more than enough.
@@jonathandawson3091 @jonathandawson3091 Never been excited for such things, I suppose it is exciting for many others, however for me it isn't. I may be sound prejudices against AI whom possibly developed enough to achieve creativity beyond human or parallel to human creativity, such possibilities is plausible or even eventuality though I value humans creativity above others. In my opinion the hard works of pure humans creativity isn't replaceable by AI even if it has soul.
Unfortunately it seems the one barrier for ai art is it’s uncanniness. I won’t lie; the possibility of some of my favorite light novels having instant manga however long they are is very appealing.
„If I am good at ordering at Subway it doesnt mean I am a chef” and Subway calls employees who make sandwitches literally „sandwitch artist”
yeah, except the sandwish artist is doing actual thought and work. Not intaking the prompt and literally shitting it out their back end.
Right. The person who makes the sandwich is a sandwich artist, not the person ordering.
Thank you!
What if you customise the order in a specific way? One could make the argument based on that.
@@Cecilia-ky3uwyou still didnt make the fucking sandwich
Subbed. Great video man. AI is not a small issue. And not just for artists. It's a human issue. We've been warned about this for ages. It's happening.
"People will come to love their oppression, to adore technologies that undo their capacities to think" - Aldous Huxley
man when will these guys realize that if they succeed, they will get an oversaturated, lower income version of the already famously underpaid artist’s market
Like all areas where new automated tools are invented, in the end the quality suffers *until a an actual skilled* person uses it. Like all mass produced things, quality suffers. Especially when done on its own.
Artists have never had to deal with the concept of becoming obsolete due to technology progressing to this extent. Ask anyone who lost their jobs due to automating making things on a production line.
Now they do.
However, just as with how that adjusted as time moved on, this will as well. It simply needs new skills. Because creativity is still (and always be) the center of art. Anyone having used PhotoShop knows this.
The *real* point is simple: AI isn't going away. It will only get better, and will only be used in more areas as the people using it *as a tool* become more trained its usage. As long as Art *wholly* AI generated is not copyrightable, the artist does have some advantages.
*This* is the thing most artists need education in. An artist's art, while working in game design can be copywritten by the game dev studio. The game studio however will likely lose when trying to copyright it's art if it is all AI generated. So they'd be able to copyright the GAME but not it's art. Saved money? Maybe. Saved the entire IP's look? No. Ditto in other situations using an artist's work normally.
It isn't going away. Progress *never* goes away. However adapting to it legally, artistically, and economically is the only way to move forward.
i was just going to start this because it was 2am but i ended up watching the whole thing, your video was very well thought out and i applaud you on your professional attitude. I am working towards being that polite in regards to this topic. i agree with you in your conclusion, i would be totally fine with AI art existing if they didn't use copyrighted works, heck if they were just "opt in/copyright free images only" i would actually participate, why not! I'm a little scared for the future, but we're artists, we invent new things all the time, and i think that is what will and is keeping us alive.
More people need to watch this video. Awareness needs to be spread. Especially concerning those last couple of points.
No there doesn't. It's all reactionary bullcrap that's fearful of a new technology.
If everyone were deincentivized from becoming artists there would eventually be no new inputs into the system. We'd be left recycling the same content over and over. As with modern movies we'll just keep having nothing but sequels, remakes, spinoffs, etc. for the rest of time.....
it's a bit of a simplification. While it's true that if people were discouraged from pursuing artistry, there might be fewer fresh perspectives and original creations, it doesn't mean that creativity would cease altogether.
Human creativity is resilient and often finds ways to express itself even in challenging circumstances. Additionally, art can be inspired by a myriad of factors beyond personal incentives, such as societal issues, emotions, or a desire for self-expression. So, while discouraging artists might limit the flow of new content, it's unlikely to completely stifle creativity. Furthermore, there's always the potential for new voices to emerge and shake things up, even in a landscape dominated by sequels and remakes.