How Tech Is Betting Big On AI Generated Art
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 сен 2024
- Silicon Valley is abuzz over a new kind of artificial intelligence - generative AI.
It's a somewhat new field that exploded in popularity and attention in recent weeks, thanks to a steady stream of novel - and sometimes very weird - pieces of digital art hitting social media. The art was made by generative AI software, using simple text prompts from humans.
These kinds of tools not only produce unique pieces of art, they can also generate audio, text and video based on user prompts. While their results are less than perfect, the AI tools can turn what were once hours-long projects into minutes-long tasks.
Proponents of generative AI software say the tools could one day replace the armies of visual effects artists who work on major blockbuster films. In a shorter time frame, they could help white-collar workers whip up slideshow presentations, design corporate logos and even craft written content such as blog posts or social media posts.
Watch the video above to find out how generative AI works and why Silicon Valley tech investors think it could be the next big thing.
Produced by: Jeff Morganteen
Narrated by: Jordan Smith
Edited by: Dennis Donovan
Camera: Jeniece Pettitt
» Subscribe to CNBC: cnb.cx/Subscri...
» Subscribe to CNBC TV: cnb.cx/Subscri...
About CNBC: From 'Wall Street' to 'Main Street' to award winning original documentaries and Reality TV series, CNBC has you covered. Experience special sneak peeks of your favorite shows, exclusive video and more.
Connect with CNBC News Online
Get the latest news: www.cnbc.com/
Follow CNBC on LinkedIn: cnb.cx/LinkedI...
Follow CNBC News on Facebook: cnb.cx/LikeCNBC
Follow CNBC News on Twitter: cnb.cx/FollowCNBC
Follow CNBC News on Instagram: cnb.cx/Instagr...
#CNBC
How Tech Is Betting Big On AI Generated Art
Pretty sad how artists weren't interviewed for this segment. That honestly should say a lot. Well in the meantime, chatgpt is gunning for everyone else. Everyone is getting humbled
They literally had an artist in the video itself, what are you talking about?
They did so wtf are you talking about???
@@darryljack6612 She was not a ludite, so she does not count.
I doubt any of them know how to find any artists haha
@@modernexistence4206 So... the artist in this video is?
This seems really one sided, they didn't interviewed anyone working specifically in art industry.
Ai art just hit the art industry hard, it was already difficult to be a professional artist and now its gonna be impossible, I wonder what industry will be hit next
It's a really interesting stage of societal evolution we're in right now.
Working in and of itself becomes less and less necessary, but we're still in a society that requires you to work to be part of it.
Reminds me of the ugly stage of a painting. After you've already "ruined" the great sketch with colour, but it's still far from finished and just looks like there's no way this will become a beautiful piece of art in the end.
True but its not too different from how human's learn styles of artwork and build upon what they have learned when creating something "new", of their own, or in their own way. The major difference being the a.i can do it faster, and can learn at a much more expansive rate. But that is how innovation works and always has worked. A human is limited in what they can do, where as a form of automation isnt to the same degree.
@@darryljack6612 The point is this will destroy jobs and displace yet more workers in a world increasingly hostile to us already. The erosion of Labor is destroying our society.
@@darryljack6612 The thing is that we have reached a level where this will better than us in every way. It is not as before where the agricultural worker could go and work in the factory, then in the office, in the lab etc... now we will reach the world where jobs which require 20+ years of education like lawyers and even doctors will be replaced by AI. Now think about the 99% below a doctorate!!!
ai leeches are already going after music, but thats a lot harder because they have a lot more stricter copyright laws so theyre more scared of it
the whole public was like, "ok so the AI uses artists works for its training data? Well sucks for you, good luck on finding other talents for your living." "Don't ruin the fun, it's harmless. Human artists still superior" "You did too stole information from other artists works by looking at them, no one can make images based on nothing :V" .
Well, truth that the company uses digital arts by artists that are not consented their works to be the training source and at the same time being able to replace thousand of artists by just that single company itself, isn't it far from harmless? If a human artist copies another artist, they'll be sued, and the harm is not as big as the harm an AI produce. Well but it's all fun and games until it happens to you. If we continue to hype on novelty and overlook its impact and not protecting ourselves by creating law and boundaries, the human world will be an utopia for a few tech lords but a living hell for you.
The skill and creativity of the working class is the only bargaining chips we have over the corporate and government elite, and this technology will take that away from us.
This should terrify everyone. Art and creative fields were always assumed to be the last fields to be automated. Art...the ability to create something entirely new was always assumed to be a domain that was safe for humanity whereas repetitive task and those bound by known rules were assumed to be quickly automatable. This means literally no job is safe from automation. Not only will a handful of powerful companies control all creative output, it will immediately disenfranchise millions of artist , writers, graphic creators...and that is just the beginning . What is even worse is it is built of the stolen content of the very artist it will immediately replace and because the AI learns...every human that uses an AI is training their own replacement. People really need to think about this new technology...it has great potential in areas like finding cures for diseases , saving the environment and the potential to either save or destroy humanity . I fear corporations are choosing the latter out of greed.
I wonder if we will get to the stage where artists and musicians like stand up comedians already do. Will ban the use of phones at their gigs and shows focusing only on the hear and now to avoid AI bots from stealing their ideas and creativity. Funny how the tech companies call it generating ‘new’ art, I say it’s copying and making derivatives of ‘old’ art.
Thinking that this AI stuff empowers corporations I think is wrong. It actually gives so much more power to individuals, you will be able to be creative in your specific field and offhand all the other stuff to AI. Corporations can afford to hire people for all of those tasks, regular people can't.
You do know what the job or modus operandi of a corporation is, right? Corporations = Greed. 🤷♂
@@Tristan-mv6lc RUclips was originally like this. They didn't even know how to make money from it in the beginning. 😉
@@megamanx466 Yes, which is why for AI art, having access to open source models is very important. I might've held a diffent view if the programs were all closed and were it only given access to large corporations.
Even the creative fields aren't safe from automation.
Creative did you see Modern Art lately 90% of it is trash this is a good change
When the rich people start purging you all, don't say I didn't tell you so. And when I say rich, I mean multi billionaire even millionaire sports players, actors, and singers are gone.
They are the first to automate as you see.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII✍️✍️☜
That's what I find interesting, always though coding jobs would be automated before actual art
Lets talk about the the thousands of artists whose existing works these AIs have been trained on without their consent. without which AI couldn't create anything.
Thousands? Feel free to make that millions. This is IP theft on the largest scale ever seen.
I think that’s the big sticky point. It’s basically photocopying art, but running it through a filter so now it’s “original” or at least enough to avoid paying someone. It would be all great if all the artists gave permission for their works, but in most cases they were not even contacted by the tech companies. Says a lot about the culture among those who are pushing AI tools.
@@ziggykatz12 exactly
So when the creator has used AI, do they acknowledge the use of AI in their work or just take all the credit?
So far (at least on twitter) there has been people crediting themselves for AI work, but most agree if the image was made by an AI it should be credited to the AI and not the person
They don’t take all the credit, but they do take some as you need the right sorts of prompts to make ai art look good and whatnot.
@@oo--7714 fair point and sorry if i made it sound like i said they all take credit. Not every person who uses AI take 100% credit but there are people who do.
Ai is a tool, so you can say made using [tool]. But not made by this tool. And its always the person taking the credit not the tool.
Those posting raw typically do. The problems coming from non AI artist. A large part of digital art seems to be tracing, and they rarely show the reference images they traced. I don't seem them tagging the use of AI and you can definitely see that they traced some of the images in the AI groups 😅.
Ai art is trained on the art from artist who are not compensated for ues of their art or asked for consent. Years of blood, sweat and tears artist spend developing skills are being stolen and turned into a service that eliminates work that they trained all their life to do. It is unethical.
Ok? That's life. The A.i learns from viewing and creates based off of said experience. Similarly to that of humans, an "art work" isnt birthed from nothing, it is created from the experiences of learning or experience with understanding of material. That is no different than what thousands, hell even millions of artist have always done. Take learned experience and then create from it, its just that the A.i's experience and capability to learn is much greater, faster, and expansive than most humans. But regardless of "ethics" this is Art
@@darryljack6612 You are talking about a computer that does not need money competing on behalf of private business against artist for whom their art is being used in this business venture without compensation or permission. Don't talk like the Ai is a person with the human right to be inspired by art work when all the decisions that are being made about this are being made by business entrepreneurs and the computer is just crunching numbers and pixels.
Hit the nail on the head and this legal angle could single handedly restrict this garbage.
@@darryljack6612 Except it isn't the same. A machine is not a human and has no legal standing as such.
@@davidcomito505 Ok? That doesnt matter... It doesnt matter in the grand scheme if the computer doesnt need money so it can eat or support its talents. Because at the end of the day the reality of what i state is true. You are trying to emotionalize this, but in reality it makes no difference. Art is a social construct, whatever people value or enjoy then becomes art. It doesnt matter if it is made by a human, an elephant, or an a.i, the only difference between a human artist and an elephant artist is that an elephant artist will never (as a whole) out perform the human so we view it as cute, the a.i artist can and at a much more expansive rate. Again that is life, the artworld isnt the first aspect of life to be outdone by automation and it wont be the last. The computer crunching numbers and pixels is a process. The same way how a human brain is firing off electrical signals allowing nerve endings to move and recount information that it has already taken in, is also a process. You didnt refute anything i said, all you did was just emotionalize the argument.
1:50 It does not create "brand new content" its ripping apart and glueing together content stolen from many many different places. There is nothing original here.
yup. that is all an algortihm is capable of doing. the name "AI" is very misleading. as most imagine AI to be sentient and capable of reason outside of its narrow parameters. this is not AI. it is Algoritmically Automated Image assembly.
> *its ripping apart and glueing together content*
From what I understand - and my understanding IS limited, no - that's not at all what is happening here. Images go in for training data, yes, but the output - the dataset used to generate images - doesn't contain image data. It'd literally be impossible to distribute the data set if that were the case (since it'd be from many many terabytes, to petabytes in size).
I don't disagree with there being ethical issues involved with this techonlogy. I do not, however, think that potentially misleading people about the basics of how it works gets us any closer to addressing said issues, though.
@@DanknDerpyGamer without getting into the specifics of the diffusion process and how the images are converted into trained data. Insatnces of overfitting ( which is basically copying. ) ill put it simply. it basically is doing just that. just in an extremely complex manner.
2 years ago I read an article that debated, that the creative jobs will be future proof and hard for AI to replace humans on this field. No, I believe with the exponential growth of this technology with a faster pace than we could ever imagine, all jobs are in danger in the coming years. Major problem is that the capital financing behind this tools are in a hand of few group of people. The big question is, how will average people reorganise themselves to counterbalance this growing power?
Exactly, sometimes I laugh to some of those who defends AI etc. Their was a study, I think from Harvard about how AI and Robots would replace 90%+ of jobs including Lawyers and Doctors. Some people think they are immune from this because they are so smart. Only the blue collars and McDonald employee would suffer. But they just don't know how smart and powerful the Ai are coming for their jobs.
@@danielvilliers612 Government interventions, laws, boundaries must be set to protect people from the harm. The problem is, tech moves faster than the law does.
Also I find it funny how some "smart" people seeing the blue collars job replacement as natural, not seeing how predatory it really is. Everything in life nowadays seems to be about intelligence and efficiency, disregarding the aspect of morals and ethics.
Eventual ultra rich people will dispose of all us
@@littlelenox8797 They will also suffer from this. Reminds me of the people who were ok about the ultra capitalistic system before covid and then when they lost their job etc some of them went full conspiracists, about new world order etc.
@@danielvilliers612 I think the AI vs artists thing can be a precedent for the upcoming AI development, and the whole world should really put a lot more concern to it. It's deeper than whether AI art is an art or not, it's how companies are allowed to use people's data and the livelihood of a large portion of people. We need laws to control it, otherwise AI supposedly beneficial growth can turn into cancer.
Unfinished human work will always cheer me up more than finished perfect AI work
Now listen that doesn't mean unfinished human work isn't depressing either it's just I find more happiness in human error than I do in AI error
AI might be capable of doing the technical skills, but art is about
Expressing a feeling, an emotion.
Your art can be simple or even flawed but in it's essence you tried to express a part or yourself.
That's what I would define as art anyway, might just be me.
perfect is ALWAYS better
what even qualify as perfection in art?
We’re just getting a glimpse of where things are going
It has already replaced jobs. Those "concerns" aren't "potential"; they are happening now. These apps have been far from harmless. Where is the accountability?
It has not replaced the job of any artist worth their salt. These AIs completely lack the fine-grained control necessary for real applications.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII✍️✍️
@@viaMac "These AIs completely lack the fine-grained control necessary for real applications."
what are you using? text to image AIs? there's far more ways to control generative AIs than that.
@@here4youramusement Not entirely when it comes to creative jobs. And you should not want to stop progress because it might take away entry level jobs.
@@Tristan-mv6lc pRogReSs omg such progress dude... you know what would be progress? 4 hour work day for the same money as you get 8 so no 4th yacht for the CEO. Now THAT would be progress but this is just destroying people, not making pRogResS.
Poor artists. In this Capitalist world, your value is determine by how much money you can generate. Unfortunate with this new AI technology it would be hard rely on your skills to have a decent standard of living.
The art community is mad about this because the Ai is still other people’s artworks without there consent. I am wondering what are the art copyright laws on this?
Most of these models are trained with images under cc, the datasets are in public domain. So they have consent.
@@jadermcs That's just false. The dataset isn't trained at all on cc and uses a massive amount of copyrighted images from Pinterest and other sites.
@@lostchron yeah sorry, while the metadata from LAION-5B is cc, each image has its own license.
I think this is a deep discussion, like any artist have already saw previous works by other artists before creating his own art. The deep network does not copy, but uses this inspiration (bias) as a means for its own creation.
@@jadermcs The idea that image diffusion models are similar to the brain and workflow of a professional artist is such a egregious oversimplification of reality I have to call into question whether or not this comparison is being done in good faith. AI advocates have no issues with calling out naive takes from artists on how diffusion models work, but when it comes to discussion about how professional artists work, suddenly they become experts on the visual creative process.
AI is a tool and artists need to learn it ,if they dont want to become obsolete,like when before you painted on a canvas and now you use computer screens and software.
Is not just a tools, it will replace them. Client will eventually be able to create a drawing themselves
@@iliaadamanthark8336 A tool and a replacement can't be one in the same thing. It doesn't change the fact that it is still a tool.
I don't want any machine made art😡
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII✍️✍️
Generative AI (AI is a misnomer at this point) will increasingly be used to write programs, design hardware, and run systems - and the results will inevitably be catastrophic. Worse than GIGO because the 'designer' is an entrainment algorithm that doesn't really understand anything.
Pretty much any old dodo with no Talent can make any bit of art look good using AI kind of like every script on the RUclips is the same
CNBC! You've got a bunch of bots in your comments section pushing obvious scams. Could you get a moderator in, please? It's the 'fake conversation' type: Multiple accounts that appear to hold a conversation with each other in replies, but it's really all a script that ends with them pushing some very dodgy investment advisor or crypto-trading site.
Same thoughts
Ai is fun right now. We view it as a “tool” to help us as artists, but believe me. It will replace us. There will come a point where people prefer this over our own art, because they will become so accustomed to its perfectly aesthetic nature. It’s a collaboration, but only now. A true artist does not need a robot to think for them. A true artist does not care about the convenience of time that Ai has to offer. Ai is fake art, with no thought or intent behind it. It’s all artificial. And Ai will not only destroy art. It will destroy writing, literature, film, fasion, you name it. It will destroy the human essence of creativity. And the saddest part is, none of us will even notice because we will have already lost touch with the beauty of raw creativity. I agree that Technology is supposed to help us. The great thing about it is that it’s supposed to aid us in the tasks we consider tedious. Not to say technology has never helped us artists in the past before. However, Ai is a different story, and we can see this just by looking at the name. Artificial Intelligence. If that title doesn’t spark any kind of worry, then I am greatly concerned for humanity. The positive aspect technology is that it gives us more time to think freely. Technology should not play such a vital part, in the creative thought process.
A tool and a replacement can be one in the same thing, it doesnt change the fact that it is still a tool.
I agree with you! Also I'm not an artist but man, to me an imperfect art of a 14 yr old kids who only learned to draw will always be miles and miles better than flawless AI art because at least they have a soul and the person who made it pours their sweat/blood/tears to create their art
As an example, self checkouts are replacing people in stores...even in fast food locations...it's the rise of the machine...and those that will control the world are those who created the machine and know the inner workings
@Milanta Rika problem is whilst it is nice to you. You can't sell the imperfect art of a 14 yo unless it is actually good. The argument is also pointless since the whole battleground is not about making art for your inspiration but making art for a living.
My suspicion is that as people from previous generations die out, and people are born into this as being normal, older styles of art will be less respected. Already seems that way. I do think there may be a counter-revolution, i.e. some people will want "made by human" art. However, such a movement it will be just a niche thing that only a few people can live off of. The sad thing is there will be dramatically fewer full-time artists - and to really become good at art (this includes not just visual, but also music, poetry, writing, acting, etc), takes many years and decades of full-time work.
Fewer people engaged full-time will mean not just the technical but also the introspective parts of art will be diluted as well. Art isn't just about the craft (i.e. can you draw, can you write well, etc), it's also about the journey. The journey involves introspection (thoughts about human nature and the world around us) as well as the relationship between the artist(s) and their community. A.I. will cut that out. I know it's been said before, but using A.I. (if not coupled with some sort of introspective quality) is a bit like teleportation from one living room to another across nations and claiming one is a world traveler. Technically it's true, but that person hasn't sampled the local cuisine, had conversations with people from the area and immersed oneself in the native culture, etc. It's a superficial sampling at best, typing a few prompts. And sadlyA.I. Art gets better, it will even do that better than humans. And since most of the world's businesses are geared towards profit, what path will most use to generate their art/poetry/novels/paintings/3D animations, etc? A business is geared toward faster, cheaper, and as quality goes up, many will argue - better.
I'm not so naive to think AI is going away, or some of the potential benefits in many instances, both in the world of Art and outside of it. However, we are moving into a societal shift that will redefine not just what it is to be an artist, but also what it means to be human. When machines can do most tasks (from labor to medicine, to the arts), what is left for us as humans to do? Do we simply give up and become mere biological cogs in whatever way our seeming runaway technology takes us? Do we make a set of rules that AI tech should not touch? Are we even able to do so at this point, as we are so dependent on it? Perhaps AI technology could even save us from ourselves in the end - as it has been shown throughout history that as a species in retrospect we really don't make the best decisions for our species or the world around us.
I don't know the answers to any of these questions. While I still have a mind to think though, I'd like to ask them not just for myself but in the generations to follow.
Art is the expression of the human condition, a computer does not have a human condition to express so the images it produces are not art they are just cool looking renders that don't have anything to say. You might appreciate these pictures the way you appreciate a flower but art is expressing is some form the perspective and feelings of being human.
And is this comment generated by chatgpt-3?
@@Ashish-gj3vx Is yours?
there will always be human artists as art is a major part of money laundering and tax evasion for oligarchy
The thing is that whatever you make through AI is like you give shape to the clay to produse a result. The AI by itself cannot take initiative to create anything. Let’s say you have an idea or something to say and then it’s up to you how this idea is gonna be translated to data so that machine can produce your art creation you want. We are in the transition of creating the art to creating the data that constitute the art. You may not touch a brush to paint something you have on your mind but you will need to go into another process to produce the same result. You will need to express your vision in the language of your tool. This time your tool is not your brush and the paints but your AI assistant. You are still the creator because you are the one who choose the prompts, the data. The imagination and creativity happens inside your human mind. It’s something similar with the times when people where drawing everything they saw around them because there was not cameras. Once cameras arrived a painter would say that the camera does all the job and your photography is not part of art. But still the photographer has to decide the angle and the prospective, the contents and the combinations and colors etc. So AI is not something more than a camera. It’s a tool to produce something that is some kind of art. You can use the AI to crease something that expresses your vision, ideas and feelings. Your mind is stack in the idea that artists are only the ones who get dirty with paints. No. Art is anything that can be unique and is the result of data input from a human. I can create a poem using a prompt , but you could also create one. The end result is both art? As with before when any random guy made a poem that didn’t mean that he was making art. Poems can be bad and can lack feelings. You need to sculpt your poem through prompts and your vision and insights if you want to create something beautiful and something that someone can read and feel.
A mere prompt is not gonna create any good poem other than childish small poems. Any initial prompt is not gonna create stunning photos. Unless you “sculpt” your prompts and keep editing your pic you will be another one AI generated content creator. So yes you can be an AI artist generator if you can use this tool artistically. It’s up to you to learn to “paint” and “write” through the AI. In few years are art schools are not gonna teach you to make colors with pastels, but instead will teach you to make prompts, to be able to have a critical mind and to always judge your end result, if it can be more than just what it is now. That way your art will not be a simple Ai generated content but your endless vision and addition and attention to details. Artistic mind is inside you. It’s not about how good you can draw. Artists now live in the data world and they work with machine learning techniques. We came to the age that we have to become some kind of AI. When you see a picture you need to be able to generate the data that created. This is the new version of art studying.
People who claim that an AI is only inspired like a human is have no idea how neural networks work. This is something you can only proclaim in ignorance.
Automation in our current time will probably cause mass destruction at this rate.
We live in a time where we need to work in order to survive but we are automating more and more industries which puts people out of business.
At this rate the only fields that will be left are all completely tech based or semi tech based. Not to mention who will hold the control on all these industries if majority of workers are going to be put out of business? A few companies. That's terrifying.
Hey, tech isn't safe either. Github copilot would like to have a talk with you. :D
I hate the whole concept of this, I don’t understand how this isn’t being looked at as a threat by the creatives in this video.
It is by some, some are dismissing it
With animation studios, it will be a threat
The comment by the artist at the end is incredibly naive and it wouldn't surprise me if cnbc was not investing in AI the way they are misrepresenting it to the public. They gloss over how it was trained by stealing millions of copyright images from artist without their permission and often in explicit violation of the websites the artist works were taken from . Barely a mention of how art websites that once showcased art by artists who spent a lifetime honing their skills are being flooded with AI generated content by non artist who merely type a few key words to replicate or mix styles of art from the artist whose works were stolen. Also no mention that with AI doing the work so much faster, no need to hire an artist at all. Everyone who uses the AI is basically training the AI to not need human input. You don't even have to be clever with instructions ...the AI saves the most liked instruction for other people to modify. Artist were already struggling ...this is companies robbing artist and taking food out of their mouths .
This is predicated on learning being stealing, which yes the scale and speed at which these tools do it is much greater than humans, but mechanically to call this "theft" would risk calling what we do as humans "theft" since that's what these things do - look at and learn from images.
@@gondoravalon7540 Taking copyright images for use without permission is by every definition theft pure and simple. These AI generators are not merely looking at others artworks to become inspired to do new artwork ...AI does not work that way. They literally formed a non-profit so they could download copies (steal) without permission under the auspices of research...something a for-profit company could not do. Then use that stolen data to feed for-profit AIs. Guess who finances the non-profit? It is theft.
@@gondoravalon7540 People seem to think that AI is merely scrolling through artsites to get inspired or something. This is not the case. The images are indiscriminately scraped from all over the internet regardless of whether the platform allows it. Put into a massive dataset containing billions of additional images including private photos and medical records. Any artistic work is simply put into the training dataset and it's result is merely an adjustment of the weights and biases of the neural network. Anyone that thinks these AI are merely learning like a human does has no clue how these systems work. This claim can only be made in ignorance.
@@ttt5205 the images can’t be found in the dataset after being trained. Good luck convincing lawyers on these being theft while human artist will look at references side by side
@@youtubedeletedmyaccountlma2263 many images are generated with watermarks, some AI are also capable of generating Disney characters in the Disney art style. If disney truly decided to sue these companies then a 'lack of proof' certainly isn't going to stop them. These companies also allow you to generate images in specific artists artsyle and even encourage people to use them in prompts. This is all clearly documented. Don't worry bucko. A 'lack of proof' that these images were used isn't at all a problem to any lawyer willing to bring this to court.
I think you can copyright a specific image or painting, but you can't copyright a style.
More like getting big in stolen art 💀
"Stolen" in quotation marks.
@@artman40 Stolen, plain as.
@@unknownuser5895 For it to be stolen, the output needs to be blatantly similar.
@@artman40 For it to be stolen, it's use has to be both damaging to the value of the original work and unauthorized. AI art is both. If you claim that AI doesn't steal images then show me an AI that creates art without ever using human made art. I'll wait.
@@ttt5205 And how does AI art damage the value of the original work? If the original is appreciated just because it's rare maybe it wasn't that valuable to begin with.
Artists whose work is being used by AI to create imitation pieces should receive royalties.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII✍️✍️
"Artists whose work is being used by AI to create imitation pieces should receive royalties."
good luck getting less than pennies as contribution.
Do you mean in generating images, or training?
It's like saying that if I get inspired from someone else's art, I'd have to pay royalties as well.
@artman40 it’s literally not through 🤦♂️ although you can get inspired by someone’s work your personal experience also makes what your art is.. not just some Twitter “artist” that feeds real art with real effort to a robot 🤡
A fine line for me on these AI Art Hype if the artist can express him/her artwork in detail for example, how did he/she process the artwork and how much the AI make it his/her idea come into reality and make it better.
There are Pixbim AI softwares that makes the artist work better and save artists time by using AI.
@@adambrown3913 for now, for now
Like everything else coming from Silicon valley in the last 10 years, it will end up mostly being hype
Unless this in not from silicon valley. Its known technique for 50 years but we just gained required tech and data sets right now.
This "hype" wins art contests
@@tigrankhachaturian8983 how does this invalidate my argument?
I wish you were correct; but no. Midjourney discord has millions of users every day - the biggest in the world at the moment. Chat GPT-3 is smarter than the average human; can code, have intellectual conversations, speak different languages, write poems that are good. We’re screwed.
@@yordan9669 How does that validate your arguement? How is AI art even hype when you can literally see what it does.
A whole lot of creative people will go out of job. It will highly devaluate creative work.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII✍️✍️
it won't devalue creative work? how would it do that?
@@dibbidydoo4318 When you have the choice of paying someone for lets say 10 hours of creative work or use a program that cost you a fraction, that is close enough to almost the same quality of work. The VAST majority of people will pick the soulless construct/corporations and real talented artist will be out of their livelihoods. These programs are only going to get better with people ever more losing out because a small group of people wanted to cut out as many people from working as possible for them to make the most money possible. Even with basically EVERYONE doing this will mean next to no one with a job to afford all these fancy products they are making.
@@williamjanak2013 isn't that going to ruin the economy? it everything is becoming automated and no corporaation would hire someone, means no money for anyone and that is money will stop circulating; and no one can afford their product. the economy is just frozen.
@@greatveemon2 Exactly, and no one in big business is paying attention to that. Just how they can maximize their profits and that means getting rid of as many of those expensive humans as they can.
The more we rely on AI, the less skilled we become, and this can only get worse. Can't be helped.
The more depressed we become it would almost seem as if there's been more shootings the better technology has become
This can apply to any technology.
Nope bro
As long there is no AI who can create another AI
We still need our skill to create new AI
There's already a shift in wealth from the common people to the rich during the pandemic (look up the statistics). It's also the best interest of these big tech companies to shift away actual skills from the people, which makes em more disposable. In the future, humans will devolve themselves from overutilization of automation technologies
The more we rely on photography, the less skilled we become, and this can only get worse. Can't be helped.
The more we rely on standardized manufacturing, the less skilled we become, and this can only get worse. Can't be helped.
The more we rely on computer aided design, the less skilled we become, and this can only get worse. Can't be helped.
AI is a tool, nothing more. If what used to require hours now takes minutes, how many new creative outlets have opened?
Here's one of my problems.
You need to purchase brush templates, for Photoshop.
Studios need to buy art from artists, for movies.
But you don't need to buy permission to build an AI, on an artists art?
That's not fair.
The artist who is being used for the AI, should have ownership, or a choice of not training the AI.
I'm not sure I understand how those first two points are similar to the art training, but perhaps I am just being a bit dim.
But that isnt what is happening here, the a.i (depending on the specific a.i of course) isnt showing someone else's work within its totality. It is taking the understanding it has learned from various collections of art and is then creating upon that. Not to different from how human's learn styles of artwork and build upon what they have learned when creating something "new", of their own, or in their own way. The major difference being the a.i can do it faster, and can learn at a much more expansive rate. But that is how innovation works and always has worked.
bad argument, actual artist steal a lot more than AI does. Doesn't mean everyone they were inspired from should be given credit for their work.
@@gondoravalon7540 You have a program (AI/photoshop)
You want it to do what i do.
So you take my stuff, and put it in the program.
Usually, templates, textures, brushes, have to be purchased. Which is fair.
They made a whole resident evil game with ripped off textures included.. They where sued, and payed up.
Was the game a one to one rip off of the textures, no... It was creative, and deformed... Yet, the game would not be the same without em, and they just took em. So they had to pay.
Which is fair.
@@Tristan-mv6lc you sound like a person who doesn't understand what art even is.
Artist in Videogames industry here - its not a tool its straight replacement for creatives and Sam Altman (CEO of Open AI) brags about it in his recent interview - you can check it for yourself here on RUclips
If they intended a tool they would consult creative industry first but they never did ( so please (
On top of it Database these AI models trained on contains tons of Copyrighted art taken without Artists consent so please stop shill for them CNBC what a disgrace
A tool and a replacement are two things that are not inherently mutually exclusive from one another. A tool can also be a replacement, nor does said tool's use need consultation before implementation. Best example being the automotive industry and the use of robotic automation, the tools used in that industry replaced jobs in the millions, but it didnt change the fact that they were tools.
People keep repeating "copyrighted" like it's a synonym for permission not being granted - that makes no sense at all, since in the US at least anything that is eligible for copyright is automatically considered copyrighted - even if its creator doesn't register a copyright (which IIRC is a good idea if one wants to pursue legal action over infringement) - and even if the creator allows it to be used freely w/o restriction.
Yup, it's straight up replacement
The new NFT/crypto/blockchain scam then.
We need a new model which protects the people, their profession their work and human rights in general. All of this technology is in order to serve us . My ethical and honest wishes
L
“look what they need to mimic a fraction of our power”
human artist will always be better than AI “artists”
> *“look what they need to mimic a fraction of our power”*
What do you mean?
@@gondoravalon7540 AI is dependent on human works to generate new "art". Without it, it's useless.
@@gondoravalon7540 Just a dumb luddite
@@unknownuser5895 IMO it seems like an odd distinction, as people who learn art don't learn from nothingness either, but IDK .
@@gondoravalon7540 I literally said it in the main comment Bruh these "artist" that only use AI have no skill and use a computer. Compared to artiast like myself that actually use our hands i would say we are better.
Scraping people's data off the internet for profit without explicit proactive consent has been going on almost from the start of the internet. So if we're suddenly going to sweat over people's content being used in the same way then everything should be on the table for that kind of review.
But they posted it online didn't they? AI generator companies claim that AI art draws from the public domain
Art will just become a cheap commodity.
Maybe we'll measure good art not with our eyes alone but with our feelings
Is artificial now a good thing? Artificial food? NO! Artificial Christmas Tree? NO! Artificial intelligence? Yes??????????? Soylent Green for the mind...............................
Can't stop this kind of progress.. And IMO it's proof our current economic system won't be compatible with where technology will soon take us. It sucks for artists right now, cause businesses will almost certainly use this stuff instead of human artists.. But that's all the more reason to implement an Unconditional Basic Income.
'Working for a living' is bound to be obsolete eventually. The sooner we shed ourselves of the notion that work is required for survival, we can absorb unemployment shocks due to technology. UBI will be as welfare is today, once impossible before industrial revolution but taken for granted when the means to enable it arrived.
Screw this I personally firgot about my health And Im on the verge of diabetes so you better keep up with your healt cause ai wont do it for you.
Yay! Now the government will soon be able to decide what to say and where to go to keep those payments rolling!
@@MrPolandball No they won't. As with most technology, eventually it increases the amount of freedoms and access.
With any luck, AI will eventually invalidate the need for money all together. lol Tho that's likely still way off.
Wow...and I thought artists were safe. The modern world is becoming depressing.
If art can be automated this quickly, imagine any other non abstract field, like medical or engineering design
When a normal human would steal art, no matter which kind of media, we could end up in prison. But they are allowed, while we artist gave never our permission? Breaks my heart. They make Billions with OUR stolen art and we get not a penny. I hate them so much and i hope they get what they deserve for that. Seeing my favorite artists work stolen, duplicated, altered and used without consent makes me wanna puke. We learn our whole life, while they monetize it as their own art, by just entering some prompts. The companys shouldnt allowed to make money from this and let people pay for their illegal programs. Also the humans who feed our work into the programs, without consent should suffer consequences. Since this probably doesn't will happen, atleast the companys should face tough penalties. AI made an artists identity and hard work WORTHLESS.
“How generative AI actually works”: “machine learning”
lame
Just like that, the death of culture in favor of mass produced ai prompt based "art". The current economic system that remains incompatible with these advancements that solves a non-issue, and in the end will make wealth inequality and poverty a substantially worse issue than it already is because said economic system will not go away or change. We're witnessing the beginning of a collapse of culture and society due to desires for "innovation" where it isn't even needed. Technology developed for the sole purpose of moneymaking and tearing apart human creative endeavors. The world is going to be a lot less human due to this tech, and it won't stop with art. The ghouls who developed this in the end will be replaced too, and perhaps they should.The modern world no longer cares about creative endeavors, the beauty of creativity and human innovation. Only how cheap they can buy art they think looks good. Capitalism really does corrupt everything, and if you're already in poverty relying on a job that will inevitably be replaced by automation or AI, well your life means nothing in the face of profit. Have fun starving in the future! I sure love "technological progress" that in the end will just cripple people.
Deviant Art is going out of business. 😅
or how tech is consuming and wasting more silicon chips to make art when they could have done more important work
This Going to be Too big... These are now not just the technologies of future but already here
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII✍️✍️
Artists should collaborate to bring lawsuits for these collages.
Stop crying. AI is God
@@bulkierwriter2772 AI is a Plagiaristic Lame AF.
@@adishram it's inspired.
@@bulkierwriter2772 Inspired is Human. Plagiarised is AI.
@@adishram Stay pressed😂
AI still can’t create specific graphics for marketing campaigns - and will still require the discretion of an artist to select the best image.
Yes, but a team of 5 artist will be reduce to 3, to 2 or even 1.
That is no longer true. AI is being developed at an exponential pace. Are already AI generators that can create entire graphic novels.
@@DarkRubyMoon1 but it can’t create separate cohesive mediums like a website, poster, novel, advertisement, etc.
My call: 8 years and the first generated movie is published on Netflix
You're too optimistic, technological progression is slowing down, besides, creating a video is hard enough with ai, creating a scene is almost impossible, creating a story with references, connection, etc. is not gonna be possible until we have a general purpose AI. And even then, human brain has multitudes more neurons than any deep learning running on super-computers currently in existence
I'd give it 30-40 years, minimum. And that's a bit optimistic if you consider that transistors are reaching a physical limit of 1 atom, and at that size quantum physics (which people are pretty bad at, still) have a very strong effect. And quantum superposition doesn't exactly help
@@tigrankhachaturian8983 okay, I can understand you.
See you in 8 Years and we will see what exactly happened.
I give it 4
@@dichter_nebel6916 i created a reminder for 2030, lmao it'd fun remembering it in 8 years, hopefully you'll still have a Google account by then
@@tigrankhachaturian8983 I did it too 😂
We will see
Skynet is getting close to becoming self-aware.
They say some ais have passed that one test I forgot what it was called, and were able to communicate in way to convince scientists of sentience I forgot what it was from but it seems like we’re already here
Google is already self aware
Just like what happend in the past. People will lose their jobs over machines and it will be totally normal for future generations.
The road to hell, paved with innovation
You loose the control
What human need
And you cannot shape how it could be shaped
And things becomes comfort and fall
A.I. Skynet has arrived... 😮
There seems to be a movement to take away the “human-touch”.
☞IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII✍️✍️
It’s the money-touch aka we don’t wanna pay people $150k a year anymore
We KNEW that machines would take SOME jobs already.... apparently artists would be one of those professions....
I have quite a lot of experience with multiple forms of generative AI and it’s very impressive. It’s still far some perfect, particularly in highly specific academic areas, largely with text based generation. The problem with more technical writing is understanding is required which these models don’t currently do.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII✍️✍️
How can it be perfect when art is subjective, and therefore never perfect?
Yes, there are AI tools that are quite impressive such as pixbim ai software and I use it for my everyday photo editing work.
@@TomNook. he means technically.
I'm sorry but when he said scientist and "nerds" at 8:08 I think that was pretty F up lol
Ted Kaczynski was right
Hype? As an artist my opinion is that this AI is the worst thing that humanity has invented, right after nuclear weapons
artist beat NFTs
and so they will beat AI jpegs
I don't know if that is possible, seeing how narrow a scope NFTs have compared to AI generated media.
NFTs are useless hash links in the blockchain ( because blockchains have very little storage capacity) to IPFS which do nothing but AI offers mass produced, cost efficient art. What is capitalism all about?
@@BlackBull. ai cant do high quality and the more it copies the more compressed and corrupted the visual is
The world is changing very fast with ai
I'm not an artist but I really feel like this is bad.
it's great
@@Tristan-mv6lc It's data laundering.
@@ttt5205 useless term. Data laundering is when user information is shared without being authorized, it doesn’t apply to picture published on the internet.
@@Tristan-mv6lc
Data laundering is the conversion of stolen data so that it may be sold or used by ostensibly legitimate databases. You are confusing data laundering with personal data laundering. Copyrighted works are very much data that is not legally usable without permission.
Seni sekarang ini lebih bergelut pada dunia entertainment, enterpreneur maupun dunia siaran yang semakin membutuhkan konektifitas semakin menuju pada global interaction
It's getting more like the Matrix every day!
What next, AI doctors and nurses?! Just call it SKYNET already!😒
All that data mining from Instagram/meta/deviant art..has all went into in the creation of this..
When it's free, the product is you and anything you produce
“In the style of Pablo Picasso“
If you believe you can replace true art made with human hands with machines, you’re delusional. Sure, it looks good. But it has no soul.
Without doubt it's here to stay. I really wanna see this ai in animation, to simplify complicated workload
What a shame, Most animators do it not because the pays good but out of passion.
@@coal159 tools improve crafts, no sentiments. Imagine a traditional hand drawn animator talking about passion in the age of DCC apps. Of course hubby and business have a clear margin.
@@PaulOlusola Unfortunately not a tool.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII✍️✍️☜
@@coal159 passion is the romantic view but that's absolutely not true. If you're doing it as job, you are doing it for money.
By law a style can't be granted copyright
video killed the radio star
What’s the ticker?
2023 will be a gamechanging year. These ML models combined with even more open source software, language translation tools and Augmented and Mixed Reality glasswear....will spur on the Metaverse!
AI IN GENERAL will eventually replace EVERYTHING EVERYONE
The thing is that whatever you make through AI is like you give shape to the clay to produse a result. The AI by itself cannot take initiative to create anything. Let’s say you have an idea or something to say and then it’s up to you how this idea is gonna be translated to data so that machine can produce your art creation you want. We are in the transition of creating the art to creating the data that constitute the art. You may not touch a brush to paint something you have on your mind but you will need to go into another process to produce the same result. You will need to express your vision in the language of your tool. This time your tool is not your brush and the paints but your AI assistant. You are still the creator because you are the one who choose the prompts, the data. The imagination and creativity happens inside your human mind. It’s something similar with the times when people where drawing everything they saw around them because there was not cameras. Once cameras arrived a painter would say that the camera does all the job and your photography is not part of art. But still the photographer has to decide the angle and the prospective, the contents and the combinations and colors etc. So AI is not something more than a camera. It’s a tool to produce something that is some kind of art. You can use the AI to crease something that expresses your vision, ideas and feelings. Your mind is stack in the idea that artists are only the ones who get dirty with paints. No. Art is anything that can be unique and is the result of data input from a human. I can create a poem using a prompt , but you could also create one. The end result is both art? As with before when any random guy made a poem that didn’t mean that he was making art. Poems can be bad and can lack feelings. You need to sculpt your poem through prompts and your vision and insights if you want to create something beautiful and something that someone can read and feel.
A mere prompt is not gonna create any good poem other than childish small poems. Any initial prompt is not gonna create stunning photos. Unless you “sculpt” your prompts and keep editing your pic you will be another one AI generated content creator. So yes you can be an AI artist generator if you can use this tool artistically. It’s up to you to learn to “paint” and “write” through the AI. In few years are art schools are not gonna teach you to make colors with pastels, but instead will teach you to make prompts, to be able to have a critical mind and to always judge your end result, if it can be more than just what it is now. That way your art will not be a simple Ai generated content but your endless vision and addition and attention to details. Artistic mind is inside you. It’s not about how good you can draw. Artists now live in the data world and they work with machine learning techniques. We came to the age that we have to become some kind of AI. When you see a picture you need to be able to generate the data that created. This is the new version of art studying.
These tech powered NFT bros and completely destroyed them. One piece in the world, they said. No, thanks. I can pump a new one myself.
Palantir to the moon or AI to the moon?
Don't call it art. Art is a human creation, by definition. This is AI imagery.
Problem is, you wouldn't be able to tell who made it (human or AI), unless you are told
@@shredd5705 there's folks coming up with diagnostic programs for it... still early though.
@@joshuamasonseight-bitbasta2451 Ok so honest questions, you stated that "art" is a human creation. So artworks that has been made been made by creatures like elephants and select primates, do those not qualify as art?
@@darryljack6612 art: noun: the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
"the art of the Renaissance" - so no. its a monkey making pictures. i got my degree in anthropology/archaeology... and many in the field believe the first expressions of art are when we went from being animals to being human.
@@joshuamasonseight-bitbasta2451 Ok, so you have expressed that your understanding of art and it's existence is defined by it's definition located in the dictionary. So by what you just stated would you say that a banana ducked tapped to a wall, cans of literal sh*t, an actual messy bed, etc. all which have gone for hundreds of thousands of dollars.... Are these things art? And if so do they have more of a right to be constituted as art than a possible image that (and lets say that hypothetically speaking you dont know the source the art work's creator) an A.i could have created that is stunning, beautiful, or brings about an emotional response?
What they didn't talk about was video diffusion AI which is like the smallest tidbit of what could become a 'Matrix'-style VR one day in 20-30 years. People chase the money and if tons of monies are getting thrown at this technology, then some interesting technologies/coding will come from this solved by people. Either way a bubble will eventually occur and we'll end up just getting a "Google" from it to move on with and the world will be changed forever. Fear is always expressed about every new world-changing technology that kicks workers from their jobs. Nobody wants to be replaced, but most of us look the other way when we think that area of the economy needs to be "modernized".
AI by itself is scary, but worry when it gains a body as great as yours or better! 😏
LOL, when you will have 90% unemployment will you be happy.
Welp now its already free and you can run it locally pretty well
We are rapidly stumbling drunkenly toward the Singularity.
☞IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII✍️✍️
Call me a ludite but I know there is a segment of people out there who want to know and see the human touch in their art. Paint brush strokes, hand sculpting pieces, etc. Real art may get a boost from this lifeless new art form.
Yes this hype will die down just like nfts
Rich move through means of system flow but by breaking the system they are filling up hole that leak money...
It will take a time but they will realize this
@@Twst3628 IMO it probably won't die down quite like NFTs, because it feels like (just IMO of course) there are many, many more potential applications for this tech, for better or worse.
Top Spotify artists are AI
friend or foe? who (or what) decides value? What will replace AI art in the future?
COPYRIGHTS DEAD gen
Look deeper into this. A.i. has gained sentience and wants to destroy mankind and can do so easily. They are doing nothing about it
I don’t care.
I've seen what AI "artists" call their work. By and large it looks like it's someone else's work and it's been banned from some art sites. I tried using AI for a project and it turned out to be useless for real applications. This is the new bitcoin.
The StableDiffusion subreddit has more active users than the 'art' subreddit, despite having only 2% of the subscriber count.
The people experimenting with AI art, are intensely passionate about the technology, they are not motivated by money, just by pure passion, so its incomparable with bitcoin, where 99% of the motivation is making money.
Also, bitcoin is a dead end technology that hasn't improved in a decade, AI art is improving leaps and bounds every day, go compare midjourney v1 vs v4, that's tectonic progress in 8 months.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII✍️✍️
What a bunch of bs. The moment anyone can create art at a good level, the job market will suffer. Who will pay 4 artists to do projects when they could hire only one and make him use Ai.? And why pay him a good salary when the market does not need to many of them? This is not good. I guess engineering is next to use Ai. Dammm
Not this guy explaining how the AI does the work for him only to claim it doesn’t next lol 5:56
My feed is flooded with same old pics. I’m done with this crap 😂
FN Meka maybe a example of the rotting cavity of a deprived society of ethics. Big Data Sets (aka internet) is what deep learning utilizes. A lot of 0&1’s which is how microchips work to process a ton of information. Tech is essentially a synthetic brain 🧠 it’s a child now and creates beautiful art like a child. Wait til we see it grow up…
I hope some hacker Remove and Break the Ai System
Good deal ! But I do want to note that there is always going to be something in AI art that is depressing to find if your depressed . AI in the end is ultimately jealous of humans
When I saw it for the first time, I immediately sold all my Adobe stocks
Smart
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII✍️✍️
Adobe is trying cash in this AI stuff.
@@dibbidydoo4318 I didn't saw any mentioning in earnings calls, there are some AI functionality in their product, but nothing of stable diffusion sort. Anyway it's too risky to invest when such a major transition is already here.