Greg makes great points. Ultimately I can't shake the feeling that our time is over, and it's crushing. I feel like this is a perfect solution for powerful companies to take away the last of our agency.
Oh boy. Can't wait to hear this. AI art is a stick in our side for sure. After listening It's all ethics for me. I don't like AI personally; feels empty to me. But, I'm not going to lose my mind over it. I don't see it as this end all thing either direction. Mainly, I care about copyright protections for original work that aren't being exploited. Credit and compensate artists for their contribution, period. Especially if you are an artist who uses AI, copyright is important. The states just ruled AI art cannot be copyrighted. So even a company using AI can't copyright that art; doesn't sound worth the trouble for big corp to fire everyone and move on. It's such a wild west right now, and the regulations need to sort it out. Ultimately I just don't feel like AI art really holds weight for some people. I don't particularly think it's all that impressive. I like the HOW, I enjoy the process. I like watching RUclips vids of artist making work. The output is great but I love the input...in a way I guess the input is the output for me lol. There will be people who like one or the other or both. I also see it that most people do actually know the difference. It seems pretty standard that AI artists who are claiming they are the same or better than traditional/digital artists are not well received. But those who are just honestly using the software and saying they are, seem harmless. Forums and some sites are banning it altogether due to misuse and exploitation of artist, which I think is fair; if you can't use it right, that's what happens but it doesn ruin it for those who want to use it correctly. Not everyone who uses it wants to exploit the system or even sell it for money. I do wonder after the copyright is sorted, what the industry will do with this. But maybe it could just end up like CGI. We can still make movies, shows, and work like we always have. AI is optional and will be; it can't be forced. The art industry is too big to just be erased like this. We also have to realize marketing is big; they are good at marketing; Which sells stuff usually way bigger than it really is. It's likely a lot of people will get bored when the novelty wares off. At the end of the day it's just an image generator...it's not the same thing and people will feel that as they use it and the hype dies down. I think most people will agree it's not the same and when people in their real lives don't care or say it's not "real," they eventually will filter out also. True artist see the potential here, that's why their scared. But art without purpose is just a picture. If you go in and edit and change and add and all that, that's cool, you're still doing something. either way, once ethics are sorted, we can coexist. I choose copium over devastation lol.
Yeah, agreed on the “feeling empty” thing. Not sure all people would agree, some poeple jsut don't like/care about art, but knowing that’s just statistics and probability driving the image generator makes everything kinda pointless. Why stop and look at the details when you know it’s just because the law of total probability said so? A legit question after seeing some artists say they might use it to photobash or fill in backgrounds…But they never photobashed before in their work, so why start doing it now? Anyway, here’s hoping it doesn’t become mainstream…the internet shamed NFTs out of the mainstream market, AI might face the same fate.
@@mihaisandu4102Your brain is also a probability machine trained on prior experiences. Don't think that the human mind is inherently special or artistically superior just because it is made of different material than a computer.
@@Kyleology I find that quite untrue, there are plenty of articles and research about it, psychologist Robert Epstein from Institite of behavioral Research in Cali made a nice article, sometime ago. Our brains are not computers, doing data distribution and using nonequilibrium thermodanyamics to process. Our brain is not a probability machine nor does is store information, process it or learns like the algorithms. Albeit there are plenty of things we don’t fully known about our own minds, but runing with the assumption it is a complex network of on and off switches and comparing it to machine learning is quite inaccurate. This entire sentiment of "AI is just like us" feels more like an animal you put in front of a mirror and without realizing they’re looking only at a reflection. It gives the impression that it is like us since it’s trained on us, similar to that Goggle engineer that claimed the AI was sentient, yeah it seemed like it, but was it really?
@@Kyleology agreed, still people haven't looked much into the AI subject would think AI collage or bash photos, it learned how to properly render any thing in any style on internet.
55:25 - agree 100%. the end game is targeted, generative "entertainment", it'll be used to subliminally (or not so subliminally) used to advertise bullshit products/services.
You can't really compare photobashing to Ai generated images (I want call It, "AI art"). In photo bashing, we strictly adhere to never plagiarise and even If we do use an image, its from a source that has wilfully been placed for public "use" (note, Im not confusing "Use" with "Viewing") or we use very low grade images just for a starting point and the end result turns out with barely anything noticeable from the initial images used in the process....Otherwise we just give credit. AI on the other hand can use images from artist's portfolios that have not been put up for public use but rather for public viewing. There's a difference. The other main thing is that even if artists use visuals of others for inspiration, its only sometimes for in-house purposes and practice, NOT for the public display like most AI users do.
If you feel it like this, imagine how you could feel if you where an unknown artist who strugle with his Art since 30 years, and which could eventualy think his work is pointless now...
This comment is old so idk how you feel now given what's happening with WAG/SAG-AFTRA and the stable diffusion litigation... but I just want to say don't lose hope and we do have a voice in this. We are fighting this and talking to legislators... There are many people who do see our side and the way the writers strikes have brought this to the forefront shines an even bigger light on what these companies are really doing and the amount of data theft they're participating in. Remember, politicians have a vested interest in not allowing technology that can fake their likeness and voices proliferate either. Ignore the troll comment, obviously just another AI simp.
40:50 China, Mongolia, India, Russia, Australia, US and many other places all have vast amounts of fertile plains, forests and uninhabited land. There’s more than enough land for everyone to have a large plot of land to farm and build on with a whole lot of nature to spare ..it wouldn’t even be a drop the bucket the impact we’d make. The problem is everyone is packed into cities so it looks ‘overpopulated’ when really it’s not. Urban planning isn’t planed or utilised properly ..only for max profit and short term solutions with buildings packed closely together and a vast majority of people don’t grow their own food. Like he was saying.. these people need go fly over the country or go on a road trip to truely see how small civilisation still is. Even 90% of the ocean is still undiscovered..so how about we stop looking into space and actually just reallocate those trillions to fixing the problems on earth. Problems like the fact a few corporations produce all the plastic and then blame consumers for consuming the stuff the corporations made to save money and make max profit or the fact that governments and militaries use and waste most of the resources and are the main culprits for polluting everything and mismanaging resources. Ai is just going push people even more further away from the land having them dependent on corporations that do not have humanity’s best interests. And is half the tech really that useful anyway when the lights go out?
These training models need to be destroyed and remade with ethics in mind. The double standard with music training models being made to adhere to proper training routines is a glaring example of why this is so wrong. This is the biggest art heist that has ever been perpetrated against humanity -and lawyers WILL catch up to this. Dont buy that genie out of the box garbage Its not about being anti AI its about not putting up with AI being weaponized against people
Greg makes a point around 53 minutes in, basically that there is no talent involved in using stable diffusion. When people have issue with AI, it's with prompting. Nevermind, I had typed two paragraphs, but realized I was sharing the secret sauce. DELETE. Revenge of the nerds baby. Revenge of the nerds.
We have to define ART first, once again. When there is no struggle between artist and art piece creating proccess, there is no art. Picking collaged images from AI generator is no art.
Anything can be art. A turd in a toilet bowl can be art if you sincerely present it as art. The problem isn't whether it's art rather whether it is exploitative and detrimental to artists.
@@choptop81 US Copyright Office published intersting guidance about the topic. It kind of says that AI generated images has no ownership cause they are not a product of a human. So, for me, something that it's not made by human can't be art.
Artists study a visual language and what they express with it is art. Art we are talking about is visual expression and always has been. Thats why AI will never be art, you could use AI generated images to express yourself or composit them in an artistical way. The images themselves are not art.
@@choptop81 yes a banana taped on a wall can be art but only because the "artist" is expressing something. That artist won't be seen as skilled, he obviously didn't sculpt the banana and the banana itself is not a piece of art. Same goes for AI, you could use AI generated images in an artistical way but the images are not art as they are not a product of human creativity. AI assisted artworks will always be seen as less for the same reason banana taped on a wall is ridiculed. Effort and skill is valued in the art world. The problem is most people have no clue what art is and why it's valuable. And I agree with you, as a huge number of people don't understand the role or value of art many will try to exploit AI and use it as a substitute for art. In my opinion AI should have never been trained on art in the first place, it's an insult to human expression and conflicts with its purpose. They could have promoted it as a tool for visualization but instead were blinded by the potential profit and stomped on artists lifes work without an ounce of respect.
Ok dont talk bad about Potop as its of the best pice of polish film history ;) Wolodyjowski all the way ! Kieslowski can hide himself. The only movies that can be compared are Jak rozpętałem druga wojnę światowa, Sexmisja and Trojkat Bermudzki ;) cheers guys. Great job.
Honestly I don't see a world where AI art stops. They have transformative rights to create artwork that uses references from thousands of artists, just in the same way that any artist can use other artists as stylistic or tonal inspiration insofar as their artwork is transformative and not a straight up copy. It's unfortunate and I, as a freelance concept artist, am scared, but I think we need to come to grips with the fact that AI art's domination is inevitable.
AI programs are not people and won't be seen as their equivalents in court. I don't see a world where AI art stops but the PR is firmly on our (artists') side right now when it comes to compensation and consent. Also these tools will probably get more and more expensive to use especially if licensing becomes a requirement.
I honestly think you're wrong, and I am also a freelance concept artist. Perhaps, you need to make sure your art stands out in a way that is not replicable. Unfortunately, a lot of concept art looks the same because all the artists use the same tools and techniques and even have the same aesthetic values, for some reason. the only way to survive the advent of AI is to make art that is true to yourself, and afterall that's also what attracts clients sustainably. It's actually ridiculous how boring most art on the internet is. If I go on Arstation right now, I could point to maybe 1 or 2 images that are actually interesting. They are interesting only because they have soul, I can see a personality, that has nothing to do with technique but is just a little switch in your attitude, when suddenly you are free to express yourself. Many Concept artists/designers have a problem with the idea of expression because they think they are designing something altruistically i.e for "others", and expression is a selfish act. In reality if you look at all of the best designers in history, from all cultures, what made them stand out was not just their technique but their commitment to expressing what is inside of them.
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
Greg makes great points. Ultimately I can't shake the feeling that our time is over, and it's crushing. I feel like this is a perfect solution for powerful companies to take away the last of our agency.
These are the times that spark violent and bloody revolts.
1:23:33 great point. In the blink of an eye, prompt "knowledge" will be as irrelevant a "skill" as knowing how to repair a Model T Ford.
Like furry comissions
This comment aged well.
36:45 talkning about money not being physical reminded me of Amazons new pay with your hand print.
awesome thank you
Oh boy. Can't wait to hear this. AI art is a stick in our side for sure.
After listening
It's all ethics for me. I don't like AI personally; feels empty to me. But, I'm not going to lose my mind over it. I don't see it as this end all thing either direction. Mainly, I care about copyright protections for original work that aren't being exploited. Credit and compensate artists for their contribution, period. Especially if you are an artist who uses AI, copyright is important. The states just ruled AI art cannot be copyrighted. So even a company using AI can't copyright that art; doesn't sound worth the trouble for big corp to fire everyone and move on. It's such a wild west right now, and the regulations need to sort it out.
Ultimately I just don't feel like AI art really holds weight for some people. I don't particularly think it's all that impressive. I like the HOW, I enjoy the process. I like watching RUclips vids of artist making work. The output is great but I love the input...in a way I guess the input is the output for me lol. There will be people who like one or the other or both. I also see it that most people do actually know the difference. It seems pretty standard that AI artists who are claiming they are the same or better than traditional/digital artists are not well received. But those who are just honestly using the software and saying they are, seem harmless. Forums and some sites are banning it altogether due to misuse and exploitation of artist, which I think is fair; if you can't use it right, that's what happens but it doesn ruin it for those who want to use it correctly. Not everyone who uses it wants to exploit the system or even sell it for money.
I do wonder after the copyright is sorted, what the industry will do with this. But maybe it could just end up like CGI. We can still make movies, shows, and work like we always have. AI is optional and will be; it can't be forced. The art industry is too big to just be erased like this.
We also have to realize marketing is big; they are good at marketing; Which sells stuff usually way bigger than it really is. It's likely a lot of people will get bored when the novelty wares off. At the end of the day it's just an image generator...it's not the same thing and people will feel that as they use it and the hype dies down. I think most people will agree it's not the same and when people in their real lives don't care or say it's not "real," they eventually will filter out also. True artist see the potential here, that's why their scared. But art without purpose is just a picture. If you go in and edit and change and add and all that, that's cool, you're still doing something.
either way, once ethics are sorted, we can coexist. I choose copium over devastation lol.
Yeah, agreed on the “feeling empty” thing. Not sure all people would agree, some poeple jsut don't like/care about art, but knowing that’s just statistics and probability driving the image generator makes everything kinda pointless. Why stop and look at the details when you know it’s just because the law of total probability said so?
A legit question after seeing some artists say they might use it to photobash or fill in backgrounds…But they never photobashed before in their work, so why start doing it now?
Anyway, here’s hoping it doesn’t become mainstream…the internet shamed NFTs out of the mainstream market, AI might face the same fate.
@@mihaisandu4102Your brain is also a probability machine trained on prior experiences. Don't think that the human mind is inherently special or artistically superior just because it is made of different material than a computer.
@@Kyleology I find that quite untrue, there are plenty of articles and research about it, psychologist Robert Epstein from Institite of behavioral Research in Cali made a nice article, sometime ago. Our brains are not computers, doing data distribution and using nonequilibrium thermodanyamics to process. Our brain is not a probability machine nor does is store information, process it or learns like the algorithms. Albeit there are plenty of things we don’t fully known about our own minds, but runing with the assumption it is a complex network of on and off switches and comparing it to machine learning is quite inaccurate. This entire sentiment of "AI is just like us" feels more like an animal you put in front of a mirror and without realizing they’re looking only at a reflection. It gives the impression that it is like us since it’s trained on us, similar to that Goggle engineer that claimed the AI was sentient, yeah it seemed like it, but was it really?
@@bronlebron1327 The human mind is not magic just because you don't understand how it works.
@@Kyleology agreed, still people haven't looked much into the AI subject would think AI collage or bash photos, it learned how to properly render any thing in any style on internet.
55:25 - agree 100%. the end game is targeted, generative "entertainment", it'll be used to subliminally (or not so subliminally) used to advertise bullshit products/services.
You can't really compare photobashing to Ai generated images (I want call It, "AI art"). In photo bashing, we strictly adhere to never plagiarise and even If we do use an image, its from a source that has wilfully been placed for public "use" (note, Im not confusing "Use" with "Viewing") or we use very low grade images just for a starting point and the end result turns out with barely anything noticeable from the initial images used in the process....Otherwise we just give credit.
AI on the other hand can use images from artist's portfolios that have not been put up for public use but rather for public viewing. There's a difference. The other main thing is that even if artists use visuals of others for inspiration, its only sometimes for in-house purposes and practice, NOT for the public display like most AI users do.
If you feel it like this, imagine how you could feel if you where an unknown artist who strugle with his Art since 30 years, and which could eventualy think his work is pointless now...
I've been extremely anxious. Just getting out of college and illustration is the only skill I have.
Lol.
This comment is old so idk how you feel now given what's happening with WAG/SAG-AFTRA and the stable diffusion litigation... but I just want to say don't lose hope and we do have a voice in this. We are fighting this and talking to legislators... There are many people who do see our side and the way the writers strikes have brought this to the forefront shines an even bigger light on what these companies are really doing and the amount of data theft they're participating in. Remember, politicians have a vested interest in not allowing technology that can fake their likeness and voices proliferate either.
Ignore the troll comment, obviously just another AI simp.
40:50 China, Mongolia, India, Russia, Australia, US and many other places all have vast amounts of fertile plains, forests and uninhabited land. There’s more than enough land for everyone to have a large plot of land to farm and build on with a whole lot of nature to spare ..it wouldn’t even be a drop the bucket the impact we’d make. The problem is everyone is packed into cities so it looks ‘overpopulated’ when really it’s not. Urban planning isn’t planed or utilised properly ..only for max profit and short term solutions with buildings packed closely together and a vast majority of people don’t grow their own food.
Like he was saying.. these people need go fly over the country or go on a road trip to truely see how small civilisation still is. Even 90% of the ocean is still undiscovered..so how about we stop looking into space and actually just reallocate those trillions to fixing the problems on earth. Problems like the fact a few corporations produce all the plastic and then blame consumers for consuming the stuff the corporations made to save money and make max profit or the fact that governments and militaries use and waste most of the resources and are the main culprits for polluting everything and mismanaging resources.
Ai is just going push people even more further away from the land having them dependent on corporations that do not have humanity’s best interests.
And is half the tech really that useful anyway when the lights go out?
People are already using Chat GPT to generate prompts too. Funny as fuck!
Greg 'like, you know' Rutkowski. Anyway, his art is amazing!
Larry Shinner - the Invention of Art
These training models need to be destroyed and remade with ethics in mind. The double standard with music training models being made to adhere to proper training routines is a glaring example of why this is so wrong. This is the biggest art heist that has ever been perpetrated against humanity -and lawyers WILL catch up to this. Dont buy that genie out of the box garbage
Its not about being anti AI its about not putting up with AI being weaponized against people
Greg makes a point around 53 minutes in, basically that there is no talent involved in using stable diffusion. When people have issue with AI, it's with prompting. Nevermind, I had typed two paragraphs, but realized I was sharing the secret sauce. DELETE. Revenge of the nerds baby. Revenge of the nerds.
I think that very quickly ai models will get pricey like adobe products, so much so that only selective few will use it
less gooo
AI art is kitschy, I'm so tired of it.
We have to define ART first, once again. When there is no struggle between artist and art piece creating proccess, there is no art. Picking collaged images from AI generator is no art.
No digital art in that case. And yeed to make your own paint and canvas. No powertools in sculpting, too. Files and sandpaper also count.
Anything can be art. A turd in a toilet bowl can be art if you sincerely present it as art. The problem isn't whether it's art rather whether it is exploitative and detrimental to artists.
@@choptop81 US Copyright Office published intersting guidance about the topic. It kind of says that AI generated images has no ownership cause they are not a product of a human. So, for me, something that it's not made by human can't be art.
Artists study a visual language and what they express with it is art. Art we are talking about is visual expression and always has been. Thats why AI will never be art, you could use AI generated images to express yourself or composit them in an artistical way. The images themselves are not art.
@@choptop81 yes a banana taped on a wall can be art but only because the "artist" is expressing something. That artist won't be seen as skilled, he obviously didn't sculpt the banana and the banana itself is not a piece of art. Same goes for AI, you could use AI generated images in an artistical way but the images are not art as they are not a product of human creativity. AI assisted artworks will always be seen as less for the same reason banana taped on a wall is ridiculed. Effort and skill is valued in the art world. The problem is most people have no clue what art is and why it's valuable.
And I agree with you, as a huge number of people don't understand the role or value of art many will try to exploit AI and use it as a substitute for art. In my opinion AI should have never been trained on art in the first place, it's an insult to human expression and conflicts with its purpose. They could have promoted it as a tool for visualization but instead were blinded by the potential profit and stomped on artists lifes work without an ounce of respect.
It a simple to say same person shaming artist mad work taken how they gonna react when one tik tok or instagram post means they free use for the world
13:40 Polarizing and toxic conversations....yep...that's the internet!
there's too many "youknow"s
AI is catering to industrialized art
A AI Maciej art army....that's scary!!!
Ok dont talk bad about Potop as its of the best pice of polish film history ;) Wolodyjowski all the way ! Kieslowski can hide himself. The only movies that can be compared are Jak rozpętałem druga wojnę światowa, Sexmisja and Trojkat Bermudzki ;) cheers guys. Great job.
Honestly I don't see a world where AI art stops. They have transformative rights to create artwork that uses references from thousands of artists, just in the same way that any artist can use other artists as stylistic or tonal inspiration insofar as their artwork is transformative and not a straight up copy. It's unfortunate and I, as a freelance concept artist, am scared, but I think we need to come to grips with the fact that AI art's domination is inevitable.
AI programs are not people and won't be seen as their equivalents in court. I don't see a world where AI art stops but the PR is firmly on our (artists') side right now when it comes to compensation and consent. Also these tools will probably get more and more expensive to use especially if licensing becomes a requirement.
so what do we do, roll over and die? We need to still find a way to move forward with our lives and careers
I honestly think you're wrong, and I am also a freelance concept artist. Perhaps, you need to make sure your art stands out in a way that is not replicable. Unfortunately, a lot of concept art looks the same because all the artists use the same tools and techniques and even have the same aesthetic values, for some reason. the only way to survive the advent of AI is to make art that is true to yourself, and afterall that's also what attracts clients sustainably. It's actually ridiculous how boring most art on the internet is. If I go on Arstation right now, I could point to maybe 1 or 2 images that are actually interesting. They are interesting only because they have soul, I can see a personality, that has nothing to do with technique but is just a little switch in your attitude, when suddenly you are free to express yourself. Many Concept artists/designers have a problem with the idea of expression because they think they are designing something altruistically i.e for "others", and expression is a selfish act. In reality if you look at all of the best designers in history, from all cultures, what made them stand out was not just their technique but their commitment to expressing what is inside of them.