11:38 Okay but Editor-San trying to draw the hand multiple times, and then giving up, taking a photo and trying to use that, and still not managing to get it right, is the most relatable thing in this entire video
As an artist I felt so bad for editor-san, he was struggling so hard with bulma's hand xD was such a weird angle to draw. Either way, great job, everyone, I prefered some of the coloring in the AI version( I mean, AI probably uses a lot of color theory because of the art it learns from), but the artists won this fight for sure.
While It’s scary how quickly AI Art is improving, I think Human Artist will still hold on for a *Long* time. Human Artist will always have the flexibility and Quality that AI lacks. But time will tell.
It's an amazing TOOL for artists, not their doom. It's like how digital art was frowned upon by traditional artists until it was widely adopted. I can't for the life of me draw traditional but I can do pretty well digitally.
Its weird how you guys think AI art isnt just an extension of our own art.. This isnt a competition, AI is simply a tool that creates art using our own art as reference. Its a beautiful symbiotic relationship we should continue to grow together with.. Not oppose and fight against for superiority.
@@xavierlehew6746 By literally stealing Art on mass without consent, these AI gernerated pictures are even able to exist. Most artist have not given, nor ever intend to give consent. AI Art is Art theft. So no, the artist community does NOT want this to continue, it does NOT want this to grow. It KNOWS it is a danger to artist and mass copyright infringement.
These are 100% my favorite videos on the channel, right next to the discussion vids. Seriously, I love all the fixing supers art, or 90’s redraw and everything else in those categories. I’m an aspiring artist and I love watching and taking in the techniques you guys show off and implementing something similar into my own works. Absolutely lovely things you do.
So I’m a 3D artist and I’ve see recent AI attempt to generate 3D models and it brought me to a realization. Ai art in its current state and direction is an enormous waste of potential. AI could be trained to do stuff like topology, rigging, UV’s stuff that no one really likes to do but AI is arguably better suited for. AI could be used to enhance the existing art process instead of trying and imo failing to replace artists. A fast color pass, quick shading, turning you rough sketches into passable line work, stuff that yeah you’d still have to tweak and go over by hand but would definitely speed up the process. That doesn’t even get into all my main issues with Ai art buuut I just really think the current state of Ai art is really disappointing, it doesn’t feel like genuine progress and it’s a waste of a cool technology while simultaneously being incredibly disrespectful to artists Edit: I just wanted to add something about good AI, there’s a tool that’s been developed recently that does a really good job coloring your animations, you just color the first frame and it does a pretty good job filling in the rest. Ai being used as an actual tool, training it off art it has permission to use and for specific tasks is a good thing and how I’d like to see this technology develop.
I've actually been saying this myself for a while now. AI is perfectly suited to help artists and animators with their current workload doing all the exhaustive background work.
See the thing is the people at the top of these ventures don't want to help artists. They want them replaced, because that way they can make WAY more money.
Are you and the people in this thread dumb? Like, legit dumb? Do you not realize we're working toward doing exactly that? "AI art is wasted potential! Instead of doing this one cool thing, it should be doing this other thing!" Like bro. Things can develop in a hundred paths at the same time. It's not mutually exclusive.
@@Klokinator Do you realise that currently these AIs are seeking to replace artists? And thus even if AIs that are solely there for making the tedious parts of art are made they won't really matter as artists will loose their livelihoods? Don't call people dumb if your argument isn't well thought out.
the title is very funny and hypocritical since both AI and Artist are drawing trademark and copyrighted material, they dont own. as well as any artist that does commission work i see all the time at comic con of artist selling fan drawings of Anime characters.
@@matthewjuarbe5826 Weak argument. Real artists don't need to use other images to create their own art. Also fanart is often just tolerated. AI art is copying other artists work and the producers claim it their own. It's so unethical. In what world do you want to live? Where Big Tech super rich companies can get more rich by taking everthing all the artists of the world have put everything into it for nothing in return? A world were art itself may stop being human and everything gets more homogenous and lower in quality?
@@gez1009 no producer is claiming anything that's just speculation. everywhere i see people are showing Art generated using AI. also, also AI is taking nothing. also Rich companies do not profit from AI because they cannot copyright or trademark AI work unless they modify a significant portion of it. the law states AI Work is like public domain you can sell it for commercial profit but you can't copyright it which means anyone can use the images you generated in AI and create something of it. companies won't just switch completely to AI due to they can't protect the IP AI most likely will be used for generic basic things like brick stones trees grass generic environments to speed up development process which has already been done for decades prior with companies selling packs on Adobe davinci or any 3d rendering tool. i understand what youre saying but realistically Companies wont rely on AI alone due to they cant really profit off of it due to they cant stop another person or company from using AI images. due to they cant trademark or copyright it
@@matthewjuarbe5826 Many AI art producers claim it their own. Some even try to impersonate other artist. It is so easy. Just a view clicks. No, the winner will be greedy man with ties and big tech in general. They get the money. Because as you said. Currently ai art can’t be copyrighted. But the users have to pay for the service. So there is so much money already made. They earn it by basically selling the intellectual property of the whole world through a loophole. I respect your opinion, but I don‘t think you see the full picture. AI art is crazy impressive and if we don‘t push it to an ethical human oriented technology, we will regret it in some years.
@@gez1009 so how do you know the odels were trained using Copyrighted P which is against the law by the way i have used Midjourney leonardo AI and none of the models trained used any Copyrighted work you can actually look at the model yourself. the AI isnting on the internet looking at google images they are going off of what was fed to them. now if youre rawining you own model using copyrighted IP then thats another issue but the popular user friendly ones like midjourney and leonardo ai arent usign copyrighted IPs i checked asnd you can easily check yourself. also AI work can easily be detected
it's because humanity has issues with hands in art, as a result, because it has more errors in drawing hands to model vs correct hands. The issue is going to come when we start feeding objects into the machine where it can then properly handle standard photos and adapt from there into another style taking into task shading/drawing styles while mimicking real objects... Scary bit? This has been around for 1 year. 1 Year and the AI art is this close... Seriously it will only get better, and rapidly so, to the point where it's going to be able to do what the gang here did... And that's not a great thing - it's why artists are trying to stop it.
every drawing was phenomenal. the last 7 were miles better than the AI, and the first drawing is the only one that is somewhat comparable to the AI. great work you guys
I honnestly like AI art as a base like you do in this video, it's fun to input a random idea and see a rough estimate of how it would look like and then correct it.
I was thinking that the whole video, after all, what kickstarted these artistic renditions were those same AI drawings, correcting the issues and poses and creating something new. It surprised me when mark stated it couldn't be used as valuable inspiration
@@joaquinflores2741 There is litteraly a store in NY that make wedding dress based on AI Art and they are all beautifull, would love to remember the name.
Due to a national geographic picture of a monkey that the monkey itself took, a lawsuit happened and it ended with the judge saying that in order for copyright to effect a thing, it must be made by a human. In other words, artists will be safe since there are always people who need the copyright to an art project. I mean, there's no way Disney is going to be fine with their Disney+ logo being public domain
That leaves out the small artists, which is the majority of artists. Those relying on commissions from people that would rather spend 10 bucks on Midjourney and get something passable than 50 on an artist and get something actually good. Also not every company is as big as Disney or as scrutinized as Disney. So lots of small to medium companies will get away with it. Which is happening rn, seen a few contractors loose their gigs because of AI. And since most artists don't have the funds to sue the companies that employed them, these companies will get away with it. Also some artists will gladly take work by editing AI art. That includes lots of people from third world countries which are okay with lower wages and lots of 3D artists and other forms of artists who think they are safe. Finally if/when Disney will think it's safe enough they will certainly lobby for AI art. They changed copyright laws before with the mickey mouse laws, what's one more law to change?
@@badreddinekasmi8919 in that case, I vote that any company that uses AI generated art should have their AI generated logos and art used for many unsavory things. I can't imagine any family friendly businesses would appreciate their "official logo" on adult websites. Nothing legally stops that. Or to use that logo for other businesses
@@Prime_Rabbit All we can hope for is regulation. Best case scenario would have been for this pandoras box to never be opened. But now is too late. So only regulation and adversary AIs will do.
TBF: you can generate until you get something that's fine, also always depends on the model being used. I've extensively played around with it, there's tools like inpainting that allow you to fix small mistakes the AI has made to get something just right(like say gripping something and it doesn't really grip/goes through/lacks the object). From my testing it still takes work, you might just be better off redrawing it yourself to fix it 😆
@@OrgusDin It's pretty funny really. I've seen so much anti-AI art content, it's mostly "hands" when in fact for me it's usually just 2 generations or some inpainting away.
@@papabones8753 The other massive 'artist' cope is that only text2img exists, not all of the myriad other tools that make them even more pathetic by comparison than they were when they were only comparing themselves with text2img. Holy shit I'm glad I'm not an 'artist' or else I would be absolutely required by some cosmic law to be a complete twat clown.
@@OrgusDin I could somewhat be called an artist...at least according to other people...I've put in my own art as well, works pretty well to improve it overall. I've personally been most impressed by the aforementioned inpainting, it's pretty much magic to what it feels like.
I saw recently that some judges passed some laws saying that any art form created from an AI WILL be fair use to anyone, and has no copyright, which helps a lot, but it’s still a big issue
It's based how you have no understanding of the legal system and also no understanding of AI at the same time, as well as no understanding of the reality of the situation and the fact open source has already cucked you completely. It's high level 'artist' cope and for that I applaud you, I never get tired of watching the bargaining stage of grief.
@@blightcaster4388 Are you even an 'artist'? If no one has bothered to specifically train a model on your 'art' then the answer is no, so don't get too butthurt about your loss when it wasn't much of one to begin with.
The devs of midjourney and stable diffusion straight up said that “art is a tool and should be automated.” When told that art is a fundemental part of the human experience they replied with “oh its just a thing that were gonna outgrow and evolve out of” Complete dismissal of the entire field and craft. You really think that they care about ethics? They are literal comic book villains given real world power. They have to be stopped
Honestly after drawing the same backgrounds and characters for an animation so many times, id wish there was an AI that could do it for me, no fun in redrawing stuff that Ive already drawn
Take away art and you just have soviet era concrete blocks with nothing interesting. Literally every piece of entertainment vanishes if you get rid of art.
People keep shoving ai art in my face and they're foreshadowing it over real art. It sucks, it sucks, because no matter how cool it looks, it's never going to be better than the original. Someone gave me a Sonic the Hedgehog ai art, he literally had 2 noses, and he had his finger connected to his mouth. Like...what?
To be fair that AI was probably bad, they do struggle with hands, but with the right settings you can (albeit not necessarily the first try) get a really good result
One guy here said it perfectly. AI is best used for the boring effects, coloring, linework etc. The actual Artists draw the art and AI does the supplementary coloring, effects etc.
I used A.I. art to generate "game show contestants" for a powerpoint gameshow I made for fun. It worked okay however, I still had to take the A.I. images and adjust them to look a bit better. It took me about 30 min to correct the images and about another 30 min to find acceptable A.I. So, an hour of work vs my no drawing skill which would have taken me days was interesting to do.
I would imagine that the worry of stealing someone's art is only "okay" as it hasn't been tested. If disney found out your AI generated image has their stuff in it, they'd likely sue
They dont care as long as you arent hurting their bottom line or make too much money on it. If it just brings some views to your website or twitter, most corporations could literally give a shit lol. Its highly unethical though.
Год назад+11
@@djentmas867 did they not sue a family for a child's gravestone having Mickey on it?
@Pokémaniac Guquiz if true, I think that's silly but they likely sued as they didn't want Mickey associated with a gravestone when Googled. If it never got buzz, likely never would have been an issue. But yea... weird thing to do. Clearly your company touched that family in a special way. Embrace that
As an indie game dev, AI art is a massive help for concept art. I'm able to see a rough version of what my idea might look like and it helps me get even more ideas for the actual finished product.
I've talked to a lot of indie devs and one thing they've told me is that they wouldn't use ai art in final production as there's no legal precedent and ai art isn't really anywhere close to working back and fourth with a human artist, what's your take on it?
@@samuelkibunda6960 I 100% agree. AI art should never be used in the final product because it could not only put you in legal trouble, but it could make your game feel soulless, since AI simply does not have the nuance and specifics that a real person has. However, it is a great tool to use in the pre-production stage of a game, and only then.
i could see the ai art being uses as a way to start drawing your own art... like you could legit feed some ai a photo prompt it to make a character then redraw it to create an original character
Interesting to note that I think that AI Bulma that Editor-San corrected looks like 18 more than she does Bulma. Editor-San did a great job turning it into a recognizable character
I think this video really demonstrates a great use case for AI generated art. I've never been on either end of this interaction, but I would imagine for commissioned art, it may be easier for the customer to convey the image they want to create by using AI art, and a trained artist can use that as the jumping off point for an image that isn't lousy with all the errors a generated picture makes.
100%, I've already done this as a commissioner. I got about 5 or so roughly on model pictures from an AI then sent them off do an artist to finalize the design from. It worked perfectly.
I think people wouldn’t have such an adverse reaction to AI art if the AI enthusiasts online didn’t put someone’s finished product into the machine and then posted the new AI version under the original.
It's easier for the commissioner to make his own art and let the 'artist' get a real job if he has any talents besides being slower and less creative than a piece of extremely dumb technology that is still only a primitive shadow of what is to come. Crying online seems to be the #2 skill 'artists' have, try that.
@@OrgusDin I think there's more nuance to the arguments that is being missed in your comment there. Not to mention that implying commissioned artists don't have a "real job" is a very poor choice of words.
I will say that something that AI art is good for, like you mentioned, is brainstorming ideas for new drawings or even stuff like character designs. It could also be used for producing stuff like book or album covers if you feel so inclined (though you lose a lot of distinct identity doing that since AI art has little to no soul behind it). My issues aside from the replacement of artists in certain industries like animation or what have you is that its also easy to pass off a lot of this art as real, not to mention you can feed an AI drawing an incomplete work and have it churn out something half decent out of that stolen piece of art. And its not like you can just put the prompt tags in the metadata because sites like Twitter remove the metadata from images for privacy reasons. And even if artists made a more concentrated effort of producing images of the WIP drawing and uploading those to Twitter, Newgrounds, Instagram, what have you to combat AI artists and show proof of authenticity, not only does that give AI artists more material to feed their software, but its not entirely impossible in the future for AI art software to come out that's capable of doing the same thing (because you can do about damn near anything with technology over a long enough span of time). Simply put: I don't know if this technology should be legal.
The advancement in technology like this is not inherently bad, and has the potential to be a ground breaking tool for even the people it's supposed to """replace.""" The really issue is that, like any tool, it can and *will* be abused by people who have the intention to do so. While I'm just having fun using prompts and seeing what comes out all this hubbub is necessary as to open up conversations about this technology as it goes forward.
One big problem in this whole AI art issue is clients who really couldn't care less how good or specific the art is, just so long as it attracts your attention. Just look at the San Francisco ballet fiasco. They used AI art to promote their ballet. Even other artists throwing visual artists under the bus because they could get something good enough for cheap or free to promote their own thing.
14:40 as someone who tried that once, I completely agree with your statement. I used an AI prompt to spitball a concept for a painting, and I wound up largely ignoring the results once I actually picked up a brush. There's nothing really there, it's like selling a Pinterest board as a collage.
I think, intentionally or not, this video showcases the correct answer AI art has in relation to artists. Not as a tool to circumvent or replace real life artists, but rather as a tool to assist them. What the AI produced used as a sketch saved an immense amount of work for the artist by sheer virtue of coming up with a raw initial concept and a decent sketch to work over, through which artists can use to work over and add their personal elements and add the finer details. Rather than rejecting the new tools of the modern era we can take a control of them and put them to use.
thats a good line of thinking. Problem is not just artist are using this tool. anyone is using this tool and taht means non artist who have no respect for creativity who will prepurpose and sell this stuff. Its doing more harm to artist than it is good right now. I think oneday we coan get to this point but ai art needs regulation
@@kossemoore3342 And why can't non-artists use them? It's not like all artists out there are altruistic saints who have no intent to profit of their talent. And it's not like non-artists don't have creative visions either. Is it actually doing actual harm, though? I've heard a lot of suppositions, but do we have an actual impact? Have we seen the million dollar AI art NFT scams? Have artists commission incomes dropped or patron funds diminished. I don't think it's "one day". I think we need to condition people in using new technology the right way right now that's it's newly released. Instead right now people are continuously instructing others on how to misuse it through fearmongering.
@@toasterowens8916 Even if it does, there are human traits that you cannot reproduce such as intent. The technical skill isn't the only thing that makes artwork good, it's a myriad of elements most of which cannot be replicated by a computer or a learning algorithm.
This video calmed me down. I was super nervous about AI art. Made me feel like my work isn’t special but hearing you speak about it made me realize I’m good
You are good. It’s just in the future AI art will be even better than you and it’ll only take seconds to produce. You will lose your art job to AI, first major field to be affected by AI
I standby the idea that, once sufficiently developed, AI-Art can be used to streamline 2D animation. If one can train an in-house AI off of a series of Key-Shots, one could then use (and subsequently tweak), the artwork generated thereafter for the In-between frames. This is idealistic thinking, of course, but I like to imagine that a properly trained AI could be used to cut down on what is undoubtedly a grueling and thankless task (as much as I respect and prefer the art of in-betweeners).
The number of times I, and many others in skilled labor fields have been told to "learn to code" as industries become more and more automated has kind of made me numb to artists now facing the something similar. Welcome to our side of the aisle. It's all just progress, right?
Warning random story and a bigger post.... And people reading this, If I am factually wrong with something correct me, thanks. Programmer / Systems Developer here. One of the main reasons I went into programming field was career councilors and parents told me back in middle school it was the safest job for my future, despite me not having any chance in the school type I went to, to ever get a job there. So was told, just do helper jobs and that I'm f***ed without focusing my whole life on it and do all school diplomas for the higher school types (wasted 5 years of my life going back to school). And I did.... Despite me only having a passing interest in the field and would have rather learned knife / blade / blacksmithing since it's a nearly dead profession here, to keep the traditional art and culture alive. If this was a good Idea I tell probably some random internet person in 10-15years, still am only 34 yo. ;). Sorry about the unsolicited story, I just thought it would support your point nicely. Back to the video now, I did play with AI art generation and think it's neat. It's only a tool and the fearmongering and outrage is insanity in my opinion. The following is not only in regards to the new AI Art topic but can be generalized and I did. People didn't want XYZ (insert random technology or invention which can be used for work related stuff) because (insert fearmongering or outrage rhetoric here). Jobs change, technology happens, work environments and requirements change with the times. A professional Artist can create with AI help insanely beautiful Artworks in less time. So why not use it to your advantage? The AI Art outrage people on the Internet would have died from dozens of aneurysms by now if they would work in tech. Some of us bi*ch and moan about the "trend chasing hipsters" (as I call them) too. But it is widely understood that even if you are not interested or do not like the new "trendy" things, it does not change the usefulness of the new developments for certain people. At this point I see our bi*ching more of a meme and good natured jab at it, since it goes both ways. To be fair I am one of the "old people" shouting at kids on my lawn ;). But would never think of raising drama about something so inconsequential oO. These nonsensical appeals to emotion instead of weighting the pro's/con's rationally are really annoying me. And most importantly get the facts straight, do your own research, collect information from as unbiased and credible sources as possible and use your brain to formulate your own informed opinion on a topic. Why TF do I need to explain how to form their own opinions, instead of shouting in echo chambers.
Mark: Talking about the ethics of AI art. Meanwhile Trev is making some fucking bangers of art. I hope we get another episode of this, your artist videos are just awesome, especially as a wannabe artist myself. I do kind of agree with how it doesn't feel so right for AI to be using stolen art. The thing that worries me the most is how, even with all the jank, it's capable of doing like 75% of what an artist can do. And what especially I don't like, is it feels like it trivializes actual artwork done by people. People who don't understand the intricacies of drawing won't fully appreciate someone's work, when they're able to see tons of random drawings done by AI.
AI “art” can be a useful tool for actual artists, and the main issue is how these new “artists” use it. There’s already been one situation where someone who’d already been outed as a tracer is using it for their Patreon content. There was another one where someone screenshot an actual artist’s WIP, tossed it in an AI generator and then asked to be credited for stealing. And we all know there’ll be a few indie game devs who’ll try to use AI to copy specific artists’ style instead of paying that artist. If everyone can band together and prevent opportunists and lazy parasites from profiting from AI art (because no, you’re not an artist), it can stay as a goofy tool to play around with or as assistant for newer artists to reference.
"Actual artists" = Wendy's employees (for now, til they get replaced there too.) Absolutely tragic if you haven't learned how insufferable and delusional 'artists' are yet, at which point it becomes hilarious watching those losers fail.
@@OrgusDin Let me guess: you or someone you know tried to shortchange an artist because they were poor or just a dickhead, the artist called you or whoever out on it, people made fun of it, and now you’re here replying to several people’s comments as if it’ll help with the butthurt.
The Videl and Bulma artworks are really good, well done guys! About the Gohan Motorbike one, it would have looked pretty good if you had put Videl clinging onto Gohans back, idk that’s my opinion
This was a fun video, and I dig the attempt to educate about the issues with AI art, but like many videos it doesn't explain and even misrepresents how copyright, intellectual property, and fair use actually works, and I think that's leading to misunderstandings about stuff like if the AI is "stealing" or the role of "creativity" in these debates. For context, I'm not an AI guy (in fact I do worry that corporations may undercut artists with it), but I am somebody invested in Intellectual property law, reform, and have followed cases & legislation for a decade. In particular, I'm worried that in a well intentioned bid to fight AI, artists may encourage legal changes that backfire and open human artists to liability too, not just limiting AI, as there's actually a fairly strong Fair use defense for a lot (but not all) of what AI's are doing, and any precedence set limiting Fair Use or expanding Copyright protection to stop AI might also apply and limit real artists too. Obligatory disclaimer that IANAL and that my comment here is based on US law, for other countries it might be different: For those unaware, the main thing in fair use determination is if the derivative work is "transformative". This is a legal concept that basically is asking is the derivative work is putting enough of a new spin on the original in both/either a literal and abstract sense. This is an IMMENSELY complicated concept, though, and to be honest, it's sort of impossible to cover entirely within RUclips's character limit: If something is transformative is just one aspect of many the courts consider when weighing a fair use defense: There's also Parody claims; there's the "4 pillars" (Purpose of a work, Nature of a work, how much of a work is used, and commercial impact), which a lot of sites act like are the only 4 but as i've explained there's other aspects too; and a whole host of other things. And Judges can and do invent new standards or weigh certain aspects more or less: You can satisfy a lot of requirements and still be infringing, or you can satisfy very little and still be fair use.... BUT, again, if something is transformative is *usually* the main factor, and this would be 12 pages long otherwise, so that's what i'm focusing on. The video here almost frames AI as almost splicing together bits of existing images, but in reality no actual parts of input images are cut out and pasted together: It's gleaning artistic principals via examine the trends and patterns between the input images, which it uses to develop an algorithm that can apply the things it "learned" to generate new images. This has a VERY strong argument for being transformative: For starters, the actual medium is changing. If you write up a text description of a painting, that's obviously not infringement, and what the AI is doing is even LESS of a adaptation then that: it's merely documenting select principals of it's composition rather then describing the work in totality, and not just from it but thousands of other works, where any one of them is merely a small part of the new whole. If anything it's more akin to saying that a book on lighting and composition would be infringing on the images the author looked at while writing the book, even if the book doesn't actually include the images or even describe them. If course, that's just discussing the AI algorithm itself, not the output images: I think that's more complex: As this entire video demonstrates, you CAN ask AI to generate images of copyrighted characters (like Goku), and that's obviously infringing on DB's copyright. You can also use AI to spruce up or "uncrop" existing images, which would likely be infringing on that image you had it modify: In both cases you can tell what the original character or image was. But if you're having the AI generate a brand new output image without specific copyrighted characters (say "Dragon in a swimming pool", then chances are no one image of a swimming pool or a dragon it used as an input is going to be obvious in the final piece, because it's just 1 of thousands of input images with little individual impact: It may not matter if the entire final image is derived from copyrighted inputs if only tiny bits of any one of them are still recognizable, but i'm admittedly not sure what the precedence is there with, say photobashing cases. I THINK it's just how much of any 1 is used based on what I've found, but I'm not sure. and there may be other factors. In any case, something I AM sure is wrong that both this video and many other people bring up, that the notion that the AI lacking "human creativity" in contrast to an artist looking at references somehow makes it not fair use or transformative. This just isn't true, at least in current law, as far as I know: Certainly, putting a themetically interesting and creative spin on a work can AID a Transformative (or especially Parody) argument when claiming fair use, but it's not a requirement. You do need human input to GET copyright protection, see Naruto v. David Slater (yes, really), but that's a separate thing. Similarly, the fact that AI's don't need to learn and practice also isn't really important in if it's Transformative, and the idea that it can replicate people's art styles also doesn't matter, as Copyright doesn't protect "Style", just specific works or characters, things, etc. This is where I think the risk with fighting AI via infringement claims starts: What if there IS a legal case or law passed changing that, and now creativity or requiring effort/practice IS a requirement in Fair use, or style IS now protected by copyright: Suddenly now you, as a actual, real human artist, might get sued because your art happens to stylistically look similar to somebody else's art. Or somebody making a piece of art that's a derivative work as a human artist now has a higher bar for claiming fair use because they have to prove it's sufficiently creative or high effort. Fair use is already WAY narrower then most people realize, and you of all people mark should know that. (If people are wondering why music AI generators only use royalty free music and care more about copyright, it's because the way copyright works with music is different: Music only has so many notes and the like vs the infinite spectrum of visual color, shapes, etc; so two people happening to make music with similar sections is common, and the case law with music infringement is ALREADY as such that in those cases, you're guilty of infringement often anyways even if it wasn't intentional. We do NOT want that happening with visual art copyright too. There's other ways music copyright is different too, like mandatory licensing) And the same giant corporations people are worried about misuing AI to undercut artists (which, again, is a real concern) would LOOOOOOOOVE to have this happen: It would make it way, way easier for them to go after random people online with Copyright claims and C&D's: Imagine Disney Toei sueing somebody for making original characters that are just done in the Dragon Ball Style despite not actually being DB characters or using any copyrighted DB elements! In general, copyright expansions always benefit big corporations and hurt small creators: The corporations are too big to be sued for violations (such as when Family guy stole some guy's youtube clip then DMCA'd the original), and small creators are too small to fight back when the corporations sue them, even if what the creator did was fair use. Again, mark, you should know this. Of course, it's possible that a court's ruling or a law in an AI case could be worded in such a way that precedence would apply JUST to AI (Again, beyond being transformative, say, the market impact is part of fair use determination, and AI due to it's ease of use and lack of practice/skill is extra disruptive to the art market), but the courts have CONSISTENTLY passed laws and made rulings that hurt smaller artists and benefit corporations: As I explained before, ultimately it doesn't matter how many Fair use principals you do or don't meet, sometimes you win or lose anyways: In practice, how rich and powerful you are often decides things, many times before it even gets to court since big corporations can force settlements or draw cases out and the other side has to give in, or they can lobby for laws to pass. As it applies here, we've already seen the Concept Art Association's anti-AI fundraiser state they want to get the Copyright Alliance industry lobby group Disney etc are a part of to be involved, who want to use anti-AI sentiments to expand copyright. The courts will be WAY more willing to listen to the big corporations at the lobbying table or filing Amicus Briefs then they will small artists. So yeah, that's why I think framing what AI does as "stealing" or talking about how it's "not creative" or "can copy styles" is dangerous: It's well intentioned, but it's framing the issue and presenting arguments that, if they gain legal traction, could be disastrous to the rights of real human artists, as we can't guarantee that a court will rule or a law will be worded in such a way that those limitations would only apply to AI. As for how to combat it instead, I think there should be a push to get the AI companies to agree to stick to Royalty Free images on their own, like how the ESRB was formed without goverment regulation by the Games industry, and that people should just try to keep the precedence in place that AI images don't get their own copyright (which will discourage people from using AI in corporate contexts) without trying to claim the AI or the AI images are infringing.
For one, the framing of this video isn't a legal one, but rather a moral one. Second, the notion that ai art is not stealing from other art because "none of the piece is pasted into the original" doesn't hold any logical water. The ai model cannot output anything without its input art. It being obfuscated through the output does not change the fact that the artists image being imported is the only way that image could be output as it was.
@@TeeHallumsYT I get that Mark was mostly speaking ethically (I could have been clearer on that in my comment), but firstly, I don't think you can cleanly separate ethics from legality here, and secondly, the discourse around AI art has already gotten to the point where artists are rallying around legal fundraisers, the main one, again, has outright explicitly stated their intent to get megacorporation industry lobby groups involved and on board that Disney and co are a part of: I frankly think any analysis of the issue that doesn't acknowledge the legal risks here to be not approaching the issue responsibly. I'm personally not that interested in debating ethics, because it's subjective and I think trying to come up with a plan of action that avoids the legal risks I outlined is more important then me trying to convince you my ethical standards are better then yours or visa versa. But to reply to what you said: If the actual images aren't being used and they're just being used to derive artistic principals and lessons to use to generate out of new images, what's the difference between that and artists using references? The difference that mark and other people bring up is the "lack of creativity", but that seems to be a point being made out of a misunderstanding of fair use determination with legal case I mentioned. It's possible it's just an ethical standard they came up with without that context, but "creativity" isn't a ethical standard people seem to care about when making fanart or using references much elsewhere: I haven't seen artists claiming their work was stolen just because fanart or a referenced image isn't sufficiently creative, unless it's outright tracing and plagarism without credit nobody seems to mind, and AI art isn't doing anything as deririative as tracing. The actual variable here that seperates what AI's are doing and human artists doing it is that of a larbor disruption issue: The idea that corporations will use AI to avoid hiring and paying artists, putting them out of a job. Which IMO is a very, very real concern. But I think that's what's problematic here: the use of existing images to learn from isn't. The issue of AI and automation replacing human labor is also the BROADER issue with we're seeing not just with art but also text, music, code, and for decades physical labor and manufacturing: I think this is much, much bigger conversation then just art, and we need to rethink the idea that people have to work to meet ends meet to begin with in a world where machines and AI can do most of what society needs to run. If that was the case and people could pay for houses/apartments, food, electricity, internet, and other things without a competitive career, then would people still care about how derivative art AI is or isn't? That's the real issue, IMO
@@MajoraZ The gofundme is a 200k cope and they cannot do anything about AI at all, it's open source for half a year, at best you are paying some 'artist' to go consoom on your behalf because they will never do fuck all else to stop the AI and neither can fossilized politician rats.
I think the humans win on quality of “sensical correctness” (lol idk I made that up) as in, the art is actually making real looking humanoids, but honestly I like the AI’s lighting effects better. Like honestly even better than what’s in the movies and the shows. That’s just me tho. Although that vegeta AI generated image looked pretty fantastic not going to lie.
Great video Mark. You guys do amazing work. I agree with a lot of your points, including the ethics of where the AI sources it's inputs. However, as a person with no art skills whatsoever, AI art has been a great tool for me. Often times I require images for games nights, table top roleplaying games (like DnD), and for casual hobbies. In these cases I often need something quick, specific, and doesn't have to be perfect whatsoever. If I have an NPC interaction, a one off character, or need to show a landscape, AI art has produced some awesome stuff. While I still use commissions for player characters and important people, the rest is certainly not something I could afford (or is worth) to commission an artist for every single time. I've commissioned a lot of work off of various places (on the internet and in person). While I've had some good interactions and found some artists I can trust, I can also say it's not all been great experiences. I've had many cases where artists would be misleading regarding the quality of work (posting examples not representative of their delivered product). I've also had many cases where the artist I'm working with would not communicate at all during the process, miss agreed upon delivery dates by weeks, and not be willing to do requested revisions (even though it was in the terms of agreement). I don't believe AI art can replace artists. However, I think it can be a really great tool, especially for those of us without artistic talent and years of honing their craft.
AI art, and how it's regulated now and going forward will cause a hell of a lot more problems, and it's already leading to many questioning wether actual artists will be able to carry on as their output is outpaced from the sheer efficiency of it, even though in many cases it's beyond terrible, and even if most of it was decent through good, the push away from actual artists is not worth it at all.
"You better believe you'll have to pay the AI art company though" You can download and run stable diffusion offline all you want for free (provided you have a graphics card with at least 4GB of RAM). The stable diffusion model is free for download and isn't going anywhere.
I think using it as a tool has it's merits, as you showed with how many wrong things there were in the drawing, Ai drawing can be used as an artistic problem making tool, the tool makes problems for you to solve like an auto generated math problem, you see how you want to tackle so and so doing this pose as a way to improve. The imperfections make it worth using as a tool to get better, but that's just how I see it. Great drawings and I think you guys knocked it out of the park.
To the point of AI art not being able to create art in a style without having seen it- I mean, I know I couldn’t draw in the style of Dragon Ball without watching it (or at least having seen images)
Oda actually recently used AI art for inspiration, which got us chibi Lucci. There is a fundamental issue with sourcing art for AI, and that is the legal allowances. In the US there is fair use, in the EU there is specific allowances for scraping artwork so long as it doesn't contain private information, and China is straight up stealing everything. The best option that I've seen is from Waifu Diffusion, which credits every artist used in it.
Copycuck spotted, unironically believes anyone cares what some relic fossil says about open source technology that already exists and is literally unstoppable without a global apocalyptic event (you being unable to make a living drawing furry smut is not this.)
This topic usually is spoken through emotional lenses. Lots and I mean lots of misconceptions about AI art. The vast majority of AI generated images are totally new. Yes they were trained using images created by real artists, however that's not even an issue. Unless you point out to me some obscure artist that was born blind the argument is null. The idea that each generated AI art needs to have reference to all pieces of art it used to generate the image is not only absurdly idiotic but also shows that people with this argument don't know anything about AI art. About the creativity aspect. I wouldn't call AI Art and Ai Art, rather a generated image using AI. The prompt is always done by humans and not a machine. You still need to write it. AI art is still on it's baby steps and just recently learned how to walk. AI art doesn't know how to run or jump yet. Like a baby it mimics. When AI art wouldn't even need human intervention like today with prompts it is then when AI ART would have evolved. However, this type of stuff is not going to happen soon. Not in this decade. Maybe 15 years from now we will see a new Model of AI which would be capable of this sort of stuff. I am not saying that we won't have significant improvements in the next 15 years as I am sure that even 5 years from now it will improve substantially. Heck even like 10-20 percent improvement would be quite significant. As for the styles you could theoretically mix the styles in the prompt to create something more unique.
i think for the most part the AI art actually looked better at a glance by good margin (especially the Vegeta one), but then the details fall apart when you look closer
You state that an AI can't output something that is not a aggregation of existing bits, but it's a bit more complicated. When you take a look at AI that generate human faces it is very difficult to track down which features were drown from which face. This is done thanks to the input being random data instead of a phrase like those you used on top of an set of training data on a far greater scale. You could argue that this is just more aggregation of random bits on a another scale but since we do not understand what is creativity exactly it is hard to know if it is more than just the above process magnified. In anyway that was a cool video, keep up the good work. For those interested, read Turing's work on AI.
Then why are you seething, if you were even remotely capable of competing you would do that instead of just seething at it, but you aren't. Drawcucked forever.
(Oh god I'm so sorry, I just looked up here and realized how much I wrote jfc I can't believe youtube is even letting my post this book of a comment) AI researcher here, I wanted to provide my own perspective on things, as well as give people a bit of a deeper understanding of how these models work. First off though, I do want to say that I agree wholeheartedly that these tools shouldn't be used for profit, and at a fundamental level it is important to make the distinction between open source models where all the data, code, and trained models are provided for free for anyone to use or modify, and closed source ecosystems where you are beholden to a company (likely through a subscription) for access and usage. OpenAI created dalle and dalle2, but their models and source code for projects generally aren't open at all, while stable diffusion is entirely free and open source. Even on the corporate side, I think that its important to note that the research teams working on these systems weren't necessarily starting out with the intention to create something to replace artists, however, regardless of how it is approached, this will happen. It doesn't even matter if it becomes illegal to use such programs, as they are faster and cheaper to the point that it will cost the likes of disney nothing in legal fees to keep using them and lay off artists. While its not impractical to say that in many applications of art its likely that artists will learn to use AIart as another powerful tool in their toolkit, there is no sugercoating the fact that this tech is as revolutionary and breaking as the innovation of recording music was for live performances. On the open source side, stable diffusion (along with other research groups) generally started with the stated goal of reproducing the work of companies like openai and google, and providing that for free. Some people have discussed various ways to create laws to limit AI or datasets and protect creators through copyright, but I am incredibly wary of these, as it often aligns incentives with the media corporations who would be all to happy to further limit fair use and profit off of fan content. I also think it is more up for debate whether these models are capable of something resembling creativity, and the arguments for lie in the specifics of how these models actually work, which is often communicated in heavily simplified and misleading phrasing, so I'd like to take a stab at clarifying some general specifics of how these models work. The key aspect of many of the current state of the art image generation AI is the concept of diffusion, which starts off with a bunch of random noise, and then iteratively attempts to approach a stated goal. For image generation AI, this means it starts with an image of random noise, and then takes the given prompt and makes a pass at the noise, slightly changing it in order to find structure out of the randomness that fits the prompt. This is quite innovative, as it means from the same prompt, random noise can create completely different generated images with the same intent, and in training there are many different 'right' answers, allowing the only a few gigabyte file-size of the model to have learned an impressive amount of general knowledge. I think an important thing to note is that, once trained, the model is static, and unless it is fine-tuned further down the line, it doesn't learn or see anything new. Once it is trained, it doesn't have any access to the datasets anymore, nor does it search the internet, everything it 'understands' (in this case about art), is baked into the weights and biases of the neural network(s) its comprised of. The scale of compression here is unbelievably immense. Stable Diffusion 2.1 is about 5GB on my hard drive. It was trained, not on a few thousand images, nor a few million, but 5 BILLION images scraped from all around the internet. The LAION5B dataset, is open source, and anyone can search it if you would like to see if it has your art in it (it probably does). To put that scale in perspective, that is more images than seconds you have been alive, in fact, given current human lifespans, it is more images than seconds in the longest living human to date, and in total takes up ~250 TB of hard drive space. In the case of stable diffusion, saved as float16, the model itself is only 2.5Gb. Because of this insane 'compression' and the from noise generation process, in practice it is actually very difficult for the model to recreate specific images from the dataset, except in specific cases where there are many versions or references of the same art pieces, such as something like 'Starry Night', or the Mona Lisa. To a lesser extent, this is how these models understand what specific characters from different works of fiction look like, which is also why creating specific characters tend to actually be quite a pitfall of these models. It may get, to some extent, who some of the characters in DragonBall are, but its likely using the similar styling to fit them together very tightly, if that makes sense. Anyway, long winded way to say that these models do not search the internet for images, everything they understand is encoded into them during training, and that encoding is DENSE. It also doesn't do any sort of classification or narrowing down of the dataset as it generates a new image. This seems counterintuitive, because one might think that if you ask it for art of a specific anime character, that it should be pulling up references of that anime style, and of that character, in order to generate a new image. But due to the nature of how neural networks work, its querying its entire corpus of knowledge with every pass. One might be able to say that there is a degree of self-organization in terms of how things are encoded into the latent space, but at this point I'm throwing technical jargon around as if it answers questions, which it doesn't. The 'creative' advantages to this, is that we can do things with the AI that aren't strictly possible for a human to do. For instance, we can ask it to create images that travel between two prompts, and we could see what the halfway point is between two styles, two characters, or what the average of completely different concepts look like, and it will do it. You bring up that many genres of music and styles of art of born from and developed off of one another, and I think that is important in this context. Given the right prompting, these AI can make those same stylistic developments, without being told what its aiming for, and through this I believe its entirely plausible that it is capable of genuine creativity, but its also important to know that it if it is, it learned that from us. I'm not really sure where I'm ultimately going here or if I had any central point to these ramblings, its just been a crazy few months in the AI research world, and I don't think anyone thought we would be here now. I would have put this kind of AI a decade or more away just a year ago, and I don't think any of us fully understand the impact its going to have on every industry, especially the creative arts. Also, fun fact, this terribly incoherent assortment of thoughts was once even more terribly incoherent, and then I threw it all at chatGPT and asked it to help me organize and refine it a tiny bit. ChatGPT is also quite capable of programming, moreso than dare I say a not discountable amount of college compsci students, and its also capable of writing comments, summaries, and taking feedback, which at least puts it ahead of me. While I do fear somewhat of its ability to supplant people's jobs, even my own, I also enjoy bouncing research ideas off of it, and asking to code things I'm too lazy to write up. What I don't like about it is that the model is entirely closed source. OpenAI has chosen to make it free for use now, but that may change in the future, and the true path forward, in my mind, lies in open source competition providing these tools to everyone for free. I believe that this sort of code generation AI, in the not to distant future, is what will empower small open source teams to compete head on with walled gardens of the likes of Adobe and Apple, and I think that open source and collective forms of automation and AI are the only way to stop the worst parts of capitalism from continuing to ruin humanity. And sure, AI has lots of potential for downsides, and as these models get exponentially more powerful into the future we need to figure out the right and ethical ways of interacting with them, but at least they can generate cute pictures of cosmic cats of various festive varieties.
Okay, reading this through again (which I probably should have done before posting it, how the heck did I write so much and also still feel like there are 50 million things and angles that I didn't cover or bring up for discussion aAAAAAaagagghh A kind thank you and the most delicious imaginary cookie I can summon to whoever reads through the whole thing
Great thoughts and ideas, this has been my approach to thinking around a lot of the moral and legal challenges brought up by artists. I hope that we can all find ways to use these tools to accelerate the creativity of the human artists using AI tools rather than being adversarial. Once again thank you for your thoughts!
I didn’t even get a notification for this video. Just now seen it because of a “is this recommended video good for you” pop up on my home page. Wtf I’m literally subscribed why would I not want to watch it
I really like that in this video you didn't just redraw the pictures, but also discussed why many people also have ethical and artistic problems with AI creations. Even if the AI could draw prettier pictures, which I'd argue it didn't in this video, it wouldn't negate all of the other points you made.
Artists really shouldnt talk about ethics. i see more Artist at Comic Con sells Fan Art of DBZ characters and other Anime characters they don't have the right to all the time. so do they get a pass just because they can draw or how about a artist drawing in a style similar to another Artist isnt that stealing as well but thats ok right since its human drawing
Not really a great comparison, if you want to talk about the ethics of drawing characters and selling them is one thing but that isn’t a counter to ai art since it takes a lot of data from already existing art and makes a jank image from it
Art is a thing that we humans do simply because we want to, and we will always love to do it, whether being paid for it or not. People who say stuff like "let human artists become obsolete and replaced in the name of progress, like horse carriagers after cars came along" really have a shallow understanding of art. Art is not simply a job or product, it's not a chore! Machines should never truly replace what we love and want to do in life, what makes us human, the pleasures of life that make it worthy living. A machine is not gonna keep me from, for example, swimming if i find it fun! This is even truer for art: each person is unique, and we love to develop our own unmistakable style and vision! There is so much detail that goes into a work of art besides a description and broad strokes that one person can feed into an AI program. If I just gave some basic prompt/description for AI art programs, and then did nothing with the resulting art, I would feel deeply ashamed if I said that I actually made this art. It's fun to play with, sure, but it doesn't make me an artist. Maybe AI can be a valid artistic tool, but not like this! Animators use interpolation software to help their work in animation, but they are always constantly paying attention to everything the program does, and course-correcting anything that goes quirky. It's very different from people who just throw animation into an AI software, press render to interpolate, and hope for the best (Noodle's RUclips channel has a good video on this). Suppose that we can someday make an AI that is actually sentient and creative like us humans, feels emotion like us, has a unique identity, and so on, as we see in sci-fi. This AI would effectively be an individual person too, and it doesn't replace me any more than any new human being being born replaces me. Each person is unique. Such AI should be granted human rights. Point is: maybe AI will replace humans for many card illustrations, and ads, stuff like that, which doesn't need to be truly unique or have a person's individual and unmistakable vision in the details, it doesn't have to special. But people will never stop wanting to create and make art, regardless if they are being paid or not. Art is not a chore, it's something that we actively enjoy doing. It's fun hard work. Art is part of what makes us human, that's why we'll never stop doing it. Not to mention that art is never just technique. Ultimately, these are the reasons why I feel this video and many comments here are often sensationalist scare-mongering. I also recommend episode 43 of the 2000s Astro Boy anime. My mind always goes back to it whenever this scare-mongering happens. Please forgive the porn ads in the link. www2.gogoanimes.fi/astro-boy-tetsuwan-atom-episode-43
11:52 For anybody who cares, quick background on the footage box about this and the next character shown. This concept art is not from anything Dragon Ball, but instead it is from the game Dragon Quest IX Sentinels of the Starry Skies (Which is one of my favorite games). The reason why it is shown is because Akira Toriyama does the art for those games. (Also the characters' names are Erin and Patty, two innkeepers. The third is also from Dragon Quest, but I cannot remember from which game she is from and her name.)
Honestly most of the limitations you mentioned aren't things that exist because they are not possible with AI its just they haven't been trained to do so yet/ don't have the feedback systems in place. You could definitely give AI 80s music and it would evolve something entire different out of it, if there is a positive feedback system like human listeners saying which songs they like from the AI this would speed up the process. Dont think that AI can not be creative, deep learning is modelled after how the brain works , uses neural networks that mimmick the function of neurons in our brains. Humans don't just come up with ideas out of nowhere they also have a series of inputs / inspiration and there is a random element to creativity as well. The AI doesn't just have to reproduce art in the same style it was trained on. Im not exactly in favour of AI but as someone who studies computer science and does art the future is grim for artists. The AI is only going to get better at these things.
I agree, after all, I know also about computer science. Also, I hate when Humans think they are superior based on extremely vague ideas for which they often have wrong ideas. (in this case of creativity)
@@anderiko1816 Yeah humans need to be more humble. Assuming the AI is limited is why the recent developments snuck up on artists. It seems like a distant dystopian future but in reality we already have the tools and the knowledge it's just about execution and investment.
that second one trev redrew was a huge example of "look at it for more than a millisecond than you'll see everything terrible about it" because on paper it looks fine but after a single second you realize what's wrong with it
I like this video, try promt vs AI. Like the artist don't see what they are competing against. Like "Vegeta in a kimono using Kamehama in a iceland" and you all draw the same promt and then feed that into an AI generator and compare the best against your pieces.
love the Ryo-Mark at 0:10. could this mark a Devilman 1972 manga review oncoming?!! i can only hope. the Devilman Crybaby OST used once in the video gives me joy too.
Not really horrifying at all, it's more impressive than anything. It wont become horrifying until it grows its own sentience and creativity, which wont be until a WHIIIILE from now.
I never thought of the AI art controversy fully and why it’s a negative thing. Thanks for your insight and research on it TNM. Also, how long does it take you write a script for a video?
I’m a Native American artist and over the years I’ve seen what replication and mass production can do. Just like what Walmart did to the local mom and pop shops and retail. It goes for the 5 dollar logo and the cheap India labor. It’s all the same, artist were in trouble. I started back in 94, my eye set on cds and music advertising. By the time 98 hit website design moved in. By 2000s printing died, because one of the dominate printing companies closed up shop by 2002. Then web design died because of wix and all this template based crap. So goes desktop publishing. So now comes Ai here to finish it all off. As for Native American artist they’ve tried to pass laws about Native American art and Chinese rip offs but nobody cares and the price of silver is so high natives use nickel and killed the market trying to compete with Chinese made. So that will die with the rise of Ai. With the help of adobe a few words and your design half done, for a business I know they don’t care. They just want the end result, they dont care about who or what makes it. I say we got 5 years at the most but with affinity getting out of the business and canva taking over, I think we got about 2 years. Since 94 I’ve tried to keep up every 3 years I can’t anymore.
13:27 the comment in this section doesn't make much sense. Again, ethically there is no dilemma whatsoever because each and every one of the artists of this planet saw a lot of art, in many cases for free, before even considering becoming artists. Why is it bad for a program to do it now? In addition, the concept of trial and error is basic in everything learning related, AIs need to do it and need all the possible support so that they go from the generation of random art pieces to the greatest possible specificity. Something that is not going to happen in a short period of time if this drama continues to be made about it. I understand that this threatens the work of hundreds of thousands of people, but it is not the first instance in the history of mankind that technology displaces the human workforce, it is inevitable to the extent that we advance technologically
It's fun watching an industry who thought they were going to always be safe from automation get automated. All these artists complaining that a computer program used their art without consent while selling art of other people's characters and designs themselves. Complaining that ai art is derivative is also silly because everything is derivative, you are taking things you have seen or heard and modifying it just a little, that's what ai does. And before you say ai can't create it can only copy you should really look in minute papers and all their ai videos.
The issue with Bardocks face might be a result of the AI taking Masked Saiyan Bardock from Heroes into account, and the mask and face being fused into something not recognizable as either.
I think it’s clear that AI art is at a clear limit to what it can do, and all of your guys’ versions of DB art are amazing! Especially Mark’s Vegeta in the Takahashi style OOOOHHHHH MY LORD THAT ONE WAS GORGEOUS
lmao meanwhile 2 years ago it could barely sketch a cow, now you have to cope "bro look we totally won vs it" unironically, sad as fuck bro, cope and seethe
I think the thing with AI art that makes me excited (and not worried) for the future is exactly what you talked about during the first drawing. The AI art can look good… at a glance. BUT!! that’s where I think the usefulness can be found. Suffering from a bit of a mental block? Generate some AI art for inspiration. I’ve seen some pretty weird AI art turned into some really cool hand drawn stuff. Weird melting faces and eyeballs in the wrong places turned into something cool. I think they do a good enough job at conveying the general shape of a thing while getting most fine details horribly wrong. Now, I know you talk about this during your Vegeta section and you mention it wouldn’t work for a number of reasons, but I’d actually still argue in favor of using it as inspiration. Take your specific Vegeta that you drew. The AI art gave you a general idea, and you completely altered just about everything for it. I think that worked exactly like I’d imagine it could. It was used as the extremely basic starting outline that you took and made something a million times better.
I’d love to see a video where you guys are crafting your own dragon ball styles with commentary about how art style really works, highlighting it with footage of your personal dragon ball styles
The sad truth is that, like it or not, this is the future, we do not have a button to "undo-AI" and the benefits of having it are obvious, and, this video is an example of it, you can ask your AI to generate a "template" and then work from it, or, you can upload a basic template and then ask it to modify some aspect of it, and, while it isn't perfect, it allows you to create something faster.
I see AI art tools as sort of a Concept art for Concept artists. gives them the ability to very quickly get past the bad ideas and get to what they are truly trying to see a whole lot faster
I'm an okay artist and I think the ai is perfect for helping set up a concept (and composition).. I don't think it'll take people's jobs but make em easier, at least until the ai gets better haha
This video is probably the best discussion on AI art I’ve witnessed so far. You covered all the main pros, cons, short comings/flaws, and ethical dilemmas. Personally, I just see AI art as a additional tool for artists, hobbyists, and consumers to play around with, be it fun or concept. Regardless of what you think or feel, AI art is out there and there is no closing Pandora’s box. It’s unfortunately going to be abused for fame and profit no matter what, so I think it’s best that artists adapt and perhaps try to use AI tools to their advantage. That’s my two cents anyway.
Totally Not Mark is one of my GOATS, if he wasn't before, he definitely is now. I shed multiple tears watching this video. You guys were amazing and whooped some Seraphim butt today!
11:38 Okay but Editor-San trying to draw the hand multiple times, and then giving up, taking a photo and trying to use that, and still not managing to get it right, is the most relatable thing in this entire video
WAY TOO RELATABLE LOL
Artists be artists i am right.
Trev’s art skills are absolutely spectacular. I envy him.
true
Someone should definitely train a model on his scribbles, I agree.
he is the goat
Everyone goated
@@TheRealMagicMan he truly is
As an artist I felt so bad for editor-san, he was struggling so hard with bulma's hand xD was such a weird angle to draw. Either way, great job, everyone, I prefered some of the coloring in the AI version( I mean, AI probably uses a lot of color theory because of the art it learns from), but the artists won this fight for sure.
What's an 'artist', grandpa?
I felt immediate pain with the constant erasing and retracing lmao. Such a mean angle
@@OrgusDin something a talentless Ai user (you) will never be
All that matters is the end product and he did pretty good.
Artist's will live on forever.
AI struggles to draw hands, and apparently so does Editor-San.
Therefore, Editor-San is an AI confirmed.
we are all AIs
to be fair, he still did significantly better. the ai is one and done but a proper artist can keep trying till he gets it right.
Took you long enough to realize (I'm joking btw)
1 year later I rarely see messed up fingers these days
If we’re being real, no one likes to draw hands.
As TF2 Soldier once said: *"Human grit always beats robot magic."*
Faxxxx
It depends on what it is. And how far ahead the AI is.
@unknown It's time to become metal gear, and improve the human race!
Me one day creating a true ai based on my own intellect laughing in the corner as my ai child beat people in art and math through my teachings
Important stuff!
While It’s scary how quickly AI Art is improving, I think Human Artist will still hold on for a *Long* time. Human Artist will always have the flexibility and Quality that AI lacks. But time will tell.
It's an amazing TOOL for artists, not their doom. It's like how digital art was frowned upon by traditional artists until it was widely adopted. I can't for the life of me draw traditional but I can do pretty well digitally.
Its weird how you guys think AI art isnt just an extension of our own art.. This isnt a competition, AI is simply a tool that creates art using our own art as reference. Its a beautiful symbiotic relationship we should continue to grow together with.. Not oppose and fight against for superiority.
If it ever comes to that point, I'm hoping a meteor or climate change will wipe us out by then lol
@@CJKenjii ong
@@xavierlehew6746 By literally stealing Art on mass without consent, these AI gernerated pictures are even able to exist. Most artist have not given, nor ever intend to give consent. AI Art is Art theft. So no, the artist community does NOT want this to continue, it does NOT want this to grow. It KNOWS it is a danger to artist and mass copyright infringement.
I like how Mark took up the shintani type of aesthetic in his depictions of him and his team
yeah that was so good
It's not shintani style, he uses a lot of art style from namek saga or earlier and also a lot of yammumuro style
@@EnoYaka the colors and lineart just kinda look like that
@@EnoYaka The reference was to the animation in the beginning of the video lmao
These are 100% my favorite videos on the channel, right next to the discussion vids. Seriously, I love all the fixing supers art, or 90’s redraw and everything else in those categories. I’m an aspiring artist and I love watching and taking in the techniques you guys show off and implementing something similar into my own works. Absolutely lovely things you do.
Same here
So I’m a 3D artist and I’ve see recent AI attempt to generate 3D models and it brought me to a realization. Ai art in its current state and direction is an enormous waste of potential. AI could be trained to do stuff like topology, rigging, UV’s stuff that no one really likes to do but AI is arguably better suited for. AI could be used to enhance the existing art process instead of trying and imo failing to replace artists. A fast color pass, quick shading, turning you rough sketches into passable line work, stuff that yeah you’d still have to tweak and go over by hand but would definitely speed up the process. That doesn’t even get into all my main issues with Ai art buuut I just really think the current state of Ai art is really disappointing, it doesn’t feel like genuine progress and it’s a waste of a cool technology while simultaneously being incredibly disrespectful to artists
Edit: I just wanted to add something about good AI, there’s a tool that’s been developed recently that does a really good job coloring your animations, you just color the first frame and it does a pretty good job filling in the rest. Ai being used as an actual tool, training it off art it has permission to use and for specific tasks is a good thing and how I’d like to see this technology develop.
Hope it ends up like the meta verse
I've actually been saying this myself for a while now. AI is perfectly suited to help artists and animators with their current workload doing all the exhaustive background work.
See the thing is the people at the top of these ventures don't want to help artists. They want them replaced, because that way they can make WAY more money.
Are you and the people in this thread dumb? Like, legit dumb? Do you not realize we're working toward doing exactly that?
"AI art is wasted potential! Instead of doing this one cool thing, it should be doing this other thing!"
Like bro. Things can develop in a hundred paths at the same time. It's not mutually exclusive.
@@Klokinator Do you realise that currently these AIs are seeking to replace artists? And thus even if AIs that are solely there for making the tedious parts of art are made they won't really matter as artists will loose their livelihoods?
Don't call people dumb if your argument isn't well thought out.
All the art you guys did in this video is incredible. Truly striking and well composed images. The points you brought up are also very insightful
the title is very funny and hypocritical since both AI and Artist are drawing trademark and copyrighted material, they dont own. as well as any artist that does commission work i see all the time at comic con of artist selling fan drawings of Anime characters.
@@matthewjuarbe5826 Weak argument. Real artists don't need to use other images to create their own art. Also fanart is often just tolerated. AI art is copying other artists work and the producers claim it their own. It's so unethical.
In what world do you want to live? Where Big Tech super rich companies can get more rich by taking everthing all the artists of the world have put everything into it for nothing in return? A world were art itself may stop being human and everything gets more homogenous and lower in quality?
@@gez1009 no producer is claiming anything that's just speculation. everywhere i see people are showing Art generated using AI. also, also AI is taking nothing. also Rich companies do not profit from AI because they cannot copyright or trademark AI work unless they modify a significant portion of it. the law states AI Work is like public domain you can sell it for commercial profit but you can't copyright it which means anyone can use the images you generated in AI and create something of it. companies won't just switch completely to AI due to they can't protect the IP AI most likely will be used for generic basic things like brick stones trees grass generic environments to speed up development process which has already been done for decades prior with companies selling packs on Adobe davinci or any 3d rendering tool. i understand what youre saying but realistically Companies wont rely on AI alone due to they cant really profit off of it due to they cant stop another person or company from using AI images. due to they cant trademark or copyright it
@@matthewjuarbe5826 Many AI art producers claim it their own. Some even try to impersonate other artist. It is so easy. Just a view clicks. No, the winner will be greedy man with ties and big tech in general. They get the money. Because as you said. Currently ai art can’t be copyrighted. But the users have to pay for the service. So there is so much money already made. They earn it by basically selling the intellectual property of the whole world through a loophole. I respect your opinion, but I don‘t think you see the full picture. AI art is crazy impressive and if we don‘t push it to an ethical human oriented technology, we will regret it in some years.
@@gez1009 so how do you know the odels were trained using Copyrighted P which is against the law by the way i have used Midjourney leonardo AI and none of the models trained used any Copyrighted work you can actually look at the model yourself. the AI isnting on the internet looking at google images they are going off of what was fed to them. now if youre rawining you own model using copyrighted IP then thats another issue but the popular user friendly ones like midjourney and leonardo ai arent usign copyrighted IPs i checked asnd you can easily check yourself. also AI work can easily be detected
Glad to see that even the AI understands the struggles of drawing hands lol
Correct
@Txtthenumber_hut yo goofy ahh up
My art teacher couldn't too (easily that is) and he used to always roast me for my hands
it's because humanity has issues with hands in art, as a result, because it has more errors in drawing hands to model vs correct hands.
The issue is going to come when we start feeding objects into the machine where it can then properly handle standard photos and adapt from there into another style taking into task shading/drawing styles while mimicking real objects...
Scary bit? This has been around for 1 year.
1 Year and the AI art is this close... Seriously it will only get better, and rapidly so, to the point where it's going to be able to do what the gang here did... And that's not a great thing - it's why artists are trying to stop it.
Give it time...give it time.
every drawing was phenomenal. the last 7 were miles better than the AI, and the first drawing is the only one that is somewhat comparable to the AI. great work you guys
Agreed, only caveat being I feel sometimes the AI wins in color compositing, simply because it uses official/profesional promo art as the data set
I honnestly like AI art as a base like you do in this video, it's fun to input a random idea and see a rough estimate of how it would look like and then correct it.
This is a good mentality to have. I think AI art is just there as a tool, not something to completely replace human artists.
@@brickbreaker3 a tool built on stolen work
@@brickbreaker3 I hate being human anyway, so i think it should replace human artists
I was thinking that the whole video, after all, what kickstarted these artistic renditions were those same AI drawings, correcting the issues and poses and creating something new. It surprised me when mark stated it couldn't be used as valuable inspiration
@@joaquinflores2741 There is litteraly a store in NY that make wedding dress based on AI Art and they are all beautifull, would love to remember the name.
I accept the challenge, feels like I'm competing with a real life Cell that has everyone's powers.
Due to a national geographic picture of a monkey that the monkey itself took, a lawsuit happened and it ended with the judge saying that in order for copyright to effect a thing, it must be made by a human. In other words, artists will be safe since there are always people who need the copyright to an art project. I mean, there's no way Disney is going to be fine with their Disney+ logo being public domain
That leaves out the small artists, which is the majority of artists. Those relying on commissions from people that would rather spend 10 bucks on Midjourney and get something passable than 50 on an artist and get something actually good.
Also not every company is as big as Disney or as scrutinized as Disney. So lots of small to medium companies will get away with it. Which is happening rn, seen a few contractors loose their gigs because of AI. And since most artists don't have the funds to sue the companies that employed them, these companies will get away with it. Also some artists will gladly take work by editing AI art. That includes lots of people from third world countries which are okay with lower wages and lots of 3D artists and other forms of artists who think they are safe.
Finally if/when Disney will think it's safe enough they will certainly lobby for AI art. They changed copyright laws before with the mickey mouse laws, what's one more law to change?
@@badreddinekasmi8919 in that case, I vote that any company that uses AI generated art should have their AI generated logos and art used for many unsavory things. I can't imagine any family friendly businesses would appreciate their "official logo" on adult websites. Nothing legally stops that. Or to use that logo for other businesses
@@Prime_Rabbit All we can hope for is regulation. Best case scenario would have been for this pandoras box to never be opened. But now is too late. So only regulation and adversary AIs will do.
The people who sued the photographer were members of PETA, and they called the monkey Naruto… yes, I am being 100% serious
2:20 The best way to tell if something was made by an AI is to look at the hands.
TBF: you can generate until you get something that's fine, also always depends on the model being used. I've extensively played around with it, there's tools like inpainting that allow you to fix small mistakes the AI has made to get something just right(like say gripping something and it doesn't really grip/goes through/lacks the object). From my testing it still takes work, you might just be better off redrawing it yourself to fix it 😆
@@papabones8753 They need the hands thing to cope, you are pushing him off the ledge with this comment.
@@OrgusDin It's pretty funny really. I've seen so much anti-AI art content, it's mostly "hands" when in fact for me it's usually just 2 generations or some inpainting away.
@@papabones8753 The other massive 'artist' cope is that only text2img exists, not all of the myriad other tools that make them even more pathetic by comparison than they were when they were only comparing themselves with text2img. Holy shit I'm glad I'm not an 'artist' or else I would be absolutely required by some cosmic law to be a complete twat clown.
@@OrgusDin I could somewhat be called an artist...at least according to other people...I've put in my own art as well, works pretty well to improve it overall.
I've personally been most impressed by the aforementioned inpainting, it's pretty much magic to what it feels like.
I saw recently that some judges passed some laws saying that any art form created from an AI WILL be fair use to anyone, and has no copyright, which helps a lot, but it’s still a big issue
It's based how you have no understanding of the legal system and also no understanding of AI at the same time, as well as no understanding of the reality of the situation and the fact open source has already cucked you completely. It's high level 'artist' cope and for that I applaud you, I never get tired of watching the bargaining stage of grief.
@@OrgusDin hoes mad?
@@blightcaster4388 You are, but you will get better, or not. It really doesn't matter, 'artists' are old hat and a stupid machine replaced you.
@@OrgusDin i am a hat now? damn i had no idea
@@blightcaster4388 Are you even an 'artist'? If no one has bothered to specifically train a model on your 'art' then the answer is no, so don't get too butthurt about your loss when it wasn't much of one to begin with.
The devs of midjourney and stable diffusion straight up said that “art is a tool and should be automated.” When told that art is a fundemental part of the human experience they replied with “oh its just a thing that were gonna outgrow and evolve out of”
Complete dismissal of the entire field and craft. You really think that they care about ethics? They are literal comic book villains given real world power. They have to be stopped
What about the devs of other programs?
Honestly after drawing the same backgrounds and characters for an animation so many times, id wish there was an AI that could do it for me, no fun in redrawing stuff that Ive already drawn
Take away art and you just have soviet era concrete blocks with nothing interesting.
Literally every piece of entertainment vanishes if you get rid of art.
People keep shoving ai art in my face and they're foreshadowing it over real art. It sucks, it sucks, because no matter how cool it looks, it's never going to be better than the original. Someone gave me a Sonic the Hedgehog ai art, he literally had 2 noses, and he had his finger connected to his mouth. Like...what?
To be fair that AI was probably bad, they do struggle with hands, but with the right settings you can (albeit not necessarily the first try) get a really good result
11:00 lol editor-san supporting those "hands are hard to draw" facts
So, I will say that the AI is really good at visual effects in these pieces (the lighting and filter on the Broly one is crazy).
And the coloring. If AI just did the coloring I would use it
Yea they also have amazing shading and color choice. Just very iffy design choices 😅
One guy here said it perfectly. AI is best used for the boring effects, coloring, linework etc. The actual Artists draw the art and AI does the supplementary coloring, effects etc.
You have earned a like for the brief animatrix frame.
I used A.I. art to generate "game show contestants" for a powerpoint gameshow I made for fun. It worked okay however, I still had to take the A.I. images and adjust them to look a bit better. It took me about 30 min to correct the images and about another 30 min to find acceptable A.I. So, an hour of work vs my no drawing skill which would have taken me days was interesting to do.
Reminds me of one of the benefits I often see people bring up, getting backgrounds.
I would imagine that the worry of stealing someone's art is only "okay" as it hasn't been tested. If disney found out your AI generated image has their stuff in it, they'd likely sue
They dont care as long as you arent hurting their bottom line or make too much money on it. If it just brings some views to your website or twitter, most corporations could literally give a shit lol. Its highly unethical though.
@@djentmas867 did they not sue a family for a child's gravestone having Mickey on it?
@Pokémaniac Guquiz if true, I think that's silly but they likely sued as they didn't want Mickey associated with a gravestone when Googled. If it never got buzz, likely never would have been an issue. But yea... weird thing to do. Clearly your company touched that family in a special way. Embrace that
ruclips.net/video/8eokIcRWzBo/видео.html&si=EnSIkaIECMiOmarE Good quick video on the subject
@@braydenb1581 ik Nintendo would definitely sue. "Don't profit off our product, we will sue anyone for any reason"
As an indie game dev, AI art is a massive help for concept art. I'm able to see a rough version of what my idea might look like and it helps me get even more ideas for the actual finished product.
I've talked to a lot of indie devs and one thing they've told me is that they wouldn't use ai art in final production as there's no legal precedent and ai art isn't really anywhere close to working back and fourth with a human artist, what's your take on it?
@@samuelkibunda6960 I 100% agree.
AI art should never be used in the final product because it could not only put you in legal trouble, but it could make your game feel soulless, since AI simply does not have the nuance and specifics that a real person has. However, it is a great tool to use in the pre-production stage of a game, and only then.
I'm not even halfway done with the video yet, and I can confirm that your entire team has already won.
i could see the ai art being uses as a way to start drawing your own art... like you could legit feed some ai a photo prompt it to make a character then redraw it to create an original character
Interesting to note that I think that AI Bulma that Editor-San corrected looks like 18 more than she does Bulma. Editor-San did a great job turning it into a recognizable character
My dude Mark starting the video with "World Record" from the Animatrix!? LFG
I think this video really demonstrates a great use case for AI generated art. I've never been on either end of this interaction, but I would imagine for commissioned art, it may be easier for the customer to convey the image they want to create by using AI art, and a trained artist can use that as the jumping off point for an image that isn't lousy with all the errors a generated picture makes.
100%, I've already done this as a commissioner. I got about 5 or so roughly on model pictures from an AI then sent them off do an artist to finalize the design from. It worked perfectly.
I think people wouldn’t have such an adverse reaction to AI art if the AI enthusiasts online didn’t put someone’s finished product into the machine and then posted the new AI version under the original.
It's easier for the commissioner to make his own art and let the 'artist' get a real job if he has any talents besides being slower and less creative than a piece of extremely dumb technology that is still only a primitive shadow of what is to come. Crying online seems to be the #2 skill 'artists' have, try that.
@@OrgusDin I think there's more nuance to the arguments that is being missed in your comment there. Not to mention that implying commissioned artists don't have a "real job" is a very poor choice of words.
@@isaacfiresmith5250 you doing that makes you a scumbag.
If someone is commissioning human art ai in no instance should be in that equation.
The way you can make an art challenge video while at the same time make an essay vid about AI drawings is amazing.
I will say that something that AI art is good for, like you mentioned, is brainstorming ideas for new drawings or even stuff like character designs. It could also be used for producing stuff like book or album covers if you feel so inclined (though you lose a lot of distinct identity doing that since AI art has little to no soul behind it).
My issues aside from the replacement of artists in certain industries like animation or what have you is that its also easy to pass off a lot of this art as real, not to mention you can feed an AI drawing an incomplete work and have it churn out something half decent out of that stolen piece of art. And its not like you can just put the prompt tags in the metadata because sites like Twitter remove the metadata from images for privacy reasons. And even if artists made a more concentrated effort of producing images of the WIP drawing and uploading those to Twitter, Newgrounds, Instagram, what have you to combat AI artists and show proof of authenticity, not only does that give AI artists more material to feed their software, but its not entirely impossible in the future for AI art software to come out that's capable of doing the same thing (because you can do about damn near anything with technology over a long enough span of time).
Simply put: I don't know if this technology should be legal.
No one needing human 'artists' anymore is the best part.
@@OrgusDin but can it make animation checkmate it's doesn't so shut up about it
why would it not be legal?
The advancement in technology like this is not inherently bad, and has the potential to be a ground breaking tool for even the people it's supposed to """replace."""
The really issue is that, like any tool, it can and *will* be abused by people who have the intention to do so. While I'm just having fun using prompts and seeing what comes out all this hubbub is necessary as to open up conversations about this technology as it goes forward.
@@OrgusDin No one needing you comment and bitching anymore is the best part
One big problem in this whole AI art issue is clients who really couldn't care less how good or specific the art is, just so long as it attracts your attention.
Just look at the San Francisco ballet fiasco. They used AI art to promote their ballet. Even other artists throwing visual artists under the bus because they could get something good enough for cheap or free to promote their own thing.
yup!!
14:40 as someone who tried that once, I completely agree with your statement. I used an AI prompt to spitball a concept for a painting, and I wound up largely ignoring the results once I actually picked up a brush. There's nothing really there, it's like selling a Pinterest board as a collage.
8:55 looks like Bardock clashed fists with C-Moon.
I think, intentionally or not, this video showcases the correct answer AI art has in relation to artists. Not as a tool to circumvent or replace real life artists, but rather as a tool to assist them. What the AI produced used as a sketch saved an immense amount of work for the artist by sheer virtue of coming up with a raw initial concept and a decent sketch to work over, through which artists can use to work over and add their personal elements and add the finer details.
Rather than rejecting the new tools of the modern era we can take a control of them and put them to use.
thats a good line of thinking. Problem is not just artist are using this tool. anyone is using this tool and taht means non artist who have no respect for creativity who will prepurpose and sell this stuff. Its doing more harm to artist than it is good right now. I think oneday we coan get to this point but ai art needs regulation
until it gets to the point where it gets good enough people go to the ai for art instead of actual artists
@@kossemoore3342 And why can't non-artists use them? It's not like all artists out there are altruistic saints who have no intent to profit of their talent. And it's not like non-artists don't have creative visions either.
Is it actually doing actual harm, though? I've heard a lot of suppositions, but do we have an actual impact? Have we seen the million dollar AI art NFT scams? Have artists commission incomes dropped or patron funds diminished.
I don't think it's "one day". I think we need to condition people in using new technology the right way right now that's it's newly released. Instead right now people are continuously instructing others on how to misuse it through fearmongering.
@@toasterowens8916 Even if it does, there are human traits that you cannot reproduce such as intent. The technical skill isn't the only thing that makes artwork good, it's a myriad of elements most of which cannot be replicated by a computer or a learning algorithm.
@@crushingon a good enough AI could replicate anything if given enough time
This video calmed me down. I was super nervous about AI art. Made me feel like my work isn’t special but hearing you speak about it made me realize I’m good
You are good. It’s just in the future AI art will be even better than you and it’ll only take seconds to produce. You will lose your art job to AI, first major field to be affected by AI
@@JGokuuAnd that's why selling AI art for profit should be made illegal.
8:41 WTF I JUST REALISED THE AI ART OF BROLY LOOKS LIKE HE BRUISED HIS NIPPLES
I standby the idea that, once sufficiently developed, AI-Art can be used to streamline 2D animation.
If one can train an in-house AI off of a series of Key-Shots, one could then use (and subsequently tweak), the artwork generated thereafter for the In-between frames.
This is idealistic thinking, of course, but I like to imagine that a properly trained AI could be used to cut down on what is undoubtedly a grueling and thankless task (as much as I respect and prefer the art of in-betweeners).
The number of times I, and many others in skilled labor fields have been told to "learn to code" as industries become more and more automated has kind of made me numb to artists now facing the something similar. Welcome to our side of the aisle. It's all just progress, right?
Warning random story and a bigger post....
And people reading this, If I am factually wrong with something correct me, thanks.
Programmer / Systems Developer here. One of the main reasons I went into programming field was career councilors and parents told me back in middle school it was the safest job for my future, despite me not having any chance in the school type I went to, to ever get a job there. So was told, just do helper jobs and that I'm f***ed without focusing my whole life on it and do all school diplomas for the higher school types (wasted 5 years of my life going back to school).
And I did.... Despite me only having a passing interest in the field and would have rather learned knife / blade / blacksmithing since it's a nearly dead profession here, to keep the traditional art and culture alive.
If this was a good Idea I tell probably some random internet person in 10-15years, still am only 34 yo. ;).
Sorry about the unsolicited story, I just thought it would support your point nicely.
Back to the video now, I did play with AI art generation and think it's neat. It's only a tool and the fearmongering and outrage is insanity in my opinion.
The following is not only in regards to the new AI Art topic but can be generalized and I did.
People didn't want XYZ (insert random technology or invention which can be used for work related stuff) because (insert fearmongering or outrage rhetoric here).
Jobs change, technology happens, work environments and requirements change with the times. A professional Artist can create with AI help insanely beautiful Artworks in less time. So why not use it to your advantage?
The AI Art outrage people on the Internet would have died from dozens of aneurysms by now if they would work in tech. Some of us bi*ch and moan about the "trend chasing hipsters" (as I call them) too. But it is widely understood that even if you are not interested or do not like the new "trendy" things, it does not change the usefulness of the new developments for certain people. At this point I see our bi*ching more of a meme and good natured jab at it, since it goes both ways. To be fair I am one of the "old people" shouting at kids on my lawn ;). But would never think of raising drama about something so inconsequential oO.
These nonsensical appeals to emotion instead of weighting the pro's/con's rationally are really annoying me. And most importantly get the facts straight, do your own research, collect information from as unbiased and credible sources as possible and use your brain to formulate your own informed opinion on a topic. Why TF do I need to explain how to form their own opinions, instead of shouting in echo chambers.
Mark: Talking about the ethics of AI art.
Meanwhile Trev is making some fucking bangers of art.
I hope we get another episode of this, your artist videos are just awesome, especially as a wannabe artist myself. I do kind of agree with how it doesn't feel so right for AI to be using stolen art. The thing that worries me the most is how, even with all the jank, it's capable of doing like 75% of what an artist can do. And what especially I don't like, is it feels like it trivializes actual artwork done by people. People who don't understand the intricacies of drawing won't fully appreciate someone's work, when they're able to see tons of random drawings done by AI.
All 'artists' are wannabe artists minus the AI which actually is an artist.
@@OrgusDin nice bait
AI “art” can be a useful tool for actual artists, and the main issue is how these new “artists” use it. There’s already been one situation where someone who’d already been outed as a tracer is using it for their Patreon content. There was another one where someone screenshot an actual artist’s WIP, tossed it in an AI generator and then asked to be credited for stealing. And we all know there’ll be a few indie game devs who’ll try to use AI to copy specific artists’ style instead of paying that artist.
If everyone can band together and prevent opportunists and lazy parasites from profiting from AI art (because no, you’re not an artist), it can stay as a goofy tool to play around with or as assistant for newer artists to reference.
Yeah, honestly I think the best way to solve this is just making AI creators pay for the art they use to feed it.
"Actual artists" = Wendy's employees (for now, til they get replaced there too.) Absolutely tragic if you haven't learned how insufferable and delusional 'artists' are yet, at which point it becomes hilarious watching those losers fail.
@@OrgusDin Let me guess: you or someone you know tried to shortchange an artist because they were poor or just a dickhead, the artist called you or whoever out on it, people made fun of it, and now you’re here replying to several people’s comments as if it’ll help with the butthurt.
Since when style is copyrighted?
I also saw one where there was an anime convention, and the guy was selling AI-generated portraits that he had 'made'
The Videl and Bulma artworks are really good, well done guys!
About the Gohan Motorbike one, it would have looked pretty good if you had put Videl clinging onto Gohans back, idk that’s my opinion
This was a fun video, and I dig the attempt to educate about the issues with AI art, but like many videos it doesn't explain and even misrepresents how copyright, intellectual property, and fair use actually works, and I think that's leading to misunderstandings about stuff like if the AI is "stealing" or the role of "creativity" in these debates. For context, I'm not an AI guy (in fact I do worry that corporations may undercut artists with it), but I am somebody invested in Intellectual property law, reform, and have followed cases & legislation for a decade. In particular, I'm worried that in a well intentioned bid to fight AI, artists may encourage legal changes that backfire and open human artists to liability too, not just limiting AI, as there's actually a fairly strong Fair use defense for a lot (but not all) of what AI's are doing, and any precedence set limiting Fair Use or expanding Copyright protection to stop AI might also apply and limit real artists too.
Obligatory disclaimer that IANAL and that my comment here is based on US law, for other countries it might be different: For those unaware, the main thing in fair use determination is if the derivative work is "transformative". This is a legal concept that basically is asking is the derivative work is putting enough of a new spin on the original in both/either a literal and abstract sense. This is an IMMENSELY complicated concept, though, and to be honest, it's sort of impossible to cover entirely within RUclips's character limit: If something is transformative is just one aspect of many the courts consider when weighing a fair use defense: There's also Parody claims; there's the "4 pillars" (Purpose of a work, Nature of a work, how much of a work is used, and commercial impact), which a lot of sites act like are the only 4 but as i've explained there's other aspects too; and a whole host of other things. And Judges can and do invent new standards or weigh certain aspects more or less: You can satisfy a lot of requirements and still be infringing, or you can satisfy very little and still be fair use.... BUT, again, if something is transformative is *usually* the main factor, and this would be 12 pages long otherwise, so that's what i'm focusing on.
The video here almost frames AI as almost splicing together bits of existing images, but in reality no actual parts of input images are cut out and pasted together: It's gleaning artistic principals via examine the trends and patterns between the input images, which it uses to develop an algorithm that can apply the things it "learned" to generate new images. This has a VERY strong argument for being transformative: For starters, the actual medium is changing. If you write up a text description of a painting, that's obviously not infringement, and what the AI is doing is even LESS of a adaptation then that: it's merely documenting select principals of it's composition rather then describing the work in totality, and not just from it but thousands of other works, where any one of them is merely a small part of the new whole. If anything it's more akin to saying that a book on lighting and composition would be infringing on the images the author looked at while writing the book, even if the book doesn't actually include the images or even describe them.
If course, that's just discussing the AI algorithm itself, not the output images: I think that's more complex: As this entire video demonstrates, you CAN ask AI to generate images of copyrighted characters (like Goku), and that's obviously infringing on DB's copyright. You can also use AI to spruce up or "uncrop" existing images, which would likely be infringing on that image you had it modify: In both cases you can tell what the original character or image was. But if you're having the AI generate a brand new output image without specific copyrighted characters (say "Dragon in a swimming pool", then chances are no one image of a swimming pool or a dragon it used as an input is going to be obvious in the final piece, because it's just 1 of thousands of input images with little individual impact: It may not matter if the entire final image is derived from copyrighted inputs if only tiny bits of any one of them are still recognizable, but i'm admittedly not sure what the precedence is there with, say photobashing cases. I THINK it's just how much of any 1 is used based on what I've found, but I'm not sure. and there may be other factors.
In any case, something I AM sure is wrong that both this video and many other people bring up, that the notion that the AI lacking "human creativity" in contrast to an artist looking at references somehow makes it not fair use or transformative. This just isn't true, at least in current law, as far as I know: Certainly, putting a themetically interesting and creative spin on a work can AID a Transformative (or especially Parody) argument when claiming fair use, but it's not a requirement. You do need human input to GET copyright protection, see Naruto v. David Slater (yes, really), but that's a separate thing. Similarly, the fact that AI's don't need to learn and practice also isn't really important in if it's Transformative, and the idea that it can replicate people's art styles also doesn't matter, as Copyright doesn't protect "Style", just specific works or characters, things, etc.
This is where I think the risk with fighting AI via infringement claims starts: What if there IS a legal case or law passed changing that, and now creativity or requiring effort/practice IS a requirement in Fair use, or style IS now protected by copyright: Suddenly now you, as a actual, real human artist, might get sued because your art happens to stylistically look similar to somebody else's art. Or somebody making a piece of art that's a derivative work as a human artist now has a higher bar for claiming fair use because they have to prove it's sufficiently creative or high effort. Fair use is already WAY narrower then most people realize, and you of all people mark should know that. (If people are wondering why music AI generators only use royalty free music and care more about copyright, it's because the way copyright works with music is different: Music only has so many notes and the like vs the infinite spectrum of visual color, shapes, etc; so two people happening to make music with similar sections is common, and the case law with music infringement is ALREADY as such that in those cases, you're guilty of infringement often anyways even if it wasn't intentional. We do NOT want that happening with visual art copyright too. There's other ways music copyright is different too, like mandatory licensing)
And the same giant corporations people are worried about misuing AI to undercut artists (which, again, is a real concern) would LOOOOOOOOVE to have this happen: It would make it way, way easier for them to go after random people online with Copyright claims and C&D's: Imagine Disney Toei sueing somebody for making original characters that are just done in the Dragon Ball Style despite not actually being DB characters or using any copyrighted DB elements! In general, copyright expansions always benefit big corporations and hurt small creators: The corporations are too big to be sued for violations (such as when Family guy stole some guy's youtube clip then DMCA'd the original), and small creators are too small to fight back when the corporations sue them, even if what the creator did was fair use. Again, mark, you should know this.
Of course, it's possible that a court's ruling or a law in an AI case could be worded in such a way that precedence would apply JUST to AI (Again, beyond being transformative, say, the market impact is part of fair use determination, and AI due to it's ease of use and lack of practice/skill is extra disruptive to the art market), but the courts have CONSISTENTLY passed laws and made rulings that hurt smaller artists and benefit corporations: As I explained before, ultimately it doesn't matter how many Fair use principals you do or don't meet, sometimes you win or lose anyways: In practice, how rich and powerful you are often decides things, many times before it even gets to court since big corporations can force settlements or draw cases out and the other side has to give in, or they can lobby for laws to pass. As it applies here, we've already seen the Concept Art Association's anti-AI fundraiser state they want to get the Copyright Alliance industry lobby group Disney etc are a part of to be involved, who want to use anti-AI sentiments to expand copyright. The courts will be WAY more willing to listen to the big corporations at the lobbying table or filing Amicus Briefs then they will small artists.
So yeah, that's why I think framing what AI does as "stealing" or talking about how it's "not creative" or "can copy styles" is dangerous: It's well intentioned, but it's framing the issue and presenting arguments that, if they gain legal traction, could be disastrous to the rights of real human artists, as we can't guarantee that a court will rule or a law will be worded in such a way that those limitations would only apply to AI. As for how to combat it instead, I think there should be a push to get the AI companies to agree to stick to Royalty Free images on their own, like how the ESRB was formed without goverment regulation by the Games industry, and that people should just try to keep the precedence in place that AI images don't get their own copyright (which will discourage people from using AI in corporate contexts) without trying to claim the AI or the AI images are infringing.
i will quote you everywhere. Thanks.
Why did you write this much?
For one, the framing of this video isn't a legal one, but rather a moral one.
Second, the notion that ai art is not stealing from other art because "none of the piece is pasted into the original" doesn't hold any logical water. The ai model cannot output anything without its input art. It being obfuscated through the output does not change the fact that the artists image being imported is the only way that image could be output as it was.
@@TeeHallumsYT I get that Mark was mostly speaking ethically (I could have been clearer on that in my comment), but firstly, I don't think you can cleanly separate ethics from legality here, and secondly, the discourse around AI art has already gotten to the point where artists are rallying around legal fundraisers, the main one, again, has outright explicitly stated their intent to get megacorporation industry lobby groups involved and on board that Disney and co are a part of: I frankly think any analysis of the issue that doesn't acknowledge the legal risks here to be not approaching the issue responsibly.
I'm personally not that interested in debating ethics, because it's subjective and I think trying to come up with a plan of action that avoids the legal risks I outlined is more important then me trying to convince you my ethical standards are better then yours or visa versa. But to reply to what you said: If the actual images aren't being used and they're just being used to derive artistic principals and lessons to use to generate out of new images, what's the difference between that and artists using references?
The difference that mark and other people bring up is the "lack of creativity", but that seems to be a point being made out of a misunderstanding of fair use determination with legal case I mentioned. It's possible it's just an ethical standard they came up with without that context, but "creativity" isn't a ethical standard people seem to care about when making fanart or using references much elsewhere: I haven't seen artists claiming their work was stolen just because fanart or a referenced image isn't sufficiently creative, unless it's outright tracing and plagarism without credit nobody seems to mind, and AI art isn't doing anything as deririative as tracing.
The actual variable here that seperates what AI's are doing and human artists doing it is that of a larbor disruption issue: The idea that corporations will use AI to avoid hiring and paying artists, putting them out of a job. Which IMO is a very, very real concern. But I think that's what's problematic here: the use of existing images to learn from isn't.
The issue of AI and automation replacing human labor is also the BROADER issue with we're seeing not just with art but also text, music, code, and for decades physical labor and manufacturing: I think this is much, much bigger conversation then just art, and we need to rethink the idea that people have to work to meet ends meet to begin with in a world where machines and AI can do most of what society needs to run. If that was the case and people could pay for houses/apartments, food, electricity, internet, and other things without a competitive career, then would people still care about how derivative art AI is or isn't?
That's the real issue, IMO
@@MajoraZ The gofundme is a 200k cope and they cannot do anything about AI at all, it's open source for half a year, at best you are paying some 'artist' to go consoom on your behalf because they will never do fuck all else to stop the AI and neither can fossilized politician rats.
I think the humans win on quality of “sensical correctness” (lol idk I made that up) as in, the art is actually making real looking humanoids, but honestly I like the AI’s lighting effects better. Like honestly even better than what’s in the movies and the shows. That’s just me tho.
Although that vegeta AI generated image looked pretty fantastic not going to lie.
Well, standalone images tend to look better than animation frames in general (see anime posters compared to actual anime).
that vegeta looked good at a first glance but look closely to it, look for example at the shoulders
Great video Mark. You guys do amazing work.
I agree with a lot of your points, including the ethics of where the AI sources it's inputs. However, as a person with no art skills whatsoever, AI art has been a great tool for me. Often times I require images for games nights, table top roleplaying games (like DnD), and for casual hobbies. In these cases I often need something quick, specific, and doesn't have to be perfect whatsoever. If I have an NPC interaction, a one off character, or need to show a landscape, AI art has produced some awesome stuff. While I still use commissions for player characters and important people, the rest is certainly not something I could afford (or is worth) to commission an artist for every single time.
I've commissioned a lot of work off of various places (on the internet and in person). While I've had some good interactions and found some artists I can trust, I can also say it's not all been great experiences. I've had many cases where artists would be misleading regarding the quality of work (posting examples not representative of their delivered product). I've also had many cases where the artist I'm working with would not communicate at all during the process, miss agreed upon delivery dates by weeks, and not be willing to do requested revisions (even though it was in the terms of agreement).
I don't believe AI art can replace artists. However, I think it can be a really great tool, especially for those of us without artistic talent and years of honing their craft.
I think every artist just felt the pain with Editor-San. Just spending so much infuriating time trying to get this freaking hand right
The AI doesn't feel pain, another way it is superior to human 'artists'.
@@OrgusDin "AI doesnt feel pain, another way its superior to humans!" Mf are you skynet
@@amealeks6140 How can I tell?
@@OrgusDin Idk man peel off your skin there might be metal there.....
@@amealeks6140 Whoa, cool.
AI art, and how it's regulated now and going forward will cause a hell of a lot more problems, and it's already leading to many questioning wether actual artists will be able to carry on as their output is outpaced from the sheer efficiency of it, even though in many cases it's beyond terrible, and even if most of it was decent through good, the push away from actual artists is not worth it at all.
Human 'artists' can't compete, time to cope.
@@OrgusDin In your case, time to piss off.
Love the street fighter music for the character select screens
"You better believe you'll have to pay the AI art company though"
You can download and run stable diffusion offline all you want for free (provided you have a graphics card with at least 4GB of RAM). The stable diffusion model is free for download and isn't going anywhere.
This is why every anti-AI 'artist' has already lost a trillion times over.
@@OrgusDin You can lead a horse to water...
I think using it as a tool has it's merits, as you showed with how many wrong things there were in the drawing, Ai drawing can be used as an artistic problem making tool, the tool makes problems for you to solve like an auto generated math problem, you see how you want to tackle so and so doing this pose as a way to improve. The imperfections make it worth using as a tool to get better, but that's just how I see it. Great drawings and I think you guys knocked it out of the park.
To the point of AI art not being able to create art in a style without having seen it- I mean, I know I couldn’t draw in the style of Dragon Ball without watching it (or at least having seen images)
That Bulma was so cute... really shows what you mean there. These art videos are always fun, thanks you guys!
A new android? Pretty sure that makes 11, nobody tell Trunks’ dad..
Oda actually recently used AI art for inspiration, which got us chibi Lucci.
There is a fundamental issue with sourcing art for AI, and that is the legal allowances. In the US there is fair use, in the EU there is specific allowances for scraping artwork so long as it doesn't contain private information, and China is straight up stealing everything.
The best option that I've seen is from Waifu Diffusion, which credits every artist used in it.
where tf are you getting this info about Oda using AI /???
@@Vakodraws it was posted to the official One Piece channel as a short.
Copycuck spotted, unironically believes anyone cares what some relic fossil says about open source technology that already exists and is literally unstoppable without a global apocalyptic event (you being unable to make a living drawing furry smut is not this.)
This topic usually is spoken through emotional lenses. Lots and I mean lots of misconceptions about AI art. The vast majority of AI generated images are totally new. Yes they were trained using images created by real artists, however that's not even an issue. Unless you point out to me some obscure artist that was born blind the argument is null.
The idea that each generated AI art needs to have reference to all pieces of art it used to generate the image is not only absurdly idiotic but also shows that people with this argument don't know anything about AI art.
About the creativity aspect. I wouldn't call AI Art and Ai Art, rather a generated image using AI. The prompt is always done by humans and not a machine. You still need to write it. AI art is still on it's baby steps and just recently learned how to walk. AI art doesn't know how to run or jump yet. Like a baby it mimics. When AI art wouldn't even need human intervention like today with prompts it is then when AI ART would have evolved.
However, this type of stuff is not going to happen soon. Not in this decade. Maybe 15 years from now we will see a new Model of AI which would be capable of this sort of stuff. I am not saying that we won't have significant improvements in the next 15 years as I am sure that even 5 years from now it will improve substantially. Heck even like 10-20 percent improvement would be quite significant.
As for the styles you could theoretically mix the styles in the prompt to create something more unique.
i think for the most part the AI art actually looked better at a glance by good margin (especially the Vegeta one), but then the details fall apart when you look closer
That last AI vegeta art was so spectacularly well done
You state that an AI can't output something that is not a aggregation of existing bits, but it's a bit more complicated. When you take a look at AI that generate human faces it is very difficult to track down which features were drown from which face. This is done thanks to the input being random data instead of a phrase like those you used on top of an set of training data on a far greater scale.
You could argue that this is just more aggregation of random bits on a another scale but since we do not understand what is creativity exactly it is hard to know if it is more than just the above process magnified.
In anyway that was a cool video, keep up the good work.
For those interested, read Turing's work on AI.
4:55 that's what Goku saw when Krillin used the solar flare in DBS
Unethical yes. Obvious and vastly outperformed by actual people, also yes.
Then why are you seething, if you were even remotely capable of competing you would do that instead of just seething at it, but you aren't. Drawcucked forever.
@@OrgusDin Seething? Lol
I think you misunderstood. I don't use AI art. I was agreeing that human artists are better. No need to be unkind friend 😊
(Oh god I'm so sorry, I just looked up here and realized how much I wrote jfc I can't believe youtube is even letting my post this book of a comment)
AI researcher here,
I wanted to provide my own perspective on things, as well as give people a bit of a deeper understanding of how these models work.
First off though, I do want to say that I agree wholeheartedly that these tools shouldn't be used for profit, and at a fundamental level it is important to make the distinction between open source models where all the data, code, and trained models are provided for free for anyone to use or modify, and closed source ecosystems where you are beholden to a company (likely through a subscription) for access and usage. OpenAI created dalle and dalle2, but their models and source code for projects generally aren't open at all, while stable diffusion is entirely free and open source.
Even on the corporate side, I think that its important to note that the research teams working on these systems weren't necessarily starting out with the intention to create something to replace artists, however, regardless of how it is approached, this will happen. It doesn't even matter if it becomes illegal to use such programs, as they are faster and cheaper to the point that it will cost the likes of disney nothing in legal fees to keep using them and lay off artists.
While its not impractical to say that in many applications of art its likely that artists will learn to use AIart as another powerful tool in their toolkit, there is no sugercoating the fact that this tech is as revolutionary and breaking as the innovation of recording music was for live performances.
On the open source side, stable diffusion (along with other research groups) generally started with the stated goal of reproducing the work of companies like openai and google, and providing that for free.
Some people have discussed various ways to create laws to limit AI or datasets and protect creators through copyright, but I am incredibly wary of these, as it often aligns incentives with the media corporations who would be all to happy to further limit fair use and profit off of fan content.
I also think it is more up for debate whether these models are capable of something resembling creativity, and the arguments for lie in the specifics of how these models actually work, which is often communicated in heavily simplified and misleading phrasing, so I'd like to take a stab at clarifying some general specifics of how these models work.
The key aspect of many of the current state of the art image generation AI is the concept of diffusion, which starts off with a bunch of random noise, and then iteratively attempts to approach a stated goal. For image generation AI, this means it starts with an image of random noise, and then takes the given prompt and makes a pass at the noise, slightly changing it in order to find structure out of the randomness that fits the prompt. This is quite innovative, as it means from the same prompt, random noise can create completely different generated images with the same intent, and in training there are many different 'right' answers, allowing the only a few gigabyte file-size of the model to have learned an impressive amount of general knowledge.
I think an important thing to note is that, once trained, the model is static, and unless it is fine-tuned further down the line, it doesn't learn or see anything new. Once it is trained, it doesn't have any access to the datasets anymore, nor does it search the internet, everything it 'understands' (in this case about art), is baked into the weights and biases of the neural network(s) its comprised of. The scale of compression here is unbelievably immense. Stable Diffusion 2.1 is about 5GB on my hard drive. It was trained, not on a few thousand images, nor a few million, but 5 BILLION images scraped from all around the internet. The LAION5B dataset, is open source, and anyone can search it if you would like to see if it has your art in it (it probably does). To put that scale in perspective, that is more images than seconds you have been alive, in fact, given current human lifespans, it is more images than seconds in the longest living human to date, and in total takes up ~250 TB of hard drive space.
In the case of stable diffusion, saved as float16, the model itself is only 2.5Gb. Because of this insane 'compression' and the from noise generation process, in practice it is actually very difficult for the model to recreate specific images from the dataset, except in specific cases where there are many versions or references of the same art pieces, such as something like 'Starry Night', or the Mona Lisa. To a lesser extent, this is how these models understand what specific characters from different works of fiction look like, which is also why creating specific characters tend to actually be quite a pitfall of these models. It may get, to some extent, who some of the characters in DragonBall are, but its likely using the similar styling to fit them together very tightly, if that makes sense.
Anyway, long winded way to say that these models do not search the internet for images, everything they understand is encoded into them during training, and that encoding is DENSE. It also doesn't do any sort of classification or narrowing down of the dataset as it generates a new image. This seems counterintuitive, because one might think that if you ask it for art of a specific anime character, that it should be pulling up references of that anime style, and of that character, in order to generate a new image. But due to the nature of how neural networks work, its querying its entire corpus of knowledge with every pass. One might be able to say that there is a degree of self-organization in terms of how things are encoded into the latent space, but at this point I'm throwing technical jargon around as if it answers questions, which it doesn't.
The 'creative' advantages to this, is that we can do things with the AI that aren't strictly possible for a human to do. For instance, we can ask it to create images that travel between two prompts, and we could see what the halfway point is between two styles, two characters, or what the average of completely different concepts look like, and it will do it. You bring up that many genres of music and styles of art of born from and developed off of one another, and I think that is important in this context. Given the right prompting, these AI can make those same stylistic developments, without being told what its aiming for, and through this I believe its entirely plausible that it is capable of genuine creativity, but its also important to know that it if it is, it learned that from us.
I'm not really sure where I'm ultimately going here or if I had any central point to these ramblings, its just been a crazy few months in the AI research world, and I don't think anyone thought we would be here now. I would have put this kind of AI a decade or more away just a year ago, and I don't think any of us fully understand the impact its going to have on every industry, especially the creative arts.
Also, fun fact, this terribly incoherent assortment of thoughts was once even more terribly incoherent, and then I threw it all at chatGPT and asked it to help me organize and refine it a tiny bit. ChatGPT is also quite capable of programming, moreso than dare I say a not discountable amount of college compsci students, and its also capable of writing comments, summaries, and taking feedback, which at least puts it ahead of me. While I do fear somewhat of its ability to supplant people's jobs, even my own, I also enjoy bouncing research ideas off of it, and asking to code things I'm too lazy to write up. What I don't like about it is that the model is entirely closed source. OpenAI has chosen to make it free for use now, but that may change in the future, and the true path forward, in my mind, lies in open source competition providing these tools to everyone for free. I believe that this sort of code generation AI, in the not to distant future, is what will empower small open source teams to compete head on with walled gardens of the likes of Adobe and Apple, and I think that open source and collective forms of automation and AI are the only way to stop the worst parts of capitalism from continuing to ruin humanity.
And sure, AI has lots of potential for downsides, and as these models get exponentially more powerful into the future we need to figure out the right and ethical ways of interacting with them, but at least they can generate cute pictures of cosmic cats of various festive varieties.
Okay, reading this through again (which I probably should have done before posting it,
how the heck did I write so much and also still feel like there are 50 million things and angles that I didn't cover or bring up for discussion aAAAAAaagagghh
A kind thank you and the most delicious imaginary cookie I can summon to whoever reads through the whole thing
Great thoughts and ideas, this has been my approach to thinking around a lot of the moral and legal challenges brought up by artists. I hope that we can all find ways to use these tools to accelerate the creativity of the human artists using AI tools rather than being adversarial.
Once again thank you for your thoughts!
I didn’t even get a notification for this video. Just now seen it because of a “is this recommended video good for you” pop up on my home page.
Wtf I’m literally subscribed why would I not want to watch it
Do you have the bell on notifications for all updates?
Editor san STRUGGLED with those hands but WON
I really like that in this video you didn't just redraw the pictures, but also discussed why many people also have ethical and artistic problems with AI creations. Even if the AI could draw prettier pictures, which I'd argue it didn't in this video, it wouldn't negate all of the other points you made.
Artists really shouldnt talk about ethics. i see more Artist at Comic Con sells Fan Art of DBZ characters and other Anime characters they don't have the right to all the time. so do they get a pass just because they can draw or how about a artist drawing in a style similar to another Artist isnt that stealing as well but thats ok right since its human drawing
Not really a great comparison, if you want to talk about the ethics of drawing characters and selling them is one thing but that isn’t a counter to ai art since it takes a lot of data from already existing art and makes a jank image from it
These drawing videos are so on-par with the review videos, I would love to see so much more of these heading forward in 2023!
I really liked this video. The commentary was interesting and entertaining and the artists were very good at showing AIs defects. Thanks 😊
Art is a thing that we humans do simply because we want to, and we will always love to do it, whether being paid for it or not. People who say stuff like "let human artists become obsolete and replaced in the name of progress, like horse carriagers after cars came along" really have a shallow understanding of art. Art is not simply a job or product, it's not a chore! Machines should never truly replace what we love and want to do in life, what makes us human, the pleasures of life that make it worthy living. A machine is not gonna keep me from, for example, swimming if i find it fun! This is even truer for art: each person is unique, and we love to develop our own unmistakable style and vision!
There is so much detail that goes into a work of art besides a description and broad strokes that one person can feed into an AI program. If I just gave some basic prompt/description for AI art programs, and then did nothing with the resulting art, I would feel deeply ashamed if I said that I actually made this art. It's fun to play with, sure, but it doesn't make me an artist.
Maybe AI can be a valid artistic tool, but not like this! Animators use interpolation software to help their work in animation, but they are always constantly paying attention to everything the program does, and course-correcting anything that goes quirky. It's very different from people who just throw animation into an AI software, press render to interpolate, and hope for the best (Noodle's RUclips channel has a good video on this).
Suppose that we can someday make an AI that is actually sentient and creative like us humans, feels emotion like us, has a unique identity, and so on, as we see in sci-fi. This AI would effectively be an individual person too, and it doesn't replace me any more than any new human being being born replaces me. Each person is unique. Such AI should be granted human rights.
Point is: maybe AI will replace humans for many card illustrations, and ads, stuff like that, which doesn't need to be truly unique or have a person's individual and unmistakable vision in the details, it doesn't have to special. But people will never stop wanting to create and make art, regardless if they are being paid or not. Art is not a chore, it's something that we actively enjoy doing. It's fun hard work. Art is part of what makes us human, that's why we'll never stop doing it. Not to mention that art is never just technique.
Ultimately, these are the reasons why I feel this video and many comments here are often sensationalist scare-mongering. I also recommend episode 43 of the 2000s Astro Boy anime. My mind always goes back to it whenever this scare-mongering happens. Please forgive the porn ads in the link.
www2.gogoanimes.fi/astro-boy-tetsuwan-atom-episode-43
11:52
For anybody who cares, quick background on the footage box about this and the next character shown. This concept art is not from anything Dragon Ball, but instead it is from the game Dragon Quest IX Sentinels of the Starry Skies (Which is one of my favorite games). The reason why it is shown is because Akira Toriyama does the art for those games.
(Also the characters' names are Erin and Patty, two innkeepers. The third is also from Dragon Quest, but I cannot remember from which game she is from and her name.)
Honestly most of the limitations you mentioned aren't things that exist because they are not possible with AI its just they haven't been trained to do so yet/ don't have the feedback systems in place. You could definitely give AI 80s music and it would evolve something entire different out of it, if there is a positive feedback system like human listeners saying which songs they like from the AI this would speed up the process. Dont think that AI can not be creative, deep learning is modelled after how the brain works , uses neural networks that mimmick the function of neurons in our brains. Humans don't just come up with ideas out of nowhere they also have a series of inputs / inspiration and there is a random element to creativity as well. The AI doesn't just have to reproduce art in the same style it was trained on.
Im not exactly in favour of AI but as someone who studies computer science and does art the future is grim for artists. The AI is only going to get better at these things.
I agree, after all, I know also about computer science. Also, I hate when Humans think they are superior based on extremely vague ideas for which they often have wrong ideas. (in this case of creativity)
@@anderiko1816 Yeah humans need to be more humble. Assuming the AI is limited is why the recent developments snuck up on artists. It seems like a distant dystopian future but in reality we already have the tools and the knowledge it's just about execution and investment.
Trunks tried to warn us
not really
The AI art had me scared until i saw how derpy they look
that second one trev redrew was a huge example of "look at it for more than a millisecond than you'll see everything terrible about it" because on paper it looks fine but after a single second you realize what's wrong with it
I like this video, try promt vs AI. Like the artist don't see what they are competing against.
Like "Vegeta in a kimono using Kamehama in a iceland" and you all draw the same promt and then feed that into an AI generator and compare the best against your pieces.
love the Ryo-Mark at 0:10. could this mark a Devilman 1972 manga review oncoming?!! i can only hope. the Devilman Crybaby OST used once in the video gives me joy too.
After seeing the blurred art of the old AI art, compared to what’s been made now, it’s horrifying how much they’re evolving
Not really horrifying at all, it's more impressive than anything. It wont become horrifying until it grows its own sentience and creativity, which wont be until a WHIIIILE from now.
That's why they're called artificial learning
I never thought of the AI art controversy fully and why it’s a negative thing. Thanks for your insight and research on it TNM. Also, how long does it take you write a script for a video?
That Vegeta you drew at 16:40 looks so sick!
I’m a Native American artist and over the years I’ve seen what replication and mass production can do. Just like what Walmart did to the local mom and pop shops and retail. It goes for the 5 dollar logo and the cheap India labor. It’s all the same, artist were in trouble. I started back in 94, my eye set on cds and music advertising. By the time 98 hit website design moved in. By 2000s printing died, because one of the dominate printing companies closed up shop by 2002. Then web design died because of wix and all this template based crap. So goes desktop publishing. So now comes Ai here to finish it all off. As for Native American artist they’ve tried to pass laws about Native American art and Chinese rip offs but nobody cares and the price of silver is so high natives use nickel and killed the market trying to compete with Chinese made. So that will die with the rise of Ai. With the help of adobe a few words and your design half done, for a business I know they don’t care. They just want the end result, they dont care about who or what makes it. I say we got 5 years at the most but with affinity getting out of the business and canva taking over, I think we got about 2 years. Since 94 I’ve tried to keep up every 3 years I can’t anymore.
I really relate to editor-san having to redraw that damn hand angle 10 times 10 different ways to get it satisfactory 😂
13:27 the comment in this section doesn't make much sense. Again, ethically there is no dilemma whatsoever because each and every one of the artists of this planet saw a lot of art, in many cases for free, before even considering becoming artists. Why is it bad for a program to do it now?
In addition, the concept of trial and error is basic in everything learning related, AIs need to do it and need all the possible support so that they go from the generation of random art pieces to the greatest possible specificity. Something that is not going to happen in a short period of time if this drama continues to be made about it. I understand that this threatens the work of hundreds of thousands of people, but it is not the first instance in the history of mankind that technology displaces the human workforce, it is inevitable to the extent that we advance technologically
It's fun watching an industry who thought they were going to always be safe from automation get automated.
All these artists complaining that a computer program used their art without consent while selling art of other people's characters and designs themselves.
Complaining that ai art is derivative is also silly because everything is derivative, you are taking things you have seen or heard and modifying it just a little, that's what ai does. And before you say ai can't create it can only copy you should really look in minute papers and all their ai videos.
My favorite was the Bulma eating ramen, so cute and full of personality, something that an AI can never reproduce.
The issue with Bardocks face might be a result of the AI taking Masked Saiyan Bardock from Heroes into account, and the mask and face being fused into something not recognizable as either.
I think it’s clear that AI art is at a clear limit to what it can do, and all of your guys’ versions of DB art are amazing! Especially Mark’s Vegeta in the Takahashi style OOOOHHHHH MY LORD THAT ONE WAS GORGEOUS
lmao meanwhile 2 years ago it could barely sketch a cow, now you have to cope "bro look we totally won vs it" unironically, sad as fuck bro, cope and seethe
I think the thing with AI art that makes me excited (and not worried) for the future is exactly what you talked about during the first drawing.
The AI art can look good… at a glance. BUT!! that’s where I think the usefulness can be found. Suffering from a bit of a mental block? Generate some AI art for inspiration.
I’ve seen some pretty weird AI art turned into some really cool hand drawn stuff. Weird melting faces and eyeballs in the wrong places turned into something cool.
I think they do a good enough job at conveying the general shape of a thing while getting most fine details horribly wrong.
Now, I know you talk about this during your Vegeta section and you mention it wouldn’t work for a number of reasons, but I’d actually still argue in favor of using it as inspiration. Take your specific Vegeta that you drew. The AI art gave you a general idea, and you completely altered just about everything for it. I think that worked exactly like I’d imagine it could.
It was used as the extremely basic starting outline that you took and made something a million times better.
Trev art is absolutely gorgeous!! Amazing art everyone!!!
I love how the production value on these videos is getting exponentially higher.
I’d love to see a video where you guys are crafting your own dragon ball styles with commentary about how art style really works, highlighting it with footage of your personal dragon ball styles
I think AI Art is a great tool for brainstorming but not a substitute for real artists, yet.
nice cope, very cool
Every artist beat the AI handedly. I feel like it wasn't even close, especially when AI can't do hands, and create weird artifacts and issues.
11:57 Dude, that ain't Bulma. Those are characters from Dragon Quest IX.
Yes, the point was Editor-san was referencing modern Toriyama work lol
@@AnimeAjay Ah, okay. I'm a huge Dragon Quest fan, so it just immediately jumped out at me, lol.
The sad truth is that, like it or not, this is the future, we do not have a button to "undo-AI" and the benefits of having it are obvious, and, this video is an example of it, you can ask your AI to generate a "template" and then work from it, or, you can upload a basic template and then ask it to modify some aspect of it, and, while it isn't perfect, it allows you to create something faster.
Shoutout to the fact that the team edits a full video that aligns with marks words just to then put it in a lil box
I see AI art tools as sort of a Concept art for Concept artists. gives them the ability to very quickly get past the bad ideas and get to what they are truly trying to see a whole lot faster
I'm an okay artist and I think the ai is perfect for helping set up a concept (and composition).. I don't think it'll take people's jobs but make em easier, at least until the ai gets better haha
11:36 Editor-san just giving up and tracing over his hand was funny ngl
Hands are hard to draw (plus I love the chopsticks)
Even then, he erased it
This video is probably the best discussion on AI art I’ve witnessed so far. You covered all the main pros, cons, short comings/flaws, and ethical dilemmas. Personally, I just see AI art as a additional tool for artists, hobbyists, and consumers to play around with, be it fun or concept. Regardless of what you think or feel, AI art is out there and there is no closing Pandora’s box. It’s unfortunately going to be abused for fame and profit no matter what, so I think it’s best that artists adapt and perhaps try to use AI tools to their advantage. That’s my two cents anyway.
yeah, AI will not replace artists, is just another tool in the toolset, people didnt stoped to draw and paint when cameras were invented
Totally Not Mark is one of my GOATS, if he wasn't before, he definitely is now. I shed multiple tears watching this video. You guys were amazing and whooped some Seraphim butt today!
That Bulma was looking ROUGH! Much better correction,I think the Videl redraw is my favorite, and the Bardock one is my favorite before after