I'm a nonbinary-ish trans woman with kind of an androgynous voice. I'm not going to waste my precious time tracking down everyone who misgenders me, but if you care, i use she/they pronouns and prefer feminine-coded language where applicable (and also thank you ❤)
Hi Autumn Chiu great content and you are easy to look at - thanks. Although, maybe don't put yourself into a bin like 'nonbinary-ish trans woman with kind of an androgynous voice'. You're just you.
As a Visual Artist™ I think the best example of an ethical use of machine learning in art is probably in the Spider-Verse movies. Part of the comic book effect in Spider-Verse is the use of pen strokes accentuating contours on characters' faces. These would've been a nightmare to do by hand so instead they had artists draw a bunch of reference images of these pen strokes for faces from different angles and then used that to train a machine learning model which could apply those lines across the whole movie. They still had artists go in and clean them up by hand because machine learning is prone to mistakes, but it saved time and didn't require the theft of other artists' work. Datasets are the biggest ethical and artistic hurdle. I think to make an artwork with any degree of intention or specificity using AI you'd need to choose the training data yourself. With the current "kitchen sink" approach to data harvesting you kinda just get the average idea of any given subject rather than any specific artistic vision (there's also the issue that the data is often stolen or incredibly illegal material). It's a bit like making music using only the preset tracks on a casio keyboard. It's possible, but it's very, very limited. Tbh I don't think AI will be able to do much of artistic merit until after the current tech hype bubble bursts and it goes back to being a more niche technology, rather than The Solution To All Problems. Right now anyone who tries to do anything with AI ends up doing Everything with it. Anyway, that's all the rambling thoughts about AI that I currently have, I hope this is good for the algorithm or something.
Yeah, I've had more or less the same opinion on AI Art. "would be okay if not for the evil of capitalism" Not sure the Jane Doe comparison is entirely adequate here, as I'd imagine that software which interpolates frames of animation uses the existing frames as a reference, rather than pooling from a sea of potentially uncredited / plagiarised work, but I see the point you are trying to make.
Love this take, the current "AI bad always forever" rhetoric going around the internet is only causing our community to go in circles while greedy capitalists continue to use AI unethically. We should be focusing on how to utilize this tool ethically as artists, because it is here to stay
The issue is that shareholders, CEOs and the economy department dont care about balance. they care about profits. and they will fire, replace with AI, adjust it, rehire some. then repeat that cycle untill AI does what they want it to do. and that is why Ai will never work in harmony, even though it can be a great tool. for me it has been a great tool to learn drawing. but ill never do art as a ful ltime job, cause i know from experience how stuff are done. my job is also one of the last in the world to be replaced by AI, cause im the one maintaining machines.
yeah I don't really know what to say about the corporate side... I made this video for individuals and small teams thinking about how to use AI, but i don't know if I could affect the CEO level if i even tried
Huge congrats on this video, it unpacks a point of view on this topic I think more people need to understand. It's not often we come across a new technology that changes how we do everything, AI technology is a discovery on the same calibre as electricity or the nuclear bomb and therefore should be taken seriously. A painter's brush is an extension of themselves. By the same token, artists and AI tools can collaborate in a way that will build new experiences that are not bound by the current bottlenecks of human productivity. How people will go about using AI tools will inevitably come with costs, so we ought to be vigilantly aware of them.
This is great. This basically covers exactly my complicated feelings I've had on the subject for a while. I'm sure you know that this video will be polarizing, even with the disclaimers, just because of how the subject has been tainted by the tech bros and scammers. But I still think the technology is amazing, while lamenting these grifters every day, and the horrible ways this technology has been haphazardly shoved into every recent tech product, it is a wonder that any of this works at all. Pure sci-fi up until this decade. Ultimately I think we need to treat a tool as just that, a tool. And tools aren't good or evil, they only facilitate actions that can be good or evil. It's more nuanced than that I know, there are ethical considerations in the creation of a tool and it's purpose. But as you finish the video off with, if we just don't let ourselves be blinded by hatred, we can more carefully consider the ethical ramifications of AI as it exists while judging separately the actions of those wielding it.
I really like and agree with your explanation of AI as a supplement to creativity. AI is a tool and can be used for evil or it can be good, many bad actors will make their money while they can, but I hope that it will settle into that tool role.
I'm sort of loosely working on a project for worldbuilding stuff. Basically, I'm trying to put together a bunch of random roll tables for geography and culture and gods and etc. My intent is to make a program where I can draw a map, and then populate that world with a couple hundred years of "major events". I'm not talking "build the world for me", I just want something that can spit out story prompts for me to dig deeper into and spin out from. These tools can be useful when used ethically. But ethics is not a board member.
That is something I've said for a while: AI is a tool. The issue is the people that use it and say that "they made something". AI is trained with art from different artists, people who didn't usually give permision for that. AI is still a long way, but I'm sure it'll be a great tool when used in the correct ways.
I absolutely loved this video, it actually changed my opinion on AI and I hope it did the same for most people who watched it. This absolutely needs more attention. Good vid 👍
All well and good if artists whose life works were used in the training data were consulted or compensated. As it is, it's 'grand theft copyright' by big tech giants. I'm always surprised that people are willing to overlook the violation of property rights of small-time creatives, because they like to make pretty pictures, or want cheaper video games, or whatnot. I was going to compare it to when Walmart was moving into small towns and driving mom & pop shops out of business; but it's more like if Walmart broke into those small businesses, stole the merchandise, repackaged it, and sold it for less. But I suppose there would be some that would cheer that move as well, if they could save a few dollars.
Lol. You are not alone I’m a conventional artist, watercolor, watercolor pencil, but I love 3-D printing, digital ai art and incorporated them all together. I create 2.5 D Art. I find all these tools essential and fun and wonderful.
If this gives you a good night's sleep, then so be it. And hopefully you are a real artist - since I get the impression that many who ramble here about AI not being able to create 'real' art, by mere statistics can't be more than artisans or wanna-be artists themselves.
You can't say it's not art because you don't like it. Art can be anything. Art is simply creative expression, the prompt you put in and the vision you have for the generated image is what makes it art. Human-made art will still be more valuable than AI art because of the process, it just won't be profitable. Where AI is headed, it will certainly take all jobs. This isn't a popular opinion, but this isn't necessarily a bad thing. MIT estimates that the economy will stop functioning once 25% of the population has no money. This means that in order for the rich to stay rich, UBI will be absolutely necessary, otherwise money loses all value and nobody purchases their products. This means that before the majority of us even lose our jobs, UBI will be implemented and we will be able to live without working. An AI like this that takes jobs would also dramatically increase productivity and create an abundance of profit, and considering how everyone will be living on UBI, they will need to charge exactly what we will be able to afford, and could likely go even lower if they desired. On top of this, AI will be advancing significantly faster than ever, resulting in the singularity. An AI that could take jobs could take the job of an AI researcher/developer, which would drastically increase the speed of advancement. This would create superintelligent AI that would be able to develop technology that we couldn't dream of, curing every ailment there is, space travel, teleportation, and most notably even smarter superintelligent AI. This would be utopia. Taking artists' jobs is just a stepping stone. Our society is already failing, we need a dramatic change, and for a dramatic change to occur, some people need to face hardships for the greater good.
@@autumnchiu Art does not have to be impressive. I could stack rocks in the shape of a dick and it would be art. It's merely creative expression, as I stated in the first paragraph of my previous comment. Art is not exclusive to hard working, talented people. Yes, your art is more valuable and infinitely more impressive, but that doesn't change that both are creative expression, it just means it's more impressive, which is really all that matters. This is a semantics argument. The term 'art' has a meaning, and you can't alter this meaning specifically because you don't like that another method of creative expression makes yours unprofitable. I really do understand you being upset about it, but in the end, it will be well worth it for everyone, and you can continue making impressive art without the hand of capitalism guiding your pencil.
And unironic "YOU WILL SUFFER FOR THE GREATER GOOD!" argument jesus dude that's like actually dangerous, you don't want another Holocuast or Holodomar do you?
@@xitcix8360 "Art can be anything" no it can't. The word "art" doesn't mean "everything" or "anything." Yes, art is extremely subjective, but it has a range to it. The reason the art community rejects wholly-prompted Gen AI art as being legitimate art is because it's not actually made by a human. You're making a suggestion for a computer to pull together pixels in the right combination based on stolen intellectual labor.
@@tyrone687 Art is creative expression, as previously stated. This is why it's so subjective, because you can express your creativity through any medium. AI generation is merely the medium, like the paint or graphite. The prompter's vision and creative idea for the final image is what makes the image generated art, without those two aspects the image generator would be nothing. Painting is a means to express yourself creatively, sure the paint isn't art, but the painting is.
you made such good points. I think a lot of problems people have with ai art right now are that ai has been trained scraping the wide web indiscriminatly and without artists consent. I would be pissed to if after years of drawing some program used my art for profit. because the professional ai image geneartors are under subscription. I think that if ai can be used as a tool to make artists work easier then it's worth having. but first it needs to be trained on data that have been either freely given or have been bought fairly from the artists themselves.
I don't know how to preface this other than it's pretty long. Just my thoughts given your video, so... Please enjoy my feature length comment! Generator Ethics -I presume that when people talk about how an image generator is unethical, or the use of one is unethical, they fundamentally refer to the predatory training done on data for which those making the model should not have used given various reasons. While one may point to the end-use of that image generator as more or less unethical, the underlying mechanism is still the crux of their argument against its use. All of these assessments hold regardless of any legal standing, though one should hope for law to follow after ethics rather than the inverse. Learning into Sapience -perhaps regrettably, we may never achieve anything other than a complex, nigh indistinguishable mathematical facsimile of intelligent life. One which will only ever be an echo of what it was trained on. Of course, at this point, using relatively high dimensional vectors to describe associations between ideas in a predictive, layered transformer, one which then results in stochastic parrots, cannot actually recreate the conditions needed for a conscious being to arise. Potential for Ensouled Machines? -I will go out on a limb to reserve space for a future approach to training artificial intelligence that may, instead, more closely seek to mimic life first through fundamentals. Specifically, the training being achieved through sensory perception of the world by way of a body. My thought is that the application of robotics in artificial intelligence is essential to forming a functional model of the world, which builds the foundations for sentience, then sapience may follow after where simplicity forms complexity. That would be my thought, anyways. Really insightful video, especially when considering what it is that makes art. I don't think predictively generated music, writing, images, or video, in whole or in part, can really be of any use for an artist looking to give us a view of their unique thought and perspective. I only hope that people can find a place away from this ongoing social devastation, but things will never be as they once were, and needless to say, I will miss that.
Good video! yea I agree w alot of your points, despite AI at its current state being closer to cool data manipulator, humans are also cool data manipulators we exist on a further point on the intelligence spectrum. I would caution against calling twitter midjourney artists "not artists", because it gets into the philosophical and also kinda annoying question of what art is, it is bad art though. Jobs aren't real, time and effort is, professionals should be using their time towards where it's needed, while more utilitarian and low scale art be done w ai.
I still don't understand how people made an ethical issue out of creative A.I. Claiming its stealing art is just so ridiculous to me. Like am i stealing art if i can draw a derivative of Goku from DBZ with 99% accuracy and make something cool with it? I essentially 'trained' myself to replicate the original artist's style, so the same can be said about AI. All that AI is, is a tool to bring your imagination to life. thats it. If you value manual human input more, just enjoy it and leave AI alone. No one is forcing anyone to consume AI content. Also about monetary issues for artists, i don't want to come off as harsh but there's simply a new tool on the market that brings competition to a whole new level. Thats simply something you signed yourself up for if you decided to become an independant artist, so you have no basis to be mad on anything.
This societal conversation is so frustrating. You do realize you all are doing an abstract racism right? "This is new to me therefore im scared of it therefore i viscerally hate it". Everyone is doing this atm and it is so agonizingly obvious. In a few decades all of this will look exactly like the people who thought trains were too fast for humans to survive. It is pathetic and im honestly really disappointed in humanity. As if that weren't enough, anthropocentrism is going haywire in everyone. We are nothing but model machines, AI is not very different from organic neural networks at all. All we do is predict in a bunch of different subjects (visually we model a 3d environment based on 2 2d images, language we predict with our intent as input) all combined into one self-awareness. There is absolutely nothing wrong with AI and it could end the obligation for humans to work but all we do is throw hate at it because we're afraid. This video is one of the better and more nuanced ones and yet it still fulfilled most of these criteria. Please everyone who reads this, think again and keep your biases in mind. That being said, the bit about Jane Doe Studios was literally perfect, would not change a thing. This will happen. Again and again if we let it. Genuine art and passion being destroyed because of empty hatred 💝💝💝
i desagre from the root but i think you one of the BEST videos about this (sorry in advance is gonna be long to give a respecful responce and srry me no english native and i will refer mostly abt image generation coz thats what im familiar wt) but u may have the worng outlook on thing, first about me to not be a "chair mechanic" im engering student and an digital artist (wierd combo) when i was young i only saw art as a waste, no real tangeble value was added to humanity by doing it blabl i changed blablabla. To start as an eng, most people call it a "tool" but is more of a machine is you want to use the comparacion, as short as posble a tool changes the form of the energy you give it, like a bike changing the up and down from your leg to circular movent on the wheels, on the other hand a mchine is like a car, it has its own power source and you just barely use your own enegy to tell it what to do, to say "photoshot helps you do and ai does for you" as you were saying in I."garageband" (im not familiar w it i readed wiki)it replaces the piano, not the pianist it helps you do and gives you parts to help you, AI is more akin to googling "cool piano song" doing for you. In II yeah lol i agree but keep reading. For III and IV i gotta go on a rant, most people see this issue of "replacement" like the OMG ITS THE 19TH SENTURY TEXTILE MACHINE AGAIN, i mean is close but seing it like that takes the newanse from all this, the true true issue is not the AI itself its how it was made, the telar thing just replace people but this is way more malicios in the workings cuz the telar was a machine that made things better and faster than people, AI is the same in that but its made from the work of the people it will "displace" i would compare it to covalt mines, the output is not the issue the issue is the proces, i feel dirty when i buy stuff i dont know were it comes from, im not okey with exploting groups that were already undervalued and neck deep in shit I DESAGREE ON USING SOMETHING LIKE THAT WITHOUT REMORSE, if the ai was made without exploiting artist i would be fine with it, heck im fine with it being use in purelly non profit stuff, like "omg look at my dnd character". The III issue i wouldnt blame it on the ai it goes way deeper in society, ai is bad like cobalt but people cant just know were it came from or stop consuming it for reasons like unaboidable or monetary restrain, we all fell powerless to the world around us, so when a oportuny like that, when the "agresor" is small enoght to were your voice matters yeah, people will do that (i dont think the mettod of beating them to a pulp is rigth tho), like me with all this i just desagree on some thing and want u to see a difernt pov
Sorry in advance, i liked your video i think you are cool and brave for even speaking about it, i had a shot time to defend my ideas so it may be a bit of a mess. but im open to discucions a
you're so real for this. in no way do i think that artists who fear ai beyond reason are unethical or even unjustified in their concern, but working in a means to create a harmonic balance instead of the slop that The Tech Bros want to push in wholly machinated products made to create a quick dollar. it, like a knife, is only evil when the wielder is evil.
i am an artist against the use of generative ai in its current form. by "generative ai" i am referring to the ai models that generate images. the problem me and most others have, is that they were fed images across the internet without consent or regulation. so the ai itself and how it operates is unethical. on an ethical basis i dont agree with using generative ai in its current form as a tool for artists. i completely agree with your earlier points on how they could be used in the future. however its important to distinguish that those examples you mentioned are separate from generative ai, which is the only ai that exists at this time or is available to the public. i agree with your commandments, but i don't think they were followed completely with the example of your thumbnail for the video. using the ai model in itself is unethical, so even though the reason you used ai is fine and it fits with your creative vision, its still perpetuating the consumption of this type of generative ai. i dont think we can keep using generative ai as it exists for artistic purposes if we want to remain ethical. that said i don't know of an alternative. your point about genuine artists being caught in the fire of hate just for trying out ai is important, and i agree. but the ai tools for us as artists need to be different.
Great video. It's nice to be able to demonstrate that it's not crypto bros or right winged assholes are the only ones having good things to say about generative AI. I always thought creative people would have such a blast with this new technology, but suddenly all artists are in a massive crusade against them without even trying to understand how it can be used for good. I'm pretty sure this has a lot to do with having studied computer engineering. All my colleagues have this same view on this because we know how the landscape of new technologies is and how new tools only mean a race to see who's the one that uses it the most efficiently. Maybe there's a lot of ego involved and artists can't separate the "artistic" product from the meaningful art piece. Maybe they think it will devalue their artistic vision. Who knows, it's such a complex topic.
Great video! AI can never make anything better than a human so its only purpose is to steal other peoples work cheaply and put people out of work. AI doesn't think, it's not actually intelligent, and it will never be able to come up with something that isn't directly fed to it. To me, art is human expression of emotions. AI cannot replicate that. Even if capitalism didn't exist, I still wouldn't want AI art because the reason we have to "save time" in the first place is because all our time is monetized because we are forced to pay for food and shelter to rich corporations and landlords.
Are you fully against cars/bus, planes, television, phone, microwave... What's the difference with Ai. The connection made in the video of job had to be lost to become something new is the wave of the beach, inevitable. Embracing and adapting is not an option. I do understand your sentiment and also give you a thumbs up and we agree to disagree.
@@joskun The difference is that AI is a garbage tool. It gives you random ass results that are an amalgam of a billion different artists styles. Aside from the blatant theft, it is not making the artists job easier, the goal of AI always was and is to replace artists so the corpos can make more money. It is not improving everyones lives like the car or plane. It is taking away creative joy and making the art you love into soulless corporate drek...so enjoy that.
@@BleargghhhhI agree here; we aren’t talking about AI tools such as color matching; we’re talking about a fully retail-able product being created and sold specifically in order to cut labor costs.
@@brandonwhitney7964 I agree with both sentiments: the blatant art thefts with the training data (should have contacted artists and give option for their arts to be opted in the AI trainings; some company like Adobe I believe is doing this.), and also the sentiment of Ai product being made to cut labor which directly impact workers. But the point of this inevitable and the mindset of adapting instead of resisting is similar to this stupid analogy I just made (not good at analogies so bear with me): Please entertain this analogy: You live in an underdeveloped country in Africa where water is scarce due to weather issues. Weather forecasts say that there will be a few rainy days and tell the mass to do their best in saving rainwater (no matter what, it's happening), because there will be serious drought periods in the future worse and worse until people there (including you, would need to relocate for more accessible basic needs) Water= AI Drought = job being lost Saving water = adapting by learning and using Ai AGI is like a drop of water that is falling from the sky, it will drop no matter what. I believe I understand that you are not for it yet that is not enough to stop it. Am sure some people missed the older ways of experiencing music but it's mainly spotify and a few platforms now. So what am saying is the only thing we can do were echoed in this video and it's to protect artists' works, and place well thought out and protective measures and law for everyone regarding AI. But to say hey I don't like it at all is ok to vent yet what I am saying is to embrace and adapt. An architect using AI will definitely have an edge over someone who doesn't know architecture.
Your three values for AI art are absurd. 1) Most art is imitation/derivation. Most artists train by studying and reproducing other's work. 2) Method has no bearing on the finished work. This is not performance art, these are physical products. I've never seen an artist disclose that they used a projector or camera obscura, etc. 3) Has no relevance at all. Monetization has no relevance to matters of art and AI. AI doesn't threaten any industry. It only threatens scarcity which the societal model of people trading time for money in order to 'earn a living' is based on.
You are the kind of "generator" that is the bane for any other artist trying to convince people that their craft is actually work, devaluing work while throwing everyone else under the bus for your own benefit. Congrats
I don't think so, we are the combination of our sinapses, nothing but a very advanced biological machine. If tech advances enough, we will have artificial sentient beings that are just like us, but also very different. I am scared of what humans could do to these new life forms, considering what humans have done to other humans based only on small visual differences
Humans made the prompt and the vision for the final product, it is a form of creative expression therefore art. You didn't create the paint with which you draw with, a machine did.
I'm a nonbinary-ish trans woman with kind of an androgynous voice. I'm not going to waste my precious time tracking down everyone who misgenders me, but if you care, i use she/they pronouns and prefer feminine-coded language where applicable (and also thank you ❤)
We definitely care! Thanks for being yourself, especially when there are commenters that aren't respectful of it
Hi Autumn Chiu great content and you are easy to look at - thanks. Although, maybe don't put yourself into a bin like 'nonbinary-ish trans woman with kind of an androgynous voice'. You're just you.
As a Visual Artist™ I think the best example of an ethical use of machine learning in art is probably in the Spider-Verse movies. Part of the comic book effect in Spider-Verse is the use of pen strokes accentuating contours on characters' faces. These would've been a nightmare to do by hand so instead they had artists draw a bunch of reference images of these pen strokes for faces from different angles and then used that to train a machine learning model which could apply those lines across the whole movie. They still had artists go in and clean them up by hand because machine learning is prone to mistakes, but it saved time and didn't require the theft of other artists' work.
Datasets are the biggest ethical and artistic hurdle. I think to make an artwork with any degree of intention or specificity using AI you'd need to choose the training data yourself. With the current "kitchen sink" approach to data harvesting you kinda just get the average idea of any given subject rather than any specific artistic vision (there's also the issue that the data is often stolen or incredibly illegal material). It's a bit like making music using only the preset tracks on a casio keyboard. It's possible, but it's very, very limited.
Tbh I don't think AI will be able to do much of artistic merit until after the current tech hype bubble bursts and it goes back to being a more niche technology, rather than The Solution To All Problems. Right now anyone who tries to do anything with AI ends up doing Everything with it.
Anyway, that's all the rambling thoughts about AI that I currently have, I hope this is good for the algorithm or something.
Yeah, I've had more or less the same opinion on AI Art. "would be okay if not for the evil of capitalism"
Not sure the Jane Doe comparison is entirely adequate here, as I'd imagine that software which interpolates frames of animation uses the existing frames as a reference, rather than pooling from a sea of potentially uncredited / plagiarised work, but I see the point you are trying to make.
Love this take, the current "AI bad always forever" rhetoric going around the internet is only causing our community to go in circles while greedy capitalists continue to use AI unethically. We should be focusing on how to utilize this tool ethically as artists, because it is here to stay
The good ol' reliable defeatism
The issue is that shareholders, CEOs and the economy department dont care about balance. they care about profits. and they will fire, replace with AI, adjust it, rehire some. then repeat that cycle untill AI does what they want it to do. and that is why Ai will never work in harmony, even though it can be a great tool. for me it has been a great tool to learn drawing. but ill never do art as a ful ltime job, cause i know from experience how stuff are done.
my job is also one of the last in the world to be replaced by AI, cause im the one maintaining machines.
yeah I don't really know what to say about the corporate side... I made this video for individuals and small teams thinking about how to use AI, but i don't know if I could affect the CEO level if i even tried
Huge congrats on this video, it unpacks a point of view on this topic I think more people need to understand.
It's not often we come across a new technology that changes how we do everything, AI technology is a discovery on the same calibre as electricity or the nuclear bomb and therefore should be taken seriously. A painter's brush is an extension of themselves. By the same token, artists and AI tools can collaborate in a way that will build new experiences that are not bound by the current bottlenecks of human productivity. How people will go about using AI tools will inevitably come with costs, so we ought to be vigilantly aware of them.
But what about the ecological cost?
good point, I might cover that in the future
This is great. This basically covers exactly my complicated feelings I've had on the subject for a while. I'm sure you know that this video will be polarizing, even with the disclaimers, just because of how the subject has been tainted by the tech bros and scammers. But I still think the technology is amazing, while lamenting these grifters every day, and the horrible ways this technology has been haphazardly shoved into every recent tech product, it is a wonder that any of this works at all. Pure sci-fi up until this decade. Ultimately I think we need to treat a tool as just that, a tool. And tools aren't good or evil, they only facilitate actions that can be good or evil. It's more nuanced than that I know, there are ethical considerations in the creation of a tool and it's purpose. But as you finish the video off with, if we just don't let ourselves be blinded by hatred, we can more carefully consider the ethical ramifications of AI as it exists while judging separately the actions of those wielding it.
Holy based, first video of yours I’ve ever seen but I agree wholeheartedly with your points. I’ll be sticking around.
I really like and agree with your explanation of AI as a supplement to creativity. AI is a tool and can be used for evil or it can be good, many bad actors will make their money while they can, but I hope that it will settle into that tool role.
I'm sort of loosely working on a project for worldbuilding stuff. Basically, I'm trying to put together a bunch of random roll tables for geography and culture and gods and etc. My intent is to make a program where I can draw a map, and then populate that world with a couple hundred years of "major events". I'm not talking "build the world for me", I just want something that can spit out story prompts for me to dig deeper into and spin out from. These tools can be useful when used ethically. But ethics is not a board member.
That is something I've said for a while: AI is a tool. The issue is the people that use it and say that "they made something". AI is trained with art from different artists, people who didn't usually give permision for that.
AI is still a long way, but I'm sure it'll be a great tool when used in the correct ways.
All i care for is experiencing great art. I truly don't care if its AI or not. In the future I truly believe i will hear and see great things.
I absolutely loved this video, it actually changed my opinion on AI and I hope it did the same for most people who watched it. This absolutely needs more attention.
Good vid 👍
one thing I like to do is use ai to help generate reference images for painting
All well and good if artists whose life works were used in the training data were consulted or compensated. As it is, it's 'grand theft copyright' by big tech giants. I'm always surprised that people are willing to overlook the violation of property rights of small-time creatives, because they like to make pretty pictures, or want cheaper video games, or whatnot.
I was going to compare it to when Walmart was moving into small towns and driving mom & pop shops out of business; but it's more like if Walmart broke into those small businesses, stole the merchandise, repackaged it, and sold it for less. But I suppose there would be some that would cheer that move as well, if they could save a few dollars.
Lol. You are not alone I’m a conventional artist, watercolor, watercolor pencil, but I love 3-D printing, digital ai art and incorporated them all together. I create 2.5 D Art. I find all these tools essential and fun and wonderful.
You're not alone. There are plenty of artists which like Ai art but the online discourse is dominated by the haters.
AI is becoming an artisan, but only humans can be artists. Learn the difference and you'll be more than ok.
If this gives you a good night's sleep, then so be it. And hopefully you are a real artist - since I get the impression that many who ramble here about AI not being able to create 'real' art, by mere statistics can't be more than artisans or wanna-be artists themselves.
@@joechip4822 I'm not referring to myself, just pointing out about how important it is to distinguish both.
You can't say it's not art because you don't like it. Art can be anything. Art is simply creative expression, the prompt you put in and the vision you have for the generated image is what makes it art. Human-made art will still be more valuable than AI art because of the process, it just won't be profitable. Where AI is headed, it will certainly take all jobs. This isn't a popular opinion, but this isn't necessarily a bad thing.
MIT estimates that the economy will stop functioning once 25% of the population has no money. This means that in order for the rich to stay rich, UBI will be absolutely necessary, otherwise money loses all value and nobody purchases their products. This means that before the majority of us even lose our jobs, UBI will be implemented and we will be able to live without working. An AI like this that takes jobs would also dramatically increase productivity and create an abundance of profit, and considering how everyone will be living on UBI, they will need to charge exactly what we will be able to afford, and could likely go even lower if they desired.
On top of this, AI will be advancing significantly faster than ever, resulting in the singularity. An AI that could take jobs could take the job of an AI researcher/developer, which would drastically increase the speed of advancement. This would create superintelligent AI that would be able to develop technology that we couldn't dream of, curing every ailment there is, space travel, teleportation, and most notably even smarter superintelligent AI. This would be utopia. Taking artists' jobs is just a stepping stone. Our society is already failing, we need a dramatic change, and for a dramatic change to occur, some people need to face hardships for the greater good.
i'm sorry but anyone who thinks that typing a prompt is remotely comparable to producing an actual work of art NEEDS to pick up a pen or a brush
@@autumnchiu Art does not have to be impressive. I could stack rocks in the shape of a dick and it would be art. It's merely creative expression, as I stated in the first paragraph of my previous comment.
Art is not exclusive to hard working, talented people. Yes, your art is more valuable and infinitely more impressive, but that doesn't change that both are creative expression, it just means it's more impressive, which is really all that matters.
This is a semantics argument. The term 'art' has a meaning, and you can't alter this meaning specifically because you don't like that another method of creative expression makes yours unprofitable.
I really do understand you being upset about it, but in the end, it will be well worth it for everyone, and you can continue making impressive art without the hand of capitalism guiding your pencil.
And unironic "YOU WILL SUFFER FOR THE GREATER GOOD!" argument jesus dude that's like actually dangerous, you don't want another Holocuast or Holodomar do you?
@@xitcix8360 "Art can be anything" no it can't. The word "art" doesn't mean "everything" or "anything." Yes, art is extremely subjective, but it has a range to it. The reason the art community rejects wholly-prompted Gen AI art as being legitimate art is because it's not actually made by a human. You're making a suggestion for a computer to pull together pixels in the right combination based on stolen intellectual labor.
@@tyrone687 Art is creative expression, as previously stated. This is why it's so subjective, because you can express your creativity through any medium.
AI generation is merely the medium, like the paint or graphite. The prompter's vision and creative idea for the final image is what makes the image generated art, without those two aspects the image generator would be nothing. Painting is a means to express yourself creatively, sure the paint isn't art, but the painting is.
you made such good points. I think a lot of problems people have with ai art right now are that ai has been trained scraping the wide web indiscriminatly and without artists consent. I would be pissed to if after years of drawing some program used my art for profit. because the professional ai image geneartors are under subscription. I think that if ai can be used as a tool to make artists work easier then it's worth having. but first it needs to be trained on data that have been either freely given or have been bought fairly from the artists themselves.
This was actually a very nuanced and balanced take! Something we desperately need more of.
I agree with you
I don't know how to preface this other than it's pretty long.
Just my thoughts given your video, so...
Please enjoy my feature length comment!
Generator Ethics
-I presume that when people talk about how an image generator is unethical, or the use of one is unethical, they fundamentally refer to the predatory training done on data for which those making the model should not have used given various reasons. While one may point to the end-use of that image generator as more or less unethical, the underlying mechanism is still the crux of their argument against its use.
All of these assessments hold regardless of any legal standing, though one should hope for law to follow after ethics rather than the inverse.
Learning into Sapience
-perhaps regrettably, we may never achieve anything other than a complex, nigh indistinguishable mathematical facsimile of intelligent life. One which will only ever be an echo of what it was trained on. Of course, at this point, using relatively high dimensional vectors to describe associations between ideas in a predictive, layered transformer, one which then results in stochastic parrots, cannot actually recreate the conditions needed for a conscious being to arise.
Potential for Ensouled Machines?
-I will go out on a limb to reserve space for a future approach to training artificial intelligence that may, instead, more closely seek to mimic life first through fundamentals. Specifically, the training being achieved through sensory perception of the world by way of a body. My thought is that the application of robotics in artificial intelligence is essential to forming a functional model of the world, which builds the foundations for sentience, then sapience may follow after where simplicity forms complexity. That would be my thought, anyways.
Really insightful video, especially when considering what it is that makes art. I don't think predictively generated music, writing, images, or video, in whole or in part, can really be of any use for an artist looking to give us a view of their unique thought and perspective. I only hope that people can find a place away from this ongoing social devastation, but things will never be as they once were, and needless to say, I will miss that.
Good video! yea I agree w alot of your points, despite AI at its current state being closer to cool data manipulator, humans are also cool data manipulators we exist on a further point on the intelligence spectrum.
I would caution against calling twitter midjourney artists "not artists", because it gets into the philosophical and also kinda annoying question of what art is, it is bad art though.
Jobs aren't real, time and effort is, professionals should be using their time towards where it's needed, while more utilitarian and low scale art be done w ai.
AI should be used as another tool for artists, not to replace artists by money men.
I still don't understand how people made an ethical issue out of creative A.I. Claiming its stealing art is just so ridiculous to me. Like am i stealing art if i can draw a derivative of Goku from DBZ with 99% accuracy and make something cool with it? I essentially 'trained' myself to replicate the original artist's style, so the same can be said about AI. All that AI is, is a tool to bring your imagination to life. thats it. If you value manual human input more, just enjoy it and leave AI alone. No one is forcing anyone to consume AI content.
Also about monetary issues for artists, i don't want to come off as harsh but there's simply a new tool on the market that brings competition to a whole new level. Thats simply something you signed yourself up for if you decided to become an independant artist, so you have no basis to be mad on anything.
this video is so good. not much to say just here to help w the algo :) new sub from me
This societal conversation is so frustrating. You do realize you all are doing an abstract racism right? "This is new to me therefore im scared of it therefore i viscerally hate it". Everyone is doing this atm and it is so agonizingly obvious. In a few decades all of this will look exactly like the people who thought trains were too fast for humans to survive. It is pathetic and im honestly really disappointed in humanity. As if that weren't enough, anthropocentrism is going haywire in everyone. We are nothing but model machines, AI is not very different from organic neural networks at all. All we do is predict in a bunch of different subjects (visually we model a 3d environment based on 2 2d images, language we predict with our intent as input) all combined into one self-awareness. There is absolutely nothing wrong with AI and it could end the obligation for humans to work but all we do is throw hate at it because we're afraid. This video is one of the better and more nuanced ones and yet it still fulfilled most of these criteria. Please everyone who reads this, think again and keep your biases in mind. That being said, the bit about Jane Doe Studios was literally perfect, would not change a thing. This will happen. Again and again if we let it. Genuine art and passion being destroyed because of empty hatred 💝💝💝
i desagre from the root but i think you one of the BEST videos about this (sorry in advance is gonna be long to give a respecful responce and srry me no english native and i will refer mostly abt image generation coz thats what im familiar wt) but u may have the worng outlook on thing, first about me to not be a "chair mechanic" im engering student and an digital artist (wierd combo) when i was young i only saw art as a waste, no real tangeble value was added to humanity by doing it blabl i changed blablabla. To start as an eng, most people call it a "tool" but is more of a machine is you want to use the comparacion, as short as posble a tool changes the form of the energy you give it, like a bike changing the up and down from your leg to circular movent on the wheels, on the other hand a mchine is like a car, it has its own power source and you just barely use your own enegy to tell it what to do, to say "photoshot helps you do and ai does for you" as you were saying in I."garageband" (im not familiar w it i readed wiki)it replaces the piano, not the pianist it helps you do and gives you parts to help you, AI is more akin to googling "cool piano song" doing for you. In II yeah lol i agree but keep reading. For III and IV i gotta go on a rant, most people see this issue of "replacement" like the OMG ITS THE 19TH SENTURY TEXTILE MACHINE AGAIN, i mean is close but seing it like that takes the newanse from all this, the true true issue is not the AI itself its how it was made, the telar thing just replace people but this is way more malicios in the workings cuz the telar was a machine that made things better and faster than people, AI is the same in that but its made from the work of the people it will "displace" i would compare it to covalt mines, the output is not the issue the issue is the proces, i feel dirty when i buy stuff i dont know were it comes from, im not okey with exploting groups that were already undervalued and neck deep in shit I DESAGREE ON USING SOMETHING LIKE THAT WITHOUT REMORSE, if the ai was made without exploiting artist i would be fine with it, heck im fine with it being use in purelly non profit stuff, like "omg look at my dnd character". The III issue i wouldnt blame it on the ai it goes way deeper in society, ai is bad like cobalt but people cant just know were it came from or stop consuming it for reasons like unaboidable or monetary restrain, we all fell powerless to the world around us, so when a oportuny like that, when the "agresor" is small enoght to were your voice matters yeah, people will do that (i dont think the mettod of beating them to a pulp is rigth tho), like me with all this i just desagree on some thing and want u to see a difernt pov
Sorry in advance, i liked your video i think you are cool and brave for even speaking about it, i had a shot time to defend my ideas so it may be a bit of a mess. but im open to discucions a
you're so real for this. in no way do i think that artists who fear ai beyond reason are unethical or even unjustified in their concern, but working in a means to create a harmonic balance instead of the slop that The Tech Bros want to push in wholly machinated products made to create a quick dollar. it, like a knife, is only evil when the wielder is evil.
i am an artist against the use of generative ai in its current form.
by "generative ai" i am referring to the ai models that generate images. the problem me and most others have, is that they were fed images across the internet without consent or regulation. so the ai itself and how it operates is unethical. on an ethical basis i dont agree with using generative ai in its current form as a tool for artists.
i completely agree with your earlier points on how they could be used in the future. however its important to distinguish that those examples you mentioned are separate from generative ai, which is the only ai that exists at this time or is available to the public. i agree with your commandments, but i don't think they were followed completely with the example of your thumbnail for the video. using the ai model in itself is unethical, so even though the reason you used ai is fine and it fits with your creative vision, its still perpetuating the consumption of this type of generative ai. i dont think we can keep using generative ai as it exists for artistic purposes if we want to remain ethical. that said i don't know of an alternative.
your point about genuine artists being caught in the fire of hate just for trying out ai is important, and i agree. but the ai tools for us as artists need to be different.
'AI art' is ART; whine and cry as much as you want; it won't change the fact.
i use AI art to generate poses for reference
I've heard that you have to be careful w that bc ai isn't great at anatomy --- finding good references is a huge pain tho i agree
Great video. It's nice to be able to demonstrate that it's not crypto bros or right winged assholes are the only ones having good things to say about generative AI.
I always thought creative people would have such a blast with this new technology, but suddenly all artists are in a massive crusade against them without even trying to understand how it can be used for good.
I'm pretty sure this has a lot to do with having studied computer engineering. All my colleagues have this same view on this because we know how the landscape of new technologies is and how new tools only mean a race to see who's the one that uses it the most efficiently.
Maybe there's a lot of ego involved and artists can't separate the "artistic" product from the meaningful art piece. Maybe they think it will devalue their artistic vision.
Who knows, it's such a complex topic.
We have to decentralise it. Push it to the edge. Let it inspire in ALL fields. I feel the good will far outweigh the bad.
Great video!
AI can never make anything better than a human so its only purpose is to steal other peoples work cheaply and put people out of work. AI doesn't think, it's not actually intelligent, and it will never be able to come up with something that isn't directly fed to it.
To me, art is human expression of emotions. AI cannot replicate that. Even if capitalism didn't exist, I still wouldn't want AI art because the reason we have to "save time" in the first place is because all our time is monetized because we are forced to pay for food and shelter to rich corporations and landlords.
I'm fully against it
Are you fully against cars/bus, planes, television, phone, microwave...
What's the difference with Ai.
The connection made in the video of job had to be lost to become something new is the wave of the beach, inevitable.
Embracing and adapting is not an option.
I do understand your sentiment and also give you a thumbs up and we agree to disagree.
@@joskun The difference is that AI is a garbage tool. It gives you random ass results that are an amalgam of a billion different artists styles. Aside from the blatant theft, it is not making the artists job easier, the goal of AI always was and is to replace artists so the corpos can make more money. It is not improving everyones lives like the car or plane. It is taking away creative joy and making the art you love into soulless corporate drek...so enjoy that.
@@BleargghhhhI agree here; we aren’t talking about AI tools such as color matching; we’re talking about a fully retail-able product being created and sold specifically in order to cut labor costs.
Based fuck Ai art I will be a D1 hater until I die
@@brandonwhitney7964 I agree with both sentiments: the blatant art thefts with the training data (should have contacted artists and give option for their arts to be opted in the AI trainings; some company like Adobe I believe is doing this.), and also the sentiment of Ai product being made to cut labor which directly impact workers.
But the point of this inevitable and the mindset of adapting instead of resisting is similar to this stupid analogy I just made (not good at analogies so bear with me):
Please entertain this analogy:
You live in an underdeveloped country in Africa where water is scarce due to weather issues.
Weather forecasts say that there will be a few rainy days and tell the mass to do their best in saving rainwater (no matter what, it's happening), because there will be serious drought periods in the future worse and worse until people there (including you, would need to relocate for more accessible basic needs)
Water= AI
Drought = job being lost
Saving water = adapting by learning and using Ai
AGI is like a drop of water that is falling from the sky, it will drop no matter what.
I believe I understand that you are not for it yet that is not enough to stop it.
Am sure some people missed the older ways of experiencing music but it's mainly spotify and a few platforms now.
So what am saying is the only thing we can do were echoed in this video and it's to protect artists' works, and place well thought out and protective measures and law for everyone regarding AI.
But to say hey I don't like it at all is ok to vent yet what I am saying is to embrace and adapt. An architect using AI will definitely have an edge over someone who doesn't know architecture.
Can't believe I had to defend you on reddit... People are so nasty. I know I'm going to be flamed by the r/defendingaiart shmucks now lol.
Your three values for AI art are absurd. 1) Most art is imitation/derivation. Most artists train by studying and reproducing other's work. 2) Method has no bearing on the finished work. This is not performance art, these are physical products. I've never seen an artist disclose that they used a projector or camera obscura, etc. 3) Has no relevance at all. Monetization has no relevance to matters of art and AI. AI doesn't threaten any industry. It only threatens scarcity which the societal model of people trading time for money in order to 'earn a living' is based on.
You might actually have some form of brain damage man
You are the kind of "generator" that is the bane for any other artist trying to convince people that their craft is actually work, devaluing work while throwing everyone else under the bus for your own benefit. Congrats
ilike this idont fully agree with it but part 5 is horrible
I don't think so, we are the combination of our sinapses, nothing but a very advanced biological machine. If tech advances enough, we will have artificial sentient beings that are just like us, but also very different.
I am scared of what humans could do to these new life forms, considering what humans have done to other humans based only on small visual differences
If humans did not make it, it is not art.
but humans made ai therefore ai is art. Or if that is not the case then everything made through a computer is not art... your logic is flawed.......
Humans made the prompt and the vision for the final product, it is a form of creative expression therefore art. You didn't create the paint with which you draw with, a machine did.
@@xitcix8360 exactly
I've seen some elephants do some really cool art
bruh looks and sounds like AI wtf
I'm flattered you think i look that good
why are you dressed like that bro?
i love these pajamas
all credibility went out the window when you showed your face
?
Obviously the only kind of RUclipsr you can trust is someone using a tts program and an armscrossed.png.
What would you prefer an AI voice and AI-lipsynced AI art?
@Cloverogue my exact reaction