The Death of Creative Trust | Introducing Text-To-Video Ai
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 авг 2024
- Consider supporting the channel via collecting my art
/ samhamperart
www.samhamper....
Ai text to video software Sora from Open Ai is set to totally change the creative landscape. Is this new way of making images the end of creative trust.... or is the problem with trust with captured images in general?
The way you film yourself talking on sunset set with your whole body barefooted is probably the best looking presentation I have seen on youtube.
is it real tho?..
What's not discussed is the fact that our supposed reality is also virtual. You look at a virtual world through your cellphone/computer screen, as you are seeing it through your eyes. You might ask who is looking through those eyes? The difference between the computer generated so-called virtual world and what we believe is the real world is sensory interaction. It is yet to be implemented in the computer generated virtual world. So, we don't go nuts here . . . lol!! obviously the vedic aphorism: _"aham brahmasmi"_ is important. A lengthy topic for another time.
I was thinking he used a yellow light from outside the window... Great scene! :)
@@liranxs well the leaves plants are moving
Well said, I feel the same
Even watching old movies and TV shows is no guarantee that what you see will not be AI generated. It is entirely possible to believe that in the very near future, media that is available on streaming services will be constantly and subtly altered in order to influence viewers. As the services themselves are concentrated in the hands of fewer corporate owners and increasingly administered by AI it would be relatively easy to propagate these altered shows across their networks and even our own devices and remove the previous versions. Although 1984 was set in a future, it was very much a book of the time in which it was written and what was true then is even more so today.
Handy tip. Don't throw out old cassettes, CD's, books, etc... we will need them for fact checking.... (Yes I know, movie adaptions of books rarely follow the original story, but imagine a world where your favourite movie constantly changes every time you watch it)
It is so refreshing to hear legitimate wisdom in regards to the topic, rather than hyper-polarized vitriol from either side.
its so refreshing to just hear this guy speak. soothing as hell
the anti-ai vitriol is entirely understandable and valid.
The pro-ai is invalid. It is rationalizing greed and rabid envy. it is pro-theft, anti-human, anti-artist, destructive, a threat to national and world economies, a threat to national security and world security. It is not the death of creative trust. It is death, period.
There simply is no middle ground. And one is doing the forcing. And the other is being forced upon and destroyed.
Unfortunately the internet is still very much vitriol-driven
I wonder why the theft of 2 billion images would make anyone mad?
Just wanted to say how much I appreciated this. I'm a musician that is constantly weighing up the pros and cons of where society is heading and can often indulge more in the negative, you have helped me see different approaches to dealing with it all. Thanks
As an artist, i hate everything about ai.
As a consumer of art, i hate everything about ai.
sora is 100% fake. Things happen in the video not shown in prompt. Its just fake.
@@somerandomchannel382 Hah. Have you ever even used text to image based generators? They make up shit all the time. It's basically like us dreaming.
I don't hate it but it is very startling and is making me question a lot of things. Should people hate photography because they don't make everything by hand in the picture they take? Kind of a simple analogy but it's entirely it's own medium. My recommendation is try to at least use it to supercharge your workflow because it's not going away. A photographer can take a 1000 photos but a good photographer can pick out the one that is really special. It's going to be more about curating now. If you enjoy making art...don't stop...just at least adapt to what's coming.
Embrace it
I'm going to make a video about this, but seeing that AI is probably here to stay, well until at least it destroys the greater part of humanity and God steps in and there are no more thinking machines allowed. probably best to educate people as to why it is dangerous and what aspects of our humanity we will lose by having everything done for us.....funnily in the movie 'Dune' thinking machines were banned...it's in the later books but mentioned in the earlier ones, probably won't get mentioned in the movie for various reasons....
One thing people miss about art is that it is appreciated within a wider context than the art piece itself. When you hear a piece of music you like, for example, you want to know about the artist or band that recorded it. You learn about their story. Maybe you go to a live performance. Maybe you get an autograph from one of the musicians, etc. On the other hand, when I see a piece of AI art, I might say "wow, that's pretty visually compelling... Oh well. Back to my day." There is no wider lens to observe the art beyond my computer screen.
I never thought about it this way, but that's exactly what bothers me about it. There's no human story behind AI artwork, it's just an image with no substance behind it. Not because it's less original or worse than what humans can do in itself, but because there's no story surrounding the work. It only stands for itself and for nothing more.
The real/fake dichotomy before AI (like the example of movies etc) is vastly different from what we experience now with AI. The presumed loss of effort is reshaping the way we experience everything.
When I watch a movie, view a visual, see a photo, or observe a painting created before the era of AI, I assume the effort and complexity behind it. I imagine the long hours the painter spent to create it, the years they dedicated to honing their craft, the smell of the paint, the sensation of sticky hands, and so on. These thoughts charge my experience of the image with value which in turn evoke an emotional response.
When I see a beautiful pictures now, because I automatically assume it was probably prompt in a second and had no back story of real people and life behind it, therefore my emotional response to it is diminished compared to the feelings I once had towards non-AI creations.
"We are now wiser"
Well, at least you're capturing the fog.
I personally think the problem is that the mass production, and commodification of entertainment in general is on its way with this technology. Making everything too convenient to the point where the machine does most of the work is what will kill human creativity.
i just realised, not long ago, real physical handmade art was replaced by digital art and artist. AI now means, physical artist will remain and become theyre relevance back.
Absolutely. The way forward in the age of AI is backwards.
i think the problem is that if your a painting on canvas it wont be long before a robot arm is doing that and mass producing real paintings, there really isnt much escape, what this stuff is designed to do is remove meaning from peoples lives and that is what tech does, remember when we where all told we would all be concected to each other move then ever thanks to the web, well we are in a lonelyness crisis, cant help think Ted Kaczynski had a point he just did evil things with that realisation
@@TheinterfaceTvSeries
I remember back when digital art programs were becoming popular and traditional artists were acting very similar toward digital artist than, to how digital artist are being towards AI artists. It's a new tool and a new medium and I don't agree with any the purist nonsense around the topic. Most of the people against AI art don't understand how the models actually train, how fair use laws work, and a lot of it is just reactive regurgitation of mostly misunderstood 'facts' coming from people with no technical knowledge on the subject. Pretty easy to ignore that.
Until you realize AI will also be making physical art. I doubt we’ll find anything humans do better, except being humans. The only hope for human art is if humans prefer human art just because it’s human. Or if humans have some secret ability we haven’t discovered yet
Digital art didnt replace physical art... it exists alongside it
I love this video. As a full-time author who makes a good living off of my books, but not enough to break through the noise (my income is very much dependent on getting that next book out), I'm watching the development of AI very closely. You offer a very sober take on all this that I appreciate. It's creators like you that help me sleep at night.
You probably get messages like this alot, but I'm an aspiring writer and have been held back a lot by my own selfdoubts. Since AI appeared on the scene, it's even harder for me to push myself onwards. I'd love to hear some more of your thoughts, specifically regarding these developments on the book market, if you can spare the time.
Thank you!
Yeah, I hear you. I really do. I have struggled with this myself. What does it mean if what I pride myself over can be done by a machine? Were my last 25 years of learning, studying, trying and failing before eventually finding some success a waste?
I don’t think so for a few reasons, but what I suppose offers me the most solace is this: I pour my experiences, thoughts, ideals, fears and hopes into everything I do. Their mine because the blend I bring forth is something only I do. In this sense, AI or human, cannot replicate what I do. When it comes to other humans - they will inevitably write with their own ‘cocktail of baggage’.
As for AI - it has no experiences, no thoughts or feelings, hopes or fears… It just is. That might make for some interesting concepts, but ultimately without the human experience giving it meaning, I suspect it will fall flat. Like candy, its good every once-in-while, but one cannot sustain themselves on it for long.
In this sense, AI is a non-entity. And follow people like Sam, people who offer a sober analysis of what’s happening. I find so many are either in the doom-and-gloom camp or the AI-is-going-to-save-us camp. I don’t believe it will do either.
And one more thought on your question (which I really do feel for…). Writing, and perhaps all artistic endeavors, teaches you so much about who you are and who you want to be… That is a priceless gift, regardless of how many books you sell.
@@ramyvance6309 Thank you so much!
@@ramyvance6309 "Hi, ChatGPT! Please, take a role of a successful commercial writer and create a horror detective story about a grey cat at the streets of Chicago using 300 words".
ChatGPT: "In the gritty streets of 1920s Chicago, shadows danced with secrets and whispers lingered in every alleyway. Among the maze of cobblestones, a grey cat prowled with an air of mystery that rivaled the darkness itself.
Detective Jack O'Malley knew the city's pulse like the rhythm of his own heart. But when a series of bizarre murders plagued the streets, his instincts tingled with a sinister foreboding. Each victim bore the same mysterious mark-an eerie symbol etched into their flesh, a symbol that whispered of ancient rituals and dark magic.
Amidst the chaos, the grey cat appeared, a silent observer with eyes that gleamed with unearthly wisdom. Jack couldn't shake the feeling that the cat held the key to unraveling the enigma that gripped the city.
As Jack delved deeper into the case, the streets whispered tales of a long-forgotten cult that once worshipped in the shadows. Rumors spoke of rituals that summoned spirits from the depths of the unknown.
One moonlit night, Jack found himself face-to-face with the grey cat in an abandoned warehouse, its fur bristling with an otherworldly aura. With a flick of its tail, the cat led Jack to a hidden chamber, where the air crackled with ancient power.
In the heart of the chamber, Jack uncovered a ritualistic altar adorned with the same symbol that marked the victims. As the shadows stirred with unseen forces, Jack realized the truth-the murders were a sacrifice to awaken an ancient evil that slumbered beneath the city's streets.
With the grey cat at his side, Jack raced against time to stop the cult's sinister plot before darkness consumed the city. In a final showdown beneath the moonlit sky, Jack confronted the cult's leader, his gun blazing with determination.
As the echoes of the gunfire faded into the night, the grey cat vanished into the shadows, leaving behind a city forever haunted by the secrets it harbored. And Detective Jack O'Malley knew that some mysteries were better left unsolved."
@@Charon.1 > *have been held back a lot by my own selfdoubts*
I know that feeling.
Honestly, at least a little bit of it I blame (odd as it sounds) on how they teach about plagiarism and how to avoid it in grade school. Rather than "this is what it is/why it's bad, these are the ways in which it can happen, these are ways to avoid it," it's like an evangelical telling you you're gonna go to hell for the slightest sin, which has a consequence of making those who already think a lot (or too much in some cases) worry about if they are being original enough.
DAMN u the first to focus on using these to tell the stories that have not been able to be done while at the same time engaging with physical world through art in more radical ways
This is a very interesting, thoughtful video that I (writer of sf novels) very much appreciated. All my friends are writers and artists, and they are all angry and upset about what they believe is going on with the advent of AI-based text and image/video tools. They all feel deeply threatened, and can often refer to artists they know whose work was hoovered up in training data, or writers who can't access particular markets for short stories because people using AI tools for writing are flooding every publisher and magazine. Amazon, for example, has recently announced that self-publishing authors are now limited to uploading *only three new books per day*. Prior to this, there were people uploading dozens, scores, uncountable awful AI novels-each day. Imagine it!
I think there will always be an audience for authentic human voices and human writing, and human art. It might be a niche, boutique thing, but I think it will be there.
Anyway, thank you very much for this thoughtful video. Was great! :)
But it shouldn’t be a *niche* thing. It’s relegating a massive component of societal development to some dumb hobby, that’s just asking for culture to be obliterated in favor of what is, essentially, tic tok brain rot. Critical thinking, media literacy, and the ability to empathize with real people will go out the window.
Brilliant take. Thanks for sharing.
Interesting to me to place this reflection in dialogue with Andre Malraux's "Museum without walls" from the pre-digital age. Thanks for the reminder that art is always artifice.
I think the potential to easily create anything, reminds me of when CG first became big in the movie industry.. There were people worried about what we could trust, even back then.
Hopefully, being desensitized to seeing anything easily, will make people want to see more real things. Stuff made by real people, performances and in person entertainment. Maybe practical effects movies will see a comeback in popularity. We'll have a lot of amazing AI stuff, and a lot of incredible human made stuff, and I don't really see a problem with that.. IF we change certain things about how our society works. As AI out competes more and more workers, we can no longer morally justify using jobs as the thing which determines whether people get food and shelter.
Of course we can. Reciprocal cooperation is always and forever a better system than centralized force and control
ai will not multiple the need for workers like cgi did.
@@jonbear7683 Those are not mutually exclusive.
What a wonderful visual essay on the current nascent state of things. I appreciate your thoughtful nature and deep introspection. Keep going!
10:03
That's pretty much where I'm at right now. I'll still use Discord to keep up with friends I have there and I do a lot of color work digitally (I don't have too many traditional coloring tools), but I think all of this will make me use social media less because I can only imagine all the fake things that can be made to spread misinformation (which I know misinformation is already a huge thing on the internet... which makes me even more concerned with Sora existing).
I'm not sure why my comment got deleted from the last video you made, but to repeat it here (and hoping this comment doesn't get imploded lol), thank you for these videos you made talking about ai. You, along with other things that happened in the last year, made me appreciate drawing a lot more in terms of the process and just overall loving my passion even more (even if all I draw is cartoon characters lol).
oh no, i didn't know your other comment vanished! it wasn't me and thanks for the kind words.
@@samhamperMy comment just got deleted too, right now!
@@samhamper Oh yeah, I think it was just a glitch on RUclips's end. It's been acting weird for me lately for some reason. But yeah, you're welcome and I look forward to seeing more from you in the future.
You are portraing text to imagery replacement of stock sites as a minor inconvenience, but what about stock photographers and videographers like me?
You've presented a fantastic pallet of ponderances and reflections!
This video is amazing and I love your commentary on AI from the perspective of art history, but I just have to say that my phone does pop up in my dreams a lot. I try to take pictures of things that are crazy so I can send them to my friends, only to realize the UI is not functioning properly, and if I fall into water in a dream I often then slightly panic that I broke my phone. This has been happening to me for about a decade now.
Probably due to all the dmt 🤣😊
I've been scrolling the comment section and it seems that only you and I found that line notable, because I don't see anyone besides us mentioning it. 😕 I guess these other people somehow really _don't_ see phones in their dreams? It's super weird.
In my dreams, my phone usually a bit chunky and has a screen that's a combo of a Blackberry and a pre-internet computer. My brain is hung up on retro-futurism I suppose.
“And if I’m totally wrong, at least it documents the fog of this time” - This line right here, proved to me that this script was written by a human being.
I'm interested to see what people think about the future of text-to-video. What will it change and will this breakthrough lead to a loss of trust in future media? What does it mean for creativity? Will people be temporarily less captivated with their screens as they don't connect to non-human creations? Or will we adjust fast and accept this new reality?
For me, TTV means an end to the stranglehold Hollywood has on the movie industry and an end to their Woke cultural propaganda because dedicated fans or very small groups or companies can now (or soon) make any movie they want.
I suspect the big companies like Disney would have to either stop all the Woke virtue signalling in order to keep their clients, or double down and focus on making things for a smaller group of radicals, perhaps creating different "realities". People could choose which "reality" they want to experience much like how they already choose what to believe in because thanks to postmodernism the truth doesn't matter anymore. Now traditional creativity and skills maybe don't matter anymore either.
Im reposting this. It got deleted.
For me, TTV means an end to the stranglehold Hollywood has on the movie industry and an end to their Woke cultural propaganda because dedicated fans or very small groups or companies can now (or soon) make any movie they want.
I suspect the big companies like Disney would have to either stop all the Woke virtue signalling in order to keep their clients, or double down and focus on making things for a smaller group of radicals, perhaps creating different "realities". People could choose which "reality" they want to experience much like how they already choose what to believe in because thanks to postmodernism the truth doesn't matter anymore.
For me, TTV means an end to the stranglehold Hollywood has on the movie industry and an end to their Woke cultural propaganda because dedicated fans or very small groups or companies can now (or soon) make any movie they want.
I suspect the big companies like Disney would have to either stop all the Woke virtue signalling in order to keep their clients, or double down and focus on making things for a smaller group of radicals, perhaps creating different "realities". People could choose which "reality" they want to experience much like how they already choose what to believe in because thanks to postmodernism the truth doesn't matter anymore.
My comments keep being autodeleted. Even on different accounts. I think RUclips is literally censoring anything they don't like.
The good thing: Democratization of the Blockbuster.
Just imagine a Blockbuster about Julian Assange, David Grusch or other things it is normally difficult to get a Millions budget for. Now 3 teenagers will probably be able to create a movie the level of Indpedence Day in a few years probably.
Next to this comment section I read a thumbnail: "AI unequal Art"
Well that's right. But online 99% percent of "art" online is actually only illustration (all the Trolls, Spaceships, Marvel Designs...), concept art... And I think the "Industry Art" can be replaced by AI, but the deep "fine Art" will withstand AI much longer probably. By the way like your creations!
But still in the year 2100 a Teslabot could just draw as good as Picasso and even fake the mythological Dpeth that well, that everyone will fall for it....
In the end this world is a fake, Maya, and the around 5000 year old Vedas written by the Rishis tell us just one thing: Wake up from the illusion of the world.
What is reality? If you believe these old Rishis world is nothing more but a dream, a projection, a holodec, a rescue ladder created by God, to provide the Souls lost in the void of emptyness an escape route into enlightment, Unio Mystica, unity with God/Brahman/Nonduality/Awareness.
What if these Rishis are right and everything is not real? All is Maya, a dreamworld? A simulation that has only one purpose: To wake up from it after many lives... What if the World is a helpful fake for our Souls to ripe and grow spiritual? So a fake from which arises something real. It's about the Journey and how the Journey changes the Soul.
I'm so glad this is happening. Good visual effects will be available for everyone and not the same 5 studios that keep making bad movies
This analysis is spot on. It's refreshing to see that in discussion with other real artists, it always boils down to these opinions. A general distrust, the proliferation of stock image/footage sites, and new economic branches that will drive some companies to go after real art as a way to promote the fact that they're not cheapskates. in a way that we see even more today, the prompts that "no animals were harmed in the filmimg, no CGI VFX were used in the making" and at some time in the future i believe there will be a "no ai image was used in the making" or "only real artists contributed in the making of"...
As the furor of A.I. takes off and people run at this shiny new thing like kids heading to first recess at school, it's nice to know there are some of us who ponder these things at a deeper level. Why? Very few people will remember 99.9999% of the content created by AI or anything that's been written, composed or scupted by a live human being unless it touched their heart in some deep place, which is the only place a lasting impression can be made.
Love the video, although I have to say that I personally don't think it signifies the death of creative trust. Instead, it enables more people to be creative. Prompting itself is a creative act, as you pursue a specific goal you have in mind. AI is merely a tool that helps visualize your creativity, especially for those who lacked the equipment or skill previously. I believe an artist embodies a combination of creativity and skill, but anyone can be creative in their own way, even without technical skill. The real debate now is whether this makes them artists or merely creative users?
Can't talk mewing right now. Not even traditional art is safe from AI because the same logic apply. It is possible that they can do it as well.
I'm gonna lay it down flat here. What is art and the use case for IP's are fundamentally different questions. Data laundering or its exploitation can be in many forms and we hold data to different levels and purposes. So the question is, why should we assume "art" as the basis of our legislation? It can simply be infringing on peoples privacy, ruining someone's business, or the fundamental flaw of forcing people to request an opt-out rather than just starting off as a permission based opt-in system. If you wanna study it, you can't just be looking through the artist's point of view because what they are speaking of is THEIR rights to their OWN intellectual property.
I do blame some of the media out there. AI "art" gets the wrong impression because we could just call it some tech generation because art is not an objective metric to class IP. But on the other hand, I also don't blame the media because it is very understandable that artists need to be represented as artists. Otherwise it is an insult to them and our culture is defined as such to recognise it.
It boils down to this:
“Do not assume the role of peoples Data or Data of a representative. There needs to be a permission based Opt-In system for AI. What is art and people's IP are fundamentally different questions.”
I'm sure such philosophical pondering is worth while, but I also think speaking in aesthetics appeals to your audience anyway.
Its just become human nature to want instant gratification and to make our own lives easier. And in doing this with AI, it will be the death of true creativity and people pursuing art careers.
I hate to have to say it, it hurts to even think about it, but in the future we will have to recognize people not by their voice but by the content of what they say. I am a very audio oriented person and the idea of not being able to trust that someone's voice - which is a VERY personal thing about them - is actually coming from them is a nightmare to me. I have poor eyesight. I recognize people by their voices first. I am going to have to seriously rewire my brain. In the future, you will trust that your friend's voice is coming from your friend not because it would be impossible to fake that, but because nobody has sufficient motive to bother to clone your voices. It's a very different world now. Makes me wish I was 20 years younger.
the lesson is : spend less time on the internet since everything can be fake. the real thing is people near you and get interested, love them, take care of them.
Existing videos reconstructed.
I'm a traditional artist myself, meaning that I paint or draw on canvas or physical paper. I absolutely agree with all that was said, and I say that with losing trust with everything online, there will arise disgust and soon ennui even with the screens. In consequence, perhaps there will arise a new thirst for live interaction. Who knows, as I am fed up with the things even slightly hinting that could be AI. We'll see. Thank you!
That observation about dreams is fantastic
So true. As a filmmaker i'm restricted by economic gatekeepers who will only tell familiar, "low risk" stories they can monetize to high degree. Understandable to a certain extent, as film making is an expensive art form. The emergence of AI will help democratize this process (as other technologies have begun to in recent years - such us cheaper cameras) And hopefully allow a richer variety of stories to be told and points-of-views to be expressed.
What a beautiful video. Thanks for this.
I remember discussing with my late dad how my then profession of graphic designer on a Mac was replacing hand drawn designs. He was a carpenter and said "you can give a man a hammer but that doesn't make him a cabinet maker". So here we are a couple of decades on and AI will be a new creative tool and democratisation of production. Whether we'll get any "caninet makers", i.e. anything meaningful and of quality, we'll still need a human for that. I also think a new job of "specialist AI prompters" will be a thing at some point. Interesting times for sure😮
Wow! Thank you for sharing this, Sam Hamper!
Think of how practical effects, sans CGI, are now a selling point for a movie. I think something similar will happen with AI images and videos. People will value things actually made by people a lot more than they do now. Handmade things will mean more. It could be a very good thing for folks like you, Sam.
Photography challenged human creativity, and artists were scared then. Ai scares us now, it will challenge us all. But stick with it and continue creating. Its not over yet.
A big concern I have is the discounting true creativity will experience. The dismissal of process, the devaluing of experience, skills and achievement built over up over many years of doing you craft. The gap between truly amazing work and mediocre will be compressed to near zero. If everything is as good as it can look then how do we differentiate or appreciate without the gradient? Everything becomes been there, done it, seen it... In the end we are all just passengers moving through time. Kids born today will only know a world where Ai did this stuff and that will be "normal". I'm doing my best to not be that "boomer", I'm in the last 10 or so years of my career and can't help but wonder if I will make it across the finish line.
Beautifully done, Sam! 🤖❤
Oh gosh. This was one of the best videos I've seen this year. If not, the best.
Great video! Thoughtful, meditative, hopeful and pragmatic.
This was a lovely, thoughtful video that, unfortunately makes some incorrect assumptions. Doctors and lawyers are not currently being replaced by AI. But other jobs, such as copywriters, are. You have to remember, through this fog of the "now", that generative AI is still in its infancy. It is a precocious toddler. But it is a toddler that is developing at an exponential rate, as a Niagara of money pours into research from all over the globe. This toddler will very soon mature and once it does, the white collar landscape will be utterly changed. Lawyers and doctors are most definitely not safe. Blue collar workers need not get complacent either, however, as their replacement merely lags the white collars by around a decade, as robotics matures. Yes, AI will be an augmenting tool, particularly in the short term. But a little further down the road it will become apparent that the human is the bottleneck in the creative loop, not the facilitator. This is our new reality and only a world-shaking calamity will prevent it at this point.
So where is the hope in this vision? Where is the worth of the human in our future? Humans will always remain interesting to humans. There will be value placed on the notion of the live performance, the personal touch or the "hand crafted" artwork. Whether that value is a monetary one, is another matter entirely though. You think the fog of now is bad for artists? Try seeing through this mist as an economist... After all, what does the economy look like in the absence of labour?
@@PGHEngineer > *AI will turn out to be nothing more than the plagiarism algorithms that Noam Chomsky described them as*
Considering that "AI" extends well beyond generative AI, and has even been finding homes in such fields as medical research, IMO this seems like an odd notion.
@@gondoravalon7540 I feel like calling everything “ai” is a problem
Nice to hear another grounded human living out there. Subscribed. Thanks for making this x
totally agree - confusion over 'what is real' only comes from being 'extremely online' or from naivety about how 'real' most media has been anyway. Touching grass is a simple rmeedy.
That said we also live in economically challenging times - and - placing myself around the level2.5 out of 7 of AI riskiness I am claiming a piece of the AI pie. Yes I have been putting thought towards how to monetize it. But i'm not averse to the ethical and philosophical questions. I'm essentially trying to use AI as a tool to remix and re-imagine public domain content in certain ways that simply would not have been possible before.
Fascinating commentary and insights! Well done!
Great video, as usual. The "fog" thing is already there in a way with text-image. I see the pics from 2 years ago and I am like, oh yeah. Also, you reminded me to check out the 80's classic tonight.
It's not only that we lose trust in the medium, but in the creators as well. I keep spotting more and more creators - that I once thought were great - resorting to AI images which they chose seemingly carelessly for their videos. They often share seemingly deep thoughts or philosophic topics similar to this video, but the increasing use of flawed and biased AI images gives much room for doubt in the creator's own confidence. I mean if you have to use AI to get a point across, is that point even real or just as fabricated? The process in which a creator has to weight their narrative against actual sources gets eradicated more and more, giving them more freedom than is good for them or their credibility. And one could argue these creators were never all that credible to begin with if they resort to such tools now that they're available, but part of me thinks that we can't blame them entirely for falling into this pithole. After all, it's a very tempting tool that looks innocent and useful at first. The rat tail of sociological implications that follows isn't that obvious to most. Politics and content platforms really need to get ahead of this on a large scale already, before video prompts become virtually perfect and widely available. The use of them need to be tagged and visible at all times, through meta data detection and what have you.
Great insight, I will be following you and your videos with interest
Nah dude. At this point I'm not even confident that my personal memory of the 1980s isn't somehow AI too. XD
It's coming for real world art too, just wait
Wonderful video, important thoughts. Thank you for this! ❤
This video lifted my spirits after being succumb by despair of a world Ai threatens to dominate.
Warm philosophical musings. Nice.
Pls continue.
Beautiful, brilliant video. Thank you
I think it's great quality concepts will win over hours of technique. I see it as the elevation of human qualities trough democratization of superficial quality of result.
I could not agree with you more. And as a VFX Artist, I am not worried in the slightest
a man like tarkowsky by the way, will be able to make movies again. God Bless
I can't relate to your opinion 100%. It is true that AI can professionalize lots of things like writing texts but the thing is that it doesn't help the professionals in doing their job - quite the contrary it takes their professionality away from them: You don't need to be that clever anymore to do the job. Chat GPT is a very good example for this: Students are already using the programme for writing their thesis. The problem is if you can't recognize the AI in a thesis anymore then how can you be sure that a person has fulfilled the criteria for his/her qualification? Therefore we will need to adjust our criterias for a qualified person in the future. Also never forget why such huge projects like AI are sponsored: it is always to save money and to increase profits. At the moment it looks like the only ones who will benefit from the AI are the company owners: more AI, less needed qualification, less salaries, more profit for them.
Furries are *eagerly* awaiting SORA.
The internet really isn’t a “place” as it tries to define itself. I appreciate this video’s rationality. AI is a tool, and while it is sad to imagine a world where the creativity brought on by limitations is no longer, maybe something good can come of it.
Yes, exactly. Art is an act, both in the sense of “An action, in the world, real” and “a performance”. That schism has only widened as people have bought into the 'play' on screens.
Beautiful, thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Hi, thanks for your videos. Some polemic thoughts here, but please mind that I agree with a lot of what you say and I respect the nuance you perform in all your videos about the subject.
1. In general I have a feeling that the binary approach crumbles in all areas we encouter new and unknown. I agree that the opposition true/untrue might not be adequate in the context of generative AI, but I also think trust/distrust opposition is equally wrong - we need to reinvent trust in these conditions, we need to think harder on what "true" means - what AI and digitql in general shows is that our concept of both is vulnerable and we need to think them over in the new environment where massive information processing networks exist - be it social, neural, artificial neural, digital social etc. So my claim is: let's not postulate the deatho of any - we need them as much as we need air to breath, let's find out what they mean, how can they be achieved and expressed and shared in this new, more complex environment.
2. I truly believe two main narratives about AI are destructive in the long term. One anthropomorphises these systems - and this approach is much more common than it seems. All AI benchmarks have a human as a reference point - that's to point just one example of the anthropomorphisation under the hood, and I'm affraid we are all guilty of such approach to some degree. But the other narrative: it's just another tool, is equally inadequate. No tool we had to this point had such a level of agency amd autonomy as AI systems have. Even without entering the discussion on the technical level (which also disprooves the tooling approach) just by observing the phenomena related to AI equaling it with other technologies is to remain blind for already observed and inevitable consequences of their proliferation.
And what's even worse these two narratives are not mutually exclusive and the fog you're talking about stems from strongly from this miacomceptionw and mixtures of both of them. They are also sometimes purposefully used in the discourse by corporations to achive their goals and mislead public opinion. The ontological status of AI should be then a subject of an in depth intellectual endeavour and scrutiny to let us all navigate the presence and the future in a less foggy environment. Happy to continue the conversation here or in relation to your next videos.
*anthropomorphises*
Silly question mayhap, I hear this a lot, but what is being anthropomorphised, what arguments specifically give off that notion?
@@gondoravalon7540 In my opinion it is observable on all levels of interaction. The disappointment people express when AI does not give them results they expect, sarcastic comments regarding intelligence of AI or poorly drawn hands on images and other imperfections of this kind - they are all expressions of antropomorphisation - if it doesn't solve problems the way we do, then it's just plainly fake, stupid, mimicry, plagiarism, stochastic parrot etc. It deserved to be called intelligent only when it thinks as we do, when it performs as we do (or better) but definitely not in a different way. If it would make mistakes on our level or even worse but it would make them in the way humans make them, on our, human way, then it would deserve the name of intelligence. But this expectation goes as far and can be fulfilled only once AI possesses human-like world-model that stems from human-like embodiment and probably consciousness. As I also said earlier also all the metrics of AI development are not attributes-oriented, but have human capabilities as a reference point. This is what I mean by antropomorphisation deeply engrained. We are not approaching these systems as they are, we are not developing independent criteria of evaluation based on observation of their development, we constantly compare them to us. And we miss a lot by doing so, to the point of dangerous overlook of capabilities that never were human-like.
wise words!
As we say in my country: A wise man is a pleasure to listen to :)
Keep making these. This is good stuff.
best "get out, touch some grass" video i've seen.
I hope you educate us more
Wonderfully made. 🤗
Thank You for a very sober approach and this video. Kudos
Great video. Its a challenge.
I still think we can find equity for all creatives.
Thanks for sharing this video, great concept and interesting point of view!
I hate how people make the point that the development of digital art is the same as the development of ai generators. What’s the point of being human if we aren’t going to use our creativity?
Beautiful words beautifully told.
I'm sora to say, your digital animation career is in jeopardy.
i think i'm in love with this video
Excellent Presentation. Bravo! ~3K
People are being led to the inescapable conclusion that the most powerful illusions are created and experienced in our own imaginations. Indeed, the world of our own imagination is incalculably superior to anything we can put on a screen. As the man-made world of screens perfects its magic, people will begin to hunger for a deeper and more fulfilling access to their own creative source. It's exciting to consider how AI might aid in this process, how it might re-introduce us to latent powers we perhaps enjoyed many millenia ago.
I think this is the best thing to ever happen.
Nicely done all around 👏
This is especially good for creating unlimited episodes for yoyr favourite shows
It isn't just the death of trust. Going forward the operative assumption will be that a given image is generated as a market product, rather than knowing that a creative spirit was trying to communicate something ineffable. This forced change in the operative assumption of the viewer degrades an artist's ability to reach others by deleting their openness. Sam, how would your relationship with your favorite painting (I can't find that vid now) be different if you knew from the beginning it had been a purpose-generated image rather than the record of an authentic reach toward communicating a mystery?
Putting old books trough this will be awesome tho
It genuinely puzzles me why so many visual artists seem to accept the proposition that a machine that turns words into pictures could ever be a viable tool of visual creation- surely it should be clear that if it were possible to capture and define images with words there would be no need for the images in the first place- the words alone would be enough.
We are basicaly being sold a fantasy here, which is the idea that Generative AI can somehow take the words we type and translate those words into exactly the images we intend to make. This is nonsense. Don't believe me? Try the following experiment; type into an image generator an exact description of your face- what comes out will not look like you- why is that? Why does your passport have a photo of your face instead of just a written description of what you look like?
So let's at least be clear- these Art machines do not express the artist's intent- they are not tools of serious artistic creation for the rather obvious reason that visual artists are not writers and the domain of the visual cannot be expressed using words- so using words to define pictures is like eating the menu in the hope of tasting the food it describes.
What Generative AI does is better seen as a game in which the user's prompt is the opening move. The resulting image is the second move. Depending on how satisfied the user is with the initial image there may then be a third move and so on- until the user finally accepts an image as being 'the one' and the game ends- by which point the user may well have persuaded themselves that they 'won' the game by compelling the AI to give them exactly what they intended all along.
But this claim is really a self deception- because if words cannot really descibe images in a precise way then there is no way to make an AI image generator do what you want- it does what it wants within the constraints of the words you type in. Nothing wrong with this- it's a fun game and can yeild some very pretty pictures- but the idea that these things can be used by serious artists to realise their creative intent is laughable. They are slot machines that dispense images instead of coins, nothing more.
You obviously have a very narrow scope of insight on the whole topic and your arguments can easily be dismissed by simply realising that the gap between 'thinking' an image in your mind and creating it on a canvas with the skills you have - or may not have does in principle not differ from the gap between what is describable in words, compared to a painting that is being described. If you take enough time and an adequate syntax you may well be capable of simply using words as a paintbrush. The limit here is only in the limits of a certain 'language'. Since I am a programmer with more than 40 years of experience in the field and a knowledge of about 50 programming and scripting languages I am well aware that most ordinary people tend to find the limits of their imagination and 'their world' at the limits of their mother tounge. Which is a very poor and unnecessarily limiting way of perceiving the world.
@@joechip4822 As I said you need not take my word for this- simply type a description of your own face into Midjourney or some other image generator and look at the result- does that image look like your face? I suspect the answer will be no, it does not. That being so why would you think that any words you type into Midjourney create an accurate result?
The best that can be said is that the words you type set the initial state from which the software begins to generate an image- but it is Midjourney that does most of the 'creating' here, not the user. Your role as a prompter is extremely limited, not because you lack vision but because you are trying to use words to define images- and we have already demonstrated this cannot be done- no matter how many words you use to describe your own face Midjourney will not be able to make a picture of it.
The concept of 'Text to Image' is kind of ridiculous because it assumes that text and images are interchangeable- they are not. And this holds true for human artists also- even the best portrait artist in the world could not paint your face if all you sent them was a written description- words are simply incapable of defining images. Just as you cannot drink the word 'water' you cannot 'see' an image just by reading a description of it- you have to actually see it.
Visual Artists do not need to compromise their vision by first translating that vision into words- they act in the world directly to manifest that vision in paint or clay or pixels- the process is iterative for sure- but it is an infinitely more subtle process than just rearranging text strings in the hope that the AI will finaly produce the desired outcome.
@@joechip4822your argument actually proves his point. Your words regardless of how articulate you are also just translations of your thoughts. I think you're missing the point of what he said.
I love AI because its forcing us to ask ourselves profound questions as to what is art and why are we creating it? If its to convey meaning and express ourselves how can we honestly do that through generative AI?
Just my 2 cents from a fellow programmer who makes videogames.
@@joechip4822 I may only know the bare bones basics of programming, but it’s definitely a different story than art is. Homogenizing the two isn’t really a great idea, let alone homogenizing the whole process of creating entertainment in general. There should be more ways of expressing ourselves than just typing prompts 24/7, that just sounds like a boring office job. The stuff that makes programming good is just going to be ruined by constant repetition.
@@joechip4822 U dissmissed the whole "market" and consumer part of this equation... Lets say i want to buy a painting from ikea or something... Ikea can now install an advanced AI image generator... a consumer can now type in exactly the image they want... then that ai can generate it. once the consumer is happy with the result they press print. and then Ikea do not have to pay a human artist for that. Even if that art is not at the level of a professional artist, for most people anything that looks "good enough" will be good to hang on a wall at home.
Great stuff, gained a sub!
I still admire the real human artist more than anything the A.I can do.
Great content! Brave, honest, interesting
Life changes. The plow replaced farmers, stores replaced milk delivery. Some people will adapt, others will fall off. Im excited for the change. Is anyone happy with the way things they are now?
I am so happy to hear someone with perspective and not with panic of losing his god given JOB. art is about the message, the emotions the artist wants to communicate and his motivation, and what the receivers gets, wich may not be the same. AI might replace generic artist using recipes catering to a demand but Artist who create the demand are safe. artificial intelligence is not artificial talent, artificial emotions or artificial passion. AI is a great tool in the hands of a great artist and a useless tool in the hand of a useless artist A copy of a masterpiece will not bring tears of sadness or joy to your eyes, the original might.
theater stocks will be going up, as we desire the comfort of human expression overtime
Perhaps..
lol
Sam this is spot on! Well said!
Absolute Brilliance. Every word. Every frame. Every nuance. Bravo to you!
@7:07 This made me really stop and think for a few minutes. That must be symbolic of the disconnection/illusion we intrinsically know them to be and such don't port them into our imagined reality due to the illusion while we dream.... hmmmm Now I want to conduct a poll
Lots of great Q’s. The one question that doesn’t get asked is what will we do with all the displaced workers that used to help make that art happen.
the elite will use this as their trojan horse for UBI so that we can all be dependent on them for our bread
Two things will rule the coming years:
a) Fake art and all the bullshit that orbits around that, like flies piloting huge battleships made out of shit - storming towards a fan
b) And artists or craftmen taking that one step forward and embracing an hybrid way of doing things. Or you can still be an analogue artist / craftsman and choose to ignore all named "A.I." (Both things here in (b) are equally good - and maybe a wiser choice IMHO)
option a) sounds absolutely hilarious and im here for it
there's no value in storytelling as you put it, if we can all tell 50 untold stories every day. Who will listen to your story when I have endless other stories on my feed? Why should it matter if all you had to tell the story was free time?
"Here, I made a new story , can you look at it and tell me what you think?"
"sure, I will, I just have to finish watching 100 other stories from my other friends".
I actually assumed your screengrab for the thumbnail image was AI generated.
In terms of raw entertainment of the eyes, it's pretty awesome.
In terms of using images as evidence of true events, we are abruptly sent back to the time before photography was an option at all.
You could capture any crime on camera and it won't be admissible in a legal trial.
Meanwhile, in the court of public opinion, most people already just believe or deny whatever they prefer the truth to be.
But thanks for pointing out the slight silver lining to the definitive end of relying on recorded media as a direct window to reality.
Choose your own adventure movies..... I'm waiting for that.