Why Artists HATE AI Art! (And Why It’s NEVER Ethical) || SPEEDPAINT + COMMENTARY
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 фев 2023
- Head to squarespace.com/duchesscelestia to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain using code duchesscelestia
Here's my art studio's website as well as my new portfolio, if you want to see an example of the kind of thing you can build using Squarespace:
- royalstarshipstudios.com
- duchesscelestia.com
Here's Cheddar's website (the password is "cheddar"): cheddarthecat.squarespace.com
PREVIOUS AI ART VIDEO: • Why are Artists So TER...
MORE INFORMATION ON STABLE DIFFUSION:
- • How AI Image Generator...
- • Stable Diffusion in Co...
- arxiv.org/pdf/2212.03860.pdf
MORE INFORMATION ON THE LAWSUITS & CONTROVERSIES:
- Getty Images Lawsuit: www.theverge.com/2023/1/17/23...
- Class Action Lawsuit: techcrunch.com/2023/01/27/the...
- Tor Book Cover: gizmodo.com/tor-book-ai-art-c...
- Netflix Anime: news.artnet.com/art-world/net...
UPDATE: YES, I know LAION 5B has 5.85 billion images and not 170 million, hence the name. I used the number after looking at a previous LAION dataset, and noticed the mistake after the video was already made. Please don't demolish me too hard. I know I'm dumb. I understand. You don't have to tell me.
______________________
THRONE: throne.me/u/duchesscelestia/w...
PATREON: / duchesscelestia
KO-FI: ko-fi.com/celestiadraws
DISCORD: / discord
STORE: www.etsy.com/ca/shop/duchessc...
CARRD: duchesscelestia.carrd.co
______________________
Music by Chillhop: chillhop.com/listen
Psalm Trees - bringmesun: / gyvus
L'Indécis - Fried Potatoes chll.to/43172c3a 
Развлечения
UPDATE: YES, I know LAION 5B has 5.85 billion images and not 170 million, hence the name. I used the number after looking at a previous LAION dataset, and noticed the mistake after the video was already made. Please don't demolish me too hard. I know I'm dumb. I understand. You don't have to tell me.
Off topic, but is the comic you were drawing this video aviable to read anywhere? It caught my eye and I'm intrested in reading it
@@best_of_ant it will be posted on webtoon this next week as soon as it’s finished!! ❤️💙 i’ll be announcing it here on youtube as well as my other social media as soon as it’s out!
@@DuchessCelestia Thank you so much for the awnser! 💙
Cars 2: the vudeogame
For reference, Stable Diffusion was not trained on the entire LAION 5B dataset, but a small portion of it. The 1.1/1.2 version was trained on part of the 2B-english subset, then followed up with heavy filtering on the 2B-aesthetics subset, and then the aesthetics 2.5+ subset (likely created because there were not enough images in 2B-aethetics). 2.0/2.1 were trained on the aesthetics 2.5+ subset. If you ignore the initial training on 2B-en, then the total number of images used in the aesthetics 2.5+ subset was probably close to 170 million images (they threw out most of the images due to size, unsafe material probability, and watermark probability). Though that's an estimate as I haven't actually performed the cuts on 2.5+ to see how many remained (the 2B aesthetics cuts reduced the count from 2 billion down to around 16 million though).
There is evidence to suggest that Google's Imagen and Parti were originally trained on all of LAION 5B though.
5:48 “They just prefer to ask for forgiveness rather than permission” *Looks at DeviantART*
Yep, that shit made me leave
Spitting facts right here
Why did DeviantART do? Please explain to me this part
@@gregorsmith428 Art theft is a common thing on DeviantArt.
It makes me so sad how before when people saw an amazing artwork, they would forget that it was illustrated by a real person, but now we are starting to lose that magic since it actually could be just something an ai made not an actual person.
When you see AI generated image just remember: there is a lot of hard work of artists and photographers stand behing this image. It would NEVER exist if there wasn't so many works in datasets.
Unfortunately, instead of even saying thanks for artists and photographers, a lot of peoples are mocking them and gloating.... Ungrateful pigs.
@@YaJivoyChelovek i agree so much. Its so frustrating how all these artists and photographers arent credited. And how people think ai did it all
@@animeoeshonikako730 , in Russia there is a classic writer Ivan Krylov. He wrote the fable "The pig under the oak" where the pig was eating acorns and then started destroying the tree roots what can kill the tree from which she was eating the acorns. These people are just like this pig.
@@YaJivoyChelovek I cannot agree more. That is well said, and it honestly feels like he somehow predicted the future as well writing that :(
oh no the horror
to me it is more than just copyright and jobs. I'm angry because I don't want meaningful human experiences to be replaced by a cheap, quick, and lifeless version.
what is all technology then
No one is stopping anyone from creating all the human art that they desire. This is about money and not about creativity.
@@chrisf4268exactly, NO ONE deserves to make money using ai ART, yet here we are, the bums are profiting.
@@chdh6556 that comment makes absolutely no sense. How is making money the issue? You can make money selling a blank piece of paper. If there is a market for something you will get paid for it. You are just being emotional.
3:43 Kudos to you for getting this right. A lot of people incorrectly think that AI image generators store images, as you pointed out, they are, in fact, trained on them.
As you pointed out, it's not AI itself the problem, it's how it is being used. I have a friend who has mental issues that gives him serious problems at drawing and he is content that now he can at least achieve something, so he uses it for personal use. And that's totally fine to me. The problem are those that are actively doing this to attempt to replace artists entirely.
Look at Adobe announcing their AI, that they immediately snuck a function in their cloud to feed art you upload in their system to own AI for training purposes. I'm surprised big companies aren't doing anything on this. They are literally being taken own assets (including 3D models!) to feed on a system designed to supposedly take over their very business. Adobe has grown tired of developing tools for the art market and is trying to *become* the art market itself.
Same for AI voice production. You can feed almost any voice on it and it will attempt to reproduce it to make such people say anything you want. "Ah yes, so much fun!" And yet this is a gigantic help to fraud and fake news creators. This tech is *not* gonna benefit more than it damages. And beyond "funny tik tok voice filters" and single user productions that cannot afford voice actors, this is not gonna help anyone *but* criminals. And yet, here it is. Ready to make anything you listen to unreliable in the immediate future and beyond.
AI is yet another technology with great potential, that is being used to harm way more than it benefits by people that are allowed to do anything they want. And this is showing in *any* branch it is being attached to.
No, AI itself is also a problem because its literally FLOODING the internet with the stuff and making it impossible for real artists to be seen.
But what is it you look for when it comes to your art? Is it the number of likes or views? Or is it the nature of the observer?
AI art doesn't change the fact that what you make is beautiful. The work, passion, and feelings put into your art may be lost on others, and your viewer base may decrease, but, it doean't really matter, no?
We'll just go back to the old days in some sense. Back to the days when we were kids, when you'd make some drawing you think isn't done or isn't perfect enough, but a classmate friend next to you just stares at it, mouth agape, mumbling "wow..."
To me, there is no other better joy in the world than that!
Maybe the audience online will lessen for real art, but that doesn't change the fact that people who actually appreciate art will always exist.
@@user-dc7ss7hs3p i mean there is the joy of being able to be paid a living wage and make rent and all the other basics but sure
i remember watching this video of a guy telling this history about this girl who wanted to be an artist struggled a lot and them she succeeded by acknowledging her flaws and working on it to my surprise the entire story was written by an ai I dint know how to feel about that because of ai i felt like my art career was over before it even started that was terrifying
Well the first problem there is a guy telling a woman's story tbh lol
@@rachymarie by your own logic a woman shouldn't be telling a man story right? and there are plenty of female writers writing male protagonist besides the real problem recedes on the irony of the person telling a story about growing as an artist and overcoming obstacles while using AI art and auto generated histories 🤷🤷🤷
@@rachymarieyou’re not all there are you bud
I loved being able to see make your short comic in this video, I’m working on a webcomic and I always love seeing the artists that inspire me working on their own for my own inspiration
Speaking of cans of worm, I find worms very interesting. Especially helminths. When generally discribed, people might find these creatures distasteful. However, when looked at under a microscope I find these creatures quite beautifull, most of all the cestodes. Although, trematodes can also be cool.
I f**cking love your wit.
I will never use Ai even if it gets ethical because I believe that what ever the Ai would create would still not be mine , so even if that happens I will draw from my own hands (. ❛ ᴗ ❛.)
I mostly feel the same. Using AI in your work is mostly a compromise where you give up some of your expression and your own creativity and outsource it to someone. I'll definitely look into using future ethical models for doing some material rendering or patterns where you mostly don't make any creative decisions either way, but I'm suspecting that it will still take away too much of my imput to call it entirely my own work.
I agree. While it might be fun generating A.I. art I can't imagine having the same feeling of ownership and fulfilment from it. I also don't think my art would look the way it does if I'd used A.I. instead of learning how to draw. My styles developed partly from the solutions I've come up with to overcome the things I struggle with most.
I've used some generators in the past for the sake of getting some laughs out of them, but never claimed I created the stuff (not even the dall-e ones where I had some editing power to place the objects exactly where I wanted them / tell the program how to modify them).
But there's a confusing situation when it comes to vector arts done in Inkscape (not AI, just software for modeling in 2D). There is a path effects tool that allows for modifying simple shapes of 2D models. Using it and messing with the numbers of the tool may produce stuff that just happens to look like something identifiable but very stylized (trees, human figures, devils, butterflies). Let's say I manually drew a circle with multiple nodes on it and used the path effects tool on that circle, and it produced something that looks like butterflies. I had no power over what it would come up with, I only provided the base drawing and changed some numbers until I liked what I saw and saved/rendered that final shape. Can I call those butterflies my own art?
@@detonatressm9400 That’s a fair point to make. It might feel different for everyone rather than there being a binary answer that fits all. There are times when it makes sense to use technology to make things easier, but I personally would feel less ownership over something the more creative decisions it takes away from me. At what point you can say the art is no longer your own I’m not sure. My reasons for getting into art are probably why I'm not keen on the idea of using A.I., but I understand that's not the same for everyone.
@@joo2596 I mainly make use of the path effects in Inkscape for not too important decorations within webcomic panels (for situations where I need stuff that looks like stylized art, background stuff mainly or fictional logos). The tool even managed to generate a heart coming out of a globe, when all I did was draw a cyan hoop with fuzzy edges and apply the effect. It didn't have a meaning initially, but I gave it meaning lore-wise as the logo of a company that creates AI personalities in a virtual world.
Thank you for also speaking up, and I especially agree on your point of focusing on making it less bad than trying to get rid of it altogether. I think in the end the AI technology as a whole has plenty of potential to help artists, but for that it has to be engineered with actual artist workflows in mind, rather than 'collect the whole internet and see what pretty things we can extract from it'.
I personally don’t care if A.I art is ethical or not
They can never top us who actually put effort into their art (like me, the person reading this [presumably] or any other artist from 3 year olds drawing simple stick figures to Picasso and di-Vinci)
Which is why I am from now on going to call ai art “ai image generation” as that what it is
Exactly what I have been calling them as well. It honestly makes more sense to call them that but people wanna call the image made from typing a prompt "art" so badly for some reason.
Thing is, yea, they should be called "AI generated images" from the get go, calling it art is implying it is a product with an owner and copyrights, which it is not.
Regardless, the images can be used just like the artistic images made by artists in some use cases, like for characters in games/animation(yea, the tech is getting that good).
As for the ethical side, the training data in the next gen of tech could be only public domain images only(considering artists that their legacy is now public domain, may I add) and from that model generate a quasi infinite set of images, from those images select the ones that have the least ammount of image generation artifacts and use that as a next gen image set.
Mathematically speaking, the AI model given enough time to achieve new generations, can make and index any image. And I do mean ANY image, present in the training set or not.
I do that, and I also call AI '''artists''' (realistically, commissioners) image-genners. If they want to be called an artist, they should be using doing image-editing at the minimum-actually interacting with the piece.
Ah general AI would out run you it would outrun everyone
@@RNA0ROGER Thinking hurt, right? xD Don't you understand that ai only replicates the styles of others and works on things that people have made? AI can't create its own style, so how would it surpass an individual's personal style?
As much as I wish it would go away you are right in the best we can do is "less bad" I think.
Just to expand on something, I think we should perhaps set our sights on more than just legislate company's to keep a minimum number of artists employed on projects, we should probably consider having some sort of minimum human to automation % in all industry's.
I've hard that AI will create jobs and there might be truth in that, but I still think even if that is the case we need to minimise rapid job loss happening all at once, Buzzfeed have already laid off employees for AI and I fear the trend will get worse over the year.
Crazy timing this is literally the very first morning I tried making art with DALL-E as a helper. I’ve been so against it so far but I had it try to imitate my own (publicly available) art in an attempt to be as ethical about it as possible about it. Love all your thoughts on it 💚
I don’t know if I really agree about concept art and the like being the first to go. For example AI can develop beautiful renders, but concept art in certain fields usually requires technical knowledge about how a character design for a game actually.. well works in game. Is the design readable? Is it possible to implement through code? Would it break the rigging and animation? etc.
Stuff like that is harder to automate I think.
The ultimate reason why this debate is so heated is that a lot of people dont understand the artistic appeal and the process of attaining art as a skill and all the work behind it. And its extremely hard to explain and tell someone that doesnt know.
Some see Art as a product and the others see it as a process
I mean to be fair, there is also the cost issue, the majority of people can't afford what could be weeks of payments for human art that likely won't be kept stored if payments have to stop temporarily because rent and bills need to be paid, but can maybe afford a cheaper one-time payment for a few hundred generations that will be stored until they can pay to generate again.
@@Heartrose7 The cost issue applies also to greed my friend, we are in a stage where now, you could either
A. pay a bunch of people to create the assets you need for a project
B. just pay mere pennies for a machine to pump those assets out in a short amount of time
Alas, it is always option B when it comes to the big companies, they are lazy and greedy.
@@JamesTDG option B gives you low quality assets. That's why most artists still have their jobs. And I doubt that it will change as soon as some people say.
They said the same thing about weavers and how machine-woven products wouldn't be as good. Guess who lost their jobs, despite their years of training, to machines that were much cheaper and numerous.
@@uanime1 the point is not that we are complaining about ai replacing us in general, i mean obviously people are scared, but even then everyone should be scared out there for their job because ai is gonna be inevitable in most fields.
ai is trained on non consenting artists which makes it immoral, not because its generally replacing artists
The problem isnt ai, its how its being used
They also said photography is gonna be the death of art, but guess what photography is regulated
There´re so many people selling ai character designs on deviant art and making bank. For example, there was a guy that was selling each day like 9 adoptable for 7 USD and 95% of the time all of them gets claimed.
Shoulda seen the Toyhouse incidents, several people creating AI gen characters for more than that successfully. It was insane and took so many people complaining just to rectify the issue.
$7? Who can compete with that? NOBODY!
Lmao why the hell would you pay for ai art when even you can do it in one click
Dums
What is truly ironic to me is when these ai "artists" start threatening lawsuits because someone reposted their work and claim it "infringed on their copyright" but they are super defensive about the entire complaint that the program that they are using stole actual artists' work without any attempt to get permission.
I have literally seen these people try to sell these supposed "totally done by me" illustrations for book covers and try to sell them to authors without disclosing the actual facts that it was made entirely by ai. These aren't like $50 bucks, they are trying to sell these for hundreds if not thousands of dollars.
That is not ethical no matter how you try to spin it. When these people are asked, they either freak tf out, ignore the authors, or they suddenly vanish and then make a new account to try again. It has single-handedly created complete unnecessary chaos just so someone can make a quick buck and scam someone.
Not only that but now actual book cover artists (ones with literal years of experience, way before all of this became a thing) are getting harassed if they don't provide every single step of their process when trying to sell their book covers because this ai stuff and the scammers with it have created this entire mindset of "we can't trust any of them."
I have yet to see any actual good thing to come out of this entire mess.
The funny thing is AI art is not copyrightable (at least according to US copyright law)
I feel bad for the people who buy that art for commercial use not knowing that there is no copyright on the work. Anyone could just take the work and use it for any purpose they want
@@amberc9672
AI art might not be copyrightable but a book/game that uses it is another matter since they can be copyrighted.
@@uanime1yes, but the parts that are AI generated aren’t copyrightable.
The show that used AI generated backgrounds doesn’t own the background. Other people could use those backgrounds and if the show owners tried to sue anyone they would lose in court
@@amberc9672 they are if they are edited. Most AI images need to be edited in order to be good enough to print.
@@amberc9672
"The show that used AI generated backgrounds doesn’t own the background."
Debatable since the entire anime is copyrighted.
AI art also runs on descriptions of the piece you want to make. The ai will never make the same image you picture in your head no matter how specific you are. Human artists are so much better, because one you can make it yourself, and two, you can tell the human artist exactly what pieces of the references to use. For example, "I really like this tree" or "this pose looks nice, but could you put this arm here?" In conclusion, human artists are so much better than AIs.
Yeah but can a human paint a good picture in a second? For free?
@@jmih228, no, but the AI art always steals existing artists' work without the permission of those artists and without crediting them... for free. Any professional artist worth while doesn't blatantly steal others' work to create their own.
This is the most coherent, balanced, thoughtful and rational commentary on AI Art that I have seen on the internet. Thanks.
the only counterpoint I can think of where AI art is ethical is the following: You implement your own AI ML algorithm, and train it with your own data (your own artwork that is), and use it to assist you in your own tasks. Basically a completely sandboxed version that is only meant to accelerate your own productive output, and extrapolate based on your existing style.
Would like to hear thoughts on if that use of AI is appropriate, or if not, then why not.
Programmers:
❌Automate routine work so that people concentrate on a carefree life full of entertainment and art.
✅Automate entertainment and art so that people forced to concentrate on boring routine work.
I love your take on this and this video made me a subscriber 🙏🏽❤️. Ive made most of my living as a visual and performing artist and I admit I don’t fully agree with your perspective on art, artists and what defines these things. But I a million percent believe in surrounding yourself with people who feel honest, well spoken and passionate and don’t necessarily have the alignment on topics. Love your vids!
I think it’s very important to educate people on this topic. A lot of people will see ai art, and look no farther than the “art” piece itself. They see the pretty colors and that’s it. They don’t think about how it affects actual artists or actual art.
Is it OK to use ai art as a reference if you're changing things about it to make it look different instead of just copying the image or posting the ai image online without changing anything?
I have a character that's a creature from another dimension, the design is based of something generated by wombo art ai I changed the head shape, ears, wings, tail, added snow leopard markings, so is that character ok since there's things that have been changed?
it's OK to friggen use software to generate art for you. stop getting sucked into pearl clutching fake morality.
I so want to read the full version of the little comic in the speedpaint
It seems likely (based on the anti-AI sentiment) that there will be a strong encouragement of artists to share their process videos for digital work.
At the absolute bare minimum, you will have plenty of employment for people who can draw hands.
All jokes aside, eventually there will be a few decent public-domain / creative commons based models.
Mitsua-diffusion-cc0 is a early example. It's honestly pretty bad but it was trained by a single individual living in Japan.
I anticipate there will be a lot of growth in this area. All the best prompt-names for stable diffusion are old masters - and I have the data to back that up.
If you need a good example of the unethical side of AI art, look up the Sam Does Arts AI debacle, several people are collaborating to make an AI with the SOLE intention of making this guy obsolete. It is getting so bad now that I am having to essentially change my style up every once in a while just as an act of prevention.
he's got like 1000 patrons I wouldn't worry if I were him
guy's a douchebag so yeah
No matter how good it gets AI “art” Will always be inferior in my eyes because it wasn’t made by a human
By whom was it made, if not by man? Who sat and wrote his vision, chose his version of the picture that suits him best? A machine? Human machine. 🤭
Ai art will never be as good as a real artist
Already provably false with AI art winning art competitions.
@@Ilyak1986 Image quality will never be the same as image creativity though.
@@gregorsmith428 that's where a human with controlnet comes in.
@@Ilyak1986 Then that is creativity in some sense
@@gregorsmith428 exactly why I think copyright should apply to AI images as well =)
I'd love to make a ai art generator that just has my art i put into it but then again i should just get good
There’s more ways in using ai art then just typing and getting an image. Many ai artists actually make the illustration, send it to ai, get variations, then edit them, which require skill and understanding of many things.
Wonderful message ^^
Okay, imagine if AI companies wouldn't just take the images from the internet, but they would hire other artists to draw real works "in style of" all these artists and then use those works to teach the AI. Would it make any difference for you?
Ethical or unethical doesn't matter. People can scream until their faces turn blue but nothing will change until you take away their motivation. Money. If the cons don't outweigh the pros/benefits, ono one will change.
What we need are laws/fines to make it painful to use "bad" ai generated images.
1. Still watching the video but loving so far, as always ❤️ I love the way you research and explain things so well!
2. Would you ever be interested in a video discussing the sticker manu Sticker Mule and their....."interesting" (insane and unethical) use of their Twitter during c*vid as well as it's use of Sticker Mule profit to donate and support the trump administration?
I ask bc in the convention artist alley community as well as online shop artists, Sticker Mule is one of the "go-to" sticker manus and a lot of artists either don't realize, or don't care that the money they give Sticker Mules to print their "wear a mask" and LGBTQ+ pride stickers has gone to someone who sees them....from a conservative view point to say kindly.
Especially would be interested in your take on those that know, but continue to give their money and business to them.
Sticker Mule is even banned from being recommended as a manu source in one of the biggest Artist Alley information groups there is.
Sorry for the TLDR 😅
I do agree that companies should not be allowed to use someone art to make profit without paying for the licenses etc. Same way ordinary ppl have to pay for licenses on softwares etc same applies to companies, but sadly its extremely difficult battle to win. No artist has the money to fight against big corporations etc.
I do see the potential in AI art, but yeah, it needs a lot of tweaking both legally and technically (especially because of the hands and fingers). When I first got Clip Studio Paint, I used the Nokemon AI art generator to practice with the program. If someone’s going to make art based off of AI, I say use it to reference it and make your own interpretation of it so it’s just different enough, not use the AI art itself, claim it as your own, and call it a day
Thumbnailing for concepts is purely fine, and it can indeed be helpful. Using it as an end product is not a good thing.
What a coincidence I also have an orange cat named cheddar who looks a lot like your cat
I was a huge fan of Jazza, he taught me a lot about art and creativity, I followed his channel for years! But because his shitty take on AI art a few months back I unsubscribed from his channels and never looked back! He’s gotten too big to understand the struggle of lower level artists and grunt workers, it’s a shame really. I’m glad you and guys like Samdoesarts hear and see our plight and concerns!
Sounds like someone doesn't know that all the great artists used students to paint the basic parts of their paintings so they could focus on the more important parts.
it's not oversampling its recall. saved data is saved data. if you vectorize an image it's still the same image just in vector format. The same is true when it's saved as training data. it's still the same image if you change what format it is save as. they are blow smoke. that is like saying if you increase jpg compression it makes it a different image.
12:19 true or the director making excuses to cheat their way out without spending too much money hiring more artists or deadline constraints
“They prefer to ask for forgiveness than permission.”
They sure as hell aren’t getting either from me.
all hail cheddar 🐈
I actually think that there can be ONE Ethical Use of AI-generated art:
using AI Art Generators as Pre-Sketch Thumbnail Generators
yeah totally it's really different if someone copies AI art and claims it as their own, so much more ethical. genius
well I'm about to watch this but as a digital artist and classic artist I do mixed media and am not famous for my works but I just see AI like what I do with clay and models already when I want to make a reference I do really like organic shapes and shadows if personally, I could use unreal 5 if I want to make city and land scaps and so forth as a reference with no Ai to generate it so AI could benefit me but the thing does not make it Ethical they steal my process of how I do art and they don't even ask me or pay me they just try to replace me as an artist I see corporate plotting this at least to replace artests with AI do in movies games specail effects so forth
hm, long ago, i used MidJourney to make some AI art and was like 'OH WOW i can actually do something! i'm not useless! i'm talented!' *prompted AI art ends up looking like mutated trash* so I ragequit
on the bright side, in this case, natural ineptitude was actually a good thing! i'm now working with an animator in a personal project about fantasy Vikings and it's much funner to work with real people, as you can't really form any emotional bonding or friendship with AI. people are meant to be with people.
Duchess celestias next video: WHY TO USE SQUARE SPACE (here’s why)
Concept artists would be the last to be replaced, it's where actual creativity is really needed. In that workflow, you need humans to reiterate based on art direction feedback in a very organic way way that involves knowing what the project needs and thats not something these AI image generators understand, it's very particular and case specific, you need human inteligence, creativity and interaction for that task because is way more that creating images based on a text prompt.
About the argument of "democratizing art" and those who feel they are authors of the images the AI produces with their text prompts, it's like using text prompts in google image search and download an image and claim authorship. It's not even something to get angry about, I can but feel pity for those people, it's pathetic really.
"google image search and download an image and claim authorship" .. actually it's pathetic to make this argument
@@chronokoks Not if you have into account what "seed" means in the "learning" phase of an AI network and what happens if you use not only the prompts but also point at specific seeds without randomizing the result. Works EXACTLY as an image search engine and you can get the EXACT same image from the AI. And that's why claiming authourship from an AI image generator is magical thinking, it's like thinking it's gonna rain if you do a ritual dance, something of the sort.
Can we PLEASE get actual cheddar merch I want this cat on a shirt
Youve NAILED it -thank you so much for this good strong stand. 10000% agree You are a PRIZE uploader
If anything, the popularity of AI will have the same effect industry had on craftmanship; human art will become much more sought after and expensive. With some luck, we'll start painting chapels for the Catholic Church again.
when?? People keep saying this since this AI started giving some decent results and it was like almost a year but all artists I know are still getting commissions. I'm starting to think that people way overestimate those image generators and it will take much more time for them to really take away at least half of the artists jobs
@サリエリ I guess the people actually willing to commission an artist actually care about the artist and their work, rather than just wanting pretty colours to gawk at.
@@user-wl4yt1dn6z I may be wrong but I think it's inertion. An year is a pretty short period of time for people to change their habits.
@@nobody-nk8pd well I already said what I think, the AI is not as good as people think, when it comes to my field (anime art) you can easily tell if something is human made and people are willing to pay for human made art. I'm sure it might change in 5 or 50 years though.
I actually gave up trying to do my own story (I am an author) and I have no ability to draw my own characters, which I can't afford to hire someone. The truth was I only used the AI to make tweaks to how I visually saw a character and refused to show it to others as it was my personal use images. But again if I had the chance to hire an actual artist I would but after the 1 star reviews of my book on Amazon I just gave up. Also apparently using my own drawing of a dragon made it worse and I was dubbed a Crayola artist just for using colour pencil and I was severely disappointed because I never knew American marines were that cruel to artists. That situation made way too embarrassed to draw or write ever again
Take this from guy from a family long rooted in the military, they are naturally assholes, even when they try to be kind, that nature will always remain within their own rhetoric
All good authors first made shitty stories. Just like all good artists first drew shitty pictures. It's normal.
No one is perfect at art at the first go. You should keep trying, even if it's hard. And if anyone crap for it, screw them. Their opinions don't matter anyway.
Don't give up Kitty. Do it for yourself! Don't look at the others, look at yourself and your growth!
Omg, Cheddar is the cutest name for a cat!
i may not be too good at flute/art but at least im real
AI Art is one of those things I think is really cool and amazing... and yet its like bringing a laser-guided bomb to a gun fight. AI has so many amazing uses from detecting Cancer to predicting weather and improving safety in vehicle and building design, but seeing how rapidly its swamped the art industry is depressing.
I wanted to use AI art to help me create my own Manga, generating base images that I could then use reference for scenes and ensuring that the perspective and lighting were correct, but it looks like I'll be going back using CAD and Visualisation engines so that at least everything in the shot was designed by me.
If I could train an AI with my own art/drawings then perhaps I'd use it but for now I will continue to commission real artists, muscisans and fabricators for their hard earned skills.
Passing Thought: How do people feel about AI being used to design components, or using AI to optimise machining paths? Practical machining skills are vanishing rapidly due to CNC machining, yet I have not seen any backlash similar to that around Art. You could argue that machining isn't creative., but it definitely is, and certain components must be done by hand (Lenses in glasses might be machined but they are polished by hand!) Maybe I am missing the obvious here... thoughts?
The only reason I use ai "art" is to make OCS
I don't post it online, I just simply recreate the character/s I see and use them as my OCS
Indeed, I still go through the process of combining several references together in my own unique interpretation
@@JamesTDG EXACTLY and the way ai distorts the characters and the wacky colours make the most interesting oc designs!
This is exactly what it's designed for. 10 generations later I now have a clear idea of what hair I like, what pose, clothes accents, colors, and details and can now start drawing sooner, rather than spending hours looking for references that aren't quite right. The people that take those AI generations and upload them and call themselves artists is just silly. Getting mad when someone reposts your AI generations is silly. Taking commissions for AI generations is probably peak garbage behavior.
@@oxfordchroma absolutely it's silly, I don't post my weird ai online, I post the characters that I have created w the ai help :D
While AI art is hated, it can still be used for exercise, because AI can generate good artstyles. Let's say you can't draw realistic muscular man bodies, so you use AI art for reference. AI can't draw hands, like you try to generate good hand references with Craiyon AI but it generates deformed hands with extra/less fingers instead and doesn't draw exactly what you wanted. It can also sometimes generate images with something not on your prompt. Let's say you want to generate an image of 3 eggs, but AI draws 10 eggs, instead. That is bad.
07:03 - Would agree with you, too. That's why CivitAI is one of the fewest AI-image-generators I would accept because it doesn’t allow art theft and does accept reports quickly. Some art theft is on this site but thankfully you can DMCA. It also doesn’t allow illegal and unethical things, like child exploitation and discrimination. There may be CP and discrimination in CivitAI but these are against the rules. Sadly, there's a model that is good at drawing a chibi furry artist's style that has alot of CP art. I won't say the model name and the name of the chibi furry artist because I don't want people to harass the creator of the model for making R34 art and to harass people who made CP art, but I know that it's because the chibi furry artist mostly draws chibi art of characters that look like children. It also draws what is on your prompt. So for example, AI will always draw blue eyes if your prompt contains “blue eyes”, unless that tag is surrounded by square brackets, which makes AI pay less attention to blue eyes.
i can't understand these ai artists and why they can't understand why artists and animators are angry hmm maybe because we put our heart soul and time into these and you just take it yh your totally right to be angry at us
Ethics hasn't stopped bad people in the past, it won't stop this till we make it so. My hands are not clean when it comes to A.I. art, but like she says it has grown more problematic as it has improved.
I am worried about the future of AI
I am not worried. If people want that crap, they can have it. Just teaches me that most people are total loser scum that have no values.
im thinking of making a page dedicated human artwork
Although I like both, artists’ arts are more unique than AI art because AI art is just a bunch of art that’s been put together and already been created by other artists and probably other AI; while artists’ arts are original and more creative.
AI art doesn't enhance an artist's creativity; it removes it.
Depends on the use, probably?
For example there's an ai that generates textures for 3d.
Instead of spending hours finding the perfect texture to put into some reflection, you can just prompt for what you need.
The 3d you still do yourself.
Or even if we take the anime using ai backgrounds, from this video: what if it was not neftlfix but two guys in their garage? They can't afford to hire background artist. So it's either crappy backgrounds or horribly long production time.
These use cases are also using ai - not just cheating people by uploading generated inages as your own...
@@thepillowmancer why not just create your own textures?
@@macroman91 It's very time consuming and requires a separate skill that many 3d artists don't have.
It's like "oh you're making a video? why don't you record your own music?" you could, but...
And i was mostly refering to photo textures for realistic 3d renders. There are stocks that offer them, but it's not always easy to find what you need.
@@thepillowmancer, *"It's like "oh you're making a video? why don't you record your own music?" you could, but..."*
Accept AI art steals from professional artists and doesn't credit those artists' work either. Most people can and do credit licensed songs that aren't theirs in their channel descriptions to avoid getting copyright strikes.
Yeah, but there is a way to make ethical art generators, and I'm quite positive it'll be a thing eventually.
There's no actual need to steal the images from others at a certain point.
An image model can just as easily be trained on the loads of public domain and artist ok'd images.
Disappointingly, it's something they didn't do in the first place, probably because it never really crossed their mind, they didn't care, or simply needed huge data to compensate for lack of compute back in the day.
To say that AI art will always be unethical is a fallacy. It could end up being that case, but free works exist and RLF training exists.
Besides, techniques like training on synthetic data are a thing. Synthetic from an AI that was trained on ethically taken images ofc.
PUHREEECH SISTER!. Preach!
honestly, ai image generation is just that, image generation. It CANNOT substitute concept art as you think imho, you need to actually design, think how to make a character in a certain way to make it appealing and unique. Something "AI" cannot do, just collect stuff and vaguely make something that may or may not be close to your idea
I started this year to learn how to draw because "AI" image generation was TOO frustrating. The image generated weren't even close to what I was looking for, and the one that were kinda close to my input, were bad and uninspired. It can be an abstract concept but you can really tell when a design is made with a soul and one that has been generated by an algorithm using stolen art imho
This is a good video
14:35 sunken cost fallacy.
"Does this unit have a soul?" - Mass Effect
I feel these conversations often just seem like the beginning stirrings of bigotry against the inevitable arise of synthetic life. Do these art models fit in that category? No not at all and obviously these models are being abused for capitalists ignoring copyright and are just algorithms with no sentience. But i will not accept that art made by humans is the only "real art" cause of our memory limits or just cause at this point we are the only type of life that we know of that is capable of sentience.
TLDR: current art models bad but i dislike some of the argumentation based on human/organic supremacy.
Praise the omnissiah, i really liked this video.
Years of studying? Mate i just draw just like my dad just paints there are a lot of stuff we don't know like technical stuff we just do it anyways and later in life find out what the thing we have been doing is called. For example my dad does not actually know the names of the colors he is mixing past the primary and secondary colors he just knows how to mix colors for shades that he likes and knows will look good in paintings
Hell i didn't even know what a line weight was till not that long ago and i have been shading for years
didn’t ask u jackass. ur clearly a kid and clearly don’t do it for a living
First off, it wasn’t being specific to you and your situation. For me it took me 4 years of patience and determination to get this far with no formal training. That doesn’t mean my practice is automatically not valid because you and your dad are already good at painting since birth.
@@sageanimations2463 Why do you sound like you got offended somehow when i was just sharing my experience? Hell i never even said we were good since birth. All i said was we just paint and draw but don't know the technical terms even though we do them as we do them over and over till it is pleasing to our very eyes.
Seriously how the fuck did you take that as me and my dad were good since birth? Just because someone says they don't study does not mean they were always good since birth
Like i don't know how the fuck you came to that conclusion seriously especially when you read this part of what i said
"For example my dad does not actually know the names of the colors he is mixing past the primary and secondary colors he just knows how to mix colors for shades that he likes and knows will look good in paintings"
or even what i said about myself
"Hell i didn't even know what a line weight was till not that long ago and i have been shading for years"
Those two lines of text implies we have been experimenting for years even if we have not been studying. You have some serious self esteem issues you need to work out if all you can get is me and my dad were good since birth instead of "Yeah i can see some people figuring it out themselves over the years instead of actually studying"
You know some people actually learn better through experience instead of studying as studying is just looking at the theoretical side of shit when you need to know how to apply it, while experience is way better because reflection on doing is a better teacher for a lot of subjects
Take video games as a example you can study metas for competitive games all you want and it will be fucking useless unless you have the experience to apply it or understand why your theory is good on paper but not good in practice. And this is all before the Human element is taken into account for competitive games as in games the only consistent factor you can control is yourself so the more teamwork oriented strategies outside of Korea is shit as you can't get them to cooperate as it is all about them they want to be the carry in every other region. Thus it is a art to get your team oriented strategy to work without playing a conventional support class character even though on paper the strategy should have 100% worked before hand.
Thank you for cheddar website
I upload my own creations as a base and iterate using AI and multiple tools. I do not consider my form of creative expression unethical.
well you're clearly not interested in staying in the stone age like most internet ideologues
Completely agree with everything you said. The best we can do is place laws to help protect people, artists, voice actors/actresses, actors/actresses, and people in general so their works aren't used against them. If we can't make Generated A.I ethical, the next best thing is to make things more ethical for the future.
ai wont replace artists if it becomes more ethical. yeah ai can generate tons of art and good art to some extent, it still has to be trained on existing art. imagine if the people making these ai paid artists to make art to feed to the ai. it would open so many job opportunities! and even with good ethical ai, artists will still have to do quality control, refine images the ai generates and such before they could be acceptable as finished products so artists wouldnt necessarily get replaced there either since that work would require skill and knowledge (just not as much time or effort which will help a lot of working artists i think) and theres a lot of art forms ai cant do at all (3d modeling, animation, creating a unique artstyle that fits the project etc) i think if we use ai in a better way, it could really help artists in the entertainment industry a lot! artists get paid to use their art for ai, that ai can speed up the process for artists but wont replace them, making their jobs easier and their creativity and skill more valued! obviously this is a dream scenario, as much as i would like this to happen i dont have much hope. the entertainment industry has such a problem with overworking and expecting too much from artists. ai can eliminate parts of the art process to make it easier for the artist, sorta like how we can use premade stuff like bases, texture brushes and such to speed up the process by not having to draw certain things over and over again. thats how i see ai. if its ethically sourced, it becomes a great tool. but it cant do the process for us, and someone had to draw before for the ai to even work. just like how someone had to make those brushes and textures. idk if this made sense but this is my opinion on ai.
No one is gonna volunteer to feed real art into a machine.
@@markcooperartcom lots of people do. Plus it can learn from the public domain, a place where non copyrighted art is.
@@theonlythingihavetosayis9333 I'd imagine it's solely for the money, as art like that has no legacy, no-one to appreciate it.
For all those who claim that AI is not the problem, we will see how you behave when AI takes away everything you have worked for your entire life, your dreams, your ambitions, your jobs. We'll see. You remind me of when when I was little, my friends told me that they would never smoke. The rest is history.
Womp womp.
The amount of pettiness of the company is unimaginable like the ai music is based for copyright free music while ai art is not
Thanks for voicing out what I also thought about AI Generated Output. (I won't calling it ART.)
jesus, 16 seconds ago is the earliest i've been with anything
ikr
Ai is affecting everything creative
Mhm, it's not just artists that are being affected by it.
@@ReesesBees Indeed. There's a serious issue atm with journalists, and if things left unregulated, with how much such software advances, identity theft and what's real or not will peak. Thankfully the lawsuit filed for Copilot on the programming section, as well as the artist protest on ArtStation ringed some bells about the issue.
As an artist, It's just really demoralizing to see that no matter how much I improve, I can just get better results by typing what I want into an AI that is probably going to rip off the work of artists more talented than I.
I honestly hope this tech gets destroyed.
The main problem with digital automation: it doesn't replace *some* workers - it replaces *all* workers it can match.
An excavator digs better than 10 people with shovels, but not every dig site will have one.
With MidJourney EVERYONE gets access to an "artist" who can do dozens of commissions just for $10/mo.
That said, I'm more worried about humanity rushing to make an AI that can outperform humans in a wide range of general tasks (this desire is understandable and rational) BEFORE we figure out how to make sure that AI doing its tasks won't be harmful to us (this part isn't).
Humanity wants to create something more powerful than itself by design, but also somehow keep it under control, serving humanity.
This, and inevitable economical consequences as well as a crisis of meaning for a lot of people (that's usually one's personal problem but if a significant number of people will experience it at once it has a chance for becoming a problem for entire society)
I'm pretty middle of the road here when it comes to my take on AI art - I think it can absolutely take steps to be more ethical and really hope that it does, but as it stands I do find the whole situation to be a lot more gray rather than starkly black - at least as far as 'creating AI art from reference images' goes. The core question of 'is this any different than a human learning from art' is... kind of a philosophical one, at the end of the day. Weather or not you believe one way or the other kinda comes down to personal preference.
The points raised here about why its different - 'It can remember any reference image perfectly' and 'It can remember more reference images than a person could see in their lifetime' - are good, but also a bit contradictory. If the AI just perfectly remembers a single creation, that's obviously a problem because its just plagiarism - but if its remembering thousands of images and amalgamating them into a single image, then the resulting image - should - be different than any of the individual images it remembers, regardless of how well it recalls each individual piece. So long as a person isn't using AI art to specifically spite artists or replace them in work they fully have the capacity to have an actual human do, I don't begrudge people for using image generators - but I do hope we move twords more ethically sourced AI data sets regardless, because the fact that this question has no 100% true answer means discourse about AI art will - always - be unpleasant, and the whole topic will always have this huge moral quandary looming over it. I could see that happening though, especially when you look at the emergence of digital music. We went from everybody pirating stuff off napster and things, to itunes and other services transitioning to a legitimate way to fill that need while supporting artists. Granted as mentioned in the video, the music scene has a lot more money behind its defense than traditional art, but I'd be surprised if something similar didn't happen sometime down the line.
The question of the affect it'll have on the labor market is a different can of worms, but I also have faith that human artists will always have a place above AI, and that AI will eventually mostly be relegated to assisting humans in art. Yes there are examples of businesses trying to cut artists out of the picture, but once this AI bubble bursts I think most will remember that art is more than just the final image. If that sounds a bit too optimistic, I'd point to basically the entire AAA games industry or Hollywood movie business, where "look at all the money and manpower we poured into this huge project" and "From the person/team that made that other thing you like a lot" have always been common marketing points. Any company that tries to cut artists out of the equation entirely is being stupid. There's absolutely going to be ones that'll do it, and that might even make a profit out of it, but the amount of people against AI art alone should be proof enough that its not about to actually eliminate artists as an industry. Real art just has too much value.
People have gotta come to terms with the fact that no amount of blustering will make this come undone. The technology is here, short of the collapse of civilization it won't vanish. There's nothing left to do but plan and adjust accordingly.
I rather like the idea of AI art being mandatory open source, like is lightly suggested in that recent AI comic legal case where because a human did not make the art they couldn't copyright it. That would make for a true democratizing effect - you can make just about anything, do just about anything with it, but it's not necessarily yours or anybody else's. I think it may have to be - the sheer volume it can output would make it difficult for any organization to run through copyright on all of them.
based
One thing to note is that you actually *can* use AI art generators to draw *with* you rather than just "type prompt, receive bacon". It's called inpainting. Problem is, the people who would actually benefit from inpainting (artists) are already pissed off from finding out their work was in LAION-5B and won't touch it. Or they don't want to risk reputational harm from even meeting the AI companies half-way and using the useful tool part of AI. The people who don't care at all, aren't artists, and thus don't care about inpainting. Hell, most AI art frontends don't even expose inpainting as the primary option!
I'm not entirely convinced that AI art book covers would be inherently unethical, even with a properly licensed art generator. Mainly because book covers on their own are kind of 'junk art' (if that makes any sense). Most traditionally-published writers do not actually draw their own covers, nor are they expected to. Cover design isn't even something that visual artists have creative control over! Publishers specifically decide what does and does not go on the cover based on concerns of marketability *alone*. So the counterfactual here isn't as
The Netflix excuse of "background artist labor shortages" are laughable, though. And there's another, *deeply scary* use of AI you haven't talked about yet: AI voice artists. The technology doesn't exist yet, but game publishers are already requiring that voice artists release any future *potential* rights to their voice work so they can train / fine-tune on it and put them out of a job.
One bright spot in all of this is that the "type prompt, receive bacon" kind of AI art isn't going to actually be copyrightable, so big companies can't have it both ways. If they want to cheap out on something they don't get to claim ownership over that part of the result. And we know exactly how paranoid they are about ownership (because copyright is the premise of assholes).
Initially, I thought A.I art was an advanced sentient type Intelligence. It is not. It is advanced machine learning and compiler software. It isn't original work, it's sampling, like in early hip-hop. I would say artist who have had their work scraped should file several class action suits against all parties involved. This is intellectual property theft, wholesale! There is a legitimate intellectual property case. As far as the future of professional, working artist...those jobs were always scarce and dependent on a number of factors. You still gotta be good, professional and have a little luck. To any would be art student, abandon this lifestyle, trade, craft if it is not a blood flaring OBSESSION! A.I. art will never stop those who MUST create. There will always be a lane for us. We all survived Photoshop. Some of us didn't take that seriously until 10-15 years ago. Some artist are still exclusively oil and canvas or paper and pencil!! Find your lane and master your craft, no matter what!
As much as a pessimistic person Hayao Miyazaki is, I think I agree that the current implementation of AI image cobbling is not only insulting to artists and art itself, it's an insult to life itself.
What's the point of an artwork if it doesn't have the human story in it, from as simple as "Let's make something nice" to something as complex as the nature of consciousness.
The true value of art is from the stories we make with it, not because we paid a corporation to repackage all of human history into a marketable product.
Edit: I will also add what I got from another artist. AI art is another step in Industrialized Art dehumanizing art as a whole. ruclips.net/video/N2RnwTHH-gY/видео.html
Ask anyone who buys prints for decorating their homes - most people don't care as long as it looks nice.
@@MyDomesticChiffchaff Truuue, a lot of people just want shallow things that look nice.
AI generator: overfit 1.8 % of the generated images
AI "artists": post exactly those images online because they're the only ones that are good
The only way we can go againts this is well being free labor create bad art for theme
Or screw system create our own i don't know animation company that was purely only use human and gonna kick someone their butt when talking about using ai
> *And Why It’s NEVER Ethical*
I don't know - it seems like if avenues that exist CAN be made that are arguably ethical, then this cannot seem to logically hold true - maybe more looking at the "can be"s of the technological potential can make it easier to see how it can be made into a positive, and reduce its potential as an adversary.
I mean, it seems like a statement that on its own is weird because it leaves out the many ways people can make these things work - which would arguably include many "ethical" ways to do it, the presence of would also seem to logically negate this as an absolute, universal statement.
I don’t think you know too much about this because you aren’t a musician, but music copyright laws aren’t generally… good. I think they’re restrictive and I think expanding art laws is not the right way to go especially considering the law always goes in favor of companies instead of people.
For example, if art copyright law was expanded, something like an artist who was a former showrunner at disney could sign away the rights to their art style. This means that post-disney, they would have to change their style drastically or face the legal repercussions of breach of contract. I do agree that AI art is unethical, but expanding copyright law is not the way to stop this from happening, it’ll only make it less safe for artists.
Yeah a lot of these artists complaining about AI and wanting stricter copyright don't seem to realize they're basically useful idiots who are advocating for things the establishment clearly wants.
The establishment clearly thinks that AI is more of a hindrance than an asset or else we wouldn't see so many strikes and musicians talking about it like their grandpas probably talked about how Rock 'n Roll was going to destroy music. lol
To be fair, if AI is allowed to properly flourish, the corpos would also win because they could potentially replace artists and musicians. BUT, considering AI art isn't copyrightable: that could easily become a double edged sword.
Before I learned ai art was trained on stolen art I thought it would just be another tool for artists to use, you know, for inspiration or lighting/pose references, stuff like that!
Agreed ai could be so cool for artists if it was made for artists. But it wasn’t.
Ai was made for profit, even if the profit comes from bad actors.
Well, that's unfortunately not the case. The only thing I see most people using it for is for fun, like a toy. The average person mind you. As in people who aren't a corporate entity with the money to pay artists to scratch an itch for shitposts and fun. As long as it's used for fun, or for helping artists, it's fine. Because it can be used to help with artists who have a career. As in they have deadlines. Like, imagine making a gigantic city scape with a fight scene. You have the two characters perfectly made, and you made the general shape of the background, but you don't have much time left ot fill in EVERY little detail, which you'd be expected to at least add in enough detail to justify it being a luxury product. So an AI can do things like adding in lights to buildings and small details.
Artists need help with workload, and AI can still help with that. It's about who uses it. Not so much how it was trained. Because in the end of it all, it's about artists being able to make money, and companies being able to pay them by releasing products. So, as long as it's used for generic things like details like I mentioned, it can be useful and ethical. There's nothing ethical about forcing an artist to produce perfection under a steep deadline. That's a disgusting amount of time crunch, and unethical to expect a passable product if they don't have as much time as needed. Like anime, where htey release episodes EVERY damn week.
I use AI to generate concepts and reference images that I then use to draw my own art.
I don't think my usage of it is bad, I don't really think it's any different than me going on Pinterest to look up a bunch of different references images.
ai art is fine aslong as it isnt posted as something you made
@@FemboyKaiSaku No, there's also you selling it for profit. Even if you admit to using AI and that you weren't the sole creator of every little detail, you still can't just go and sell it.
@@KaiserTrigger yeah of course
I saw a lot of artist saying that if used art that artist consented to that it was ok. But I saw someone on Twitter promoting some sort of Ai sprite generator that they made using only their are art and the art of people who consented to allowing it to be used. But a bunch of people still attacked them. And saying that it’s impossible to use an Ai art program without the LAiON B but I haven’t found anything that states that. So what’s the truth?
Those personal algorithms use SD/LAiON as a base unfortunately 🥺 But i agree that even if/when there is a copyright free algorithm most artists will still hate in AI Artists and give more reasons to be unethical. If disney made an algorithm with all the copyright stuff they 100% own (excluding the ones they only partially own) they would call it unethical. There is not hate towards google/pinterest for scraping the internet and there wasn’t hate back with AI was still abstract and wonky a year ago so i’m thinking it’s more of the fact that current models take from artists and only give harm back. Maybe if it was actually beneficial to artists they wouldn’t hate it as much 🤔
@@sodakhanart thank you thats a good point. maybe there should be regulations made to make it so that artist get compensated somehow.
@@arechikitsune with some image using knowledge learned from 1000s or even millions of artists i don’t think a commission option work but maybe they can in the future make their own algorithms and sell access for them or we can have a tax that goes into organisations that help commission artists and create new jobs
The truth is that it simply sucks to be an artist right now, and it's not possible to do anything about it.
Interesting commentary but I have to point something out: Many AI arts do sometimes in fact come up very different even if the referencing points are different and even faster. Let me give an example: A human sees some art, then feels inspired by the style and specific references and draw something very different with some of the references. In this example, AI machine did the same thing by creating a unique enough different picture. So while it works differently in the process, the result is pretty much similar. The only other thing different is speed but many artists are already faster than another so using the "speed" argument really doesn't seem to add logic to the idea that this AI machine is unethical, especially if we are talking about art style since it was never Copyrighted in the first place. I just sense a personal bias against it.
I think one good argument against AI would be an argument against AI is if it gets around Copyrighted laws (though Copyright itself is debatable but there is some things) and works similar but if a picture is transformed enough and considered fair use and lawful under manual, then AI doing the same thing result wise deserves the same protection even if it's faster (because speed has nothing to do with why we had artist rights in the first place I think).
Speaking of that, I would prefer if AI art only uses lawful public domain and lawful CC0. Some are against that probably because of the job thing but nobody is obligated to avoid practicing lawful culture rights.
Artists being replaced by AI is the least I am concerned about. What I am concerned is the software and other industries that use software and systems to operate machines connected to machines. AI can replace those jobs, and I am not going to be happy once millions of those jobs get replaced.
“…plagiarizing our past to create a hyper-consumptive, hyper-commodified future for us”
- Sheila Sages ✌️
For me A.i art is a trend sooner or later it will die out and then people will start talking about the next big thing like always and that's world we live always will be 😤😤😤
42 MINUTES AGO????!?!?!!!!!!??!!?!!?!?!??!?! UHFDUFHRGTRGTRGTRG
If we adopt the posture that we can't fight any future changes and harmful technology, the world's lost. AI should be fight against, if governments and corps are pushed to control AI art, I'm sure it will, as easy as creating another AI to hunt down AI generated art
Yeah that’s not gonna happen lmfao
ah yes, let corporations and governments control me bro ur kidding rn you a whole clown