I use AI images for collages or inspiration, and I agree it AI imaging shouldn't be counted as art. Not until it's been transformed some way by a human, or animal I guess.
One could argue that a machine or algorithm, creating new imagery based on using millions of art pieces created by humans for reference, is the very definition of art.
@@TheSneezingMonkey A machine or algorithm, creating new imagery based on using millions of art pieces created by humans for reference, is not the very definition of the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination. That's what art is. I use AI as a tool, but I call the outputs "AI Images", or "generations". I'm not saying the AI isn't technically intelligent, but I don't think what it makes qualifies as art necessarily.
"Don't demonize it because you might lose your job" You mean someone's livelihood and ability to sustain themselves? naaaah no reason to get upset there
Yes! Let's remove electric street lamps because all those poor lamp lighters don't have jobs anymore! And the internet? Gone! We gotta bring back those telegraph operator and Pony Express jobs.
@@WesleyDavid we didn't have to infringe on or steal anyone's intellectual property to innovate street lights into electrical ones. Again, it's still WAY easy to understand why someone would be upset, especially considering there is no AI art without actual artists to feed it images to train off of. And the end game for a lot of heavy supporters of ai art seems to be to suck out all the useful data they can by training their ai on copyright material then avoid paying anyone a dime. So shove your false equivalency up your behind.
I understand why they’re upset and scared. As I say, it threatens my job as well. But what can we realistically do? Fighting the inevitable is a fight you WILL lose. So let’s change the conversation from ‘Ai has to be stopped’ to ‘how can we, as artists, use Ai to our benefit’! Imo we have to adjust our thinking. From a fear led defensive position to questioning how we can adjust what we do, in order to incorporate this inevitable future. But that’s just my opinion. Nothing wrong with a different viewpoint.
@@TheSneezingMonkey I think for a fair conversation moving forward there has to be legal precedent set on how AI can be trained or used, as it stands owning ai art isn't even holding up in court for people creating comics and trying to sell them, so till these boundaries are set legally, all people can really do is speculate.
@@TheSneezingMonkey The point isn't fighting technological progress. Language models and AI systems aren't going anywhere. How our current systems choose to regulate them or grow our economic institutions in response to them is absolutely a fight worth having though. AI policy is going to be one of the most defining aspects of this political period. This is not an inevitability. These are greedy corporations that are going to use this technology to rob artists unless there are policy changes that protect artists or make this tactic unprofitable. For instance, making all AI art public domain would be a good early step. Or royalty payments or legal precedent for charges being made by any artist who may have a claim on their work being used to train these models. There are absolutely things that can be done to make this stuff not attractive as a tool for robbing artists and demystifying what should be just another tool in the box.
This is the type of discussion the art community should have AFTER these companies are forced to be accountable for scraping data they don't own, or have consent to use. The context of the discussion completely changes when the data is ethically sourced. IMO, AI proponents should be joining artists in trying to speed this up, instead of trying to placate and sabotage our efforts to protect the art industry from these predatory companies. You speak about the artistic process as if it's a chore, but the artistic process and producing variations is exactly where a lot of artists find joy, whether it takes 5 minutes or 20 hours. Also, sketches and preliminary paintings are done to solve all the problem beforehand, so the odds of a pro artist not knowing what a 20 hour painting is going to look like is slim. I saw a job ad for "AI artist" recently, the pay was below min wage and they expected 500+ finished images a month. This may be dystopic for artists, but it is basically the ideal scenario for shareholders of these companies, who dont care about whether AI 'expands your artistic horizons', Their questions are, "is it faster, and can I pay them less? (if at all?)
As a hobby artist, I always say, why not both? I like using AI images in my art sometimes. Like a collage. I'll l cut up and move around the ai elements, and repaint them at times. Fit them together like legos. I like doing this with my art I use for ttrp games, cause it speeds the process up quite a lot.
I like this approach. Imo we need to re-adjust our thinking around Ai existing, rather than trying to fight it. It's ultimately an adjustment of how we approach creating art. That change can be scary but we'll never stop the progress.
I don't think there's any way to promote AI art while also setting boundaries. If AI works then people are going to use it to steal others' art styles and to resurrect dead artists. How would you stop them from doing that? And you need to consider why it bothers you for people to use AI to generate illustrations in a dead artist's style. It's disrespectful to his artistry. You respect the talent and passion it took for Kim Jung Gi to create his art and you don't want people to be able to rip it off. But it's not enough to protect his particular style. AI art threatens to make those qualities of talent and passion irrelevant. Even if you could somehow protect his style your still cheapening his talents. The problem with artists working with AI is it cheapens their art. It- at best- muddles how much the art displays their passion, creativity and talent and how much comes from the AI. With good enough AI you basically relegate artists to "idea guys" and maybe to touch-up work. That's a really sad vision for the future of art- artists as faceless drudges touching up AI generated images. Recently I watched a silly youtube video- it was a cover of a song done in the style of the Beach boys. And it was really well done and I was impressed after noticing how old the video was. And I thought to myself "Hey, that's really impressive now that I know it's so old; if it was more recent I would just assume it was made with AI." I don't want to live in a world where I have to think that about every piece of art that I see.
Curious about the first point about "steal others art style". What prevents artists from doing that now? Its pretty standard practice to draw something in someone elses style, especially when practicing.
@@pewpin1039 This isn't really relevant to any of the arguments I was making. Imitating Kim Jung Gi's art style is not disrespectful to him. Using AI to replace him is.
@@warron24 Well that is straight up down to opinion, so I can't really argue against it. Also what do you even mean with "replace him", having a person (or ai) draw in his style can not replace a person itself. The point you are making and I quote: "If AI works then people are going to use it to steal others' art styles and to resurrect dead artists", which has technically nothing to do with AI, since this is a thing that has been going on for decades, even centuries. Its a completely moot point. Also its illegal to sell something by mislabeling it as made by someone else (in civilized countries), so you can sell drawings in style of Van Gogh, but you can't sell something as a painting made by Van Gogh. So no idea how AI fits in your argument here at all.
@@pewpin1039 I don't think you paid any attention to what I wrote. You're just trotting out a stock argument for AI without caring if it actually addresses the arguments I was making. There is a difference, I think, between a human artist copying an artist's technique and a machine doing it. But it doesn't matter because my argument was never that AI is bad because it steals art. I could make that argument, but I wasn't making it here.
The issue isn't an overreacting of an artist It is a company being dishonest. It is the precedent that there is no rules and regulations around AI images currently Because, and it seems like a lot of people forget this in their utopian worldviews; As it stands now, AI will simply replace work we do in whatever capacity it can eithout direct benefits to the workers. A lot of people point out that AI will make the work load less for us. But it isn't like the normal working person will simply be paid a living wage working less hours because AI is taking some of their job or all of it. People will continue to be paid normal wages as it stands. Which isn't progress. Companies are just going to use AI so they can pay less in wages, and that is the issue. There is nothing stopping them from using AI to replace anyone they want and get all the profit themselves. And unlike machines we had previously. AI is so broad and cheap that it can and will replace our jobs if we don't set up some rules and regulations. Idk why you people are so set on black and white views and it honestly is laughable how many bad, hot takes there are Let me wake all of you up. Unless you own a huge company as a CEO, you will NOT ever benefit from AI as it currently stands.
im totally on board with your opinion here. to me it seems like a lot of artists are scared and just trying to gate keep those who can and can't make art by not allowing AI to be used as a tool in the art making process. like you said AI is here and its only going to get better, rather then just to stop it and slow it down... why not use it as a tool to help better someones art making abilities. disclaimer i am not an artist, i can not draw to save my life even though id like to be able to draw things i can't. id 100% use a tool like AI to help me draw for example perfect circles because i struggle with that. and i feel that it could be an amazing tool that artists can use along side there skills to make some truly amazing works of art... once everyone stops freaking out about it.
Thanks for your comment. I think you’re making valid points. And as you say, right now you can’t draw. But Ai will allow you to visualise your ideas at an incredible level of quality. Everyone has suddenly the potential to create awesome looking art. Which could be seen as devaluing the work of people like Dave. They’re scared of that scenario. Which is relatable but can’t be changed. It will happen! So let’s work with it rather than against it.
@@TheSneezingMonkey So human talent and passion will be irrelevant to creating art in the future? Anyone with an idea can feed it into a device. You want to destroy art? You think in the future people will look at pictures of old paintings and drawings and think "It's amazing what people could do back then. Now we would just have a machine do it." Is that the world you want to live in?
@@warron24 We already do... You think people are creating art in the same way as the old masters? Digital artists proclaiming what is real art is laughable when not too long ago they had to defend themselves. You use a colour picker? What you can't choose and mix the colour yourself? A copy tool? What you can't draw two identical eyes? This is just the progress we are seeing. It is getting easier for ones imagination to be created, either by premade paint colours you don't have to mix yourself, photo-editing tools and now ai. Is anyone who uses the ai an artist? I wouldn't say so in my definition, but the art they create is art.
@@SmogHouseTradingCo I certainly don't agree with any of this. Those other pieces of technology aren't always great- I *do* think artists should be picking their own colors. But it's another thing entirely to just use tech to create the art for you and call yourself an artist. With enough AI involvement your relegating artists to- at best- just being idea guys and doing touch up work. As for "making it easier for ones imagination to be created" there are two huge problems with that. One problem is the AI takes so much of the creativity away from the artist whose to say what actually came from the artist's imagination anyway? it's not like the machine reads your mind and pulls an image from there and puts it on the paper. Second, the act of creating art is not just a tedious process that stands between a mental image and a pretty picture. The talent, passion and technique that go into actually *creating* the image is a big part of what makes art art. And yes, digital tools do take away some of that. Art nerds can't look at a digital image and discuss the brushstrokes, for example. But its still a product of human effort. A well drawn digital image is still impressive on that level. AI generated images are not. I would rather not call them art at all.
could we call it by it's real name AI images NOT art
I use AI images for collages or inspiration, and I agree it AI imaging shouldn't be counted as art. Not until it's been transformed some way by a human, or animal I guess.
One could argue that a machine or algorithm, creating new imagery based on using millions of art pieces created by humans for reference, is the very definition of art.
@@TheSneezingMonkey No you couldn't. Not unless your using art to mean something way different from how I've heard it used.
@@TheSneezingMonkeywrong
@@TheSneezingMonkey A machine or algorithm, creating new imagery based on using millions of art pieces created by humans for reference, is not the very definition of the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination. That's what art is. I use AI as a tool, but I call the outputs "AI Images", or "generations". I'm not saying the AI isn't technically intelligent, but I don't think what it makes qualifies as art necessarily.
Nice video i cant wait for the next stream
"Don't demonize it because you might lose your job"
You mean someone's livelihood and ability to sustain themselves? naaaah no reason to get upset there
Yes! Let's remove electric street lamps because all those poor lamp lighters don't have jobs anymore! And the internet? Gone! We gotta bring back those telegraph operator and Pony Express jobs.
@@WesleyDavid we didn't have to infringe on or steal anyone's intellectual property to innovate street lights into electrical ones.
Again, it's still WAY easy to understand why someone would be upset, especially considering there is no AI art without actual artists to feed it images to train off of.
And the end game for a lot of heavy supporters of ai art seems to be to suck out all the useful data they can by training their ai on copyright material then avoid paying anyone a dime.
So shove your false equivalency up your behind.
I understand why they’re upset and scared. As I say, it threatens my job as well.
But what can we realistically do? Fighting the inevitable is a fight you WILL lose. So let’s change the conversation from ‘Ai has to be stopped’ to ‘how can we, as artists, use Ai to our benefit’! Imo we have to adjust our thinking. From a fear led defensive position to questioning how we can adjust what we do, in order to incorporate this inevitable future. But that’s just my opinion. Nothing wrong with a different viewpoint.
@@TheSneezingMonkey I think for a fair conversation moving forward there has to be legal precedent set on how AI can be trained or used, as it stands owning ai art isn't even holding up in court for people creating comics and trying to sell them, so till these boundaries are set legally, all people can really do is speculate.
@@TheSneezingMonkey The point isn't fighting technological progress. Language models and AI systems aren't going anywhere. How our current systems choose to regulate them or grow our economic institutions in response to them is absolutely a fight worth having though. AI policy is going to be one of the most defining aspects of this political period. This is not an inevitability. These are greedy corporations that are going to use this technology to rob artists unless there are policy changes that protect artists or make this tactic unprofitable. For instance, making all AI art public domain would be a good early step. Or royalty payments or legal precedent for charges being made by any artist who may have a claim on their work being used to train these models. There are absolutely things that can be done to make this stuff not attractive as a tool for robbing artists and demystifying what should be just another tool in the box.
This is the type of discussion the art community should have AFTER these companies are forced to be accountable for scraping data they don't own, or have consent to use. The context of the discussion completely changes when the data is ethically sourced.
IMO, AI proponents should be joining artists in trying to speed this up, instead of trying to placate and sabotage our efforts to protect the art industry from these predatory companies.
You speak about the artistic process as if it's a chore, but the artistic process and producing variations is exactly where a lot of artists find joy, whether it takes 5 minutes or 20 hours.
Also, sketches and preliminary paintings are done to solve all the problem beforehand, so the odds of a pro artist not knowing what a 20 hour painting is going to look like is slim.
I saw a job ad for "AI artist" recently, the pay was below min wage and they expected 500+ finished images a month. This may be dystopic for artists, but it is basically the ideal scenario for shareholders of these companies, who dont care about whether AI 'expands your artistic horizons', Their questions are, "is it faster, and can I pay them less? (if at all?)
As a hobby artist, I always say, why not both? I like using AI images in my art sometimes. Like a collage. I'll l cut up and move around the ai elements, and repaint them at times. Fit them together like legos. I like doing this with my art I use for ttrp games, cause it speeds the process up quite a lot.
I like this approach. Imo we need to re-adjust our thinking around Ai existing, rather than trying to fight it. It's ultimately an adjustment of how we approach creating art. That change can be scary but we'll never stop the progress.
No.
I don't think there's any way to promote AI art while also setting boundaries. If AI works then people are going to use it to steal others' art styles and to resurrect dead artists. How would you stop them from doing that? And you need to consider why it bothers you for people to use AI to generate illustrations in a dead artist's style. It's disrespectful to his artistry. You respect the talent and passion it took for Kim Jung Gi to create his art and you don't want people to be able to rip it off. But it's not enough to protect his particular style. AI art threatens to make those qualities of talent and passion irrelevant. Even if you could somehow protect his style your still cheapening his talents.
The problem with artists working with AI is it cheapens their art. It- at best- muddles how much the art displays their passion, creativity and talent and how much comes from the AI. With good enough AI you basically relegate artists to "idea guys" and maybe to touch-up work. That's a really sad vision for the future of art- artists as faceless drudges touching up AI generated images.
Recently I watched a silly youtube video- it was a cover of a song done in the style of the Beach boys. And it was really well done and I was impressed after noticing how old the video was. And I thought to myself "Hey, that's really impressive now that I know it's so old; if it was more recent I would just assume it was made with AI." I don't want to live in a world where I have to think that about every piece of art that I see.
Curious about the first point about "steal others art style". What prevents artists from doing that now? Its pretty standard practice to draw something in someone elses style, especially when practicing.
@@pewpin1039 This isn't really relevant to any of the arguments I was making.
Imitating Kim Jung Gi's art style is not disrespectful to him. Using AI to replace him is.
@@warron24 Well that is straight up down to opinion, so I can't really argue against it. Also what do you even mean with "replace him", having a person (or ai) draw in his style can not replace a person itself.
The point you are making and I quote: "If AI works then people are going to use it to steal others' art styles and to resurrect dead artists", which has technically nothing to do with AI, since this is a thing that has been going on for decades, even centuries. Its a completely moot point. Also its illegal to sell something by mislabeling it as made by someone else (in civilized countries), so you can sell drawings in style of Van Gogh, but you can't sell something as a painting made by Van Gogh.
So no idea how AI fits in your argument here at all.
@@pewpin1039 I don't think you paid any attention to what I wrote. You're just trotting out a stock argument for AI without caring if it actually addresses the arguments I was making. There is a difference, I think, between a human artist copying an artist's technique and a machine doing it. But it doesn't matter because my argument was never that AI is bad because it steals art. I could make that argument, but I wasn't making it here.
@@warron24 I literally, and I mean LITERALLY quoted what you wrote. The f?
The producers are lazy if they want to use ai art instead of actually letting real artists do the art
The issue isn't an overreacting of an artist
It is a company being dishonest. It is the precedent that there is no rules and regulations around AI images currently
Because, and it seems like a lot of people forget this in their utopian worldviews;
As it stands now, AI will simply replace work we do in whatever capacity it can eithout direct benefits to the workers.
A lot of people point out that AI will make the work load less for us. But it isn't like the normal working person will simply be paid a living wage working less hours because AI is taking some of their job or all of it.
People will continue to be paid normal wages as it stands. Which isn't progress.
Companies are just going to use AI so they can pay less in wages, and that is the issue. There is nothing stopping them from using AI to replace anyone they want and get all the profit themselves.
And unlike machines we had previously. AI is so broad and cheap that it can and will replace our jobs if we don't set up some rules and regulations.
Idk why you people are so set on black and white views and it honestly is laughable how many bad, hot takes there are
Let me wake all of you up. Unless you own a huge company as a CEO, you will NOT ever benefit from AI as it currently stands.
It seems the majority of the conversation so far, has been to find a middle ground in perspective, less so Black and White.
The funny part is their person who thinks he's smarter than me but isn't. Saying uh uh. The artist did over react
im totally on board with your opinion here. to me it seems like a lot of artists are scared and just trying to gate keep those who can and can't make art by not allowing AI to be used as a tool in the art making process. like you said AI is here and its only going to get better, rather then just to stop it and slow it down... why not use it as a tool to help better someones art making abilities. disclaimer i am not an artist, i can not draw to save my life even though id like to be able to draw things i can't. id 100% use a tool like AI to help me draw for example perfect circles because i struggle with that. and i feel that it could be an amazing tool that artists can use along side there skills to make some truly amazing works of art... once everyone stops freaking out about it.
Thanks for your comment. I think you’re making valid points.
And as you say, right now you can’t draw. But Ai will allow you to visualise your ideas at an incredible level of quality. Everyone has suddenly the potential to create awesome looking art. Which could be seen as devaluing the work of people like Dave. They’re scared of that scenario. Which is relatable but can’t be changed. It will happen! So let’s work with it rather than against it.
@@TheSneezingMonkey So human talent and passion will be irrelevant to creating art in the future? Anyone with an idea can feed it into a device. You want to destroy art?
You think in the future people will look at pictures of old paintings and drawings and think "It's amazing what people could do back then. Now we would just have a machine do it."
Is that the world you want to live in?
@@warron24 We already do... You think people are creating art in the same way as the old masters? Digital artists proclaiming what is real art is laughable when not too long ago they had to defend themselves. You use a colour picker? What you can't choose and mix the colour yourself? A copy tool? What you can't draw two identical eyes? This is just the progress we are seeing. It is getting easier for ones imagination to be created, either by premade paint colours you don't have to mix yourself, photo-editing tools and now ai. Is anyone who uses the ai an artist? I wouldn't say so in my definition, but the art they create is art.
@@SmogHouseTradingCo I certainly don't agree with any of this. Those other pieces of technology aren't always great- I *do* think artists should be picking their own colors. But it's another thing entirely to just use tech to create the art for you and call yourself an artist. With enough AI involvement your relegating artists to- at best- just being idea guys and doing touch up work.
As for "making it easier for ones imagination to be created" there are two huge problems with that. One problem is the AI takes so much of the creativity away from the artist whose to say what actually came from the artist's imagination anyway? it's not like the machine reads your mind and pulls an image from there and puts it on the paper. Second, the act of creating art is not just a tedious process that stands between a mental image and a pretty picture. The talent, passion and technique that go into actually *creating* the image is a big part of what makes art art. And yes, digital tools do take away some of that. Art nerds can't look at a digital image and discuss the brushstrokes, for example. But its still a product of human effort. A well drawn digital image is still impressive on that level. AI generated images are not. I would rather not call them art at all.