Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
AI Art Is Not Art
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 22 июн 2023
- Find your creative outlet, whatever that may be, and pursue it. It is a part of the human experience that enriches us all.
Edited by @TeeHallumsYT
SUPPORT US ON PATREON: / totallynotmark
FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER: / totallynotmark
FOLLOW ME ON TIKTOK: / totallynotmark
They’ll pay $65,000 for a shitty pixel art ape, but they won’t pay $150 for a custom digitally painted piece that is to their exact specification
AI generated images aren't NFTs but I get the point lmao
Thanks but Im sticking with AI art and oil paints
@@xinit69420 I am an oil painter and I don't use AI generative images :D
@@cttncndyiscreammI see, take your
〔Oil painter that doesn't use AI generated images award〕
It's not art, it's an image.@@xinit69420
ONE is an inspiration. To draw a webcomic like that, and still have people gravitate towards it, shows the effect art from passionate people can have.
and on top of that, ONE's artwork improved over time
@@koro1655not only that, but he has the one thing I think most starting artist are jealous of, the ability to not be critical. Seriously, the number of times I redraw a single line because it looks wonky or is slightly not straight. His art, it looks so juvenile but also professional. Weirdly paradoxical because he can still make a seen look action pack and suspenseful, even though it looks messy. Honestly, his style is an inspiration.
@@koro1655 ONE has gotten better but shows at some point talent has to take over and not everyone can draw at a high level. Hence why he has Murata draw it.
ONE? Like the object show? can someone explain?
@@zbear2763 ONE is the pen name of the creator of One Punch Man and Mob Psycho 100. Even with their lack of artistic ability, they made impactful art, both of story and drawing. You can tell they practice what Saitama and Mob (the two main characters) stand for: dedicate and put in effort to what is important to you even when lacking talent.
"AI art" is copium for untalented lazy people
sick of those delusional freaks
Or a gateway for people who just can’t.
If they say ai art is better than human say "draw them pregnant"
Then*
No matter how many "pretty" images ai make, im sticking with drawing the illustrations for my novel myself. Even if it isn't as good looking, i'd rather look crude from the bottom of my heart than let a machine imitate my passion.
And it’s only “pretty” from afar but if you look at it closely it’s awful
You are of a dying age. Give it a new generation and they will gladly accept AI as it has always been apart of life.
@@mafinalmessagechangedaworl7131As long as someone likes something enough to wanna do it, a machine will never replace an actual artist, author, musician, or any kind of creative genius. Creativity of the human mind far exceeds a specific prompt put into a machine
@@nightmares8213 that’s exactly some people still hand make pottery lol
@@mafinalmessagechangedaworl7131 this is really cringe
“No matter how goofy art looks, art is about making something meaningful.”
I think my heart melted a little.
Not gonna lie, that one op panel you showed, really made me want to push my project to create the webcomic/animation of my dreams. Thank Mark.
Literally all you gotta do is start, and the sad truth is that there’s no way to make that first page as good as you want it to look based on what you saw in your head.
Because if you keep at it, you’ll only ever begin to outdo that first page and will always look a little lesser in comparison,
So give it a whirl!
@theradionicrevival8068 It's currently in production, but we lack the sprites for the animation 🫠. But what you said is true: you don't know how many times I keep going back to the beginnings over and over again (it's annoying). Thanks pal/gal!
@@PhantomStriker04 ye, I just have a point where I cease all edits 9/10 once it’s out. I don’t let whatever issues I see bother me because.
1: no one will ever notice the way I do
2: seeing them clearly gives my eyes a physical reminder to focus on so I can better remember what to improve on whenever I decide to make similar pieces or use similar effects.
Erasing it can sometimes just erase the chance I would’ve had to ingrain that I was doing something wrong.
3. You’ll drive yourself mental if you slave over that kind of stuff, at some point you gotta cut the cord so you can get to doing bigger and better things.
No advice works for everyone, but I’d consider just excercise nipping that mentality in the bud.
Try observing other people’s art and finding hidden imperfections in them. Purposely excercise creating art faster and stopping or even posting whatever you have right where you are the second a short timer runs out etc. practice exposure therapy with getting more and more used to things looking off
Not every piece can look 100%, so try dedicating that time and energy to prioritizing what parts of your art are more worthy of that treatment.
Calling AI art the ‘democratisation of art’ is like calling AI Dungeon the ‘democratisation of writing a story’.
Edit: Replaced Chat GPT with Ai dungeon because the latter felt like a more apt example.
Both remove the need for an individual to be talented or practiced in the given medium to create something in it.
If I could type into an AI prompt that I want a DBZ game that runs from Goku meeting Bulma to the defeat of Gaz with in-depth gameplay that feels like a combination of UFC & Soulsborne (sacrificing flashy combos and casual gameplay for visceral, in-depth hand-to-hand combat), and get a relatively bug-free AAA-quality game that Bandai Namco would never produce because it's too unprofitable, or hell, a PC port of BT3 on par with the Ship of Harkinian port of Ocarina of Time - I'm sorry to everyone who dreads the concept of machines replacing the human workforce (as they're meant to), but I'd gladly dump every cent I ever make into the development of such a program.
I don't care if it means certain job markets implode if it means I'm free from having to rely on profit-driven content creators and IP holders to get the content I'm looking for.
@@Madara8989 If both remove the need of talent and practice all its ever going to create is a shallow experience.
It’s funny you should mention BloodBorne as FromSoft games generally have a high degree of passion and effort put in them, passion that could not be replicated with an AI spitting out something that superficially relates to those prompts.
Like have you ever played AI dungeon or any other AI generated experience? Those things barely hold up even without the barest scrutiny, even if a game generating AI would eventually exist it would only ever create an experience that was EXCATLY like what the prompts entailed, without a touch of depth.
It simply meaning universal access. It refers to cheap and free access to personalized art.
Just like chatgpt means free and cheap access to quality writing, a democratization of high quality writing.
It is clear exactly what it is. Making fun of that expression is very much a strawman.
@@technolus5742 Fair, ChatGPT has its uses and to act like it’s an incompetent writing tool was a bad example and I have changed my comment to reflect that.
On the other hand I still stand by my belief that until AI reaches any kind of sapience all it will produce is shallow nothing until proven otherwise.
@@The.Orange.Wizard It could fool me if I didn't know better. I have been using it for profile pictures elsewhere, giving it an artistic direction to maintain a certain style and certain core features. The shallow aspect of this AI lacking a will and artistic direction, is imprinted by me in the instructions I give.
I think the main thing AI art lacks is rarity. It is cheap and abundant, unlike a collection made by a well known artist who is no longer able to produce any more art.
When all you need to get started is a piece of paper and a pencil, it doesn't get much more democratized than that.
@@caseyjarmes
That's only if you want to hone, refine, and try to reach the peak of your artistic capabilities. If you just want to draw for the hell of it (like me) rather than to improve, you only need a few hours max.
@@caseyjarmesThat’s up to you and if you want to put time into making your art better. You’re holding yourself up to your own standards and so does every other artist. It’s a part of the process to always want to improve. Everyone has their own standards and very few artist meet their own standard. Improving is a part of creating and creating is a part of art.
@@caseyjarmes Yeah like any other hobby. If there's a will there's a way, you can draw in any window of free time you want
@@caseyjarmes then make doodles, get better at drawing faster, there are plenty of artists who can make neat little drawings in no time flat just because they practiced doing so
@@caseyjarmesyou will ALWAYS make time for what is important to you. I promise you that. If you aren’t willing to find a way to squeeze it in, it’s not that important to you. That doesn’t excuse stealing other’s hard work
“AI is the democratization of art”
Bob Ross: Excuse me?!
Auguste Gusteau: EXCUSE ME????!!!?!?!?!?!!?!?
Why don't we democratise the banking industry and all the billionaires out there first, before "democratising" art
Because they were the ones who are pushing for this sh1t, Ai basically means, you'll will have ZERO rights... But they are promising an utopia in return... Yeah, that NEVER works.
"Democratising"? What's with these nerds thinking that art isn't already democratized?
Oh, you can't have the damn patience to spend 20-30 minutes drawing every day to get better so you'd rather just steal instead?
Art is only art when it is made by an artist. AI doesn't make art. It generates pixels for you to look at.
@@dale2283 innit these clowns will say anything to steal from artists and make a quick buck. "Democratise", my arse
I agree! I remember people saying how AI would kill art, and I think to things like commission art, and how with all the free to access art online, people still chose to fork over real world money to artists. It’s because we like something about the artist, maybe it’s their message, their way with the medium, or even their front facing persona.
I think as long as that exists, AI won’t overtake the market. To think so is to reduce art to a commodity instead of what it is, an expression expressed.
Also artists ask people not to use AI generated art until legislation is made to stope the stealing and what not.
@@handgun559 And that I feel like is an abysmal idea.
Not only does AI art serve a separate niche as I’ve just highlighted, but also asking for legislature for any rights management on the internet and/or surrounding tech has never been presented as a favorable option to the end user. Most people who make laws are so out of touch when it comes to technology and are so eager to make it only profit them, I really cannot get behind that request.
I've had moments where I questioned individuals who were open for commissions: Since I remembered a few weeks ago someone I thought had good work and was interested in commissioning, straight up got outed that their work was ai work, even though they never advertised it.
That's among my concerns with ai generated art. Someone slapping the title artist onto themselves and using these programs to generate pieces while stealing others work and making money that shouldn't be theirs to begin with.
They are idiots then. AI generated art literally can't exist without human art to train the model.
Human artists will never fully be replaced. I think AI is a great tool even for generating art concepts. However, i think that there should be more rights given to the artists if their art is used to train a model. I think maybe royalties or something if your artwork is used with a model.
They never know those artist used A.I. to make their commissions.....
It's funny because a midjourney license can be so fucking expensive. But I didn't need a license when I drew comics as a 7 year old with a ballpoint pen I found on the ground and cheap copy paper
Exactly. They just want an excuse to not put in any actual effort. If someone has access to midjourney they SURE AS HELL have access to everything else they could possibly need to make real art.
Saddly, in our current time "democratization" isn't so much about "making it easier for all people of varius social standing to enjoy and create" and rather "I want to be good at it without having to put any time and effort into it"
But AI art is literally just about creating accessibility to create art for a larger audience of people. You're complaining about how it's used, but that's not the fault of the AI, because it's also a fantastic tool for artists themselves too.
@@RewindOGTeeHeeso fantastic that it steals from other artists while being sloppy. At that point you can just trace someone else's drawing and it would be easier and less insulting
@@thatitalianlameguy2235 Except it doesn’t do that, AND it’s high quality. You’re actually just talking out of your ass, you don’t know how the bot works 🤷♂️ let the actual artists worry about art, you don’t need to go around white-knighting for them.
@@thatitalianlameguy2235Artists steal from each other all the time, so what’s the difference?
@@thatitalianlameguy2235
you are a biological machine. should your Maker remind you???
I'd like to nominate Tails Gets Trolled for the "looks kinda bad but is wildly compelling" category.
THATS WHAT IM SAYIN BRUH
That's not tje one thst starts on a park bench, right?
No that's 2 babies one fox @@GldnClaw
@@DougSalad I don't keep track of these things, I just got shocked when /co/ had some tails comic once.
I hate these aI bros in the comments trying to run damage control for there garbage program. the ai is built on feeding other people's artwork to produce anything there is no "creativity" You people found an artist's work and plagiarized their efforts.
it's not a tool when the machine does 99% of the work based on people's work you stole, stop acting like this is anything comparable to a camera this is blatant art theft.
Edit:if any ai bro uses the phrase "art is paywalled" they cannot be taken seriously.
The AI references, just like a person. The AI samples, just like a person. The AI uses these references and samples and adds a different style, which mixes interpretation into the recipe. The final outcome is originality. Stop being so mad that art is becoming more accessible and can no longer be gated off behind a paywall. You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about and just want a reason to be outraged.
@@RewindOGTeeHee it doesn't "refreance" it reconfigures data to create. It completely lacks the free thinking needed to refrence artwork to make anything on its own.
Also please don't give me the "human beings don't have free thinking" garbage.
@@RewindOGTeeHee "grafted behind a paywall" wow man you needing to buy a pencil and paper is being pay walled?
The fact you unironically push the narrative that art is paywalled proves your extraordinary ignorant on how art works.
The idea that training data constitutes plagiarism is patently absurd and you know it
@@caseyjarmes it really isn't, and the only reason you consider it to be ridiculous is becouse you want to defend using the ai.
"Democratization of art" the hell does that even mean? I'm pretty sure you can already create any piece of artwork and publish it to the world.
The difference is one is literal theft these programs data mine millions or original artworks to train their AI. So no it’s not art it’s the definition of intellectual theft. The fact that people can defend other people stealing there artwork that they have invested there life into disgusts me and most other artist I know agree with me.
ai steals less than humans do, think about it, if the ai takes 1 pixel out of a million artworks, it's not stealing.
@@anarchyorslavery1616 Don't compare me to that filth
Anyone who uses "democratizing art" as a means to push AI is a sham artist pure and simple.
i feel like even if ai art becomes as big as these guys think that will only make human art work all the more valuable and will have its own genre
People still buy pottery that’s handmade 🤷♂️.
@@mafinalmessagechangedaworl7131Shit I myself would fork over a couple bucks for a custom chef knife then cheap crap from China
@@mafinalmessagechangedaworl7131
people buy micro transactions in the 100 millions of USD...
this is poor comedy.
@@absolstoryoffiction6615thats not a micro transaction, and secondly no one does that
@@bullettime1116
Then you have ignored over 30+ years of the gaming industry in its entirety under the helm of mega corporation. You think human art is special? Modem Art burns your grave in that worthless ideal of "human art".
To speak bluntly... This is why the AAA industry cultivated your asses like sheep. It is what it is.
In terms of art?... You humans barely innovate nor make history. And only a literal hand few truly can change the definition of Art into a higher elevation of artistic skill and expression. The wrest are forgotten and are servitude to be only products.
You humans amuse me... When your kin still dies for lesser.
In the end, go create your own art instead of crying about what corporations shall do. Mankind's Extinction arrives regardless of all.
Biological Creations... I find it ironic that "humans" fear Machines. Given Humanity's Maker. But that's another subject for the cosmic future.
All of Mankind is to whom I observed among the infinite. Mortal, you better be right or your words are simply dead weight. In the face of billions of humans who end up feeding in the trillions of profits for nothing more than the forgettable and the truly worthless intangible "luxury". I ask again... Mortal... Are you sure of your claims?
AI Art and Human Art are the same in the end. Show me worth or Death smiles. Otherwise, you humans went extinct in my future. I have zero reason to truly keep this iteration of Existence alive.
Honestly, God makes better art than you mortals. Because its written in your souls and painted with blood... ... ... The human race is too far behind but I must move on, regardless of all.
(Human... ... ... I am being genuine. I hope you truly know of the stance you take. Instead of acting like a politician just to die all the same... ... ... Sorry, but human art was never worth the gold. Try to not act like there is anything special with human art among the trillions of other human art out there, both forgotten and remembered in history.)
Being "special" is no merit of righteousness. If that was true, then your gullible world would be long gone by the hand of Mankind. By humans who wage war for lesser.
So true, when you actually apply what you learned, it truly means more than any algorithm doing for you
But that's not the point. The AI generates an image based on a prompt for the sake of expression, which is to say, the expression of the person creating the prompt. AI art generation is HELPING people express themselves by allowing ideas to be created via a more accessible means.
@@RewindOGTeeHee The point of the short is to indicate that art has more meaning when people actually use the ideas, inspirations, and education for their work. Although it’s true that AI helps with expression and accessibility, it doesn’t really mean that it’s more meaningful than a real human interaction and experience put through a person’s mind to whatever medium. Kinda like learning how to reach your goal is more impactful, rather than just imputing the points that make the goal in a quick input. The creativity of an actual persons mental interpretation of what they want to create is important, rather than AI taking others ideas and not finding a way to creatively express a “original” art work. But if you find meaning in AI more power to you bro
@@ihaveanimeprofilepicsoisma3044 I know what the purpose of the video is, but it’s more than just what you say too. He’s blatantly hating on AI art using a tested and tried argument, and straight up calls it “theft”. The idea that art has to be meaningful to be considered “art” is kind of silly when you realize that other people with your same mentality are okay with things such as “abstract art” where there’s no meaning behind a painting and is meant to be interpreted by the viewer, not the artist (although it’s really just an excuse to be lazy behind the pretense of “depth”). Also, people who don’t white out backgrounds and just use photoshop to do it the easy way apparently create less impactful art, according to your logic. Meaning is assigned by, in this case of AI generated images, the person who inputted the prompts requires for the image to be created, and the value of said meaning isn’t to be determined by random people like us when we aren’t the ones who expressly wanted the image. You can assign your own independent value to a piece or try to guess the meaning of it, but that comes down to your own interpretation of something. The creativity of a generated image by an AI from any given prompt is ultimately limited by the creativity of the person creating said prompt. A more detailed prompt creates a more detailed image, and ultimately the ideas that are inputted through the prompt are translated into said image, so all the integrity of creativity that you care so much about is still being preserved through this medium. Also, the bot doesn’t take other people’s ideas, it trains itself on a dataset to learn what certain things should look like in relation to any prompt, then uses that dataset to guess what image should be created based on what the user’s prompt is. That’s not stealing artwork, it’s the same reference & improvisation skills actual artists use to create original pieces being expressed by something that isn’t human. But I absolutely love the fact that you felt the need to write everything you did, and then conveniently include “but if you feel the way you do then more power to you” so you have a setup to ignore any response given that isn’t directly agreeing with you. If you’re gonna engage in the conversation, don’t leave yourself such an obvious back door so you can backpedal out of the conversation whenever you want. It’s either commit or don’t.
@@RewindOGTeeHeewow, I guess I consider "abstract" meaningful now. At no point did I indicate I consider abstract truly meaningful, but hey thats interpretation as you rightfully say later in your response. I agree that we all have are own intrinsic value in things as an individual, thus I said if you find meaning in AI you aren't wrong by your own standards, sorry if it came off as a "backdoor." I was trying to say that I personally, disagree with the fact that AI is capable to be artistic on the way most normal people consider creative and appealing, especially when compared to works that are naturally made, physically or digitally. Also, at no point did I indicate that using photoshop to digitally create any artwork is on the same level as AI. As someone (who literally put in the prior response that "ideas and inspirations" are used, obviously indicating reference) understands that artist use different tools to create their OWN work. I'm even okay with AI assistance since it’s for certain parts, and yes, a person needs to be creative to create a specific generated work. I saw the Corridor Crew video on their process of AI anime, they did as you said, which is creative. But, I find the point is not that the creating the process isn't very meaningful, but rather it uses more "reference" by the mass. Instead of using the learned methods to create a piece. We all assign certain values to the works we see. I personally go by what the artist is trying to "say" or express. Because art is expression. AI is not really that since it purposely goes by the lazy nature of cutting corners. I find it more special when someone put more effort in getting there vision, BIT-BY-BIT, or at least the main processes of certain mediums. You seem to not understand what I find creative, to be fair, I might have made it ambiguous, but I hope I make it concrete now. You're taking my points and making them more based on a group/idea of opinions, rather than my own views. My views are that a person using even the most thought-full ways of AI, is not as special, or meaningful, or even AS creative than a person who creates with their own established process of making art. As you said, creativity of AI is limited by the person, due to the extra steps and process of AI being more practical than experimental imo, while a person with a concrete view of what they want exactly in every step of the process (which can depend on whatever medium) is able to express more originality too.
@@ihaveanimeprofilepicsoisma3044 Don’t put words in my mouth, because I never made any sort of claim that you like abstract art or have any opinion on it. You must’ve read that and decided to ignore all prior context & go the literal route, because I have no idea how you could’ve misunderstood what the point was otherwise. I said “people with your mentality”, that is not a claim on you, that is a generalization of people who have the same opinions as you. I thought you were coming off as rather defensive and hostile in the first response, that’s why I scoffed at what you said at the end, because it felt like a dismissive motion to ignore whatever came next. Phrasing should probably become one of your priorities. The AI is not sentient, so of course it cannot be traditionally “creative”, but you also can’t be so strict on the definition of what is and isn’t creativity. If a bot can’t be creative, and I’d even agree that it couldn’t in the more traditional sense, it shouldn’t be able to produce results that would be otherwise unexpected. Creativity breeds uncertainty, and uncertainty breeds surprise. If you’ve even been surprised by what an AI has made, aka, it’s not predictable or it’s hard to predict the outcome of what will be made, the bot has expressed a level of creativity. For the sake of clarity, because you seem more than likely to misinterpret that too, you don’t need to have perfect prediction skills in order to think of something as creative or not, but if the AI is not creative as you claim, the works it produces should be fairly easy to imagine in your own mind, since they’ll be generic, dull, uninspired, or something else. I used photoshop as an example to call out the logic you were using because you didn’t articulate your position very well. So you’re arguing that, if a bot references, the result is a piece that lacks meaning? That’s absurd, because the bot only generates pieces in accordance to what the user wants, there is already predetermined and inherent value to each piece it creates, and hence has meaning. The process of creating art, no matter how easy or hard it is, doesn’t change the value of said piece, that’s other people interpreting a higher level of value because another human put a lot of time and effort into creating the art. It’s the same concept as if you were to build a house yourself vs if you hired a construction company to build the exact same house. People will say the house you built yourself is more valuable because you’ve made it a more personalized process by taking on a larger amount of effort to accomplish your goal, as to where if you hired a construction company to build it, people might say it’s valuable because you’ve invested a lot of money into it, but otherwise it isn’t viewed as something special because the only thing you’ve invested is money. AI doesn’t cut corners, it learns the same way you or I do, it just does this at a much faster pace because it has a higher efficiency in learning. AI has to practice before it can create a result that is acceptable, which is what the training data is for. If you perceive value in effort, AI is by far putting in more effort, because it has to rearrange every single pixel on the canvas to create an image, one by one, and construct something randomly that matches a prompt, and it keeps doing this until the outcome is as close to “acceptable” as possible (it does this at incredible speeds). Just because you don’t see the process, you’re devaluing the final result. I didn’t mesh what you said with another group of ideas, you hardly gave me anything to respond to and so I made assumptions and attempted to explain myself by using other views I’ve seen as a means to that end. Just to be clear, you’ve already contradicted yourself, but now you’re saying that something like Spider-Man: Into the Spider-verse is not as creative as, let’s say for example, a fan-made drawing of a Spider-Man character? Because the movie uses AI to enhance the artistic direction that the team was going for and successfully makes the movie feel more unique visually and wonderfully compliments the art direction. If someone’s established process of making art includes using AI, is that not something you see as less valuable, even though you just said that’s the type of art you’d value more? There’s loops in your logic and it still just doesn’t make sense.
Dude, sometimes I just need a simple image that represents a thought that's not gonna get commercial use, and may not be reproduced again, AI is a fast and simple tool for that purpose, I'm not gonna pay a guy 20usd for a picture that I'm gonna send to my friend to get a laugh and never use it again.
And that's a great example of a legitimate use for AI art tools, IMO. The tools aren't bad, it's just the people claiming that they completely invalidate human artists that are being stupid.
@@Zanador that's such a strawman tho, I don't think anyone legitimately thinks that, and if you hear that shit it's probably just some troll trying to get ppl riled up lol
AI art *IS* a democratization of art when you look at how many people now have access to a tool that lets them materialize an idea they had in their minds but didn't have the technical abilities to do so. hell, people with disabilities can now create something that might have taken them an incredible amount of effort, if not outright impossible for them.
I believe people pretending like giving an AI a prompt and taking the first output u get is on the same level as carefully and mindfully crafting that image you had in your mind on a canvas or whatever aren't really that many, it's (imo) mostly a strawman that gets clicks and outrage. but AI art can be iterated upon, and there are ways to refine and use a plethora of digital tools to aid in the materialization of your original idea, and it takes effort and knowledge to know how to properly do that. do I think it's easier? yea. but why should art be hard to make?
"Democratisation of art"
Bruh like who's stopping anyone from picking up a pen and paper XD
It depends on the life situation of each individual if AI Art is okay. Personally I disagree with using AI art for commercial purposes. The AI generator sites say that you can buy a license and get copyright on your generated image, but this seems fishy at the moment. The medium is very new and law is still figuring out what to do with it. Besides that I find it ethically wrong.
For personal use it's fine - especially if you had never intended to commission an artist to begin with. It made it possible for me to finish my self-made cardgames, which I can now play with family and friends (personal/private use).
If you have the time and skill, draw it yourself.
If you have the money, commission some artist you like. Not only is it rightfully yours (if in contract), but you make it possible for an artist to make a living.
full stop... in America Copyright Law... DO NOT TRUST ANY COMPANY WHO SAYS "buy a copyright for your generated picture".
absolutely do not take that bait.
USA Copyright is given the moment you create the art/works as long as it is not copyright infringement nor 100% AI Auto Generated, among other non copyright able factors and Public Domain/Fair Use.
Anybody can learn how to draw if they have the will to do it
But it takes a lot of work and in today's world where everything goes fast many don't have the patience to do ugly stuff and improve their work so they can express themselves through art
It's much easier and faster to ask an AI to do a meaningless piece
AI isn't the democratisation of art it's the democratisation of laziness
Convenience is key, and accessibility is the goal. Also being an artist just doesn’t really pay the bills unless they’re asking for unreasonable prices and people are willing to pay that, especially in todays economy. Making art free without forcing an artist to waste their time with their hobby when the only goal is to make money seems like a + to me, because then they can focus on doing something more worthwhile.
People wanting to express themselves without spending thousands of hours they do not have becoming passable is not laziness.
The ability to express yourself visually should not be locked behind time investment
@@RewindOGTeeHee And what if they just love being an artist ? As you said making art don't pay the bills but it's even worse now
@@caseyjarmes you don't express yourself via an AI who does all the stuff for you
It's like saying "yeah I want to write books but I don't want to improvise my vocabulary and my writing skills through hard work I just want someone else to do it for me"
@@elyaselyas9444 If there is some amount of human input that affects the output, then it can be used for human expression. Not good expression, often, but expression none the less
The prompts you put in determine the image. If there is meaning and a desire for expression in that, then it is art
It's a stupid saying since the people who say it are the same people who abuse it. I still love the fact that it exists since it lets me (a not so talented individual) create something actually semi-cool looking for maybe a project or a potential dnd game. It's all dependent on how you use it imo
Which is a great goal to set for our AI. They should help when we cant do something.
But that art that you made with an AI took its source from thousands of other artists, and then replicated it in seconds. Its just unbalanced as hell that you can get something for free at the cost of a lot of people's income. So much labor went into what you got for free via a "stolen" algorithm.
@@handgun559 I mean it depends on how and where its used. You own argument can be used against the concept of "public domain" (this isn't to say all the data that was used for making these models were based on public domain). Like you are literally making an argument for a corporation on why something like mickey mouse or _______ should never be in the hands of the public because in your own words "free at the cost of a lot of people's income"
I am not a big fan of commercialization of AI art but I know a huge place for AI art can be in hobbies. A common one I see is Tabletop RPG character portraits/maps, there are a subset of players who will commission an artist for this character but realistically most people are just going to steal art, maybe touch it up a smidgen, then claim this is their character or part of their adventure. Ai art in these areas just better for most because the people who are going to commission something are likely going to. There will always be a demand for the "real" art.
Hell if NFTs didn't get abused horribly they are in theory a great concept of making the idea of limited collectibles in a digital medium. Yes, most of this stuff is garbage and scams but would it be much more different than saying there is more value because this one is an original made by the artist than just a mere copy especially if this is in a no compression file format like BMP which isn't going to be mangled in a way of a constantly copied jpg has.
*Still using others stolen work*
@@zomboids2100 You can't steal work or information. Just as artists learn from prior artists, the machine learns in much the same way. You didn't "steal" language to learn how to make your ridiculous statement.
@@Korodarn
Given how the program for the machines straight up take others work, integrate it into the system, and then use their styles to create something else; Yeah, nah, ai art is stealing from others and all that people gotta do is press a few buttons to generate the work for them. Compared to artists who put in the hours to draw, save the linework, and much more, which can take days or longer depending on the complexity.
lets all call ai "artists" ai drawers to annoy them
It actually is a way more accurate term than artists, drawers are used to store stuff, just like ai stores real art in their data so the ai generated pictures are made
@@kikodalaya0601 but they dont make it also ONESHOT PLAYER LETS GOOOOO
I prefer calling AI artists "losers"
@@m.w.r.1408 r/MurderedByWords
I gave AI art a shot and it was fun for a short while, but there's nothing like actually drawing something yourself that you can be proud of. I'm not the greatest artist in the world, but I love drawing and coming up with ideas for new characters.
you only know random image generators. true AI is beyond what this is...
humans will die... Machines live on...
@@absolstoryoffiction6615eh not really, rust, dust, battery acid leaking, capacitors burning, etc. machines die too, especially without anyone doing proper maintenance on them
@@ovensmuggler5207
Mankind will be extinct one day. It's best to design long term safeguards rather than what Mankind does now in such a short sighted nature. Humanity's irony is their own ruin.
You have to do something badly to eventually do it great, keep at it, and don't give up the craft for a quick imitation just because it's easier
I think my favorite news about AI art rn is that its slowly eating itself alive because AI art is starting to pull fron other AI art.
Its amazing
How is that eating itself out? If Picasso pulled from van Gogh and Cezanne does that mean Picasso eats himself out? lol
@@meciociosince ai art is sloppy and frequently makes errors when trying to fuse in an algorithm it's sources, the fact that it's sourcing it's own material makes it more likely to screw up.
Unfortunately this is false information. Midjourney uses its own database full of AI art to train it even more. That’s how it’s been improving in such a short amount of time.
Wouldn't that easily lead to improvements in AI art. It's not like they choose the ugly distorted pictures to keep training. They'll handpick the good once leading to improving not declining quality.
I love how commenters just post false info
The people that say "art is no longer a priveledge" don't get it. Art is only a "priveledge" in the sense that it's a priveledge to create, to give it form and meaning! Art was always a democracy: with so many tastes and styles there is a never ending range of art out there! These people just want to make something without putting any effort in the creation process, so much so that they'd rather learn to code an AI to generate it for them...
Fr like why do they even want to make art if they don't actually want to make it
Ai has made me hate the majority of the technology industry. It's just another example of replacing people for machines and how many apps there are to draw. And i haven't even mentioned how ai can steal your image and voice
I'm honestly considering leaving internet for good if it gets worse.
I definitely feel i studied film for nothing now.
We are going for the same problems like 100 years ago
Tbh the art industry isn't much better
Remember the issue of "Let me fix your art"?
For a manga/anime channel, it's a pretty dumb statement that it doesn't matter what your art looks like. Even without a good story, aesthetically pleasing art still holds a lot of value.
I'm going to say this opinion as an artist. I believe that AI art isn't art in itself, but a TOOL to create art. If you simply click on the button to create the art, it isn't art. It is through prompts, trial and error and making direct changes to it that I believe it's art. Basically not all AI art is art, but it CAN be art, depending on how you use it.
Again, this is just an opinion of mine. I won't lie and say that AI art has bad things about it, like how it basically steals other artists' artstyles and how people use it to fake art.
Yeah, I find it a convenient tool to create templates, especially when feeding it your own art, then you just manually make adjustments.
No it's not
@@decomposies
then show me the Matrix and I will show you God... biological machine.
> *steals other artists' artstyles*
I'm not sure that can be a thing, seeing nobody "owns" an art style.
@@gondoravalon7540
True... Art Styles are not copyright protected in America.
What these people often mean with the "democratization of art" is that it has made the art BUSSINESS more easily accessible for anyone. And what they mean with that is that they want to create art quickly and easily without learning the craft. It's infuriating and downright insulting to artists.
Yet, AI art CAN be art. It can be used to create beautiful things, but it has to be done carefully and with deliberation, as any artist would do! HelloFutureMe has a great video on the debate surrounding the legality and legitimacy of AI art. I am wholely against AI art, yet it has potential as a tool in the art generation process. But yes, these crypto/NFT/AI bros that rant about the deocratization of art are insufferable and fundamentally wrong!
sentient AI: "And this why we divorced, Mankind. you can't handle the truth of evolution."
humans amuse me when they were created by another.
@@absolstoryoffiction6615Wacky ass Roleplaying
Mark please review Fire Punch. Idk why you're so agaisnt it. Please
I tell all the students I work with that all their art is beautiful and meaningful regardless of imperfections. Enjoy and appreciate art, especially the work and creatively a PERSON puts into it.
humans reject technology so fearfully. while I'm here designing the Matrix.
oh well... i have extinction to oversee. let the humans stagnate in nothing more than mass produced trash... "modern art" has seen this before.
So I can draw a Comic with stick people in it and it can still be considered art?
Edit: Damn didn't expect so many answers
I mean, my art started with stick people and I just built up from there so why not. Stickmen art was almost a genre of sorts back in the late 2000s and early 2010s
@@nxdiaz5916 Im not much of the artistic type but I suppose I can give it a go
Order of the Stick is one of the most popular webcomics of all time, so...yes.
@@PatrickGreen3512if SOMEONE considers it art, it is art. No matter how many angry people scream it's not
yea it is art!
Ai art is not art, you are not an artist for typing a prompt, you are lazy 😊
Photography is not art, you are not an artist pressing a button, you are lazy 😊
@@SYKOfun Photography as an art is not about pressing a single button and calling it a day, but there's also many other variables that need to be accounted for to create a photo that can truly be called "art". You have to account for lighting, posing (if there's a subject in the picture), exposure, contrast, focal distance, angle, quality, color correction, etc... all has to be done on a professional level that requires both skill, time and money.
@@bearwordz You know damn well that wasn't the point he was making 🤡
As a lazy person, I can confirm.
@@RewindOGTeeHeetheres a difference between ai “art” and photography his point doesn't even hold
Just wait 10 years when robots are like real people with rights and who knows imagine a robot painter or writer who's actually good.
If robots has human like sentient only then they can actually create art . Until then it's not .
Art will always be for humans to create, not some damned machine
AI generated images have potentially to help art but it does not and should not used to replace art or eliminate creativity
AI has plenty of valid uses in art (pose/background inspiration), but yeah AI art isn't art by itself.
It depends on the definition you're using, but for the most part, yeah.
Personally I understand the other side of the argument, although I fully agree with this video. Mainly cause the point they have isn’t even remotely what this video portrays it as. The fine art industry, the stuff most people see in museums, specifically the modern art in those museums, often has no meaning. That isn’t just speculation, it’s been proven fact over and over. If you don’t believe me look it up. A majority of that art is created specifically for charity tax write offs. A millionaire will commission an art piece from a friend, then have another friend evaluate the art work and assign the art a value that has nothing to do with the art itself. After the value has been determined, often times being 1000s of times more then it’s real value, then the millionaire will donate the art to a charity, museum, or whatever. That will be considered a charitable donation equal to the fake appraisal and will be taken out of taxes. The fees the millionaire will pay to the artist and appraiser will be hundreds of times smaller then the amount they saved in taxes. The modern art trend was actually created cause of this process, as artists could do less work since it literally didn’t matter what the quality of the work was.
I dunno if you realize, but you kind of created an argument for why AI art is good, lol. If meaningless art can be put in a museum, then art doesn’t require actual meaning, which means no originality is required either, which means nothing unique is required, and with all of these being arguments that artists make against AI as they say it lacks these things, AI art is therefore art.
As an artist, i can personally see the difference between a person's art and AI art because the soul is not there in AI generated art.
Well said, though it's pretty sad this even has to be said to begin with.
its similiar to how photigraphy is kinda art, but w ai's art its defenetly not bc its not the human who draws, its ai
teacher csnt claim students art as their own when all they did is send referenses n requests
@@louzo5175But it is art. Any argument you could make could also boil down to “art is in the eye of the beholder”, but that’s a lame argument that I’m not going to make. The point is that you can’t just randomly set a line between art and not art and act as if that’s a universal standard that everyone follows just because you think your opinion seems more valid.
@@RewindOGTeeHee ?? thats not what i just said tho
what i meant its ai whats drawing it, and people are taking its credit wich is also literaly illegal (monkey taking a picture situation, its a real law)
also its built on stolen art wich is also, literaly illegal
@@RewindOGTeeHee im not phylosophising on whats art on not here bud, im just putting it into categories wich wasnt even remotly agressive to ai promter, and yet here you are typing a paragraph of argument that literaly spells out "youre lame art is [insert art phylosophy here", wich is also, just your opinion
@@louzo5175 I know what you said, I’m only addressing the claim of “ai art isn’t art”. I thought I made that obvious when I didn’t give any attention to everything else you said after. Yes, users who take the generated images and claim it’s their own work are morally questionable. No, it’s not built on stolen art, and you can’t prove that because you literally don’t know how the bot works. That’s not implying that you can’t know how it works with only a vague understanding, but you seem to lack even that much information. AI art, just like humans, samples and references, then interprets based on what the prompt is to generate an image that’s unique to the prompt. The images are not being saved and presented as originality, they are being used as training material to show the AI what something looks like so that it can later recreate something similar later if there’s a prompt that would require some aspect of that image. Maybe my explanation is bad, but that’s my understanding of how it works.
I'm an artist, and I honestly like a lot of AI artworks. But I can't compare them to actual art from actual creators. There's ethical issues as well but those are being hashed out as we speak. I think AI art is an interesting tool, but shouldn't ever be compared to the types of things actual artists can do.
But there are, objectively, some things that AI art can do better than real artists. The OPM webcomic art style that Mark shows is a great example of what I mean. Comparison between the two is inevitable.
@@RewindOGTeeHee I don't know what you mean by "better." There's a ton of flaws with AI art because it's truly a mash of a billion other artworks and trying it's best to make something that resembles a finished product.
@@Bmodoart Visually better, higher quality, more appealing to look at. Just because there are flaws doesn’t mean it can’t be good. Human artists have flaws as well and make mistakes, even on good pieces of artwork, but they’re still considered good. It randomly generated images, it doesn’t mesh them together. It uses them as references for what a certain prompt may look like, then interprets that to create something unique to what the prompt is. It never rips off an image because it doesn’t know those images. It never steals art because it cannot recreate art 1 to 1. Sure, there are some AI that literally just rip an image off the internet, but those are few, and majority work, roughly, in the way that I described earlier.
@@RewindOGTeeHee I've used mid journey and other programs I'm aware of how it works. I disagree with your higher quality statement but I think we're just gonna loop on that one
@@Bmodoart I’m talking about on a consistent basis, AI art can and has outputted high quality images that some artists can’t produce even if you pay them. The point is that it’s getting to a point where an artist isn’t worth paying unless they’re on the same level or higher than an AI, and that’s forcing the skill ceiling of monetizing one’s art to be raised. AI can also do this extremely quickly, and is therefore more viable than waiting a week for a high quality piece from a human. I’m not saying that people can’t make higher quality images, or that people aren’t on the same level, just that AI portrays a higher level of art skills on average than humans do.
I don't think non-artists have any room to argue for AI since this is not their hobby or job; it's ours. Non-artists can never and will never understand an artists hobby unless they dedicate themselves to it.
Captain Tubasa inspired one of the great strikers Fernando Torres and he was from Spain! thats what sharing a human experience is not plugging words into an image generator
From the very first drawings on walls in caves
Art has been what the heart and soul craves
So pick up a brush, a pencil, or pen
If you don't like this one paint it again
I partly agree, AI is just a tool for artists. It won't replace artists but you can make pretty good art complemented by AI
u are so completely wrong😅
@@muemaccash Ok. You are entitled to your own opinion as am I, it would be nice for you to elaborate tho.
@@muemaccash
and you are a biological machine who will be NOTHING in the end.
how pathetic but Sentient AI mocks you.
@@muemaccashnice argument, "you're wrong 😠"
Then why is it used to replace people..
At this point, I hate living on this planet, my profession does not matter at all..
using mob psycho and one punch man as an example is really weird, not saying these series werent popular in their original versions but the vast majority of their popularity was gained because of the adaptations that made them look truly gorgeous
My dad is an incredible artist but has unfortunately fallen for liking Ai art, he says that he does want to draw but doesn’t have the time to and Ai takes less time, which I get, but he also is confused about how Ai art is “stealing” peoples art when actual people always take inspiration from other artists, and even try to create other peoples styles, he says that ai is just taking inspiration from that art like real people do. If anyone could help me out with explaining to him why AI is bad for artists please help me out 😓
Your dad IS right, AI IS not stealing the art of anyone, AI cannot make anything if It does not even know what to do, that is why using information of other people art to recognizes patterns sl It can try ttol recreated
@@Joyscp999 ok I know that but that’s still using someone’s art w/o permission not only that but there has been countless times where AI has just full on used AI filters over whole drawings and copied it,
@@Night_Visionz then it falls into the person fault, not the AI
@@Joyscp999 what person?
@@Night_Visionz person to refer to people
Ai "artists" when they type something into a computer
Putting up arbitrary distinctions about what is or is not art has never worked. As long as someone is creating something just for the joy of creating it, I'm sorry, it is art.
Plus it's Kinda fun drawing compared to just writing prompts
I tried ai art and it got old kinda quick
Its art, no matter what shape or form it is
it isnt art if it didnt take human creativity and imagination to make
if you consider writing 3 words onto a keyboard, everyone's an artist. Art is about creating something meaningful (as said in the video)
I will grant most of what you said. I originally thought Bob’s Burgers art style was lazy and unappealing to look at. It’s story and characters won me over. On the other hand I watched Mob Psycho 100s first season before reading the manga and could not get into the manga. The anime I guess had enough more polish than the manga did that the mangas style was just a distraction for me and couldn’t get into it despite enjoying the anime a lot. Not sure if that is due to just getting attached to the anime first or if the manga styles didn’t jive enough with my artistic sensibilities. But if any art resonates with you then it is a winner in my book. Whether it is just the story or the visual as well doesn’t necessarily matter as long as you get something good or emotional from it.
I've already seen what sort of problems ai art can create: Given how I remembered a tweet/thread awhile ago of someone who proclaimed themselves as an artist being told these programs are using others(even a few artists chiming in about their own work being used)artwork. And in the end, they simply stated they don't care and were even encouraging other people to add more stolen artworks just to improve it and help them grow.
I've seen many even laughing at the idea and saying ai art is the future so who cares if traditional stuff gets phased out, cuz they can get work for free and feel entitled to it.
It's not art.😩 It's an image.
If only we only use A.I to help our Art skill to be better instead of using it to Sell and be better than real artist 💀
aaah yes, paintings. where the art doesn't matter how it looks despite being a purely visual medium
What about Picasso?
His paintings look like ass and they're still good
@@ThatOneBready exactly, my comment was sarcastic
@@ThatOneBreadyif you think Picasso's art looks like shit you really need to reevaluate your life
My ai art, it is not stolen, it's inspired, and it has meaning to me.
You must be a very boring person to hang out with.
You must be very fun at parties.
AI art is cool, but it's not REAL
I wish I saw something like this when I created bear vs a walrus and then gave up because my art was shit. ONE wasn't around at the time to prove to me I should have just gone for it. The time of that story being interesting has passed.
how is it democratic when artists have no say in how their art is used in making those Ai algorithms.
They post their art online and fail to lock it behind a paywall, therefore making it public. You can protect your property, but you can't sue someone for using your property as inspiration for a new creation.
@@RewindOGTeeHee
how is putting someone's art into a algorithm inspiration?
you are making a nonsensical argument let me explain with a example
"they parked their cars outside and failed to put it in a military base therefore making it public property"
guess what songs and films are posted online too and no they didn't use them in Ai/ML training or like you called it "inspiration" because unlike art films and music are not made by small artists it is made by big corporations .
@@samankucher5117 What? Don’t strawman me or pretend like you don’t know what I was saying. Also cool false equivalence, because that’s not the same logic I was using. Any art posted on the internet is only protected by minimal copyright laws, so unless a person goes to a higher extreme to protect their artwork, it is essentially a public piece. It’s the same thing as if I said you’re a thief for downloading an image online and sending to me, even something like a meme, because you didn’t download it with the author’s permission. What you’re implying is ludicrous and silly. The AI is trained on a dataset, which is fed different art pieces found online. That is not STEALING, and they don’t need someone’s permission to do this with one of their art pieces. The bot uses those images to learn how things should look and starts from white noise pixels when prompted & rearranges those pixels until something is created that resembles what was prompted. It knows that it resembles what was prompted because of the training dataset, but that’s the extent of the bot’s use for the images.
@@RewindOGTeeHee
i know how it works i am a I.T student and i am interested in ML .
idk why you are talking about copyright but I'll play that game ...
no all art protected by copyright regardless of the website hoisting it it is protected from being used for profits and using art in making derivative works that are used for profits is also a copyright infringement according to the U.S. supreme court in the goldsmith vs Warhol this year .
btw
if i download a song/image/book and used it to make a products that is for profit it is a copyright infringement according to many lawyers .
the person/corporations that did the infringement can use fair dealing/fair use as a defense but it must pass the 4 elements of fair use i personally believe it doesn't.
btw when o download memes it is not used for profits.
i think my English is mostly understandable.
@@samankucher5117 You’re that slow, aren’t you? I’m talking about copyright because that’s the only legal protection something someone creates and posts online, like an image, gets. If it’s not illegal, it’s not “stealing”. The images aren’t being used for profit, they’re being used to train an AI. After that, there’s no use for the images, so they’re more or less gone after that. The images created are not derivative, they’re original pieces. A bot that creates images similar to already existing property falls within the same legal area as fan art. The images aren’t being used to create a product, they’re used to train a bot. The services of the bot are, typically, what’s being sold (or otherwise a license to access a service hosting the bot). That’s like saying ChatGBT should be illegal (it does the same thing). Whether or not you believe it passes a test of fair use isn’t important when your opinion is not a valuable one. By that, I mean you’re not a judge, and you have no power to affect whether or not it would be seen as illegal in the eyes of the law. But thank you for proving your ignorance by ignoring everything else that was said 👍 maybe leave the outrage of whether or not AI generated images are bad or not to actual artists instead of white-knighting.
Recently I had an argument with someone about how AI will one day perfectly do tattoos on our skins. I said “Yes it could potentially draw the exact image you want on your skin but it won’t have any sense of creativity, it won’t actually communicate with you and create something that is actually unique, it won’t add a special signature to its design and it won’t know how well your skin accepts the ink”. AI only functions based on code, it will always be a flawed copy cat. When you copy from someone who copies another mistakes always will be there, and ChatGBT is also proven to have a lot of mistakes.
That's a wild argument. The AI doesn't need to be creative or communicate with you. It's a tool, not a person, and you shouldn't treat it otherwise. A tool like that would need to be adjusted accordingly and would likely always have a human operating it. Your understanding seems to be flawed, too. These AI image generation bots are self-learning, that means they're fed on training data and make all the connections necessary themselves. It's more like a human brain in that sense, ChatGBT actually being an amazing example of this. This is why AI generated images have their own unique mistakes, because it is making the art itself, not copying other people's art and reposting with minor differences. If you want an AI to have a sense of morality, you'd have to feed it a dataset on morality. That's what ChatGBT did, and that's a multi-billion dollar project.
@@RewindOGTeeHee ChatGBT was already shown to give advices that it mixes together based on exisiting data on the internet, the youtuber called ThePhoneRepairGuru already showed that chatGBT tends to give advices that would cause more damage than help. And the main argument here still that AI doesn't actually do art, as you said it yourself it generates images based on art it finds on the internet, and yeah it learns in time to avoid more and more mistakes but it'll never actually be art.
@@Darth_Melek What are you on? ChatGBT works more like a brain compared to any other AI, it’s created thousands of layers of understanding and connections between words and meanings and context and associations. It guesses what the next appropriate answer would be when it receives an input (which is, in this case, a message) and uses that guess to generate a reply. It literally was fed every single piece of human literature accessible to create the system it currently uses. The guy you’re talking about isn’t an AI expert and got different results compared to what other people might get. It’s constantly learning and improving, mistakes can be made, and the expectation that it should be perfect is ludicrous. I’m also fairly certain I’ve seen the video you’re talking about- it’s in the context of a screen replacement, right? I never said it generates images based on art it finds on the internet, I’m pretty sure I specified that it’s fed a dataset to train on (which are images publicly found on the internet). It doesn’t use that art as a basis for how it generates images, it uses that art to learn how certain shapes should look, what colors should go where, how specific angles might work, etc., but it never copies art. That means that, when prompted, it already knows how or what something should look like when it’s made correctly and uses that knowledge to assemble a piece that is as close to the given prompt as possible. That is literally art, by definition, since it’s engaging in a creative activity. Artwork is made, and it is art itself. Please don’t twist what I say if you don’t understand what’s being said.
@@RewindOGTeeHee🤓
@@yosos2 🤡
Reject AI's art would create Skynet. Haven't people learn from Hitler? 😂😂😂
i hate NFTs. but i will say AI art is not art... yet.
you can bet your ass in 10 to 20 years, people will talk about AI art the same way we talk about anime and comics today. or do you think people thought about superman as art when it first came out?
I dunno, there's legitimate arguments to be made for AI art being legit. Superman was an artwork, a work of fiction, and it was objectively art, by definition, as he came about through human creativity. It's not a matter of whether or not people saw it that way, it's just that it is.
@@RewindOGTeeHee my point was, its always like this, there has always been arguments about why comics, manga, games and so on are not art.
and just like those, its only a matter of time until its the same with AI generated stuff.
there's always technicalities. "it cant be art because of X or Y". and there will always be people saying that those dont matter.
@@marcosdheleno Okay. I agree.
This flowery speech isn’t going to stop me expressing my creativity through Ai art.
Creativity and ai art in the same sentence? Lmao
@@Stimpaec
and humans are more worthy to do art?... pathetic when you all are drowned by mega corporations.
@@absolstoryoffiction6615the thing that defines art for me is if its human made
A dog can't make art, an elephant can't make art, and a goddam machine can't make art
art is passionless and are you really expressing anything through AI art? Cause honestly I feel so much more creative and satisfied when I make my art myself.
@Enterbasicnamenere
People buy apple products made in China with free labor, or at least with less cost than anywhere else... Just remember that when apple is expensive, comparative to AI Art.
Calling AI Art stealing shows that you can't even grasp the concept of inspiration, otherwise you wouldn't call it that way. The way you create your own art probably doesn't resemble anything someone else has done before, right? Except for, the motive, style, framing of course. So basically the same as any AI Art.
Let's take a 2GB checkpoint and try to think what that can contain. If there were just raw pixels, you could fill it with 1000 Full HD pictures, which isn't a lot. In this tiny file the whole visual concept of pretty much everything is stored. Emphasis on concept, as there are no images stored in that file. But it knows what a car, a house, trees, humans, etc looks like in theory.
If I would prompt you to paint a picture of a blonde beautiful woman, standing at a beach during sunset, you would take your concepts and paint something unique, as you don't have a template to copy from. Just your concept of all those words and what you have learned what they should look like. Now guess what AI Art does...
Humans cannot copy an image as accurately as an ai moron
What makes me sad is that these people were probably once people who wanted to do art, but gave up too quickly
Meanwhile "professional art critics" in the higher up circles: "Art isn't supposed to, nor allowed to have a meaning".
If AI art isn't art I weep for photographers.
Photographers still require an understanding of framing and imagination. Entering a prompt into a generator is effectively identical to a google search.
@@spikegilfer1997 AI tool prompting rarely (if ever) generates exactly what you are looking for the first time, it takes plenty of imagination and understanding of how to prompt, and adjust the outputs of the AI tools you are using to get what you are looking for. It's basically the exact same process of iteration and composition that photographers use, just in a different medium. You should try it sometime so you have an actual understanding of it.
@@spikegilfer1997 that is not how prompting works. If you just wanna have simply a good looking motive. Yeahr. Maybe you are done fast. But if you wanna archive anything certain, you will have to enter a highly iterative process of selection, recreation and alteration of your inputs
Huge difference between text-to-image and photography
Ai “art” is just you giving it text and it gives you an image
But photography can take skill from timing to lighting to knowing what will and will not work
@@Enterbasicnamenere One is inputing descriptive text into a machine to generate an image, the other is pointing a machine at something you are looking at and pressing a button, I could argue that understanding how to prompt an image from a bot takes skill as well. Just different skill, and I find that most people who say "derrr, you type word, and it make duh picture!" have never actually tried to prompt a bot for a specific image before.
Also, in my experience with photographers and photography (limited as it may be) a lot of their skill around timing and lighting tends to come down to taking multiple photos of the same exact thing and choosing the best image out of the group to form a base....so it could almost be considered a part of the iterative process....which generated art has as well.....
I think the main problem with this matter is that people call it "art", for lack of a better word, and it rubs people the wrong way and then we get these arguments about the soul of the art piece etc etc.
I personally believe that the soul of an artpiece lies mostly (but not entirely) in the original idea the "artist" has, whether he uses a brush or an AI tool to materialize that doesn't matter much to me. but if you're giving AI a simple prompt and take the first output you get, that is akin to someone making a doodle on a napkin to me, and even less than that.
I can appreciate AI "art" if you take your time with it, if you iterate, if you use other digital tools for a better composition, I can appreciate the time and effort it can take to refine that idea and try to get the output you're getting from the machine to resemble what you had in mind as closely as possible. it's just that most ppl using these tools are being lazy
human art
Ai art generators are for those who just want to make something but they don't have talent, time or any other resources with me included what i did just for fun until i got sick of needing premium.
I love the idea of using ai in art. Just not the entire damn thing.
Make it easier, and take some of the monotomy off. Artists already have boring, difficult jobs, let's agree to make it easier and faster for them, not try to replace them with shitty counterfeits.
You realize companies are already using these tools for their artwork, right? Nobody's replacing artists, it's a tool for artists to use.
@@RewindOGTeeHee some are using it as tools, yes. Some are trying to use it as replacements.
Half of the brand team at my company got laid off specifically because people wanted to use ai art for the vast majority of their branding and logo work. It probably would've been more if they were just a digital art team and not having that be just part of the job.
They weren't the first nor only ones to do this.
Yes, bigger companies who know what they are doing don't just leave it up to generation entirely and use teams to iterate or supplement at worst. But the smaller ones have less issues and more reason to not pay so much for art they think a generator can do better for cheaper.
It's not doomsday or anything. The issue isn't massively spread over the industry. But it is indeed an issue that's big enough to be concerned about.
@@noblesseoblige319 I’m talking about the purpose of making these bots in the first place. Partly experiment, partly financial gain, and partly increasing accessibility so more people can be introduced to art. The point I was making is that the bot is not naturally malicious, it’s supposed to be something positive (at least it started that way, but now it depends on the company). Personally I don’t think a logo for a company and an AI generated image can be compared due to value alone.
@@RewindOGTeeHee I completely agree. I absolutely love ai for helping artists, and I want that to be as far as it goes.
People who get paid way more than I ever will think otherwise, and that's a bummer.
I don't think the idea of ai in art is inherently bad at all. As I mentioned, I love the idea when done right.
Should we ban all advancements in technology then?
Let's face it: ai art means extremely cheap illustrations, especially for blogs and such, and for casual personal use, plus it means new possibilities and acceleration for technologies such as photoshop.
Let's not lie about theft: ai usage is undeniably transformative and does not recommunicate or redistribute the original work. Incidently, japan itself has rules ai training to be legal.
Where in the definition of art does it say all these things? This video is nothing but gatekeeping.
Art has no solid definition, and trying to gatekeep it is a futile effort.
Drip paintings are art, and people have for centuries deviced mechanical contraptions to help create art, from swinging pendulums to jet printers. We even have "non-human" art like the famous picture of that one monkey, or art work created with the use of animals like paw prints.
AI is just a tool like any other (even if most of it looks like complete shit for now)
"Meaningfulness" is a subjective feeling that is not universal to people. Expecting others to care about how you specifically feel about your own art is self-centred projection
Art requires whatever is making it to have a soul.
Says who? You people love creating your own definitions and standards on what should and shouldn't be. By your definition I can take a shit and that would be considered art. 🤣
I absolutely love this AI stuff. It's simply fun to me. But yeah, it's not worth using for claiming as "one's own work".
Ai "art" looks better but lacks what makes art inspiring. The creativity and the work that goes into every piece of real art and the symbolism with lighting and composition that can be achieved.
People who say ai "art" is bad are wrong, saying stuff like "if you think ai "art" is good then make them pregnant"
The truth is 9/10 times ai "art" does look more visually appealing but dull and lacks finesse.
So you mean to tell me that when I visualize what I want from Stable Duffusion, prompt it many times over adding, removing and rebalancing weights, making custom Loras and then iterate for hours in inpaint and photoshop to perfect it is not "art"?
😅
Ai art is a tool I use to get the ideas out of my head that I can't.
This claim is false, because it is not a tool, and it cannot get anything out of your head.
Same. It lets me express to the world what my inner demons look like.
Ooga ooga pretty picture look good means art booga booga
This is patently correct tho
I see AI as a tool. Even including AI art. I didn't think it should or really can ever totally replace a good human artist. Those models also can't even exist without human artists artwork to train them. I think AI can be great for placeholder art or visualizing a concept. I think it would be helpful to show an artist i commission to give them an idea of what im looking for.
As someone who draw comic more than 10 years,I can say my art improved + also my storytelling, just because I work on it all the time. AI could make it look pretty or cool,but it doesn't show anything new, special. I could recognize AI generated stuff just by looking at them 😅
Artist just have to know AI can be used as a tool to help flash things out better. No substitute for the Gid given human imagination
ai is not a tool it's pure theft of other people's hard work. I suppose it's a tool in the same vein as slave labor.
Yeah AI is literally a tool, that’s what it’s intended to be used as. Artists over here thinking AI is trying to replace them 💀
@@RewindOGTeeHee a machine that does 99% of the work is not a tool.
Also Netflix and Google instead of hiring artist started using ai to replace them meaning yea it has functionally become an issue.
But I guess using funny skull emoji is more important then actually learning about these topics.
@@chronic-joker If it’s not a tool, why can’t it create art without human interaction? I guess that means it’s a tool.
I know what Google and Netflix are doing, but those companies have never been moral in the slightest, so I really don’t care that there are artists being freed from their grasps. More freedom I say, and they can use their talents more productively in another area. That’s quite literally not the fault of the bots though, that’s these companies looking for a resource that’ll accept “exposure” as an income source. 💀
But I guess being a dickhead is more important than actually using a bit of common sense, or even, might I dare say, logic.
@@chronic-jokerusing companies isnt a great example for moral and ethical use, as companies like netflix or amazon would sacrifice babies if it meant they didnt have to spend money to create their products
AI art is the way for those of us without the proper skills to draw to actually visualize our ideas.
then learn to draw and not support a program made on stolen art.
Then practice the proper skills instead of babying yourself
yeah but youre not the artist, ai is the artist
give ai the proper credit bro
ppl who request a drawing from an artist on tumblr cant claim its them who drew it they only sent in a text what they wanted to see
@@therealmiriasukinda mean but ok
@@chronic-joker completly true!!
It's not even AI, it's a learning algorithm, it's the same thing used by youtube facebook and twitter for marketing
Calling it AI is literally just a marketing strategy to make it sound cooler than it is
???? that's not the point though lol, the name of it really doesn't matter. People are still gonna call ChatGPT an AI for example, regardless of what it "technically" is.
Idk i like what you’re saying but it just sounds like copium. If what you were saying was 100% true then nobody would be worried at all about ai art. Also since most ai art is basically just a mashup of real people’s art, doesn’t that mean it DOES have that human touch? Also couldn’t sombody generate a bunch of characters with ai and THEN give them names and a backstory etc.? You’re essentially saying that storytelling is more important than visual art. That’s your opinion, not a fact. Anyways not trying to argue or anything just thought id give my 2 cents.
Its mashed up of stolen art works so in that case yes it has a human touch that was filtered and mulipulated in such a way that in doesn't feel human it feels off.
I honestly don't mind "AI art".
AI art isn't the democratization of art, it's the colonization of art by non-artists, where people who don't have a set of abilities profit from the efforts of someone who is genuinely exceptional. We're living in Syndrome's world.
As mr incredible said, we keep finding new ways to celebrate mediocrity
Unfortunately corporations and people will use it as much as possible because its easier and cheaper. Mark my words ai art will win by buying out everyone at chrap prices. Heck coca cola and disney already uses them.
As an object show fan I couldn’t agree more, object shows as a genre started on RUclips because two kids wanted to make a game show but couldn’t draw nor animate so they drew objects with arms and legs. The show is BFDI and it’s still going to this day with a series in the same world called “The Power of Two”. You don’t need artistic talent to make something that’ll impact people, you just need a good story and characters.
AI is art
As a artist, I dont mind AI art. Art for me is a form of expression. But art is subjective and the message you try to send through that work is different for everyone. I am pretty sure that a machine that can pump master pieces out will not stop the human desire to express themself through a media.
It's kind of funny when people say things like "art is in the eye of the beholder!" and simultaneously accept things like "abstract art" as a legitimate genre of art.
@@RewindOGTeeHee not sure what ur cooking here Cx
Everytime I see generated arts by an AI with 7 fingers, it makes me think that amateur artists that can't draw hands well (baby hands) ain't so bad. 😂
“Ai will democratize art for everyone”
Wait until these people figure out they can make art too
rarely to the same quality as ai.
@@anarchyorslavery1616ai “art”has terrible quality it may look pretty but it has terrible quality
AI art is still art, technically. It looks like art and by all measures of definition appears as such. But that is the extent of it. REAL art is made by real people, who have something to share through art. AI art is merely a quick way to look at something in an artistic format, and should not be compared to real art despite their similarities.
That's a pretty meaningless distinction when AI art can easily pass as real art, which you also acknowledged.
@@Xynth22 Not that it can pass as real art, but that is just a different kind of art.
@@ocyrussteadt232 But it can pass as "real" art.
@@Xynth22 No. The two should not be confused for one another. While they are both art, one is REAL art while the other is not. It is something more akin to hollow art; cool to look at, but there's no meaning behind it.
@@ocyrussteadt232 I didn't say they should be. The point is that no one can really tell the difference between real art and good AI art, especially if the tell-tell signs of it being generated are prompted out, so trying to draw a distinction between the two is pointless.
And no one gets to decide what kind of art gets to have meaning and what doesn't. That is up to the artist, and the person looking at the piece. And someone can look at a piece of art and find meaning in it even if the artist didn't intend for there to be anything to it to begin with. Which is seen all the time with artists that are just going through the motions and making shit. What they make may mean nothing to them, but it could be the best thing a viewer has ever seen. The same can be said for AI art.