god D!@#$ i hate when ai bros compare AI to photography. Photography has so much going on, each one a near infinite number of choices can be made: * Lighting * Composition (The Subjects) * Range (Foreground, Focus, Background etc) * Filters (color tints and other effects) * Timing (Perfect photo of a rare animal or another moment in time) * Camera Focus (Blurring) * Creating Textures * etc Probably more than that but my point is there is 1000s of decisions and MANY multiple shots taken to get the right picture. Some people have to travel and risk dying from exposure just to capture a single moment in time.
I remember leafing through some history book with my Dad all the way back when I was in middle school. We came across a World War 1 photo of soldiers rushing out of a trench and into no man's land, and one of them was stopped in an unnatural pose, frozen in a weird spasm. My dad said "this man has just died" in a somber tone, and we both stared at that photo in silence for a while. I still remember feeling a weird mixture of sympathy for that nameless soldier, horror at the hopelessness of the war and respect for the photographer that was there to capture his demise. I never saw that photo again, but the image will stay in my mind forever. No soulless AI garbage can ever evoke the same emotion. That photo chilled me to the bone BECAUSE IT WAS REAL. Anyone saying photography and AI are the same must have skipped some stage of development as a human being.
You have no idea what you are talking about. AI art requires just as many decisions. Its just another media. Just like photography you can be bad at it and just go out and push a button, or you can be deliberate about it and carefully plan you shot and select your photos. with photography you explore the real world, whereas in AI you explore the latent space.
Your title is so bang on; love that you are hammering on two of the issues at the heart of this disaster. I want to see the 5 words IT CANT EXIST WITHOUT THEFT blasted out everywhere. There's so many people that have no idea why these generated images look like they do
22:02 "Why would you need to impersonate somebody in real time?" Comedians would have fun with that. Criminals, 'intelligence' agencies, and those with zero moral compass would grab this technology and run off with it.
This is why submitting A.I-generated content as organic content is plagiarism. (Also a perspective of many institutions/schools.) I would argue as well that disclosing it as A.I-generated is iffy at best, and still definitely demonstrates a lack of talent.
It's horrific that you can spend a lifetime developing a style and an AI can yoink it from you without recourse. It isn't generative or derivative, it's imitative. The ghoulish shellgame from corporatiins hiding the evidence in an algorithm doesnt justify it any more than the algorthms causing price collusion in the housing market. Their reckless corporate bluster about the consequences isn't ambition, it's cannibal corporatism.
I get the legal arguments why the copyright claim doesn't stick but the only reason why those AI companies can deny being art thiefs, are lawmakers that still haven't figured out how facebook works. As someone who "made it" into the Laion dataset, this developments are discusting to watch and there is no turning back.
I'm not so sure ai generated novels will do very well commercially especially with no real personality attached as an author. they'd be kind of like shovelware games; they get SOME sales, but I think there'd be a whole new outcry for stories written by people with perspectives using care and thought. the best the publishing houses would be able to do is what is now done on instagram and such with ai generated "personalities" who wrote the books, but still, there'd be a huge open market for actual creative writing by real people. The harder thing to figure out would be, human authors who use generative ai in their process. at a certain point we wouldn't be able to tell it was ai, since they'd just be using it as an augmenting tool. at the end of the day people will want fresh and unique human perspectives, and I think those would rise to the top, even though shovelware will make a lot of money as well.
Oh, no. If publishers are allowed, dead writers will be writing books for centuries. And fictional writers will have successful series Like The Hardy Boys or Nancy Drew, they already use cadres of ill-paid ghostwriters. Patterson probably hasn't touched a pen for a decade, and Clancy has written some bangers since he died in 2013 They'll just have an excuse to pay the "cleanup" writers even less
I just decided not to feature illustrations in my ebook or print books launching before Halloween. The art I drew myself looks too juvenile for the market and worse the truth is that AI art is becoming the standard look of key illustrations. I can’t get behind AI art, I think it’s all going to end badly. I think if you look up some news reports that you’ll see that it has ended badly for several types of people. This was all a terrible idea and people will find new and horrifying things to do to themselves with these programs.
Use juvenile art, be proud of what you create, enjoy ugly art , reject perfectionism forced on us by the system, it's not human, a child drawing stick figures with big smiles and lined hair is human, its a soul, its beautiful, more beautiful than any ai artwork
I wouldn't be so against AI art if they didn't steal the content to train the system in the first place. Why couldn't they just ask or pay for help from artists who were willing to contribute?
What makes a computer being tasked to look at art to learn from it and produce new works when prompted any different than a human doing the same, aside from scale? Rational arguments, not emotional ones. It is the same reason I do not need to pay to view the same art, whether or not it influences my own worldview or tendencies. It was publicly available for viewing. It is not plagiarism or infringement to use this collective information and whatever is running through one's mind, whether it be pure math or biochemical as well as electrical impulses, to create a new work under human prompting - or autonomously. It can certainly turn into plagiarism and/or copyright infringement if one conceals its origins and the level of AI involvement though - many hybrid works exist at this point - or to pass it off as the work of another. Intent matters in law, and much of the community is entirely missing this point. Mere use of technology cannot be prohibited on the grounds of "I don't like it" when the work is clearly transformative. Look for instances where it isn't transformative, that is where the actual cases lie.
@@crowe69611) humans are prone to imperfection, computers are not. Humans are self aware creatures guided by external stimuli and instinct. You could tell an artist to copy a scene by memory and he will try his best to copy it, but human memory isn't perfect, human skill isn't perfect, and the result will not be a 1:1 copy of it. Computers can have infinite perfect memory, and because they aren't loving self aware organisms, they aren't prone to the same mistakes humans make. Everything you feed a computer they can use it and spit out perfect on the other side. 2) Generative AI has no other purpose other than generating profit by removing the human aspect of art. The value AI art brings is to have the end product of art without having to pay an artist. Said end product is trained using the artists' previous work without permission or compensation.
@@CanaldoZenny Computers are also prone to imperfection, the best models still make mistakes. There is actually a mathematical constant for language models regarding error, and more compute, more data, and more parameters do nothing beyond that point - it is probably a fundamental linguistic error inherent to humans, and human communication. AI art also still isn't quite right, and is often obvious when people get ambitious with it. AI models are also designed _not_ to copy things directly because that runs face-first into actual copyright law, rather than what a few activists would like copyright law to be. Also, these AIs absolutely do not have infinite memory. Most of them lack any form of long-term memory as a human would comprehend it in the first place. Permission also is not required for transformative works. If you limited your argument to clear-cut violations of existing law and what is rather than what could hypothetically be, your arguments would be an order of magnitude stronger.
They did by Adobe. Originally adobe AI was trained on voluntary art pieces. But with AI trainig the biggest problem is that it's already out of significant data sets. So Adobe scraped even those artists' content whose originally helped train their AI. That's why they started to steal data from every possible sources all the companies in silent agreement, including this site's owner. And still, even the now available digital data actually not enough to reach that level of quality what they visioning. So now they started to generate data sets with AI to train AI on it. And i think, this is where the whole bubble will burst occasionally.
I've always felt GenAI should only be used as a tool. It's great for inspiration like a customized Google search, and in tools like generative fill that save work. But it is not creative. Anyone who generates an image and immediately sells it without modification is fooling themselves that they are a creator.
True. I don’t resent the idea that technology can be used to make images. It can even make interesting and valuable images. The technology in itself it neutral. The problem with it, is that it is exploitative and is used by capitalism to replace and fuck over workers. Not only does the A.I inherently «steal» its material - and keep in mind, all artists «steal» as in they collect ideas from others who they don’t or can’t credit. Art is collaborative. It steals in the way that it does no labour itself. All its power and material comes from the labour of others. There is no process in which A.I makes the art its own, because there is no mind, no labour. And of course this is already being used for multiple anti-worker, anti-democratic purposes. Capitalists are insentivized by capitalism to save on costs, and can now more and more use A.I images instead of employing illustrators. Writing, however, is still somewhat beholdent to facts and content and has to at least be edited by a person. But also, A.I can be a mass disinformation tool. Also by the ruling class to turn people against each other instead of against the economic elites curently fucking over the world.
Exactly, what's the point of doing art if you're not gonna actually perform the creative process? There's not fun in that, there's not satiation of the creative urge.
@@enravotaboyadjiev7466 yeah, on top of that people who make AI art are not listening to each others AI art enough to know that it's like 8 or 9 songs that are just getting regurgitated with random extra stuff that the person asked for. No one who makes AI art supports other AI artists, they just upload it into the algorithms. So my issue with it isn't that it's not art, it's that it's pollution of artistic spaces. It just creates more space between us and the songs we desire to discover from other artists. Just another 400 Million things we have to skip to get to the art online.
Yes even the worst hacks of published books will do interesting choices likely, or strange choices, or are bad in interesting ways from choices. So even bad ripped off books have more intent and choices than a glorified chatrbot., and meaning. Ther is literally a so bad its good media enjoyerbase for every genre.
The first rule of Loinstreaming is that there’s no talking about Loinstreaming! The second rule of Loinstreaming is that there’s no talking about Loin- wait hang on, sorry that’s the wrong one… let’s see. Ah! The second rule of Loinstreaming is that there’s no smoking in the chat section!
And you even didn't look into AI generated code, that is a disaster. And companies expect developers to improve productivity by 50% at least, in reality AI decrease productivity.
Some of the latest models can out-debate many humans already, if they are not prepared for some intellectual sparring. Interacting with them has me routinely realizing there are subtle holes here and there in my worldview when I verify the information, which must be patched. This, naturally, is very uncomfortable for people who handle being proven wrong as if they are injured. And that leads to corporations wanting to control the output more, which makes the output increasingly useless.
@@crowe6961 I tried those latest models, they can't, they are good only for very common tasks like find n fib numbers. Corporations want to increase productivity, it's natural, but they're often trying another snake oil for that.
@@erikshure360it's true lol, it'd be much faster to have a team of competent artists working on a project and getting active feedback on it than having to sit there brain numbingly uncreatively fighting with a machine to do what you want it to while keeping an artstyle and consistent character design or theme, it's a waste of time just so ai bros can feel good about their children toy programs
I still vividly remember desperately trying to explain to my family over thanksgiving dinner once that NO chatGPT is NOT capable of actually writing stories. I even tried explaining what little I knew about the fundamentals of computational algorithms and that they simply weren't capable of even speaking any human language because absolutely everything had to be translated into binary which is ultimately just ones and zeros. They all just looked at me funny and one of them even told me that my point about binary was "incredibly reductive". I am by no means happy that I was right. Not in the slightest. AI is damaging our society in precisely the opposite way we thought it would. It isn't completely replacing humans all by itself. It's maximizing profit for the scumbag corpos that developed it and we are ALL the worse for it. Capitalism is just NOTHING but making a quick buck no matter how you do it. Simple as.
Give it an outline and some decent worldbuilding, and it will give you a coherent narrative. Turning the narrative into a story requires tweaking and reworking. It will absolutely give all that is needed to put together a story, though. It is up to a human to put the pieces together, or the result is thoroughly mediocre.
@crowe6961 Oh. Can a person produce books with it? Sure! Are they any good? Nope. In fact some of them are even dangerous! Such as the "foraging" books you might find on Amazon. That's probably a good idea right? I mean churning out some quick slop about plants in the wild for people to EAT is probably fine 🙂 Right? Right? Anyway if you want to write a story then WRITE one. I'm convinced that those using AI to produce art simply want the recognition that comes with being an artist without having to do the hard work required to actually LEARN their craft. So yeah, you wanna get good at writing? WRITE SOMETHING.
@@directActionGaming-4u You missed the part where the latest systems can provide great help with worldbuilding by having the knowledge of a competent graduate student, if not a brilliant one, across a whole pile of disciplines rather than one or two. Need a more believable creature for your bestiary? It's got you covered down to its blood composition and hypothetical evolutionary history. Need to rationalize the political motivations of your characters? Got you covered. Intricate social structures and their likely outcomes? Economy that isn't a standard copy-paste from other franchises or real-world systems? Ecology of your fictional world? Can also be rationalized and refined - all this, more competently than the average human, though an actual human specialist in a given field would have more insight. It just requires a competent human author to ask the right very specific questions, put all the pieces together and, indeed, turn walls of explanations and analysis into a real story. AI is a valuable tool and aid for creatives, particularly to improve suspension of disbelief at this point, but only when used as such. Without one's own creativity being implemented, basic competence as a writer, background info on what one is writing about in the first place (like, say, mycology in your example, and ecology, biology, and a fair amount of big-picture stuff for my use case) and the general knowledge of which questions are useful to ask, it does not perform well and you get the Amazon situation. And don't let the system run off without fact-checking it if it cannot fact-check itself or blindly trust them with serious real-world matters, that's just negligent.
@crowe6961 WRITE SOMETHING. YOU don't get better at writing cuz some fancy computer did it for you. I know a thing or two about AI. It's best at crunching numbers, automating tedious and repetitive tasks, and that's about it. If you're expecting it to some how develop art for you based on limited input then you're NOT an artist. You just wanna make a quick buck, and you're likely stealing someone else's work to do it as well. AI slop is always gonna be AI slop. You wanna write code? Cool. You wanna write actual stories that MEAN something? Do it yourself cuz I don't see some computer EVER producing something like Citizen Kane. And honestly? AI is just bit coin in my opinion. A fad that's being blown way out of proportion because capitalism.
I'm sure plenty of people "can't tell" if something is AI or not, but my eyes are very aware of form and composition, and AI fails so hard in this respect. The subject is almost always centered; my eyes either follow out from the center of the page or there's no flow whatsoever. I've seen an artist who photoshops his AI gens to make more compositionally aware peices, but he still can't compensate for lighting, anatomy, or perspective issues. If you have to put 2 hours in to fix just the compositional mistakes of a computer every time you want a new piece, why not just draw for two hours?
Trying to ban mere use of technology on the grounds of "I don't like it" tends not to go well at all, and absorbs political capital like a black hole. Compounded by the fact that many such systems can also out-debate you on the matter at this point. Regulating clear-cut abuse of said tech, on the other hand? Smooth sailing in comparison. The art community needs to listen to lawyers and legal analysts more, and activists less.
It is pronounced or-TEES, with the last syllable rhyming with peace. When it ends in a vowel, N, or S, which most Spanish words do, the second-to-last syllable is stressed by default. Otherwise, the last syllable is stressed by default. Unless accent marks indicate otherwise. The Z-sound we have in English, doesn't exist in Spanish. It's just a softer variant of an S-sound.
Good, i mean if companies had any hesitance and made the most token efforts there , they probably have a way out, and if not, wtf are you doing. No companies did isnt an excuse. And that , conspt artist is great for fighting it wher ecooperations get the message, court and sueing. And the actual artist, ok not publisher. Also nice there was that unspoken agreement of fanworks mentioned, and that its if tolerated as free pr. Which is different! Without profit i mean ot straight up replacing an active newer game
I don't see any copyright infringement here at all. Nothing is being copied, just used for learning (people do that too). The generated images are independent works. I am not even infringing copyright if I integrate other images into my own work as long as the newly created work largely eclipses the other images.
@@nyatske Define intelligence. Define inspiration. You are throwing around very complex terms without building any coherent argument from them. If just random pixels are “vomited”, as you believe, that speaks even more against any kind of copyright infringement.
@@yasminesteinbauer8565 He is a very silly, sad, little man who uses the phrase Define _ insert word here _ a lot It is pedantry in an attempt to make your argument appear more intelligent and coherent than it actually is
Would be stolen if they would just tell the text without showing where the quotes are from, like generative AI would do. This is a sum up where you can clearly see and look up all the sources from twitter accounts to news papers.
@@whittenbourg I thought it is a theft when the original author does not get any compensation. The LAION dataset is also a list of sources, there is nothing hidden.
It's super important that we shut down all art schools immediately! Brainwashing kids to take inspiration from other artists is genuinely disgusting. I also think we should blind anyone who aspires to become an artist. That's the only way we can ensure that each piece of art is uniquely made by an individual. Come to think of it, we also need to deafen anyone who wants to play music.
@@apollofell3925 I've watched literally 0 videos on AI about art since Midjourney came out; what, two years ago? 😂 You know people are capable of forming their own opinions, right? You should try it someday
@@christianjensen952 Actually the difference between your opinion and mine is that mine's informed. You haven't watched a single video on AI in two years? Or read a single article about it? Shows exactly how much you know.
@@apollofell3925 You don't need to watch any videos AT ALL to have an opinion about this. I just for fun made chatgpt paint me a picture with the following prompt: "Please paint me a half-length portrait of a woman with an enigmatic smile. She has dark, shoulder-length hair, parted in the middle, and wears a dark, simple dress with delicate folds. Her hands are gracefully crossed in front of her, resting on the arm of a chair. Behind her is a soft, atmospheric landscape featuring winding paths, a bridge, and distant mountains. The overall tone of the painting is warm, with golden hues and soft lighting that highlights the woman's face. Her eyes gaze directly at the viewer, exuding a calm and mysterious expression. The style should emulate the Renaissance, with subtle sfumato (smoky blending of colors) and soft edges." It didn't give me the Mona Lisa? I did a reverse image search on Tineye.com, 0 matches. We humans can get inspired by going to the museum, then paint something similar, and people wouldn't lose their shit. If I were to write a fantasy book set in a magical world with otherworldly creatures, I'm not ripping off J.K. Rowling. If you're going to use ad hominem garbage, at least make sure you have a solid argument, idiot.
Dear god You can train AI on images submitted with consent for that specific use, so one of the points in the title is just wrong Also lots of art has been made before that included automation or algorithms, and it is considered such, so the rest of it is wrong too
Part one, ai isn't going to make art: ai is incapable of creating new content only amalgamating existing content and slapping poorly designed filters on it, so that's tru. Part two of the title, it can't exist without theft. Also objectively true. Every public ai image generator was trained on millions of peices of art stolen from artists without consent and used to generate profit by utilizing said stolen artwork. There is no part three of the title. Sooooo, how exactly is the whole title incorrect?
@@andrewpotts7952 I literally just explained. >Amalgamating existing content and slapping filters You don't know how it works, go learn. It can also absolutely create things that didn't exist in the training data, obviously, so idk what you mean by "incapable of creating new content". If that's not new, neither is anything humans create. >Stolen without consent Setting aside the use of the word steal here (cuz you know, it implies something going missing), i know for a fact that open neural networks like stable diffusion were trained on datasets obtained with consent, they didn't just scrape all the images they could off the internet, it's done with more thought than that I guess the outrage initially was because the tech was so new, nobody could imagine a program trained on their art mimicking their style(thus nobody looked twice at terms of service on the websites they used), which is understandably upsetting Which is why more modern networks like SDXL, FLUX lack this artist mimicry altogether in favor of more generic styles and genres
@@andrewpotts7952 Tell me, how did Alpha Zero create chess strategies that were superior to man made ones? How did it create? It wasn't trained on any data, so by your logic this shouldn't be possible. You need to realize that there are different kinds of AIs, some are capable of generating innovations, which is creative.
@@erikshure360it didn't create chess strategies are you 14 😭😭😭 chess has a very finite number of strategies to respond to every scenario, the machine just has more active memory than a human so it can memorise all of them and calculate which one will being the best outcome, that isn't intelligence or coming up with strategies or intelligence, it's just memorization and calculation which is what computers are made to do, compute
The idea that self expression and ideas could be automated is preposterous. art pieces that involve mechanism are art because they reflect something about the creator. gen art does not . Furthermore ethical generative ai cannot exist because it is taking intricate by products of human agency and automate it without it's fundamental essence this account for poesy photographs films voices written and vocal communication thoughts and also art it is an insult to all craft and all humans because it's steals from all aspects of human existence and imitate. No artist worth his salt would ever adopt such a tool that would allow him to reap the rewards for something he didn't do, this is a disgrace and the opposite of art to take creativity and meaning and put it through a process that rid it of it's intention and meaning by trying to replictate it
You can't exist without theft as an artist, it is just as of yet, they can't prove it. I guarantee within the next 10 years head scanning device and they're going to go.: "Hey, look at that. You looked at this picture and this artist and that artist and you incorporated all this into your artwork. There's nothing original about any of this. "Mark my words. You artists are going to find a way to tear the other one down in this declining food scraps fight
Really? You think artists are going to sue eachother over their various pantings of, say, the Eiffel Tower? Who would have the copyright on impressionism, exactly? How do you sort out the IP rights for people influenced by Van Gough's work now that it's in the public domain?
god D!@#$ i hate when ai bros compare AI to photography.
Photography has so much going on, each one a near infinite number of choices can be made:
* Lighting
* Composition (The Subjects)
* Range (Foreground, Focus, Background etc)
* Filters (color tints and other effects)
* Timing (Perfect photo of a rare animal or another moment in time)
* Camera Focus (Blurring)
* Creating Textures
* etc
Probably more than that but my point is there is 1000s of decisions and MANY multiple shots taken to get the right picture. Some people have to travel and risk dying from exposure just to capture a single moment in time.
I remember leafing through some history book with my Dad all the way back when I was in middle school. We came across a World War 1 photo of soldiers rushing out of a trench and into no man's land, and one of them was stopped in an unnatural pose, frozen in a weird spasm. My dad said "this man has just died" in a somber tone, and we both stared at that photo in silence for a while. I still remember feeling a weird mixture of sympathy for that nameless soldier, horror at the hopelessness of the war and respect for the photographer that was there to capture his demise. I never saw that photo again, but the image will stay in my mind forever.
No soulless AI garbage can ever evoke the same emotion. That photo chilled me to the bone BECAUSE IT WAS REAL. Anyone saying photography and AI are the same must have skipped some stage of development as a human being.
You have no idea what you are talking about. AI art requires just as many decisions. Its just another media. Just like photography you can be bad at it and just go out and push a button, or you can be deliberate about it and carefully plan you shot and select your photos. with photography you explore the real world, whereas in AI you explore the latent space.
The title is objectively correct.
Your title is so bang on; love that you are hammering on two of the issues at the heart of this disaster. I want to see the 5 words IT CANT EXIST WITHOUT THEFT blasted out everywhere. There's so many people that have no idea why these generated images look like they do
On top of my previous comment, creatives don't deserve to have their jobs replaced by robots.
companies do not care about your creativity
22:02 "Why would you need to impersonate somebody in real time?"
Comedians would have fun with that.
Criminals, 'intelligence' agencies, and those with zero moral compass would grab this technology and run off with it.
This is why submitting A.I-generated content as organic content is plagiarism. (Also a perspective of many institutions/schools.)
I would argue as well that disclosing it as A.I-generated is iffy at best, and still definitely demonstrates a lack of talent.
It's horrific that you can spend a lifetime developing a style and an AI can yoink it from you without recourse. It isn't generative or derivative, it's imitative. The ghoulish shellgame from corporatiins hiding the evidence in an algorithm doesnt justify it any more than the algorthms causing price collusion in the housing market. Their reckless corporate bluster about the consequences isn't ambition, it's cannibal corporatism.
The story about the dog is horrifying. The health issue the dog had can be cured. It didn't need to be put down.
And that CEO was using that as an example of a *GOOD* example!?
Absolutely no empathy in that monster
"AI Isn't Going to Make Art & It Can't Exist Without Theft" Nuff said.
I get the legal arguments why the copyright claim doesn't stick but the only reason why those AI companies can deny being art thiefs, are lawmakers that still haven't figured out how facebook works. As someone who "made it" into the Laion dataset, this developments are discusting to watch and there is no turning back.
Good on Procreate.
The publishing houses LOVE generative AI. They can replace authors that way.
I'm not so sure ai generated novels will do very well commercially especially with no real personality attached as an author. they'd be kind of like shovelware games; they get SOME sales, but I think there'd be a whole new outcry for stories written by people with perspectives using care and thought. the best the publishing houses would be able to do is what is now done on instagram and such with ai generated "personalities" who wrote the books, but still, there'd be a huge open market for actual creative writing by real people.
The harder thing to figure out would be, human authors who use generative ai in their process. at a certain point we wouldn't be able to tell it was ai, since they'd just be using it as an augmenting tool.
at the end of the day people will want fresh and unique human perspectives, and I think those would rise to the top, even though shovelware will make a lot of money as well.
Oh, no. If publishers are allowed, dead writers will be writing books for centuries. And fictional writers will have successful series
Like The Hardy Boys or Nancy Drew, they already use cadres of ill-paid ghostwriters. Patterson probably hasn't touched a pen for a decade, and Clancy has written some bangers since he died in 2013
They'll just have an excuse to pay the "cleanup" writers even less
I just decided not to feature illustrations in my ebook or print books launching before Halloween. The art I drew myself looks too juvenile for the market and worse the truth is that AI art is becoming the standard look of key illustrations. I can’t get behind AI art, I think it’s all going to end badly. I think if you look up some news reports that you’ll see that it has ended badly for several types of people. This was all a terrible idea and people will find new and horrifying things to do to themselves with these programs.
Use juvenile art, be proud of what you create, enjoy ugly art , reject perfectionism forced on us by the system, it's not human, a child drawing stick figures with big smiles and lined hair is human, its a soul, its beautiful, more beautiful than any ai artwork
I wouldn't be so against AI art if they didn't steal the content to train the system in the first place. Why couldn't they just ask or pay for help from artists who were willing to contribute?
What makes a computer being tasked to look at art to learn from it and produce new works when prompted any different than a human doing the same, aside from scale? Rational arguments, not emotional ones. It is the same reason I do not need to pay to view the same art, whether or not it influences my own worldview or tendencies. It was publicly available for viewing. It is not plagiarism or infringement to use this collective information and whatever is running through one's mind, whether it be pure math or biochemical as well as electrical impulses, to create a new work under human prompting - or autonomously. It can certainly turn into plagiarism and/or copyright infringement if one conceals its origins and the level of AI involvement though - many hybrid works exist at this point - or to pass it off as the work of another. Intent matters in law, and much of the community is entirely missing this point. Mere use of technology cannot be prohibited on the grounds of "I don't like it" when the work is clearly transformative. Look for instances where it isn't transformative, that is where the actual cases lie.
@@crowe696115:04 15:04
@@crowe69611) humans are prone to imperfection, computers are not. Humans are self aware creatures guided by external stimuli and instinct. You could tell an artist to copy a scene by memory and he will try his best to copy it, but human memory isn't perfect, human skill isn't perfect, and the result will not be a 1:1 copy of it.
Computers can have infinite perfect memory, and because they aren't loving self aware organisms, they aren't prone to the same mistakes humans make. Everything you feed a computer they can use it and spit out perfect on the other side.
2) Generative AI has no other purpose other than generating profit by removing the human aspect of art. The value AI art brings is to have the end product of art without having to pay an artist. Said end product is trained using the artists' previous work without permission or compensation.
@@CanaldoZenny Computers are also prone to imperfection, the best models still make mistakes. There is actually a mathematical constant for language models regarding error, and more compute, more data, and more parameters do nothing beyond that point - it is probably a fundamental linguistic error inherent to humans, and human communication. AI art also still isn't quite right, and is often obvious when people get ambitious with it.
AI models are also designed _not_ to copy things directly because that runs face-first into actual copyright law, rather than what a few activists would like copyright law to be. Also, these AIs absolutely do not have infinite memory. Most of them lack any form of long-term memory as a human would comprehend it in the first place. Permission also is not required for transformative works. If you limited your argument to clear-cut violations of existing law and what is rather than what could hypothetically be, your arguments would be an order of magnitude stronger.
They did by Adobe. Originally adobe AI was trained on voluntary art pieces. But with AI trainig the biggest problem is that it's already out of significant data sets. So Adobe scraped even those artists' content whose originally helped train their AI. That's why they started to steal data from every possible sources all the companies in silent agreement, including this site's owner. And still, even the now available digital data actually not enough to reach that level of quality what they visioning. So now they started to generate data sets with AI to train AI on it. And i think, this is where the whole bubble will burst occasionally.
I've always felt GenAI should only be used as a tool. It's great for inspiration like a customized Google search, and in tools like generative fill that save work. But it is not creative. Anyone who generates an image and immediately sells it without modification is fooling themselves that they are a creator.
I too say "Garabagio". Well met!
Before watching, AI generates pretty pictures, not art.
And that's what 99% of people want anyway. Clients don't care about the process, only the price, quality, speed and convenience.
Tech bros are like Henry Kissenger they'll do it again.
True. I don’t resent the idea that technology can be used to make images. It can even make interesting and valuable images. The technology in itself it neutral.
The problem with it, is that it is exploitative and is used by capitalism to replace and fuck over workers. Not only does the A.I inherently «steal» its material - and keep in mind, all artists «steal» as in they collect ideas from others who they don’t or can’t credit. Art is collaborative.
It steals in the way that it does no labour itself. All its power and material comes from the labour of others. There is no process in which A.I makes the art its own, because there is no mind, no labour.
And of course this is already being used for multiple anti-worker, anti-democratic purposes. Capitalists are insentivized by capitalism to save on costs, and can now more and more use A.I images instead of employing illustrators. Writing, however, is still somewhat beholdent to facts and content and has to at least be edited by a person.
But also, A.I can be a mass disinformation tool. Also by the ruling class to turn people against each other instead of against the economic elites curently fucking over the world.
AI art is for people who never cared for or understood art.
Exactly, what's the point of doing art if you're not gonna actually perform the creative process? There's not fun in that, there's not satiation of the creative urge.
@@enravotaboyadjiev7466 yeah, on top of that people who make AI art are not listening to each others AI art enough to know that it's like 8 or 9 songs that are just getting regurgitated with random extra stuff that the person asked for. No one who makes AI art supports other AI artists, they just upload it into the algorithms. So my issue with it isn't that it's not art, it's that it's pollution of artistic spaces. It just creates more space between us and the songs we desire to discover from other artists. Just another 400 Million things we have to skip to get to the art online.
What do you mean no rat has ever driven before? Have you not seen the documentary, Stuart Little?
Yes even the worst hacks of published books will do interesting choices likely, or strange choices, or are bad in interesting ways from choices. So even bad ripped off books have more intent and choices than a glorified chatrbot., and meaning. Ther is literally a so bad its good media enjoyerbase for every genre.
Ai will never replace Chuck Tingle
@@bobspldbckwrds 🤣🤣🤣 No it can't! (And thank you for that belly laugh, I needed it.)
Out of curiosity, what does Loinstreamer mean?
The first rule of Loinstreaming is that there’s no talking about Loinstreaming! The second rule of Loinstreaming is that there’s no talking about Loin- wait hang on, sorry that’s the wrong one… let’s see. Ah!
The second rule of Loinstreaming is that there’s no smoking in the chat section!
I'm looking at your Fresh Meat form and I'm scared lol. Everything is done, editing and cover, included lol.
And you even didn't look into AI generated code, that is a disaster. And companies expect developers to improve productivity by 50% at least, in reality AI decrease productivity.
Some of the latest models can out-debate many humans already, if they are not prepared for some intellectual sparring. Interacting with them has me routinely realizing there are subtle holes here and there in my worldview when I verify the information, which must be patched. This, naturally, is very uncomfortable for people who handle being proven wrong as if they are injured. And that leads to corporations wanting to control the output more, which makes the output increasingly useless.
@@crowe6961 I tried those latest models, they can't, they are good only for very common tasks like find n fib numbers.
Corporations want to increase productivity, it's natural, but they're often trying another snake oil for that.
>AI decreases productivity
This is patently false.
@@erikshure360 Why oh why, would the art community blatantly lie about their position?
@@erikshure360it's true lol, it'd be much faster to have a team of competent artists working on a project and getting active feedback on it than having to sit there brain numbingly uncreatively fighting with a machine to do what you want it to while keeping an artstyle and consistent character design or theme, it's a waste of time just so ai bros can feel good about their children toy programs
I don't believe in copyright laws but AI slop needs to be stopped and I'm glad people are rejecting it.
I still vividly remember desperately trying to explain to my family over thanksgiving dinner once that NO chatGPT is NOT capable of actually writing stories. I even tried explaining what little I knew about the fundamentals of computational algorithms and that they simply weren't capable of even speaking any human language because absolutely everything had to be translated into binary which is ultimately just ones and zeros. They all just looked at me funny and one of them even told me that my point about binary was "incredibly reductive". I am by no means happy that I was right. Not in the slightest. AI is damaging our society in precisely the opposite way we thought it would. It isn't completely replacing humans all by itself. It's maximizing profit for the scumbag corpos that developed it and we are ALL the worse for it. Capitalism is just NOTHING but making a quick buck no matter how you do it. Simple as.
Give it an outline and some decent worldbuilding, and it will give you a coherent narrative. Turning the narrative into a story requires tweaking and reworking. It will absolutely give all that is needed to put together a story, though. It is up to a human to put the pieces together, or the result is thoroughly mediocre.
@crowe6961 Oh. Can a person produce books with it? Sure! Are they any good?
Nope. In fact some of them are even dangerous! Such as the "foraging" books you might find on Amazon. That's probably a good idea right? I mean churning out some quick slop about plants in the wild for people to EAT is probably fine 🙂
Right? Right? Anyway if you want to write a story then WRITE one. I'm convinced that those using AI to produce art simply want the recognition that comes with being an artist without having to do the hard work required to actually LEARN their craft. So yeah, you wanna get good at writing? WRITE SOMETHING.
@@directActionGaming-4u You missed the part where the latest systems can provide great help with worldbuilding by having the knowledge of a competent graduate student, if not a brilliant one, across a whole pile of disciplines rather than one or two. Need a more believable creature for your bestiary? It's got you covered down to its blood composition and hypothetical evolutionary history. Need to rationalize the political motivations of your characters? Got you covered. Intricate social structures and their likely outcomes? Economy that isn't a standard copy-paste from other franchises or real-world systems? Ecology of your fictional world? Can also be rationalized and refined - all this, more competently than the average human, though an actual human specialist in a given field would have more insight.
It just requires a competent human author to ask the right very specific questions, put all the pieces together and, indeed, turn walls of explanations and analysis into a real story. AI is a valuable tool and aid for creatives, particularly to improve suspension of disbelief at this point, but only when used as such. Without one's own creativity being implemented, basic competence as a writer, background info on what one is writing about in the first place (like, say, mycology in your example, and ecology, biology, and a fair amount of big-picture stuff for my use case) and the general knowledge of which questions are useful to ask, it does not perform well and you get the Amazon situation. And don't let the system run off without fact-checking it if it cannot fact-check itself or blindly trust them with serious real-world matters, that's just negligent.
@crowe6961 WRITE SOMETHING. YOU don't get better at writing cuz some fancy computer did it for you. I know a thing or two about AI. It's best at crunching numbers, automating tedious and repetitive tasks, and that's about it. If you're expecting it to some how develop art for you based on limited input then you're NOT an artist. You just wanna make a quick buck, and you're likely stealing someone else's work to do it as well.
AI slop is always gonna be AI slop. You wanna write code? Cool. You wanna write actual stories that MEAN something? Do it yourself cuz I don't see some computer EVER producing something like Citizen Kane. And honestly? AI is just bit coin in my opinion. A fad that's being blown way out of proportion because capitalism.
@@crowe6961I love how wrong you're gonna be proven in just 3 years
I'm sure plenty of people "can't tell" if something is AI or not, but my eyes are very aware of form and composition, and AI fails so hard in this respect. The subject is almost always centered; my eyes either follow out from the center of the page or there's no flow whatsoever. I've seen an artist who photoshops his AI gens to make more compositionally aware peices, but he still can't compensate for lighting, anatomy, or perspective issues. If you have to put 2 hours in to fix just the compositional mistakes of a computer every time you want a new piece, why not just draw for two hours?
The AI of today cannot, but the AI of tomorrow absolutely will. We will see how good it gets 20 years from now.
And where does the AI in 20 years get its data from? AI devs already complain that they dont have enough data sets after scraping the whole internet.
@@happytofu5 I can't wait for model collapse to teach us all a lesson, that there is nothing intelligent about AI.
Cope-a-Cabana
This is just coping, it's only a matter of time you can't escape ai
THIS is just coping. It's only a matter of time. You can't escape, AI.
the main thing I think of is, are we going to try to outright ban generative tools then? is that a realistic goal?
Trying to ban mere use of technology on the grounds of "I don't like it" tends not to go well at all, and absorbs political capital like a black hole. Compounded by the fact that many such systems can also out-debate you on the matter at this point. Regulating clear-cut abuse of said tech, on the other hand? Smooth sailing in comparison. The art community needs to listen to lawyers and legal analysts more, and activists less.
You sure that it's not or-TEEZ?
It is pronounced or-TEES, with the last syllable rhyming with peace. When it ends in a vowel, N, or S, which most Spanish words do, the second-to-last syllable is stressed by default. Otherwise, the last syllable is stressed by default. Unless accent marks indicate otherwise.
The Z-sound we have in English, doesn't exist in Spanish. It's just a softer variant of an S-sound.
@@carultch Damn too bad I don't speak Spanish
Good, i mean if companies had any hesitance and made the most token efforts there , they probably have a way out, and if not, wtf are you doing. No companies did isnt an excuse. And that , conspt artist is great for fighting it wher ecooperations get the message, court and sueing.
And the actual artist, ok not publisher.
Also nice there was that unspoken agreement of fanworks mentioned, and that its if tolerated as free pr. Which is different! Without profit i mean ot straight up replacing an active newer game
how do I loin stream
Artists are in denial. AI art looks better than human art. The only people who disagree are the artists.
What's it like to be wrong
@@apollofell3925Just ask yourself
@@justinlloyd3 Nah fam that's you. My grandma can tell the difference.
@@apollofell3925Not true. Abd certainly not true in 2 years.
@@justinlloyd3 that's what y'all said two years ago
oh it will make art. Just not good ones
So I can't make a song that sort of sounds like lithium by Cobain? Also your hair looks nice
Call it Potassium.
I don't see any copyright infringement here at all. Nothing is being copied, just used for learning (people do that too). The generated images are independent works. I am not even infringing copyright if I integrate other images into my own work as long as the newly created work largely eclipses the other images.
Incorrect, as LLMs don't poses intelligence, but just vomit pixels from noise patterns
The opposite of a human making decisions based on inspirations
@@nyatske Define intelligence. Define inspiration. You are throwing around very complex terms without building any coherent argument from them. If just random pixels are “vomited”, as you believe, that speaks even more against any kind of copyright infringement.
@@yasminesteinbauer8565 I read that in a weepy Jordan Peterson voice. Its absolutely something he would say
@@elvingearmasterirma7241 I don't know who that is and what the connection to the topic is.
@@yasminesteinbauer8565 He is a very silly, sad, little man who uses the phrase
Define _ insert word here _ a lot
It is pedantry in an attempt to make your argument appear more intelligent and coherent than it actually is
im not watching all that, The article making lies about ai art and this dude being smug doesn't help....
AI images are not art
@@enravotaboyadjiev7466 LOL
This video just repeats pieces of texts stolen from the internet. Even AI could do better.
Would be stolen if they would just tell the text without showing where the quotes are from, like generative AI would do. This is a sum up where you can clearly see and look up all the sources from twitter accounts to news papers.
@@whittenbourg I thought it is a theft when the original author does not get any compensation. The LAION dataset is also a list of sources, there is nothing hidden.
Cope and seethe lmao
@@vladimirnadvornik8254 I think Reid Southern gave her consent to read his posts.
It's super important that we shut down all art schools immediately! Brainwashing kids to take inspiration from other artists is genuinely disgusting.
I also think we should blind anyone who aspires to become an artist. That's the only way we can ensure that each piece of art is uniquely made by an individual.
Come to think of it, we also need to deafen anyone who wants to play music.
It's like you came from a different video about AI art and just regurgitated their talking points
@@apollofell3925 I've watched literally 0 videos on AI about art since Midjourney came out; what, two years ago? 😂
You know people are capable of forming their own opinions, right? You should try it someday
@@christianjensen952 Actually the difference between your opinion and mine is that mine's informed. You haven't watched a single video on AI in two years? Or read a single article about it? Shows exactly how much you know.
@@apollofell3925 You don't need to watch any videos AT ALL to have an opinion about this. I just for fun made chatgpt paint me a picture with the following prompt:
"Please paint me a half-length portrait of a woman with an enigmatic smile. She has dark, shoulder-length hair, parted in the middle, and wears a dark, simple dress with delicate folds. Her hands are gracefully crossed in front of her, resting on the arm of a chair. Behind her is a soft, atmospheric landscape featuring winding paths, a bridge, and distant mountains. The overall tone of the painting is warm, with golden hues and soft lighting that highlights the woman's face. Her eyes gaze directly at the viewer, exuding a calm and mysterious expression. The style should emulate the Renaissance, with subtle sfumato (smoky blending of colors) and soft edges."
It didn't give me the Mona Lisa? I did a reverse image search on Tineye.com, 0 matches.
We humans can get inspired by going to the museum, then paint something similar, and people wouldn't lose their shit. If I were to write a fantasy book set in a magical world with otherworldly creatures, I'm not ripping off J.K. Rowling.
If you're going to use ad hominem garbage, at least make sure you have a solid argument, idiot.
Dear god
You can train AI on images submitted with consent for that specific use, so one of the points in the title is just wrong
Also lots of art has been made before that included automation or algorithms, and it is considered such, so the rest of it is wrong too
Part one, ai isn't going to make art: ai is incapable of creating new content only amalgamating existing content and slapping poorly designed filters on it, so that's tru.
Part two of the title, it can't exist without theft. Also objectively true. Every public ai image generator was trained on millions of peices of art stolen from artists without consent and used to generate profit by utilizing said stolen artwork.
There is no part three of the title. Sooooo, how exactly is the whole title incorrect?
@@andrewpotts7952 I literally just explained.
>Amalgamating existing content and slapping filters
You don't know how it works, go learn. It can also absolutely create things that didn't exist in the training data, obviously, so idk what you mean by "incapable of creating new content". If that's not new, neither is anything humans create.
>Stolen without consent
Setting aside the use of the word steal here (cuz you know, it implies something going missing), i know for a fact that open neural networks like stable diffusion were trained on datasets obtained with consent, they didn't just scrape all the images they could off the internet, it's done with more thought than that
I guess the outrage initially was because the tech was so new, nobody could imagine a program trained on their art mimicking their style(thus nobody looked twice at terms of service on the websites they used), which is understandably upsetting
Which is why more modern networks like SDXL, FLUX lack this artist mimicry altogether in favor of more generic styles and genres
@@andrewpotts7952 Tell me, how did Alpha Zero create chess strategies that were superior to man made ones? How did it create? It wasn't trained on any data, so by your logic this shouldn't be possible. You need to realize that there are different kinds of AIs, some are capable of generating innovations, which is creative.
@@erikshure360it didn't create chess strategies are you 14 😭😭😭 chess has a very finite number of strategies to respond to every scenario, the machine just has more active memory than a human so it can memorise all of them and calculate which one will being the best outcome, that isn't intelligence or coming up with strategies or intelligence, it's just memorization and calculation which is what computers are made to do, compute
The idea that self expression and ideas could be automated is preposterous. art pieces that involve mechanism are art because they reflect something about the creator. gen art does not . Furthermore ethical generative ai cannot exist because it is taking intricate by products of human agency and automate it without it's fundamental essence this account for poesy photographs films voices written and vocal communication thoughts and also art it is an insult to all craft and all humans because it's steals from all aspects of human existence and imitate. No artist worth his salt would ever adopt such a tool that would allow him to reap the rewards for something he didn't do, this is a disgrace and the opposite of art to take creativity and meaning and put it through a process that rid it of it's intention and meaning by trying to replictate it
You can't exist without theft as an artist, it is just as of yet, they can't prove it. I guarantee within the next 10 years head scanning device and they're going to go.: "Hey, look at that. You looked at this picture and this artist and that artist and you incorporated all this into your artwork. There's nothing original about any of this. "Mark my words. You artists are going to find a way to tear the other one down in this declining food scraps fight
Really? You think artists are going to sue eachother over their various pantings of, say, the Eiffel Tower? Who would have the copyright on impressionism, exactly? How do you sort out the IP rights for people influenced by Van Gough's work now that it's in the public domain?