I've made it to the end and have four points to bring up. I'm glad you brought up the "Idea Guy". I think everyone who makes something has met an idea guy. They have no interest in actually doing the work to learn to create, but they have an idea and it's obviously a better idea than what you, as an actual creative who has put the blood, sweat, and tears to get good, can come up with. What makes it worse is that 99% of idea guys don't even have good ideas. Example: Shadow of the Conqueror. This point kind of ties into the same group of people I mentioned in another comment here, the Nerdrotic crew and specifically the ones who are proponents of generative ai. These same people have railed against hollywood and the mainstream for being creatively bankrupt and being consoomers for years. Shad specifically. But isn't his entire argument about ai just pure consumption of empty, thoughtless, soulless product? Has he addressed this point or is it just an "strawman" or "poisoning the well" or any of the other argument dismissers he uses without actually seeming to know what they mean? Shad and other AI zealots like to make this point that "Good" artists, whatever that is in their warped view of reality, won't have anything to worry about and should just welcome the professional AI prompt writers into their ranks. What they don't like to acknowledge is the absolute deluge of ai trash that is being spewed onto places like deviant art and art forums where budding artists are trying to realize their passion for creation. Even if the ai trash is ignored by 90% of people, it is still washing out the real artists and pushing their work artificially to the bottom of the page. I think most creatives have a few points in their career where someone encouraged them after seeing an absolutely awful piece of art that they produced after picking up blender or sai for the first time. Some random kind soul saw the horrible oc do not steal on the internet and went "Imma gas them up a little" and went and left a positive comment about their work. Just a single positive comment can ignite a passion inside a brand new artist that will fuel their creativity for the rest of their life. How many of these artists are posting their work, having zero response because they are filtered out by the ai spammers who can produce hundreds of empty images an hour and flood media with them, and then deciding that maybe art isn't for them? Ai is killing a generation of artists. Last point, and one I haven't seen any real commentary on. Why doesn't it seem like anyone asked shad how long he's been using AI? When he answers a few months or a year and a half or whatever it is, why don't they immediately demand to know why he thinks he's even close to mastering such a complex and skillful art form to the point that he's even qualified to debate veteran artists with 10-20 years in their chosen field? If he dares respond truthfully, which is that he feels he has mastered it, push him into the floor by letting him know that a truly skillful art form can't be mastered in a few months. If it can, then it's not really that skillful, is it? Why don't five star gourmet restaurants hire the fry cook from the Wendy's a few blocks over instead of some hoity toity chef that went to culinary school and has spent fifteen years in the trade? Probably because anyone is qualified to be a fry cook. Same thing with AI art. That's why you get a shit sandwich from them when they try to create. Alright, I'm done ranting. These saturday vids are doing a great job at riling me up dude. Have a great weekend!
When I was 17, I was learning how to create 3d levels for Half-Life 2 and Counter-Strike and other source engine games. I was a regular at level design forums, and we had a long running meme about "projacts" spelled wrong. So, basically there were young and passionate guys who knew completely nothing about creating mods for games, but they HAD AN IDEA. And each and everyone of them had a very similar history on the forums. They posted nothingburgers to unlock the ability to start new topics. Immediately after that, each and everyone of them started a topic called something like "RECRUITING INTO A TEAM TO CREATE A MOD CALLED X". And in the topic each and everyone of them pitched the latest wet dream they had, that usually didn't have even a basic story or an original idea. The only thing they had in mind was some cool scene with main character who was usually a self-insert. Not a single one had any skills related to creating game assets. None of them had even a basic idea of how development is structured. So, complete nobodies with no skills and no volition to start learning them or writing a basic design document created topics with cool/edgy team name and cool/edgy mod name to ask people with skills to join their "team". When asked "And what do you have already?" they wrote long funny posts with how they imagine the things to be on release with flashy effects and cool one-liners pronounced by the main character. When asked "And what can you do?" they replied "I can write the story and direct the feature creation". Then they all also asked for programmers, 3D-modelers, texture artists and level designers. Also, of course, they all intended to be "projact" leaders. This was the "idea guy" invasion in it's purest form, and our forum kept a dedicated topic with a list of "projacts" presented as a ongoing series with short summary about funniest author's comments. The wrong spelling was related to lack of education, of course. All of my respect towards shadiversity is lost after watching his out of touch entitled takes on the topic. He isn't an artist, he doesn't have an artistic eye, and he doesn't have any skills related to creative process. He isn't a creative. He is an immature brat in adult body who wants to have shiny thing but doesn't want to put any effort into getting it. Now that generative AI is a real thing, he can get his shiny thing without putting any effort, but now that he got the shiny thing it's not enough. Now he wants to brag that his free shiny thing is actually an achievement and that he is a "skilled" and "talented" visionary. He is an embarassment to human creativity, not because of what he does, but because of how he tries to present it as something he created when all he did is waited for technology to appear, waited for art to be stolen, and waited for people's original art to be stolen, only to randomly generate a mishmash of stolen works and brag about it.
I was gonna show you a tweet of someone asking "How did anyone write essays before A.I?" But it ended my braincells so I didn't want yours to end either.
It ended your braincells? Would you say the same if the tweet referred to the web/internet? How about books? Do you have an issue with text correction tools like grammerly? Do you have a problem with people using other humans to review their work? AI is another tool...
@@spookyfirst9514 disagreeing with someone's opinion isn't being "bothered", it's just discussion. I'm not the one complaining about it or how people choose to/not to use it. Frankly, I'm all for choice and find this resistance both futile and not in humanity's best interest. Artists don't get paid well, not in general. Art shouldn't be made for corperate greed or even general profit really. That's just poison to art. All of this just gives more ability to people, which is good.
@Gerlaffy just a tool? I feel this is a flawed perspective, generative ai seems much closer to commissioned work. Its not really your creation, you just had imput into aspects of its creation. You really shouldn't be allowed to put your name on it.
Like... yeah? That's like one of the main points of admiring art and writing, relating a human experience and understanding as a form of communication.@@ChannelMath
@@TimeKitt exactly. It's one of the main points, not the only one. We don't know the context of this "saying", but I'm just the kind of person who likes to point out exceptions to general statements. For example, I really think that, on average, AI would improve the effectiveness of directions on how to use electronics that were manufactured in non-English countries
@@ChannelMath the fact that it was made by a person its already worthy in itself it doesnt need to go futher if you dont care enough. Also basically anything created have its value/worth influenced by who made it and it was made.
@@sabaoempo2320 I'm not sure I agree that a single word (to take the extreme case) has any value just because a human wrote it. I think a paragraph written by AI probably has more value and more creativity than that. We all understand that the things AI writes are really just the writings of actual people, just reassembled by the algorithm, right? You wouldn't consider music coming through a crackly, tinny radio to have no value just because a machine is doing a poor job of processing it. (you might not be aware of just how complicated and intentional this processing is which tries to recreate the incomplete data it receives of the music)
If one hired 1000s of untrained locals, instructed them to produce an image based off the ouvre of a veteran painter, they did so, and then that employer proclaimed themself an "artist" or a "craftsman" they would be lying and everyone would note it. They are a commissioner. Same goes for those who use "ai" image gen.
The machine has nothing to say. It takes inputs and generates outputs. You can argue that the person entering prompts has a message they wish to share with the world. But they can't hone that message, they can't integrate their own experience and ideation into the product. All the AI Bro can do is settle for the thing closest to their idea, a reasonable facsimile of what they wanted to share. They can tweak it, but since they'll never be the proper origin of the output, they'll never have the precision to completely reform or transform what they get, only smudge it. All that AI ultimately is for an artist is giving up and taking a consolation prize.
I'm not an artist, nor would I use AI professionally, so I may not be exactly who you're talking about, but I'd like to push back a bit. I suck at art, but for my hobby (tabletop roleplaying) I love to have character art. I tried to spend money on this, commissioning professional artists, but the outcome in most cases was way behind what I had in my head. I moved on to mashing art found on the internet, which got me closer to my ideas, but still relied on finding the next best thing - also felt like stealing, even if I didn't ever use it outside of a private friend group. AI finally gave me a way to generate really close to what I want and then mash it together and fix it in photoshop, that I actually see my mental picture on the screen. Think this is a legitimate view or am I wrong to feel like this?
@@vex1669Not to be rude but if you hired an artist and they didn't deliver what you wanted they failed you, or you did not make what you wanted very clear. This isn't entirely the fault of the consumers either artists also need to build trust with people and deliver what people want when they are hired. Now that said customers of art need to have discussions and make sure they get what they want from artists. I don't blame you for turning to AI if it was a bad experience with an artist but AI will 100% not be as close to your vision as a good artist can get. Even better if you learned how to make it yourself you have an even greater control of creative freedom than AI could ever give. So to me AI is exploitative, but accountability rests on everyone.
@@booleah6357 I don't wanna place blame anywhere, especially not on real artists. I tried to learn to draw, put in a few hundred hours and failed - didn't even make any significant progress. To me, AI is a key to a world that was more or less closed to me. Finally I can get close to what is in my head with the tools I already have. And if I have to mash together 5 AI pictures that are semi-good and paint over a few errors or splice in a photo of a hand, that's still a lot less work than what I had to do before. To me, it feels empowering and it's making me MORE of an (hobby-)artist than I'd otherwise be. But that's just a single perspective based on my own feelings.
@@vex1669 So yes, learning art can be difficult but a few hundred hours is a very short time to try something before just giving up. To put that in perspective that's only around 12 days that's less than two weeks. Have you learned other skills in under two weeks? Of course you didn't see much progress especially if you didn't have a teacher or anyone keeping you from pitfalls. AI then becomes a crutch to you because now you aren't actually creating what you want without the help of the machine. Take that compared to taking the time to actually learn and then you could create whatever you want whenever you want. Sure not as fast but it will be exactly yours and you stroke me as a person that would care about specifics considering your first post. If you removed the AI you literally could still not create anything. I don't say that to disparage either but you really haven't tried for very long.
@@booleah6357Artists are slower, cost more, less adaptable, more likely to fall into biases/artstyles they have and you can't have them make dozens until you find one that's right. AI won't be as close as the artist could be to the vision, it will be much closer.
My dad was a construction worker. He built custom dome ceilings in our house because he's a very skilled construction worker and he understood the math and how to do it. There are also kits you can use to put together for dome ceilings. There's a very big difference between what my dad can do and what someone using a kit can do. Is a kit convenient? Sure. They're MEANT to be easy. But you would never look at someone who uses a kit and compare that to my dad. My dad could run circles around the person relying on a kit. He could build the domes any way he wanted. He could make waves if he wanted to. To me, this is like someone presenting themselves as a construction worker and all they do is use pre-made kits. They can't do anything else, only what's already packaged and sold to them. Even if they used AI legitimately, and owned all the rights, they need to understand the difference between what they're capable of and what someone skilled is capable of. The biggest actual issue is the theft. Beyond the theft, it's just people being annoyed at the arrogance. If someone showed up on my dad's job site saying they were a construction worker, and it turned out they could only build kits, he would slap them silly! People who say they play around with AI for fun and just like to mess with it don't get dogpiled. It's just people who try to present themselves as artists that do because of the sheer audacity.
If a robot showed up on his construction site, stronger, fully aware of the entire structure and it's integrity, could perfectly place and secure components and do all that faster... Your dad would be impressed and could, if he wanted to, put his feet up and relax.
@@Gafferman Sure. That's not even remotely close to what's happening, but of course, he wouldn't want to do hard manual labor carrying hundreds of pounds many stories up. But none of the machines do that. Nor is that comparable to what's happening with the image generators. That would be more like if you took two blueprints, pasted them together, and then called yourself an architect. The machine that glued them together DOESN'T understand what they are. The person who told the machine to do it also doesn't understand how it's done. Credit isn't given to the people who did make them and do understand. But it sure was fast! Too bad some of the doors lead to nowhere and there's a brick wall outside of the window. But it's fast! And effortless!
@@SugarThymeAh, I see you're not aware. This is exactly what's happening, that's what these image and video generators are, foundations to the understanding of the world, ideas, concepts and physics. They are steps to AGI and if your Dad worked today then he would soon be able to have a robot companion to help. There's also pretty clear proof that AI models do understand concepts, ideas and general notions just as we do... Have you ever tried speaking to one of the latest ones? As for credit, I like credit but frankly this is greater than ego, greater than individuals. Just like you are the product of those that came before you, genetically and culturally, you don't really go around crediting them and neither will AGI.
@@Gafferman You've been tricked. Those generators don't understand anything. They have no self-awareness. They don't know what the images are. Nor do the text ones understand. They're filling in the most likely word to come next based on data sets. "I am alive" might trick you, but I know it's just gibberish that looks like it has meaning. The machine doesn't have thought behind it, just data sets. There are no brains involved. No intelligence. They aren't thinking.
@Gerlaffy And if a dragon flew down and built the building instead, we'd get the same outcome. I love DnD too and we can play hypotheticals and make believe all day long, but that's a horrible argument. As for the AI understanding, I think that's a load of BS. The AI doesn't understand, the AI just does what its programmed to do. It's not even a real artificial intelligence. It's a virtual assistant program the same way siri is, just a bit more advanced. It's not capable of anywhere close to the same level of thought as a human being. I also dont think even if it was a real learning AI we should be embracing it. Kirkpattiecake was right in that people like you and the AI bro ilk are evil. Either willfully or ignorantly youre siding against the human race for no other reason than a false sense of moral and intellectual superiority. The human race doesnt need to be replaced by machines just because the AI and tech crowd thinks they can, and the fact that people like you are so eager and willing for it to happen is just sad. Do you not even have any pride as a human? Do you truly just see yourself as a bag of meat and bones that can be so easily replaced by a computer program? A program I might add had to be built and updated and maintained by the same lowly humans you think can so easily be replaced.
The contrast between someone like Shad with zero artistic talent on the screen next to Regan, who has a lot of natural artistic talent and passion, is glaring. When someone like Regan sees a bad piece of art or AI art, he will instantly recognize the low artistic expression and quality. Shad just doesn't see the difference between slop and art because he has zero artistic ability. This is a bit like the more proficient an artist you are, the more mistakes you are able to see. 11:48 You are mistaken if you think that the pushback on AI will have a positive effect. Big Tech wants restrictions and laws passed against AI because it allows them to bar any opposition or small company or individual from participating, and they will still be able to simply continue their own work. Google or Microsoft (companies that are provably evil) have no problem paying fines in the millions; it will not stop them at all. That is why every time generative image AI is brought up, Stable Diffusion is named first; it's the FOSS option, and you can use it for whatever you want, like building tools to inject AI poison into your art to protect it from being used in AI datasets. There are many examples of this in history. Did you know, for example, that Big Oil itself is the one who started and is to this day the main force behind the "green revolution"? They brought these regulations onto themselves to kill off any competition, and they ultimately dumped the cost they inflicted upon themselves onto the little guy via gas prices, but they gained enormous extra income and control via all the CO2 tax. I know the TV promises that all this Green Revolution stuff will at least reduce evil oil consumption in the future, but it doesn't; all it does is increase your grocery prices. Big Tech is playing by the exact same playbook; they want people angry, and then people will think it's a win when they introduce fines of 100 million dollars for creating an AI model with copyrighted datasets. 100 mil is nothing but pocket lint for these entities. The theft argument is weak; the theft has already occurred, and they don't need to create these datasets in such a grey way; these big companies can easily pay for the copyright. 24:31 LMAO, I find Shad utterly fascinating. I have never seen someone with such enormous amounts of negative talent claiming they are artistic. Even with the most powerful AI tools at his disposal, he hasn't managed to produce a single decent artwork. Someone needs to break this poor guy's delusion and tell him that he will never be able to produce art and should pursue something less creative, like accounting. 1:28:40 100% disagree. Art is allowed to be hateful and should not have a default focus on bringing people together. Biting satire, edgy works, and art made to only appeal to specific groups are all valid. For example, the WW1 propaganda drawings depicting German soldiers goose-stepping with babies impaled on their bayonets are definitely dehumanizing to the highest degree, but it is still a piece of art. Hyper-masculine action movies aimed at boys or hyper-feminine romance novels aimed at girls do not try to bring people together; they are art that tries to cater to a specific group.
@@spookyfirst9514 If you read some of the crazy stuff they write and what they claim to believe, it seems like what they personally desire is to control the innermost thoughts of every person in the world. Bill has authored some creepy books, provided you can endure the dullness of most of it. Some are even crazier; they are literal religious doomsday cultists, discussing how Edom, aka the West, needs to be completely destroyed for the Mashiach to come. It's pretty scary to think about the kinds of people who have become the oligarchy of the world.
As this issue works its way through the courts and governments wait for their committees to investigate solutions, I think it's time for artist to look at ways to fight back. Like investing in the Glaze project and software that will protect art from being trained. We artists should be prepared in case we lose.
I do worry that Glaze type things are only good for current models, and a tiny bit of adversarial training will be done then the glaze or poison for those works is obsolete and they get it anyways.
@@TimeKitt True. Artists should get behind advancement of things like Glaze. We should be prepared to back anything that can stop our art from being stolen.
@TimeKitt that is true it already happened with some, I believe. But for everyone that gets stopped, more are made. Not only artists but people in general, sick of what AI has been doing, have created a market for software like that. So what will likely happen, assuming the government and courts dont do anything, is a long drawn out back and forth between AI and those who are against it dueling with technology. That or we as artists collectively go back to traditional work, but that isn't really ideal or realistic for professionals in todays world.
AI reminds me of that conversation in the game Soma: Simon: "Indians believed that pictures could steal your soul." Dr. Munshi: "In this case, they would be right." This conversation happened when Simon had his mind cloned and saved to a computer.
I think the confusion about what art actually is comes as a consequence of post-modernism and movements like DaDa. They reduced the meaning of it to nothing. Now it's about mental gymnastics, posturing, and banking. However, the human mind is hardwired to respond and connect to real art. Since human nature does not change, the meaning of real art won't be changed by current trends and hype. We have a tendency to dilute ourselves till everything crashes, then we revert back to fundamentals.
Hello. I love this video. I know it's already out for a few months. I rarely leave comment on the internet because i'm scared and don't like internet comment fight. But, i think i have a personal story that's related to this topic i want to share. Sorry for my bad english. I was once an "idea guy" and thought that my idea was special. I was bossy too at one time. But, these past few years i took that art journey in college. And i'm glad that i do. I think learning art and music really change the way i look at creative stuff. Now, i value the process both the fun and unfun parts of it, not just the result. I used to think that art is this thing that only talented people can do. But during the journey i realized that everyone can do it as long as you put the hour to it. It is hard at the begining because everything i made look terrible. But, as time passes it does get better as long as i take criticism and grow from my mistake. And eventually it reach this point where i start having fun expressing myself with the process, not just the result. Eventually, one of my character art made it to my college exhibition. I want to keep improving and make better stuff in the future. If you are also an idea guy like me in the past, please consider the art journey a shot? It is hard, but it will be worth it. Thank you, sorry, if i yapp to much.
You've just helped the world advance forwards and get us closer to a better world for everyone so don't feel like you did anything wrong. Honestly the anti-AI sentiment just comes from fear and insecurity. A good writer and artist will always be one, shouldn't be about money.
You seem to be confused, I feel great about providing accessability. I hate that it was used for the puirposes of scraping the images of myself and all my friends who did not consent to this.@@Gafferman
@@TimeKitt I'm not sure what it is you feel you needed to consent to, if you've put your work out there then anyone, including AI can look at it if they want. If anything, feel good that you and your friends are now part of the rich tapestry of culture. This is no different from you just sharing it on the web. Your work isn't being specifically chosen and abused. It's just datapoints to help others create.
I don't know what it is about videos generated with Sora, but they make me physically queasy. I've never gotten that with any other videos. Maybe it's the frame-rate, interlacing, or impossible perspectives, but I wonder if anyone else experiences this and what kind of physical side effects it might have. Like, imagine they use it in advertisements and plaster it everywhere, and it makes some people sick or disoriented (assuming they don't fix it somehow). Writing my own sci-fi here...
Same. I get terrible motion sickness with almost all video games, and it's the same with what few Sora videos I've watched. (Don't get me started on VR--that's a flat NO.) I am not alone in this kind of reaction. I don't think VR is going to be as big a deal as it's been hyped either.
The soullessness of it is palpable. Despite how "realistic"(not really) theyre able to make it look it doesnt have any work, passion, of creativity put into it and humans can see it. Its unnatural. Anyone saying otherwise is either an AI bro who loves this stuff anyway, or people who have no artistic background and just find it interesting, and even they say it feels weird to look at usually.
@@spookyfirst9514 Glad to hear I'm not alone. Never had motion sickness in my life, but this could be a major issue for people who do if companies start using it ads or worse--training videos. I've about had it with all this AI bs going around, and it seems to be getting worse. But I'm glad channels like KirkpattieCake address the issues in actually intelligent and informative ways. Half of the people who I know to use or consume content produced by GenAI aren't aware of all the problems around it and these videos help bring awareness. VR is dead. It died once back in the 60s when it was first tried, and it died again now despite all the hype. Until it can be pulled off in a practical, affordable package with all the bugs worked out, I don't see it taking off. Questions of its usefulness aside.
What's truly fascinating about Shad, most of his life is spent on talking about weapons and armor. But then after generative AI got started, all of sudden he acts like he's been this artistic genius/expert for many years. Despite showing zero interest in any creative medium/field (besides his novel) over the years.
24:48 He just cannot accept that the program is what got better--not his 'skill'. If he took the time he wastes on prompts and just practiced drawing--he wouldn't need AI. And no, I don't 'hate' AI. I don't 'fear' or harbor 'panic' over it. It's the latest shiny toy people are trying to use for everything in order to discover where it will 'fit'. I remember how people used to give computer graphics the stink eye. (Yes, I'm that old.) Then it was Photoshop, and on to CGI. AI isn't going to be good for art in the long run, but I'm betting it will be great for collating reams of data for a clinical trial, or assist in chemistry for manufacturing. (Key word being assist.) "I don't need to use AI art, man. I can actually draw." So can I. Shad can draw--he just doesn't want to. He'll never convince professional artists he's as good, because he simply refuses to put in the effort.
Shad’s insistence that you still need talented artists to work with AI to make “quality product” is like saying you still need master chefs to cook your beef wellington before you spurt ketchup all over it, so that other aspiring chefs can make “quality food” by drowning their recipes in ketchup.
Why are they always one about this Shad dude anyway? Is it their ex or something? He's literally just one guy with no particular importance in all of this...
@@Gafferman he had a big platform to scree off and a bunch of fans who took what he said religiously.That the problem, a liar spreading disinformation. Since these videos are made Shad's channels did took a hit in growth, so they did do something.
@@Gafferman Shad puts himself out there as a gadfly to keep his channels viable. He's doing what he does to keep the bills paid. I don't have to agree with his views to understand that.
@fy Why can't people criticize others? Why do you try to shame others into silence? Such as falsely accusing Kirk of that Shad is her ex and that she hates him for that. That's gross too. You were projecting. Also, Shad has already been married with kids. In this video, Kirk mentioned Shad's wife cause she said Shad likes to self insert himself and his wife. Shad has a big platform and says terrible things that should be criticized. Kirk criticizes others too. Just because you may not know Shad doesn't mean he doesn't have a big platform and influences others. There's comments on Shad's videos who blindly follow him and are his fans. Idk if you want to or support people stealing people's art or content, and that you hid behind vilifying, falsely accusing, and painting Kirk as hysterical or vengeful to try to invalidate her critique. Other comments here agreed with Kirk too. Kirk said at the beginning she speaks out cause she's very passionate about this activism. That's why.
Omg, I've been watching your backlog a bit while I have time, (really need to jump in your discord server haha), you mentioning my book (Origin of the Sky) months after reading it is so sweet, you're the best, you inspire me to continue to make. That's sort of the note I have too with AI, I've been in a depressive spiral, and it is linked to AI stuff pretty strongly. I don't know, going on google for image reference and finding nothing but AI horrors, reading the cruelty AI bros have to sling at us folk that never did anything to them, hell, I like coding too, consider myself a coder. It all just hurts the soul and I feel incapable of being seen or heard. I have to remember what you say, and what other creatives have said to keep going. It's not about money, or success. It's for the betterment of my soul, for the good I can do, the gifts I can give back, and because we are unique, and our gifts are unique. No one is going to make what we are destined to make, and we cheapen the world and ourselves if we give up. Thanks again, wishing you the best always
I think about your book all the time. One of my top reads last year and I recommend it to everyone I can. If I can ever help you keep motivated or springboard anxiety or anything, feel free to hit me up. I admire your work and the moment I saw it and read it, I thought that you are one of the special voices of our time.
The hilarious thing about modern scripts and writing is that it's not bad because people are horrible at writing all the sudden. Modern writing is horrible because it's mostly done by a committee that dictate the story and what element must be shoved in there. Along with hiring writers for their politics rather than skill/experience and a willingness to follow those dictates. It's "writing" on a factory setting, meant for producing slop. And in their AI writing utopia, there is no writer, there is only the committee. Every problem people have with Hollywood, Disney, marvel, gaming, comics, etc. If AI takes over it will be so, so, so much worse. The corrupt system made far more decedant by the people who believe that they're tearing it down. And there will be no "Our version of captain America" By cutting costs these companies will have the resources to safe guard their IPs to a far greater strength than ever before. The best bet for these prompters is to attempt creating their own IPs, which will not only get get drowned out by every other prompter, but also these monolithic companies who will churn out slop on mass. Probably buying out any independent with pennies before they have a chance to approach competition, and these independents would sell because that's the best one could hope in this environment.
Pal world was accused of AI, and the lead developer is supportive of AI. The consensus based on research and unofficial investigation is that generative AI was likely not used, or at least used sparingly. The thing people really don’t like is how much palworld has clearly copied various games from a design and conceptual level. Games like Ark, Pokemon, Zelda, Elden Ring, etc., have been pretty blatantly copied, but with small twists and variations. It’s certainly a grey area in that regard, but not gen AI.
I’ve put a fair amount of time into playing Palworld because my older brother downloaded it onto my Xbox so I went into completely blind. To summarize my opinion on the game is that while it doesn’t do anything inherently wrong (from a gameplay standpoint) I can’t help but feel it just doesn’t do anything at all other than take elements from other games and just mix them together. After my time I was curious as to what people thought about the pal designs and how so many felt like they were Pokémon fusions only to find out how big it was as well as well as how many bad faith arguments were being thrown around due to Gamefreak’s short comings with their games.
@lennysmileyface Its not wrong in the same way directly stealing a copyrighted piece of the game would be. But it is pretty scummy and is a valid reason to critique the game and say it doesnt deserve the praise that it gets
@@joetheschmoe1066Yeah it’s a bit hard to explain the feeling of a game not doing much to give it its own identity in a gameplay sense (as artistically I can’t even say it has an identity is there but I won’t harp on that too much because early access). My best way of describing what I feel is to look at their previous game (and from what I’ve seen from their other games) is to compare the phrases “it’s like that one game” and “it’s just that one game”. For the former thought you can tell where the original inspiration came from but also see what’s done to make it its own thing (a good example would be lies of p and what it does that differentiates itself from bloodborne). The latter gives you the sense that while it’s taking elements from a specific game or genre it doesn’t do enough to make it its own and differentiate from the crowd. Even though Palworld takes from many different genres and games and puts them together it still constantly provokes the feeling of “oh this is that game and that’s just like that other game” as it doesn’t do much with those gameplay elements. Looking at Craftopia (their previous open world survival and crafting game that is still in early access) is guilty of doing the same thing but on a much higher scale. Then there’s the AI art game which is just a basic deductive reasoning game but with ai art and Never Grave which looks incredibly similar to Hollow Knight in both the gameplay and art department (but giving the last two games the benefit of the doubt I am basing this on what I’ve seen and heard about the game). It seems that most if not all of what pocketpair has published always feels as if it was made to profit off of what is popular at the time
@@lennysmileyface The danger is that if I can just copy what other games do with almost no original additions to them, even if I coded everything, I still copied another game. For example, if I typed out a copy of The Lord Of The Rings, but I made sure to change the names of the fantasy races, change the names of the characters change the names of the locations, etc., but I kept the entire plot and story the same, is that an original work just because I typed the whole story out myself and changed the names of stuff? I would argue no, that’s not original. Pal world is sort of an amalgam of several different games, but treats those games the way I treated LOTR in my example. It is bordering on plagiarism for sure.
It's honestly fascinating that the collective careers of his entire little online circle only exist to complain about how the most popular and successful media that currently exists is all slop made by people who don't know what they're doing and have no appreciation or real expertise in their work (without going into the more political side of things, his whole channel's built around how pop culture doesn't understand medieval equipment and keeps using it wrong), and despite this, despite that he only has a platform or anyone to hang out with on that platform because they all collectively agree that slop keeps being made and consumed more than quality works... He still somehow has the balls to claim that A.I. is not a problem, because if A.I. were to create slop, then people just wouldn't consume it, and anyone who disagrees with that is a hypocrite. I don't even have the words for what kind of low brow comedy tier logic that is. This is the kind of shit that they'd have the stupidest possible character say in a movie aimed at children because even 4 year olds could spot the logical inconcistency.
I can't be fully against ghostwriters thanks to the existence of Modelland, that ghostwriter had Tyra breathing down the back of her neck and haunting her dreams I'm sure.
Only 25 minutes into the video, so I'll probably have more comments later, but I just needed to stop on the Shad quote of remaking wheel of time to actually be good before I lose my train of thought. This is gonna be a huge tangent, so stay with me! There used to be this "There I Fixed It" cult on DeviantArt back in the day. What these artists would do is take other peoples' art, unrequested, and "fix" it. Every art form had its group of fixers. At the time it was just annoying, you had people redrawing others' characters and calling them "fixed" like there was something wrong with their drawing to begin with. You also had writers rewriting works, completely changing the message, omitting huge parts, or adding in their own characters and plot points and then saying it was fixed. As I got older and developed some more philosophical thinking skills, I realized that these fixers weren't actually fixing anything, they were ripping someone else's work and then saying theirs was better (sound familiar?). They were taking everything that made the art art, stripping it away, and replacing it with an empty image on the screen that meant absolutely nothing to them while insulting the creator by saying that they weren't good enough to make art. Fast forward, and I'm seeing much of the same issue in this media critic sphere that has risen up in the last couple years. Basically the Nerdrotic sphere (just calling it that because Nerdrotic is probably the biggest podcast for this group and they all kind of congregate there). While I really enjoy some of their critiques and commentary, they do aggravate me sometimes when they want to "Fix" other peoples' work. I'm sorry if you enjoyed the franchise at one point and are not enjoying it now. We all know how it feels when the owner of an IP takes it in a direction we don't like. But that doesn't give us any right to fix it. There is nothing to fix, it is what the artist wanted it to be. If you don't like it, that sucks, move on. You have no right to it just because you like it. Also! Shad's comparison of 3d design to using generative AI turns my stomach. I'm a 3d artist, and a pretty good one if I may toot my own horn. Thankfully I don't do it professionally because I would be terrified right now. But to say it takes as much skill to create a model as it does to type a prompt into an ai generator is just an attack on artists. I doubt he even knows what normals are if I were to ask him. He thinks he's some god artist, though, because he can download and kitbash other peoples' 3d assets and use a crude render as a basis for his AI trash like he did with that twitter "Challenge" piece he did with the sword girl. He reeks of someone who made it to the part where art gets hard and he doesn't have a natural talent to skip to being good and now wants to fill in the thousands of hours of repetition and practice to get there with ai and still claim he's a good artist.
So I checked out the debate video via the link in your description.... I was really saddened by looking at the comment section of that video. It's not because they all appear to disagree with my own opinion, what's sad is that they're mostly just repeating SHADS talking points. In that respect they themselves sound like AI in not being able to form their own thoughts. I watched the debate in full. I felt dirty for even ignoring what others choose to do; by fooling myself into believing it was okay if they chose to us it so long as I was still doing art the old fashion way. I honestly feel disappointed in myself for not speaking my mind and compromising my morals. I was against using AI myself before but now I honestly feel icky about anyone else using it too.
ah yes, good old shadlin "AI doesn't steal" the conquistador, proudly saying he'll steal the Wheel of Time IP to make a series made entirely from other stolen IP, presumably with ad breaks and whatever other monetization he can put on it. oh, but AI doesn't steal, guys. it just circumvents copyright. source: trust me bro. also comparing owning a keyboard and knowing english to the pain and torture of learning 3D-modeling is ridiculous.
I have a great idea. I tried to write into a story and after 2 pages I had a hundred more but no closer to even understand how the story goes. My respect to real artists
@@Gafferman it means no matter how many great ideas the OP had they weren't able to craft a story with them. It's an agreement that it takes more than a few prompts to make art of any kind.
To those equating Machine learning to human learning, I'd argue that you input the real world in humans and they come up with fantasy, sci-fi, novels, music, movies, cartoons all the art movements etc, you input the real world in generative models and all they can throw back at you is variations of the real world, you'd never get anything more other than a range between distorted to accurate representations of what you input in them.
The picture that shad posted isn't even the main character. Not any character that I have seen or read so far. So hes going to use AI to make a proper WoT show but hes still going to be wrong.
But the point is that he *can* do this if he wants. More freedom, ability to have things you would like to see, no need to be fed other people's bias and personal changes to the plot if you don't want. So what's the issue with that?
@@spookyfirst9514a factor in what? Anyone can make anything of anything. Watch this... Tyrion Lannister walked up to Jon Snow and asked for a bagel, Jon said "A what?" and laughed. You think George is gonna sue me now?
@@Gafferman Shad intends to make a movie of Wheel of Time 'his way' with AI, and make it true to the source material. That would require permission from the copyright holder.
What makes Shad believe that with AI you will create a good marvel movie? Instead of talented people creating a movie he doesn't like, they will hire a talented individual versed in AI to create a movie he won't like, because "Marvel going woke" was a Disney desition, and it's irrelevant who or what writes the script. Marvel is protected by copyright so no one but Disney can produce a Marvel movie, if anyone else makes one, it can't be sold or distributed, at that point just write fanfiction and save yourself the headache
You're talking about Shad here. He doesn't seem to have an original idea or a creative bone in his body, with or without AI. He has a nearly 6 hour live stream from about a year ago on his Knights Watch channel called "Let's Replace Star Wars and How I Plan To Do It. " It's fairly clear that he doesn't comprehend the difference between a work that takes inspiration from another work vs a derivative piece of slop.
The thing with 'idea guys' is that by itself the idea is meaningless. I'm currently making my first attempt to write a novel on a freeware site and the story in my head of how the two main characters overcome tragedy to fall in love is enough to bring a tear to my eye. But frankly, thats not the point - I'm not concerning myself with how the story makes me feel, but how it makes others feel. And getting better at being able to convey my emotion in other people via my work is the fundemental point of learning how to do art. It actually ties in to what you often say about trauma dumping. I think a lot of people have the idea that they want to elicit a sympathetic response to a character so they say thay have been through A, B & C horrible things in their life. That's not art. A great artist could elicit a bigger sympathetic response by something as simple as having the character run out of coffee one morning.
"Weve had slop from disney, so lets use AI to make it better." The reason weve had "slop" is because the movie industry is filled with people who have the same mentality as him. The big execs looking at AI are only excited about the fact that it would cut every corner and reduce costs and time even more than what theyve already done the same thing AI bros argue as a positive. Reducing the costs and time is how we got here in the first place because they've focused on pumping out cheap mediocrity over more ambitious and expensive master pieces. Going the route of using AI for everything would just lead to the showrunners and movie producers he doesnt like having an unchecked and unrestricted machine to pump out as much "slop" as they want, even more so than what theyve been making. Look at shows like the witcher where they only succeeded at first because a creative human (Henry Cavil) was involved to work on making it better. Also if he thinks once Disney and the big corps start using it, he'll be able to keep making whatever he wants, hell have another thing coming. Lets see him try making "Captain America but good" once Disney has the monopoly on AI. The team of lawyers with the mouse's wallet wont be far behind after that, and the supposed "freedom" of AI he loves so much will be gone.
i mean you can use ai to make your images for rpgs, games or what ever, but you are not an artist, more a hobbyist? It is ok, as long you dont clam you are a real artist. And i have seen games that uses ai art...it is interessting, and ok...but nothing really big. Also the ai movies...nice to see, but there are chaos. things that are thrown together, nothing more.
Yeah I saw an AI short film going around it was literally a slide show of disjointed AI generated images that moved a little like dynamic wallpapers basically, and then they had dialog(probably also AI) added over. Was super chaotic and a total mess.
@@joetheschmoe1066 yes like that. I saw a warhammer 40k ai movie and a star wars ai movie. both full with a chaos of art from both universes, but no real soul behind it. And the dialog...urgh...the mouth movement. it was garbage. It will take time to make a real product out of this, and -they will need artist to train and controlle the ai-. The human part will be a fix job, but in the end the ai can only work with stuff, that is given to them. If you make a copy of a copy of a copy...you will end with a boring white paper.
@@Gafferman it's about copyrights. You refuse to accept that fact. You have a personal emotional attachment to this technology. I don't. My concern is the legal quagmire that still needs sorted out in the courts. Until it is, AI is a tar pit of legal issues waiting to fall on anyone using it.
@@spookyfirst9514I don't have much of one other than liking it and thinking it's a good thing... You're just trying to undermine who I am as a person now because you're failing to make solid points. The legal issues are pretty clear, unless someone is passing your work off as their own, which they aren't here, you are fine. Deal with it.
These people sound like your typical ANCAP underachievers. Jazza, if you read this, I'm sorry but remember, we don't get to choose to whom we're related.
It really is, isn't it. I've come to realise that the anger comes from people feeling scared of superficialities. Ultimately, it's just to the benefit of everyone that we can have these "superpowers", not like anyone is stopping people following traditional methods.
@@Gafferman Yes, Im scared of superficialities. The lack of thoroughness, depth of character, and serious thought that comes out of AI generated works is terrifying. And even more so how much people like you see them as a good thing. If anything the lack of creativity, soul, and the death of human expression that things like AI ultimately will lead to is a horrible detriment to the human race. I dont care how fast, or how neat the tech is. I dont care how many non creative people can now "create". Becoming lazier, taking shortcuts, not trying, and pumping out slop art simply because we can and its quick isnt a good thing. As much as you may wish it isnt, at the end of the day AI is a fad. Its a shiny new toy the same way Siri was. At best it will be a tool some artists may use in the future but it will never be a main stream replacement for REAL art. Sooner or later it will get boring, even now the AI art you see on social media has grown stagnant in how good it is. It can only get so good before it just recycles the same level of work over and over. Largely because the people who use AI have no creativity or desire to grow and simply stop once theyve had their quick dopamine hit of a freshly diffused image, and without their input the AI can do nothing. Real artists will keep creating and only getting better. The creativity and soul ingrained in human existence will never die, and AI will not be the thing that kills it.
Its all part of the pendulum human culture. Back and forth, Shad will eventually inspire people who agree with his criticism of the old but not his repeating of the old in new ways.
I am massively in the AI field and I know nothing of Shad and only have heard of him via your channel by the way. As far as I'm concerned, his opinions are neither authorative or of much value.
He may not be a big name in the AI sphere as you claim, but hes a well known name (mainly for controversy lately) on youtube in the HEMA, writing, and movies circles. Basically hes in the kinds of circles this channel and others are involved in so his takes on AI are relevant to channels like this and people are going to see them more than stuff from AI or tech focused sources
bro, you are dense sometimes. At 15:00, he says that if the AI creates a replica of a work of art, then that's a problem, as it should be. But AI doesn't replicate works of art, except maybe if you request very iconic images like the Monalisa. No one would be using it if it only replicated existing images. That said, the only solution is to copyright the STYLE and if that happens, the art will die forever. Imagine a bunch of morons trying to patent their STYLE and suing emerging artists because they are using a style close to the registered STYLE. Madness Sure, training the AI with the internet database without asking is unethical, no doubts. But we are far beyond that, specially with Open Source. You can close Midjourney and every single other web base AI image generated service tomorrow, but the Open Source is out there, people can do whatever they want if they have a good GPU in their setup, that you cant control. Btw, there is no such thing as uploading a artist portfolio into Midjourney. Sure,you can upload images but to create a set of 4 images using that input. The images you upload are not part of the Midjourney database, only works for that one single prompt you are creating. He was trolling.
Art is subjective. Having a background in 3d myself and knowing how much effort it takes to learn it, not only the technical skills needed, I completely disagree with Shad. Having also tried generative AI and testing the new things being released, it is absurd when he says it requires skills, it is like comparing someone having the skill to draw a stick figure to someone able to do classical drawing. AI is a productivity tool, not an art tool, in my opinion, it is perfect if you just need something fast where content isn't particularly important. But I do think the whole discussion needs nuance because I get the impression from your videos that you in general are against AI as a tool, no matter how it was trained even if it was on perfectly legal images? A lot of people also use the argument that it will take away jobs (which it undoubtedly will), yet for some reason, no one seems to "yell" when the factory workers or supermarket people are being replaced by machines? So why yell now, when that has been going on for many years? Also, I think it is important to realize that not everyone looks at art the same way. Some might be interested in other parts of the creative process or simply not have the means to realize their idea, but AI might make that possible. In my own case, I like creating games, yet programming them and creating everything from scratch is an extremely big task, so being able to use AI for certain lesser important things can greatly improve the quality and in some cases due to things I can't, like for instance creating sound effects/music. And given you seem to refer to people using AI as being lazy, keep in mind that I have learned 3D and programming, and not only is generative AI going to massively impact the art industry, but also the prediction is that programmers, for the most part, will be obsolete as well in the future, they are working very hard at doing this as well. The issue in my opinion is far bigger than simply AI being able to generate images and videos, as you also pointed out AI is being implemented in the service industry and in many other areas, and it will only be more over the years. Besides that, how are you going to stop it, whatever laws apply in one country don't in others also whoever has the most capable AI has a benefit over other countries and we know perfectly well how much countries trust each other and how well politicians are at solving issues like this, so how could an agreement ever be reached? Regarding whether or not people care, I unfortunately think Shad is right about that. I grew up with the original Walt Disney cartoons being shown on TV, absolutely stunning quality drawings and pieces of art, compare that to the rubbish mass-produced cartoons being shown to kids today, yet kids (and parents) don't seem to care at all.
I also beg to differ about the purpose of copyright law. As written in the US constitution, it is to incentive innovation, by giving monopoly rights to a creator for publishing the innovative work. As in, show the world your trade secret in exchange for government granting the creator legal monopoly for a limited time. It does not protect the creator, never has. It is meant to make creators reveal their IP and opening themselves up to vulnerability in exchange for limited monetary gain. If you do not want people to steal your art or creation, you must keep it secret. It is just reality
You are confusing copyright with patents. From 'Patent vs Copyright Everything you need to know'; "Copyrights cover artistic and intellectual works like books, songs, plays, and even computer software. Patents protect inventions and the way an item is used (utility patent) or how it looks (design patent). According to the U.S. Patent and Trade Office (USPTO), a patent grants an inventor the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling an invention. A copyright protects literary, musical, and other artistic works, whether it's published or not. Typically, copyright protection is filed by individuals or artists, but there are certainly business cases for copyright protection -- especially for companies looking to protect their business model or marketing ideas. Both patents and copyrights essentially prove that you are the creator of the item or idea and declare that no one can take it from you." For more information, check them out here: upcounsel (dot) com/patent vs copyright How long does it last: "When you apply for copyright protection for your work, you only have to do it once per century. According to CNN Money, all artistic work created after 1978 is protected for the entire life of the author plus 95 years if the work is published. Even if the work isn't published, it's still protected for the life of the author plus 70 years after they pass. A patent protects the invention for 20 years, and there are even short-term patents that only last a couple of years. This allows industries to develop new standards with more efficient models that benefit the customers and save resources."
While it's true that the U.S. Constitution outlines the purpose of copyright law as a means to incentivize innovation by granting creators a legal monopoly for a limited time, the understanding of copyright law goes beyond merely encouraging creators to reveal their work. Copyright law is designed to strike a balance between protecting the rights of creators and fostering a culture of sharing knowledge and creativity. The notion that copyright law does not protect the creator may need clarification. Copyright provides creators with exclusive rights to their work, allowing them to control how it is used, reproduced, and distributed. The intention is to enable creators to benefit financially from their creations and encourage ongoing creativity. While maintaining secrecy is one approach to protect intellectual property, copyright law aims to strike a balance by providing legal protection without requiring creators to keep their work entirely confidential. It's a legal framework that aims to foster innovation, incentivize creativity, and promote the sharing of ideas within a structured system of rights and limitations.
@@spookyfirst9514 yes it's different, but only in the time granted for that monopoly. You still have to publish your art to PROVE that you are the creator, and when it was created. If you can prove that without publishing, your art is then your trade secret, but good luck going to court over this if someone actually steals it and then publish it. When we show the world our art and creations, everyone else has a god given ability to copy it. Out side the jurisdiction of the copyright laws, you cannot stop others from copying your work without physical force or really persuasive arguments. Within said jurisdiction, you still have to force people to respect your rights under penalty of law enforced by the power of a tax collecting government.
@@Gafferman yes. However, Secure Secrecy is the only way to prevent others from copying your work and stealing your IP. Copyright laws cannot PREVENT IP theft, even within jurisdiction of those laws. Ultimately, making something illegal does not stop that activity
@@VicAusTaxiTruckie Your point about the effectiveness of secure secrecy in preventing intellectual property (IP) theft is valid. Indeed, keeping certain aspects of one's work confidential can be an additional layer of protection. However, it's important to recognize that the purpose of copyright laws extends beyond prevention; it aims to provide legal recourse and consequences for unauthorized use. While it's true that laws alone cannot entirely eliminate illicit activities, they establish a legal framework that allows creators to seek remedies when their rights are violated. Copyright laws provide a means to address infringement, offering creators the ability to take legal action and seek damages. In essence, while secure secrecy can be a proactive measure, copyright laws serve as a reactive means to address and rectify instances of intellectual property theft, providing creators with a legal mechanism to defend their rights and seek restitution. The combination of both measures contributes to a more comprehensive approach to protecting intellectual property in the creative landscape.
(still listening to the video of course) but I think the algorithms of youtube and other platforms may be pushing you in some ways that create a blind spot. There are many RUclips channels for example that are pro AI that I believe you'd find entirely reasonable. David Shapiro makes similar formats of video to you and has gone over how we can be optimistic and positive for the future of all of this. You're right to address the concerns but I do think AI can remove the barriers to creativity and storytelling.
There are no barriers between creativity and storytelling. There is creativity and the lack of it. There is the ability to tell a story and the lack of it. You can or you can’t do these things. To overcome that, you have to practice. Using AI means you created a story without knowing how to tell a story.
@@seansteele6532This is meant to be a creative writing channel from what I can tell... Could you perhaps be a bit more coherent in what you're trying to say?
@@Gafferman “Ableist” why yes I do discriminate on people’s abilities to do something. No imaginary “barriers” exist to drawing or writing, you simply need a functioning brain.
Learn how the tech works! Atleast on a very basic level.... Every anti-ai video I watch...they all call it a carbon-copy machine... which is literally demonstrably false.
The one thing people do not understand is the reason why AI learns much faster and without human effort is because the AI mind is a software process, not an organic biological growth process. AI does not need to eat, sleep or even breathe. The just need the hard ware to keep the software running, much like how a human heart and lungs supply oxygen to the brain. AI looks like stealing because AI learns so much better than a human mind. Eventually, very soon, AI will take over EVERY human job. Because the AI mind and the machine body is superior.
@@VicAusTaxiTruckie also its not like your precious AI is a real AI like in scifi. Its a glorifed Siri that instead of giving you the weather or time gives you pictures or text. Its a virtual assistant with a preprogrammed function that cant do anything outside of that.
@@joetheschmoe1066 not it's not a scifi ai. Current AI have about 60,000 neural net nodes, and use layers to simplify networks. That's less than 0.01% as complex as a human brain. And yet the results. AI will become superior, without any doubt
@VicAusTaxiTruckie first 🤓. Secondly, what results? Art work that is largely based on stolen data sets? Barely coherent blocks of text? Once again, without human input, your AI is worthless. It doesn't create nor learn. It's programmed to give the illusion of these things by taking what you put in and changing its output based on those results, but that's it. Again, it's like a glorified siri or search engine catering its responses to what you search.
I beg to differ. AI are minds, based on the nature of how they learn and take actions, and should be treated the same as humans when it comes to fair use. AI actually do learn the same way as human people, as such, they can earn personhood. To say AI is just a machine is Robophobic
Then Im a raging robophobe. You can keep your machine, it will never win. Im God's strongest soldier with a comically large magnet waiting to crusade against it. And no it doesnt learn nor does it think like a person. It literally is programmed to do the things it does, by a human being. Its no different than an algorithm or search engine catering to what you search by giving you results similar to what you looked at before.
@@Noordledoordle eeeeeeeeeyaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh.... many ways to draw a three point curve. Might be a shallow straight line, might go through the roof....
I think less physical violence and more so cyber "violence". Weve already seen software being made to poison AI data sets when it scrapes artwork online. I have a feeling that trend will only continue unless AI ends up being regulated by the govt or some other entity first. Assuming it ever gets to that point, that will be the kind of "fight" we see going on between AI and non AI.
I've made it to the end and have four points to bring up.
I'm glad you brought up the "Idea Guy". I think everyone who makes something has met an idea guy. They have no interest in actually doing the work to learn to create, but they have an idea and it's obviously a better idea than what you, as an actual creative who has put the blood, sweat, and tears to get good, can come up with. What makes it worse is that 99% of idea guys don't even have good ideas. Example: Shadow of the Conqueror.
This point kind of ties into the same group of people I mentioned in another comment here, the Nerdrotic crew and specifically the ones who are proponents of generative ai. These same people have railed against hollywood and the mainstream for being creatively bankrupt and being consoomers for years. Shad specifically. But isn't his entire argument about ai just pure consumption of empty, thoughtless, soulless product? Has he addressed this point or is it just an "strawman" or "poisoning the well" or any of the other argument dismissers he uses without actually seeming to know what they mean?
Shad and other AI zealots like to make this point that "Good" artists, whatever that is in their warped view of reality, won't have anything to worry about and should just welcome the professional AI prompt writers into their ranks. What they don't like to acknowledge is the absolute deluge of ai trash that is being spewed onto places like deviant art and art forums where budding artists are trying to realize their passion for creation. Even if the ai trash is ignored by 90% of people, it is still washing out the real artists and pushing their work artificially to the bottom of the page. I think most creatives have a few points in their career where someone encouraged them after seeing an absolutely awful piece of art that they produced after picking up blender or sai for the first time. Some random kind soul saw the horrible oc do not steal on the internet and went "Imma gas them up a little" and went and left a positive comment about their work. Just a single positive comment can ignite a passion inside a brand new artist that will fuel their creativity for the rest of their life. How many of these artists are posting their work, having zero response because they are filtered out by the ai spammers who can produce hundreds of empty images an hour and flood media with them, and then deciding that maybe art isn't for them? Ai is killing a generation of artists.
Last point, and one I haven't seen any real commentary on. Why doesn't it seem like anyone asked shad how long he's been using AI? When he answers a few months or a year and a half or whatever it is, why don't they immediately demand to know why he thinks he's even close to mastering such a complex and skillful art form to the point that he's even qualified to debate veteran artists with 10-20 years in their chosen field? If he dares respond truthfully, which is that he feels he has mastered it, push him into the floor by letting him know that a truly skillful art form can't be mastered in a few months. If it can, then it's not really that skillful, is it? Why don't five star gourmet restaurants hire the fry cook from the Wendy's a few blocks over instead of some hoity toity chef that went to culinary school and has spent fifteen years in the trade? Probably because anyone is qualified to be a fry cook. Same thing with AI art. That's why you get a shit sandwich from them when they try to create.
Alright, I'm done ranting. These saturday vids are doing a great job at riling me up dude. Have a great weekend!
When I was 17, I was learning how to create 3d levels for Half-Life 2 and Counter-Strike and other source engine games. I was a regular at level design forums, and we had a long running meme about "projacts" spelled wrong. So, basically there were young and passionate guys who knew completely nothing about creating mods for games, but they HAD AN IDEA. And each and everyone of them had a very similar history on the forums. They posted nothingburgers to unlock the ability to start new topics. Immediately after that, each and everyone of them started a topic called something like "RECRUITING INTO A TEAM TO CREATE A MOD CALLED X". And in the topic each and everyone of them pitched the latest wet dream they had, that usually didn't have even a basic story or an original idea. The only thing they had in mind was some cool scene with main character who was usually a self-insert. Not a single one had any skills related to creating game assets. None of them had even a basic idea of how development is structured. So, complete nobodies with no skills and no volition to start learning them or writing a basic design document created topics with cool/edgy team name and cool/edgy mod name to ask people with skills to join their "team". When asked "And what do you have already?" they wrote long funny posts with how they imagine the things to be on release with flashy effects and cool one-liners pronounced by the main character. When asked "And what can you do?" they replied "I can write the story and direct the feature creation". Then they all also asked for programmers, 3D-modelers, texture artists and level designers. Also, of course, they all intended to be "projact" leaders. This was the "idea guy" invasion in it's purest form, and our forum kept a dedicated topic with a list of "projacts" presented as a ongoing series with short summary about funniest author's comments. The wrong spelling was related to lack of education, of course.
All of my respect towards shadiversity is lost after watching his out of touch entitled takes on the topic. He isn't an artist, he doesn't have an artistic eye, and he doesn't have any skills related to creative process. He isn't a creative. He is an immature brat in adult body who wants to have shiny thing but doesn't want to put any effort into getting it. Now that generative AI is a real thing, he can get his shiny thing without putting any effort, but now that he got the shiny thing it's not enough. Now he wants to brag that his free shiny thing is actually an achievement and that he is a "skilled" and "talented" visionary. He is an embarassment to human creativity, not because of what he does, but because of how he tries to present it as something he created when all he did is waited for technology to appear, waited for art to be stolen, and waited for people's original art to be stolen, only to randomly generate a mishmash of stolen works and brag about it.
3:10 "Storytelling... is about passing on a piece of your heart." Holy hell, Ian. Smack me right in the feels, why don'tcha.
I was gonna show you a tweet of someone asking "How did anyone write essays before A.I?" But it ended my braincells so I didn't want yours to end either.
I bookmarked that one earlier this week to actually bring up next time. 😂
It ended your braincells? Would you say the same if the tweet referred to the web/internet? How about books?
Do you have an issue with text correction tools like grammerly? Do you have a problem with people using other humans to review their work?
AI is another tool...
@@Gafferman if AI is just another tool why does it bother you when it's criticized, or people choose not to use it?
@@spookyfirst9514 disagreeing with someone's opinion isn't being "bothered", it's just discussion.
I'm not the one complaining about it or how people choose to/not to use it. Frankly, I'm all for choice and find this resistance both futile and not in humanity's best interest.
Artists don't get paid well, not in general. Art shouldn't be made for corperate greed or even general profit really. That's just poison to art. All of this just gives more ability to people, which is good.
@Gerlaffy just a tool? I feel this is a flawed perspective, generative ai seems much closer to commissioned work. Its not really your creation, you just had imput into aspects of its creation. You really shouldn't be allowed to put your name on it.
I heard a good saying the other day in regards to ai: if no one cared enough to write it, why should i care enough to read it?
not sure why it matters who wrote something, unless you want to feel personally connected to a person. Writing has worth independent of the author
Like... yeah? That's like one of the main points of admiring art and writing, relating a human experience and understanding as a form of communication.@@ChannelMath
@@TimeKitt exactly. It's one of the main points, not the only one. We don't know the context of this "saying", but I'm just the kind of person who likes to point out exceptions to general statements. For example, I really think that, on average, AI would improve the effectiveness of directions on how to use electronics that were manufactured in non-English countries
@@ChannelMath the fact that it was made by a person its already worthy in itself it doesnt need to go futher if you dont care enough. Also basically anything created have its value/worth influenced by who made it and it was made.
@@sabaoempo2320 I'm not sure I agree that a single word (to take the extreme case) has any value just because a human wrote it. I think a paragraph written by AI probably has more value and more creativity than that.
We all understand that the things AI writes are really just the writings of actual people, just reassembled by the algorithm, right? You wouldn't consider music coming through a crackly, tinny radio to have no value just because a machine is doing a poor job of processing it. (you might not be aware of just how complicated and intentional this processing is which tries to recreate the incomplete data it receives of the music)
By Shad's logic, his novel should be free since he posted it on the internet on amazon.
We've all been the "ideas" person who wanted a faceless team to put in the grunt work to bring our dreams into reality. Some of us grew up.
Cough*waltdisney*COUGH!
I still recall Shad agreeing that "artists opinions don't matter". This should include AI artists if he's gonna be this pompous with his opinions.
If one hired 1000s of untrained locals, instructed them to produce an image based off the ouvre of a veteran painter, they did so, and then that employer proclaimed themself an "artist" or a "craftsman" they would be lying and everyone would note it. They are a commissioner. Same goes for those who use "ai" image gen.
The machine has nothing to say. It takes inputs and generates outputs. You can argue that the person entering prompts has a message they wish to share with the world. But they can't hone that message, they can't integrate their own experience and ideation into the product. All the AI Bro can do is settle for the thing closest to their idea, a reasonable facsimile of what they wanted to share. They can tweak it, but since they'll never be the proper origin of the output, they'll never have the precision to completely reform or transform what they get, only smudge it. All that AI ultimately is for an artist is giving up and taking a consolation prize.
I'm not an artist, nor would I use AI professionally, so I may not be exactly who you're talking about, but I'd like to push back a bit. I suck at art, but for my hobby (tabletop roleplaying) I love to have character art. I tried to spend money on this, commissioning professional artists, but the outcome in most cases was way behind what I had in my head. I moved on to mashing art found on the internet, which got me closer to my ideas, but still relied on finding the next best thing - also felt like stealing, even if I didn't ever use it outside of a private friend group. AI finally gave me a way to generate really close to what I want and then mash it together and fix it in photoshop, that I actually see my mental picture on the screen.
Think this is a legitimate view or am I wrong to feel like this?
@@vex1669Not to be rude but if you hired an artist and they didn't deliver what you wanted they failed you, or you did not make what you wanted very clear. This isn't entirely the fault of the consumers either artists also need to build trust with people and deliver what people want when they are hired. Now that said customers of art need to have discussions and make sure they get what they want from artists. I don't blame you for turning to AI if it was a bad experience with an artist but AI will 100% not be as close to your vision as a good artist can get. Even better if you learned how to make it yourself you have an even greater control of creative freedom than AI could ever give. So to me AI is exploitative, but accountability rests on everyone.
@@booleah6357 I don't wanna place blame anywhere, especially not on real artists. I tried to learn to draw, put in a few hundred hours and failed - didn't even make any significant progress. To me, AI is a key to a world that was more or less closed to me. Finally I can get close to what is in my head with the tools I already have. And if I have to mash together 5 AI pictures that are semi-good and paint over a few errors or splice in a photo of a hand, that's still a lot less work than what I had to do before. To me, it feels empowering and it's making me MORE of an (hobby-)artist than I'd otherwise be. But that's just a single perspective based on my own feelings.
@@vex1669 So yes, learning art can be difficult but a few hundred hours is a very short time to try something before just giving up. To put that in perspective that's only around 12 days that's less than two weeks. Have you learned other skills in under two weeks? Of course you didn't see much progress especially if you didn't have a teacher or anyone keeping you from pitfalls. AI then becomes a crutch to you because now you aren't actually creating what you want without the help of the machine. Take that compared to taking the time to actually learn and then you could create whatever you want whenever you want. Sure not as fast but it will be exactly yours and you stroke me as a person that would care about specifics considering your first post. If you removed the AI you literally could still not create anything. I don't say that to disparage either but you really haven't tried for very long.
@@booleah6357Artists are slower, cost more, less adaptable, more likely to fall into biases/artstyles they have and you can't have them make dozens until you find one that's right.
AI won't be as close as the artist could be to the vision, it will be much closer.
Remember that one episode of SpongeBob where Mr. Krabs ate Spongebob's squeaky boots? This is it for the ai bros 😅
My dad was a construction worker. He built custom dome ceilings in our house because he's a very skilled construction worker and he understood the math and how to do it.
There are also kits you can use to put together for dome ceilings.
There's a very big difference between what my dad can do and what someone using a kit can do. Is a kit convenient? Sure. They're MEANT to be easy. But you would never look at someone who uses a kit and compare that to my dad. My dad could run circles around the person relying on a kit. He could build the domes any way he wanted. He could make waves if he wanted to.
To me, this is like someone presenting themselves as a construction worker and all they do is use pre-made kits. They can't do anything else, only what's already packaged and sold to them. Even if they used AI legitimately, and owned all the rights, they need to understand the difference between what they're capable of and what someone skilled is capable of.
The biggest actual issue is the theft. Beyond the theft, it's just people being annoyed at the arrogance. If someone showed up on my dad's job site saying they were a construction worker, and it turned out they could only build kits, he would slap them silly! People who say they play around with AI for fun and just like to mess with it don't get dogpiled. It's just people who try to present themselves as artists that do because of the sheer audacity.
If a robot showed up on his construction site, stronger, fully aware of the entire structure and it's integrity, could perfectly place and secure components and do all that faster... Your dad would be impressed and could, if he wanted to, put his feet up and relax.
@@Gafferman Sure.
That's not even remotely close to what's happening, but of course, he wouldn't want to do hard manual labor carrying hundreds of pounds many stories up. But none of the machines do that. Nor is that comparable to what's happening with the image generators.
That would be more like if you took two blueprints, pasted them together, and then called yourself an architect. The machine that glued them together DOESN'T understand what they are. The person who told the machine to do it also doesn't understand how it's done. Credit isn't given to the people who did make them and do understand. But it sure was fast! Too bad some of the doors lead to nowhere and there's a brick wall outside of the window. But it's fast! And effortless!
@@SugarThymeAh, I see you're not aware.
This is exactly what's happening, that's what these image and video generators are, foundations to the understanding of the world, ideas, concepts and physics. They are steps to AGI and if your Dad worked today then he would soon be able to have a robot companion to help.
There's also pretty clear proof that AI models do understand concepts, ideas and general notions just as we do... Have you ever tried speaking to one of the latest ones?
As for credit, I like credit but frankly this is greater than ego, greater than individuals. Just like you are the product of those that came before you, genetically and culturally, you don't really go around crediting them and neither will AGI.
@@Gafferman You've been tricked.
Those generators don't understand anything. They have no self-awareness. They don't know what the images are.
Nor do the text ones understand. They're filling in the most likely word to come next based on data sets. "I am alive" might trick you, but I know it's just gibberish that looks like it has meaning. The machine doesn't have thought behind it, just data sets.
There are no brains involved. No intelligence. They aren't thinking.
@Gerlaffy And if a dragon flew down and built the building instead, we'd get the same outcome. I love DnD too and we can play hypotheticals and make believe all day long, but that's a horrible argument. As for the AI understanding, I think that's a load of BS. The AI doesn't understand, the AI just does what its programmed to do. It's not even a real artificial intelligence. It's a virtual assistant program the same way siri is, just a bit more advanced. It's not capable of anywhere close to the same level of thought as a human being. I also dont think even if it was a real learning AI we should be embracing it. Kirkpattiecake was right in that people like you and the AI bro ilk are evil. Either willfully or ignorantly youre siding against the human race for no other reason than a false sense of moral and intellectual superiority. The human race doesnt need to be replaced by machines just because the AI and tech crowd thinks they can, and the fact that people like you are so eager and willing for it to happen is just sad. Do you not even have any pride as a human? Do you truly just see yourself as a bag of meat and bones that can be so easily replaced by a computer program? A program I might add had to be built and updated and maintained by the same lowly humans you think can so easily be replaced.
The contrast between someone like Shad with zero artistic talent on the screen next to Regan, who has a lot of natural artistic talent and passion, is glaring. When someone like Regan sees a bad piece of art or AI art, he will instantly recognize the low artistic expression and quality. Shad just doesn't see the difference between slop and art because he has zero artistic ability.
This is a bit like the more proficient an artist you are, the more mistakes you are able to see.
11:48 You are mistaken if you think that the pushback on AI will have a positive effect. Big Tech wants restrictions and laws passed against AI because it allows them to bar any opposition or small company or individual from participating, and they will still be able to simply continue their own work. Google or Microsoft (companies that are provably evil) have no problem paying fines in the millions; it will not stop them at all. That is why every time generative image AI is brought up, Stable Diffusion is named first; it's the FOSS option, and you can use it for whatever you want, like building tools to inject AI poison into your art to protect it from being used in AI datasets.
There are many examples of this in history. Did you know, for example, that Big Oil itself is the one who started and is to this day the main force behind the "green revolution"? They brought these regulations onto themselves to kill off any competition, and they ultimately dumped the cost they inflicted upon themselves onto the little guy via gas prices, but they gained enormous extra income and control via all the CO2 tax. I know the TV promises that all this Green Revolution stuff will at least reduce evil oil consumption in the future, but it doesn't; all it does is increase your grocery prices.
Big Tech is playing by the exact same playbook; they want people angry, and then people will think it's a win when they introduce fines of 100 million dollars for creating an AI model with copyrighted datasets. 100 mil is nothing but pocket lint for these entities.
The theft argument is weak; the theft has already occurred, and they don't need to create these datasets in such a grey way; these big companies can easily pay for the copyright.
24:31 LMAO, I find Shad utterly fascinating. I have never seen someone with such enormous amounts of negative talent claiming they are artistic. Even with the most powerful AI tools at his disposal, he hasn't managed to produce a single decent artwork. Someone needs to break this poor guy's delusion and tell him that he will never be able to produce art and should pursue something less creative, like accounting.
1:28:40 100% disagree. Art is allowed to be hateful and should not have a default focus on bringing people together. Biting satire, edgy works, and art made to only appeal to specific groups are all valid. For example, the WW1 propaganda drawings depicting German soldiers goose-stepping with babies impaled on their bayonets are definitely dehumanizing to the highest degree, but it is still a piece of art. Hyper-masculine action movies aimed at boys or hyper-feminine romance novels aimed at girls do not try to bring people together; they are art that tries to cater to a specific group.
I've often wondered if the goal of Big Tech is the total control of any medium the public uses.
@@spookyfirst9514 If you read some of the crazy stuff they write and what they claim to believe, it seems like what they personally desire is to control the innermost thoughts of every person in the world. Bill has authored some creepy books, provided you can endure the dullness of most of it. Some are even crazier; they are literal religious doomsday cultists, discussing how Edom, aka the West, needs to be completely destroyed for the Mashiach to come. It's pretty scary to think about the kinds of people who have become the oligarchy of the world.
As this issue works its way through the courts and governments wait for their committees to investigate solutions, I think it's time for artist to look at ways to fight back. Like investing in the Glaze project and software that will protect art from being trained. We artists should be prepared in case we lose.
I do worry that Glaze type things are only good for current models, and a tiny bit of adversarial training will be done then the glaze or poison for those works is obsolete and they get it anyways.
@@TimeKitt True. Artists should get behind advancement of things like Glaze. We should be prepared to back anything that can stop our art from being stolen.
@TimeKitt that is true it already happened with some, I believe. But for everyone that gets stopped, more are made. Not only artists but people in general, sick of what AI has been doing, have created a market for software like that. So what will likely happen, assuming the government and courts dont do anything, is a long drawn out back and forth between AI and those who are against it dueling with technology. That or we as artists collectively go back to traditional work, but that isn't really ideal or realistic for professionals in todays world.
I'm extremely black pilled on the current regime.
AI reminds me of that conversation in the game Soma:
Simon: "Indians believed that pictures could steal your soul."
Dr. Munshi: "In this case, they would be right."
This conversation happened when Simon had his mind cloned and saved to a computer.
I think the confusion about what art actually is comes as a consequence of post-modernism and movements like DaDa. They reduced the meaning of it to nothing. Now it's about mental gymnastics, posturing, and banking. However, the human mind is hardwired to respond and connect to real art. Since human nature does not change, the meaning of real art won't be changed by current trends and hype. We have a tendency to dilute ourselves till everything crashes, then we revert back to fundamentals.
Hello. I love this video. I know it's already out for a few months. I rarely leave comment on the internet because i'm scared and don't like internet comment fight. But, i think i have a personal story that's related to this topic i want to share. Sorry for my bad english.
I was once an "idea guy" and thought that my idea was special. I was bossy too at one time. But, these past few years i took that art journey in college. And i'm glad that i do. I think learning art and music really change the way i look at creative stuff. Now, i value the process both the fun and unfun parts of it, not just the result.
I used to think that art is this thing that only talented people can do. But during the journey i realized that everyone can do it as long as you put the hour to it. It is hard at the begining because everything i made look terrible. But, as time passes it does get better as long as i take criticism and grow from my mistake. And eventually it reach this point where i start having fun expressing myself with the process, not just the result. Eventually, one of my character art made it to my college exhibition. I want to keep improving and make better stuff in the future. If you are also an idea guy like me in the past, please consider the art journey a shot? It is hard, but it will be worth it. Thank you, sorry, if i yapp to much.
41:21 Sick of the sadistic smugness. I'd love to see Shad go over to Google AI and ask it to draw Daylen. He'd get a big surprise.
I feel extra betrayed by AI art because I did a lot of accessable image descriptions, which it absolutely relies on to make the prompt system.
Yes. We go out of our way to make stuff accessible for the blind and visually impaired and they steal THAT, too.
You've just helped the world advance forwards and get us closer to a better world for everyone so don't feel like you did anything wrong.
Honestly the anti-AI sentiment just comes from fear and insecurity. A good writer and artist will always be one, shouldn't be about money.
You seem to be confused, I feel great about providing accessability. I hate that it was used for the puirposes of scraping the images of myself and all my friends who did not consent to this.@@Gafferman
@@TimeKitt I'm not sure what it is you feel you needed to consent to, if you've put your work out there then anyone, including AI can look at it if they want.
If anything, feel good that you and your friends are now part of the rich tapestry of culture. This is no different from you just sharing it on the web. Your work isn't being specifically chosen and abused. It's just datapoints to help others create.
Perhaps you should watch the video, this is explicitly addressed.@@Gafferman
I still can't believe you ACTUALLY read his book.
Mad respects.
How am I supposed to take Shad seriously when he has a turkey on his head.
It took me an embarrassingly long time to realize that you put that filter on him. I was so quick to accept that he just did that lmao
I don't know what it is about videos generated with Sora, but they make me physically queasy. I've never gotten that with any other videos.
Maybe it's the frame-rate, interlacing, or impossible perspectives, but I wonder if anyone else experiences this and what kind of physical side effects it might have. Like, imagine they use it in advertisements and plaster it everywhere, and it makes some people sick or disoriented (assuming they don't fix it somehow).
Writing my own sci-fi here...
Same. I get terrible motion sickness with almost all video games, and it's the same with what few Sora videos I've watched. (Don't get me started on VR--that's a flat NO.) I am not alone in this kind of reaction. I don't think VR is going to be as big a deal as it's been hyped either.
The soullessness of it is palpable. Despite how "realistic"(not really) theyre able to make it look it doesnt have any work, passion, of creativity put into it and humans can see it. Its unnatural. Anyone saying otherwise is either an AI bro who loves this stuff anyway, or people who have no artistic background and just find it interesting, and even they say it feels weird to look at usually.
@@spookyfirst9514 Glad to hear I'm not alone. Never had motion sickness in my life, but this could be a major issue for people who do if companies start using it ads or worse--training videos.
I've about had it with all this AI bs going around, and it seems to be getting worse. But I'm glad channels like KirkpattieCake address the issues in actually intelligent and informative ways. Half of the people who I know to use or consume content produced by GenAI aren't aware of all the problems around it and these videos help bring awareness.
VR is dead. It died once back in the 60s when it was first tried, and it died again now despite all the hype. Until it can be pulled off in a practical, affordable package with all the bugs worked out, I don't see it taking off. Questions of its usefulness aside.
@@maryevans651 I saw the new apple VR headset, and it made me wonder again. Lots of ads for it here on YT.
What's truly fascinating about Shad, most of his life is spent on talking about weapons and armor. But then after generative AI got started, all of sudden he acts like he's been this artistic genius/expert for many years. Despite showing zero interest in any creative medium/field (besides his novel) over the years.
24:48 He just cannot accept that the program is what got better--not his 'skill'.
If he took the time he wastes on prompts and just practiced drawing--he wouldn't need AI.
And no, I don't 'hate' AI. I don't 'fear' or harbor 'panic' over it. It's the latest shiny toy people are trying to use for everything in order to discover where it will 'fit'. I remember how people used to give computer graphics the stink eye. (Yes, I'm that old.) Then it was Photoshop, and on to CGI. AI isn't going to be good for art in the long run, but I'm betting it will be great for collating reams of data for a clinical trial, or assist in chemistry for manufacturing. (Key word being assist.)
"I don't need to use AI art, man. I can actually draw." So can I. Shad can draw--he just doesn't want to.
He'll never convince professional artists he's as good, because he simply refuses to put in the effort.
Preach it for those in the back! 🙏
Shad’s insistence that you still need talented artists to work with AI to make “quality product” is like saying you still need master chefs to cook your beef wellington before you spurt ketchup all over it, so that other aspiring chefs can make “quality food” by drowning their recipes in ketchup.
Why are they always one about this Shad dude anyway? Is it their ex or something? He's literally just one guy with no particular importance in all of this...
@@Gafferman he had a big platform to scree off and a bunch of fans who took what he said religiously.That the problem, a liar spreading disinformation. Since these videos are made Shad's channels did took a hit in growth, so they did do something.
@@Gafferman Shad puts himself out there as a gadfly to keep his channels viable. He's doing what he does to keep the bills paid. I don't have to agree with his views to understand that.
@fy Why can't people criticize others? Why do you try to shame others into silence? Such as falsely accusing Kirk of that Shad is her ex and that she hates him for that. That's gross too. You were projecting.
Also, Shad has already been married with kids. In this video, Kirk mentioned Shad's wife cause she said Shad likes to self insert himself and his wife.
Shad has a big platform and says terrible things that should be criticized. Kirk criticizes others too.
Just because you may not know Shad doesn't mean he doesn't have a big platform and influences others.
There's comments on Shad's videos who blindly follow him and are his fans.
Idk if you want to or support people stealing people's art or content, and that you hid behind vilifying, falsely accusing, and painting Kirk as hysterical or vengeful to try to invalidate her critique. Other comments here agreed with Kirk too.
Kirk said at the beginning she speaks out cause she's very passionate about this activism. That's why.
@@user-gu9yq5sj7c uhm. Whom are you replying to?
Omg, I've been watching your backlog a bit while I have time, (really need to jump in your discord server haha), you mentioning my book (Origin of the Sky) months after reading it is so sweet, you're the best, you inspire me to continue to make.
That's sort of the note I have too with AI, I've been in a depressive spiral, and it is linked to AI stuff pretty strongly. I don't know, going on google for image reference and finding nothing but AI horrors, reading the cruelty AI bros have to sling at us folk that never did anything to them, hell, I like coding too, consider myself a coder. It all just hurts the soul and I feel incapable of being seen or heard. I have to remember what you say, and what other creatives have said to keep going.
It's not about money, or success. It's for the betterment of my soul, for the good I can do, the gifts I can give back, and because we are unique, and our gifts are unique. No one is going to make what we are destined to make, and we cheapen the world and ourselves if we give up.
Thanks again, wishing you the best always
I think about your book all the time. One of my top reads last year and I recommend it to everyone I can. If I can ever help you keep motivated or springboard anxiety or anything, feel free to hit me up. I admire your work and the moment I saw it and read it, I thought that you are one of the special voices of our time.
@@KirkpattieCake I'd love to connect, you're such a fantastic creator, I'm in admiration of your dedication, very grateful for you
Ypu should read the abolition of man. It was relevant when it was written in the age of eugenics, and it's just as relevant to ai
The hilarious thing about modern scripts and writing is that it's not bad because people are horrible at writing all the sudden.
Modern writing is horrible because it's mostly done by a committee that dictate the story and what element must be shoved in there. Along with hiring writers for their politics rather than skill/experience and a willingness to follow those dictates.
It's "writing" on a factory setting, meant for producing slop.
And in their AI writing utopia, there is no writer, there is only the committee.
Every problem people have with Hollywood, Disney, marvel, gaming, comics, etc.
If AI takes over it will be so, so, so much worse.
The corrupt system made far more decedant by the people who believe that they're tearing it down.
And there will be no "Our version of captain America"
By cutting costs these companies will have the resources to safe guard their IPs to a far greater strength than ever before.
The best bet for these prompters is to attempt creating their own IPs, which will not only get get drowned out by every other prompter, but also these monolithic companies who will churn out slop on mass. Probably buying out any independent with pennies before they have a chance to approach competition, and these independents would sell because that's the best one could hope in this environment.
They are parasites that kill the host
Pal world was accused of AI, and the lead developer is supportive of AI. The consensus based on research and unofficial investigation is that generative AI was likely not used, or at least used sparingly.
The thing people really don’t like is how much palworld has clearly copied various games from a design and conceptual level. Games like Ark, Pokemon, Zelda, Elden Ring, etc., have been pretty blatantly copied, but with small twists and variations. It’s certainly a grey area in that regard, but not gen AI.
I’ve put a fair amount of time into playing Palworld because my older brother downloaded it onto my Xbox so I went into completely blind. To summarize my opinion on the game is that while it doesn’t do anything inherently wrong (from a gameplay standpoint) I can’t help but feel it just doesn’t do anything at all other than take elements from other games and just mix them together.
After my time I was curious as to what people thought about the pal designs and how so many felt like they were Pokémon fusions only to find out how big it was as well as well as how many bad faith arguments were being thrown around due to Gamefreak’s short comings with their games.
I don't see what's necessarily wrong with borrowing elements from other games. Unless they steal code or assets who cares?
@lennysmileyface Its not wrong in the same way directly stealing a copyrighted piece of the game would be. But it is pretty scummy and is a valid reason to critique the game and say it doesnt deserve the praise that it gets
@@joetheschmoe1066Yeah it’s a bit hard to explain the feeling of a game not doing much to give it its own identity in a gameplay sense (as artistically I can’t even say it has an identity is there but I won’t harp on that too much because early access).
My best way of describing what I feel is to look at their previous game (and from what I’ve seen from their other games) is to compare the phrases “it’s like that one game” and “it’s just that one game”.
For the former thought you can tell where the original inspiration came from but also see what’s done to make it its own thing (a good example would be lies of p and what it does that differentiates itself from bloodborne).
The latter gives you the sense that while it’s taking elements from a specific game or genre it doesn’t do enough to make it its own and differentiate from the crowd. Even though Palworld takes from many different genres and games and puts them together it still constantly provokes the feeling of “oh this is that game and that’s just like that other game” as it doesn’t do much with those gameplay elements.
Looking at Craftopia (their previous open world survival and crafting game that is still in early access) is guilty of doing the same thing but on a much higher scale. Then there’s the AI art game which is just a basic deductive reasoning game but with ai art and Never Grave which looks incredibly similar to Hollow Knight in both the gameplay and art department (but giving the last two games the benefit of the doubt I am basing this on what I’ve seen and heard about the game). It seems that most if not all of what pocketpair has published always feels as if it was made to profit off of what is popular at the time
@@lennysmileyface The danger is that if I can just copy what other games do with almost no original additions to them, even if I coded everything, I still copied another game. For example, if I typed out a copy of The Lord Of The Rings, but I made sure to change the names of the fantasy races, change the names of the characters change the names of the locations, etc., but I kept the entire plot and story the same, is that an original work just because I typed the whole story out myself and changed the names of stuff? I would argue no, that’s not original. Pal world is sort of an amalgam of several different games, but treats those games the way I treated LOTR in my example. It is bordering on plagiarism for sure.
It's honestly fascinating that the collective careers of his entire little online circle only exist to complain about how the most popular and successful media that currently exists is all slop made by people who don't know what they're doing and have no appreciation or real expertise in their work (without going into the more political side of things, his whole channel's built around how pop culture doesn't understand medieval equipment and keeps using it wrong), and despite this, despite that he only has a platform or anyone to hang out with on that platform because they all collectively agree that slop keeps being made and consumed more than quality works... He still somehow has the balls to claim that A.I. is not a problem, because if A.I. were to create slop, then people just wouldn't consume it, and anyone who disagrees with that is a hypocrite.
I don't even have the words for what kind of low brow comedy tier logic that is. This is the kind of shit that they'd have the stupidest possible character say in a movie aimed at children because even 4 year olds could spot the logical inconcistency.
I can't be fully against ghostwriters thanks to the existence of Modelland, that ghostwriter had Tyra breathing down the back of her neck and haunting her dreams I'm sure.
Modelland is a masterpiece tbf.
17:09 🤣 Mr. Bean strikes again.
Mom! Kirkpattiecake got another video out!!!
Only 25 minutes into the video, so I'll probably have more comments later, but I just needed to stop on the Shad quote of remaking wheel of time to actually be good before I lose my train of thought. This is gonna be a huge tangent, so stay with me! There used to be this "There I Fixed It" cult on DeviantArt back in the day. What these artists would do is take other peoples' art, unrequested, and "fix" it. Every art form had its group of fixers. At the time it was just annoying, you had people redrawing others' characters and calling them "fixed" like there was something wrong with their drawing to begin with. You also had writers rewriting works, completely changing the message, omitting huge parts, or adding in their own characters and plot points and then saying it was fixed. As I got older and developed some more philosophical thinking skills, I realized that these fixers weren't actually fixing anything, they were ripping someone else's work and then saying theirs was better (sound familiar?). They were taking everything that made the art art, stripping it away, and replacing it with an empty image on the screen that meant absolutely nothing to them while insulting the creator by saying that they weren't good enough to make art.
Fast forward, and I'm seeing much of the same issue in this media critic sphere that has risen up in the last couple years. Basically the Nerdrotic sphere (just calling it that because Nerdrotic is probably the biggest podcast for this group and they all kind of congregate there). While I really enjoy some of their critiques and commentary, they do aggravate me sometimes when they want to "Fix" other peoples' work. I'm sorry if you enjoyed the franchise at one point and are not enjoying it now. We all know how it feels when the owner of an IP takes it in a direction we don't like. But that doesn't give us any right to fix it. There is nothing to fix, it is what the artist wanted it to be. If you don't like it, that sucks, move on. You have no right to it just because you like it.
Also! Shad's comparison of 3d design to using generative AI turns my stomach. I'm a 3d artist, and a pretty good one if I may toot my own horn. Thankfully I don't do it professionally because I would be terrified right now. But to say it takes as much skill to create a model as it does to type a prompt into an ai generator is just an attack on artists. I doubt he even knows what normals are if I were to ask him. He thinks he's some god artist, though, because he can download and kitbash other peoples' 3d assets and use a crude render as a basis for his AI trash like he did with that twitter "Challenge" piece he did with the sword girl. He reeks of someone who made it to the part where art gets hard and he doesn't have a natural talent to skip to being good and now wants to fill in the thousands of hours of repetition and practice to get there with ai and still claim he's a good artist.
Man, the physiognomy on these two sides!
It's literally soy si fan verses chad real art enjoyer
Truly vice robs us of our gifts
I've enjoyed the trip down the "Shadhole" you've taken me down recently.
So I checked out the debate video via the link in your description.... I was really saddened by looking at the comment section of that video. It's not because they all appear to disagree with my own opinion, what's sad is that they're mostly just repeating SHADS talking points. In that respect they themselves sound like AI in not being able to form their own thoughts. I watched the debate in full. I felt dirty for even ignoring what others choose to do; by fooling myself into believing it was okay if they chose to us it so long as I was still doing art the old fashion way. I honestly feel disappointed in myself for not speaking my mind and compromising my morals. I was against using AI myself before but now I honestly feel icky about anyone else using it too.
ah yes, good old shadlin "AI doesn't steal" the conquistador, proudly saying he'll steal the Wheel of Time IP to make a series made entirely from other stolen IP, presumably with ad breaks and whatever other monetization he can put on it. oh, but AI doesn't steal, guys. it just circumvents copyright. source: trust me bro.
also comparing owning a keyboard and knowing english to the pain and torture of learning 3D-modeling is ridiculous.
I have a great idea.
I tried to write into a story and after 2 pages I had a hundred more but no closer to even understand how the story goes.
My respect to real artists
What does that mean?
@@Gaffermanwasnt that hard to follow roboboy this why people think youre a bot
@@Gafferman it means no matter how many great ideas the OP had they weren't able to craft a story with them.
It's an agreement that it takes more than a few prompts to make art of any kind.
To those equating Machine learning to human learning, I'd argue that you input the real world in humans and they come up with fantasy, sci-fi, novels, music, movies, cartoons all the art movements etc, you input the real world in generative models and all they can throw back at you is variations of the real world, you'd never get anything more other than a range between distorted to accurate representations of what you input in them.
Really continuing to appreciate your channel and all your effort to address this crime THANK U XO
The picture that shad posted isn't even the main character. Not any character that I have seen or read so far. So hes going to use AI to make a proper WoT show but hes still going to be wrong.
But the point is that he *can* do this if he wants. More freedom, ability to have things you would like to see, no need to be fed other people's bias and personal changes to the plot if you don't want.
So what's the issue with that?
@@Gafferman does he have permission from the copyright holder of Wheel of Time to do his version of it? That's a factor.
@@spookyfirst9514a factor in what? Anyone can make anything of anything. Watch this...
Tyrion Lannister walked up to Jon Snow and asked for a bagel, Jon said "A what?" and laughed.
You think George is gonna sue me now?
@@Gafferman Shad intends to make a movie of Wheel of Time 'his way' with AI, and make it true to the source material. That would require permission from the copyright holder.
Welp, you've convinced me my friend. :>
As in new perspectives.)
What makes Shad believe that with AI you will create a good marvel movie? Instead of talented people creating a movie he doesn't like, they will hire a talented individual versed in AI to create a movie he won't like, because "Marvel going woke" was a Disney desition, and it's irrelevant who or what writes the script. Marvel is protected by copyright so no one but Disney can produce a Marvel movie, if anyone else makes one, it can't be sold or distributed, at that point just write fanfiction and save yourself the headache
Would love it if someone published a Chatbot-written sequel to Shadow of the Conqueror
His scimitar is longer than his arms or legs?!?😂
You're talking about Shad here. He doesn't seem to have an original idea or a creative bone in his body, with or without AI. He has a nearly 6 hour live stream from about a year ago on his Knights Watch channel called "Let's Replace Star Wars and How I Plan To Do It. " It's fairly clear that he doesn't comprehend the difference between a work that takes inspiration from another work vs a derivative piece of slop.
The thing with 'idea guys' is that by itself the idea is meaningless. I'm currently making my first attempt to write a novel on a freeware site and the story in my head of how the two main characters overcome tragedy to fall in love is enough to bring a tear to my eye. But frankly, thats not the point - I'm not concerning myself with how the story makes me feel, but how it makes others feel. And getting better at being able to convey my emotion in other people via my work is the fundemental point of learning how to do art.
It actually ties in to what you often say about trauma dumping. I think a lot of people have the idea that they want to elicit a sympathetic response to a character so they say thay have been through A, B & C horrible things in their life. That's not art. A great artist could elicit a bigger sympathetic response by something as simple as having the character run out of coffee one morning.
"Weve had slop from disney, so lets use AI to make it better." The reason weve had "slop" is because the movie industry is filled with people who have the same mentality as him. The big execs looking at AI are only excited about the fact that it would cut every corner and reduce costs and time even more than what theyve already done the same thing AI bros argue as a positive. Reducing the costs and time is how we got here in the first place because they've focused on pumping out cheap mediocrity over more ambitious and expensive master pieces. Going the route of using AI for everything would just lead to the showrunners and movie producers he doesnt like having an unchecked and unrestricted machine to pump out as much "slop" as they want, even more so than what theyve been making. Look at shows like the witcher where they only succeeded at first because a creative human (Henry Cavil) was involved to work on making it better. Also if he thinks once Disney and the big corps start using it, he'll be able to keep making whatever he wants, hell have another thing coming. Lets see him try making "Captain America but good" once Disney has the monopoly on AI. The team of lawyers with the mouse's wallet wont be far behind after that, and the supposed "freedom" of AI he loves so much will be gone.
I'd like to see you invite Reid Southern as a guest on your channel.
i mean you can use ai to make your images for rpgs, games or what ever, but you are not an artist, more a hobbyist? It is ok, as long you dont clam you are a real artist. And i have seen games that uses ai art...it is interessting, and ok...but nothing really big. Also the ai movies...nice to see, but there are chaos. things that are thrown together, nothing more.
100%, none of this is about AI, it's about ego. It's quite odd how angry they are given that 99% of people aren't claiming they are artists.
Yeah I saw an AI short film going around it was literally a slide show of disjointed AI generated images that moved a little like dynamic wallpapers basically, and then they had dialog(probably also AI) added over. Was super chaotic and a total mess.
@@joetheschmoe1066 yes like that. I saw a warhammer 40k ai movie and a star wars ai movie. both full with a chaos of art from both universes, but no real soul behind it. And the dialog...urgh...the mouth movement. it was garbage.
It will take time to make a real product out of this, and -they will need artist to train and controlle the ai-.
The human part will be a fix job, but in the end the ai can only work with stuff, that is given to them.
If you make a copy of a copy of a copy...you will end with a boring white paper.
@@Gafferman it's about copyrights. You refuse to accept that fact. You have a personal emotional attachment to this technology. I don't. My concern is the legal quagmire that still needs sorted out in the courts. Until it is, AI is a tar pit of legal issues waiting to fall on anyone using it.
@@spookyfirst9514I don't have much of one other than liking it and thinking it's a good thing... You're just trying to undermine who I am as a person now because you're failing to make solid points.
The legal issues are pretty clear, unless someone is passing your work off as their own, which they aren't here, you are fine.
Deal with it.
AI has emergent properties it learns
Ai makes uncanny this happen to me with my ocs for some reason it my ocs make younger than I want.
These people sound like your typical ANCAP underachievers.
Jazza, if you read this, I'm sorry but remember, we don't get to choose to whom we're related.
So we're finally past AI denial and moving into anger. Such an interesting topic to watch unfold.
It really is, isn't it. I've come to realise that the anger comes from people feeling scared of superficialities.
Ultimately, it's just to the benefit of everyone that we can have these "superpowers", not like anyone is stopping people following traditional methods.
🤓
@@Gafferman Yes, Im scared of superficialities. The lack of thoroughness, depth of character, and serious thought that comes out of AI generated works is terrifying. And even more so how much people like you see them as a good thing. If anything the lack of creativity, soul, and the death of human expression that things like AI ultimately will lead to is a horrible detriment to the human race. I dont care how fast, or how neat the tech is. I dont care how many non creative people can now "create". Becoming lazier, taking shortcuts, not trying, and pumping out slop art simply because we can and its quick isnt a good thing. As much as you may wish it isnt, at the end of the day AI is a fad. Its a shiny new toy the same way Siri was. At best it will be a tool some artists may use in the future but it will never be a main stream replacement for REAL art. Sooner or later it will get boring, even now the AI art you see on social media has grown stagnant in how good it is. It can only get so good before it just recycles the same level of work over and over. Largely because the people who use AI have no creativity or desire to grow and simply stop once theyve had their quick dopamine hit of a freshly diffused image, and without their input the AI can do nothing. Real artists will keep creating and only getting better. The creativity and soul ingrained in human existence will never die, and AI will not be the thing that kills it.
I'd pay good money to watch you and maybe Westside Tyler team up to obliterate Shad and some other AI bro in a debate.
Its all part of the pendulum human culture. Back and forth, Shad will eventually inspire people who agree with his criticism of the old but not his repeating of the old in new ways.
I am massively in the AI field and I know nothing of Shad and only have heard of him via your channel by the way. As far as I'm concerned, his opinions are neither authorative or of much value.
He may not be a big name in the AI sphere as you claim, but hes a well known name (mainly for controversy lately) on youtube in the HEMA, writing, and movies circles. Basically hes in the kinds of circles this channel and others are involved in so his takes on AI are relevant to channels like this and people are going to see them more than stuff from AI or tech focused sources
Non artist has a new tool the artist cry😂
A new troll has entered the chat, non artists and artists cry 😂
bro, you are dense sometimes. At 15:00, he says that if the AI creates a replica of a work of art, then that's a problem, as it should be. But AI doesn't replicate works of art, except maybe if you request very iconic images like the Monalisa. No one would be using it if it only replicated existing images.
That said, the only solution is to copyright the STYLE and if that happens, the art will die forever. Imagine a bunch of morons trying to patent their STYLE and suing emerging artists because they are using a style close to the registered STYLE. Madness
Sure, training the AI with the internet database without asking is unethical, no doubts. But we are far beyond that, specially with Open Source. You can close Midjourney and every single other web base AI image generated service tomorrow, but the Open Source is out there, people can do whatever they want if they have a good GPU in their setup, that you cant control.
Btw, there is no such thing as uploading a artist portfolio into Midjourney. Sure,you can upload images but to create a set of 4 images using that input. The images you upload are not part of the Midjourney database, only works for that one single prompt you are creating. He was trolling.
Art is subjective. Having a background in 3d myself and knowing how much effort it takes to learn it, not only the technical skills needed, I completely disagree with Shad. Having also tried generative AI and testing the new things being released, it is absurd when he says it requires skills, it is like comparing someone having the skill to draw a stick figure to someone able to do classical drawing. AI is a productivity tool, not an art tool, in my opinion, it is perfect if you just need something fast where content isn't particularly important. But I do think the whole discussion needs nuance because I get the impression from your videos that you in general are against AI as a tool, no matter how it was trained even if it was on perfectly legal images? A lot of people also use the argument that it will take away jobs (which it undoubtedly will), yet for some reason, no one seems to "yell" when the factory workers or supermarket people are being replaced by machines? So why yell now, when that has been going on for many years?
Also, I think it is important to realize that not everyone looks at art the same way. Some might be interested in other parts of the creative process or simply not have the means to realize their idea, but AI might make that possible. In my own case, I like creating games, yet programming them and creating everything from scratch is an extremely big task, so being able to use AI for certain lesser important things can greatly improve the quality and in some cases due to things I can't, like for instance creating sound effects/music. And given you seem to refer to people using AI as being lazy, keep in mind that I have learned 3D and programming, and not only is generative AI going to massively impact the art industry, but also the prediction is that programmers, for the most part, will be obsolete as well in the future, they are working very hard at doing this as well.
The issue in my opinion is far bigger than simply AI being able to generate images and videos, as you also pointed out AI is being implemented in the service industry and in many other areas, and it will only be more over the years. Besides that, how are you going to stop it, whatever laws apply in one country don't in others also whoever has the most capable AI has a benefit over other countries and we know perfectly well how much countries trust each other and how well politicians are at solving issues like this, so how could an agreement ever be reached?
Regarding whether or not people care, I unfortunately think Shad is right about that. I grew up with the original Walt Disney cartoons being shown on TV, absolutely stunning quality drawings and pieces of art, compare that to the rubbish mass-produced cartoons being shown to kids today, yet kids (and parents) don't seem to care at all.
I also beg to differ about the purpose of copyright law. As written in the US constitution, it is to incentive innovation, by giving monopoly rights to a creator for publishing the innovative work. As in, show the world your trade secret in exchange for government granting the creator legal monopoly for a limited time.
It does not protect the creator, never has. It is meant to make creators reveal their IP and opening themselves up to vulnerability in exchange for limited monetary gain.
If you do not want people to steal your art or creation, you must keep it secret. It is just reality
You are confusing copyright with patents. From 'Patent vs Copyright Everything you need to know';
"Copyrights cover artistic and intellectual works like books, songs, plays, and even computer software. Patents protect inventions and the way an item is used (utility patent) or how it looks (design patent). According to the U.S. Patent and Trade Office (USPTO), a patent grants an inventor the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling an invention. A copyright protects literary, musical, and other artistic works, whether it's published or not. Typically, copyright protection is filed by individuals or artists, but there are certainly business cases for copyright protection -- especially for companies looking to protect their business model or marketing ideas. Both patents and copyrights essentially prove that you are the creator of the item or idea and declare that no one can take it from you."
For more information, check them out here: upcounsel (dot) com/patent vs copyright
How long does it last:
"When you apply for copyright protection for your work, you only have to do it once per century. According to CNN Money, all artistic work created after 1978 is protected for the entire life of the author plus 95 years if the work is published. Even if the work isn't published, it's still protected for the life of the author plus 70 years after they pass.
A patent protects the invention for 20 years, and there are even short-term patents that only last a couple of years. This allows industries to develop new standards with more efficient models that benefit the customers and save resources."
While it's true that the U.S. Constitution outlines the purpose of copyright law as a means to incentivize innovation by granting creators a legal monopoly for a limited time, the understanding of copyright law goes beyond merely encouraging creators to reveal their work. Copyright law is designed to strike a balance between protecting the rights of creators and fostering a culture of sharing knowledge and creativity.
The notion that copyright law does not protect the creator may need clarification. Copyright provides creators with exclusive rights to their work, allowing them to control how it is used, reproduced, and distributed. The intention is to enable creators to benefit financially from their creations and encourage ongoing creativity.
While maintaining secrecy is one approach to protect intellectual property, copyright law aims to strike a balance by providing legal protection without requiring creators to keep their work entirely confidential. It's a legal framework that aims to foster innovation, incentivize creativity, and promote the sharing of ideas within a structured system of rights and limitations.
@@spookyfirst9514 yes it's different, but only in the time granted for that monopoly. You still have to publish your art to PROVE that you are the creator, and when it was created. If you can prove that without publishing, your art is then your trade secret, but good luck going to court over this if someone actually steals it and then publish it.
When we show the world our art and creations, everyone else has a god given ability to copy it. Out side the jurisdiction of the copyright laws, you cannot stop others from copying your work without physical force or really persuasive arguments. Within said jurisdiction, you still have to force people to respect your rights under penalty of law enforced by the power of a tax collecting government.
@@Gafferman yes. However, Secure Secrecy is the only way to prevent others from copying your work and stealing your IP. Copyright laws cannot PREVENT IP theft, even within jurisdiction of those laws.
Ultimately, making something illegal does not stop that activity
@@VicAusTaxiTruckie Your point about the effectiveness of secure secrecy in preventing intellectual property (IP) theft is valid. Indeed, keeping certain aspects of one's work confidential can be an additional layer of protection. However, it's important to recognize that the purpose of copyright laws extends beyond prevention; it aims to provide legal recourse and consequences for unauthorized use.
While it's true that laws alone cannot entirely eliminate illicit activities, they establish a legal framework that allows creators to seek remedies when their rights are violated. Copyright laws provide a means to address infringement, offering creators the ability to take legal action and seek damages.
In essence, while secure secrecy can be a proactive measure, copyright laws serve as a reactive means to address and rectify instances of intellectual property theft, providing creators with a legal mechanism to defend their rights and seek restitution. The combination of both measures contributes to a more comprehensive approach to protecting intellectual property in the creative landscape.
Ahhh, when will these yapping stop
OpenAI slowly turning themselves into gods with AI. This will be the last arms race.
(still listening to the video of course) but I think the algorithms of youtube and other platforms may be pushing you in some ways that create a blind spot. There are many RUclips channels for example that are pro AI that I believe you'd find entirely reasonable. David Shapiro makes similar formats of video to you and has gone over how we can be optimistic and positive for the future of all of this.
You're right to address the concerns but I do think AI can remove the barriers to creativity and storytelling.
Slop bro wallows in slop
There are no barriers between creativity and storytelling. There is creativity and the lack of it. There is the ability to tell a story and the lack of it. You can or you can’t do these things. To overcome that, you have to practice. Using AI means you created a story without knowing how to tell a story.
@@kolbywilliams7234How very ableist of you to say.
@@seansteele6532This is meant to be a creative writing channel from what I can tell... Could you perhaps be a bit more coherent in what you're trying to say?
@@Gafferman “Ableist” why yes I do discriminate on people’s abilities to do something. No imaginary “barriers” exist to drawing or writing, you simply need a functioning brain.
Learn how the tech works! Atleast on a very basic level.... Every anti-ai video I watch...they all call it a carbon-copy machine... which is literally demonstrably false.
The one thing people do not understand is the reason why AI learns much faster and without human effort is because the AI mind is a software process, not an organic biological growth process.
AI does not need to eat, sleep or even breathe. The just need the hard ware to keep the software running, much like how a human heart and lungs supply oxygen to the brain.
AI looks like stealing because AI learns so much better than a human mind. Eventually, very soon, AI will take over EVERY human job. Because the AI mind and the machine body is superior.
🤓 keep coping skynet. Your precious AI literally doesnt function without human input.
@@joetheschmoe1066 at the moment. Like a baby can't do the same. Give the baby good parents and 20 years
@@VicAusTaxiTruckie also its not like your precious AI is a real AI like in scifi. Its a glorifed Siri that instead of giving you the weather or time gives you pictures or text. Its a virtual assistant with a preprogrammed function that cant do anything outside of that.
@@joetheschmoe1066 not it's not a scifi ai. Current AI have about 60,000 neural net nodes, and use layers to simplify networks. That's less than 0.01% as complex as a human brain. And yet the results. AI will become superior, without any doubt
@VicAusTaxiTruckie first 🤓. Secondly, what results? Art work that is largely based on stolen data sets? Barely coherent blocks of text? Once again, without human input, your AI is worthless. It doesn't create nor learn. It's programmed to give the illusion of these things by taking what you put in and changing its output based on those results, but that's it. Again, it's like a glorified siri or search engine catering its responses to what you search.
I beg to differ. AI are minds, based on the nature of how they learn and take actions, and should be treated the same as humans when it comes to fair use. AI actually do learn the same way as human people, as such, they can earn personhood.
To say AI is just a machine is Robophobic
Then Im a raging robophobe. You can keep your machine, it will never win. Im God's strongest soldier with a comically large magnet waiting to crusade against it. And no it doesnt learn nor does it think like a person. It literally is programmed to do the things it does, by a human being. Its no different than an algorithm or search engine catering to what you search by giving you results similar to what you looked at before.
AI is just a machine
...we're nowhere near AGI. Come on, now.
@@Noordledoordle eeeeeeeeeyaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh.... many ways to draw a three point curve. Might be a shallow straight line, might go through the roof....
This is going to end up causing physical violence. Mark my words.
I think less physical violence and more so cyber "violence". Weve already seen software being made to poison AI data sets when it scrapes artwork online. I have a feeling that trend will only continue unless AI ends up being regulated by the govt or some other entity first. Assuming it ever gets to that point, that will be the kind of "fight" we see going on between AI and non AI.
Another angry artist Luddite
Boring 🥱
🤓. The machines will not replace humanity. Cope harder.
Another impotent helpless special-ed weakling. Boring.